24 Feb 2005 17:27:57
punk-tilous
Your Opinion about Bonds.

I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The Bonds
detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists claim he
is being misrepresented by the press.

Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
explanation for your choice.

1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.

2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.

3) Bonds didn't take steroids..




24 Feb 2005 12:20:59
Bob Roman
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:27:57 GMT, "punk-tilous"
<punktilious@hotmail.com > wrote:

>I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The Bonds
>detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists claim he
>is being misrepresented by the press.
>
>Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
>explanation for your choice.
>
>1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>
>2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
>
>3) Bonds didn't take steroids..

4) Bonds didn't take steroids, but thinks he did.

(Just wanted to complete the 2x2 cell for you)

Bob Roman



24 Feb 2005 18:12:21
Chris Cathcart
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"punk-tilous" <punktilious@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:x8oTd.543$%97.504@news.cpqcorp.net...
> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The Bonds
> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists claim
he
> is being misrepresented by the press.
>
> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
> explanation for your choice.
>
> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>
> 2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
>
> 3) Bonds didn't take steroids..

You still don't get it, do you.

Are you a member of the media, by any chance?

--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]




24 Feb 2005 20:51:06
David
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

Chris 'Barry's love Child' Cathcart
You thinkth the man does protest his innocence?

Hmmmm on the Poll It has to be Number ONE


"Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:9OoTd.10615$x53.4440@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "punk-tilous" <punktilious@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:x8oTd.543$%97.504@news.cpqcorp.net...
>> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The
>> Bonds
>> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists claim
> he
>> is being misrepresented by the press.
>>
>> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
>> explanation for your choice.
>>
>> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>>
>> 2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
>>
>> 3) Bonds didn't take steroids..
>
> You still don't get it, do you>
> Are you a member of the media, by any chance?
>
> --
> Chris Cathcart
> http://geocities.com/cathcacr
> e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]
>
>


24 Feb 2005 18:33:02
Claud Spinks
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

punk-tilous wrote:
> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The Bonds
> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists claim he
> is being misrepresented by the press.
>
> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
> explanation for your choice.
>
> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.

My first post here (and I thought I was subscribing to a baseball NG)
I pick number one. I believe he and many other baseball players have
used precursors such as Andro. These percursors, once metabalised into
smaller combonents (including testosterone) are the same as steroids.
Therefore they can say that they have never used steroids and
technically mean it. Steriod use with proper training WILL produce
quicker reflexes and greater strength while maintaining full range of
motion. Forget the vision of the muscle bound guy who can't even scratch
his butt. Under the guidance of good personal trainers you get awesome
gains in all areas. Side effects not withstanding, steriods are
unbelievable, they do EVERYTHING they are said to be able to do. I have
seen 155 lb. guys jump to 200+ lbs. of solid muscle in a year. Too bad
they will eventually kill you.
All this said though, most of the current "evidence" regarding BB is
circumstantial. Still, my belief is that he did use steriods in what
ever form they were being called at the time.
Claud
Go Braves



24 Feb 2005 15:59:06
Wunnuy
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


punk-tilous wrote:
> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The
Bonds
> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists
claim he
> is being misrepresented by the press.
>
> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
> explanation for your choice.
>
> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>
> 2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
>
> 3) Bonds didn't take steroids..


You're putting the words "Bonds" and "steroids" in the same post.
Either you're

a. a racist
b. a non-baseball fan
c. uniformed.
d. All of the above.

There is no other factor.



24 Feb 2005 21:51:13
Kenny
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

"Wunnuy" <wunnuy@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:1109289546.383735.294120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> punk-tilous wrote:
>> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The
> Bonds
>> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists
> claim he
>> is being misrepresented by the press.
>>
>> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
>> explanation for your choice.
>>
>> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>>
>> 2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
>>
>> 3) Bonds didn't take steroids..
>
>
> You're putting the words "Bonds" and "steroids" in the same post.

Big mistake indeed. It should be "steriods".

