07 Mar 2006 18:06:27
Ronald Matthews
Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

On CNN they are talking about perjury charges against BB, for his
Grand Jury testimony.

I wonder if all those who are so quick to read Moneyball, will also
be so quick to read this latest book about Bonds?

For some reason, I think not.

How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?

How come so many stat fans hate Pete Rose and love Barry Bonds?

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 10:55:09
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Hell, if even hapf this stuff is true, he looks pretty well fucked.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html?cnn=yes



07 Mar 2006 11:45:55
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

>From the poll at that article:

In light of the latest accusations of Barry Bonds' steroid use, should
his records and awards stand?

Yes 12% 2245 votes
Yes, with an asterisk 17% 2994 votes
No, wipe them out 71% 12792 votes

Amazing to me that 71% voted to have them wiped out based on an
accusations. Get back to me with proof
and then I'll consider it.

Bob Koca



07 Mar 2006 19:32:53
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

"TheDave?" <no@no.com > trolled:
> > Ronald Matthews wrote:

> Because, as repugnant as Barry Bonds is, Pete Rose is worse.

Nope. I don't think so. Apparently Baby Bonds cheated on his taxes
as well. And that was the only illegal thing Rose did.

What's more, Rose never cheated when playing baseball. He achieved
his records without cheating, and more importantly, without breaking
the law. Bonds cheated on his fellow players and broke the law in
order to do it.

Baby Bonds' behaviour is indefensible. We call for a lifetime
suspension from baseball. And that includes the HoF. And we call
for his tainted records to all be stricken from the record book.

The integrity of baseball demands that Baby Bonds never appear in a
MLB park again.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 19:55:42
TimV
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


<bob_koca@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1141760755.330489.85010@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> >From the poll at that article:
>
> In light of the latest accusations of Barry Bonds' steroid use, should
> his records and awards stand?
>
> Yes 12% 2245 votes
> Yes, with an asterisk 17% 2994 votes
> No, wipe them out 71% 12792 votes
>
> Amazing to me that 71% voted to have them wiped out based on an
> accusations. Get back to me with proof
> and then I'll consider it.
>
> Bob Koca
>

And Michael and OJ are innocent. Come on. With this much detail and Bonds
essentially admitting it (though claiming not to know what he was taking) to
the grand jury, it isn't an accusation. Bonds is a steroid freak, plain and
simple. I'd prefer he just go away now. If he breaks Aaron's record, there
will be endless bickering about it until we all die.

T




07 Mar 2006 20:12:47
TheDave©
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> Ronald Matthews wrote:

Since when are morals and ethics limited to what's legal and illegal?

> Nope. I don't think so. Apparently Baby Bonds cheated on his taxes
> as well. And that was the only illegal thing Rose did.
>
> What's more, Rose never cheated when playing baseball. He achieved
> his records without cheating, and more importantly, without breaking
> the law. Bonds cheated on his fellow players and broke the law in
> order to do it.
>
> Baby Bonds' behaviour is indefensible. We call for a lifetime
> suspension from baseball. And that includes the HoF. And we call
> for his tainted records to all be stricken from the record book.
>
> The integrity of baseball demands that Baby Bonds never appear in a
> MLB park again.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm



07 Mar 2006 20:16:22
=?iso-8859-1?Q?TheDave=A9?=
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> bob_koca@hotmail.com wrote:

People who say the following...

> Get back to me with proof
> and then I'll consider it.

...have no intention of actually considering anything, and know, but
aren't intellectually honest enough to admit, that there would be no
"proof" good enough. It's only a statement to present the illusion of
an open mind where none exists, thus trying to position themselves as
somehow morally superior to people on the other side of the debate.




07 Mar 2006 20:01:18
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

bob_koca@hotmail.com trolled:
> >From the poll at that article:

> In light of the latest accusations of Barry Bonds' steroid use, should
> his records and awards stand?

> Yes 12% 2245 votes
> Yes, with an asterisk 17% 2994 votes
> No, wipe them out 71% 12792 votes

> Amazing to me that 71% voted to have them wiped out based on an
> accusations. Get back to me with proof
> and then I'll consider it.

Yeah, like Sports Illustrated had to produce "Proof" to destroy John
Rocker's career?

Nope. Baby Bonds is done. Nobody would go into as much detail
about him like that without the facts.

I especially like the racism towards whites. Who'da thunk it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


07 Mar 2006 20:03:07
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

TimV <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu > trolled:

> And Michael and OJ are innocent. Come on. With this much detail
> and Bonds essentially admitting it (though claiming not to know
> what he was taking) to the grand jury, it isn't an accusation.
> Bonds is a steroid freak, plain and simple. I'd prefer he just go
> away now. If he breaks Aaron's record, there will be endless
> bickering about it until we all die.

And with Bonds' racist comments about McGwire, Bonds claiming to
only care about breaking Ruth's record now becomes more meaningful.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


07 Mar 2006 12:21:16
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


alcarm1964@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hell, if even hapf this stuff is true, he looks pretty well fucked.
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html?cnn=yes

Based on a reading of the first few paragraphs, it sounds like more or
less the prosecution's case against him. That wouldn't be much of a
surpise, seeing as the prosecution wants to make a case that he was a
major BALCO doper and presents what it claims to be plenty of
documentation showing it. For all we know, the prosecution got it all
right and Bonds may be facing perjury charges. And for all we know,
the prosecution is doing just what a prosecution is supposed to do:
present a case, minus rebuttal or defense from the accused. Hearing
only the prosecution's side, juries would be much more likely to
convict.

Still, it now looks like Bonds is just going to have to answer for this
stuff one way or another, rather than more or less avoid it like he
has.



07 Mar 2006 20:20:32
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

"TheDave?" <no@no.com > trolled:
> > Ronald Matthews wrote:

> Since when are morals and ethics limited to what's legal and illegal?

Since when are morals and ethics as serious as legal and illegal?

Bonds' place in baseball is forfeit.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 12:35:55
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

The question said. "In light of the accusations. .." Different
meaning than saying "in light of the latest evidence...".
Perhaps I am just picky about how words get used.

Bob Koca



07 Mar 2006 20:21:37
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

TheDave? <no@no.com > trolled:
> > bob_koca@hotmail.com wrote:

> People who say the following...

> > Get back to me with proof and then I'll consider it.

> ...have no intention of actually considering anything, and know, but
> aren't intellectually honest enough to admit, that there would be no
> "proof" good enough. It's only a statement to present the illusion of
> an open mind where none exists, thus trying to position themselves as
> somehow morally superior to people on the other side of the debate.

Well put. And we wonder what Mr. Moore has to say about this.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 12:42:13
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

The dave wrote:

"People who say the following...


> Get back to me with proof
> and then I'll consider it.


...have no intention of actually considering anything, and know, but
aren't intellectually honest enough to admit, that there would be no
"proof" good enough. It's only a statement to present the illusion of
an open mind where none exists, thus trying to position themselves as
somehow morally superior to people on the other side of the debate. "


---

Wow, I didn't know you knew me so well LOL.

A good enough proof for me would be a conviction for perjury. Does
that make false nearly everything you just wrote?

Bob Koca



07 Mar 2006 20:26:58
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:
> alcarm1964@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Hell, if even hapf this stuff is true, he looks pretty well fucked.
> >
> > http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html?cnn=yes

> Based on a reading of the first few paragraphs, it sounds like
> more or less the prosecution's case against him. That wouldn't be
> much of a

No, the prosecution wasn't quoted. Newspaper reporters are not
parrots of the prosecution. If anything, it is the other way
around.

Sorry, sweetie. But it's finally over. Anything you say in defense
of Bonds now just destroys totally your credibility amongst those
few who still take you seriously. And that is a very few.

> surpise, seeing as the prosecution wants to make a case that he
> was a major BALCO doper and presents what it claims to be plenty
> of documentation showing it. For all we know, the prosecution got
> it all right and Bonds may be facing perjury charges. And for all
> we know, the prosecution is doing just what a prosecution is
> supposed to do: present a case, minus rebuttal or defense from the
> accused. Hearing only the prosecution's side, juries would be
> much more likely to convict.

We haven't heard the "prosecution's side." The prosecution isn't
even involved yet, although they may become involved if they feel a
perjury charge is in order.

> Still, it now looks like Bonds is just going to have to answer for
> this stuff one way or another, rather than more or less avoid it
> like he has.

In the meantime could you do us all a favour and not post? Your
predictable snivelling on Bonds' behalf is tiresome.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 12:58:40
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


bob_koca@hotmail.com wrote:
> >From the poll at that article:
>
> In light of the latest accusations of Barry Bonds' steroid use, should
> his records and awards stand?
>
> Yes 12% 2245 votes
> Yes, with an asterisk 17% 2994 votes
> No, wipe them out 71% 12792 votes
>
> Amazing to me that 71% voted to have them wiped out based on an
> accusations. Get back to me with proof
> and then I'll consider it.
>

I totally see what you're saying but to think Bonds was not on steriods
is just plain silly. You're right though, you definitely could not wipe
them out or even put an asterick next to his stat without actual
evidence, despite the fact it's pretty apparent he was on the roids.

BTW, I just finished Canseco's book. He's an ass, but if there's an
authority on 'roids it's him and he says clearly Bonds was on steroids
without a doubt.



07 Mar 2006 13:03:19
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


TimV wrote:
> <bob_koca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> And Michael and OJ are innocent. Come on. With this much detail and Bonds
> essentially admitting it (though claiming not to know what he was taking) to
> the grand jury, it isn't an accusation. Bonds is a steroid freak, plain and
> simple. I'd prefer he just go away now. If he breaks Aaron's record, there
> will be endless bickering about it until we all die.
>
>

Never was there a truer statement. I think this is going to make Bonds
year really hard, He'll be heckled like no one was heckled before. I'm
a Giants fan but there's no way in hell I want Bonds to break Aaron's
record. It's tainted (in fact, I hope Aaron's record is never broken in
my lifetime)

If you think Bonds was a jerk before, wait until this season comes
along and he's constantly asked about points in the book. Oh boy, this
is going to be interesting. I'm really looking forward to reading this
one.



