If any of you were reading this blog when Barry Bonds was chasing down Hank Aaron on the all-time homerun list, you'll know how much I spoke out against Bonds mark being a record that deserved to be counted. I was firmly on the side that wanted an asterisk applied to Bonds' homerun mark.
Now, it appears, through all the A-Fraud hoopla of recent days, our baseball commish might actually make a meaningful decision:
Selig said he also is considering reinstating Hank Aaron as baseball's home run king in the record book. Barry Bonds broke Aaron's record of 755 home runs in 2007 but is scheduled to stand trial March 2 on charges he lied to a federal grand jury about performance-enhancing drugs.
While this would be a controversial decision, I'm not certain it would be an unpopular decision. But how to do it? Do you simply add an asterisk. In that case, how far does Bonds fall down the list? Does he rate higher than Babe Ruth? Or does the commissioner simply invalidate all of Bonds' homeruns?
Then we have to ask ourselves this same question when A-Rod approaches the record(s). Will his name get an asterisk if he breaks it too? What if he breaks the record by 100 or more homeruns? How invalid is his record if, while admitting to doping, only doped for three of his two decades of playing time?
I like the idea of invalidating Bonds' record, but it raises a whole extra level of complication and questions, and seems like it's more of a move to placate the public than to actually correct the record (circumstanced are everything, and the commishioner's office needs good PR these days). Selig should have invalidated the record when Bonds broke it, rewriting history now seems a bit cheap.
0 recs | 98 comments
All this drama will all be over when Heyward hits 800 HRs…
bwellnjonesco - February 12, 2009
whur's mah credit?????
I just posted this, I demand creditI remember the shirts gondeee schilled during this time, and I was at the “black out the Ted night” and saw like one person actually wearing the shirt. It was about as successful as the meet-up last year.
Fair is fair, and if Bonds gets the *, then A-Rod will get the *. Rodriguez might pass 755, but it’ll never get the true credit, unless it is proven that he ONLY juiced between 01-03, and he goes on to hit 157 home runs on top of 755, to make up for his 156 tainted dingers. But since that’s not likely to happen, he’ll just have to settle for his *.
It’s a moot point until when Albert Pujols, (hopefully) clean as a whistle, and only high on God goes on to hit 900 homers.
royhobbs - February 12, 2009
I would have wore the shirt…
bwellnjonesco - February 12, 2009
I’ve received several compliments from complete strangers whenever I wear it. Probably because I’m so buff.
Smoltz's Beard - February 12, 2009
What exactly does it have on it?
bwellnjonesco - February 12, 2009
This
royhobbs - February 12, 2009
Oh wow
lol’d at the Steven Segal energy drink gondeee used to give away. I thought he wanted us to participate, not scare us away!
royhobbs - February 12, 2009
I still get questions when I wear it
Near the end of the summer I was in a convenience store and a “flaming” NASCAR fan asked me what the shirt meant. I told him it was a petition to get Jeff Gordon to change his number to *755. Wish you could have seen the look on his face!
scstrato - February 12, 2009
haha
Smoltz's Beard - February 13, 2009
I never got mine... : (
I think somebody stole them (I ordered 3) off of my patio because I was on vacation when they were delivered! I’m sad!
mvandonsel - February 12, 2009
The shirt
was the main reason I played NAHWAL. Agh, I wanted to win one!
Lizziebeth - February 12, 2009
I’m saying it would be a durn shame if Barry Bonds went into the hall of fame as a home run king and Shoeless Joe Jackson is relegated to outcast status.
It’s funny. When Bonds broke the record everyone said “well, A-Rod will undoubtedly beat out Bonds in a couple years.” So much for that.
kalesi - February 12, 2009
SERIOUSLY?!?
who cares. they’re paid to hit balls into the bleachers. what do you really want? people have been cheating at this game for years. in the end, baseball is just a game, it’s just a fucking game.
GORILLATUX - February 12, 2009
It's also a job
For those who do it professionally. Statistical achievements go hand-in-hand to how much money these employees make, and those who juice are essentially taking a shortcut to take money out of their co-workers’ pockets. An A-Rod juices his way to where he can usurp the #4 spot from an Edgar Martinez, so he can put up the 40HR/130RBI seasons that nets him millions, for example.
