Barry Bonds* (Steroids)

[RojoLeo]

If this article is correct, then he has a pretty solid slander case.

Not to be completely anally retentive but it's libel, not slander.

 

[aloofman]

Not to be completely anally retentive but it's libel, not slander.

You're right, since it's published, it would be libel instead. Point taken.

 

[Sayhey]

This essay basically makes the argument that Bonds could have done it without the help of steroids (and that's certainly possible), therefore there's no proof that he did. And they're right that his production hasn't dropped off dramatically since steroid testing began, but he allegedly was using designer steroids that could fool the testing of the time anyway. And while players do indeed have natural power progressions in their careers, I can't think of any others who had their best seasons after age 35, which was around the same time that he is accused of starting to use PEDs.

As far as I know, Bonds and his lawyers haven't challenged anything the book says in any way. If he has always been clean then why wouldn't he take legal action against them? If this article is correct, then he has a pretty solid slander case.

There's no proof that he knowingly and repeatedly used steroids or any other PED, only his apparent admission to having unknowingly used them. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that probably won't stick in a court of law, but it's enough for the court of public opinion, for better or worse.

Thanks for reading the article, aloofman.

Two things. The article makes the case that the authors of Game of Shadows use dishonest stats to make the case Barry's stats show a huge jump during his so-called "steroid years." The article shows Barry's jump is, in actuality, much greater from his Pittsburgh years to his early Giants years. The article also shows that Aaron's progression in his late years is even greater. All of which doesn't prove or disprove whether Barry took steroids. It only shows that the authors of Game of Shadows misuse stats.

Secondly, to why Barry doesn't sue, the standard for such a suit is very high. Even if he could prove he didn't take steroids (proving a negative is almost impossible) he would have to prove the authors knew he didn't take them and lied about it. Simply being wrong wouldn't cut it in a court of law.

 

[Silencio]

Thanks for reading the article, aloofman.

Two things. The article makes the case that the authors of Game of Shadows use dishonest stats to make the case Barry's stats show a huge jump during his so-called "steroid years." The article shows Barry's jump is, in actuality, much greater from his Pittsburgh years to his early Giants years. The article also shows that Aaron's progression in his late years is even greater. All of which doesn't prove or disprove whether Barry took steroids. It only shows that the authors of Game of Shadows misuse stats.

Secondly, to why Barry doesn't sue, the standard for such a suit is very high. Even if he could prove he didn't take steroids (proving a negative is almost impossible) he would have to prove the authors knew he didn't take them and lied about it. Simply being wrong wouldn't cut it in a court of law.

Yes, that article was pretty interesting. Just goes to remind how stats can be used and abused very easily. And yes, Bonds did jump from three years of hitting home runs in the low-30s per year in Pittsburgh to consistently hitting them in the low- to mid-40s immediately upon arrival in San Francisco.

It's also illuminating to show the progression of his listed weights, as opposed to the very distorted and very common tactic of comparing his photo and listed weight from 1986 to those of 2004 or whatever. Who among us hasn't gained weight over the past 18 years?

As for lawsuits, potential or otherwise: it's been reported that after Bonds broke the record, he hired a law firm to specifically investigate the possibility of going after people making slanderous or libelous statements about him. Supposedly, his first potential target is Curt Schilling for his comments made on Bob Costas' TV show. It could be all just talk, especially considering the heavy burden of proof in such cases, but we shall see.

 

[aloofman]

Yes, that article was pretty interesting. Just goes to remind how stats can be used and abused very easily. And yes, Bonds did jump from three years of hitting home runs in the low-30s per year in Pittsburgh to consistently hitting them in the low- to mid-40s immediately upon arrival in San Francisco.

He was also entering the prime of his career when he went to San Francisco, the age at which most major-leaguers have their most productive seasons. That surge is much easier to explain than his later one, which came at an age when most hitters taper off, some of them quite drastically. It looks suspicious, but certainly doesn't prove anything.