07 Mar 2006 21:05:17
Tom MacIntyre
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:16:22 GMT, TheDave© <no@no.com > wrote:

>> bob_koca@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>People who say the following...
>
>> Get back to me with proof
>> and then I'll consider it.
>
>...have no intention of actually considering anything, and know, but
>aren't intellectually honest enough to admit, that there would be no
>"proof" good enough. It's only a statement to present the illusion of
>an open mind where none exists, thus trying to position themselves as
>somehow morally superior to people on the other side of the debate.
>

Sorry, but I think you're wrong.

Years back a child entertainer here in Canada was accused of child
molestation. One of my co-workers threw out all of her albums and CD's
featuring him, so as not to expose her children to this awful man. He
was exonerated not too long afterwards, and she felt and looked pretty
silly for having jumped the gun.

Tom


07 Mar 2006 21:07:07
Tom MacIntyre
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

On 7 Mar 2006 12:58:40 -0800, "Wunnuy" <wunnuy@netzero.net > wrote:

>
>bob_koca@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >From the poll at that article:
>>
>> In light of the latest accusations of Barry Bonds' steroid use, should
>> his records and awards stand?
>>
>> Yes 12% 2245 votes
>> Yes, with an asterisk 17% 2994 votes
>> No, wipe them out 71% 12792 votes
>>
>> Amazing to me that 71% voted to have them wiped out based on an
>> accusations. Get back to me with proof
>> and then I'll consider it.
>>
>
>I totally see what you're saying but to think Bonds was not on steriods
>is just plain silly. You're right though, you definitely could not wipe
>them out or even put an asterick next to his stat without actual
>evidence, despite the fact it's pretty apparent he was on the roids.
>
>BTW, I just finished Canseco's book. He's an ass, but if there's an
>authority on 'roids it's him and he says clearly Bonds was on steroids
>without a doubt.

How much time did he spend around Bonds?...just a question; he's
looking pretty guilty to me now also.

Tom


07 Mar 2006 13:08:04
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Chris Cathcart wrote:
> alcarm1964@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Hell, if even hapf this stuff is true, he looks pretty well fucked.
> >
> > http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html?cnn=yes
>
> Based on a reading of the first few paragraphs, it sounds like more or
> less the prosecution's case against him. That wouldn't be much of a
> surpise, seeing as the prosecution wants to make a case that he was a
> major BALCO doper and presents what it claims to be plenty of
> documentation showing it. For all we know, the prosecution got it all
> right and Bonds may be facing perjury charges. And for all we know,
> the prosecution is doing just what a prosecution is supposed to do:
> present a case, minus rebuttal or defense from the accused. Hearing
> only the prosecution's side, juries would be much more likely to
> convict.
>

Except the prosecution's case is looking pretty damned good. Bond's got
some 'splaining to do.



07 Mar 2006 20:54:38
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

bob_koca@hotmail.com trolled:

> A good enough proof for me would be a conviction for perjury. Does
> that make false nearly everything you just wrote?

But since nobody really gives a damn what you think, a conviction
for perjury is not necessarily in the cards.

Perhaps Baby Bonds will be kept out of the HoF until he admits that
he is a drug user, and until he demonstrates true remorse. Giamatti
would have taken care to see that Bonds paid the price. But the
gutless Selig probably won't do a thing unless it becomes a real
media circus. And it might not because the Bonds-Steroid connection
is getting kind of old, now. Selig should have called for a real
investigation a long time ago and he didn't.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 21:19:50
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Tom MacIntyre <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com > trolled:

> Years back a child entertainer here in Canada was accused of child
> molestation. One of my co-workers threw out all of her albums and CD's
> featuring him, so as not to expose her children to this awful man. He
> was exonerated not too long afterwards, and she felt and looked pretty
> silly for having jumped the gun.

Who was that?

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 13:38:20
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> >Hearing
> > only the prosecution's side, juries would be much more likely to
> > convict.
> >
>
> Except the prosecution's case is looking pretty damned good. Bond's got
> some 'splaining to do.

It sure does, and he sure does. It's not looking good for Barry. I'm
one of those now inclined to heavily discount his post-'98 numbers,
whether or not they stand in the various record books.

(His pre-'99 numbers are still amazing, BTW. He's a 500/500 man and
3-time MVP no matter how you look at it, so the RLMs can still go stick
it. :-) By the available indications, he went from 5-tools to a
whacked-out 2-tools to get more attention/money. Now it's going to be
a matter of whether HOF voters wanna disqualify all that on the basis
of the disgrace of 'roid use alone. A good debate in its own right.
If Barry isn't getting in, Mac certainly isn't. Meanwhile I'll be
happy to sit on my Ruth rookie card, his place as the game's greatest
still intact. Bonds pre-'98 and hypothetical-projected post-'98 could
still be the next greatest, though the case is a lot tougher now. He
belongs in the Mays/Aaron/Williams class no matter what; see above
about 500/500 and 3 MVPs.)



07 Mar 2006 13:45:20
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> TimV <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu> trolled:
>
> > And Michael and OJ are innocent. Come on. With this much detail
> > and Bonds essentially admitting it (though claiming not to know
> > what he was taking) to the grand jury, it isn't an accusation.
> > Bonds is a steroid freak, plain and simple. I'd prefer he just go
> > away now. If he breaks Aaron's record, there will be endless
> > bickering about it until we all die.
>
> And with Bonds' racist comments about McGwire,

Racially charged, but not racist. Much like your Jewishly-charged
comments around here.

> Bonds claiming to
> only care about breaking Ruth's record now becomes more meaningful.

See, Ruth didn't compete amongst black players. So just look at his
own apparent 'roid usage as a way to get a more even footing with Ruth
in the record books, and get back at whitey for his own disgraces.

Bonds didn't need 'roids to secure his place in history. The
pseudo-stat fans taking over the baseball discussion nowadays would
have seen to it that the appropriate adjustments be made in people's
minds, just as people will now mentally adjust his post-'98 numbers
downward, or asterisk them.

(It is noted, per the standard retort, that all the 'roids still
wouldn't turn Bonds into a great pitcher, and so he is at something of
an inherent disadvantage in the comparisons to Ruth.)



07 Mar 2006 14:04:24
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> TimV wrote:
> > <bob_koca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > And Michael and OJ are innocent. Come on. With this much detail and Bonds
> > essentially admitting it (though claiming not to know what he was taking) to
> > the grand jury, it isn't an accusation. Bonds is a steroid freak, plain and
> > simple. I'd prefer he just go away now. If he breaks Aaron's record, there
> > will be endless bickering about it until we all die.
> >
> >
>
> Never was there a truer statement. I think this is going to make Bonds
> year really hard, He'll be heckled like no one was heckled before. I'm
> a Giants fan but there's no way in hell I want Bonds to break Aaron's
> record. It's tainted (in fact, I hope Aaron's record is never broken in
> my lifetime)

I'm hoping that Bonds will find a way to get too
injured/sidetracked/whatever to break the Aaron record. He wants to
pass Ruth but should let his respect for Aaron extend to letting him
keep the record.

The word "tainted" is close to the mark, but may not be exactly right.
Still, it conveys the idea of why so many now, myself included, would
rather see the 755 mark remain intact. It just wouldn't be right for
THIS record to be made a mockery of. The single-season mark is already
full of enough holes for people to take it all that seriously now. The
post-'98 numbers are too suspect; Maris had extra games (wait, so did
Aaron...), Ruth didn't compete at the same level as exists today, Cobb
could have if he wanted to, etc. The only major record Bonds has taken
is the walks record, which few care about and he's already (pre-'98)
estabished as one of the greatest walkers in history anyway. His
pre-'98 talent might have carried him to 600 career HR. The
single-season record books all across the board are all fucked up for
various reasons to begin with, but the career marks are a lot more
hallowed and sacred.

> If you think Bonds was a jerk before, wait until this season comes
> along and he's constantly asked about points in the book. Oh boy, this
> is going to be interesting. I'm really looking forward to reading this
> one.

And he'll find out how few are still on his side if he just keeps
blowing off the stories rather than face them one way or other.

What I find so convincing this time around (after reading more than a
few paragraphs) is that the writers aren't just spouting the feds'
case, but investigated hundreds of different sources to corroborate the
story. The mistress and the feds alone wouldn't seal it by any good
definition of proof, but hundreds of sources all independently saying
the same thing? Aside from some massive conspiracy against Bonds, it's
looking pretty conclusive.



07 Mar 2006 14:37:19
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> BTW, I just finished Canseco's book. He's an ass, but if there's an
> authority on 'roids it's him and he says clearly Bonds was on steroids
> without a doubt.

There are reasons to doubt and distrust Canseco, and certainly more
than his "authority" as a user and his say-so are needed. These
authors (Game of Shadows) actually went into detail (perhaps
mind-bending detail) with lots of sources and corroboration. So while
we can readily dismiss Canseco's say-so, we can't with these guys.

What I find interesting is that it's only *now* that we get something
that us laypeople can digest, when it comes to medical or expert
diagnoses of steroid use. Rather than the vaguely general "no one can
put on that much muscle mass" (or "just look at his head!") without so
much as even a pointer to the relevant literature establishing so,
these authors provide reference to body-mass-index-related
computations.



07 Mar 2006 14:39:15
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> "TheDave?" <no@no.com> trolled:
> > > Ronald Matthews wrote:
>
> > Since when are morals and ethics limited to what's legal and illegal?
>
> Since when are morals and ethics as serious as legal and illegal?

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.



07 Mar 2006 22:41:58
Tom MacIntyre
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:19:50 GMT, Ronald Matthews <rm@biteme.org >
wrote:

>Tom MacIntyre <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> trolled:
>
>> Years back a child entertainer here in Canada was accused of child
>> molestation. One of my co-workers threw out all of her albums and CD's
>> featuring him, so as not to expose her children to this awful man. He
>> was exonerated not too long afterwards, and she felt and looked pretty
>> silly for having jumped the gun.
>
>Who was that?
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm

Eric Nagler...he used to perform on The Elephant Show with Sharon,
Lois, and Bram.

Tom


07 Mar 2006 22:42:26
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:

> I'm hoping that Bonds will find a way to get too
> injured/sidetracked/whatever to break the Aaron record. He wants
> to pass Ruth but should let his respect for Aaron extend to
> letting him keep the record.

He has already stated that he doesn't care (supposedly) about
Aaron's record, only Ruth's. And in light of his attitude towards
McGwire, and the primarily white media reps, it is obvious that
Bonds is motivated by racism.

> The word "tainted" is close to the mark, but may not be exactly right.