Just because a lot of people do it, does not necessarily make it right.
royhobbs - February 12, 2009
Edgar Martinez was the shit.
Smoltz's Beard - February 12, 2009
Edgar was the man...
…loved watching him swing the bat.
RainDelay - February 12, 2009
I would
delete all stats from the books for the years that Bonds and A-Rod used steriods. For Bonds that would come out of the trial. For A-Rod that would be 2001-2003. After the deleted the years in which steriods were used. No asterisks needed.
It seems to be the only way to make things even. Might be harsh but it gets the point across to all current and future players.
Heap - February 12, 2009
In addtion they aren’t allowed in the HoF…ever.
Heap - February 12, 2009
Why not just make them take female testosterone for a few seasons…
bwellnjonesco - February 12, 2009
+1
Heap - February 12, 2009
Thats called Estrogen
bravesguy311 - February 13, 2009
Thanks, but
ewww, I can’t believe you said the E word…
bwellnjonesco - February 13, 2009
How much do you want to bet
some retard tries to make a racist issue out of this…
justincredubil02 - February 12, 2009
you mean it’s not?
gondeee - February 12, 2009
lol
justincredubil02 - February 12, 2009
It will never happen...
but I think Hank should be re-instated as the HR king. Selig has a chance here to cement a lasting legacy for himself, and to bring meaning back to baseball stats. But, as I see it he doesn’t have the coconuts to make this EASY decision.
I still want to know the rest of the names on that list.
tomahawkCHOP - February 12, 2009
He already has cemented a lasting legacy – one of rampant drug use, clueless leadership and unmitigated greed.
Alex V - February 12, 2009
This can’t happen. It sets the precedent too high. While you’re at it, why not wipe out Pete Rose’s hits record since he gambled? And if anyone else is revealed to have juiced, take away their records too.
bigjoe - February 12, 2009
that was exactly what i was thinking… also numerous players have admitted to cheating… specifically ptichers who would scuff the ball or spit on it (i.e. Gaylord Perry)… that doesnt even consider in the 60s- 70s all the players that were doing amphetamines and the like… while it wasnt illegal by baseball its illegal in teh U.S. so does that mean u take everyone’s record away…
Listen it sounds nice to take away the record and give it to Bonds, but its not a feasible idea… i say we have a wing in teh Hall dedicated to the Steroid Era.. that way we can educate people about it (like in 100 y when people forget about it). Then people can make their own assumptions
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
I’m with you here. It’s just not feasible.
mattdiaz4life - February 12, 2009
What a bunch of whiners. Nothing Bonds did was against the rules of baseball. People having been “cheating” as baseball for its entire history. I never hear anybody shouting about taking away the records of people who’ve used greenies to give them an extra boost. Nobody’s saying Gaylord Perry should be kicked out of the hall of fame for being a spitballer.
Just because you can’t stand a cocky arrogant black person being the home run king doesn’t mean you should take it away.
lunatic96 - February 12, 2009
You = ridiculous.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
please show me a rule he broke. Seriously, I’m waiting. Steroids weren’t illegal until 2004, and the drugs he’s been alleged to take weren’t even classified as steroids at the time.
lunatic96 - February 12, 2009
If Uncle Bud starts this up, he’ll expel Rose’s hits record, and then take Cobb’s hit record (because he was a racist, murderous, violent scumbag) away, and guess who that makes the all time hit king?
Yeah. THAT GUY. Again. Funny how that works out.
bigjoe - February 12, 2009
Selig is such a weenie. You see that crap about how he’s saddened by the stuff with A-Roid? Like he hasn’t known about it for the last five years. What a chump.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
From VictorW
mvandonsel - February 12, 2009
This. And a heavy dose of logic.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
Aren’t steroids illegal in the US? Could be way off…
Smoltz's Beard - February 12, 2009
Yes, without a doctor’s prescription, they’re very illegal. That’s why the government has been going after guys.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
Thought so. In that case it shouldn’t matter whether or not it’s in “the rules of baseball”.