I think the comparisons to Aaron's late-career surge are a little misleading. Much of his increase in stats can be attributed to the Braves' move to hitter-friendly Atlanta, lowering of the mound, shrinking the strike zone and two new expansion teams in 1969. Adjusted for park effects and compared to the rest of his league, Aaron's numbers didn't rise as drastically late in his career. He just finally stopped playing in a pitchers' park. By that I don't mean to take anything away from Hank, who was almost ridiculously consistent in his hitting for two decades. I still think he's underrated.

Granted, AT&T Park (or whatever they're calling it this year) is also a pitchers' park, but it also has a short right-field porch that's tailor-made for Barry, so I think that's almost a wash.

 

[Sayhey]

He was also entering the prime of his career when he went to San Francisco, the age at which most major-leaguers have their most productive seasons. That surge is much easier to explain than his later one, which came at an age when most hitters taper off, some of them quite drastically. It looks suspicious, but certainly doesn't prove anything.

I think the comparisons to Aaron's late-career surge are a little misleading. Much of his increase in stats can be attributed to the Braves' move to hitter-friendly Atlanta, lowering of the mound, shrinking the strike zone and two new expansion teams in 1969. Adjusted for park effects and compared to the rest of his league, Aaron's numbers didn't rise as drastically late in his career. He just finally stopped playing in a pitchers' park. By that I don't mean to take anything away from Hank, who was almost ridiculously consistent in his hitting for two decades. I still think he's underrated.

Granted, AT&T Park (or whatever they're calling it this year) is also a pitchers' park, but it also has a short right-field porch that's tailor-made for Barry, so I think that's almost a wash.

I don't think anyone would say what both Aaron and Bonds accomplished in their later years isn't unusual, but they are both very unusual talents. What the author of the article shows, an I think quite convincingly, is that Aaron's late career surge is even more extreme than Bond's. Aaron goes from his middle - supposedly most productive - "prime" years hitting a home run on average in every 16.4 ABs to hitting one every 11.8 ABs. An increase of frequency of 4.6 ABs. Bonds increase in frequency, over the same period of time in his career, is slightly less at 4.4 ABs. If what Bonds did late in his career is amazing, so too is what Aaron accomplished. Not that I'm saying this prove anything about steroid use - quite the contrary - unlike the assertion of the authors of Game of Shadows it proves nothing.

As to the "short right-field porch" being "tailor-made" for Bonds, Barry hardly ever hits a home run in that part of the park. Not only are the shots to right often out of the stadium and into the water, he also hits many of his home runs from left-center to right-center - in a park with one of the deepest centerfields in baseball. If anything, AT&T had taken home runs away from Barry. What has helped, however, is the new ballparks around the league that are tailor made for home runs. Unlike Aaron, who benefited from his own park being the "launching pad" and played his latter days in a league dominated by big multipurpose stadiums, Barry did the reverse.

 

[shikimo]

Please:

Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs, and the fact that there are people willing to deny it is a grand demonstration of human ignorance. Grown men don't grow their heads and feet by lifting weights and working harder than the other guys. You want to argue whether it matters that he doped, fine: that's a legitimate argument. But please, stop saying it's possible he's clean. It's not possible. Even his own legal team doesn't deny the head and foot growth, and medical experts are in complete agreement (as far as I know; please educate me if I missed something) that any natural explanation of this growth would've resulted in his death years ago. This is not a moral judgment I am making here; my opinion of Bonds or Floyd Landis or Marion Jones or any other accused doper is irrelevant. Just stop pretending he didn't dope already, because it just distracts the rest of us from the important questions than can help the sports world move forward.

 

[aloofman]

As to the "short right-field porch" being "tailor-made" for Bonds, Barry hardly ever hits a home run in that part of the park. Not only are the shots to right often out of the stadium and into the water, he also hits many of his home runs from left-center to right-center - in a park with one of the deepest centerfields in baseball.

According to the Giants' own numbers, 45 homers have been hit into McCovey Cove on the fly, and 35 of those were by Bonds. Only three other Giants have even done it more than once. That doesn't mean it's easy, but it does mean that Bonds hits home runs to deep right far more than anyone else on the Giants. I don't deny that Bonds has lost some home runs there, but I think that other players have lost even more.