Maybe tainted is not harsh enough. He cheated. Maris 61 was
"tainted" because of the length of the season. But what Bonds has
done is hardly comparable. He has cheated and that is totally
unacceptable. Bonds should be expelled from the game and the HoF.

Anything less than that will be a total farce and will reduce the
credibility of baseball down to that of the WWE or whatever it is
they call themselves these days.

> Still, it conveys the idea of why so many now, myself included, would
> rather see the 755 mark remain intact.

Oh, this is truly pathetic. Chris Cathcart scurrying about, seeking
credibility.

You have _no_ credibility. You have become synonymous with Baby
Bonds apologists, even more so than Roger Moore.

> It just wouldn't be right for THIS record to be made a mockery of.
> The single-season mark is already full of enough holes for people
> to take it all that seriously now. The post-'98 numbers are too
> suspect; Maris had extra games (wait, so did Aaron...), Ruth
> didn't compete at the same level as exists today, Cobb could have
> if he wanted to, etc. The only major record Bonds has taken is
> the walks record, which few care about and he's already (pre-'98)
> estabished as one of the greatest walkers in history anyway. His
> pre-'98 talent might have carried him to 600 career HR. The
> single-season record books all across the board are all fucked up
> for various reasons to begin with, but the career marks are a lot
> more hallowed and sacred.

Those who hate Rose, like you, refuse to recognize that he had 4,000 hits
before he wrote himself into the lineup. And now you are claiming
that Bonds should be recognized for what he did before he started
cheating.

Absolutely pathetic.

> And he'll find out how few are still on his side if he just keeps
> blowing off the stories rather than face them one way or other.

He can't face them. And if he doesn't - and he won't - then he must
be expelled from baseball and the HoF and _all_ of his records
should be removed from the books.

> What I find so convincing this time around (after reading more
> than a few paragraphs) is that the writers aren't just spouting
> the feds' case, but investigated hundreds of different sources to
> corroborate the story. The mistress and the feds alone wouldn't
> seal it by any good definition of proof, but hundreds of sources
> all independently saying the same thing? Aside from some massive
> conspiracy against Bonds, it's looking pretty conclusive.

The credibility of the game is at stake. More so now, than at any
time Rose was associated with the game. Bonds broke the law when he
cheated. This is totally unacceptable.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 22:44:30
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > "TheDave?" <no@no.com> trolled:
> > > > Ronald Matthews wrote:
> >
> > > Since when are morals and ethics limited to what's legal and illegal?
> >
> > Since when are morals and ethics as serious as legal and illegal?

> You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

Sorry chump. But you won't be going to jail and end up as a bitch
for some Baby Bonds look-alike for breaking morals and ethics. You
get your butt reamed for breaking the law.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 22:47:00
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Tom MacIntyre <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com > trolled:

> >Who was that?

> Eric Nagler...he used to perform on The Elephant Show with Sharon,
> Lois, and Bram.

Never heard of him. But I did meet the daughter of either Sharon or
Lois, (I can't remember which) when she was a law student as Osgoode
Hall Law School.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 15:04:41
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com> trolled:
>
> > I'm hoping that Bonds will find a way to get too
> > injured/sidetracked/whatever to break the Aaron record. He wants
> > to pass Ruth but should let his respect for Aaron extend to
> > letting him keep the record.
>
> He has already stated that he doesn't care (supposedly) about
> Aaron's record, only Ruth's. And in light of his attitude towards
> McGwire, and the primarily white media reps, it is obvious that
> Bonds is motivated by racism.

But hey, your raising questions about Jews all the time isn't motivated
by anti-semitism.

> > Still, it conveys the idea of why so many now, myself included, would
> > rather see the 755 mark remain intact.
>
> Oh, this is truly pathetic. Chris Cathcart scurrying about, seeking
> credibility.
>
> You have _no_ credibility. You have become synonymous with Baby
> Bonds apologists, even more so than Roger Moore.

You don't see me "apologizing" for Bonds now, do ya.

How exactly is it that I don't have credibility? Because I challenged
the ridiculous and stupid and arbitrary claims made about Bonds over
the years? You don't see me calling this latest bombshell ridiculous,
stupid or arbitrary. You actually have some concrete evidence with
loads of corroboration. Not idiots prancing about pretending to be
experts, like you.

>
> > It just wouldn't be right for THIS record to be made a mockery of.
> > The single-season mark is already full of enough holes for people
> > to take it all that seriously now. The post-'98 numbers are too
> > suspect; Maris had extra games (wait, so did Aaron...), Ruth
> > didn't compete at the same level as exists today, Cobb could have
> > if he wanted to, etc. The only major record Bonds has taken is
> > the walks record, which few care about and he's already (pre-'98)
> > estabished as one of the greatest walkers in history anyway. His
> > pre-'98 talent might have carried him to 600 career HR. The
> > single-season record books all across the board are all fucked up
> > for various reasons to begin with, but the career marks are a lot
> > more hallowed and sacred.
>
> Those who hate Rose, like you, refuse to recognize that he had 4,000 hits
> before he wrote himself into the lineup. And now you are claiming
> that Bonds should be recognized for what he did before he started
> cheating.

Now you're just making stuff up (re: what I've ever said about Rose).



07 Mar 2006 23:32:08
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com> trolled:

> > > I'm hoping that Bonds will find a way to get too
> > > injured/sidetracked/whatever to break the Aaron record. He wants
> > > to pass Ruth but should let his respect for Aaron extend to
> > > letting him keep the record.
> >
> > He has already stated that he doesn't care (supposedly) about
> > Aaron's record, only Ruth's. And in light of his attitude towards
> > McGwire, and the primarily white media reps, it is obvious that
> > Bonds is motivated by racism.

> But hey, your raising questions about Jews all the time isn't motivated
> by anti-semitism.

No, we raise questions about stat fans. We are best described as an
anti-statfan. Is that better or worse than being an anti-semite?

> > Oh, this is truly pathetic. Chris Cathcart scurrying about, seeking
> > credibility.

> > You have _no_ credibility. You have become synonymous with Baby
> > Bonds apologists, even more so than Roger Moore.

> You don't see me "apologizing" for Bonds now, do ya.

Scurry for cover.

> How exactly is it that I don't have credibility? Because I challenged
> the ridiculous and stupid and arbitrary claims made about Bonds over
> the years?

Ridiculous and arbitrary? Are you kidding me? You have had your
nosed rubbed in it for years and you have always been in a state of
denial.

> You don't see me calling this latest bombshell ridiculous, stupid
> or arbitrary. You actually have some concrete evidence with loads
> of corroboration. Not idiots prancing about pretending to be
> experts, like you.

But those "idiots" pretending to be experts were right. And you
were wrong. What does that make you?

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


07 Mar 2006 16:03:36
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Chris Cathcart wrote:
>>
> (His pre-'99 numbers are still amazing, BTW. He's a 500/500 man and
> 3-time MVP no matter how you look at it, so the RLMs can still go stick
> it. :-) By the available indications, he went from 5-tools to a
> whacked-out 2-tools to get more attention/money.

And this is a point I made a few years ago (that I got lamblasted about
- how dare I suggest Bonds was on steroids). His pre-roids years, he
was clearly going to be a first ballot HOFer, he had three MVPs and was
still one of the best players. Of course, with the roids he became a
monster, but he was already a HOFer. Now it may be possible he may have
hurt his HOF chances.


Now it's going to be
> a matter of whether HOF voters wanna disqualify all that on the basis
> of the disgrace of 'roid use alone. A good debate in its own right.
> If Barry isn't getting in, Mac certainly isn't. Meanwhile I'll be
> happy to sit on my Ruth rookie card, his place as the game's greatest
> still intact. Bonds pre-'98 and hypothetical-projected post-'98 could
> still be the next greatest, though the case is a lot tougher now. He
> belongs in the Mays/Aaron/Williams class no matter what; see above
> about 500/500 and 3 MVPs.)

It will be interesting now to see how the whole steroid thing plays out
with voters. I for one, think NO ONE involved with steroids should be
allowed in. Steroids mess with the game, the same way gambling messes
with the game. But you're right, had he stayed away from steroids, he
would have been a 500/500 home run guy easily. His stupid ego had to
get in the way.



07 Mar 2006 16:12:37
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
> > BTW, I just finished Canseco's book. He's an ass, but if there's an
> > authority on 'roids it's him and he says clearly Bonds was on steroids
> > without a doubt.
>
> There are reasons to doubt and distrust Canseco, and certainly more
> than his "authority" as a user and his say-so are needed. These
> authors (Game of Shadows) actually went into detail (perhaps
> mind-bending detail) with lots of sources and corroboration. So while
> we can readily dismiss Canseco's say-so, we can't with these guys.
>

I think Canseco proved he's a racist-jerk-baby in his book, but when it
comes to the steroid stuff, I believe every word. He knows the signs of
a steroid user, there's no doubt he's an expert and I see no reason why
he would accuse someone like Bonds, Sosa, Sheffield, Boone or Giambi of
being steroid users out of the blue, it's not like you or I just seeing
a big guy and going "he must be using steroids." Canseco points out
tell tale signs and makes points about these guys, besides having to
talked to every one of them about steroids (except Bonds and
Sheffield). I have no doubt the other book will be much better, but as
far as Canseco's book and its steroid content, I think it's all 100%
true.



07 Mar 2006 16:18:58
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
>> I'm hoping that Bonds will find a way to get too
> injured/sidetracked/whatever to break the Aaron record.

A-fricking-men

Aarons record is one of the great records in all of sports and no
roidhead should break it.



