Barry BondsFollow

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=240413126

I watched Sportcenter last night and was shown Barry from his start in the majors until today. He started at about 180 pounds and is about 6'2" in the last five years he has gained about 35 pounds of muscle.

I like the excitement caused by the recent homers everwhere situation in baseball. But in retrospect it lessens the game to me to realize that most likely all of these new found Sultans of Swat are cheaters.

I do think Barry, Mark Mcgwire, Jason Giambi, Sammy Sosa etc have used steriods to get to where they are. Yes even without steriods they have more talent for the game then I will ever have but it cheapens the history of America's game to have them dethroning the greats of this sport and I think its time Major League Baseball stepped up to the plate (so to speak ) and instituted drug testing.

To me its ridiculous that there is so much controversy about whether or not Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame for betting on baseball when there are so many obvious cheaters that are proliferating in what has always been my favorite sport.

Sorry Barry hit 716, 756 or whatever to me you will always be a cheater and unworthy of being considered among the all time greats of this game.

That should put him at about 215. I'm 6'2", and when I played hockey three times a week I weighed 215. Knowing how I looked then, and looking at Bonds now, I'd say he's closer to 250. Which would mean he's added about 70lbs of muscle. He's built like a linebacker, and a stout linebacker at that. If anything, I'm probably underestimating his weight.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this Flish. MLB's drug policies are a joke. I'm curious to see what would happen if it were proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that Bonds et al did buy and use some form of performance enhancing drugs over the years. There's no doubt in my mind that Mark McGwire used steroids. He presented every visible symptom of steroid abuse.

But I don't think MLB will ever do anything serious about the matter. Steroids = more offense = more excitement = more money for all concerned. There's been such an offensive explosion since 1994, that I think its about time they raised the pitcher's mound back to its original height to give pitchers a little more of a chance.





Regardless of his work out regimen, nobody ever, in the history of any sport has, at what should be the end of his career, when his numbers are supposed to start dwindling, suddenly produced the greatest offensive explosion by a single player ever. If you don't find that suspicious, I have some nice beachfront land in Arizona you might want to look at.


From the artcile you linked:


The home run record was 24 when Ruth hit 29 in 1919, and then he hit 54 the next year (more than every other team but one) and 59 the next. Steroids didn't even exist then -- there goes Jeff Kent's theory -- yet Ruth more than doubled the record in three years. How was that possible?

Because they went to a better baseball and because Ruth was just about the only player that consistently tried to hit home runs. Prior to Ruth the baseball players had the 'small ball' mentality - make contact, move the runner, and above all DON'T STRIKE OUT. Ruth changed that. Once people saw what Ruth did, others followed in his wake (Foxx, Gehrig, Al Simmons, etc).

Other than 1961, Roger Maris only twice hit as many as 30 home runs in a season, and he never hit as many as 40. So how did he hit 61 in that magical 1961 season?

Short right field, pull hitter in a power packed line up. Why did he never come close before? Because he had only played one season prior to 1961 in Yankee Stadium. Why did he never do it after? Because he was so constantly hounded by the press, and treated so horribly by so many people that he never wanted to do it again.

And while you're answering those questions, kindly explain how Davey Johnson hit five home runs in 1972, and then hit 43 in 1973 but just 31 the remainder of his career. And tell me how Kirby Puckett hit four home runs in his first 1,251 at-bats and then suddenly hit 31 in his third season. And then tell me how Gary Gaetti could hit 21 home runs in 584 at-bats in 1983, then hit just five in 588 at-bats in 1984 and then hit 20 in 560 at-bats in 1985 (and you might as well tell Gary as well, because he has never figured it out himself).

Cause they got lucky? Because sometimes people just have a great season? Because there are such things as wild variations in performance? Hell, one year playing in a men's league I hit .818!! And this was after not having played for ten years, and against some pretty good pitchers (college and minor leaguers included). The next year I hit .488 and then barely managed to hit .250 the year after that.

But none of this can explain why Bonds suddenly got great at the age when most people are looking to finish out thier careers and retire.

Need some more proof that performance levels can vary wildly? Here's another tidbit from your article.

Garth Brooks finished spring training with nearly as high a batting average (.143) as Ken Griffey Jr. (.158).

Edited, Wed Apr 14 09:34:55 2004 by Deathwysh

Oh, and the idea that he just got good in the last 5 years is ludicrous. He won 3 MVPs, 7 gold gloves, hit 374 home runs, 359 doubles, walked over 1200 times and stole 417 bases before 1998. Those are damn near hall of fame numbers right there. That he is getting better is not a suprise to anyone who payed attention to him or his work ethic. I think the guy is a complete d1ck on the personality scale, but to chalk his achievements up to illegal steroid use is ridiculous.

Legal or illegal? Full blown anabolic steroids? Or precursers? What's the argument here?

Starting today? Or retroactive to 98?

EDIT: and lest I be accused of being oblique, I will clarify.
I believe that he used supplements. I believe that there were potentially steroid precursers in his regimen. But I do not believe that he in any way violated the rules of MLB or that he violated any laws. That being said, no records that he sets can be "suspect".

