I agree and may even support Bonds to a greater degree than you as I don't think he is as much of a jerk as he is made out to be.

But I do think Ted Williams was the greatest player of all time.

I completely agree with much of what you say.

But using amphetamines and other PED's is a double edged sword. It's an important point to make. But steroids is in a class by itself.

Look in the top 10 in HR's per season and 3 players dominate that list. Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa.

There were no rules against the usage and therefore should be no asterisk. Bonds was a HOF player before PED's.

But to classify steroids with amphetamines, spitballs, etc. seems a little disingenious to me.

And here is why:

If Larry Bird, out of petty jealousy, took PED's to put up better numbers than Michael, we could now say he was the greatest of all time.  He didn't, we don't.  He is one of the greatest.

If Junior took PED's, and set the record for most homers, we would be saying he was the greatest of all time.  He didn't, we don't.  
BUT, before Bonds took drugs, it was debatable who was better between the two.  Bonds would not have gone down as one of the top 2-3 players, but as one of the top what, 15?  25?  

I don't think people get the point on why most people don't like Barry Bonds. Its not because he took some form of a steroid, its that he will not admit that he did it. Its easier for people to forgive then to be deceived.

Is blown out of proportion. If Barry Bonds 'OJ'd' someone, then there might be some 'merit' to the 'petty jealousy' argument somehow being some 'character flaw' that needs to be taken apart and ostracized.    

By in large though, 'petty jealousy' is what drives the athletes to jack their game up to a whole new level. With professionals, the stakes are even higher.

With athletes 'we like' in society, 'petty jealous' is considered 'drive' or 'desire' to be the best.

thanks. very common sensical.

This is really ridiculous I think. If Bonds were more personable, this wouldn't be a controversy. The press has hated Barry Bonds way before the steroid thing, just like they hated Ted Williams. Because he doesn't put up with their crap.

What John said.

Just because others cheat or cheated, doesn't make it ok that Bonds Did (and IMO probably still does. HGH anyone?)

That's the sad part about this time, that many sports cheat with steroids or blood work.  Look at the Tour De France, probably half the riders cheated but do we know that Lance Armstrong possibly cheated.  Sure we have heard wispers that he has, but he never tested positive for them much like Bonds.  The NFL has probably a worse drug problem than baseball but do we hear about that as much, no because it's more of a team game instead of an individual player.  Now if Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Ladianian Tomlinson tested positive then it would be a huge story because those players play in the most important positions, but when a lineman cheats do we hear about it, not really and the fans don't really care.  Now we will have to hear about round of congressional talks eventually due to the Mitchell investigation and the idiot Canceco who think he is going to rat out every star because he was passed over by much more talented players.

a bunch of excuses for why we shouldn't care that Bonds cheated his way into being one of the greatest hitters of all time.  Sorry, but the fact that others have and continue to cheat doesn't excuse anything.  I would feel the exact same way if it were McGwire or Sosa or Giambi or any of the other cheaters.

Steroids permanently or semi-permanently alter one's body.  You're trying to tell me that scuffing a ball  or taking greenies is just as bad?  No way, no how.

Many expert have found that it is very difficult to compare statistics from different eras in order to come up with the greatest player of all time.

If we have indeed passed through an era, the Steroid Era, when untold multitudes of players, both hitters and pitchers, were chemically enhanced, I don't think anyone can deny that Bonds was one of the best, if not the very best player of that era. I think that would have held true whether or not he used PED's.  Bonds was a tremendous all around talent throughout the 90's, and when the level of competition was artificially raised, Bonds simply transcended to an even higher level, above everyone else.

What he has done since the late 90's and early 00's, enhanced or not, does not make his earlier accomplishments non-existent or meaningless, even though it might dwarf them in magnitude.  Five years after Bonds retires, I think it would be time for those HOF-voting sportswriters who have a vendetta against Bonds to try to put personal feelings aside and do what is right.

On the question of the greatest player of all time, I would like to put in my own 2 cents.  And I would like to use Bond's own words during his post-756 press conference.  He used words to the effect of "We in the fraternity of baseball players have always been entertainers. It is our job to entertain the fans."  Well, if we are in agreement with that statement, who can argue that the greatest player of all time was someone very close to Bonds himself- the great Willie Mays.  No one in the history of the game could entertain the crowd better than Mays by doing anything and everything on the field with incredible skill, flair, and pure joy.

Cheating. This post should begin and end with the title and first word.

