Master Index of Archived Threads


Its Official - Baseball to Investigate Bonds

MFS62 Mar 29 2006 05:44 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2389391 Later

cooby Mar 29 2006 07:34 PM

My husband is reading that book

metirish Mar 29 2006 07:38 PM

I really don't see the point of this , where do you stop, surely Clemens will be investigated, what about Bagwell, I just see a big can of worms being opened here.

cooby Mar 29 2006 07:39 PM

Yep

Willets Point Mar 29 2006 08:28 PM

That Mitchell is a busy man. Negotiating peace in Northern Ireland, director of the Red Sox, chairman of Walt Disney Co. and now rooting out 'roids users.

Zvon Mar 29 2006 09:46 PM

....and once they apply themselves and really start to dig its not going to be too hard to find stuff out. Cripes, they already have Giambi gettin stuff thru the mail sent to his mothers house.

Edgy DC Mar 29 2006 09:59 PM

]I really don't see the point of this , where do you stop, surely Clemens will be investigated, what about Bagwell, I just see a big can of worms being opened here. Surely there's a difference. Regarding Bags and Clemens, they have prima-facie evidence. In the Bonds case, they have a mountain of documentation handed to them.

metirish Mar 29 2006 10:04 PM

Yes I understand that, but if you are going to do a proper invertigation then go after all of them.....plus this stuff was not illegal in the 90's......at least in baseball anyway.

Edgy DC Mar 29 2006 10:14 PM

]Yes I understand that, but if you are going to do a proper invertigation then go after all of them.... But you say you understand that there's a difference. And MLB has trouble assume the current stance MLB is assuming regarding steroids, while Barry Bonds shatters records with a body that --- according to the evidence tossed in their lap, publicly and embarrassingly -- was illegally made. "Waddaya mean I'm suspended? You got that guy redhanded (supposedly) and he's on TV every night remaking the record book." ]plus this stuff was not illegal in the 90's......at least in baseball anyway. Yes it was, and the evidence against him post-dates the nineties. Remeber also that MLB is under enormous pressure from Congress --- a Congress that allows them to operate under uniquely beneficial circumstances, a largess which can be revoked at any time.

metirish Mar 29 2006 10:19 PM

I see what you are saying and I agree, Ruth played in an era that did not include some of the best players because they were not allowed to play....I hate that I defend Bonds but I feel he is being treated differently than others, like McGwire and Giambi....

Zvon Mar 29 2006 10:29 PM

metirish wrote: ....I hate that I defend Bonds but I feel he is being treated differently than others, like McGwire and Giambi.... maybe for now. They will soon all be in the same boat along with a number of other players, some more well known that others.

Rotblatt Mar 30 2006 05:59 AM

A [url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/giants/2006-03-29-bonds-cover_x.htm]good[/url] article on public perception of Bonds from USA Today.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 30 2006 06:20 AM

]"I've done some f——- up things, I admit it," Bonds said Friday at the Giants spring training facility. "We all make mistakes in life. But there's only one perfect person in our society, and they put him on a cross. For what? For being kind? For loving people?" You know, aside from some loopy self-pity here, I'm not even sure what point he thinks he's making. It don't pay to strive for perfection? No matter how hard you try, you'll get your unfair critics? It's lonely at the top? Only Jesus has suffered more than I?

Edgy DC Mar 30 2006 06:39 AM

]"White America doesn't want him to (pass) Babe Ruth and is doing everything they can to stop him," says Leonard Moore, director of African and African-American Studies at Louisiana State University. "America hasn't had a white hope since the retirement of (NBA star) Larry Bird, and once Bonds passes Ruth, there's nothing that will make (Ruth) unique, and they're scared. And I'm scared for Bonds. "I think what he'll go through will be 100 times worse than what Aaron went through" when he surpassed Ruth in 1974. "I pray for him every night." The folks who get directorships and chairs.

sharpie Mar 30 2006 06:59 AM

If Bonds is punished then Sheffield and Giambi have to be too. Heh heh.

