Posted on 05/08/2006 9:13:33 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson
True, although he's always been a self-centered racist. The point is, he had NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of topping Babe Ruth until his head literally swelled and he started cheating in 1998. His homerun record is a fraud, and we all know it.
Thank you, but I am already awake. Actually, I have done much reading about steroids, and there is only anecdotal evidence at best that hand eye coordination is improved. It is usually only sited in serious articles as an unfounded claim. On the other hand, if you depend on blogs and bloggers you are correct, there is much evidence. I prefer to get my evidence from the experts.
I disagree that Bonds would not have been a star without the enhancers, and as I have said previously, many argue that he was pretty well a hall of fame candidate BEFORE any steriod accusations or claims were made.
No one suggests steroids don't enhance performance when it comes to strength and durability. That's why players do it. But it can't give you talent you don't possess.
Bonds, and any other players who may take enhancers do so to improve their strength and durability.....hitting homeruns would just be an added plus for those who can do it. Not every user of enhancers hits home runs.
As I have CLEARLY said before, I make no excuses. I usually try to just deal in facts, not retread accusations and myths. You might try to take your own advise and do some serious reading of medical experts not just bloggers. Or, you can just yell cheater, leave it at that. Up to you.
Bonds has stated he has no intention of trying to pass Hank Aaron, because Aaron is black. He views it as a great thing to beat Ruth (however fraudulently) because Ruth was white.
I usually try to only consider accusations made by officials of courts or baseball. The authors of the book you mentioned are hack sportswriters who have longterm hatred of Bonds. Not saying they may not have stumbled on some truth along the way, but I don't take their word as gospel.
"Also, what inaccurate namecalling of Bonds has been done on this thread?"
Do you really want to go there? The whole idea of namecalling is a bit beneath intelligent discussion. The "accuracy" of namecalling would seem to be dependant on the namecaller and their point of view.
They didn't make up all (or any of) the information in the public records at the court house in San Francisco. The investigation recovered a highly-detailed log of Bonds' chemical use.
Stumbled on some truth?
Good grief. If you're not going to be honest with yourself, why bother?
Selig is using Bonds to deflect blame from him and his policies. No matter what Bonds may or maynot have done does not absolve Selig of blame either. Actually, the behaviour of many of Bond's detractors would seem much worthier of comparison with DU than my argument, which is legitimate.
I said all that I ask is if the names called are accurate. You have claimed they are not. Either you can demonstrate that, or you can't. If you can't demonstrate how inaccurate namecalling has gone on, one can only assume it hasn't happened.
Your legitimate argument is what? Selig should have done more to stop Bonds from using performance enhancing chemistry? Selig should have better policed the question so that Bonds could not evade detection?
That's rather like blaming the LAPD for not following OJ around so they could intervene when he was about to cut two necks.
The responsibility is with Bonds, and your argument is quite absurd.
I hadn't heard that. If those quotes are true, that would make Bonds a pretty sickening racist, woudln't it?
If the Giants don't win the Series this year -- and that's pretty much a lock -- I will be supremely...ticked.
The Giants' history of futility seemed like it was coming to a close in 1993, when they acquired Bonds to complement sluggers Will Clark and Matt Williams at the same magical moment when Bill Swift and John Burkett had career years. The Giants set a record that year: they won more games - 103 - than any team in Major League Baseball history that failed to reach the postseason (Atlanta, then in the NL West, won 104).
Even after they foolishly chose to sign Robby Thompson rather than Will Clark, they still had Bonds. But Swift and Burkett never regained their 1993 form, and were both gone by 1995. Not until 2003 could the Giants boast a legitimate lights-out mound ace in Jason Schmidt. Every World Champion has had at least one. We sure could have used one in 2002, when Dusty Baker needed somebody but the erratic Livan Hernandez to start Game 7.
I thought when Mike Mussina became a free agent in 2001, the Giants could correct the mistake they made in 1990, when they passed over Stanford's Mike Mussina to draft Adam Hyzdu, who stayed in the minors for a decade before emerging for cups of coffee with Pittsburgh and Boston. Unfortunately, the ownership didn't want to pony up the dough, and he signed with the Yankees. It is my humble opinion that if Mussina had signed with the Giants, the Giants would have won the World Series at least twice by now.
Since bringing Bonds back to the Bay, the Giants have had outstanding seasons that ended without a Series victory. They have won division titles, and never finished lower than third since 1997. But that wasn't what Bonds was brought here for. He was brought to help us win it all. We -- and he -- never will. But it's not Bonds' fault.
Here's why: As ESPN's Tim Kurkjian pointed out, Barry Bonds will be a rare Hall-of-Famer in that he never played on the same team with another Hall-of-Famer. Probably the closest to another Hall-caliber teammate he has ever had is Jeff Kent, and while Kent is certainly a great player, he's not Cooperstown material.
The Giants had the nucleus of a dynasty in 1993, and because they looked at the balance sheet instead of the stat sheets, they missed their chance. That happens in sports. But to have arguably the best position player in his era on your team for a dozen years without a Series trophy to show for it? It borders on Donald Sterlingesque fraud. Any owner or group of owners who don't want to spend the money to build a team that could win it all should sell out.
Now that the Red Sox and the White Sox have won World Championships since the early 20th century, the teams that have gone the longest without winning are the Cubs, the Indians, and the Giants. In the meantime, the Diamondbacks have won the Series, and the Marlins have won twice.
That stings like a bee itch.
You can twist my words all you want, but the part of what you quoted from the book HAS NOT BEEN verified through public court records.
I have no problem being honest with myself. I just feel that in public discourse dealing with the known facts is preferrable than believing everything I read in the newspapers or sensational books. I have the same criteria in politics. Believing all that I read in the HBM would not be an option. Nor would reading books written by people with an agenda about politicians. If that makes me seem unreasonable to you, so be it.
Now I'm twisting your words? LOL
Bonds' steroid use is Selig's fault and your shabby arguments are my fault.
I think I understand you now.
Actually, I feel no need to justify to you the fact that I find namecalling demeans an argument. I guess "Juiced up Moron" "Human Garbage" "Scumbag" are legitimate tools of discourse to you. I consider them namecalling that adds nothing to an argument. And you are welcome to assume anything you want. Matters not to me.
Amen, brother! Suggesting that Selig conspired not to test Bonds is nonsense. HJ, you would be well advised to heed thinkthenpost's nick!
Media hatred of Bonds (which pre-dates speculation of roid abuse) has stirred up is much like the treatment Rush Limbaugh gets/has gotten over the years. Rumor is treated as fact, unproven allegations are treated as sworn testimony, presumption of innocence is rejected in favor of presumption of guilt, and violation of law is applauded if said violations lead to the desired result.
"Human garbage" is excessive.
I guess you're welcome to call my arguments absurd, and site ridiculous examples of comparison. My last statement of my argument regarding Selig is the same as my first. By not setting proper parameters of acceptable behaviour and having guidelines he has shirked his duty. Other sports stepped up and made rules that they then enforced. Selig choose to take the easy way and put his head in the sand. No, he did not force McGwire, Sosa, Canseco, Bonds, Palmeiro or a myriad of others to try to enhance themselves. But he did allow a culture and climate to exist that looked the other way. He bears much responsibility for that.
Agree, disagree, it doesn't matter to me which you do. It is a valid argument, whether you choose to demean it or not.
You saying it isn't won't change that.
Please don't stoop so low as to understand me. I've lived a long life without your understanding, and continuing to do so will not be a problem.
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.