Bonds Found Guilty...

[Sour Masher]

My thing with PEDs has always been that we need to pursue knowledge, not prosecution. I care much more about knowing who did what and when so we can judge those players in the court of public opinion than punishing players for their cheating or lying in a court of law. Baseball is a numbers game and whether we should or not, we all like to compare players across eras. It is important to me as a fan to understand relative greatness of players in the game, and for me, PED usage GREATLY impacts my opinion of a player's relative place in history. This is what so many Bonds defenders just don't get. They think he is being scapegoated because of his race or because of his attitude. That isn't the case for me. I care way, way more about what Bonds and Clemens and any other HOF level player did than any of the other random scrubs that will be lost to history, because these players not only unfairly got an advantage over players in their own era, but they unfairly took a place in hisotry that don't deserve.

It irks me to no end that generations to follow won't know or care about how numbers from this era were artificially inflated. They'll just look at the record books and decide, as I once did, that Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time. I don't think Bonds deserves jail time, but he also does not deserve that honor either. He is a cheater and no matter what he implies and Mcguire outright says about how they would have been just as great without the juice (which is total BS), their numbers should forever be severely discounted by historians and fans of the game. But I've met many, many people who don't do that. I've met many who say, "Bonds is the home run king, he's the greatest. He's better than Aaron, he's better then Ruth. Anyone who says otherwise is a hater." That attitude of acceptance of cheating and discounting of the impact of PEDs drives me crazy.

[netboy47]

My thing with PEDs has always been that we need to pursue knowledge, not prosecution. I care much more about knowing who did what and when so we can judge those players in the court of public opinion than punishing players for their cheating or lying in a court of law. Baseball is a numbers game and whether we should or not, we all like to compare players across eras. It is important to me as a fan to understand relative greatness of players in the game, and for me, PED usage GREATLY impacts my opinion of a player's relative place in history. This is what so many Bonds defenders just don't get. They think he is being scapegoated because of his race or because of his attitude. That isn't the case for me. I care way, way more about what Bonds and Clemens and any other HOF level player did than any of the other random scrubs that will be lost to history, because these players not only unfairly got an advantage over players in their own era, but they unfairly took a place in hisotry that don't deserve.

It irks me to no end that generations to follow won't know or care about how numbers from this era were artificially inflated. They'll just look at the record books and decide, as I once did, that Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time. I don't think Bonds deserves jail time, but he also does not deserve that honor either. He is a cheater and no matter what he implies and Mcguire outright says about how they would have been just as great without the juice (which is total BS), their numbers should forever be severely discounted by historians and fans of the game. But I've met many, many people who don't do that. I've met many who say, "Bonds is the home run king, he's the greatest. He's better than Aaron, he's better then Ruth. Anyone who says otherwise is a hater." That attitude of acceptance of cheating and discounting of the impact of PEDs drives me crazy.

Well stated!

[OaklandA's]

Does anyone know why he couldn't take the 5th in the grand jury investigation? Are you not allowed to avoid self-incrimination in a grand jury?

Bonds was offered immunity by the Feds, meaning that he would not be prosecuted for buying or using steroids if he told the truth to the Grand Jury. But after his Grand Jury testimony, they accused him of perjury - these were the charges on which the present jury was unable to reach a guilty verdict.

[netboy47]

Bonds was offered immunity by the Feds, meaning that he would not be prosecuted for buying or using steroids if he told the truth to the Grand Jury. But after his Grand Jury testimony, they accused him of perjury - these were the charges on which the present jury was unable to reach a guilty verdict.

Correct. Once Bonds was offered immunity, he could not plead the 5th.

[Lurker765]

Are you saying that if you are offered immunity you cannot exercise your 5th amendment right in a grand jury investigation? Whether you accept the offer or not?

Did Bonds not exercise the 5th because he wanted to keep playing baseball without admitting to steroids or did he have no choice in the matter?

[The Dane]

My thing with PEDs has always been that we need to pursue knowledge, not prosecution.

I agree with this 100%.

Baseball is a numbers game and whether we should or not, we all like to compare players across eras. It is important to me as a fan to understand relative greatness of players in the game, and for me, PED usage GREATLY impacts my opinion of a player's relative place in history.