Elster88 Mar 30 2006 07:09 AM

I agree - the whites are trying to keep a black ballplayer from passing Babe Ruth's record. Because it's never happened before.

metirish Mar 30 2006 07:14 AM

The wisdom of Rickey Henderson. ] "If he hit the ball and accomplished what he accomplished, I think he deserves [the record]. A lot of players did a lot of steroids. I think it's just the era, the time. "There wasn't no one to stop it. There wasn't no say-so that it wasn't right or wasn't legal. To me, it was making baseball look good. And maybe they just turned their head." http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-sphey304681202mar30,0,2358160.column?coll=ny-sports-headlines

Elster88 Mar 30 2006 07:21 AM

He said "I"? I'm disillusioned.

soupcan Mar 30 2006 07:27 AM

]"America hasn't had a white hope since the retirement of (NBA star) Larry Bird, and once Bonds passes Ruth, there's nothing that will make (Ruth) unique, and they're scared. And I'm scared for Bonds.. So many things here - Michael Jordan & Tiger Woods aren't embraced by 'White America'? Ruth will always be legendary. Hell, he hasn't held that record for 30 years! I'm scared? The only fear I have is to not be able to feed or shelter my family. I don't think Barry Bonds' steroid-laden pursuit of baseball's all-time home run record will have a hell of a lot of effect on that. No sir I'm not scared, I just don't particularly care for cheaters.

MFS62 Mar 30 2006 07:30 AM

Willets Point wrote: That Mitchell is a busy man. Negotiating peace in Northern Ireland, director of the Red Sox, chairman of Walt Disney Co. and now rooting out 'roids users. And, more importantly, he's my almost-look-alike. Steve Somers said on his show last night that this is NOT a racial thing, it is about honesty and integrity. He added (my paraphrasing) that while much of the negative reaction Aaron got when chasing Ruth, and Sosa got while contesting McGwire for the single season record, was racist, this is not. I agree. And Mr. Moore doesn't know either basebal history or Barroid if he says it is. Later

metirish Mar 30 2006 07:32 AM

Like most things race becomes an issue, of course there are white Americans that don't want Bonds to break any record but I imagine it has more to do with Bonds being an alleged wanker than him being a Black man, I think we can expect to hear more about race as this continues, people like Charles Barkley will no doubt bring that up.

dinosaur jesus Mar 30 2006 08:07 AM

Bring 'em all down, all the big cheaters, white and black, nice guys and assholes. They couldn't call it racism then. In my ideal nonracist world, Clemens would be as vilified as Bonds. (Which means that maybe this forum is my ideal world.)

silverdsl Mar 30 2006 08:50 AM

sharpie wrote: If Bonds is punished then Sheffield and Giambi have to be too. Heh heh. Yes, they must be, says even the Yankee fan. In fact that would be my issue with this investigation if Bonds is the only one singled out. The book contains material related to Giambi, much of which was likely already known to MLB, but new information about Sheffield that he shot himself up with steroids and HGH. I don't see how they could justify going after Bonds but not Sheffield or Giambi. That said, what exactly is MLB going to do at the conclusion of this investigation? And how long is it going to take? I'd guess that Mitchell won't be able to wrap this up in just a few months so Bonds might be retired before there is a final report.

metirish Mar 30 2006 08:56 AM

From what I am reading there will NOT be any suspensions , and of course the players union would fight any and probably win.

Willets Point Mar 30 2006 09:11 AM

dinosaur jesus wrote: In my ideal nonracist world, Clemens would be as vilified as Bonds. I do my part to villify Clemens regularly. Actually, I've never had much a problem with Bonds other than he's a likely cheater. Clemens I've got problems with. Lots of 'em.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 30 2006 09:28 AM

Swollen heads need to roll before baseball is considered cleaned up. I don't really get the reasoning here. If every single violator of a law is not convicted and given a precisely equal sentence, then the law should be taken off the books? Have I gone completely insane here?