And according to these stats (which I have no reason to doubt), Bonds has hit a whopping 339 homers to right and 342 to center, left-center, and right-center combined. It isn't broken down by stadium for each of those, but it speaks to his reputation as a pull hitter. So I stand by my statement that Bonds takes advantage of the short right-field fence much more than other players.

 

[bocomo]

Who cares if he did or if he didnt?

STEROIDS do NOT help you hit the ball, he consistantly hits the ball. They may help him get stronger, but who cares? Makes the game more exciting if you ask me.

You can't just magically take steroids and be able to hit home runs. He has a LOT of skill, and one of the best swings in baseball, ever.

i see this argument and it makes me laugh. have you ever played baseball? being stronger will CERTAINLY help you swing the bat faster which does two things: 1) gives you longer to react to the pitch 2) makes the ball go farther

it absolutely helps you hit a baseball. the reason i think the bonds story is sad is that you are right - he does have tons of skill. he was a good hitter when he was a lanky b*st*rd with the pirates in the mid/late 80s. it's a shame he resorted to doping.

 

[Sayhey]

Please:

Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs, and the fact that there are people willing to deny it is a grand demonstration of human ignorance. Grown men don't grow their heads and feet by lifting weights and working harder than the other guys. You want to argue whether it matters that he doped, fine: that's a legitimate argument. But please, stop saying it's possible he's clean. It's not possible. Even his own legal team doesn't deny the head and foot growth, and medical experts are in complete agreement (as far as I know; please educate me if I missed something) that any natural explanation of this growth would've resulted in his death years ago. This is not a moral judgment I am making here; my opinion of Bonds or Floyd Landis or Marion Jones or any other accused doper is irrelevant. Just stop pretending he didn't dope already, because it just distracts the rest of us from the important questions than can help the sports world move forward.

This is another example of things about Bonds that aren't true that keep getting repeated as if fact. Barry has indeed denied any change in his head size.

"What's all this about my head size? My hat size is the same today as when I started," said Bonds in a story that was posted late Friday on the Oakland Tribune's Web site. "My head hasn't grown. I've always been a 7-1/4 to a 7-3/8 my whole career. You can go check. Sometimes you get one and you sweat, it gets smaller, so you go a size up or a size down. Those things shrink when you sweat or they get wet during a season.

"I saw a 13-year-old kid on one of the news shows talking about my head size. How do they know? That kid hasn't seen 15 years of my career and he's talking about my head size. That's one of the saddest things, man. That's manipulation. They manipulated that kid."

Now, you can choose to believe he is lying, but it is just not true that there is not a denial of this from Barry's side.

As to the medical evidence of this being a symptom of steroid use, I'd like to read a medical journal on the subject before I accept the idea that what is repeated in the sports news is anything like a medical consensus.

 

[shikimo]

This is another example of things about Bonds that aren't true that keep getting repeated as if fact. Barry has indeed denied any change in his head size.


Now, you can choose to believe he is lying, but it is just not true that there is not a denial of this from Barry's side.

As to the medical evidence of this being a symptom of steroid use, I'd like to read a medical journal on the subject before I accept the idea that what is repeated in the sports news is anything like a medical consensus.

It's true that the facts about abnormal body growth are from the leaked grand jury testimony, which, although his legal team has chosen to not formally challenge, I didn't know he had partially publicly denied. I officially retract that part of my post. However, even giving up the hat I say that the rest of my post still stands, including the shoe bit, which is much harder to fake one way or the other. And then there is this quote from the very article you reference:

Bonds said that on one hand, steroid use is not the worst abuse in professional and amateur sports, particularly in baseball, which didn't randomly test for those drugs prior to the 2003 season.

"You're talking about something that wasn't even illegal at the time," Bonds said. "All this stuff about supplements, protein shakes, whatever. Man, it's not like this is the Olympics. We don't train four years for, like, a 10-second (event). We go 162 games. You've got to come back, day after day after day. If somebody pays $60 for a ticket, and I'm not in the lineup, who's getting cheated? Not me. There are far worse things like cocaine, heroin and those types of things."

