25 May 2007 05:05:01
umo
Questions for Barry Bonds haters

What Baseball policy did Barry violate?
What drug crime did Barry get arrested for?
What drug crime did Barry get indicted for?
What drug crime did Barry get prosecuted for?
What drug crime did Barry get convicted of?

If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
you think his impending home run record is invalid?



25 May 2007 12:14:33
Steve Cutchen
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com >, umo
<shoreke@yahoo.com > wrote:

> If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> you think his impending home run record is invalid?

bate.

Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
that is a good idea.


25 May 2007 17:48:48
OpEd
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Did Barry Bonds ever test positive for steroid use? Is there any evidence
aside from hearsay that he used steroids?
OpEd

"Steve Cutchen" <maxfaq@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:250520071214334646%maxfaq@earthlink.net...
> In article <1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, umo
> <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
>> you think his impending home run record is invalid?
>
> bate.
>
> Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> that is a good idea.




25 May 2007 21:41:53
Steve Cutchen
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <lLGdnV8HZ7lZxMrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com >, OpEd
<oped9999@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Did Barry Bonds ever test positive for steroid use? Is there any evidence
> aside from hearsay that he used steroids?
> OpEd
>
> "Steve Cutchen" <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:250520071214334646%maxfaq@earthlink.net...
> > In article <1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, umo
> > <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> >> you think his impending home run record is invalid?
> >
> > bate.
> >
> > Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> > that is a good idea.

What part of "apparently" do you not understand?


26 May 2007 04:52:45
Jim McKinley
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

"umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> What Baseball policy did Barry violate?
> What drug crime did Barry get arrested for?
> What drug crime did Barry get indicted for?
> What drug crime did Barry get prosecuted for?
> What drug crime did Barry get convicted of?
>
> If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> you think his impending home run record is invalid?

>
You could say the same thing about OJ and we all know about him.
--

Jim
*******************************************
Baseball is the Only Game Where
the Defense Controls the Ball
*******************************************




26 May 2007 20:37:47
Archie Leach
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

"Jim McKinley" <bigmck@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>"umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> What Baseball policy did Barry violate?
>> What drug crime did Barry get arrested for?
>> What drug crime did Barry get indicted for?
>> What drug crime did Barry get prosecuted for?
>> What drug crime did Barry get convicted of?
>>
>> If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
>> you think his impending home run record is invalid?
>
>>
>You could say the same thing about OJ and we all know about him.

Devil's advocate: I read an interesting theory that it was his nutjob
son that was actually guilty.





27 May 2007 02:25:23
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Archie Leach <i@h.s > wrote:
> "Jim McKinley" <bigmck@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>"umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>> What Baseball policy did Barry violate?
>>> What drug crime did Barry get arrested for?
>>> What drug crime did Barry get indicted for?
>>> What drug crime did Barry get prosecuted for?
>>> What drug crime did Barry get convicted of?
>>>
>>> If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
>>> you think his impending home run record is invalid?
>>
>>>
>>You could say the same thing about OJ and we all know about him.
>
> Devil's advocate: I read an interesting theory that it was his nutjob
> son that was actually guilty.

So OJ's son was running around, splashing OJ's blood all over LA?

cordially, as always,

rm


27 May 2007 23:11:08
Gerry Myerson
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <x2P5i.4182$y_7.1423@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net >,
"Jim McKinley" <bigmck@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

> "umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > What Baseball policy did Barry violate?
> > What drug crime did Barry get arrested for?
> > What drug crime did Barry get indicted for?
> > What drug crime did Barry get prosecuted for?
> > What drug crime did Barry get convicted of?
> >
> > If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> > you think his impending home run record is invalid?
>
> >
> You could say the same thing about OJ and we all know about him.

I think if you said OJ's impending home run record is invalid,
people would move away from you.

--
Gerry Myerson (gerry@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i - > u for email)


30 May 2007 10:29:47
Billy Ray
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

On May 27, 7:11 pm, Gerry Myerson <g...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email >
wrote:
> In article <x2P5i.4182$y_7.1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Jim McKinley" <big...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "umo" <shor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > What Baseball policy did Barry violate?
> > > What drug crime did Barry get arrested for?
> > > What drug crime did Barry get indicted for?
> > > What drug crime did Barry get prosecuted for?
> > > What drug crime did Barry get convicted of?
>
> > > If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> > > you think his impending home run record is invalid?
>
> > You could say the same thing about OJ and we all know about him.
>
> I think if you said OJ's impending home run record is invalid,
> people would move away from you.
>
> --
> Gerry Myerson (g...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)

is it normal for players head to grow to the size of beach balls?
After Puberty!!!