Edited, Wed Apr 14 12:13:42 2004 by MoebiusLord

Cun to domeeneecan reepoobli. Teh dem Sammy sosa sen yoo.

My two cents worth here. I agree with those who says that the supplements should not be declare illegal retrospectibly. The rules and regulations are time sensitive. What may be perfectly acceptable may become illegal and vice versa. There are many instances in history regarding this. Prohibition made alcoholic beverage illegal but once it was revoked, drinking alcohol became totally acceptable. Cocaine used to be prescribed as a medicine by doctors in the past before it became illegal. So, does this mean we should seek out and punish those people now who used cocaine long time ago as a medicine?

Taking these supplements fully knowing that it will becomes illegal is unethical. However, unless the substance is declare illegal, why should we punish those who used it in the past not knowing it will be illegal? If Andro was not illegal in the past, I don't see why we should take away people's accomplishments today just because in today's view the supplement is illegal. Maybe in 5 years the studies prove that Andro is nothing but super vitamin supplement and it becomes legal in the profession sports? Does that mean that accomplishments of those people who used it in the past all of sudden becomes legit?

Well, These are my thoughts on this issue.

Taushar

Edit: spelling mistakes.

Edited, Wed Apr 14 18:36:26 2004 by Taushar

Yes it is ludicrous. He's always been an exceptional player. But in the last three years his number have taken an absurd jump.

From 1986 - 2000:

AB: 7456 Hits: 2157 = Bavg of .289

From 2001- 2003:

AB: 1269 Hits: 438 = Bavg of .345

So Bonds, at the age of 36 (2001), an age when most men suddenly come to grips with reality and time begins to have their way with them, suddenly GETS BETTER. And not by a little. He suddenly turns into a combination of Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth all in one. Amazing. You would think that if he had that sort of talent in him all along, he'd have demonstrated it at some point.

Ignore his power numbers, why did he suddenly become a GREAT hitter? Prior to 2001 he was a .289 lifetime hitter! Is 'work ehtic' alone supposed to have jumped his batting averag 55 points? Suuuuuuuuuuuure. It 'work ethic' were the most significant factor, Roger Clemens should be able to throw his fastball about 150mph now.

If anyone can show me any professional athelete that has shown a similar jump in performance at that age, please do.



His hand-eye coordination wasn't all that impressive before 2001, huh? Many people have pointed out in similar arguments that more muscles does not necessarily equate to better hitting. And to a degree they have a point. But if you take someone that can already hit, and juice him up so that he's much stronger, his hitting will improve. Those deep fly balls that were once outs will now be home runs. Slow grounders that were easy outs become hard grounders that slip past infielders. The fastball that you couldn't get around on before and fouled off suddenly connects with the fat part of your bat, etc.

Edited, Wed Apr 14 18:39:23 2004 by Deathwysh

Edited, Wed Apr 14 18:41:03 2004 by Deathwysh

Edited, Wed Apr 14 18:45:41 2004 by Deathwysh

Don't limit it to Baseball, I bet Chris Barnes is pumping up in preparation for the next league match.






It took a lot of Google-ing to come up with a "Professional Bowler's" name, oddly enough, some people consider it a sport. Probably the fathers of girls who think Cheerleading is a sport.

Bah, the Espn 2 link disappeared, only thing I was gonna add was that I found it an intresting point that was made from the article about Blacks not being allowed to play during the era that a lot of these records were done.

Ya to me thats valid, anyone who didnt have to compete against blacks should have an asterisk next to their name as well.

Current policy on steriod testing in MLB allows a player time to cycle off before they are tested, anyone caught under these circumstances is an idiot. It really needs to be random and as big an infraction as using cocaine.

Of course we cant go back and disallow hits/homers and such for things that were legal at the time. But, we should make it so that going forward we dont allow this kind of cheating to continue.

Baseball has many unwritten rules like protecting your batters, using steriods is one of those unwritten rules it wasnt illegal but it cheapens the records and is frowned upon by its players.

And this means he MUST be juicing. OMG!!11! He got soo much better, there has to be another explanation. He can't have just gotten better, he must have had help.

Umm, 3 MVPs, several gold gloves, almost 400 home runs, etc., etc., and so on. Where's the question?

He matured. He found patience at the plate. He began to take walks instead of Ks. Discipline. Learned to go the other way against the most over-pronounced shift in the history of Major League Baseball.

Ah. The fact that it is unprecedented is still the issue, eh? Before the Great One, no one in the history of Hockey had been as prolific. Before MJ no one in the 1 spot had ever dominated the game so dramaticly. Were they juicing? They must have been for their entire careers.

More bulk = less agility. This dog won't hunt.

Bottom line, don't hate on Barry because he is a phenominal player. He maintains he never used illegal steroids. Until there is proof that he did, leave off. And the comparison some make to Rose, there is plenty of proof Rose bet. And plenty of proof he gave a big F'uck You to the world for years and years. This is no where near the case.

I'm pretty good, but Thundra would like to think that her shi[b][/b] don't stink, but lean a little bit closer and you'll see her roses really smell like poo poo poo.



I love outkast

I would say that steriods are a performance enhancing drug.



As to this I would say hmmm so it must be coincidence that all our current most profilic home run hitters are big men.