SI article on Bonds' steroid use.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

This article discusses whether Bonds should be in the HOF.

 

Yea or nay?

Voting members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America were asked whether they would vote for Barry Bonds for the Hall of Fame if they had to decide today.

 

Yes -- Bob Nightengale, USA Today Sports Weekly; Phil Rogers, Chicago Tribune; Mike Klis, Denver Post; John Henderson, Tampa Tribune; Doug Krikorian, Long Beach Press-Telegram; Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun; Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News; Dan McGrath, Chicago Tribune.

 

No -- Hal Bodley, USA Today; Dave van Dyck, Chicago Tribune; Ken Rosenthal, FoxSports.com; Hal McCoy, Dayton Daily News; Larry Stone, Seattle Times; Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times; Bob Klapisch, ESPN.com.

[neely crenshaw]

i have voice my opinion on this. to me the uproar over the book is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

first, every peson in baseball has thought/figured bonds took roids. WHY is it a shock to anyone if it's true?

if it comes out that sosa and mcgwire did too.. would we be shocked? of course not.

why do we even care? are we upset when we hear things like will mays used uppers when he played or that mantle drank like a fish? does it change the way we think of them as players?

how many players in all eras have used pain killers or cortisone shots to play through pain? do we care? they both enhance performance!

i am sure those weren't around whe babe ruth played.

people talk about it "tainting" the record. to me eras change. babe ruth never faced latin or black players. he never faced pitchers who played baseball as a full time job. heck, aaron still didn't face pitchers that worked all year on baseball. neither ever faced relief pitchers they way they used today.

eras change.

this is the weight lifting/roid era. baseball players never lifted in aaron's or ruth's day. that alone changes things.

steroids were not illegal in baseball because of that it's no different than taking legal(now) supplements to help your fitness. they were not available to other eras.

having, using and buying steroids is illegal in the us but it is not illegal in canada or latin countries.

mcgwire used andro and dhea. both are now illegal in baseball. should his stats be blackmarked because these like steroids are now illegal and tested for?

for my final piece. if we found out now that memebers of the bears championship team used roids back in 85, would we feel it was tainted? would we care? guess what? they probably did.

do you know how many baseball players probaly took roids at sometime during those years? i think you would be shocked. i would easily guess over half , and probably way over that

i don't see how selig could even consider suspending him. it was not tested for when these allegations took place and if they do, then they had better test every vile of blood they have because they have tests for every player from 2002 on. remember the contract deal for steroid testing was if a certain % of player tested positive anonymously they would add the eal testing for it. so they have blood from every player during that time.

[BigbadB]

I'm not so willing to believe Bonds was clean prior to 1998.

[goonys evil twin]

i have voice my opinion on this. to me the uproar over the book is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

first, every peson in baseball has thought/figured bonds took roids. WHY is it a shock to anyone if it's true?

if it comes out that sosa and mcgwire did too.. would we be shocked? of course not.

why do we even care? are we upset when we hear things like will mays used uppers when he played or that mantle drank like a fish? does it change the way we think of them as players?

how many players in all eras have used pain killers or cortisone shots to play through pain? do we care? they both enhance performance!

i am sure those weren't around whe babe ruth played.

 

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

[wade]

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

 

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship?

 

I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad)

[goonys evil twin]

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

 

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship?

 

I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad)

 

Spit balls were allowed for a while. Steroids were always against the rules, they just didn't have testing. And I don't think the two are near the same category.

[BigbadB]

And, steroids has helped baseball players break long standing records that otherwise probably wouldn't be broken.

 

Will they let the record stand when some player takes kryptonite and hits 540 HR's in a season, assuming kryptonite is an illegal drug. :D

[BigbadB]

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

 

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship?

 

I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad)

 

Was every pitch a spit ball? Probably not. Only when they could get away with it. Occasionally, they got caught and ejected from games.

 

Bonds was playing everyday enhanced by illegal drugs, and apparently a whole bunch of them. Add on his body armor and what pitcher stands a chance against the Incredible Hulk (minus the green skin tone)?

[fromthestretch]

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

 

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship?

 

I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad)

 

Spit balls were allowed for a while. Steroids were always against the rules, they just didn't have testing. And I don't think the two are near the same category.

 

Were they against the rules? I'm not questioning your statement, just curious. I was under the impression that until the testing started (or not too long before that anyway) that there were no MLB written rules regarding steroids.

 

I'd be curious to see what was outlined by MLB regarding the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs prior to the testing policy that was recently put into place.