30 May 2007 17:43:08
radiomd
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <1180546187.098248.252750@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Billy Ray <sds510@gmail.com > wrote:

> is it normal for players head to grow to the size of beach balls?
> After Puberty!!!

Billy Ray, stop worrying about the big bad baseball man and go to sleep.
When he jumped out of the TV and come after you with his bat, that was
just a dream.


30 May 2007 19:14:26
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Billy Ray <sds510@gmail.com > wrote:
> Gerry Myerson <g...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:

>> I think if you said OJ's impending home run record is invalid,
>> people would move away from you.

> is it normal for players head to grow to the size of beach balls?
> After Puberty!!!

It depends upon who is sucking that head. Myerson has a really big
mouth so in his case, it is possible that Bonds head might approach
beach ball size.

cordially, as always,

rm


02 Jun 2007 01:04:17
Onyx_Hokie
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

** Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink.net >
** Fri, 25 May 2007 12:14:33 -0500

> In article <1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, umo
> <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> > you think his impending home run record is invalid?
>
> bate.
>
> Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> that is a good idea.

Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
stands?

The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.


01 Jun 2007 23:31:18
Steve Cutchen
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <MPG.20cac45992a44e6989dd6@news-europe.giganews.com >,
Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem > wrote:

> ** Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink.net>
> ** Fri, 25 May 2007 12:14:33 -0500
>
> > In article <1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, umo
> > <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> > > you think his impending home run record is invalid?
> >
> > bate.
> >
> > Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> > that is a good idea.
>
> Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> stands?
>
> The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.

Maybe it's because his apologists spout non-sequitors?


02 Jun 2007 05:26:52
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem > wrote:

> Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> stands?

> The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.

If people thought that Fatboy was juiced, he would get just as much
heat as Baby Bonds. If McGwire was closing in on Aaron's record, he
would get just as much heat as Baby Bonds.

cordially, as always,

rm


02 Jun 2007 00:36:34
Steve Cutchen
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <vc78i.184928$oS7.112463@fe04.news.easynews.com >,
<rm@biteme.org > wrote:

> Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>
> > Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> > stands?
>
> > The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.
>
> If people thought that Fatboy was juiced, he would get just as much
> heat as Baby Bonds. If McGwire was closing in on Aaron's record, he
> would get just as much heat as Baby Bonds.

Maybe. Barry's inherent assholeness hurts his PR and turns folks
against him. McGwire was antisocial before the Sosa competition, but
he wasn't an asshole as much as Barry is.


02 Jun 2007 07:35:17
James Farrar
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:31:18 -0500, Steve Cutchen
<maxfaq@earthlink.net > wrote:

>apologists

Great debating technique you have there.


02 Jun 2007 10:36:59
Steve Cutchen
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

In article <ds3263h162t2fbvdsi2cbpgrgldd0va8kt@4ax.com >, James Farrar
<james.s.farrar@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:31:18 -0500, Steve Cutchen
> <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >apologists
>
> Great debating technique you have there.

Whoa.

You win.


03 Jun 2007 07:44:27
Jeff Urs
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

On Jun 1, 8:04 pm, Onyx_Hokie <onyx_ho...@yahoo.cem > wrote:
> Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> stands?

Does it matter? Everyone and his grandma crushed the ball into the
stands against those juiced pitchers. When the juice was cut off, the
crushing stopped, so obviously juicing didn't help the pitcher nearly
as much as it helped the batter.

(with apologies to Franklin Pierce Adams)

This is an order to make a fan weep:
Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds;
Though they were matchless at sending it deep,
Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds;
Ruthlessly pricking themselves in the thighs,
Growing their muscles to Everest size,
Marring our pastime in millions of eyes,
Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds.

--
Jeff



04 Jun 2007 04:43:26
Onyx_Hokie
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

** Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink.net >
** Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:31:18 -0500

> In article <MPG.20cac45992a44e6989dd6@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>
> > ** Steve Cutchen <maxfaq@earthlink.net>
> > ** Fri, 25 May 2007 12:14:33 -0500
> >
> > > In article <1180094701.845024.274490@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, umo
> > > <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Barry violated no Baseball policy and committed no crime...why do
> > > > you think his impending home run record is invalid?
> > >
> > > bate.
> > >
> > > Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> > > that is a good idea.
> >
> > Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> > stands?
> >
> > The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.
>
> Maybe it's because his apologists spout non-sequitors?

One man's "apologist" is another man's realist.

The witch hunt is tiresome and stupid.


04 Jun 2007 04:45:47
Onyx_Hokie
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

** Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net >
** Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:44:27 -0000

> On Jun 1, 8:04 pm, Onyx_Hokie <onyx_ho...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
> > Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> > stands?
>
> Does it matter? Everyone and his grandma crushed the ball into the
> stands against those juiced pitchers. When the juice was cut off, the
> crushing stopped, so obviously juicing didn't help the pitcher nearly
> as much as it helped the batter.