Smoltz's Beard - February 12, 2009
The example I always use is that there’s nothing in the rules of baseball saying you can’t hit the ball, pull out a gun and shoot the fielder before he fields the ball, but that doesn’t make it Ok.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
thats a bold strategy… someone could bust that out for bottom of nine game 7 in teh world series
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
So you’re in favor of banning everyone who ever took greenies from the game right? Because those are also illegal drugs. Also, Dwight Gooden, and everyone else who took coke and what not in the 80s as well.
Seems to me that you’re selectively punishing someone just because you don’t like him as a person.
lunatic96 - February 12, 2009
Seems to me like you came into this with the stance than anybody who’s against Bonds is a racist. Well, I’m against Bonds, a black dude, Alex Rodriguez, a Hispanic dude, and Roger Clemens, a white dude. I’m also against anybody else who cheated like they did.
As far as greenies, they’re anphetamines, where they illegal in the U.S. at the time? I don’t know, but if so, yeah, I think I’d be on that side of the fence. And definitely for guys who did cocaine while they were playing.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
Seriously…A lotta cocaine.
soup du jour - February 12, 2009
Haha! Excellent.
cbwilk - February 13, 2009
God damn, Metalocalypse is the best.
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
I give my dog greenies
they help with his breath.
Who knew that baseball players took them as well!
mvandonsel - February 12, 2009
lol only because i give my dog those greenies too.
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
Me too..
…but my cats, don’t have any dogs.
RainDelay - February 15, 2009
Bud Selig just released a statement saying that whether or not it was illegal at the time that players can still be punished b/c it is illegal now.
as for Gaylord Perry it is a different kind of cheating. He still threw other pitches that were under his own power. Steroid players should be banned from the hall and stricken from the books b/c every aspect of their game is affected by these steroids. I bet that spitball didn’t help Perry bunt, run, and occasionally get a hit.
Bonds is a jerk, nobody cares what color his skin is.
tomahawkCHOP - February 12, 2009
The spitball dind’t help Perry do all of those things because, you know, he was a pitcher. Bonds’s steroids didn’t help him throw 95 mph fastballs and knee buckling curves!
bigjoe - February 12, 2009
Steroids didn’t help Bonds’ hand eye coordination. They didn’t help him make contact.
lunatic96 - February 12, 2009
You = ridiculous.
cbwilk - February 12, 2009
constantly repeating that doesn’t make it true. Do you really have proof that steroids (which are designed to build muscle mass) help hand-eye coordination? Do you have some proof that nobody else has seen? I would like to see this.
lunatic96 - February 12, 2009
there is more to baseball than hand eye coordination… no one doubts that Bonds is a great baseball player without steroids… but he went to another level of greatness because of steroids… his hand eye coordination was always great… but before steroids he didnt hit the ball as far… when the ball goes further theres a better chance of it being a HR… HR=good
if u cant see this ur blind and unwilling to realize steroids are instrumentally helpful in baseball.
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
not to mention extending your career via superhuman strength
tomahawkCHOP - February 12, 2009
Stupid argument
EVERY major leaguer has good hand-eye coordination. You can’t succeed in MLB without it. The difference is Bonds has superior level of hand-eye coordination which is why the steroids propelled him to super human status.
scstrato - February 12, 2009
Everyone needs to remember
that PEDs have been running rampant in the game since the late 1940’s when all the ballplayers came back from WWII. It is impossible to extract players who used PEDs from the history of the game. You will remove probably about half of all players, including Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron. They all have admitted that they used or tried amphetamines. Huge numbers of players from the 1960’s on used amphetamines – there were bowls of them in the MLB clubhouses.
If you really want to “clean the sport” and “sanctify the recordbook” you are going to have to go forward, because you cannot extract PEDs from the past.
Alex V - February 12, 2009
Obvious solution
Retroactively annex the Negro Leagues and the Japanese Baseball Leagues, thereby making Josh Gibson and Sadaharu Oh 1-2 on the all time HR list. Problem solved.
jc25 - February 12, 2009
not thats an idea
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
Yes it is and it’s fucking brilliant.