To reiterate my point: Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs. He comes as close to admitting it here as he can without really getting himself in trouble, and this in an article sympathetic to his cause. The debate about whether it was illegal at the time, whether it's morally corrupt , whether it hurts people or hurts sports in general is a whole different issue. I just want people to stop pretending it didn't happen based on this bizarre cocktail of legal technicalities and head-in-the-sand ignorance. Notice I'm not judging him or his records, nor am I bashing him on a personal level; in fact, if I were him I would continue to deny it too...who wants to go to jail for perjury? I'm just saying he did it, plain and simple.

Maybe he'll write a "What if I Did It?" book in 15 years like OJ. What's the statute of limitations on perjury?

 

[Sayhey]

It's true that the facts about abnormal body growth are from the leaked grand jury testimony, which, although his legal team has chosen to not formally challenge, I didn't know he had partially publicly denied. I officially retract that part of my post.

Could you supply the reference to the grand jury testimony by someone who states Bonds Hat/Foot size has changed? I know this is something put forward by the book Game of Shadows, but I don't know that, not having the book before me, the authors claim it is something alleged under oath by anyone. I believe you are confusing anonymous sources with grand jury testimony. If I'm wrong, please show me the reference.

And by the way, the defense can't challenge evidence or testimony in a grand jury. That takes place at a trial, so the idea that "his legal team has chosen to not formally challenge" any of this is simply false.

However, even giving up the hat I say that the rest of my post still stands, including the shoe bit, which is much harder to fake one way or the other.

See, shikimo, this is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. Bonds stands up and says all the stuff about his hat size and shrinking testicles is bull, and your response isn't that he denies taking steroids and the effects of steroids on his body, but to say "well, he didn't say anything specifically about foot size change, so it must be true." Bonds has denied all of this; even if he doesn't specifically deal with the size of his foot in the article in question. Call him a liar, and say why you believe he is lying and I have no problem. But say, that he acknowledges the charges, or admits that he took steroids (what Schilling and Costas do) and it is you that are lying. Say that you know the truth and anyone who questions what you say is the truth is delusional, then, again, it is you who need to get a reality check.

And then there is this quote from the very article you reference:

Bonds said that on one hand, steroid use is not the worst abuse in professional and amateur sports, particularly in baseball, which didn't randomly test for those drugs prior to the 2003 season.

"You're talking about something that wasn't even illegal at the time," Bonds said. "All this stuff about supplements, protein shakes, whatever. Man, it's not like this is the Olympics. We don't train four years for, like, a 10-second (event). We go 162 games. You've got to come back, day after day after day. If somebody pays $60 for a ticket, and I'm not in the lineup, who's getting cheated? Not me. There are far worse things like cocaine, heroin and those types of things."

Isn't it just possible to read this as someone who hates the witch-hunt that is going on in his sport over steroids? That's how I read it, regardless of whether he took the drugs himself or is just outraged over the overreaction that is going on today.

To reiterate my point: Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs. He comes as close to admitting it here as he can without really getting himself in trouble, and this in an article sympathetic to his cause. The debate about whether it was illegal at the time, whether it's morally corrupt , whether it hurts people or hurts sports in general is a whole different issue. I just want people to stop pretending it didn't happen based on this bizarre cocktail of legal technicalities and head-in-the-sand ignorance. Notice I'm not judging him or his records, nor am I bashing him on a personal level; in fact, if I were him I would continue to deny it too...who wants to go to jail for perjury? I'm just saying he did it, plain and simple.

Maybe he'll write a "What if I Did It?" book in 15 years like OJ. What's the statute of limitations on perjury?

Two points. Your comparison of Bonds and OJ is offensive. The OJ case involves the murder of two people. Bonds possibly took a PED that could possibly hurt only himself. The only reason to compare the two is if you want to paint Barry as the equivalent of a murderer. This sort of demonization of Bonds is common place among sports reporters who have nothing better to do than write sloppy, unfounded, hit pieces on Bonds, but here it can be challenged for the silliness it is.