[wade]

And, steroids has helped baseball players break long standing records that otherwise probably wouldn't be broken.

 

Will they let the record stand when some player takes kryptonite and hits 540 HR's in a season, assuming kryptonite is an illegal drug. :D

 

Actually kryptonite would hurt my game, as it makes me sick to be around it.

[goonys evil twin]

Were they against the rules? I'm not questioning your statement, just curious. I was under the impression that until the testing started (or not too long before that anyway) that there were no MLB written rules regarding steroids.

 

I'd be curious to see what was outlined by MLB regarding the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs prior to the testing policy that was recently put into place.

 

I've always heard that steroids fell under the same category of other drugs. But there wasn't any testing, that's why you could get away with it. If you got busted for stuff by the law, then MLB could act, but they couldn't test you, so if you stayed clear of the police, you were fine.

[wade]

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

 

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship?

 

I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad)

 

Spit balls were allowed for a while. Steroids were always against the rules, they just didn't have testing. And I don't think the two are near the same category.

 

But isn't Vida Blue, or some dude like that in the Hall and everybody is pretty sure he threw spitters when they were illegal?

 

BBB makes a good point along with yours, in that they probably weren't thrown on every pitch, whereas steroids make you stronger all the time.

[BigbadB]

Steroids, and pain killers, alcohol and cortisone shots are not at all in the same category. Why do we care? Because steroids are illegal and against every code of sportsmanship.

 

How do you feel about the whole 'spitball pitchers in the Hall' argument? Obviously obtaining spit is only gross and not illegal so it's not exactly the same, but do most baseball fans resent pitchers who may or may not have cheated when they were pitching? Is that a breach of sportsmanship?

 

I'm not even sure how I stand on the matter. Just curious what others think. (To clarify, I believe steroids = bad)

 

Spit balls were allowed for a while. Steroids were always against the rules, they just didn't have testing. And I don't think the two are near the same category.

 

But isn't Vida Blue, or some dude like that in the Hall and everybody is pretty sure he threw spitters when they were illegal?

 

BBB makes a good point along with yours, in that they probably weren't thrown on every pitch, whereas steroids make you stronger all the time.

 

Gaylord Perry comes to mind when discussing spit balls, not Vida Blue. Vida Blue is the one that supposedly threw a no hitter while on LSD.

 

Does the MLB really need to spell out all that is illegal? Do they really need an Article 276 section F that reads "child porn is illegal in the United States, therefore illegal in MLB. Any player caught with child porn will be banned from the game." I just don't see the need for this rule. If you are doing something that is illegal in this country, then the job/company you work for should be in jeopardy.

 

Steroids are an illegal substance, just like cocaine. How many times did Steve Howe get suspended?

[fromthestretch]

Were they against the rules? I'm not questioning your statement, just curious. I was under the impression that until the testing started (or not too long before that anyway) that there were no MLB written rules regarding steroids.

 

I'd be curious to see what was outlined by MLB regarding the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs prior to the testing policy that was recently put into place.

 

I've always heard that steroids fell under the same category of other drugs. But there wasn't any testing, that's why you could get away with it. If you got busted for stuff by the law, then MLB could act, but they couldn't test you, so if you stayed clear of the police, you were fine.

 

I'll have to look into it, and see what I can find. If it was against the rules all this time (prior to the testing policy), then that certainly alters my opinion on all of this a bit.

 

That being said, I did find a few interesting things:

 

1. Of the 12 players that have been suspended by MLB for steroid use, six are pitchers.

2. On 4/4/05, 38 minor leaguers were suspended of steroid use. Of those 38, 17 were pitchers.

3. On 5/12/05, 11 minor leaguers were suspended of steroid use. Of those 11, seven were pitchers.

 

In all, 30 of those 61 players suspended (nearly half) have been pitchers. If there were rules in place for steroid usage prior to testing at the major league level, Bonds certainly is guilty. But you do have to wonder how many "juiced" pitchers he faced day in and day out.

 

I do agree with the Neyer quote posted earlier. Steroids didn't make Bonds a great player. If anything, they enabled him to sustain his high level of performance for a longer period of time. If you agree with the allegations that he started taking it after the 1998 season, and factor in his career averages prior to that, he's probably a 550-600 home run guy instead of 700+. Certainly a big difference, but still HOF-worthy, when you factor in a career average that probably would have been in the .290s, 1500+ RBI, 500+ stolen bases, and what would have probably been a career OBP over .400 and career SLG of .570 or so, plus very good defense for a good portion of his career.