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
SELIG
I went to an interview he did w/ a Milwaukee reporter. He told a story about how the first clubhouse he ever went into was the Milwaukee Braves in 1956.
He said the first thing he saw was a jar of greenies in the middle of the clubhouse.
A-Rod messed up, and so did Bonds, but where do we draw the line? Sure, we know 103 other players tested positive for banned substances, but how many players in the history of baseball have taken one thing or another?
FrankyWren - February 12, 2009
So there is further proof
That Bud Selig had known about this problem for almost 50 years and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT until 2004. Why? Because he was lining his pockets, just like every other owner. He said NOTHING about steroids until his ass was in a sling and MLB was hauled before congress. If the focus had not been brought onto steroids in 2002, none of this would be coming out right now. Baseball would have swept it under the rug.
Alex V - February 12, 2009
ur clearly into hating Selig, so ur theories are a bit biased… if the problem started in the 50s its not necessarily Selig’s fault he didnt do anything… the commisioner’s before him were in his his shoes when the problems started so they just as easily could have put thier foot down.. singling out Selig for this is irresponsible, he certainly had a part but so did the media and the fans and everyone involved.
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
It is Selig's fault he is a hypocrite
No, singling out Bud is not irresponsible. He has presided over the worst scandal since the Black Sox. And he has presided over it very poorly.
I have a lot of problems with the sanctimony being displayed by the commissioner. He wants to punish players who were working in the system that he himself was complicit in creating and supported. In Marvin Miller’s book, “A Whole Different Ballgame,” Marvin never once mentions the owners bringing up PED/Amphetamines during the Collective Bargaining sessions with the Players Union until we get to the 1990’s, and then only in passing as something that was mentioned but with no real attempt at negotiations by the owners. If Bud was as hot under the collar about PEDs back then, maybe this mess wouldn’t have happened. Bud has been an owner since 1970. He has been in a position to do something for a long, long time. He could have started the ball rolling almost 40 years ago. All of the owners were very much involved in the Collective Bargaining sessions. You do not get to punish someone who is playing YOUR game by YOUR rules.
I am basing my anger on the facts.
Alex V - February 12, 2009
but u seem to be completley ignoring the fact that there are others who were in on this… the other owners, previous commissioners who didnt put in rules that forbid steroids and amphetamines from the beginning.
Swo12bv - February 13, 2009
No, I am not ignoring
Anyones culpability. They are all complicit, but they didn’t try and retroactively make up for their failing. I am saying that a person does not get to act sanctimoniously and hand out punishment if they knew and encouraged this behavior to begin with. All commissioners, owners and ball players since the late ’40’s have known about this. The only person to act shocked in this whole thing is Bud Selig, and he is the only one who is handing out punishment.
Alex V - February 13, 2009
Oohh Joy
This self-righteous rant again. Just to hit the talking points all at once so I can cut-and-paste as the other 103 names are illegally leaked out:
1) There is zero objective evidence that steroids enhance a baseball player’s performance. The only people to look at it — Baseball Prospectus — found a mild benefit to mid-range players. The Mitchell Report contained a lot of “huh?” names of players who never accomplished anything.
2) Neither A-Rod nor Bonds are the first people to cheat at baseball, nor are they the first to use drugs to do so. Every clubhouse in the 1960’s had a jar of greenies — whose primary benefits was likely the same as steroids — enduring the long season. Steroid use itself goes back to at least the 1980’s. It’s probably that one of your childhood heros was taking a drug to be better player.
3) Juice was everywhere in the 90’s. The pitchers may have been roiding up more than the hitters.
4) The Mitchell Report clearly indicates that management knew who was on the juice. The media probably were either stunningly ignorant or tried to keep it quiet (remember what they did to the reporter who found Andro in McGwire’s locker?) While steroids were illegal, there was no testing and no punishment. As Bill James said the other day, baseball created an environment in which it was in the players’ interest to juice and now wants to have a hissy fit because they juiced.
5) If we go down this route of cleaning record books, we have two choices. We can wipe out all the stats of the era — which means guys like Greg Maddux can miss the HOF. Or we can turn it into a witch hunt — selecting punishing players we don’t like, such as Bonds and Arod. Tragically, that seems to be the way this blog favors.