MFS62 Mar 30 2006 09:41 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I don't really get the reasoning here. If every single violator of a law is not convicted and given a precisely equal sentence, then the law should be taken off the books? (Putting on best Mr. Spock voice) Your conclusion is logical. Later

Elster88 Mar 30 2006 09:46 AM

metirish wrote: Like most things race becomes an issue, of course there are white Americans that don't want Bonds to break any record but I imagine it has more to do with Bonds being an alleged wanker than him being a Black man, I think we can expect to hear more about race as this continues, people like Charles Barkley will no doubt bring that up. What the....? Charles Barkley?

metirish Mar 30 2006 09:48 AM

Not sure why I cited him, he does speak out on issues of race though.

Centerfield Mar 30 2006 10:38 AM

I don't like when people try to characterize the debate as whether race is the reason, or whether race is not the reason. For some reason, people, like the quoted LSU professor, don't seem to entertain the notion that there are shades of gray between their black and white stances (no pun intended). Is race the reason Bonds is scrutinized? Probably not. Is race a factor? I would guess yes. The relevant question should be how much of a factor it is. And I would guess that answer varies depending on who, what and when. That being said, I would guess his personality is probably the bigger factor. I have little doubt that if Bonds were as accessible and fair with the media as Michael Jordan, he would not be under this type of microscope. I doubt that if he wore a big smile and said goofy things like Shaquille O'Neal, he would be treated the way he's treated now. Does this mean black athletes have to be happy-types to gain acceptance? (I think we already had this thread) What if Bonds had been white and surly? I honestly don't know the answer to these questions. What I do know is that to say what Bonds is going through will be 100 times worse than Aaron is just silly. Aaron was a black athlete in the South, thirty years ago. There's just no comparison. I don't know why people say things like this and undermine their credibility. And praying for Barry Bonds every night? Please.

Edgy DC Mar 30 2006 10:45 AM

]What I do know is that to say what Bonds is going through will be 100 times worse than Aaron is just silly. He's a scholar. I'm sure this is a research-based statement.

sharpie Mar 30 2006 10:49 AM

Nice that it came out to such a round number, too.

Centerfield Mar 30 2006 11:03 AM

As an aside, what do you do when you're the president of the university and one of your professors comes out and says something like this? Try to distance yourself from it? Support him even though you don't agree? Close your eyes and hope it goes away? The poor guy is thinking to himself "Damn, I knew he was a little goofy when I appointed him director but I never thought he'd say anything this dumb."

Edgy DC Mar 30 2006 11:25 AM

"Tom, I understand that you to have controversial positions. Many I agree with, many I do not, and this university is certainly open to disagreement. But express them like a scholar and not an overheated prophet. Your manner embarasses the university and the state." The guy is 34 years old! http://www.ithaca.edu/sportmanagementandmedia/jackjohnson/Moore.html

Frayed Knot Mar 30 2006 11:40 AM

"As an aside, what do you do when you're the president of the university and one of your professors comes out and says something like this?" Nothing. University presidents have even less control over their professors than Bud Selig has over the player's union. "Is race the reason Bonds is scrutinized? ... Is race a factor? " The main reason Bonds is being more scrutinized than the others is that he's the one approaching hallowed records. That he also seems to be the most guilty and the biggest asshole certainly adds to it.

Edgy DC Mar 30 2006 11:45 AM

I think that "Most guilty"="Jose Canseco" and "Jose Canseco"="Most Guilty" Caminiti also seems high onon that list. Adn I'm sure there can and wil be an argument that all the documentation en el mundo does not amoount to a single failed test, so, by that logic, "Matt Lawton's Guilt" > "Barry Bonds' Guilt"

Zvon Mar 30 2006 01:51 PM

]"White America doesn't want him to (pass) Babe Ruth and is doing everything they can to stop him," says Leonard Moore, director of African and African-American Studies at Louisiana State University. "America hasn't had a white hope since the retirement of (NBA star) Larry Bird, and once Bonds passes Ruth, there's nothing that will make (Ruth) unique, and they're scared. And I'm scared for Bonds. "I think what he'll go through will be 100 times worse than what Aaron went through" when he surpassed Ruth in 1974. "I pray for him every night." ---ohNoYouDi-ent! This is a whole lot a bullshit. This Moore guys a mooron. Its people like that who will always keep racism alive and kicking. This has nothing to do with black and white, aside from black numbers on a white page.