[goonys evil twin]

I do agree with the Neyer quote posted earlier. Steroids didn't make Bonds a great player. If anything, they enabled him to sustain his high level of performance for a longer period of time. If you agree with the allegations that he started taking it after the 1998 season, and factor in his career averages prior to that, he's probably a 550-600 home run guy instead of 700+. Certainly a big difference, but still HOF-worthy,

 

True, but Pete Rose was probably HOF material before he bet on baseball.

 

I don't care about the HOF, or HOF discussions. I think HOF BS is as obnoxiously self serving as the Emmies, Oscars, Golden Globes, Grammys, etc. So I'm not going to get into a Bonds/HOF debate. I really don't care. But I do have a big problem with him and roids in the game.

[fromthestretch]

Gaylord Perry comes to mind when discussing spit balls, not Vida Blue. Vida Blue is the one that supposedly threw a no hitter while on LSD.

 

Does the MLB really need to spell out all that is illegal? Do they really need an Article 276 section F that reads "child porn is illegal in the United States, therefore illegal in MLB. Any player caught with child porn will be banned from the game." I just don't see the need for this rule. If you are doing something that is illegal in this country, then the job/company you work for should be in jeopardy.

 

Steroids are an illegal substance, just like cocaine. How many times did Steve Howe get suspended?

 

That's all well and good, but I don't think you can retroactively enforce it. It's certainly within the right of MLB to enforce these things now and moving forward, but you can't go back and say that because he used in 1999, we're going to ignore his stats from that point forward. There's no way to pinpoint the exact day he started taking steroids, just like there's no way of knowing exactly how many other players were taking them.

 

Also consider that people that have been caught cheating in other ways - such as Joe Niekro and the nail file - have simply been suspended. They haven't had their stats marked with an asterisk or completely removed from record books as a lot of people are calling for with Bonds. I'm not saying you're calling for that type of action, but a lot of people are.

[goonys evil twin]

Gaylord Perry comes to mind when discussing spit balls, not Vida Blue. Vida Blue is the one that supposedly threw a no hitter while on LSD.

 

Does the MLB really need to spell out all that is illegal? Do they really need an Article 276 section F that reads "child porn is illegal in the United States, therefore illegal in MLB. Any player caught with child porn will be banned from the game." I just don't see the need for this rule. If you are doing something that is illegal in this country, then the job/company you work for should be in jeopardy.

 

Steroids are an illegal substance, just like cocaine. How many times did Steve Howe get suspended?

 

That's all well and good, but I don't think you can retroactively enforce it. It's certainly within the right of MLB to enforce these things now and moving forward, but you can't go back and say that because he used in 1999, we're going to ignore his stats from that point forward. There's no way to pinpoint the exact day he started taking steroids, just like there's no way of knowing exactly how many other players were taking them.

 

Also consider that people that have been caught cheating in other ways - such as Joe Niekro and the nail file - have simply been suspended. They haven't had their stats marked with an asterisk or completely removed from record books as a lot of people are calling for with Bonds. I'm not saying you're calling for that type of action, but a lot of people are.

 

As I mentioned before, I don't care about HOF, nor the * debate. But I think a suspension would be in order and it would do a lot to take care of at least half of the * debate, and might even delay HOF induction, which would have it's own affect.

[BigbadB]

I'm with Goony. I don't have a whole lot of respect for the HOF.

 

And if Ron Santo is not in the HOF before his days on this planet are over, I will never have any respect for the HOF.

 

And I'm not just referring to his baseball playing credentials. If a guy like Ron Santo can't have his place in the HOF, who really should? The guy has overcome tremendous odds to still be among us, and he is still around the game as much as when he played.

[fromthestretch]

Gaylord Perry comes to mind when discussing spit balls, not Vida Blue. Vida Blue is the one that supposedly threw a no hitter while on LSD.

 

Does the MLB really need to spell out all that is illegal? Do they really need an Article 276 section F that reads "child porn is illegal in the United States, therefore illegal in MLB. Any player caught with child porn will be banned from the game." I just don't see the need for this rule. If you are doing something that is illegal in this country, then the job/company you work for should be in jeopardy.

 

Steroids are an illegal substance, just like cocaine. How many times did Steve Howe get suspended?