It's not a matter of "should." Beyond simple barstool arguments, you cannot compare players of different eras, not with enough accuracy to make any reasonable conclusions. How can you say unequivocally that Ruth is better than Bonds when Ruth never had to face pitchers of color? Walter Johnson better than Roger Clemens? Impossible to determine because Johnson never faced the best black hitters of his day. What about live ball eras, and juiced ball eras, and dead ball eras? What about Rockies hitters of the pre-humidor Coors? There are so many factors that color the data between eras, and the Steroid Era is just another one of those. In fact, I think it says something about us that we are perfectly willing to marginalize the achievement of some African-Americans in the steroid era, and yet heap praise upon the efforts of white players in a segregated game. Why are Ruth's numbers more legitimate than Bonds' from a numerical standpoint? They were generated in their individual era and they cannot be compared with ANY accuracy to players of other eras.

It irks me to no end that generations to follow won't know or care about how numbers from this era were artificially inflated. They'll just look at the record books and decide, as I once did, that Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time.

I don't understand why this isn't something that is worth telling in the Hall? These are juiced hitters taking pitches from juiced pitchers. They weren't really cheating each other, but rather the players that came before them. They were cheating HISTORY, as I'm sure you would agree. However, as history tells us, we cannot judge people when we can't understand the particulars of their environment. Would players of Ruth's era have succumbed to the allure of steroids had they been there? Are their numbers "better" or more valid because the players were not able to be tempted by steroids? How about changes in mound heights over the years? Are Randy Johnson's numbers less real because the mound was lower when he pitched than when Walter Johnson did?

These are all factors that come into play. The numbers in baseball are already so clouded with known and unknown variables that it is impossible to make ANY judgments based on them, and steroids doesn't make the issue any more cloudy. When speaking of numbers and statistics, it's just another wrinkle that history has thrown at the game. No more, no less.

Regardless of the steroids, Bonds was the best player of his era, the Steroid Era. Lots of players were using, but they didn't all break the records. Comparing him to Ruth was folly before the steroids, and so why does our suspicion (with no conviction, mind you) change that?

[chancellor]

Regardless of the steroids, Bonds was the best player of his era, the Steroid Era.

Hmmm...no, he wasn't. He just happened to be the player who most benefitted from steroid use, which is a big difference.

[Sour Masher]

Regardless of the steroids, Bonds was the best player of his era, the Steroid Era. Lots of players were using, but they didn't all break the records. Comparing him to Ruth was folly before the steroids, and so why does our suspicion (with no conviction, mind you) change that?

Ok, what about comparing him to one of my favorite players--his contemporary Ken Griffey Jr. No one who was not alive and following baseball in the early 90s would know this now, but everyone on this site, I'm sure, remembers that Griffey was long considered the superior player. Bonds shot way past him, because Griffey's career fizzled out while Bonds shot into the stratosphere.

Even though we now know Bonds used PEDS and that very likely contributed to the different directions of their careers, it doesn't stop even intelligent, very knoweledge fans such as yourself unequivically pronouncing that Bonds was the best player of his era, because his numbers very clearly support that claim. My question will always be, would Bonds have been the clear cut best player of his era, and maybe the best player ever without using PEDs? I think the answer to that is likely no, but most people, and more with each passing year, probably won't take his cheating into consideration to the extent that I think they should.

I think his place in history will never fully reflect how much his career was helped by performance enhancing drugs, because most fall back on the numbers, how awesome they are, and how no one else who used PEDs did what he did. But who knows what he would have done without them? Who knows what Griffey could have done with them (I assume Griffey was clean)? I just think that needs to be documented in the hall.

Also, for the record, I think baseball is a game of history, and a way for us to teach history to our kids, so I absolutely support teaching how the pre-intergration era numbers do not reflect all of the best talent this country had, and how the influx of Latin born players raised the quality of play, and how the mound has been raised or dropped, and how modern players play more games and more playoff games, etc.