I know no one wants to listen to a defense of spoiled millionaires. But there you go. It’s what I think.
mhsiegel14 - February 12, 2009
ill handle u in spring training
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
I actually agree with a lot of this...
especially #4. Bill James is dead on with this one – because MLB, the media, the fans and the teams looked the other way on this one, they created and environment where the use of PEDs was rampant. As much as I would like to say I wouldn’t have done it in a player’s situation, I would certainly be tempted. When there aren’t any penalties for using PEDs to get an edge, some portion of players will do it. For Selig, the media, the retired MLBers and the team owners to get so upset over this is nothing but an attempt to save face by absolving themselves of responsibility. PED use in baseball has been public knowledge since the late 1960s when Jim Bouton wrote Ball Four. That most of the people involved with the game are only now beginning to express indignation says a lot more about them than about the players of this era.
I actually think this has more to do with what happened during this time in baseball than it does race – and not just the increased rate of home runs being hit. Baseball, perhaps more than any other form of entertainment, has an uncanny obsession about history. At the turn of the century, one of the favorite targets of the baseball establishment wasn’t Bonds, it was Billy Beane and his newfangled ideas about how to build a winning ballclub. Telling guys like Joe Morgan that, for example, a walk is almost as good as a single, is akin to sacrilege. Baseball is a very different looking game today than it was in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, and I think a lot of the old players, writers, and managers do not like it. They don’t like the increased home run rates, the perceived disrespect that the latest crop of players have for the veterans, the young guys from non-baseball backgrounds telling them what wins ballgames and not vice versa. Even as “sabermetric” ideas gain more mainstream acceptance, the well-ingrained cliches and half-truths die hard and it has seemed to me that, for some time, many of the old timers have given up debate in favor of glorifying the past incarnations of the game in a way that, even for a sport that revels in it’s “good ol’ days”, is rather over the top.
Going forward, MLB has to take a strong stance on PEDs, mostly for PR purposes. If anyone here thinks that PEDs are going away just because of testing I would suggest pulling your head out of the sand. With millions of dollars and a shot at eternal glory on the line, players will do anything to get an edge, real or perceived.
However, the way out of this mess is not a witch hunt. Bonds, Rodriguez, and the hundreds of others who used from the beginning of the sport through 2003 did not violate a Major League Baseball rule. It will not give me any peace to know that Bud Selig, a co-conspirator in all of this, is going back through the record books with white out. It will not give me a sense of fairness to lock McGwire, Bonds, Clemens and Rodriguez out of the hall of fame so the BBWAA can pretentiously grasp at some kind of ethical high ground. And it will certainly not make me feel that justice has been done if Bonds gets locked up on tax evasion when he shouldn’t have been investigated in the first place.
BraveBronco0121 - February 12, 2009
I agree
You and mhsiegel14 are pretty spot on. MLB has to accept the past and worry about the future.
And they better start worrying about the future – ballplayers have already started looking for new edges: ADHD medicine. There has been an alarming rise in drug exemptions given out by MLB regarding these medications. In 2006, 28 players were using ADHD medicine. In 2008, a total of 106 ballplayers have a medical exemption. Somehow in just 2 years, 78 more ballplayers suddenly were diagnosed with ADHD.
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sports/baseball/10doping.html?_r=1
Alex V - February 13, 2009
Question
First, I agree with your point – this is a serious problem. My question is how do you expect baseball to handle this issue, specifically a medical issue, considering the medical profession itself it unable to agree whether is actually exists? Doctors across the nation are still arguing over exactly what ADD or ADHD is and even more disagree on how to diagnose it. So, is it fair to hold this over baseball’s head?
scstrato - February 13, 2009
How will the MLB handle possible ADHD usage? I expect..
Baseball to sweep this particular problem under the rug, as it has done with all PED issues in the past until it comes back and bites them on the ass. :-)
In all seriousness, I just don’t think that it should be the issue everyone is making of it. I honestly do not care what drugs athletes put into their bodies. Ballplayers have been cheating since the beginning and will cheat until the end. It is their decision if they wish to chemically enhance their performance. I, nor anyone else, should be in a position to tell them how to live their lives.