Yes Bonds did use steriods and he knew full well that they were steriods.

Kenny




25 Feb 2005 02:15:11
M. Zaiem Beg
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Claud Spinks wrote:

- >
- >My first post here (and I thought I was subscribing to a baseball NG)
- >I pick number one. I believe he and many other baseball players have
- >used precursors such as Andro. These percursors, once metabalised into
- >smaller combonents (including testosterone) are the same as steroids.

?!

Okay, I'll bite. Explain the physiology here.

--
M. Zaiem Beg zbeg@iglou.com



25 Feb 2005 04:26:49
Bryan S. Slick
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

[punk-tilous (punktilious@hotmail.com)]
[Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:27:57 GMT]

:2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
:
:3) Bonds didn't take steroids..

One of these two, leaning heavily toward 3).

--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com

"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"

[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]


25 Feb 2005 07:25:54
Claud Spinks
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

M. Zaiem Beg wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Claud Spinks wrote:
>
> ->
> ->My first post here (and I thought I was subscribing to a baseball NG)
> ->I pick number one. I believe he and many other baseball players have
> ->used precursors such as Andro. These percursors, once metabalised into
> ->smaller combonents (including testosterone) are the same as steroids.
>
> ?!
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Explain the physiology here.
>
> --
> M. Zaiem Beg zbeg@iglou.com
>
Okay, here goes.
Steroids (techically anabolic - androgenic steroids) are an entire
family of mostly synthetic drugs whose ultimate goal is to introduce
male sex hormones into the body. These male hormones, once introduced,
do wonderful and not so wonderful things to the body. They have been
around since the 1930's (the germans used them on dogs and than humans.)
Because each type of steroid has certain properties, both good and bad.
Many are combined with other types of steroids and drugs to enhance the
good and reduce the bad. Any time that a substance is introduced into
the body, it must be broken down into smaller and smaller components in
order to be used by the body. I will use Andro (androstenedione) as an
example. Andro occurs naturally in both men and women. It also occurs in
scotch pine trees. This fact allows Andro to be called a dietary
supplement and not a steroid. Why use Andro than? Andro is one step away
from testosterone (a male hormone.) When broken down into smaller
components, one of the smaller components is testosterone.

Therefore, if an athelete is asked "Do you take steroids?" They can
answer, "No, I take Andro." And they are technically correct.

Andro and other drugs like it are called precursors, prohormones or
dietary supplements to try and skirt the whole steroid issue. Most of
these products were banned by the govt. in January. The "supplement"
industry is hard at work pouring millions of dollars into alternatives
to once again get around the legalities.

Claud



25 Feb 2005 09:26:50
Wunnuy
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


Kenny wrote:
> "Wunnuy" <wunnuy@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:1109289546.383735.294120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > punk-tilous wrote:
> >> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us.
The
> > Bonds
> >> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds
apologists
> > claim he
> >> is being misrepresented by the press.
> >>
> >> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
> >> explanation for your choice.
> >>
> >> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
> >>
> >> 2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
> >>
> >> 3) Bonds didn't take steroids..
> >
> >
> > You're putting the words "Bonds" and "steroids" in the same post.
>
> Big mistake indeed. It should be "steriods".
>
> Yes Bonds did use steriods and he knew full well that they were
steriods.
>
> Kenny

No, no , no, it should be "steriods." <<<<< (period goes INSIDE
quotations) If you're going to make fun of my error, at least be
grammatically correct... ;]



25 Feb 2005 21:18:22
Chris Cathcart
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"Claud Spinks" <coachspinks@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ABtTd.66$nM6.55@fe07.lga...
> punk-tilous wrote:
> > I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The
Bonds
> > detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists
claim he
> > is being misrepresented by the press.
> >
> > Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
> > explanation for your choice.
> >
> > 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>
> My first post here (and I thought I was subscribing to a baseball NG)
> I pick number one.

I take it you also believe, without supporting argument, that he lied to the
grand jury.