07 Mar 2006 16:41:37
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
> > TimV wrote:
> > > <bob_koca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > And Michael and OJ are innocent. Come on. With this much detail and Bonds
> > > essentially admitting it (though claiming not to know what he was taking) to
> > > the grand jury, it isn't an accusation. Bonds is a steroid freak, plain and
> > > simple. I'd prefer he just go away now. If he breaks Aaron's record, there
> > > will be endless bickering about it until we all die.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Never was there a truer statement. I think this is going to make Bonds
> > year really hard, He'll be heckled like no one was heckled before. I'm
> > a Giants fan but there's no way in hell I want Bonds to break Aaron's
> > record. It's tainted (in fact, I hope Aaron's record is never broken in
> > my lifetime)
>
> I'm hoping that Bonds will find a way to get too
> injured/sidetracked/whatever to break the Aaron record. He wants to
> pass Ruth but should let his respect for Aaron extend to letting him
> keep the record.
>
> The word "tainted" is close to the mark, but may not be exactly right.
> Still, it conveys the idea of why so many now, myself included, would
> rather see the 755 mark remain intact. It just wouldn't be right for
> THIS record to be made a mockery of. The single-season mark is already
> full of enough holes for people to take it all that seriously now. The
> post-'98 numbers are too suspect; Maris had extra games (wait, so did
> Aaron...), Ruth didn't compete at the same level as exists today, Cobb
> could have if he wanted to, etc. The only major record Bonds has taken
> is the walks record, which few care about and he's already (pre-'98)
> estabished as one of the greatest walkers in history anyway. His
> pre-'98 talent might have carried him to 600 career HR. The
> single-season record books all across the board are all fucked up for
> various reasons to begin with, but the career marks are a lot more
> hallowed and sacred.

Actually, since there are few "pure" time periods in baseball history,
virtually all of the career marks are "tainted" in some way.
Segregation. Amphetamines. Steroids (which existed before 1998, you
know). Mound height. Etc.

> > If you think Bonds was a jerk before, wait until this season comes
> > along and he's constantly asked about points in the book. Oh boy, this
> > is going to be interesting. I'm really looking forward to reading this
> > one.
>
> And he'll find out how few are still on his side if he just keeps
> blowing off the stories rather than face them one way or other.
>
> What I find so convincing this time around (after reading more than a
> few paragraphs) is that the writers aren't just spouting the feds'
> case, but investigated hundreds of different sources to corroborate the
> story.

Many of the writers' sources are federal agents and are from the
federal investigation and leaked grand jury testimony, etc.

> The mistress and the feds alone wouldn't seal it by any good
> definition of proof, but hundreds of sources all independently saying
> the same thing? Aside from some massive conspiracy against Bonds, it's
> looking pretty conclusive.

I'm not saying I know Bonds didn't use PEDs; but there are not
"hundreds of sources" with direct knowledge that he used. Let's assume
that Bonds was using all kinds of different PEDs, as the book says.
Well, how many people might have direct knowledge of this and be
willing (or forced) to disclose it? Greg Anderson. Victor Conte.
James Valente. Kimberly Bell. Perhaps a few others, here or there.

Certainly not hundreds of people. (And to my knowledge Anderson has
denied that he supplied Bonds.)

--Ray



08 Mar 2006 00:53:33
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

> Actually, since there are few "pure" time periods in baseball
> history, virtually all of the career marks are "tainted" in some
> way. Segregation. Amphetamines. Steroids (which existed before
> 1998, you know). Mound height. Etc.

Oh, we've got one already! We've got an apologist and it ain't
Cathcart or Moore as I would have expected. Even Cathcart has
jumped ship. We bet Moore says nothing at all.

DiPerna isn't a Jewish name, is it? It sounds like a wop or
something. What do you think about Pete Rose (as if we need to
ask!)

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 17:21:24
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> Chris Cathcart wrote:

> Now it's going to be
> > a matter of whether HOF voters wanna disqualify all that on the basis
> > of the disgrace of 'roid use alone. A good debate in its own right.
> > If Barry isn't getting in, Mac certainly isn't. Meanwhile I'll be
> > happy to sit on my Ruth rookie card, his place as the game's greatest
> > still intact. Bonds pre-'98 and hypothetical-projected post-'98 could
> > still be the next greatest, though the case is a lot tougher now. He
> > belongs in the Mays/Aaron/Williams class no matter what; see above
> > about 500/500 and 3 MVPs.)
>
> It will be interesting now to see how the whole steroid thing plays out
> with voters. I for one, think NO ONE involved with steroids should be
> allowed in.

To what extent are you using "involvement," and how are we supposed to
figure out everyone who was "involved," even if we adopted this absurd
standard?

> Steroids mess with the game, the same way gambling messes
> with the game.

No, they don't. Say what you will about a PED user, but the one thing
that's certain is that he's trying his best to perform. That wasn't
true with Joe Jackson.

--Ray



08 Mar 2006 02:24:47
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

> To what extent are you using "involvement," and how are we
> supposed to figure out everyone who was "involved," even if we
> adopted this absurd standard?

Apologist!

> > Steroids mess with the game, the same way gambling messes with
> > the game.

> No, they don't. Say what you will about a PED user, but the one thing
> that's certain is that he's trying his best to perform. That wasn't
> true with Joe Jackson.

Har. Those who do steroids _cheat._ They have an unfair advantage.
That means that the game is not decided fairly. If the game is not
decided fairly, then the game is no longer a sport, by definition.

Baseball loses its credibility. And it loses its fans. And those
few fans who do remain, have to sort their way through a record book
that is full of lines (and pages, in Baby's case) that are crossed out.

Since you are an apologist for this situation, you are not a sport
fan, by definition. We ask that you stop posting to this group.
Try starting your own, moderated group. You could call it,
rec.sport.steroids.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 18:58:03
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
> >
> To what extent are you using "involvement," and how are we supposed to
> figure out everyone who was "involved," even if we adopted this absurd
> standard?

And this is absolutely true. There will have to be proof. It's going to
get real messy. But you can't deny a *rumored* steroid user Hall entry,
although, how much do you want to bet no rumored steroid user gets Hall
entry now as this gets bigger and bigger?

>
> > Steroids mess with the game, the same way gambling messes
> > with the game.
>
> No, they don't. Say what you will about a PED user, but the one thing
> that's certain is that he's trying his best to perform. That wasn't
> true with Joe Jackson.

So Bonds, Sheffield, Sosa, Boone, McGwire, Luis Gonzales and the other
roid heads hitting home runs that might have been fly balls caught for
outs doesn't change the game? You better believe it does.



07 Mar 2006 22:01:48
Kenny1111
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Wunnuy wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
>> Wunnuy wrote:
>> To what extent are you using "involvement," and how are we supposed to
>> figure out everyone who was "involved," even if we adopted this absurd
>> standard?
>
> And this is absolutely true. There will have to be proof. It's going to
> get real messy. But you can't deny a *rumored* steroid user Hall entry,
> although, how much do you want to bet no rumored steroid user gets Hall
> entry now as this gets bigger and bigger?
>
>>> Steroids mess with the game, the same way gambling messes
>>> with the game.
>> No, they don't. Say what you will about a PED user, but the one thing
>> that's certain is that he's trying his best to perform. That wasn't
>> true with Joe Jackson.
>
> So Bonds, Sheffield, Sosa, Boone, McGwire, Luis Gonzales and the other
> roid heads hitting home runs that might have been fly balls caught for
> outs doesn't change the game? You better believe it does.

That's not what he said. He said "one thing that's certain is that he's
[(a PED user is)] trying his best to perform." He did not say, as you
imply, that taking PEDs "doesn't change the game." How much PEDs affect
performs is still mostly speculation, though, and will likely remain so,
because we'll never have all the facts, and of course will never be able
to do a controlled study.


08 Mar 2006 03:06:07
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@hotmail.com > trolled:

> That's not what he said. He said "one thing that's certain is that he's
> [(a PED user is)] trying his best to perform." He did not say, as you
> imply, that taking PEDs "doesn't change the game." How much PEDs affect
> performs is still mostly speculation, though, and will likely remain so,
> because we'll never have all the facts, and of course will never be able
> to do a controlled study.

Whoa! Another apologist!!! There is no doubt. If you want to find
people with their heads jammed way the fuck up their assholes, just
come to rec.sport.baseball.

Absolutely pathetic.

cordially, as always,

rm


07 Mar 2006 19:51:41
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> > Wunnuy wrote:
> > >
> > To what extent are you using "involvement," and how are we supposed to
> > figure out everyone who was "involved," even if we adopted this absurd
> > standard?
>
> And this is absolutely true. There will have to be proof. It's going to
> get real messy.

Well, what is "proof"? What standard are you going to use?
Preponderance? BARD?

Judging from the ridiculous standard you've already expressed in this
thread -- "Canseco wrote it in a book so it must be true" -- well,
let's just say I don't have a whole lot of faith you'd be rational on
this issue. Even if I agreed with your proposed treatment of it.

> But you can't deny a *rumored* steroid user Hall entry,
> although, how much do you want to bet no rumored steroid user gets Hall
> entry now as this gets bigger and bigger?

I think you're over-reacting. Bonds will make the Hall, McGwire will
make the Hall, Sosa will make the Hall. It's only players that were
already borderline to begin with -- e.g. Palmeiro -- where rumors and
such might do them in. (And even Palmeiro is a special case, given
that he (a) testified that he never used steroids, and then (b) went
out and failed a test.)

I don't think we can know for sure where the climate on this is
heading, but if the testing continues to turn up few players with
positives tests -- and even fewer stars -- I don't see why there would
be the huge over-reaction to this that you suggest. On the other hand,
predicting the future behavior of people who have already shown
themselves to be irrational is always difficult.

> > > Steroids mess with the game, the same way gambling messes
> > > with the game.
> >
> > No, they don't. Say what you will about a PED user, but the one thing
> > that's certain is that he's trying his best to perform. That wasn't
> > true with Joe Jackson.
>
> So Bonds, Sheffield, Sosa, Boone, McGwire, Luis Gonzales and the other
> roid heads hitting home runs that might have been fly balls caught for
> outs doesn't change the game? You better believe it does.

Silly me, I was actually responding to what you wrote. You didn't talk
about steroids "changing the game" in some abstract sense; you
specifically equated the effects of steroids on the game *to the
effects of gambling on the game*, writing "steroids mess with the game,
the same way gambling messes with the game." In response, I explained
the fundamental problem with that notion.

Anyway, no, I don't think steroids have near the effect on the game
that you do.

(And Luis Gonzalez on steroids? Since when?)

--Ray



08 Mar 2006 04:14:07
TheDave©
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> Ronald Matthews wrote:

LOL! Is it just me, or does anyone else find something incredibly
ironic about the following statement?

> If you want to find
> people with their heads jammed way the fuck up their assholes, just
> come to rec.sport.baseball.
>
> Absolutely pathetic.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm


07 Mar 2006 20:17:56
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
>>
> Well, what is "proof"? What standard are you going to use?
> Preponderance? BARD?
>
> Judging from the ridiculous standard you've already expressed in this
> thread -- "Canseco wrote it in a book so it must be true" -- well,
> let's just say I don't have a whole lot of faith you'd be rational on
> this issue. Even if I agreed with your proposed treatment of it.