The decision each ballplayer has to make is this: I am this good now and I can get this far on my ability. Is that as far as I want to go? What is more important: money or long term health? Some will pick long term health and some will pick money. That is their choice.
Alex V - February 13, 2009
You’re right, it is their lives, but this goes back to my notion that baseball is also a job for the players involved. Throw in the ethical debate between two players whom are good players, but one is determined to do it the right way with what the good lord gave him, and the other doesn’t have such qualms about using some foreign help at the risk of future physical deterioration. One guy uses PEDs, and becomes capable of hitting the ball a little harder, resulting in more homers, a #4 batting spot, more RBI, and more fame which equates to more money, and the other guy becomes a respectable, but oft-overlooked #2 or 6-7 hitter. Who makes more money?
Both make their choices with their best interests in mind, and juicing/not-juicing is never done with the deliberate intention to hurt others. And especially for those players who have families and such, it’s more understandable, but it doesn’t make it any more right to do. This will never go away, and as I said earlier, just because everyone does it, doesn’t make it necessarily right.
PS – your avatar – Doctor Octopus??
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
It's a very complicated ethical issue...
and one that, in my opinion, isn’t getting enough attention. To answer whether or not PED use is unethical, you have to go through a number of steps.
1. What are the effects of PEDs? Do they improve performance in all cases? Most? Some?
I tend to think that the latter is the case with PEDs. Bonds is a glaring example of enhanced performance, but A-Rod wasn’t any more impressive in Texas than he has been in NY. The HR uptick he saw from 01-03 is far more attributable to playing in Arlington than juicing. The vast majority of guys who are known or suspected users are journeyman players, not the kind of guys who wow you with feats of skill and physical strength. Bonds and McGwire seem to be the only two users we know of who saw the kind of performance explosion attributed to PEDs.
If they don’t enhance performance, it’s not unethical – it’s stupid. The jury is still out on the extent of the enhancement.
2. If they do enhance performance, what is it that makes it unethical?
Most of the arguments I’ve seen here give me the impression that legality is the main problem here. PEDs are, by and large, not available legally without a prescription. Thus, those guys who use have skirted the law. Now, it strikes me that breaking a law isn’t necessarily unethical – the law could be unjust, of little importance, etc. Other issues here include the rather rather dubious “think of the kids!” argument, but I think the bottom line is that most fans view PED use as a bad thing because it is only available to those who are willing to break the law to gain an advantage over their law-abiding brethren.
This is quite understandable, but I’m not sure if this is more a problem with the law than it is with PED use. All kinds of dangerous substances – alcohol, tobacco, hallucinogenic cough syrup, caffeine pills, etc – are available to anyone of legal age. If PEDs were legally available without a prescription, would we still have an issue with this?
I think a lot of people would, mainly because there are still extralegal risks associated with their use – you know, bad joints and shriveled gonads. Our society seems to think that the risks outweigh the rewards and the athletes should be protected from themselves. Here again we often run into the “think of the kids!” argument. I tend to dismiss it – there hasn’t been, to my knowledge, an uptick in teen steroid use during the time of known PED use in MLB. Even without a prohibition on PED use in the professional ranks, there would remain a strong social stigma associated with their use, particularly amongst young people.
The ultimate problem with that proposition – that the risks aren’t worth the rewards – is that it’s a different calculation for every individual. Sure, for Joe Baseball Fan, steroids are probably a bad idea. But for Jack the Slugger, a few years of PED use could well put him over the top. Joe’s rewards are next to nothing, while Jack’s are off the charts, and their risks are roughly the same. This isn’t the kind of decision that one can have made for them. If Jack doesn’t mind trading all the terrible side effects for eternal glory and loads of cash, can we really tell him that he’s making the wrong decision by using?
What I’m really getting at is this – in the absence of MLB and government prohibition, is their something unethical about steroid use? If so, what is it that makes it unethical? It seems to me that (ideally) when we make a law, we’re saying that act X is unethical and we seek to sanction it. Murder is, independent from any laws prohibiting it, an immoral act. So is theft, assault, blackmail, etc. Does PED use fall into that category or is it something else that, along the lines of marijuana use, isn’t really unethical, we just don’t feel good about it as a society.