I believe he and many other baseball players have
> used precursors such as Andro. These percursors, once metabalised into
> smaller combonents (including testosterone) are the same as steroids.
> Therefore they can say that they have never used steroids and
> technically mean it. Steriod use with proper training WILL produce
> quicker reflexes and greater strength while maintaining full range of
> motion. Forget the vision of the muscle bound guy who can't even scratch
> his butt. Under the guidance of good personal trainers you get awesome
> gains in all areas. Side effects not withstanding, steriods are
> unbelievable, they do EVERYTHING they are said to be able to do.

And yet no known concrete instances are forthcoming of sluggers who achieve
sustained performance gains using steroids or presursors. This doesn't
trouble you in the slightest?

There has been this picture -- a cartoon fantasy, really -- painted of Bonds
that he juiced up on 'roids, became Superman overnight, and did all this
great stuff because of steroids. It's a nice fantasy picture but it's yet
to actually become reality by anything resembling a good argument consistent
with known facts.

This doesn't trouble you?

> I have
> seen 155 lb. guys jump to 200+ lbs. of solid muscle in a year. Too bad
> they will eventually kill you.

I have simple question: while doing this kind of thing may be consistent
with doing steroids, is it also consistent with not doing steroids? (This
did not even happen in the case of Bonds, BTW. Maybe in the cartoon fantasy
it did, but I'm talking about reality.)

> All this said though, most of the current "evidence" regarding BB is
> circumstantial. Still, my belief is that he did use steriods in what
> ever form they were being called at the time.

Well, you can answer the question above and address your implicit,
unsupported belief that he lied to the grand jury.

--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]




25 Feb 2005 16:51:37
Ron Johnson
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

In article <MPG.1c88b96187369cb098c884@news-40.giganews.com >,
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.com > wrote:
>[punk-tilous (punktilious@hotmail.com)]
>[Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:27:57 GMT]
>
>:2) Bonds took steroids but he didn't know they were steroids.
>:
>:3) Bonds didn't take steroids..
>
>One of these two, leaning heavily toward 3).
>
I see 1 in the mix as well. Though I can't figure out why
he'd risk a perjury charge when he had immunity.

On balance I'm leaning towards 2. I don't think it's
at all clear.

--
RNJ


25 Feb 2005 17:13:43
Claud Spinks
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

Chris Cathcart wrote:
> "Claud Spinks" <coachspinks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ABtTd.66$nM6.55@fe07.lga...
>
>>punk-tilous wrote:
>>
>>>I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The
>
> Bonds
>
>>>detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists
>
> claim he
>
>>>is being misrepresented by the press.
>>>
>>>Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
>>>explanation for your choice.
>>>
>>>1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.
>>
>>My first post here (and I thought I was subscribing to a baseball NG)
>>I pick number one.
>
>
> I take it you also believe, without supporting argument, that he lied to the
> grand jury.
>
> I believe he and many other baseball players have
>
>>used precursors such as Andro. These percursors, once metabalised into
>>smaller combonents (including testosterone) are the same as steroids.
>>Therefore they can say that they have never used steroids and
>>technically mean it. Steriod use with proper training WILL produce
>>quicker reflexes and greater strength while maintaining full range of
>>motion. Forget the vision of the muscle bound guy who can't even scratch
>>his butt. Under the guidance of good personal trainers you get awesome
>>gains in all areas. Side effects not withstanding, steriods are
>>unbelievable, they do EVERYTHING they are said to be able to do.
>
>
> And yet no known concrete instances are forthcoming of sluggers who achieve
> sustained performance gains using steroids or presursors. This doesn't
> trouble you in the slightest?
>
> There has been this picture -- a cartoon fantasy, really -- painted of Bonds
> that he juiced up on 'roids, became Superman overnight, and did all this
> great stuff because of steroids. It's a nice fantasy picture but it's yet
> to actually become reality by anything resembling a good argument consistent
> with known facts.
>
> This doesn't trouble you?
>
>
>>I have
>>seen 155 lb. guys jump to 200+ lbs. of solid muscle in a year. Too bad
>>they will eventually kill you.
>
>
> I have simple question: while doing this kind of thing may be consistent
> with doing steroids, is it also consistent with not doing steroids? (This
> did not even happen in the case of Bonds, BTW. Maybe in the cartoon fantasy
> it did, but I'm talking about reality.)
>
>
>>All this said though, most of the current "evidence" regarding BB is
>>circumstantial. Still, my belief is that he did use steriods in what
>>ever form they were being called at the time.
>
>
> Well, you can answer the question above and address your implicit,
> unsupported belief that he lied to the grand jury.
>
Having read your other posts, I can see that there is no changing your
mind. Therefor I will not spend my evening typing in vain. I will,
however, point out that Mark McGuire admitted that the bottle sitting in
his locker was Andro.
Claud