I didn't say it was proof. I said I believed him. I'm on your side, so
slow down there a bit skippy, with the hot-headedness. I think they do
have to have proof befpre doing anything.
>
> > But you can't deny a *rumored* steroid user Hall entry,
> > although, how much do you want to bet no rumored steroid user gets Hall
> > entry now as this gets bigger and bigger?
>
> I think you're over-reacting. Bonds will make the Hall, McGwire will
> make the Hall, Sosa will make the Hall. It's only players that were
> already borderline to begin with -- e.g. Palmeiro -- where rumors and
> such might do them in. (And even Palmeiro is a special case, given
> that he (a) testified that he never used steroids, and then (b) went
> out and failed a test.)

I don't know now. Everything I'm reading today about Bonds says "don't
let him in" and if he doesn't get in, NO steroid user will, suspected
or otherwise, ever.
>

>
> Anyway, no, I don't think steroids have near the effect on the game
> that you do.
>
> (And Luis Gonzalez on steroids? Since when?)

Um, you're kidding there, right?



07 Mar 2006 20:32:39
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com> trolled:
> > Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > > "TheDave?" <no@no.com> trolled:
> > > > > Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since when are morals and ethics limited to what's legal and illegal?
> > >
> > > Since when are morals and ethics as serious as legal and illegal?
>
> > You've gotta be fucking kidding me.
>
> Sorry chump. But you won't be going to jail and end up as a bitch
> for some Baby Bonds look-alike for breaking morals and ethics. You
> get your butt reamed for breaking the law.

And only if you get caught.

Anyway, slavery was once legal, and just because you wouldn't get your
butt reamed for owning slaves, it was plenty serious. Seriousness
isn't defined by whether your asshole ends up intact afterwards, though
that can certainly be a strong consideration.



07 Mar 2006 20:36:28
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> > Wunnuy wrote:
> >>
> > Well, what is "proof"? What standard are you going to use?
> > Preponderance? BARD?
> >
> > Judging from the ridiculous standard you've already expressed in this
> > thread -- "Canseco wrote it in a book so it must be true" -- well,
> > let's just say I don't have a whole lot of faith you'd be rational on
> > this issue. Even if I agreed with your proposed treatment of it.
>
> I didn't say it was proof. I said I believed him.

You said "as far as Canseco's book and its steroid content, I think
it's all 100% true." If this isn't "proof" to you, what is? 120%?


> I'm on your side, so
> slow down there a bit skippy, with the hot-headedness. I think they do
> have to have proof befpre doing anything.

> >
> > > But you can't deny a *rumored* steroid user Hall entry,
> > > although, how much do you want to bet no rumored steroid user gets Hall
> > > entry now as this gets bigger and bigger?
> >
> > I think you're over-reacting. Bonds will make the Hall, McGwire will
> > make the Hall, Sosa will make the Hall. It's only players that were
> > already borderline to begin with -- e.g. Palmeiro -- where rumors and
> > such might do them in. (And even Palmeiro is a special case, given
> > that he (a) testified that he never used steroids, and then (b) went
> > out and failed a test.)
>
> I don't know now. Everything I'm reading today about Bonds says "don't
> let him in" and if he doesn't get in, NO steroid user will, suspected
> or otherwise, ever.

Not everyone is saying that, and opinions _can_ change in 6 or 7 years
once he becomes eligible.

And once people actually sit down and think about their vote.

> > Anyway, no, I don't think steroids have near the effect on the game
> > that you do.
> >
> > (And Luis Gonzalez on steroids? Since when?)
>
> Um, you're kidding there, right?

No.

--Ray



08 Mar 2006 00:32:31
M. Zaiem Beg
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

On 7 Mar 2006, Raymond DiPerna wrote:

;I think you're over-reacting. Bonds will make the Hall, McGwire will
;make the Hall, Sosa will make the Hall. It's only players that were
;already borderline to begin with -- e.g. Palmeiro -- where rumors and
;such might do them in. (And even Palmeiro is a special case, given
;that he (a) testified that he never used steroids, and then (b) went
;out and failed a test.)

That's the thing. We know Bonds was tested last season and we also know he
came up clean. Bonds will be tested this season as well, and if he tests
positive he'll be suspended and there will be no question then. Bonds is
every bit as massive as he was three years ago, so he's either using
steroids to stay big and hasn't been caught despite being tested, or he's
doing non-steroidal things to get big.

As DMN pointed out, this book (as far as anyone can tell, given the
excerpts) is simply a collection of allegations over the last couple of
years, but provides no new material. Which means we know as much now as we
did six months ago.

If he tests positive, then that'll end the argument for good. But until
then, I don't see a lot of hard, verifiable facts. Lots and lots of
innuendo, the misquoted grand jury testimony (where irresponsible sources
report that Bonds admitted to taking the clear and the cream, when even
the SF Chronicle said no such thing; rather, it was inferred by the
prosecutors that's what he was taking and that got twisted into an
admission), and things like, "Man, but he's so huge! Guys just don't get
that huge!" I'm sorry, but that's not particularly compelling.

What we can verify is that he was tested last season, and we can
also verify that he tested negative. If he's on steroids, what is the
explanation for that?

--
M. Zaiem Beg zbeg@iglou.com



08 Mar 2006 06:55:56
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

Please stop apologizing for Baby Bonds. It's over. Neither Bonds
nor his handlers have denied the content of the book.

It's over.

Now bugger off, troll.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


08 Mar 2006 07:01:11
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many pseudo stat fans and stat fans are apologists for
Baby Bonds?


08 Mar 2006 07:07:44
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

M. Zaiem Beg <zbeg@iglou.com > trolled:
> On 7 Mar 2006, Raymond DiPerna wrote:

> ;I think you're over-reacting. Bonds will make the Hall, McGwire will
> ;make the Hall, Sosa will make the Hall. It's only players that were
> ;already borderline to begin with -- e.g. Palmeiro -- where rumors and
> ;such might do them in. (And even Palmeiro is a special case, given
> ;that he (a) testified that he never used steroids, and then (b) went
> ;out and failed a test.)

> That's the thing. We know Bonds was tested last season and we also
> know he came up clean. Bonds will be tested this season as well,
> and if he tests positive he'll be suspended and there will be no
> question then. Bonds is every bit as massive as he was three years
> ago, so he's either using steroids to stay big and hasn't been
> caught despite being tested, or he's doing non-steroidal things to
> get big.

But Baby Bonds has run to fat. He isn't cut anymore. Didn't you
see him in that dress? He's in Kirby Puckett country.

IT'S OVER. IT'S OVER.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cordially, as always,

rm


08 Mar 2006 15:49:13
TheDave©
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> M. Zaiem Beg wrote:
> As DMN pointed out, this book (as far as anyone can tell, given the
> excerpts) is simply a collection of allegations over the last couple
> of years, but provides no new material. Which means we know as much
> now as we did six months ago.

Contrary to what I posted in another thread last night, I've since
heard a couple people on the radio (Giants' flagship station, no less)
say that there most definitely are new allegations, and even went on to
list several of them. I don't have the list off the top of my head as
I write this, but don't be so sure that it's just a rehash of old stuff.

--
As soon as you all elect me "Benevolent Dictator", all your problems
will be solved.


08 Mar 2006 09:56:06
Tanner
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...



bob_koca@hotmail.com wrote:
> The dave wrote:
>
> "People who say the following...
>
>
>
>>Get back to me with proof
>>and then I'll consider it.
>
>
>
> ...have no intention of actually considering anything, and know, but
> aren't intellectually honest enough to admit, that there would be no
> "proof" good enough. It's only a statement to present the illusion of
> an open mind where none exists, thus trying to position themselves as
> somehow morally superior to people on the other side of the debate. "

Several people formerly associated with Lance Armstrong have accused him
of steroid use and blood doping. A newpaper reported that they tested
Armstrong's old urine samples, and they showed up positive for EPO.

Why this "proof" less compelling than the "proof" on Bonds?



08 Mar 2006 08:12:45
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
>> >
> > I didn't say it was proof. I said I believed him.
>
> You said "as far as Canseco's book and its steroid content, I think
> it's all 100% true." If this isn't "proof" to you, what is? 120%?
>

Um, what? You're trying to pick a fight for the sake of picking a
fight? I said *I* think it's true. I never said it would hold up in a
court of law, I said *I* thought it was true. I believe everything he
said in the book about steroids, I never said "lets use Canseco's book
as proof to convict everyone." What's your problem?

> > > > (And Luis Gonzalez on steroids? Since when?)
> >
> > Um, you're kidding there, right?
>
> No.
>

Luis Gonzales is probably the biggest roid head next to Bonds. Probably
only Bonds had more "steroid rumors" over the years, Gonzo was a close
second.



08 Mar 2006 08:18:31
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:
>
> Please stop apologizing for Baby Bonds. It's over. Neither Bonds
> nor his handlers have denied the content of the book.
>
> It's over.

But you really don't want it to be over. That would ruin your fun. If
it really is over, you needn't post anything more. What would you do
then? Go back to trolling about Jews?

Guess who's over. Done. Kaput. Pete Rose, that's who. Doesn't
matter what records he broke. He also broke other things -- like the
cardinal rule that if you are in a baseball organization, you don't bet
on baseball, whether you think your intentions are innocuous or not.
You just don't do it. Period. Baseball has reasons for strictly
prohibiting it, and you disobey that rule at your own peril. If you're
prudent, you don't touch the baseball bookies with a ten foot pole.
You don't touch them, period. He's admitted to breaking that cardinal
rule. That makes it over and done for him. Since that is over and
done, you can stop futilely posting about it. He's DONE DONE DONE. So
stop your Rose apologetics. Thanks.



08 Mar 2006 08:36:28
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> >> >
> > > I didn't say it was proof. I said I believed him.
> >
> > You said "as far as Canseco's book and its steroid content, I think
> > it's all 100% true." If this isn't "proof" to you, what is? 120%?
>
> Um, what? You're trying to pick a fight for the sake of picking a
> fight? I said *I* think it's true. I never said it would hold up in a
> court of law, I said *I* thought it was true. I believe everything he
> said in the book about steroids, I never said "lets use Canseco's book
> as proof to convict everyone." What's your problem?

