You are probably right, Missk. I dont read SI alot but I happened to read that issue. I guess I just assumed the authors had their sources lined up.
Bonds was cheered in Pittsburgh the other night. Standing O's. He is getting the adulation he deserves.
Others, like Bob Costas, hold him in contempt. Costas is a true historian of the game and versed in the details of Bond's case. I tend to trust his judgement.
[font color="6633cc"]>Base hit, Missk. So far everything I've read is >based on conjecture, suposition, and opinions. >No hard evidence, other than his well documented >surliness. [/font]
Well hold on; I'm not saying I think all the allegations against Bonds presented in that article are based on opinion and hearsay - I just agree that it wasn't the most objective piece of reporting in existence. But, hearsay or not, when you have several people saying they witnessed steroid use, Bonds' grand jury testimony, stuff Bonds said while he was being recorded by a wire, notations in a log that almost certainly correspond to incidences of drug administration, I don't think it's unreasonable to draw conclusions.
If five of your employees came to you saying they witnessed another employee doing drugs, using foul language, threatening physical harm to others, and you heard a recording of someone talking about his experience with the employee and referencing injections and urine tests, would you be like, "Pshaw - it's all hearsay! I can't take any action against this employee. There's no hard evidence that he's actually done anything wrong!"?
By the way (and this is related to other comments people have made, not yours, Ray), I think it's silly when people try to defend Bonds by saying that even if he has used steroids, he's still very talented. Well, duh. I mean, I could shoot up with tons of steroids, and that alone is not going to turn me into a home-run hitter. But that's not the point. The point is not whether Bonds is a talented player. It's clear he is. What's not clear is that he would have broken the home run record on talent alone, and that clouds his achievement. Even setting aside the issue of the record, no matter how talented a player is, I don't believe people should be elevating to hero status a player who cheats.
A couple times I have heard "reports" of ee's using drugs, they have somehow mysteriously appeared on the next random drug screen. Then I have my objective evidence and follow policy regardless of their position. Bonds probably is guilty, but MLB is closing their eyes and doing nothing.
> >You are correct in that none of us have actually >met the man but he has a well documented pattern >of surliness and egotism. >
Paul, I hate to tell you this BUT most professional athletes have the I am better than anyone else attitude, I can do no wrong. How many do you truly look up to these days. Not many due to drug charges, dog fighting charges, shooting charges, voilence charges, gun charges, drunk driving, I could go on and on.
But in the case of Barry Bonds, so far nothing has been proven to be fact as yet and I am astonished at his achievement not only of breaking the all time record but of the 73 homeruns hit in a single season while being walked 177 times during that year. I am holding judgement, should it be that it is proven that he took the steroids then my opinion may change but I am not casting a stone as yet for I live in a glass house.
[font color="9933cc"]>I am holding >judgement, should it be that it is proven that >he took the steroids then my opinion may change >but I am not casting a stone as yet for I live >in a glass house. [/font]
>[font color="9933cc"]>I am holding >>judgement, should it be that it is proven that >>he took the steroids then my opinion may change >>but I am not casting a stone as yet for I live >>in a glass house. [/font] > >Whoa, I didn't know you took steroids! ;-)
I was just stating that I have my own faults as I am sure most of us mere mortals do and I will not throw a stone at someone without having all the facts first. Goes with innocent until proven guilty.
>[font color="9933cc"]>I was just stating that I have my own faults as >I am sure most of us mere mortals do and I will >not throw a stone at someone without having all >the facts first. Goes with innocent until >proven guilty.[/font]
Yes, I know what you meant. I was making a joke.
But regarding all this talk about "hearsay" and "innocent until proven guilty": those things apply in courts of law, when you're talking about, for example, whether someone should go to jail for crimes. We are not in a court of law, and we are not debating whether Bonds should go to jail for steroid use. If we were, then I would be more sympathetic to the cries of "innocent until proven guilty!" But the original question in this thread, I believe, was "Barry Bonds: hero or goat?" In our every day lives we draw countless conclusions based on evidence that wouldn't stand up in a court of law - if we required evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before making any judgment about anything, it would be nearly impossible to conduct the business of daily life. I fail to see why such exacting standards should apply to our determination of whether Mr. Bonds is worthy of hero status.
