Barry Bonds About To Get Busted?

[Crash Course]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4259202/

"Common sense tells you that if they've got Bonds' personal trainer," one baseball source said yesterday, "they're only one step away from having Bonds."

Do you think this is true? If yes, what will be baseball's reaction? What will be the Giants reaction? What will be the reaction of the fans?

[Crash Course]

Well, here's the media's reaction, at least from one outlet close to Bonds:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ts/7942948.htm

I totally never consider the thought that "there's always the possibility that Conte or Anderson could cooperate with the prosecution."

After all, that's how they got Pete Rose. This will be intresting to follow.

[TimmyB]

Three thoughts...

1) (From the I-dislike-Barry-Bonds side of my brain) Let's face it... the guy may work out and train like no one else on the face of the planet, but, usually when you are guilty by association, there's a reason for that association in the first place (or, as my Russian great-grandmother said, "It's hard to have a clean shirt when you hug people with poop on their lapels.")

2) (From the Vitamin-S-is-ruining-the-game side of my brain) If, in fact, this guy flips, and, again, if in fact there is badness going on,I sure hope he names more than just Bonds.

3) (From the Hey!-Why-does-everyone-pick-on-baseball? part of my brain) Why doesn't anyone make these same heavy-hitting inquiries (complete with Justice Deparment backing) into Vitamin S use in college and pro football? There's another one where the pink elephant is right in the room.

[TimmyB]

Okay, I take it all back -- I just read the article over at ESPN. Conte is just making sure Bonds eats enough broccoli.

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Well, here's the media's reaction, at least from one outlet close to Bonds:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ts/7942948.htm

I totally never consider the thought that "there's always the possibility that Conte or Anderson could cooperate with the prosecution."

After all, that's how they got Pete Rose. This will be intresting to follow.

Umm...they got Rose because he was guilty. He had already been found to be guilty of all kinds of things by the FBI - as had all the people involved. HE, not just his associates was under indictment.

As of now Bonds hasn't. He may be in the future. why don't we wait until he has? I am sure all kinds of names and results will be put out there in the near future, why not give it a month or two. And particularly let's not put Bonds in with Rose, or Ted Bundy quite yet....HE hasn't been 'caught' yet...they were, he may not be 'caught' and he may not be guilty.

[KCBOOMER]

You are asking some tough questions from a group of people who consider the Player's Union and Barry Bonds to be sacred objects.

Personally, I have no idea whether Bonds used steroids or not. Nor is there any known evidence to support the supposition that he did. So until such time as there is proof we should just shut-up about it. Now if we could just get the talking heads to do the same thing.

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by KCBOOMER

Nor is there any known evidence to support the supposition that he did. So until such time as there is proof we should just shut-up about it. Now if we could just get the talking heads to do the same thing.

There is evidence that Bonds' HR% jumped radically around 2000-2001. Check the back of his bubble gum card.

And, there is a strong connection between Bonds and those that have been charged for dealing the stuff:

http://www.tribnet.com/sports/column...-4684934c.html

What intrigues me is how cavalierly Bonds associated with the men charged Thursday. He's often been seen wearing a cap advertising the the of Conte's company, BALCO. On the night he hit his 73rd home run, during a ceremony held after the game at Pac Bell Park in San Francisco, he singled out Anderson in his thank-you speech.


Anderson no doubt was influential in Bonds' ownership of baseball's most celebrated single-season record. A longtime friend of Bonds, the trainer began working full-time with him in the winter that preceded 2001, when Bonds added 18 pounds (at the age of 36) and, not coincidentally, fattened his home-run total from 49 to 73.

But, most imporantly, do not tell members of this community that "we should just shut-up about it." See: www.netshrine.com/ndfcs.html

It's a hot baseball topic and worthy of discussion.

Originally Posted by Crash Course

There is evidence that Bonds' HR% jumped radically around 2000-2001. Check the back of his bubble gum card.

So - how many baseball players since 1999 have had a 'radical' increase in their HR totals....and how would you define that?

(And notice that I am not mentioning that you dismiss Rose's connection with convicted - not just indicted - cocaine dealers, steroid dealers, and otherwise awful people while you jump on Bond's connection with indicted, not convicted pharmaceutical people....who never lived in his house nor ran bets for him oops....)

[Crash Course]

This thread is about Bonds, not Rose.