Lastly, you have convicted Bonds because you, seemingly, know all there is to know about the case. Well, I don't buy it. There is a reason people are tried before a jury. There is a reason why evidence has to be submitted to a court where it can be challenged. And there is a reason that witnesses have to submit to cross-examination. These things are not a "bizarre cocktail of legal technicalities," but the core of what some quaintly like to call justice. What you believe is based on one-sided, untested, illegally leaked evidence that may well never even get to court because the case is so weak. If you want to believe Bonds is guilty, fine. But get off the "high-horse" and don't expect others to believe what you do because you say it is so.

Oh, yes, in answer to your question, the statute of limitations on perjury is five years. The government has until December 2008 to bring a case, but the fact they haven't done so after almost four years speaks to the weakness of that case.

 

[MacNut]

More news,

First, hours after Rick Ankiel (left) homered twice more, there were reports that the St. Louis pitcher- turned-outfielder received shipments of HGH in 2004. Then came a report that Troy Glaus received steroids in '03 and '04

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3008363

The New York Daily News reported Friday that Ankiel received a 12-month supply of human growth hormone in 2004 from a Florida pharmacy that was part of a national illegal prescription drug-distribution operation, citing records its reporters saw. That Orlando outfit, Signature Pharmacy, has been implicated in a steroids investigation run by Albany County (N.Y.) District Attorney P. David Soares, which has resulted in 22 indictments and several Florida clinic raids.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3009089

Former World Series MVP and four-time All Star Troy Glaus received multiple shipments of performance-enhancing drugs via a Florida pharmacy and a California anti-aging clinic, Sports Illustrated reported on its Web site Friday.

According to the report, a source in Florida with knowledge of the Internet pharmacy's client list, said multiple shipments of Nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, and testosterone were sent to a Corona, Calif. address that corresponds with Glaus' address. The shipments reportedly occurred between Sept., 2003 and May, 2004.

 

[shikimo]

Maybe they all thought it was flaxseed oil...

 

[yg17]

Rick Ankiel used them in 2004 after being prescribed them by a doctor due to surgery, and a year before the ban went in place. This isn't even a story.....

 

[xsedrinam]

"Ankiel has not been accused by authorities of wrongdoing, and stopped receiving HGH just before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005, The News reported"

Just so we get the whole story, not just the defaming side of things. His comeback is extra ordinary and news worthy, but not illegal. There's really no story, here.

 

[Sayhey]

Rick Ankiel used them in 2004 after being prescribed them by a doctor due to surgery, and a year before the ban went in place. This isn't even a story.....

"Ankiel has not been accused by authorities of wrongdoing, and stopped receiving HGH just before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005, The News reported"

Just so we get the whole story, not just the defaming side of things. His comeback is extra ordinary and news worthy, but not illegal. There's really no story, here.

I agree guys, but I'm also assuming that you feel the same way about anyone who used HGH before the ban went into effect, right?

btw, I thought medical records were supposed to be confidential information? Let's suppose Ankiel had a shipment of drugs, prescribed to him legally, shouldn't the police be looking into how his private medical information has been released to the media? Or do professional athletes no longer get the same privacy rights the rest of us would demand? Just thought I'd ask.

 

[xsedrinam]

I agree guys, but I'm also assuming that you feel the same way about anyone who used HGH before the ban went into effect, right?

btw, I thought medical records were supposed to be confidential information? Let's suppose Ankiel had a shipment of drugs, prescribed to him legally, shouldn't the police be looking into how his private medical information has been released to the media? Or do professional athletes no longer get the same privacy rights the rest of us would demand? Just thought I'd ask.

You make a couple of valid points. Consistency with defending prescirbed, pre- banned use should be all inclusive. Apparently, HIPAA rules don't apply when it comes to protecting the private medical information of celebrities. Go figure.

 

[yg17]

I agree guys, but I'm also assuming that you feel the same way about anyone who used HGH before the ban went into effect, right?