Furthermore - and this is just a pet peeve of mine: contrary to what people assume from various pop culture tv shows involving our legal system, a) just because something is a statement does not mean it's hearsay; and b) there are many times when hearsay is perfectly admissible and acceptable as evidence in a court of law. So the fact that something came out of someone's mouth shouldn't automatically disqualify it as "hearsay" that we can't rely on in making judgments.
Good post, Missk. Bottom line, to some people he is a hero and to many others he is a goat. It will be interesting to see how history treats him is say 20 to 40 years. Will he ever have the same standing as Mickey Mantle or Roger Maris? When A-Rod starts to approach the HR record, people will start cheering him on.
It is sad but true that every time I get on this thread and read it I think of the OJ trial...so many people arguing over what the truth is. As time went on, there was less and less arguing as more and more facts came out.
I can believe Bonds never actually discussed what was in the substance he was taking. However, I find it hard to believe he had no clue as to what it was. Seems like one of those times it is better to pretend to be ignorant.
I don't remember him from his early days, but I saw a broadcaster a few weeks ago who claimed that anyone looking at his pictures and performance from his first early days as a pro to those just a few years later would know the guy was doing more than taking vitamins. If he underwent a major physical change in a short time, underwent a major personality change in a short time (his current personality definitely fits the profile), and admits to taking 'some' substance though he didn't know what it was, what else is there to believe? Or, you can go back to keeping your head in the sand and believe that he didn't take any steriods; it is just talent. While you are at it keep believing OJ was innocent too.
I don't mind if the Giant's fans keep applauding for him, just don't expect me to get excited if he makes it into the hall of fame. If he does it will demean every other guy who got there on his own.
According to Bob Costas, when Bonds turned 40 his statistics went through the roof at a time when most players begin declining physically. He went from hitting around 40 homeruns each season to hitting more than 60.
He also went from a strong but slender player to a bulky musclebound hulk.
I see Jason Giambi is being a good boy and cooperating so Selig decided not to discipline him even though Giambi has publicly admitted to using banned steroids. But, since he is a Yankee, I can overlook that.
Bonds called Costas a "midget" and said he didn't know jack about baseball.
Costas responded, "As anyone can plainly see, I'm 5-6½ and a strapping 150, and unlike some people, I came by all of it naturally," Costas said Thursday in a telephone interview.
I have no knowledge that what was in those green cans was banned or illegal. My supplier assured me it was perfectly OK to drink, not withstanding the weight gain of approximately 60 lbs.
Comments
Bonds was cheered in Pittsburgh the other night. Standing O's. He is getting the adulation he deserves.
Others, like Bob Costas, hold him in contempt. Costas is a true historian of the game and versed in the details of Bond's case. I tend to trust his judgement.
>based on conjecture, suposition, and opinions.
>No hard evidence, other than his well documented
>surliness. [/font]
Well hold on; I'm not saying I think all the allegations against Bonds presented in that article are based on opinion and hearsay - I just agree that it wasn't the most objective piece of reporting in existence. But, hearsay or not, when you have several people saying they witnessed steroid use, Bonds' grand jury testimony, stuff Bonds said while he was being recorded by a wire, notations in a log that almost certainly correspond to incidences of drug administration, I don't think it's unreasonable to draw conclusions.
If five of your employees came to you saying they witnessed another employee doing drugs, using foul language, threatening physical harm to others, and you heard a recording of someone talking about his experience with the employee and referencing injections and urine tests, would you be like, "Pshaw - it's all hearsay! I can't take any action against this employee. There's no hard evidence that he's actually done anything wrong!"?
By the way (and this is related to other comments people have made, not yours, Ray), I think it's silly when people try to defend Bonds by saying that even if he has used steroids, he's still very talented. Well, duh. I mean, I could shoot up with tons of steroids, and that alone is not going to turn me into a home-run hitter. But that's not the point. The point is not whether Bonds is a talented player. It's clear he is. What's not clear is that he would have broken the home run record on talent alone, and that clouds his achievement. Even setting aside the issue of the record, no matter how talented a player is, I don't believe people should be elevating to hero status a player who cheats.
