Dan Gould

I would say it's doubtful that he is currently on steroids. Dan is the man with the stat book, he can help you out. m Actually, all I've got is access to Baseball-reference.com. Steroids allowed him to bulk up at an extreme rate during the offseason after the 1998 season. He was inspired to do so due to the popularity of Sosa and McGuire and Bonds' belief that they were not nearly his equal as players. That extraordinarily extreme muscle gain in a short period of time is regarded by experts as a hallmark of steroid use/abuse and aside from his connection to BALCO and Greg Anderson and his testimony regarding what he put in his body, it is one of the prime pieces of evidence against him. Now, as to the question of whether he uses steroids now, I would say that it is immaterial. Steroids do not have the same effects that say, alcohol has. Alcohol in the body creates inebriation and the physical effects are well known. Steroids don't have to be present in the body for the effect of steroids to be felt. Bonds didn't hit his home runs specifically during the time he was in the middle of a steroid 'cycle'. It is the long term effects of the steroids he used that taints his statistical accomplishments. Once he used steroids, bulked up, and as a result started hitting homers at an impossibly high rate, he didn't have to continue to use steroids to reap the benefits of his cheating. IMO, all of his home runs are suspect ever since he started to juice. Steroids aren't necessary to maintain strength, after all.

All this time wasted on a steroid cheat when the pennant races actually looks darned interesting. Outside of the pathetic Giants, everyone in the NL West is in it, and the massively overachieving D-Backs (a negative 32 run differential) have taken advantage of the slumping Padres and Dodgers to take hold of the lead. The Cubbies look to have a strong chance to snatch the division away from the Brewers and the Mets haven't been able to do enough to pull away in the East. Meanwhile, what has happened to the Tigers and Indians? They've been so bad, that the Yanks are now 1/2 game out of the wild card. At this rate they may not even slow down the Yanks when they play later this month. I was really hoping for the Yanks to be out of the playoffs but at this rate, the wild card Yanks could face the Angels and the Sox could get the "winner" of the Central division - I'll take that since the Angels seem to have the Yanks number in playoff series. But I've never seen two decent teams play such a long series of "that's OK, you can have it" "No, I insist!" ever before.

Do you understand what this POS is saying to you, Jim? You haven't come to the conclusion that A. Bonds juiced B. He did it to chase a record C. the juice made the difference in his quest by using your God-given power to consider the evidence, evaluate it and reach conclusions you believe are supported by facts. NO. You aren't smart enough to recognize "half truths and shoddy journalism'. No, I think he knows full well what the truth about Bonds is, but for whatever reason feels that there's a greater truth - such as the pack mentality of journalists and/or the racial tendencies therein - that overrides it. And maybe for him it does. Far be it from me to minimize those very real issues, but I just don't think that ignoring the obvious does service to any attempt to deal with them. I'm sympathetic to the claims, and don't deny that at least some of that might be at play here, but damn, a guilty guy harrassed is still a guilty guy. Argue the harrassment, but not the guilt (and again - how blind, literally and figuratively - do you have to be to not see it?). I just don't see where building a case for a legitimate issue on illegitmate grounds is going to do anybody any good. But apparently Mr. GS does. Again, that is his perogative, just as it is mine to fundamentally disagree with him. We all choose our battles, as well as how to fight them. OK Jim, but understand that he denies guilt on all levels: Bonds didn't use steroids. There's no proof but lies, damned lies, and purloined Grand Jury testimony. Furthermore, steroids cannot help you hit home runs. He denies it all. He is truly that blind, literally and figuratively.