Yes, I feel that way about anyone who used HGH before the ban, assuming it was taken legally (prescribed by a doctor) for real, medical purposes and not purchased from the black market.

 

[Sayhey]

You make a couple of valid points. Consistency with defending prescirbed, pre- banned use should be all inclusive. Apparently, HIPAA rules don't apply when it comes to protecting the private medical information of celebrities. Go figure.

Yes, I feel that way about anyone who used HGH before the ban, assuming it was taken legally (prescribed by a doctor) for real, medical purposes and not purchased from the black market.

Pretty sure I agree with both of you, but I'm not quite sure how we should be policing "real, medical purposes." If a doctor prescribes it to help a player heal, shouldn't it be legal? Perhaps not for MLB's standards now, but in terms of the legal system? I could understand if the doctor's orders are fake, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

And just for the record, I'm all for the HIPAA rules applying for all of us all of the time.

Lastly, while I don't agree with all of what he says, here is Jayson Stark's column on Ankiel's case. It's worth the time to read it.

 

[fotografica]

I'm wondering how this whole story came to light in the first place?What would prompt the Albany NY's DA's office to look into an internet supplement company based in FLA? Somebody had to have tipped them off...

 

[MacNut]

Jones Reportedly Admits to Steroid Use

By BOB BAUM,
AP Sports

NEW YORK (Oct. 5) - After years of angry denials, Marion Jones is ready to admit she doped.

The three-time Olympic gold medalist is scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in White Plains, N.Y., on Friday to plead guilty to charges in connection with steroid use, a federal law enforcement source told The Associated Press.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, and would not provide specific details about the plea.

Jones also sent family and close friends a letter in which she said she used steroids before the Sydney Games, The Washington Post reported Thursday. The Post was the first to report that Jones would come clean on doping.

"I want to apologize for all of this," the Post reported Jones saying in her letter, quoting a person who received a copy and read it to the paper. "I am sorry for disappointing you all in so many ways."

Jones said in her letter that she faced up to six months in jail and would be sentenced in three months, according to the newspaper.

The admission also could cost Jones the five medals she won in Sydney, where she was the most celebrated female athlete of the games. She didn't win the five golds she wanted, but she came away with three and two bronzes, and her bright smile and charming personality made her a star.

No one answered the door at her home in Austin, Texas, Thursday evening, and a message left by the AP for a phone number registered to her husband, Obadele Thompson, was not immediately returned.

The triple gold medalist in Sydney said she took "the clear" for two years, beginning in 1999, and that she got it from former coach Trevor Graham, who told her it was flaxseed oil, the newspaper reported.

"The clear" is a performance-enhancing drug linked to BALCO, the lab at the center of the steroids scandal in professional sports. Home run king Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants, New York Yankees slugger Jason Giambi and Detroit Tigers outfielder Gary Sheffield all have been linked to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative and were among more than two dozen athletes who testified before a federal grand jury in 2003.

Bonds denied ever knowingly taking performance-enhancing drugs, saying he believed a clear substance and a cream, given to him by his trainer, were flaxseed oil and an arthritis balm.

 

[MacNut]

The Bonds trial finally comes to an end with one count of obstruction of justice.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The jury in the Barry Bonds case convicted the seven-time MVP of obstruction of justice, but the defense and prosecution agreed to a mistrial on the other three remaining counts.
The guilty verdict on obstruction of justice means the jury believed Bonds hindered a grand jury's 2003 sports doping investigation by lying.

The judge, after speaking to the jury foreman, said she believes the mistrial is the proper decision given that the jury believes it has reached a crossroads.
The eight women and four men returned the verdict after four days of deliberations. The jury worked behind closed doors since rehearing some testimony early Monday.

Bonds was charged with three counts of lying to a grand jury and one count of obstruction.
Prosecutors allege that Bonds lied when he denied knowingly taking steroids and human growth hormone. A third count of making a false statement charges that Bonds lied when he said no one other than his doctor ever injected him with anything.

Bonds' case is the culmination of a federal investigation that began in 2002 into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, which distributed performance-enhancing drugs to athletes.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6347014