I suppose I just don't understand why everyone puts so much credence into the record in the first place. It might be why I don't care as much as most people. But the eras in which baseball was played are different, so taking one number and comparing it across those eras is naturally flawed.

Bonds is villified because he is a jerk. He is a jerk to reporters, a jerk to fans, and - like it or not - gets on people's nerves when the race card is played. The argument about Bonds as a man goes beyond steroids. Bonds cheated. I don't know how many else cheated but he did. The moment he hit the home run was nice, but I don't get why people feel this need to run to his aid.

He's a big boy and he dug his own hole with his attitude issues. As far as the 'roids go, I think he cheated. As far as the record, I just don't care that much.

I don't believe everyone did steroids.  IMOP, Griffey is the best of his generation, and not the cheater, Bonds (obviously, this is predicated on my assumption that Griffey didn't do drugs, which could be totally wrong). I can't stand people giving Bonds the pass because others cheated.  As stated by other posters, greenies, scuffed balls, and other actions like that are cheating and should be dealt with appropriately; however, they pale in comparison to steroids, HGH, etc. That said, Bud Selig and the owners are the main culprits - they profited mightedly by the Steroid Era, with full knowledge and complicity.  And now, the hypocrites villify Bonds and want to use him as a scapegoat.  No, Selig should be banned from baseball with all the owners.  Since that won't happen, Bonds should continue to play and make their lifes as uncomfortable and miserable as possible. But, he is still a cheat, I will never recognize the "accomplishments" during his steroid period (yes, before he was a legitimate HOF, and no, like Maguire, he should not be first ballot HOF).  
Sorry for the long post - by the way, in this year's Tour de France, Rasmussan (the leader of the race and he definitely would of won) was forced to leave the race without ever testing positive. He lied about where he was when he was supposed to be tested before the Tour and didn't take the required random test.  Also, two teams were forced to withdraw when team members tested positive. Draconian measures, but necessary to try to bring back the integrity of the sport and determine who is the best bike rider and not who's chemist is better.  And yes, I think Lance did cheat, and I have lost all respect for him.

"If Bonds were more personable, this wouldn't be a controversy."

This is a pretty silly statement to make.  Isn't Sammy Sosa about as personable as they come in the sport?  I doubt writers will just push Sammy's congressional testimony under the rug and vote him in the Hall because he was personable.

The whole lot of these guys need to be blackballed from the HOF and all record books the second it is proven they used anything.  They disrespected the game and are a big reason an entire generation of the best athletes in America aren't playing baseball.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512

This article is one ESPN writer's attempt to estimate how many of Bonds' HRs were "legitimate", written after Bonds had hit his 714th HR. An interesting read.

Lots of these points have been routinely made, dissected, and discarded by logic.  The whole steroid apologist-and-refutation has wandered aroudn over the years, with individual lines popping up like those puppets in the old Whack-a-Mole arcade game - each is beaten down by logic and morality, then reemerges out of a different hole like some kind of rodent vampire that can't be killed.

"Doesn't apply to pitchers" (debunked)

"You can tell who does it by their size" (Debunked)

"Can't help you make contact" (Debunked AND a red herring)

"There's always been cheating" (twisting the argument)

"Doesn't pose health risk to the players that take it" (Debunked)

"Doesn't affect other guys" (debunked)

"Is really rare" (The "Ken Caminiti is nuts" argument)

"Isn't really that common" (The "Jose Canseco is just trying to sell a book" argument)

"Doesn't help most players at all" (The selective hearing argument - because Alex Sanchez and Neifi Perez aren't breaking home run records, it doesn't   compromise Sosa/McGwire's/Giambi's/Bonds) accomplishments.

"Is an even playing field (completely opposed to the "really rare" argument) because hitters have to bat off the pitchers that are using it" (Willful avoidance of the fact that the benefits to pitchers are quite different from the benefits to hitters - it makes hitters more dangerous, pitchers simply more resilient)

"Barry would have been a HOFer anyway, so it doesn't matter" (The I could care less what Shoeless Joe did outside the batter's box argument)

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I LIKE MY BASEBALL HISTORY, THAN YOU VERY MUCH, AND I HAVE LITTLE OR NO INTEREST IN SEEING UNFAIR ADVANTAGES CULTIVATED, OVERLOOKED, AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED BY THE MAINSTREAM LEAGUE.  IT DIMINISHES MY LOVE FOR THE GAME!  

"It probably made him stronger, yes, but it did not improve his strike zone judgment, or his hand-eye coordination, and those were the things that have made him such an exceptional hitter."