My problem is that you weren't talking about a court of law. You were
talking about how the whole steroids thing was going to play out with
hall of fame VOTERS, and how you think nobody involved with steroids
should be let in.

And so if you believe everything Canseco wrote 100%, you don't think
anybody named in his book should be elected. It's really that simple.

> > > > > (And Luis Gonzalez on steroids? Since when?)
> > >
> > > Um, you're kidding there, right?
> >
> > No.
>
> Luis Gonzales is probably the biggest roid head next to Bonds. Probably
> only Bonds had more "steroid rumors" over the years, Gonzo was a close
> second.

Unless these rumors about Gonzalez (note the spelling) is purely a
local story, I don't see how it's possible he had more rumors than a
Giambi or Sosa or McGwire or Palmeiro, or even Clemens for that matter.


We _are_ talking about the player who is so thin that when he turns to
the side he disappears, right?

--Ray



08 Mar 2006 11:37:03
David M. Nieporent
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:

> Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

--
David Marc Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


08 Mar 2006 16:42:49
=?iso-8859-1?Q?TheDave=A9?=
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:
>
> > Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:
> >
> > Please stop apologizing for Baby Bonds. It's over. Neither Bonds
> > nor his handlers have denied the content of the book.
> >
> > It's over.
>
> But you really don't want it to be over. That would ruin your fun.
> If it really is over, you needn't post anything more. What would you
> do then? Go back to trolling about Jews?
>
> Guess who's over. Done. Kaput. Pete Rose, that's who. Doesn't
> matter what records he broke. He also broke other things -- like the
> cardinal rule that if you are in a baseball organization, you don't
> bet on baseball, whether you think your intentions are innocuous or
> not. You just don't do it. Period. Baseball has reasons for
> strictly prohibiting it, and you disobey that rule at your own peril.
> If you're prudent, you don't touch the baseball bookies with a ten
> foot pole. You don't touch them, period. He's admitted to breaking
> that cardinal rule. That makes it over and done for him. Since that
> is over and done, you can stop futilely posting about it. He's DONE
> DONE DONE. So stop your Rose apologetics. Thanks.

Not only that, the rules against betting go back to before Rose was
even born. It's not like it was ok and they changed the rules on him
in mid-stream.


08 Mar 2006 10:43:02
Ron Johnson
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


M. Zaiem Beg wrote:

>
> What we can verify is that he was tested last season, and we can
> also verify that he tested negative. If he's on steroids, what is the
> explanation for that?

That's easy. It's likely that a certain number of athletes will
be ahead of the testers.

Look no further than David Millar.

He'd never failed any drug tests. He was however faced with
explaining away the EPO found at his house during a police
raid.



08 Mar 2006 10:50:39
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
>> My problem is that you weren't talking about a court of law. You were
> talking about how the whole steroids thing was going to play out with
> hall of fame VOTERS, and how you think nobody involved with steroids
> should be let in.
>
> And so if you believe everything Canseco wrote 100%, you don't think
> anybody named in his book should be elected. It's really that simple.

Right, and you look at my posts in this thread, I also said it should
be proven, at no point despite my belief that they are roid heads can
we "officially" condemn them in record books or HOF voting until it's
proven. I said I believed Canseco's book but at NO point did I say "and
let's use that as our proof." I simply said that I believed him. If
you'd like to show me the post I said Canseco's book is the proof and
let's use that, I'll be happy to apologize. You are making up your own
arguments here just to have an argument, it's ridiculous. It's really
that simple.

>>
> Unless these rumors about Gonzalez (note the spelling) is purely a
> local story, I don't see how it's possible he had more rumors than a
> Giambi or Sosa or McGwire or Palmeiro, or even Clemens for that matter.
>
>
> We _are_ talking about the player who is so thin that when he turns to
> the side he disappears, right?
>
> --Ray



08 Mar 2006 20:20:34
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> > It's over.

> But you really don't want it to be over. That would ruin your
> fun. If it really is over, you needn't post anything more. What
> would you do then? Go back to trolling about Jews?

Trolling about Jews?

> Guess who's over. Done. Kaput. Pete Rose, that's who. Doesn't
> matter what records he broke. He also broke other things -- like the
> cardinal rule that if you are in a baseball organization, you don't bet
> on baseball, whether you think your intentions are innocuous or not.

What does Pete Rose have to do with Baby Bonds?

> You just don't do it. Period. Baseball has reasons for strictly
> prohibiting it, and you disobey that rule at your own peril. If
> you're prudent, you don't touch the baseball bookies with a ten
> foot pole. You don't touch them, period. He's admitted to
> breaking that cardinal rule. That makes it over and done for him.
> Since that is over and done, you can stop futilely posting about
> it. He's DONE DONE DONE. So stop your Rose apologetics. Thanks.

You were the one who brought Rose up. It is kind of strange that
those who love Bonds, hate Rose. Without exception, it seems.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


08 Mar 2006 20:22:32
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:

> > Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Were they shooting at some of those Jewish owned hotels?

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


08 Mar 2006 15:47:09
WJR
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

On 8 Mar 2006 10:43:02 -0800, Ron Johnson wrote:

>>
>> What we can verify is that he was tested last season, and we can
>> also verify that he tested negative. If he's on steroids, what is the
>> explanation for that?
>
> That's easy. It's likely that a certain number of athletes will
> be ahead of the testers.

Only the truly clueless do not know how to beat the testing systems and the
systems that are used (which include frequency, notification,
methodologies, etc) in MLB are about as state of the art as 4 cycle
engines.

When designing a chemical testing system for humans, one must consider the
consequences of that system. Really, do you want to catch every weed tooter
in your warehouse? Do you ever want to ship anything?

Is there anyone here who believes that MLB's systems weren't designed for
minimal detections?
--
Drop the abc and xyz for email
www.officials-unlimited.com/forum


08 Mar 2006 13:22:42
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com> trolled:
> > Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:
>
> > > It's over.
>
> > But you really don't want it to be over. That would ruin your
> > fun. If it really is over, you needn't post anything more. What
> > would you do then? Go back to trolling about Jews?
>
> Trolling about Jews?

Yes, trolling about Jews. You troll about Jews every time you include
your current .sig. Meaning that you troll a lot about Jews.

> > Guess who's over. Done. Kaput. Pete Rose, that's who. Doesn't
> > matter what records he broke. He also broke other things -- like the
> > cardinal rule that if you are in a baseball organization, you don't bet
> > on baseball, whether you think your intentions are innocuous or not.
>
> What does Pete Rose have to do with Baby Bonds?

You tell/troll me.

> > You just don't do it. Period. Baseball has reasons for strictly
> > prohibiting it, and you disobey that rule at your own peril. If
> > you're prudent, you don't touch the baseball bookies with a ten
> > foot pole. You don't touch them, period. He's admitted to
> > breaking that cardinal rule. That makes it over and done for him.
> > Since that is over and done, you can stop futilely posting about
> > it. He's DONE DONE DONE. So stop your Rose apologetics. Thanks.
>
> You were the one who brought Rose up. It is kind of strange that
> those who love Bonds, hate Rose. Without exception, it seems.

I neither love Bonds, nor hate Rose. I merely point out the fact that,
whether you like Rose or not, he's done as far as HOF chances go. So
why keep trolling up the past?



08 Mar 2006 13:55:24
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


TheDave=A9 wrote:
>> Not only that, the rules against betting go back to before Rose was
> even born. It's not like it was ok and they changed the rules on him
> in mid-stream.


I'm not sticking up for either side here, but are you suggesting it was
okay for players to use steroids and then the rules were changed midway
while Bonds was using? It's been illegal to use steroids the whole time
Bonds did, whether baseball was "officially" testing for it or not.



08 Mar 2006 22:03:19
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:
> > Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com> trolled:
> > > Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> > Trolling about Jews?

> Yes, trolling about Jews. You troll about Jews every time you include
> your current .sig. Meaning that you troll a lot about Jews.

Nonsense. We simply ask a legitimate question and, in fact, we are
curious as to why we have not had an adequate and serious answer.

That's not trolling.

> > > Guess who's over. Done. Kaput. Pete Rose, that's who.
> > > Doesn't matter what records he broke. He also broke other
> > > things -- like the cardinal rule that if you are in a baseball
> > > organization, you don't bet on baseball, whether you think
> > > your intentions are innocuous or not.
> >
> > What does Pete Rose have to do with Baby Bonds?

> You tell/troll me.

If we are only trolling, why are you responding?

> > You were the one who brought Rose up. It is kind of strange that
> > those who love Bonds, hate Rose. Without exception, it seems.

> I neither love Bonds,

So you were paid for all those blowjobs? You loved him for money?

> nor hate Rose. I merely point out the fact that, whether you like
> Rose or not, he's done as far as HOF chances go. So why keep
> trolling up the past?

Baby Bonds should be banned. If Selig had any guts, he would
_immediately_ investigate Bonds and make Bonds show cause why he
shouldn't get his ass kicked out of baseball.

But Selig doesn't have any guts and he doesn't have the best
interests of baseball at heart. Selig would never have kicked Rose
out. That was Giamatti's doing. And Selig won't let Rose back in.

Selig won't do anything.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


08 Mar 2006 14:31:23
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:
> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com> trolled:
> > nor hate Rose. I merely point out the fact that, whether you like
> > Rose or not, he's done as far as HOF chances go. So why keep
> > trolling up the past?

Your reply to this question doesn't address the original point at hand.
Whether one hates Rose or not, that doesn't affect the fact that his
HOF chances are over and done. If he hadn't bet on baseball, they
wouldn't be over and done, but he did, so they are.

> Baby Bonds should be banned. If Selig had any guts, he would
> _immediately_ investigate Bonds and make Bonds show cause why he
> shouldn't get his ass kicked out of baseball.

Should this, should that. All that matters is what's going to be done
or not be done, not shoulds. That's all that matters according to
Troll Logic(TM). See your own posting on the legal vs. the moral or
ethical.

> But Selig doesn't have any guts and he doesn't have the best
> interests of baseball at heart. Selig would never have kicked Rose
> out. That was Giamatti's doing. And Selig won't let Rose back in.
>
> Selig won't do anything.

So he won't do anything. So what? What are you going to do about it,
other than whine and troll about it futilely?