About the HR% -

HR%                           YEAR     DIFF   PLAYER   LEAGUE   
1    Barry Bonds              2001    11.80    15.34     3.54   
2    Babe Ruth                1920    10.85    11.79     0.95   
3    Mark McGwire             1998    10.71    13.75     3.05   
4    Babe Ruth                1927    10.04    11.11     1.07   
5    Babe Ruth                1921     9.74    10.93     1.18   
6    Mark McGwire             1999     9.06    12.48     3.42   
7    Babe Ruth                1928     8.87    10.07     1.21   
8    Mark McGwire             1996     8.82    12.29     3.47   
9    Babe Ruth                1926     8.41     9.49     1.08   
10   Barry Bonds              2003     8.32    11.54     3.21  

Bonds was 11.8 above league average in 2001. That's the all-time record. Prior to the 2001 season, lifetime, he was about 3.91 above league average. That is how I would define radical.

Originally Posted by Crash Course

This thread is about Bonds, not Rose.

About the HR% -

HR%                           YEAR     DIFF   PLAYER   LEAGUE   
1    Barry Bonds              2001    11.80    15.34     3.54   
2    Babe Ruth                1920    10.85    11.79     0.95   
3    Mark McGwire             1998    10.71    13.75     3.05   
4    Babe Ruth                1927    10.04    11.11     1.07   
5    Babe Ruth                1921     9.74    10.93     1.18   
6    Mark McGwire             1999     9.06    12.48     3.42   
7    Babe Ruth                1928     8.87    10.07     1.21   
8    Mark McGwire             1996     8.82    12.29     3.47   
9    Babe Ruth                1926     8.41     9.49     1.08   
10   Barry Bonds              2003     8.32    11.54     3.21  

Bonds was 11.8 above league average in 2001. That's the all-time record. Prior to the 2001 season, lifetime, he was about 3.91 above league average. That is how I would define radical.

Can we PLEASE wait until after the innuendo until we convict the guy?
That's not what I asked - what I asked was how many people had a radical increase in their Homeruns - which was the gist of the point. Was Babe Ruth on Steroids? Is that your point?

And what constitures a radical increase....

If you state an increase as evidence, it'd be nice to have some idea what constitutes this abnormal increase. I just replied to someone who said I was an idiot because Bonds had this dropoff in 1999 (when he had 102 gp - and 34 HR, 83 RBI and a 1.000+ OP....)....I mean really, Bonds has had a relatively steady increase in his production from 1990.....

[Gosfgiants]

1) It looks like the grand jury was going after Balco, not the athletes.

2) Balco was a pretty big operation. They did provided large range of services. It is possible that they did not provide steroids to all the athletes that used their services.

3) Bonds is just the biggest name of the baseball players that were associated with Balco. Do you think the prosecuters are going to after all these guys for taking a steroid?

Steve, you have no proof that Bonds did anything wrong. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt before you draw a conclusion.

[Crash Course]

Hey, guys, notice the title that I chose for this thread: Barry Bonds About To Get Busted?

See the question mark at the end?

Also, where in this thread have I "convicted" Bonds or draw a conclusion? It's all just a suggestion that it might be possible - that's all.

Look - I know I am often over strident - and I really don't mean to be. This is going to be an uncomfortable and a bad bit of transition for baseball. I feel, and this is just my own personal opinion, that we need to remember that most of these things were legal until a year ago, and some of them are still legal today.

We have a massive supplement industry that is very powerful and while I disagree with it, I am not sure we should crucify the users of these supplements - particularly when many/most of them are legal (although I think they ought not to be...or at least regulated).

Muscle and bulking up supplements are legion, and most of them are not steroids although they have their own complications. That a guy bulks up is NOT evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And trating it as such makes it impossible to seriously address the problems of the industry.

So I ask...those of us who are informing ourselves (I am not claiming any smarts for my self) to be a source of information and not guesses. I am 100% sure that we will be seeing all kinds of laundry thrown out here, dirty and clean. I would like us to sit back and ask ourselves what really happened, what really needs to happen and what we need to do as fans to assist in getting our game out of this.

[KCBOOMER]

Crash, I know you are the master of twisting data to suit your views but suppositions are not evidence. I agree that Bonds's leap from superb player to a player who can be placed in the argument of best ever is something that bears investigation, particularly when you consider the age he was at when he made this leap, but that is an opinion, not evidence.

In my mind when I see Barry Bonds I see Ben Johnson, but that is an opinion, not proof. We have no right to indict the man without some proof.

[jvonbokel]

Originally Posted by Gosfgiants

1) It looks like the grand jury was going after Balco, not the athletes.

Nothing I've read has suggested otherwise, however, the thought process was that these guys might spill the beans on a slew of athletes as part of some plea bargain process. That's apparently not the case, as the latest ESPN.com article has them all pleading not guilty.