Wrong, John, very wrong.  One benefit of steroidal compounds is that they can increase one's vision.  And we all know that once a power hitter becomes feared, they become more able to choose pitches, thus helping a very valuable feedback mechanism.  Better eyesight + more power = much greater chance to leverage even more benefit.
 

Baseball is an form of entertainment

Most dont goto the movie to watch the ugly guy/gir

Most root for the good guys to win (although once I want the villian to just shoot the hero dead instead of the damn monologing)

Most root for the underdog

Most root for the senior/vet in his/her last year looking for a ring

Most root for a player they relate to or that affable, fits their morals.

We dont hire suspected murderers, we dont hire suspected pedophiles, rude or arrogent peoples

Why would we support a supposed, surly, nasty, throw his teamates under the bus, possible charity and tax cheating race card bearing ballplayer at the top of our list or the bottom for that matter.

Because of the media PUULEAZE, you give yourself too much credit.

We want wholesome (with a little edge) role models and heros NOT becuase the media says to or not.

Barry Bonds may break/tie a buoatload of records but he has and never will be a hero, rolemodel or the best at anything ('cept maybe being a pompus butt)

.... one in Bonds's defense (a little) and one against Bonds (again a little).

Pro-Bonds:
To all those who think that he has been taking HGH instead of anabolic steroids now because it is undetectable, HGH has not been shown to give any strength or athletic benefit. Medical studies have shown that HGH basically just does what it says, it makes you and your body grow. It doesnt, however, make you stronger. The muscle is adds is anomalous and does not add noticeably to strength. Medical studies have shown this.

There is a better article on this somewhere that I cant remember, including a link to published scientific material, but instead I will just give this because I found it with Google:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=246

Anti-Bonds:
The argument that "Pitchers he opposed were doing it" or "Most other players were doing it" are both bad arguements for Bonds. First off, if pitchers were juicing, it would lead to more home runs, because "the harder the pitch, the further it flies". There is a physical limit to what the arm can withstand. Steroids werent going to make a pitcher who throws 95 throw 105, but they might help a pitcher who throws 80 throw 90. All that means is more pitchers throwing low to mid 90s. That, combined with the fact that steroids dont teach you how to pitch, leads to a jump in HRs in general.
Secondly, yes, many players may have been juicing. That doesnt mean they were juicing to the same extent. From the sound of things like "Game of Shadows" etc, it sounds like Bonds was as juiced as a man can be. He already was great and then pumped as much into himself as he could to be the best.

Just a couple thoughts. I figured I would try to spark more discussion

The only thing I might disagree with is having Bonds as a top 2 or 3 player. Hes certainly in the top 5 or 6 though and thats so subjective that it doesn't matter much.

I also like the point brought up about Doc Ellis.  Because thats how I like my ball players, doing drugs that impede their performance and still being studs.  Those are the true ball players.

A kid in my school was caught cheating on his final exam. Not the sharpest tool, but no dummy. My school is a pressure cooker, it's not obscenely ridiculous that he falters. He was caught cheating.

Now, when his grade adviser calls his home, he picks up the phone. She asks to talk to his parents about what he'd done. He would have been suspended, maybe his exam would have been failed, but he would have been forgiven. Instead, this kid decides it would be in his best interests to pretend that he is his father. The grade adviser is not an old nitwit. She's an old hawk. She immediately realizes what he's done, goes along for a little bit to give him a chance at redemption, and when nothing happens she notifies him that she's had knowledge of what he was doing. He has been expelled. Not for cheating, but for compounding it by lying and claiming false identity. That is exactly what is happening to Barry Bonds.

Why are fans and the media having such a negative reaction to Bonds? Easily summed by a famous saying. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Makes sense, of course. Fans and the media have been fooled once by Barry, and damned if it'll let Barry fool it twice.

Mark McGwire tried to fool us all twice as well. He got knocked off what should have been a shoe-in first ballot.

Once Barry is retired, all this is moot. He'll enter the HOF first ballot, it would be ridiculous if he did not. He'll enter first ballot even if they toss out every year since 2001. The media won't be able to stick it to Barry then, its chance at attack will be gone. They missed their chance to attack Mark while he was playing, so they stuck it to him by denying him first ballot because of steroid suspicions. I think you'll see the same thing happen to Rafael.

Because Barry is immune the day after he retires barring grand jury indictment, the fans and media are taking out all the angst and disappointment and insult they have against him for trying to be fooled twice now while they still can.