But I do not think it is fair to compare the wide spread social injustice of segragation, which is a much greater cheating of an entire people out of an equal share of the American dream to the personal decision to seek an unfair competitive advantage. Segration and racism were social wrongs, much bigger than the game for which history must judge our society as a whole. PED usage is an individual wrong for which we can judge individuals. Depsite how wide spread PED usage likely was (and probably is), I do not think it is fair to compare the segrated era to the juicing era. Segragation was universal, PED usage was not.

People like to say everyone was cheating, so it was a level playing field, but I don't believe it. Bonds used PEDs. Others in her era did not. His numbers should not count the same as theirs. I know we will never know the whole list of who did what, but just because there may be cheaters who were not caught does not mean we shouldn't discount the cheaters who did get caught. For that reason, I will always see Bonds and Griffey as closer in talent and accomplishment than the numbers indicate, but I know I'm in a shrinking minority.

[Hammer]

Regardless of the steroids, Bonds was the best player of his era, the Steroid Era. Lots of players were using, but they didn't all break the records. Comparing him to Ruth was folly before the steroids, and so why does our suspicion (with no conviction, mind you) change that?

Bonds couldnt hold Griffey's jock if he wasnt juicing.

[The Dane]

Hmmm...no, he wasn't. He just happened to be the player who most benefitted from steroid use, which is a big difference.

No offense, but how in the hell do you know THAT!? Unless you were somehow able to observe the happenings in the parallel universe where Bonds never touched steroids and everyone else did, you can't know this.

[Hammer]

No offense, but how in the hell do you know THAT!? Unless you were somehow able to observe the happenings in the parallel universe where Bonds never touched steroids and everyone else did, you can't know this.

I agree we cant tell how much he benefited but you do agree Bonds did benefit to some degree right?

[chancellor]

No offense, but how in the hell do you know THAT!? Unless you were somehow able to observe the happenings in the parallel universe where Bonds never touched steroids and everyone else did, you can't know this.

Simple. Bonds started steroids at a pretty well-known point. His performance increase was very quantifiable. His performance and performance improvement was far and above anyone else in the era, even if you say everyone was juicing. Of course, the whole "everyone was juicing" is bogus, too, but we'll never exactly know how many.

So, the conclusion is simple: Bonds was simply the player that responded best to steroids, not necessarily the best player of the era. You can't quantify how good he was PED-free to compare him to the other players who might have been PED-free, so the conclusion isn't that he was the best player - he was simply the guy who medically was improved the most.

[The Dane]

I agree we cant tell how much he benefited but you do agree Bonds did benefit to some degree right?

Of course he did. But there is NO WAY to determine that he benefitted the most. Bonds was a great player before the steroids and otherworldly after. I think Mike Piazza only had a career because of them. But regardless of what I muse about here, none of it is cogent enough to keep someone out of the hall. It's just supposition.

[Silentmist]

Of course he did. But there is NO WAY to determine that he benefitted the most. Bonds was a great player before the steroids and otherworldly after. I think Mike Piazza only had a career because of them. But regardless of what I muse about here, none of it is cogent enough to keep someone out of the hall. It's just supposition.

The problem Dane, is that no one posting here actually watched Bonds play a game. At least that's what I can gather from their blind assumptions. Anyone who watched Bonds at the plate in the latter part of his career should know that his batting eye was almost unhuman. I've never seen a player decide before a pitch was even thrown whether or not he was even going to start his swing. He was so locked in, maybe he was taking adderall, but it wasn't steroids giving him that concentration.

[GwynnInTheHall]

The problem Dane, is that no one posting here actually watched Bonds play a game. At least that's what I can gather from their blind assumptions. Anyone who watched Bonds at the plate in the latter part of his career should know that his batting eye was almost unhuman. I've never seen a player decide before a pitch was even thrown whether or not he was even going to start his swing. He was so locked in, maybe he was taking adderall, but it wasn't steroids giving him that concentration.

incorrect I watched Bonds play pretty much every game vs San Diego, both when he was with Pittsburgh and SF. Yep he was an amazing talent, who took steroids to help enhance that talent. No it doesn't he;p his eye, but when he can send any pitch close to the strike zone 450 feet, he's either going yard or walking. So no, Steroids didn't directly help his eye, but they did influence how pitchers approached him and his eye benefited from it.