25 Feb 2005 23:23:20
Chris Cathcart
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"Claud Spinks" <coachspinks@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:%qNTd.10261$%74.378@fe02.lga...

> Having read your other posts, I can see that there is no changing your
> mind.

That would be a convenient cop-out, but my mind is unbelievably fucking open
on this issue. I am literally BEGGING for people to make some good,
persuasive arguments.

> Therefor I will not spend my evening typing in vain. I will,
> however, point out that Mark McGuire admitted that the bottle sitting in
> his locker was Andro.

That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted users
(Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was spectacular
(218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his locker.
Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.

So, approaching this with an open mind, is there something to conclude here?

--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]




26 Feb 2005 00:24:01
punk-tilous
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:IrOTd.7023$Ba3.1999@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Claud Spinks" <coachspinks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%qNTd.10261$%74.378@fe02.lga...
>
>> Having read your other posts, I can see that there is no changing your
>> mind.
>
> That would be a convenient cop-out, but my mind is unbelievably fucking
> open
> on this issue. I am literally BEGGING for people to make some good,
> persuasive arguments.
>
>> Therefor I will not spend my evening typing in vain. I will,
>> however, point out that Mark McGuire admitted that the bottle sitting in
>> his locker was Andro.
>
> That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
> someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
> interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
> ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted users
> (Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was spectacular
> (218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his locker.
> Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.
>
> So, approaching this with an open mind, is there something to conclude
> here?
>
> --
> Chris Cathcart
> http://geocities.com/cathcacr
> e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]
>
>

Yes we can conclude ONE and ONLY ONE thing: that you are the biggest Bonds
apologist on this board. So much so that you can be labelled a bigot. A
bigot against the press, whom you claim has fabricated all this steroid
controversy. Get real!




26 Feb 2005 00:11:36
Chris Cathcart
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"punk-tilous" <punktilious@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:BkPTd.663$18.595@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
> > someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
> > interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
> > ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted
users
> > (Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was
spectacular
> > (218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his
locker.
> > Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.
> >
> > So, approaching this with an open mind, is there something to conclude
> > here?
> >
> Yes we can conclude ONE and ONLY ONE thing:

You mean, having to do in some way with the case of McGwire and andro, no
doubt.

> that you are the biggest Bonds
> apologist on this board.

If that's the way you care to phrase it, so be it. For all I care, you
could call me a Bonds cum-swallower. Now that we've got labels out of the
way, what's your substance?

> So much so that you can be labelled a bigot.

A bigot has a closed mind. My mind, as I've already pointed out, is
unbelievably fucking open, as evidenced by my relentless pursuit of facts,
logic, consistency, and the like. How 'bout yours?

> A
> bigot against the press, whom you claim has fabricated all this steroid
> controversy. Get real!

You've just fabricated things about what I've said. Obviously that makes me
a bigot against you.

Am I to assume that since you're not offering substance now, you're just
trolling?

