Its the INTEGRITY of the GAME that is at stake, sir.
Posted on 03/07/2006 11:28:47 AM PST by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK (AP) -- Barry Bonds used a vast array of performance-enhancing drugs, including steroids and human growth hormone, for at least five seasons beginning in 1998, according to a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters.
An excerpt of "Game of Shadows," which provides details of the San Francisco slugger's extensive doping program, appears in the March 13 issue of Sports Illustrated.
Bonds, who testified before a San Francisco federal grand jury looking into steroid use by top athletes, repeatedly has denied using performance-enhancing drugs. Phone messages left by The Associated Press seeking comment from his attorney and publicist were not immediately returned Tuesday.
Authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, who led the newspaper's coverage of the BALCO scandal, recount in remarkable detail the specifics of Bonds' drug regimen, which they write started in 1998 with injections of Winstrol, a powerful steroid also linked to Rafael Palmeiro.
According to the book, Bonds was using two designer steroids, known as the cream and the clear, plus insulin, human growth hormone and other performance enhancers by 2001, when he hit 73 home runs to break Mark McGwire's single-season record.
The seven-time NL MVP enters this season with 708 homers, seven shy of passing Babe Ruth and 48 from breaking Hank Aaron's career mark.
"Game of Shadows" is scheduled to be published on March 27 by Gotham Books.
The reporters, who based the book on a two-year investigation, included an extensive summary on their sources, including court documents, affidavits filed by BALCO investigators, documents written by federal agents, grand jury testimony, audio recordings and interviews with more than 200 people.
Cute, but inapposite - alcohol may have been illegal, but without doubt it is a performance DETRACTOR, not an enhancer. Check out the second half of the careers of Hack Wilson, Jimmy Foxx and Mickey Mantle for starters....
I am sure Joe Jackson, Hal Chase & Co. would have hired you to argue their case..but they were rightly banned - and so should the steroid users - their conduct has directly impacted the integrity of the game...ah for a Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis to mete out the punishment...
For me it has to do with 2 decades of the worst pitching in the league by the Detroit Tigers.
At least Pete Rose's 4,000 hits were gotten honestly. It is silly that a bunch of sterdroids will make it to the hall, while Pete doesn't.
Aaron wasn't quite the ballplayer that Ruth was (primarily because Ruth probably would have been a Hall of Fame pitcher if he hadn't moved to the outfield), but he's in a class above Barry Bonds. The primary criticisms of Aaron's career home run total are: 1) he played most of his career in small ballparks, and 2) his numbers are inflated because he hung around for 23 seasons.
What a lot of people overlook is that Aaron was an outstanding all-around hitter, and what made his 755 home runs so remarkable was that he was never a true "slugger" in the classic mold. He didn't have a reputation for tape-measure home runs, didn't strike out the way most sluggers do, and his career high of 44 home runs in a single season is quite unremarkable when you consider that he's the all-time home run king.
He was a great line-drive hitter, and probably would have been the all-time leader in doubles if he had played in larger ballparks. To get a sense of just how complete a hitter he was, consider this: His 3,771 career hits is #3 on the all-time list, and he would still be a member of the 3,000-hit club even if you didn't count any of his home runs.
Pete Rose will eventually get into the Hall of Fame (probably after he dies), and he certainly deserves it simply because of his numbers. But I've long said that he is definitely among the most overrated players in baseball history.
Absolutely. This was really my point, that there were so many differences between then and now as to make statistical comparisons of individual players isn't worth anything. I could have used the example about other professional sports becoming more popular just as easily as the example I used for the same purpose.
So there is little validity to the argument that steroids are bad because they make such comparisons less valid, because such comparisons are invalid anyways.
2. Steroids DO skew the comparison, because they skew a player's comparison to the rest of the league during HIS time, which, as I stated above, is the only way to make comparisons across eras (ie Ruth vs his League when he played, compared with Bonds vs his League when he played). Without steroids, Bonds would never have had a 'Ruthian' 5 years where he was head and shoulders above everyone else in a way that was only matched by the Babe....
1. Yes, they are. My point is that they shouldn't be.
2. If steroids weren't against the league rules, however, there would not be any skew because they would be equally available to all players. From all the evidence that has been released lately, it seems like that's the case anyway.
Its the INTEGRITY of the GAME that is at stake, sir.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.