He bought the big lie...just like you did, Dan. The only "Big Lie" is the lie you perpetuate in your pathetic attempts to defend your idol. Let's list them, shall we? 1) Bonds did not use steroids. If so, he was the only client of BALCO who did not receive and use them. If so, we are expected to believe that Greg Anderson put Jason Giambi on the Clear and the Cream but not his close friend and client. If so, steroid experts are wrong when they say that extraordinary muscle gain in a short period of time, as Bonds showed after the 1998 season, is a hallmark of steroid abuse. If so, the doping calendar marked BLB (Barry Lamar Bonds) which shows Bonds' schedule of doping and also just happens to duplicate the Giants schedule for that season, is fake and was most likely planted by Mark Furhman. If so, we are to believe that Bonds' head grew due to natural, though previously unknown causes. 2) Steroids do not help you hit home runs. If so, then we are to believe that Barry Bonds had no reason to go from being a scrawny rookie to a hulking muscle bound slugger. If so, then we are to believe that it is entirely coincidental that players such as Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Juan Gonzales used steroids, got enormously big, and hit home runs at an extraordinary pace. Their extreme muscle gain has no relationship to the fact that the four alone combined for over 2000 home runs in their careers. If so, then we are to believe that increased strength through steroid use does NOT give a player the ability to swing the bat faster and therefore allow him an extra split second to identify a pitch before deciding to swing or not. If so, we are to believe that increased strength does not and cannot result in an extra 20 or 50 feet of distance on balls hit in the air. It is not plausible to believe that this added distance can result in more home runs. If so, we are to believe that the explosion of offense in the 1990s and the simultaneous explosion of steroid use and strength training are in no way related. Bonds is the victim of the "racist" media. If so, then Hank Aaron, who dealt with true racism throughout his career but most especially during his quest for the home run title, can't recognize it when he sees it. He only sees a steroid cheat who isn't even worthy of a congratulatory phone call. Did I miss any? THOSE are the Big Lies. You ought to recognize them since you recite them every day.

Paul Bryant and Curtis Amy were a match made in heaven. I prefer those sessions on the Mosaic myself and if you like grits & gravy organ-tenor combos you will too. I completely disagree with the complaints about Paul Bryant.

You're defeating your own argument. If Selig actually was happy about this, he wouldn't have said the above PREPARED comments at all. He would have simply said congratulations and not used the moment to bring up the steroid controversy. Not to mention standing there with his hands shoved in his pocket, looking for all the world like he's waiting for them to start on his root canal. I see. So there is a set guidline as to how people in sensitive CEO positions should react? Please, do tell...enlighten us. [ahem] Appearances can be deceiving, Dan.....but don't let the fact of the matter deter you. Go on, be a hater. Your loss. You can't really be this stupid. In every public comment he makes about Bonds, Selig uses the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". You concentrate on the first noun like its a shield against the overwhelming evidence that exists. Selig is only waiting for that second noun to come into play following his indictment, trial and conviction. Then you'll find out just what he thinks of your hero: he's not going to talk about asterisks, he's going to talk about deletion from the record books entirely.

Is there any need for these kinds of comments, Dan? I mean it's not pro-wrestling or anything. You can make your point (and even have truth on your side, as I believe you do,) but there's no need for such slurs. I don't think it enhances your argument in the slightest. And I doubt you'll be able to win Goodspeak over to some of your points by throwing such gratuitous shots. I gave up a long time ago on ever winning him over. So long as he continues to assert the indefensible, I will tell him how stupid he is. Then, when Bonds is locked up, I will remind him again how stupid he was.

Do you understand what this POS is saying to you, Jim? You haven't come to the conclusion that A. Bonds juiced B. He did it to chase a record C. the juice made the difference in his quest by using your God-given power to consider the evidence, evaluate it and reach conclusions you believe are supported by facts. NO. You aren't smart enough to recognize "half truths and shoddy journalism'. What a pathetic fool you are, Goodspeak. With that towering intellect of yours its amazing that you can hold a job, breathe through your nose, walk and chew gum simultaneously ...

That's why he put it under his tongue.

You're defeating your own argument. If Selig actually was happy about this, he wouldn't have said the above PREPARED comments at all. He would have simply said congratulations and not used the moment to bring up the steroid controversy. Not to mention standing there with his hands shoved in his pocket, looking for all the world like he's waiting for them to start on his root canal.

Barry Lamar Bonds Career Batting Average B.S.* .288 * Before Steroids Case closed, and it isn't even close.

