Jump to content

Bonds Testifies he used Steroids


NJTank

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

That's it? That's what comes from this huge deal over the past couple of years is Bonds admitting he took a cream that he may or may not of known was illegal?

You guys are actually more concerned with the so-called integrity of the game more-so than that these "private" hearings constantly get leaked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the fact that he went from doing 3 sets to doing 16 sets has a little to do with increased size.

The change in ballparks helped increase his HR production also. Candlestick was 330' down the line, SBC is 307'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the fact that he went from doing 3 sets to doing 16 sets has a little to do with increased size.

The change in ballparks helped increase his HR production also. Candlestick was 330' down the line, SBC is 307'.

yeah... the daily use of steroids didn't hurt either. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's over. It's done.

Every record Barry has is no longer legitimate.

Barry says he didn't know what he was taking? Bull. Barry doesn't eat anything without knowing exactly what is in it. He's not gonna start injecting himself, or rubbing a cream on himself, without knowing EXACTLY what it was.

It doesn't matter now. Wether you love him or hate him, it is now out.

Barry cheated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lifetime healthy HRs List

Aaron 755

Ruth 714

Mays 660

Lifetime every kind of HRs List

Aaron 755

Ruth 714

Bonds 703

And well... Pete Rose batted alots of hits... and no HOF for him.

Bonds and his HRs would follow him.

Bad day for Giants fans... like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be the most misleading thread title ever.

If I may be allowed to quote from the article itself.

But Bonds said he had no knowledge of the doping calendars and other records that indicated he had used banned drugs. He said he had never paid Anderson for steroids and had never knowingly used them.

Nothing in the article says that Bonds used steroids. Maybe he is covering his own back, but he didn't testify that he used steroids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Saintsfan, he said he unknowingly took them, and to some people, that's enough, I guess.

The media has, in a manner similar to what Tank did in posting this, simplified this down to "Bonds took steroids", when all that was really admitted that he took a took a cream, given to him by his friend/trainer under false pretenses, and they ended up being steroids. They won't erase his records for unknowingly doing something.

Here's a question you guys should be asking -- why do these "private hearings" keep getting leaked? To me, it's as simple as them not having any sort of evidence, or anything credible, that they can charge Bonds with, so this may be the only way to ruin his credibility, which it clearly has.

Until he says, "yes, I knowing took steroids", they're not going to be asterisking anything. Barry Bonds deserves the records, he's set. Even if you were to erase Sosa and McGwire's single season HR record, Barry Bonds still beat Roger Maris by 12 Homeruns, and there's not one person that's educated on this subject that would tell you that steroids make a 12 HR difference. Does the fact that a skinny Barry Bonds hit 46 HR's say a little something about exactly how much bulk means in hitting?

Does the fact that Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mayes, Ted Williams, and most of the greatest HR hitters of all-time were all skinny guys not clue all of you guys into how much of a difference being largely muscular makes? Very little. On a fundamental level, when it comes to hitting a baseball, reflexes, a good eye, and quick wrists are what counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question you guys should be asking -- why do these "private hearings" keep getting leaked? To me, it's as simple as them not having any sort of evidence, or anything credible, that they can charge Bonds with, so this may be the only way to ruin his credibility, which it clearly has.

My guess is that there's people out there interested in protecting the integrity of Major League Baseball -- not that it's important or anything.

Without leaking this testimony, the public might have never received verifiable evidence of steroid abuse in baseball. Sure, a lot of people suspected it, but with the leaked information it appears as sworn testimony -- certainly more credible than the suspicions of a skeptical public.

Should it come out more solidly that Bonds used steroids, baseball can find some way -- should it see fit -- to sanctify long-standing baseball records that could be tainted as a result of abuse.

But if protecting the reputation of a ballplayer like Giambi -- or ballplayers plural, should it come to that -- who admitted to cheating is what's wanted, then I guess it's a bad thing this information was leaked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question you guys should be asking -- why do these "private hearings" keep getting leaked?  To me, it's as simple as them not having any sort of evidence, or anything credible, that they can charge Bonds with, so this may be the only way to ruin his credibility, which it clearly has.

My guess is that there's people out there interested in protecting the integrity of Major League Baseball -- not that it's important or anything.

Without leaking this testimony, the public might have never received verifiable evidence of steroid abuse in baseball. Sure, a lot of people suspected it, but with the leaked information it appears as sworn testimony -- certainly more credible than the suspicions of a skeptical public.

Should it come out more solidly that Bonds used steroids, baseball can find some way -- should it see fit -- to sanctify long-standing baseball records that could be tainted as a result of abuse.

But if protecting the reputation of a ballplayer like Giambi -- or ballplayers plural, should it come to that -- who admitted to cheating is what's wanted, then I guess it's a bad thing this information was leaked.

Regardless -- it's still supposed to be private stuff. The fact that they have to leak this sort of information to get it out to the public shows that even they don't think their case is strong enough to get any sort of conviction and get this stuff to the public the right way. Does it not make you wonder about how strong the case against Bonds is if they can't wait until after he's convicted to get this information out the right way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Saintsfan, he said he unknowingly took them, and to some people, that's enough, I guess.

If I'm going to rub something on me that I know is undetectable or place drops under my tongue, I'm pretty sure I know what I am doing. Bonds saying that he did not know is BS...or BBS

Take your pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question you guys should be asking -- why do these "private hearings" keep getting leaked?  To me, it's as simple as them not having any sort of evidence, or anything credible, that they can charge Bonds with, so this may be the only way to ruin his credibility, which it clearly has.

My guess is that there's people out there interested in protecting the integrity of Major League Baseball -- not that it's important or anything.

Without leaking this testimony, the public might have never received verifiable evidence of steroid abuse in baseball. Sure, a lot of people suspected it, but with the leaked information it appears as sworn testimony -- certainly more credible than the suspicions of a skeptical public.

Should it come out more solidly that Bonds used steroids, baseball can find some way -- should it see fit -- to sanctify long-standing baseball records that could be tainted as a result of abuse.

But if protecting the reputation of a ballplayer like Giambi -- or ballplayers plural, should it come to that -- who admitted to cheating is what's wanted, then I guess it's a bad thing this information was leaked.

Regardless -- it's still supposed to be private stuff. The fact that they have to leak this sort of information to get it out to the public shows that even they don't think their case is strong enough to get any sort of conviction and get this stuff to the public the right way. Does it not make you wonder about how strong the case against Bonds is if they can't wait until after he's convicted to get this information out the right way?

Don't forget, the grand jury was convened not to try Barry Bonds, but to gather evidence in the indictment of BALCO's head. By testifying, Bonds was -- based on published reports -- told he would not face charges unless he perjured himself.

There's the opinion of his attorneys -- and likely himself and a portion of the public -- that this is some government attempt at smearing Bonds. Believe it if you will.

But the simple fact that they've apparently agreed to not charge him with illegal steroid use in exchange for his honest testimony shows they're not trying to build a case against him -- just BALCO.

Of course, I'm of the mind that Bonds' testimony actually helps him. Before there was just widespread suspicion that he's a user. Now we've got Bonds on the record saying he used something from BALCO, but he never knew what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.