Seriously, one could write a dissertation on the ethics of this. It’s incredibly complicated to come to a conclusion about it’s ethical status and, kind of unsurprisingly, completely taken for granted.
BraveBronco0121 - February 13, 2009
Joe Simpson said it best
He suspected the same thing when they discussed Adam LaRoche and Craig Biggio during an ATL/HOU series, and how both were taking ADHD meds. And that when other players see the improvement it made for them, why can’t they take it?
Derek Lowe is also on ADHD medication, just fyi going into the season with him.
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
Age 37
Oh, and just in case I haven’t ruined everyone’s high horse enough, you might want to consider this:
Hank Aaron’s career high in home runs was 47. This was 1971 when he was 37 years old. In a smaller modern ballpark with the emphasis on power pitching, he would probably have hit close to 60. That was also one of the best years of his career. He followed it by hitting 34 at age 38 and 40 at age 39.
The year Bonds hit his career high in home runs? Age 36. His last great year — 45 home runs at age 39.
mhsiegel14 - February 12, 2009
i dont think u came to teh right place if ur looking for support in tearing down Hank Aaron
Swo12bv - February 12, 2009
He's not tearing down Hank
He’s explaining Bonds.
Alex V - February 12, 2009
Nope
Not tearing down Hammerin Hank, who I think may be the most under-rated player in baseball history. I’m pointing out that Bonds’ great seasons may not have been the result of steroids. Great players can, have and will put up amazing seasons in their late 30’s, juice or no juice.
mhsiegel14 - February 13, 2009
A couple of points
As someone who believes steroids does/can have a significant impact on player performances I find myself a bit surprised that I agree with an overwhelming amount of your points. Specifically #’s 2 thru 5 of your original post. The only problem I have is with your first point.
First, part of your point is that the Mitchell report contains names of players who roided/cheated (however you want to phrase it) who never really accomplished anything. Personally I don’t think it’s fair to use this as evidence against steroids boosting performance. On the one side, your point that they “used” but never really accomplished anything is noted – but isn’t it also possible that this group of players might not have been able to keep their jobs in the majors had they not done what the did? Is their any evidence to show that either of these two points is accurate? If not, then is it fair to look at this group as evidence that steroids/PED’s DO NOT boost performance?
Next, you point to research from BP that supposedly shows the only group to benefit from PED’s would be the mid-range player. My first problem here is that you indicate that the team at BP are “The only people to look at it”. BULL! Sorry, but there are numerous studies done on steroids and their impacts. One that I would like to point out is from Tom Tango – actually it’s Tom reviewing information from Derek Zumsteg. Here’s the link (the goods starts around post 11 and 12). The point here is that DZ, and also Tom Tango, found credible evidence that supports the rumors of Bonds 3 week on / 1 week off steroid cycle. It’s a good read, please go into it with an open mind. My second problem with this is that, if this is the study your are referencing from BP, it merely disproves the theory that steroids would give ALL players a substantial competitive advantage. It does not prove that steroids will not give certain players a substantial advantage and it certainly isn’t evidence against Bonds being aided by them.
Hammerin’ Hank vs. Barry Bonds. Hank is one of my all-time favorites, i’m glad you brought him up. Your assertion that players can put up amazing seasons late in their careers is not something I would disagree with. I do however disagree that players can all of a sudden become “superhuman” at age 36 and using Hank to theorize that Bonds “could” have done this without steroids is faulty. First, Hank was merely continuing his expected performances through seasons when typically players start a decline. There is at least some precedent here. Bonds, on the other hand, began exceeding his career standards in almost every power related category. One example, he had never had an ISO higher than .355 prior to his age 35 season, but all of a sudden he put up four consecutive seasons above .400 (.536, .429, .408, and .450). There is no precedent for this kind of improvement at age 36.
