Such Arrogance Barry

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I agree with you 100%!

Although I personally believe that Bonds used steroids, I don't believe an asterisk should be placed on his achievement. Baseball has always had "eras." As baseball moves on, this will simply be known as the Steroid Era and everybody will recognize it as that - without the need for any silly asterisks. Bonds' achievement will be seen for what it is and each individual can subscribe to this achievement whatever they desire.

Sure - it takes skill to hit homeruns, whether you're on steroids or not. If I started pumping up on steroids, I couldn't hit a major league fastball out of the park, not to mention even hit it at all. I think there are many major league hitters who, given the benefit of steroids, would never come close to achieving what Bonds has achieved. Yet, it has to be assumed that many of Bonds' homeruns would have been nothing more than long flyballs had steroids not been involved.

I say, let him have his record and allow individuals to take it for what it's worth.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I agree baseball has "eras" Dead Ball Era comes to mind. However the Steroid Era has destroyed the concept of comparing the achievements of present day players to those of the past. eg. In the past if you hit 500 HR's it would gurantee a spot in the HOF. Now that milestone doesn't look that great. Stats. are what made baseball unique. No other major sport even comes close IMO.

[DTQ_Blue]

This is from the "Overview" section of the HOF Museum's web page:

"The Hall of Fame has stood as the definitive repository of the game's treasures and as a symbol of the most profound individual honor bestowed on an athlete."

I think that this statement in part represents the dilemma of the HOF. How can athletes on one hand be "honored" by an institution that at the same time fuels speculation about that player's dishonorable acts, by displaying an article that is supposedly a "treasure" of the game?

HOF is the not using good judgment here. They should state that they have no intention on displaying that ball to the public unless the implication of the defacement of the ball becomes proven fact.

Until that occurs, the HOF by displaying that ball, would be lowering itself to the level of the National Enquirer by peddling innuendo. That would seem to be contrary to it's stated mission. HOF should just conditionally loan the ball to the Smithsonian and let them put it on display as an article of public interest.

I don't consider a ball that has been defaced by some rich attention seeker to be a treasure of the game. If at some point, history shows the ball to have relevance to proven facts, then the HOF should consider making it a part of its public display.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

Stereotyped. You a$$ume too much from posted argument.

Maybe you should ask first. Then again, I don't think you care to know.

And I don't buy the a$$umption that Garth or anyone here is not willing to pay a price for their beliefs. Some of us do that daily.

Ignorance is bliss.

Flame-On!

With all due respect, unless you know the man or have talked to him while he is in jail, you have no idea why he is doing what he is doing. And to suggest that he is making a bad decision when you have not talked to this person is ludicrous (not the rapper). I always find it funny how people try to put their personal values onto other people that they do not even know.

Peace

[Rcichon]

Then we concur that you are assuming! Wonderful!

I did not make the comment nor inference he was making a bad decision. You a$$umed once again. Thank You.

[JRutledge]

And this is why baseball is dying and losing interest of the youth and dying in participation. You have people that cannot believe that someone with better training, more money at stake and can be better than some guy 50 years ago. No other sport honestly thinks some guy 50 years ago is as good or versatile than players in today’s games.

So go ahead and call it the steroid era and think that someone could not be better than a beer drinking, fat guy that played in the first half of the last century (not that fields sizes have changed or travel accommodations have also more sufficient). Kids today do not even know how most of those players are and likely do not care. These are who will bring the game to another level, not some 50 year old man who never saw many of these players they worship as some baseball God.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

Then we concur that you are assuming! Wonderful!

I did not make the comment nor inference he was making a bad decision. You a$$umed once again. Thank You.

I honestly was not only talking about you or only about your point of view. But thank you for playing.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I always find it funny how people try to put their personal values onto other people that they do not even know.

Peace

Don't be ridiculous Jeff. You do it every day. We all do.

Funny? No. It's a cornerstone of a civilized world. Without it, our grand jury system would fold and our criminal justice system would be in chaos. The very basis or our laws if the placing of our values on others, whether we know them or not.

I can see it now, "Your honor, how can this jury convict my client of child molesting? They're just putting their personal values on him, and they don't even know him!!!"

Jeff, I have no knowledge of the homicidal moron who bombed the 16th street church, but I, and the rest of society, are happy to "put our personal values" into play and judge him never-the-less.

One can withhold judgement about how someone chooses to live his life to a point. That point is when there is evidence that a crime is committed. Nosredna has, admittedly, committed a crime. I don't need to get to know him to form an opinion of him or why he refused to give the details of that crime.

[JRutledge]

If you have evidence that someone did something, you can bring an indictment without one person's testimony. If it is a solid case they would not need the testimony. And when someone does not want to give testimony, they suffer consequences.