--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]




25 Feb 2005 20:18:04
Claud Spinks
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

Chris Cathcart wrote:
> "Claud Spinks" <coachspinks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%qNTd.10261$%74.378@fe02.lga...
>
>
>>Having read your other posts, I can see that there is no changing your
>>mind.
>
>
> That would be a convenient cop-out, but my mind is unbelievably fucking open
> on this issue. I am literally BEGGING for people to make some good,
> persuasive arguments.
>
>
>>Therefor I will not spend my evening typing in vain. I will,
>>however, point out that Mark McGuire admitted that the bottle sitting in
>>his locker was Andro.
>
>
> That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
> someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
> interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
> ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted users
> (Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was spectacular
> (218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his locker.
> Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.
>
> So, approaching this with an open mind, is there something to conclude here?
>

So tell me, what do YOU conclude about McGuire?



26 Feb 2005 02:33:16
Roger Moore
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

"Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com > writes:

>That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
>someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
>interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
>ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted users
>(Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was spectacular
>(218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his locker.
>Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.

I think that's an unreasonable reading, though. If you make the
assumption that he only used Andro (or other steroids) in that one season,
the picture is rather different from the other players you mentioned. He
had a long history of injuries- he had missed almost 40% of his teams'
games over the previous five seasons- and outstanding performance (OPS+ of
224, 137, 200, 203, and 168 over those same 5 years). He hit 52 HR in 130
games for Oakland in 1996 and 58 split between the Athletics and Cardinals
in 1997, so there was considerable speculation about whether he'd be able
to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy going into the 1998 season.
If anything, it seems as though McGwire's health improved when he started
using Andro and declined after he gave it up because of the controversy
surrounding his use of it during the 1998 season. (I don't actually
believe that, but it seems more reasonable to me than the suggestion that
Andro use caused his health to decline.)

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison


26 Feb 2005 00:17:05
Kenny
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

"Wunnuy" <wunnuy@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:1109352410.709976.77760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kenny wrote:
>> "Wunnuy" <wunnuy@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:1109289546.383735.294120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > You're putting the words "Bonds" and "steroids" in the same post.
>>
>> Big mistake indeed. It should be "steriods".
>>
>> Yes Bonds did use steriods and he knew full well that they were
> steriods.
>>
>> Kenny
>
> No, no , no, it should be "steriods." <<<<< (period goes INSIDE
> quotations) If you're going to make fun of my error, at least be
> grammatically correct... ;]

I didn't realize we had to be so anal about your spelling errors. :-)

Kenny




26 Feb 2005 08:15:29
Chris Zabel
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

"punk-tilous" <punktilious@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:x8oTd.543$%97.504@news.cpqcorp.net...
> I have read so many post of late regarding Bonds and steroid us. The Bonds
> detractors claims he is as guilty as sin while the Bonds apologists claim
he
> is being misrepresented by the press.
>
> Just wanted to do an informal survey. Please pick one and a short
> explanation for your choice.
>
> 1) Bonds took steroids and he knew they were steroids.

#1 is my answer. I believe he took steroids knowingly and that it elevated
his performance level from HOF caliber to superhuman.

--
"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
truth?" - Dostoevsky



26 Feb 2005 23:25:35
Chris Cathcart
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"Claud Spinks" <coachspinks@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:PdQTd.21932$MN.21026@fe03.lga...
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> > That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
> > someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
> > interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
> > ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted
users
> > (Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was
spectacular
> > (218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his
locker.
> > Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.
> >
> > So, approaching this with an open mind, is there something to conclude
here?
> >
>
> So tell me, what do YOU conclude about McGuire?

As far as anecdotes go, I conclude that this would appear to go into the
"steroids or precursors don't lead to long-term improvement" evidentiary
category. But, per, Roger Moore's response, even this may be inconclusive.

What could I conclude about McGwire himself? It may not be conclusive, but
it would appear that his various injuries towards the end of his career had
to do with his body being too large for his body to naturally support it.
That's one common guess as to why his knees were in such bad shape. Whether
this could be linked with steroids or not, or just being too bulky as such,
I don't know.