>You are correct in that none of us have actually
>met the man but he has a well documented pattern
>of surliness and egotism.
>
Paul,
I hate to tell you this BUT most professional athletes have the I am better than anyone else attitude, I can do no wrong. How many do you truly look up to these days. Not many due to drug charges, dog fighting charges, shooting charges, voilence charges, gun charges, drunk driving, I could go on and on.
But in the case of Barry Bonds, so far nothing has been proven to be fact as yet and I am astonished at his achievement not only of breaking the all time record but of the 73 homeruns hit in a single season while being walked 177 times during that year. I am holding judgement, should it be that it is proven that he took the steroids then my opinion may change but I am not casting a stone as yet for I live in a glass house.
>judgement, should it be that it is proven that
>he took the steroids then my opinion may change
>but I am not casting a stone as yet for I live
>in a glass house. [/font]
Whoa, I didn't know you took steroids! ;-)
>>judgement, should it be that it is proven that
>>he took the steroids then my opinion may change
>>but I am not casting a stone as yet for I live
>>in a glass house. [/font]
>
>Whoa, I didn't know you took steroids! ;-)
I was just stating that I have my own faults as I am sure most of us mere mortals do and I will not throw a stone at someone without having all the facts first. Goes with innocent until proven guilty.
So, did anyone else see the article about Barry Bonds hiring lawyers to sue anyone making false statements about him?
>I am sure most of us mere mortals do and I will
>not throw a stone at someone without having all
>the facts first. Goes with innocent until
>proven guilty.[/font]
Yes, I know what you meant. I was making a joke.
But regarding all this talk about "hearsay" and "innocent until proven guilty": those things apply in courts of law, when you're talking about, for example, whether someone should go to jail for crimes. We are not in a court of law, and we are not debating whether Bonds should go to jail for steroid use. If we were, then I would be more sympathetic to the cries of "innocent until proven guilty!" But the original question in this thread, I believe, was "Barry Bonds: hero or goat?" In our every day lives we draw countless conclusions based on evidence that wouldn't stand up in a court of law - if we required evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before making any judgment about anything, it would be nearly impossible to conduct the business of daily life. I fail to see why such exacting standards should apply to our determination of whether Mr. Bonds is worthy of hero status.
Furthermore - and this is just a pet peeve of mine: contrary to what people assume from various pop culture tv shows involving our legal system, a) just because something is a statement does not mean it's hearsay; and b) there are many times when hearsay is perfectly admissible and acceptable as evidence in a court of law. So the fact that something came out of someone's mouth shouldn't automatically disqualify it as "hearsay" that we can't rely on in making judgments.
He admitted it to the grand jury. End of issue.
Nor did he have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
Riggghhhttt.....
I can believe Bonds never actually discussed what was in the substance he was taking. However, I find it hard to believe he had no clue as to what it was. Seems like one of those times it is better to pretend to be ignorant.
I don't remember him from his early days, but I saw a broadcaster a few weeks ago who claimed that anyone looking at his pictures and performance from his first early days as a pro to those just a few years later would know the guy was doing more than taking vitamins. If he underwent a major physical change in a short time, underwent a major personality change in a short time (his current personality definitely fits the profile), and admits to taking 'some' substance though he didn't know what it was, what else is there to believe? Or, you can go back to keeping your head in the sand and believe that he didn't take any steriods; it is just talent. While you are at it keep believing OJ was innocent too.
I don't mind if the Giant's fans keep applauding for him, just don't expect me to get excited if he makes it into the hall of fame. If he does it will demean every other guy who got there on his own.
Nae
He also went from a strong but slender player to a bulky musclebound hulk.
[url]http://r_harrison.tripod.com/Agonist/BarryBonds.jpg[/url]
Costas responded, "As anyone can plainly see, I'm 5-6½ and a strapping 150, and unlike some people, I came by all of it naturally," Costas said Thursday in a telephone interview.
I fear we have run off LNelson. I hope not.
Ray A: Hero or Goat?