And this sacred system had to journalist willing to go to jail because they would not reveal a source that gave them illegal information from that same Grand Jury. They were willing to go to jail because their cause in their mind was just. And if I am not mistaken they were plead guilty to a crime for withholding their sources.

And who cares, if the man wants to spend jail time that is what he is willing to do. Why do you care what his motives are or what they are not? I know I do not even care. Remember he was being charged with more than information on Barry. He was accused of selling a drug that might have to do with other people that could do more harm to his family than anything Barry can ever do to him.

Peace

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

...Nobody is going to convict Bonds for anything folks, so just get that out of your heads now...

Are you sure about that?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Are you sure about that?

Hasn't been convicted yet. It's not over till the 'roids-raging fat lady sings. I still doubt he does one day of jail time because he is extremely rich and can probably buy his way out of it. I find it comical that this modern day Salem witch-hunt is going to go after Bonds, as if that's going to deter the hundreds of other pro athletes that are on steroids. A joke is what it is, just not funny.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Hasn't been convicted yet. It's not over till the 'roids-raging fat lady sings. I still doubt he does one day of jail time because he is extremely rich and can probably buy his way out of it. I find it comical that this modern day Salem witch-hunt is going to go after Bonds, as if that's going to deter the hundreds of other pro athletes that are on steroids. A joke is what it is, just not funny.

Steroids weren't mentioned in the indictment. Bonds was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Hard to buy your way out of that. BTW-Greg Anderson was also ordered released from jail.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Steroids weren't mentioned in the indictment. Bonds was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Hard to buy your way out of that. BTW-Greg Anderson was also ordered released from jail.

You need to do more reading or watching the news. Greg Anderson's lawyers have come out blasting the government for not releasing him earlier. And they were adamant that he did not talk to the government and the government said that Anderson did not talk. Anderson was released because the government could proceed without his testimony.

Peace

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Hasn't been convicted yet. It's not over till the 'roids-raging fat lady sings. I still doubt he does one day of jail time because he is extremely rich and can probably buy his way out of it. I find it comical that this modern day Salem witch-hunt is going to go after Bonds, as if that's going to deter the hundreds of other pro athletes that are on steroids. A joke is what it is, just not funny.

Interesting article: The Truth Could Have Set Bonds Free

In case someone hasn't registered for the NY Times web site and doesn't want to, here are a couple of quotes from the article:

Back when the first grand jury was convened in 2003, Bonds could have quivered a bit and said he had been a bad slugger by going for the quick fix and deceiving the American public. He could have promised to never do it again. And he could have walked, free to break Babe Ruth’s record and Henry Aaron’s record without this infamy hanging over him. Americans love a good confession.

But the truth is not in Barry Bonds, who is so far outside the limits of reality that he did not see the advantage to a little show of humility, a little flash of honesty.

Appearing before the original Balco grand jury, on Dec. 11, 2003, Giambi testified that he had taken steroids, human growth hormone and testosterone, and for apparently testifying truthfully he was granted immunity.

The grand jury was not after Giambi. It probably was not even after Bonds, even though Bonds (and the few supporters he has left) contend that the Balco investigation was always about getting him. This only shows how detached he is from reality.

“You use the consumer to build your case against the manufacturer,” Travis T. Tygart of the United States Anti-Doping Agency said last March, before he became chief executive of that agency. The hope is to keep harmful and illegal drugs from impressionable children and adults who are trying to emulate negative role models like Giambi and Bonds.

Giambi, the son of a banker, is a reasonable person. He understood that he would harm himself if he lied to a grand jury. He took some public criticism for a short time and then settled into his continual decline. Bonds strutted and denied and blustered and bullied, as he has done to most people around him all his life.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Steroids weren't mentioned in the indictment. Bonds was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Hard to buy your way out of that. BTW-Greg Anderson was also ordered released from jail.

True however, the implication being is he took steroids. As I understand it once the Grand Jury votes to indict their work is done. Anderson is then eligible to be released. I also understand his testimony is not required.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Hasn't been convicted yet. It's not over till the 'roids-raging fat lady sings. I still doubt he does one day of jail time because he is extremely rich and can probably buy his way out of it. I find it comical that this modern day Salem witch-hunt is going to go after Bonds, as if that's going to deter the hundreds of other pro athletes that are on steroids. A joke is what it is, just not funny.

A year from now let's compare predictions.

Yours: "...Nobody is going to convict Bonds for anything folks, so just get that out of your heads now..."

Mine: Before this is over, Bonds will either accept a plea deal or be convicted of at least one count of the indictment.