I have nothing new to say about Bonds, but I've been thinking about the idea of cheating in baseball.

Cheating is a cherished part of baseball lore, whether it's sign-stealing or stuffing your bat full of superballs.  Nobody gets scandalized about that kind of cheating; it's funny.

But there's a "sporting" way to cheat.  If a pitcher scuffs a ball, he has to do it out in the open on the field and can be caught.  If he is, it's instant justice, and if he doesn't, more power to him.  If the other bench is stealing your signals, you can discover it through counterintelligence, change them and turn the tables.  It's a battle of wits.

Performance enhancement, meanwhile, takes place off the field, behind closed doors; there's no competitive aspect to the action of juicing and there's nothing clever or witty about it.  Getting a shot in the butt isn't cute like watering down basepaths; it's gross and, by nature of its secrecy, suspicious.

I'm not a Barry hater, for many of the reasons John gave above.  But like much of America, I'm joining the A-Rod Watch.

and it's the first thread inspiring me to post here.

I've long been frustrated by the influence of PEDs in baseball, have absolutely disapproved of their presence, but have also struggled with how they fit into the greater history of the game, and how they can be dealt with.

As John mentioned, cheating has long been a part of the game. However, as someone else pointed out earlier, many of the earlier means of cheating were taking place on field, during play. An opposing manager could file a protest if they saw something amiss. An umpire could take it upon himself to investigate. That is simply not the case with PEDs. In fact, as we've seen, even off-field testing is not an adequate solution as the system currently is structured. Players could be taking any number of substances right now with no risk of failing a test. And, to further the earlier point, a manager can't protest a game that Bonds, or any other suspected user, is playing in.

Of course Bonds was a great player before we believe he began using PEDs. And of course he may have been using substances which were not banned at the time. And he surely faced other athletes who were also using these substances. All of these are facts that I've struggled with when trying to decide how I feel about this era of baseball.

But, at the end of the day, I can't forget that, as a result of his drug use, Bonds has altered the outcome of thousands of at bats and hundreds of games over the last decade. He's re-written the record books, influenced the outcome of every game he's played, and quite possibly impacted pennant races. Just looking at his absurd IBB totals, it's hard to argue that his drug use has not impacted every pitch thrown to him over the last 10 years. I appreciate the complexities of vilifying Bonds, but I simply can't excuse him.

As an aside, it should be pointed out that the argument that a player on PEDs only benefits from added power, but must already have great hand-eye coordination, is flawed: HGH improves eyesight, among many other benefits, and would not, as I understand, show up in any of the test currently performed for MLB.

Apologies if I've rehashed sentiments already expressed above -- this thread has snowballed since I first read John's post this morning, and I wasn't able to absorb all of the replies.

John,

very impassioned defense of Bonds but I couldn't disagree more:

A big part of your argument is that why pick on Bonds since many others probably did it. In the law, that's called a selective prosecution argument.  Unfortunately, selective prosecution arguments don't carry much weight, for good reason--no one would be guilty of anything if that argument had merit. For instance, just because many American's cheat on their taxes, doesn't absolve Willie Nelson from tax evasion.  In fact, prosecutors, government agencies and other bodies often selectively prosecute prominent individuals in order to send signals to others as an enforcement policy.  Singling out Bonds would not be necessarily uncommon or out of the ordinary.

The integration of baseball argument is a non sequitur in my opinion.  Segregation in baseball was stopped over 50 years ago.  Steroids is a problem that is happening right now.  What you are saying is that we shouldn't address a problem happening right now because of something that happened decades ago. Its a slippery slope that I don't want to go down.

Second, I think there are more shoes to drop in this case. In fact, a recent article hinted that Bonds will be indicted and the reason that he hasn't is because prosecutors made a tactical decision because they didn't like the appearance of indicting him on the eve of breaking the record. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_jurys_in_on_bonds-7.html?ref=rss%20 Jury's%20in%20on%20Bonds:%20Feds%20eye%20Fall%20indictment]%3C/li%3E%20%3Cli

Third, it is a myth that it was not against baseball rules to use steroids until 2003. Fay Vincent actually promulgated a rule banning steroid use in 1991. http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

The bottom line, I think there will be a lot more evidence coming out on Bonds linking him to knowingly using steroids. John, I think before there is any impassioned defense of Bonds, we should wait to see what actually happens. I think Selig knows that there will be other shoes to drop, and that's why he has acted they way he has.