McGwire started out a big player, and his homer-hitting feats from early on
were prodigious. Later in his career, he appeared even bigger and this
seems to be linked with various physical ailments. All we do know, per
substance usage, was that he had andro in his locker in '98. This is
limited knowledge, but given what we know, it would fall on the "steroids or
precursors don't help long-term" side. That's prima facie, not conclusive,
and can be overriden, as we have no idea, beyond andro in '98, what he was
using over what periods. Roger is perhaps conceivably correct that his
stopping andro may explain the subsequent breakdown of his body.

It is evidence of something I already grant considerable plausibility to:
that, at least in the short term -- it's happened with the 4 players named
so far -- there is a jump in performance. Even here, we have to be careful
not to attribute only to steroids what could be attributed to other things
(normal statistical fluctuation, natural peaks and declines, those sorts of
things). All in all, we're still only going on what's *suggested* by
available anecdotal evidence.

--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]




26 Feb 2005 23:38:35
Chris Cathcart
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.


"Roger Moore" <raj@alumnae.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:cvon5c$b39$1@naig.caltech.edu...
> "Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >That's a nice start. A concrete instance (this is always a positive) of
> >someone who used, in your words, a steroid-precursor. Now, as to
> >interpretation of the concrete instance in this case. And it would seem
> >ambiguous. It would appear somewhat similar to the known, admitted users
> >(Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti), in that McGwire's production was spectacular
> >(218 OPS+, 70 HR) in the season in which andro was spotted in his locker.
> >Within 3 years, he was beset by enough injuries that he retired.
>
> I think that's an unreasonable reading, though. If you make the
> assumption that he only used Andro (or other steroids) in that one season,
> the picture is rather different from the other players you mentioned. He
> had a long history of injuries- he had missed almost 40% of his teams'
> games over the previous five seasons- and outstanding performance (OPS+ of
> 224, 137, 200, 203, and 168 over those same 5 years). He hit 52 HR in 130
> games for Oakland in 1996 and 58 split between the Athletics and Cardinals
> in 1997, so there was considerable speculation about whether he'd be able
> to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy going into the 1998 season.
> If anything, it seems as though McGwire's health improved when he started
> using Andro and declined after he gave it up because of the controversy
> surrounding his use of it during the 1998 season. (I don't actually
> believe that, but it seems more reasonable to me than the suggestion that
> Andro use caused his health to decline.)

Fair enough. We won't ever know, either, what would have happened had he
continued using andro -- if his body would stay healthy or not. That's one
problem with going on anecdotal instances without other "test" cases.

By what you suggest, we might be able to apply the reasoning to the other
three cases, but we don't have full information about what periods over
which the players used steroids. Giambi's health and production problems of
recent seasons could be the result of going off steroids after '00-02.
Canseco may have used his entire career from the sounds of it, and so his
career totals wouldn't have ended up being nearly as good as they were
without their use. Again, I don't know how this could be put against a
"test" case.

--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]




26 Feb 2005 23:19:05
Hank Gillette
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

In article <%L7Ud.7956$Ba3.523@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net >,
"Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Canseco may have used his entire career from the sounds of it, and so his
> career totals wouldn't have ended up being nearly as good as they were
> without their use. Again, I don't know how this could be put against a
> "test" case.

Ozzie?

--
Hank Gillette


26 Feb 2005 21:55:24
Ima Pseudonym
Re: Your Opinion about Bonds.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:19:05 -0500, Hank Gillette
<hankgillette@yahoo.com > wrote:

>In article <%L7Ud.7956$Ba3.523@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Chris Cathcart" <cathcacrREVOLMAPS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Canseco may have used his entire career from the sounds of it, and so his
>> career totals wouldn't have ended up being nearly as good as they were
>> without their use. Again, I don't know how this could be put against a
>> "test" case.
>
>Ozzie?

Except didn't Ozzie spend much of his minor league career as a
pitcher? I would think it would be tough to make the transition to
effective hitter after a few years of focusing on pitching.