He has not contested it and that is suspect. Still, the authors are investigative reporters who make other dubious claims in this work. Their accusations of track star Marion Jones are not very revolutionary. The evidence is light on new and credible sources and relies most heavily on the statements of Victor Conte (hardly a model citizen) and the fact that she was married to disgraced Olympian CJ Hunter who was found very guilty of using banned substances. My main issue with numerous supporters of this book is that people were citing it as evidence prior to its release. Sports casters and writers were putting out statements along the lines of “how is Bonds going to handle this proof?” I have a serious issue with the manner in which the sports media jumped in support of an unread unreleased book.
Huh? Are you really arguing that quicker reflexes aren’t a benefit to power hitters? And if that’s the case, it’s OK for these players to “cheat” with them?
Every drug is different. Saying one is “way different” sounds like rationalization.
There’s no real evidence that “protection” exists.
This is insane. A couple of singles after the home run will also keep the rally going. A home run is always more desirable than a double (unless a double is enough to win the game on your last at bat).
Are you talking about the evidence related to Bonds, or Jones? I don’t know what you mean by “most heavily,” since there seem to have been a ton of other sources.
Overall I am talking about the reception of the book. The example of Jones may be out of place but I do not have enough background knowledge of the inner workings of Barry Bond’s history with steroids. IOW, I have followed the investigation of Jones closely but I have not followed the investigation of Bonds nearly as well. As a result, I only feel comfortable calling their reports on Jones “lacking” because I know of the other evidence that has been reported against her.
Like I said before it is not about the evidence in the book, I do not have an issue with someone reading the book and saying “Barry Bonds is a cheater.” It is more the fact that people who never so much as read the dust jacket decided this was proof of steroid abuse.
Slight hijack here but does anyone older remember how the media handled Bobby Bonds?
Yeah. Among the dumbest mistakes I’ve made on this board. But, yes, I meant Aaron.
It was not directed at you or any one poster, it was more an accumulation of multiple posts that seemed to veer from the facts and a few included some legends. I just figured a clarifying post might help. Short of a tour of the Rawlings plants, I posted most of the available facts I have come across on baseball manufacturing.
Though not proven, most baseball fans believe that Bonds, Big Mac & Sammy are all steroid cheats. Add to that list Canseco, Giambi, Sheffield & Palmeiro.
As far as Bobby Bonds, he had good press coverage overall. However, if you want an example of an African American player who had a lot of negative press like Barry Bonds, look to Reggie Jackson. He did a lot of self-promotion and there was a lot of backlash to it. I would say more of that was prejudice than the current situation with Barry, where it is mostly that people think he was is a jerk and a cheat.
I think most people know this already, but as respected as Hammering Hank Aaron is now, he had a lot of very negative fan reaction that was blatantly racist in nature. It was ugly, petty and foolish. The most foolish part was the fact that breaking Ruth’s record don’t diminish what Ruth meant to the game, if anything they highlight his accomplishments and bring them forward to a new generations of fans.
Jim
Now THAT backlash WAS racism. But, to compare that to what Bonds is receiving is disingenuous. I hope Aaron holds on to that record forever (though I’ll give ARod a shot at breaking it some day).
How is it possibly racist to not want one black man to take a record from another?
McGwire was pretty open about using then-legal precursors of the “andro” variety. He may have been using more, given his hemming and hawing at the congressional hearing. But it almost certainly wasn’t on Bonds’ level, and he came off as a much more likable person. Heck, when he gave a million dollars to his foundation to fight child abuse, he cried.
Well apparently according to the Op, Hank was just an Uncle Tom. :rolleyes:
Besides A-Rod I think Albert Pujols will have a chance, though it is still very early for him, he is a better hitter than even A-Rod. A long shot is both past Aaron at some point, A-Rod first and Pujols next. I will root for both and I will continue to root against Bonds.
For the Record, I would not vote Big Mac into the Hall of Fame. I would still vote Bonds in and he is a complete jerk, but he already had HOF numbers before the time I think he juiced up.