08 Mar 2006 22:32:34
ROBERT MARSILI
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


"David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > wrote in message
news:440F082F.3060704@alumni.princeton.edu...
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
>> Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:
>
>> Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

"German's....?"

"Leave him alone...he's on a roll..."




09 Mar 2006 00:06:12
Tomasz Radko
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Użytkownik ROBERT MARSILI napisał:

> "David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
> news:440F082F.3060704@alumni.princeton.edu...
>
>>Ronald Matthews wrote:
>>
>>>Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:
>>
>>>Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
>
>
> "German's....?"
>
> "Leave him alone...he's on a roll..."

"And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [I love
music chords at this moment] the tough get goin'!"

pzdr

TRad


08 Mar 2006 23:07:51
ROBERT MARSILI
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...



>>>>Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
>>
>>
>> "German's....?"
>>
>> "Leave him alone...he's on a roll..."
>
> "And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [I love music
> chords at this moment] the tough get goin'!"

One of the true classic lines from any movie ever....




08 Mar 2006 23:18:12
=?iso-8859-1?Q?TheDave=A9?=
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> Wunnuy wrote:
> >> Not only that, the rules against betting go back to before Rose was
> > even born. It's not like it was ok and they changed the rules on
> > him in mid-stream.
>
> I'm not sticking up for either side here, but are you suggesting it
> was okay for players to use steroids and then the rules were changed
> midway while Bonds was using? It's been illegal to use steroids the
> whole time Bonds did, whether baseball was "officially" testing for
> it or not.

No. I'm suggesting that Rose's banishment should be a surprise to no
one, especially Rose. It's not the rule jumped out and surprised him.

I was not referring to steroids at all, but if taken in that direction,
consider this.... while taking steroids was illegal, baseball was
obviously not doing anything about it, hence it would be understandable
that a player could feel with some level of certainty that they could
get away with it.

As far as gambling goes, it's been such a big hot-button issue within
baseball itself for so long, that there's just simply no excuse to not
know better.


08 Mar 2006 23:19:57
=?iso-8859-1?Q?TheDave=A9?=
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

> TheDave© wrote:
Should have read: > It's not like the rule jumped out and surprised
him.


08 Mar 2006 16:26:02
David the Nationals Fan
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Wunnuy wrote:

> I'm not sticking up for either side here, but are you suggesting it was
> okay for players to use steroids and then the rules were changed midway
> while Bonds was using? It's been illegal to use steroids the whole time
> Bonds did, whether baseball was "officially" testing for it or not.

It may have been illegal, but it was not a violation of the rules of
baseball. Lots of things are illegal, but not a violation of the rules
of baseball. (And some things are "legal" that are violations of the
rules of baseball such as betting on baseball, an activity legally
permitted in Las Vegas, using certain drugs under a prescription, and
so forth)

A player is not "immune" to illegal acts, he simply has to answer them
in a forum other than that of baseball. Lots of players have, over
the years, engaged in acts which were illegal. They suffered the legal
consequences of those acts. And were able to keep playing baseball.
At the time that Bonds (allegedly) used Steroids, the use of steroids
without a proper prescription was illegal, but not expressly banned
under the rules of baseball. Since Steroid use has now been expressly
banned, Bonds has tested clean. Is this fair? Probably not. Even if
Bonds were to come out and admit past Steroid use at this point, while
his PR would take a hit, his MLB eligibility should not be impacted.
And if it were, he would have a strong legal case against MLB. The
question is whether he tests positive at any point in the future. At
that point MLB can punish him to the full extent permitted under the
Steroid policy.

And of course, the legal system could also prosecute him and send him
to jail where he would be unable to play baseball. But baseball cannot
take the unilateral action.

As for the HOF, since the voters do not have a specific standard, if
they decide not to vote Bonds in the HOF, Bonds is not in the HOF. I
think that he belongs in the HOF, but I am not going to shed any tears
over it.



09 Mar 2006 01:37:24
Tomasz Radko
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Użytkownik David the Nationals Fan napisał:
(...)
> As for the HOF, since the voters do not have a specific standard,

---
Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame
Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of
the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)

(...)

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing
ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the
team(s) on which the player played.
---

Integrity, sportsmanship and character.

pzdr

TRad


08 Mar 2006 17:11:49
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> Wunnuy wrote:
>
> A player is not "immune" to illegal acts, he simply has to answer them
> in a forum other than that of baseball. Lots of players have, over
> the years, engaged in acts which were illegal. They suffered the legal
> consequences of those acts. And were able to keep playing baseball.
> At the time that Bonds (allegedly) used Steroids, the use of steroids
> without a proper prescription was illegal, but not expressly banned
> under the rules of baseball. Since Steroid use has now been expressly
> banned, Bonds has tested clean. Is this fair? Probably not. Even if
> Bonds were to come out and admit past Steroid use at this point, while
> his PR would take a hit, his MLB eligibility should not be impacted.
> And if it were, he would have a strong legal case against MLB. The
> question is whether he tests positive at any point in the future. At
> that point MLB can punish him to the full extent permitted under the
> Steroid policy.

As far as I know, MLB doesn't have any official policy about murder
either, but I doubt many players will do it because it's not "illegal"
in baseball. Whether or not it wasn't "banned" within MLB is moot,
since it was still illegal, otherwise players would be sayign "Yeah, I
used it, but it wasn't banned by MLB at the time" (at which time no
player has said this yet). Bonds using steroids when it wasn't banned
should make no difference on his future HOF status (if it's officially
proved of course) if it comes to voters deciding not to put someone in
if they were a 'roid head. The steroid users knew it was wrong from the
getgo.



08 Mar 2006 17:15:14
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Tomasz Radko wrote:
> Uzytkownik David the Nationals Fan napisal:
>>
> 5. Voting - Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing
> ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the
> team(s) on which the player played.
> ---
>
> Integrity, sportsmanship and character.
>
>

Come on, if the writers actually used that whole text, Ty Cobb wouldn't
be in the Hall.



08 Mar 2006 17:58:00
Chris Cathcart
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Wunnuy wrote:
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
> > Uzytkownik David the Nationals Fan napisal:
> >>
> > 5. Voting - Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing
> > ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the
> > team(s) on which the player played.
> > ---
> >
> > Integrity, sportsmanship and character.
> >
> >
>
> Come on, if the writers actually used that whole text, Ty Cobb wouldn't
> be in the Hall.

Cobb would be in the HOF no matter what, because he wanted to be.



09 Mar 2006 02:12:38
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> Your reply to this question doesn't address the original point at
> hand. Whether one hates Rose or not, that doesn't affect the fact
> that his HOF chances are over and done. If he hadn't bet on
> baseball, they wouldn't be over and done, but he did, so they are.

And this has nothing to do with Baby Bonds, now does it? You're
just trying to distract things away from Bonds disgrace. Baby Bonds
lied to everyone. He has been cheating, illegally, all along. He
has been persuing baseball's greatest record and he has cheated
while doing so.

> > Baby Bonds should be banned. If Selig had any guts, he would
> > _immediately_ investigate Bonds and make Bonds show cause why he
> > shouldn't get his ass kicked out of baseball.

> Should this, should that. All that matters is what's going to be
> done or not be done, not shoulds.

That's right. And as long as Selig is commissioner, nothing will be
done. Rose's application for re-instatement will not be heard.
Baby Bonds will not be investigated. Nothing will get done while
Selig is around.

> That's all that matters according to Troll Logic(TM). See your
> own posting on the legal vs. the moral or ethical.

This is getting silly. What are you trying to say? The use of the
term "Troll Logic" is not very helpful, now is it?

> > But Selig doesn't have any guts and he doesn't have the best
> > interests of baseball at heart. Selig would never have kicked
> > Rose out. That was Giamatti's doing. And Selig won't let Rose
> > back in.

> > Selig won't do anything.

> So he won't do anything. So what? What are you going to do about
> it, other than whine and troll about it futilely?

If enough people whine and troll about it, Selig will either have to
do something or he will be replaced. Maybe you think that Baby
Bonds is bigger than baseball while Pete Rose is not. It is ok to
ban Pete Rose but not ok to ban Baby Bonds?

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Mar 2006 02:19:02
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Tomasz Radko <trad@interia.pl > trolled:
> U?ytkownik ROBERT MARSILI napisa?:

> > "David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
> > news:440F082F.3060704@alumni.princeton.edu...
> >
> >>Ronald Matthews wrote:
> >>
> >>>Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> trolled:
> >>
> >>>Stop. IT'S O-V-E-R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
> >
> >
> > "German's....?"
> >
> > "Leave him alone...he's on a roll..."

> "And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [I love
> music chords at this moment] the tough get goin'!"

... and then we take Berlin.

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Mar 2006 02:23:12
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

David the Nationals Fan <davidthenatfan@yahoo.com > trolled:

> It may have been illegal, but it was not a violation of the rules
> of baseball. Lots of things are illegal, but not a violation of
> the rules of baseball. (And some things are "legal" that are
> violations of the rules of baseball such as betting on baseball,
> an activity legally permitted in Las Vegas, using certain drugs
> under a prescription, and so forth)

> A player is not "immune" to illegal acts, he simply has to answer
> them in a forum other than that of baseball.

No. If a player acts illegally, especially in pursuit of baseball's
most glorious record, then he brings disrepute to the game. He
makes a mockery of the game. Baby Bonds has gone after the game's
greatest record by acting illegally.

Since you don't understand the significance of the phrase "the game"
we don't expect you to understand what this means. Please, just
take our word for it.

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Mar 2006 14:40:42
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Tomasz Radko wrote:
> Uzytkownik David the Nationals Fan napisal:
> (...)
> > As for the HOF, since the voters do not have a specific standard,
> ---
> Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame
> Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of
> the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)
>
> (...)
>
> 5. Voting - Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing
> ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the
> team(s) on which the player played.
> ---
> Integrity, sportsmanship and character.

And player's record, and playing ability, and contributions to the
team(s) on which the player played.

The guidelines don't set forth how much weight should be accorded to
each, only that they all be taken into consideration. I think it would
be justifiable for a voter not to vote for a player because the voter
decided that the player's use of steroids (integrity, sportsmanship,
and character) outweighs the other factors -- I wouldn't vote that way
myself, but I think it's justifiable. But I don't think it would be
justifiable for a voter to simply ignore a player's
record/ability/contributions in view of alleged steroid use; and that's
what a blanket "no steroid user should be allowed in the hall of fame"
would do.