Edgy DC Mar 30 2006 01:59 PM

I pray for Zvon every night.

Zvon Mar 30 2006 02:04 PM

silverdsl wrote: That said, what exactly is MLB going to do at the conclusion of this investigation? And how long is it going to take? I'd guess that Mitchell won't be able to wrap this up in just a few months so Bonds might be retired before there is a final report. For people guilty of juicing before 2003, probly nothing except the public disclosure. After 2003, whatever the established punishments that were in place thru MLB and the players union. But this list they will end up with - this is no list a player wants to be on.

metirish Mar 31 2006 09:50 AM

[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2139031/?nav=tap3]How Barry Bonds became the melon-head he is today, and why baseball is to blame.[/url]

Edgy DC Mar 31 2006 10:12 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Apr 01 2006 11:39 AM

While I'm as put off by the muscling up of baseball as anyone, don't you think such articles fail to distinguish between subconsious and conscious choices, planned and unplanned directions, negect and agency, on behalf of Major League Baseball? Sure baseball is largely complicit. But they don't seem to care.to make a real case beyond... The authors speculatively note that the federal prosecutor in charge of the case against BALCO—the doping lab used by Bonds—is a conservative who would like to be a federal judge; and that George Bush, the man who would appoint him, is a former owner of a Major League team. (True, Bush raised the issue of steroids, and sternly, in his State of the Union; but in the end, Bush is a frat boy by nature. It is not hard to imagine some from his former fraternity of owners calling in a little leniency.) However the logs eventually got rolled, the federal investigation into BALCO netted only token sentences, and the cheating athletes were never publicly identified. This is where progressive journalism too often shirks its responsibility. If we name the right bogeyman, who cares about getting the facts straight? That last sentence suggests, in fact, that the athletes were protected, not thrown to the wolves to protect the real guilty parties at MLB, as the article otherwise seems to want the reader to believe.

silverdsl Mar 31 2006 11:43 AM

Zvon wrote: But this list they will end up with - this is no list a player wants to be on. Well, if this investigation goes no deeper than Balco it's likely we already know which players are going to be on the list - Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield. I wish I had more confidence but I'm thinking that we might not know any more about the use of performance enhancers by players and the end of this investigation than we do now.

Edgy DC Mar 31 2006 12:02 PM

]Well, if this investigation goes no deeper than Balco it's likely we already know which players are going to be on the list - Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield. And Marvin Bernard!

metirish Mar 31 2006 12:29 PM

Jon Heyman brings up some interesting points about HGH, I didn't know MLB does not test for it. [url=http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-sphey314682890mar31,0,2353575.column?coll=ny-baseball-headlines]Jon Heyman writes a good column[/url]

Frayed Knot Mar 31 2006 12:36 PM

One good sign about SNY is that they went to a split screen during their baseball telecast on Thursday to cover the Bud Selig press conference (as did ESPN) while YES (showing a NYY game at the time) and MSG (showing a re-run Knick game) did not. Not a big deal but at least a sign they don't intend to be a sweep-it-under-the-rug kind of station.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 31 2006 01:22 PM

I thought I was cheap because I re-use my grocery bags as garbage bags.

Iubitul Mar 31 2006 02:07 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: One good sign about SNY is that they went to a split screen during their baseball telecast on Thursday to cover the Bud Selig press conference (as did ESPN) while YES (showing a NYY game at the time) and MSG (showing a re-run Knick game) did not. Not a big deal but at least a sign they don't intend to be a sweep-it-under-the-rug kind of station. To be completely honest, we don't know how SNY would handle it if two high profile Mets were major players in this story - However, it's not a surprise that YES ignored this for that very reason.