Jim
I agree with this, though I think it’s pretty certain that Andro was not the only thing he was taking. If McGwire was breaking Ruth’s record and was:
a) Shown to be using steroids (I think the odds of this is pretty high)
b) As unfriendly a person as Bonds
then, people would be just as pissed off about him breaking the record. But, McGwire, as much as he was likely a cheater, was at least a friendly and humble cheater. Same can be said of Palmeiro and Giambi.
I’d vote them both in, but make them wait a few years. I’d suspect that is what is going to happen.
But, Bonds would be an easier call than McGwire.
If we trust Canseco at all, and I am doing so more and more, Big Mac took steroids his entire career, to me, he is not worthy of the Hall.
Based on hearing Doctors and weightlifters speak about steroid use, it sounds like Barry only started late in his career. As of 1998 I already thought Mr. Bonds was the player of the generation, I would still vote for him after the first year of eligibility. I don’t have a good call on Sammy Sosa, I feel like there is too little info to make a call and after a few years, I might vote for him. Sheff & Giambi at not Hall of Fame material to me anyway. Palmiero, I will be happy to keep out, I always thought he was a weak candidate who was only accumulating his way in but was never a great player.
Jim
If they’re juicing, how can any of them be worthy of consideration?
I haven’t seen as much proof yet with Sammy, though I suspect he is just as guilty. As far as Barry, as I said, from everything I listened to and have read, he started doping late in his career and would qualify for the HOF without the steroid years. None of this steroid use actually broke MLB or HOF rules so I would still let Bonds in. If he would do us all a favor and get caught now, I would probably change my opinion. If someone credible came forth and said they helped Bonds get or inject steroids in his Pirate years, I would change my mind.
Jim
McGwire friendly and humble? Huh. Those are not words I would use to describe him.
No, I don’t think so. Obviously, YOU may personally not factor race into it, but we’re not talking about any one person specifically.
I know next to nothing about baseball but I’ve brought this up before to baseball fans (that is, Ruth didn’t have to play against black players so he had an easier time of it). Their response has almost universally been that while it’s true, the pitching in the “negro leagues” was no-where near as good (absent a few exceptions) as it was in the major league. This make sense?
It probably mattered more that Ruth, after his first few years, never had to face *Yankees * pitching.
They could buy all the top talent then just like they can now, including pitching, and made much smarter personnel decisions then too.
Give him credit for knowing when to keep his yap shut. That’s really all it takes.
FWIW, the Bonds book Game of Shadows times the start of his serious juicing to 1998, and his jealousy of the attention McGwire and Sosa were getting. His visible changes in physique did seem to start to happen then.
I think it’s hard to compare players when they didn’t play against each other. Which makes it doubly tragic, since if there’s one thing baseball fans like to do, it’s compare players. 
Pitching was not as good overall because there were far more teams. There was still plenty of Great, Good and at least MLB caliber pitchers in the Negro leagues.
Ruth not facing them does make a difference.
Points to consider in this debate:
When Ruth played, the majority of the best white US athletes play baseball. There was not a talent drain to football yet.
By the mid 50’s the league was probably best balanced with top American Athletes whether Black or White but there were still few Hispanics.
By the 60’s there was a large talent drain to Football and Basketball. This has been true ever since.
By the 70’s some of this lost talent started being made up for with Hispanics from the Caribbean. By the 80’s there was a huge influx of talent from this source.
In this decade, we are beginning to see a real impact from Asian players.
Starting in 1961, the game expanded from 154 games to 162. The number of teams has grown from only 16 to 30. From 1901 to 1960 there were only 16 teams.*
Better Equipment, Health, workout regimens, ever better medical care and surgeries, the almost universal end of smoking tobacco, corrective eye surgery and performance enhancing drugs. The height of the pitching mound has changed several times and this is significant. Ball parks and playing surfaces have changed. The old Highland Park where the Yankees started was notorious for being swampy in left field all through the spring. Anaheim use to have horrible turf. Artificial turf has had a large affect on many players.
All of these factors contribute to making direct comparisons the realm of {hopefully} educated opinion and not fact.
Jim
- Not including short term events like the Federal league of 1914 to 1915.
On Preview:
Not really as much as you think, the Yankee pitching was good but never great in the 20’s. It was very good in 1927 but part of that was being able to relax and watch the hitters break so many offensive records. The Bronx Bombers really did win with incredible hitting and solid defense and pitching.