If there is evidence that links Bonds to knowingly using steroids, I think Bud Selig is well within his rights, either under Vincent's rule or Best Interests of Baseball rule, to take some action against Bonds or not recognizing Bonds' home run record officially.  
And to answer the question of what about other players or other records tainted by steroids: if they come with evidence that links them to steroid use then those records should be officially ignored as well.  

I HATE Barry Bonds !

You want to know why ? Because he was a great player BEFORE he took steroids. He didn't have to take them. He could have made the HOF without taking them and cheating and becoming an even bigger prick with all of the lying and roids making him surlier .

I've lost all respect for him. He was once a great natural player even if he wasn't the greatest guy around - I respected him. Not now.

He's a piece of garbage.

Anybody want to speculate on how many HR's those two would have hit had they simply lifted weights?

Neifi Perez and Jason Grimsley also juiced.

Did steroids help Bonds?  Probably.  But his performance relative to his peers during the era was so great that denying he is one of the top three or four players of all time is ridiculous.

...but obviously wasn't the fielder that Willie was.  He's one of the top 20 players in baseball history, PEDs or no.  If you discount for PEDs, the two greatest position players of my time would be Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan (I just missed Mickey Mantle). Bonds was probably a little ahead of Hank Aaron even before his late career rush.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003621797

Now, I have no idea if it is bullsh*t or not, but it is an interesting read.

First off, I am not doctor.  And I certainly am not a bodybuilder (unless you consider eating Big Macs a bodybuilding activity).

But my understanding of anabolic steroids is this: taking steroids by themselves really does nothing for you.  Taking an injection in the rear doesn't magically make you bigger.  Stay with me here.

What you gain by taking anabolic steroids is that your muscles are able to repair and rebuild faster.

When you work out, you are tearing your muscle fibers.  You get bigger and stronger when those fibers repair themselves and make themselves stronger to avoid tearing in the future.  Nature's a beautiful thing.

Without taking steroids, one cannot work out at an insane level -- the muscles need that time to heal and repair.  Working out too much actually causes a regression and possible damage because of this.

With steroids, this healing/repairing is greatly enhanced, allowing the user to work out harder... more frequently... and see results quicker and at a higher level.  

I'm only bringing this up because there have been lots of arguments on here about how it helps hitters more than pitchers, about how it adds strength, improves eyesight, etc.

The bottom line is that it's going to help any athlete who combines the anabolic steroids with a strenuous training program.  The body will heal quicker, allow for faster recovery from injury, and as a result become stronger.

This is not going to make someone who throws 85 suddenly throw 95, or turn a singles hitter into a slugger.  Raw strength/power isn't what's being gained.  Endurance, recovery, and general strength is.  Why is this subtlety so important?  Because what player can't benefit from that?!?  Pitcher's arms are more likely to bounce back (or take longer to fatigue)... those injuries that might have kept a batter out of the lineup 20-30 years ago now can be played through.

I am NOT justifying steroids.  However, I think there is a gross misunderstanding by the general public on what they actually do (and don't do).

As I said, I'm not a doctor, and I don't even play one on TV.  But I'm pretty sure what I've stated is accurate.  I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong...!

<<You may well be right, but your reasoning is just as circular.  Let's see, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds must have been using PED's because they hold all the HR records, and we know PED's work because, well, look at the results.>>

It's only circular IF I believe they were doing steroids because of their success. Maybe I was going on their insane size gain in single off-seasons and then subsequent weight loss when steroid testing was introduced. And other evidence. Like testimony that they admitted they did it.

I think this comment is crazy to qualify Bonds success. It's being used to say "sure Bonds used steroids but since so many pitchers used it his gains are minimal". This is making a very big and flawed assumption. That steroids help each person equally. I'm not even talking about volume of usage.

A terrible hitter/pitcher uses steroids and they are still terrible. The gains are minimal. I very strongly believe the gains are much much higher based on your existing talent level.

IMO it's not about helping a hitter or a pitcher more. Bonds doesn't care if it helped 99% of pitcher improve. As long as it helps him improve even MORE than the rest. Just like McGwire probably didn't mind pitchers throwing 5mph harder, as long as he improved enough to launch those pitches more often into the seats.

btw - people keep talking about pitchers arms. I think they are forgetting about the legs. This is so important to a pitcher and a large part of why they tire late in games and late in the season. I'm sure steroids really helped with this.

And I wouldn't be surprised if many of the pitchers 'post testing' that are getting hamstring issues (who didn't have this problem before) used to juice.