Yes, it matters. People who whine and whine and whine about steroids
behave as if they're some magic chemicals which suddenly turn players
into supermen. If that nonsense was true, there'd be 100 Barry Bonds.

I do not like the guy, not one bit, but I don't let my dislike of him
color my opinion of his achievements.



04 Jun 2007 04:27:38
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem > wrote:

> Yes, it matters. People who whine and whine and whine about
> steroids behave as if they're some magic chemicals which suddenly
> turn players into supermen. If that nonsense was true, there'd be
> 100 Barry Bonds.

That would only be true if there were 100 Babe Ruths. If you gave
100 Babe Ruths steroids, you would have 100 Baby Bonds.

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Jun 2007 17:11:17
Roger Moore
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net > writes:

>Does it matter? Everyone and his grandma crushed the ball into the
>stands against those juiced pitchers. When the juice was cut off, the
>crushing stopped, so obviously juicing didn't help the pitcher nearly
>as much as it helped the batter.

Would you care to provide some support for that assertion? A quick
look at the historical record doesn't show any obvious point when "the
crushing stopped". Maybe I just can't see it. Here's a table of HR
hit per season since the last round of expansion in 1998. Please
point out when the juicing stopped and explain your conclusion in
light of the data.

Year NL HR AL HR HR/team
1998 2596 2499 170
1999 2893 2635 184
2000 3005 2688 190
2001 2952 2506 182
2002 2595 2464 169
2003 2708 2499 174
2004 2846 2605 182
2005 2580 2437 167
2006 2840 2546 180

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.


11 Jun 2007 03:42:00
Tonawanda Kardex
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

On Jun 1, 8:04 pm, Onyx_Hokie <onyx_ho...@yahoo.cem > wrote:

> > Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> > that is a good idea.
>
> Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> stands?

Proof of such ridiculous statement?

> The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.

No one's claiming sainthood -- except you, of course.



14 Jun 2007 07:12:09
Onyx_Hokie
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

** Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakardex@gmail.com >
** Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:42:00 -0000

> On Jun 1, 8:04 pm, Onyx_Hokie <onyx_ho...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>
> > > Because he apparently used steroids to break it and most don't think
> > > that is a good idea.
> >
> > Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
> > stands?
>
> Proof of such ridiculous statement?

The almost-universal contention is that dozens upon dozens of players
were juicing, Kardex. I didn't make a statement; I asked a question.
Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
stands? 30? 50? 100? We'll never know.

> > The wanna-be saints about steroids make me laugh.
>
> No one's claiming sainthood -- except you, of course.

You'll have to point out where I've claimed sainthood.

(You can't, 'cause I haven't, but I won't be the one to stop you from
trying.)


15 Jun 2007 02:15:58
Roger Moore
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Onyx_Hokie <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem > writes:

>The almost-universal contention is that dozens upon dozens of players
>were juicing, Kardex. I didn't make a statement; I asked a question.
>Against how many juiced pitchers did Bonds crush the ball into the
>stands? 30? 50? 100? We'll never know.

While it's an interesting question, you also have to ask what you'd do
with the information if you actually knew. You need a lot more than
the absolute number of steroid using pitchers who Bonds has faced in
order to get any idea about the possible impact of steroid use by
others on his career. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you
knew that 20% of his career HR were against pitchers who had taken
PEDs. What would that tell you? It wouldn't mean much without
knowing what fraction of his career PA came against those same
pitchers and whether there was any correlation between pitcher quality
and steroid use. I agree that the significance of PED use by pitchers
tends to be ignored, but I don't think this argument is much of a
winner.

FWIW, though, you can try to look up Bonds's numbers against the
pitchers who were actually caught by MLB's testing program. I took a
quick look, but I didn't have access to good batter vs. pitcher data,
so I wasn't able to find out about matchups for many of the pitchers.
Oddly, though, I was able to find three pitchers who were suspended
for PED use and who had faced Bonds. He had on PA each against Juan
Rincon, Guillermo Mota, and Ryan Franklin- and went 3-3 with 2 HR.
It's a meaninglessly small, but amusing, sample size.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.


15 Jun 2007 02:40:31
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Roger Moore <raj@alumnae.caltech.edu > wrote:

> I agree that the significance of PED use by pitchers tends to be
> ignored, but I don't think this argument is much of a winner.

Admitting that our knowledge of steroids is limited, we would
suspect that the primary effect of steroids on a pitcher would be in
enhanced recovery time after an outing. And this might show up in
the statistics as longer careers. The trouble is that there are
many reasons for pitchers having longer careers these days. Perhaps
it would show up with players having fewer careers shortened by
injury.