 

That's all well and good, but I don't think you can retroactively enforce it. It's certainly within the right of MLB to enforce these things now and moving forward, but you can't go back and say that because he used in 1999, we're going to ignore his stats from that point forward. There's no way to pinpoint the exact day he started taking steroids, just like there's no way of knowing exactly how many other players were taking them.

 

Also consider that people that have been caught cheating in other ways - such as Joe Niekro and the nail file - have simply been suspended. They haven't had their stats marked with an asterisk or completely removed from record books as a lot of people are calling for with Bonds. I'm not saying you're calling for that type of action, but a lot of people are.

 

As I mentioned before, I don't care about HOF, nor the * debate. But I think a suspension would be in order and it would do a lot to take care of at least half of the * debate, and might even delay HOF induction, which would have it's own affect.

 

Whether he goes into the HOF is irrelevant. I was using that to simply point out that I don't believe steroids made him a great player. I could honestly care less if he actually gets his mug on a plaque there or not.

 

I don't see anything wrong with suspending him now, if there is indisputable evidence that he did these things. Ban him from baseball if that's the punishment that fits.

 

But what he's already accomplished on the field is done. I don't know of any other "cheaters" that have had their numbers thrown out the window. And as far as I can tell, they'll never be able to know exactly how many other players were taking things as recently as two years ago, including how many pitchers were on something when they faced Bonds. That may or may not be something you're arguing or even care about, but that's the thing that has me the most bent out of shape about all of this. I listen to these people calling into radio shows and writing all their articles about how his stats shouldn't count or how he should be thrown out of the record books, and I personally don't see any justification for it.

 

Even though we'll most likely never know what percentage of players were on performance-enhancing drugs in the past, what would any of you think if it happened to turn out that over 50% of players (including pitchers) were on some sort of performance-enhancing drug for let's say the past 10-15 years? Would you consider it to have been a much more level playing field? I'm not trying to call anyone out here. Just curious.

[frostwyrm]

I don't see how Bonds can be excluded from the HOF without it constituting a sweeping indictment of the HOF-worthiness of anyone who played in his era. What are we supposed to do, exclude everyone who played then? For better or worse, the stats of Bonds et al. are in the official books and they demand some acknowledgment.

[CubinNY]

And if Ron Santo is not in the HOF before his days on this planet are over, I will never have any respect for the HOF.

 

And I'm not just referring to his baseball playing credentials. If a guy like Ron Santo can't have his place in the HOF, who really should? The guy has overcome tremendous odds to still be among us, and he is still around the game as much as when he played.

 

Well written. Most of the players are jack-asses anyway. Mike Schmidt said he would never vote for a person on the vetran's ballot b/c they weren't good enough the first time. What kind of logic is that?

 

Most of the sportswriters feel like they are some type of gatekeeper. BS is what I say.

[frostwyrm]

Bonds could salvage some of his reputation and win over a lot of HOF voters if he just retired now and made a good speech. Something like "I've accomplished everything I set out to do in my career, I am wholly satisfied with my achievements", etc. People would know he was talking about Aaron and Ruth's records.

[soccer10k]

In all, 30 of those 61 players suspended (nearly half) have been pitchers. If there were rules in place for steroid usage prior to testing at the major league level, Bonds certainly is guilty. But you do have to wonder how many "juiced" pitchers he faced day in and day out.

 

Yeah but wouldn't taking steroids as a pitcher just help you throw your fastball harder? It's not going to help you throw a better change up or a better curve ball. A harder fastball isn't that big of a deal if you can pitch well (see Greg Maddux, Barry Zito, etc.) If you don't have another pitch, a good fastball isn't going to help you. Eventually major league hitters will catch up to it.

 

Taking steroids as a hitter is MUCH more advantagous. Having a quicker bat allows to wait that extra split second before swinging at the pitch which is huge in baseball. It also gives you extra strength to hit the ball farther as well. So not only are you going to hit more balls better by taking steroids, but you're going to hit them farther. That's a much bigger difference than what a pitcher gets out of it.

[goonys evil twin]

Yeah but wouldn't taking steroids as a pitcher just help you throw your fastball harder?

 

Most people believe it's greatest benefit would be in the ability to bounce back after an outing.

[wade]

Yeah but wouldn't taking steroids as a pitcher just help you throw your fastball harder?

 

Most people believe it's greatest benefit would be in the ability to bounce back after an outing.

 

Yeah, and it could conceivably prolong their career. Perhaps allowing guys in their 40's to still throw with the same velocity as their younger days.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that steroids can make athletes perform better or else they wouldn't take them.