--Ray



10 Mar 2006 11:52:55
Ron Johnson
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
> > Uzytkownik David the Nationals Fan napisal:
> > (...)
> > > As for the HOF, since the voters do not have a specific standard,
> > ---
> > Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame
> > Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of
> > the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > 5. Voting - Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing
> > ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the
> > team(s) on which the player played.
> > ---
> > Integrity, sportsmanship and character.
>
> And player's record, and playing ability, and contributions to the
> team(s) on which the player played.

Right. Dick Allen's out because of character issues. Not an
issue for Rogers Hornsby. Both are on Bill James' short list
for biggest jerks in baseball history.
>
> The guidelines don't set forth how much weight should be accorded to
> each, only that they all be taken into consideration. I think it would
> be justifiable for a voter not to vote for a player because the voter
> decided that the player's use of steroids (integrity, sportsmanship,
> and character) outweighs the other factors -- I wouldn't vote that way
> myself, but I think it's justifiable. But I don't think it would be
> justifiable for a voter to simply ignore a player's
> record/ability/contributions in view of alleged steroid use; and that's
> what a blanket "no steroid user should be allowed in the hall of fame"
> would do.

I'm cool with an official no steroid rule in precisely the same
way I'm cool with the retroactive ban of Rose (and yes, I'm
aware of the HOF's position that it wasn't a change in
rules but rather an official clarification)

Their museum, their rules. Rules aren't tough to understand
either.

It's just that banning players *suspected* of using particular
forms of PEDs strikes me as being a bad idea.

At the same time I have no problem at all with any given voter
deciding not to vote for Bonds (or Rose if/when he's up
for election). And if that leads to Bonds not making it in, I
can live with it.

To me the formal ban requires a higher standard of evidence.
A positive test or evidence in court. (And if the issue is
simply documented illegal drug use -- well there's Paul Molitor
at minimum to consider)

Sure Bonds was a viable HOF candidate before 1998 (and would
probably have breezed in). So was Rose without the hits record.



10 Mar 2006 12:10:54
Wunnuy
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ron Johnson wrote:
> Right. Dick Allen's out because of character issues. Not an


Dick Allen's out because he doesn't have quite the HOF stats.



10 Mar 2006 22:17:19
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Ron Johnson <johnson@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca > trolled:

> Right. Dick Allen's out because of character issues. Not an
> issue for Rogers Hornsby. Both are on Bill James' short list
> for biggest jerks in baseball history.

But this is not a character issue. Bonds cheated. And by doing so,
Bonds has brought the integrity of the game into question. For the
integrity of the game, Bonds, who is now exposed as the greatest
cheater in the game's history, must be expelled from baseball.

> I'm cool with an official no steroid rule in precisely the same
> way I'm cool with the retroactive ban of Rose (and yes, I'm aware
> of the HOF's position that it wasn't a change in rules but rather
> an official clarification)

> Their museum, their rules. Rules aren't tough to understand
> either.

> It's just that banning players *suspected* of using particular
> forms of PEDs strikes me as being a bad idea.

Suspected? Bonds may be a "suspect" in a legal sense. This is not
a legal issue. Everyone with half a clue is satisfied that Bonds
cheated. The "court of public opinion" has different rules than the
courts that lawyers use to steal people's money. And in the "court
of public opinion" the onus is clearly on Bonds to prove that he is
not a cheat. And he is not going to be able to prove this if he
refuses to talk about it.

> At the same time I have no problem at all with any given voter
> deciding not to vote for Bonds (or Rose if/when he's up
> for election). And if that leads to Bonds not making it in, I
> can live with it.

Oh, well, if you can live with it, then I guess we all should be
able to live with it, because you are such a stellar example of how
we all should live our lives.

More to the point, nobody gives a flying fuck what you can live
with.

> To me the formal ban requires a higher standard of evidence.

Selig has a duty to conduct his own investigation into the Bonds
cheating. And he has a duty to bounce Bonds from baseball if he
determines that Bonds has brought into question the integrity of the
game. And that is a slam-dunk.

> A positive test or evidence in court. (And if the issue is
> simply documented illegal drug use -- well there's Paul Molitor
> at minimum to consider)

Paul Molitor? We have never heard him accused of cheating. Nobody
thinks of Paul Molitor as a cheat. Paul Molitor never brought the
integrity of baseball into question.

Neither did Pete Rose, for that matter.

cordially, as always,

rm


10 Mar 2006 16:07:53
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...


Ron Johnson wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> > Tomasz Radko wrote:
> > > Uzytkownik David the Nationals Fan napisal:
> > > (...)
> > > > As for the HOF, since the voters do not have a specific standard,
> > > ---
> > > Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame
> > > Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of
> > > the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)
> > >
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > 5. Voting - Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing
> > > ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the
> > > team(s) on which the player played.
> > > ---
> > > Integrity, sportsmanship and character.
> >
> > And player's record, and playing ability, and contributions to the
> > team(s) on which the player played.
>
> Right. Dick Allen's out because of character issues. Not an
> issue for Rogers Hornsby. Both are on Bill James' short list
> for biggest jerks in baseball history.
> >
> > The guidelines don't set forth how much weight should be accorded to
> > each, only that they all be taken into consideration. I think it would
> > be justifiable for a voter not to vote for a player because the voter
> > decided that the player's use of steroids (integrity, sportsmanship,
> > and character) outweighs the other factors -- I wouldn't vote that way
> > myself, but I think it's justifiable. But I don't think it would be
> > justifiable for a voter to simply ignore a player's
> > record/ability/contributions in view of alleged steroid use; and that's
> > what a blanket "no steroid user should be allowed in the hall of fame"
> > would do.
>
> I'm cool with an official no steroid rule in precisely the same
> way I'm cool with the retroactive ban of Rose (and yes, I'm
> aware of the HOF's position that it wasn't a change in
> rules but rather an official clarification)
>
> Their museum, their rules. Rules aren't tough to understand
> either.
>
> It's just that banning players *suspected* of using particular
> forms of PEDs strikes me as being a bad idea.
>
> At the same time I have no problem at all with any given voter
> deciding not to vote for Bonds (or Rose if/when he's up
> for election). And if that leads to Bonds not making it in, I
> can live with it.
>
> To me the formal ban requires a higher standard of evidence.
> A positive test or evidence in court. (And if the issue is
> simply documented illegal drug use -- well there's Paul Molitor
> at minimum to consider)
>
> Sure Bonds was a viable HOF candidate before 1998 (and would
> probably have breezed in). So was Rose without the hits record.

Yes, but the hits record isn't linked to why Rose is out of the Hall,
the way 1999 and beyond would be linked to why Bonds is out of the
Hall.

The Hall can do what it wants, of course, but I see a fundamental
difference between steroids and gambling, in that a steroid user wasn't
breaking the rules until just recently. Even if we were to have
conclusive proof that McGwire used steroids, he never broke a single
rule; he was never declared ineligible. Rose was, of course, declared
permanently ineligible (by agreement), which is one reason why it would
have been incongruous for the Hall to honor Rose. That same situation
doesn't exist for McGwire.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to take steroids into account w/r/t
McGwire, just that I think the Hall's current voting guidelines, which
take integrity, sportsmanship, and character into account, can handle
the steroids issue just fine. No need for a special rule, the way they
felt a need to codify the rule w/r/t Rose.

Now, since there's *now* a testing procedure in place, with penalties,
if the Hall wanted to institute a rule which said that a player who
tests positive is not eligible for induction, well, I still wouldn't
agree, but I think it would make more sense. At least there, there's a
rule being broken which could eventually (if broken enough times) lead
to a lifetime ban. So now you start coming closer to the Rose
situation.

--Ray



11 Mar 2006 01:47:10
Ronald Matthews
Re: Baby Bonds exposed yet again - yawn...

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

> Yes, but the hits record isn't linked to why Rose is out of the Hall,
> the way 1999 and beyond would be linked to why Bonds is out of the
> Hall.

> The Hall can do what it wants, of course, but I see a fundamental
> difference between steroids and gambling, in that a steroid user wasn't
> breaking the rules until just recently. Even if we were to have

The issue is that the steroids user was breaking the law, not the
rules of the game. The fact that you ignore this shows that you are
a troll.

We ask that you stop posting.

> conclusive proof that McGwire used steroids, he never broke a
> single rule; he was never declared ineligible. Rose was, of
> course, declared

He broke the law and in so doing gave himself an unfair advantage.
That is worse than breaking a rule and giving yourself an unfair
advantage. Much, much worse. Sosa broke the rules with his corked
bat, giving him an unfair advantage and everybody laughed. Perry
broke the rules, with foreign substances, giving him an unfair
advantage, and everybody laughed.

But nobody is laughing at Baby Bonds. That is because Baby Bonds
broke the law when he cheated and if MLB is going to be taken
seriously they cannot allow players to break the law in order to
gain an unfair advantage. MLB cannot allow players to cheat by
breaking the law.

> permanently ineligible (by agreement), which is one reason why it
> would have been incongruous for the Hall to honor Rose. That same
> situation doesn't exist for McGwire.

Rose is completely irrelevant to this case. Rose did not cheat. He
did not gain an unfair advantage over his opponents by breaking the
law. Your howls that Rose did more damage to baseball than Baby
Bonds has done are shrill and pathetic.

> I'm not saying it's unreasonable to take steroids into account
> w/r/t McGwire, just that I think the Hall's current voting
> guidelines, which take integrity, sportsmanship, and character
> into account, can handle the steroids issue just fine. No need
> for a special rule, the way they felt a need to codify the rule
> w/r/t Rose.

No. Baby Bonds broke the law. What he did is gain an unfair
advantage in playing the game by breaking the law. Baby Bonds
character is immaterial. Baby Bonds must be expelled from the game
or the game loses credibility. You cannot have the game's best
player, achieving his status by breaking the law and cheating. That
is preposterous. You cannot have a player setting the game's top
record while he is openly cheating by breaking the law.

We ask that you stop posting. You have proven, over and over again,
that you are simply too stupid, and too prejudiced, to contribute
objectively to any abstract discussion. Your defense of Baby Bonds
finds its origins in your love of his stats, and that is it.

And that is truly pathetic.

Fuck off.

Get out. Goodbye. Luser.

cordially, even to complete and total filth,

rm