There is really not much point in trying to calculate what Bonds, or
any other player's numbers would be without steroids. The problem
is just too complex and convoluted, with too many variables. The
best that can be done if one wishes to analyze Bonds' performance is
to see it in the context of his own time.

Of course other problems in other times (dead balls, black
exclusion, juiced balls, night baseball) would lead one to conclude
that similar problems have always existed. But that never stopped
the statfans from trying to compensate with "weights" and such in
their determination to destroy baseball by trying to prove that
Bonds was "better" than Williams or Ruth, or whomever.

cordially, as always,

rm


18 Jun 2007 01:43:13
Jeff Urs
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

On Jun 9, 1:11 pm, r...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
> Jeff Urs <sta...@prodigy.net> writes:
> >Does it matter? Everyone and his grandma crushed the ball into the
> >stands against those juiced pitchers. When the juice was cut off, the
> >crushing stopped, so obviously juicing didn't help the pitcher nearly
> >as much as it helped the batter.
>
> Would you care to provide some support for that assertion? A quick
> look at the historical record doesn't show any obvious point when "the
> crushing stopped".

I based the statement on the impression I have that once upon a time
it was rare indeed to hit 50 homers a year, then it became quite
common, and now it is rare again. Is that impression true?

If it is, then for the team home run totals to stay at such consistent
levels means that when the sluggers were hitting higher home run
marks, other batters must have been hitting fewer home runs. The
conclusion I'd jump to at hearing that is that both the sluggers and
the pitchers juiced and other players whose skills would be hurt by
bulking up didn't -- which, because the individual home run marks for
the sluggers improved, would leave me conveniently able to still say
juicing helped the batters more than the pitchers, if unable to
support my use of the phrase "everyone and his grandma".

--
Jeff



18 Jun 2007 15:03:06
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net > wrote:

> If it is, then for the team home run totals to stay at such
> consistent levels means that when the sluggers were hitting higher
> home run marks, other batters must have been hitting fewer home
> runs. The conclusion I'd jump to at hearing that is that both the
> sluggers and the pitchers juiced and other players whose skills
> would be hurt by bulking up didn't

And this is why it is wise to never jump to any conclusions about
anything, especially about things for which you have very little
real evidence.

> -- which, because the
> individual home run marks for the sluggers improved, would leave
> me conveniently able to still say juicing helped the batters more
> than the pitchers, if unable to support my use of the phrase
> "everyone and his grandma".

Some players juiced up and some didn't and there isn't any point in
trying to make some generalized conclusions about it.

cordially, as always,

rm


18 Jun 2007 18:44:50
Roger Moore
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net > writes:

>I based the statement on the impression I have that once upon a time
>it was rare indeed to hit 50 homers a year, then it became quite
>common, and now it is rare again. Is that impression true?

The part about it once being very rare and then becoming more common
is correct, but the "now rare again" is less clear. Years with 50 HR
seasons:

Year 50 HR Seasons Player(s)
1920 1 Ruth
1921 1 Ruth
1927 1 Ruth
1928 1 Ruth
1930 1 Wilson
1932 1 Foxx
1938 2 Greenberg, Foxx
1947 2 Kiner, Mize
1949 1 Kiner
1955 1 Mays
1956 1 Mantle
1961 2 Maris, Mantle
1965 1 Mays
1977 1 Foster
1990 1 Fielder
1995 1 Belle
1996 2 McGwire, Anderson
1997 2 McGwire, Griffey
1998 4 McGwire, Sosa, Griffey, Vaughn
1999 2 McGwire, Sosa
2000 1 Sosa
2001 4 Bonds, Sosa, Gonzalez, Rodriguez
2002 2 Rodriguez, Thome
2005 1 Jones
2006 2 Howard, Ortiz

So there have been fewer 50 HR seasons for the past two years than in
the heyday of the late 1990s and early 2000s. OTOH, there have been
more 50 HR seasons the past two years, when testing was in effect,
than in the two years before that, when there was no testing. There's
no obvious cause and effect between steroid testing and reduced HR
rates.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.


18 Jun 2007 19:41:31
Re: Questions for Barry Bonds haters

Roger Moore <raj@alumnae.caltech.edu > wrote:

> So there have been fewer 50 HR seasons for the past two years than in
> the heyday of the late 1990s and early 2000s. OTOH, there have been
> more 50 HR seasons the past two years, when testing was in effect,
> than in the two years before that, when there was no testing. There's
> no obvious cause and effect between steroid testing and reduced HR
> rates.

There has always been one or two or three players capable of hitting
50 hr a year, without steroids. What you should be looking at is
average homeruns/plate appearance post steroids, which would be easy
enough to do for someone interested in that sort of thing...

cordially, as always,

rm