Frayed Knot Mar 31 2006 02:55 PM

Agreed that it's far too early to give out any journalism awards. But at least the fact that they acknowledge that there's an issue out there and had Gary - plus whoever his sidekick du jour was - discussing it in the booth during a game puts them several steps ahead of YES (Steroids ... What Steroids?) or MSG (apparently still unaware that Isaiah has been hit with a sexual harrassment suit) in the 'Not Being A House PR Firm' contest.

abogdan Mar 31 2006 03:37 PM

Don't forget about Bobby Estellela! Erase his records!

A Boy Named Seo Apr 02 2006 04:48 PM

[url=http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-baseball2apr02,1,4390105.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-sports]LA Times[/url] talks to Ned Colletti, Kevin Towers, and some scouts on evaluating players in the post-roids era. Player cahnfidence (of lack of cahnfidence) is mentioned a couple of times as an indicator of a guy who may have been juicing and is now off. That and the dude's body shrinking. I couldn't stop thinking about Bret Boone, his drastic drop off the face of the earth and his tearful farewell press conference, as I read this article.

Frayed Knot Apr 02 2006 08:00 PM

FINALLY someone - Newsday's Jon Heyman in this case - is saying in print what I've been saying for years. Mainly in his first sentence: Baseball continues to be held to a higher standard. Nobody cares why NFL players are so much bigger and faster, and how at least five Panthers were doing steroids without detection. In 'Game of Shadows' 17 Olympic athletes, seven NFL players and only five MLB players are cited as steroid users. Yet baseball is taking the hit. And don't get me wrong, MLB deserves all the hits they're getting and the NFL does deserve credit for pro-actively (thanks largely to a lap-dog PA) getting a testing program installed a while back - although they certainly haven't eradicated the problem despite claims to the contrary. But I do think it's a fact that fans of the NFL act like as long as the bread & circuses continue that all's right with their world.

Edgy DC Apr 02 2006 08:10 PM

Baseball has that antitrust exemption, and, in exchange, they get publicly flogged before Congress a few times per generation.

Frayed Knot Apr 02 2006 08:24 PM

Except that the anti-trust exemption doesn't explain the differences in the fan and (mainly) press reaction/ignoring. Besides, the exemption has been so weakened over the years to the point where it's small potatoes as an actual issue.

Edgy DC Apr 02 2006 08:30 PM

It's strong enough for baseball to want to retain it. It's strong enough for baseball to tolerate public scoldings by semi-clueless congressmen. And it's storng enough for to keep the Kansas City Royals or somebody from moving into a more competitive region. But your right in that football has certainly gotten exposés written about them, but It's OK, It's Only a Bruise instead of leading to Congressional hearings, becomes source material for a glamourous Olivar Stone movie. I hold baseball to a higher standard. But I don't really like football. Maybe that's because baseball is held to a higher standard. Chicken, meet egg.

Frayed Knot Apr 02 2006 08:55 PM

Franchise movement is the one area where baseball could still take advantage of their exemption - but the other major sports can control theirs as well without too much trouble. The NFL sat on the sidelines and tacitly allowed much of their '80s & '90s movement because, in part, they figured that enough movement would get politicians mad enough to grant them a blanket exemption (instead of getting individual waivers piecemeal) or, at minimum, get new and/or abandoned cities to commit more money to new stadia to keep or lure teams. They could have prevented much of the movement that stole teams from LA (twice), Oakland, Houston, St Louis & Baltimore within a 20 year period; they simply chose not to. Although all of this is still besides the point. It's the press/fan reaction to steroid use or (in college basketball/football) fixing scandals where the stark diffrerences lie. Heyman's note is the first time I've even heard that football players were even mentioned in 'Game of Shadows', much less mentioned in greater numbers.