I want to hear Goody explain Hank Aaron's absence and his explanation for why he isn't there to see his record "broken". Which excuse will Goody give? A] Hank really is a tired old man who shouldn't be expected to fly every three or four days across the country to watch the slow motion chase in person. Notwithstanding the fact that Bobby Doerr managed to fly cross country for Bobby Doerr day, and he's only 89 years old. B] Hank may believe that Barry is a steroid cheat, but its only because the media has brainwashed him. C] Hank used greenies so he is a cheater too, and he knows amphetamines help you play ball much more than steroids do. D] Contrary to public image, Hank doesn't epitomize class or dignity. He's really a jealous old man who can't come to grips with the fact that his record has been broken. Come on, Goody and tell us the real reason why Hank isn't there.

:party:

Tell it to the sole apologist who brought it back here in the first place.

You pathetic lying sack of shit. From the AP report: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti..._record/?page=1

You got that right, Marty. And after one more sacrificial lamb, the Yanks start their trek through August, with the Blue Jays (very hot at home right now) and the Indians up first (I assume they still have the best home record in baseball) and 8 games with Detroit and a series with the Angels. There are two possibilities: the Yankee bats (most of them - I am sure you aren't thrilled at the thought of Johnny Damon for two more seasons) are going to stay locked in and keep scoring OR the much more likely outcome that better pitching will hold them in check and this will be the high water mark of the season.

Somehow though I am hearing this in Sam Kinnison's voice: YEAH MARIE I'LL GIVE YOU PUPPY LOVE! OH! OOOOOOOOHHH!

Been thinking a lot about you since your last update - I know it looks bad but I remember how bad it looked for my brother before his BMT, and its over ten years now that he's been healthy. Hang in there, and spin some Louis if you need some spirit lifting! Or if you don't ...

Since December 1976 there have been five people elected to the post. 3 were Republicans, one was an Independent, and one was affiliated with the DFL. The last time a DFL member held the post was in January of 1991. Here is how the history of party affiliation with the post breaks down (from Wikipedia): Number of Governors of Minnesota by party affiliation[1] Party Governors Republican 24 Democratic-Farmer-Labor 5 Democratic 4 Farmer-Labor 3 Independent-Republican 2 Reform/Independence 1 Sorry for my poorly worded post but I was trying to refer to who controls the state legislature, as that is where spending bills originate.

Did you ever finish your A-Z thing? Nope.

I find it impossible to choose one and looking over my shelf of Mosaic boxes only reminds me that it has been far too long since I've cracked open a Mosaic. I think I've just reordered my listening plans.

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens? Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes. Right. Bridges magically collapse for no reason at all... Try again. Bridge collapses are not inevitable results of "the antigovernment crowd" taking over. Case in point: Which party has been in control of Minnesota state government in the last thirty years? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been the GOP.

You all know how I feel about Bonds and his home run quest but I really can't believe that Selig is acting as if he's about to give up because its taken so long. So, when he came up with the reasons why he should be on hand (historic record, innocent until proven guilty, yada yada yada) there was a time limit on them? Do you think maybe this is Bonds revenge on old Bud? You hate me so much, let's see how much you like it if I keep you following me around for a month?

Yeah, its always their fault. Like the bridge collapse in CT about 20 years ago - nothing but Democrats in control of the legislature for 60 years or more, and what happens? Wise up, Mark and understand that shit happens sometimes. So if it isn't political, why is Tony Snow already doing some pre-emptive buck passing? I'm sure we'll discuss that in the appropriate forum later. Transportation infrastructure is my line of business, and yes, sometimes it does collapse. However, this is an area that has been starved of resources for decades. There are plenty of reports out there that show that there are 70,000 bridges in roughly the same condition as this one, and 70,000 bridges that are in even worse condition. Can you imagine what it will cost to bring them all up to code? Billions if not trillions of dollars. As a society, we won't pay enough in taxes to take care of all of them, and these kinds of failures will occur. I actually expect a wave of failures to accelerate as the highways and bridges built throughout the 1950s and 1960s start to collapse due to insufficient funds for maintenance. And there will be no pattern of partisanship when that wave of failures happens (I think you're right that they will occur).

Yup, We Did It By Barry Bonds & OJ Simpson