So my opinion here, objective evidence or not, there is NO POSSIBLE way Bonds performances for these seasons were natural. The fact there is evidence he took steroids (failed test), there is evidence that his performance exceeded his career norms during the season the failed test was recorded, and there is NO evidence ever in the history of baseball that a player can experience this kind of improvement in performances beginning with their age 36 season is MORE than enough proof for me that steroids DOES indeed improve certain players performance. I will agree however that they may not have the same effect on all players but this is hardly proof that they have little or no effect.
Regardless of our differences in opinion on this topic, and as I said above, I feel you are dead on in the rest of your points.
scstrato - February 13, 2009
What I want to know is where in the BLANK are all of these new people coming from???
mvandonsel - February 13, 2009
SI.com seems to have an RSS feed to this site, because the top stories of the day almost always have one link to Talking Chop.
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
I'm With mhsiegel14 On This One.
It’s no surprise that the guys to get the most hate out of this are the ones that people disliked to begin with. I also agree with a lot of his larger points, such as cheating has been prevalent in baseball throughout its history and it’s impossible to seperate out the roiders from the non-roiders in this era.
By the way, Babe Ruth was, is and likely always will be the real HR king.
ejruiz - February 13, 2009
I remember the year bonds went from great to a beast. I was at turner field when the braves were playing the giants. It was a rain delay of a hour or so then another one later but, he hit three homeruns that night and then he had four in the next two games. He was doing ok that season but he got really hot in turner field that series and he never slowed down the rest of the year, and I remeber thinking then bonds had to be juiced but he did put on a show.
As far as taking the record, I am all for it but MLB has to be equal and take away all records of all the accused if they are found guilty of using. This includes everyone else who is in the top ten in any catagory. Otherwise everything has to stand.
The only way to do this and be fair will kill baseballs legacy, so I say put a * just like they did with marris and let later generations figure it out.
bravesrbaseball - February 13, 2009
A final conclusion
Reading all the responses and fresh views, this is my conclusion:
Don’t ban players, don’t remove records. What’s done is done, and I agree with the sentiment of stop trying to forget the past, and needing to fix the future.
The asterisk citation is used for a reason – it is optional for you the viewer to seek out its representation or not. It doesn’t really matter what the final end-of-time baseball records will look like, because we’re all going to formulate our own opinions based on what we know.
So if the end tally looks something like:
Albert Pujols – 1,727#
Alex Rodriguez – 801*
Barry Bonds – 762*
Hank Aaron – 755
Babe Ruth – 715
Manny Ramirez – 7-Eleven*^
It is completely up to us, the viewer, to decide whether or not it is worth bothering to look up what the meaning behind the remarks are.
#believed to be God
*suspected user of performance-enhancing drugs
^paid millions by corporation to end career with particular number
It’s not hurting us, the baseball fan that Hank Aaron, or Babe Ruth, or even Sadaharu Oh is not the top of that list. When it comes to whom we think are the greatest all-time, we’ll all have our own opinions. Sometimes, stats will be able to refute them, and sometimes they won’t. It’s not going to be a YES or NO anymore, because the asterisks and footnotes will always add a permanent MAYBE option to the debates, but what does it matter? It’s inconclusive evidence, and there’s no such thing as changing the past.
royhobbs - February 13, 2009
that is great
+ a billion
Swo12bv - February 13, 2009
well done
Smoltz's Beard - February 13, 2009
who was the crazy person who said Pujols was overrated? where is that fanpost he (or she) promised
Swo12bv - February 13, 2009
Ugh
First off – Crazy is a relative term, and I have plenty of those relatives! Second – I didn’t promise a fanpost, I said “maybe” one day I would share. And thanks for not letting everyone forget I said that!!!
scstrato - February 13, 2009
sry to out u like that
Huggsies?
Swo12bv - February 13, 2009
FYI, Albert Pujols was worth nearly twice as much last year as Jeff Francoeur’s been worth his entire career.
bigjoe - February 13, 2009
Sweet
Lizziebeth - February 15, 2009
Let’s make this one green
VegasAces - February 13, 2009
Fail!
Should have been a reply
VegasAces - February 13, 2009
OUCH
mattdiaz4life - February 13, 2009
You're telling me!
At least I got it right this time.
VegasAces - February 13, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.