Tim McG

True dat. Cain looked mighty good last night, but the Rockies are 11-2 right now. The Giants need to quit committing so many errors. Tejada and Burrell, especially. Giants are a much better team than 7-6.

Ugh. The Clippers were bad back when they were in San Diego. Not much has changed, I'm afraid. As to batting: The Dodgers used to have some serious pop at the plate. I remember having this conversation last year with colleagues of mine who are Dodger fans. We always ended with saying if the Dodgers hitters and Giants pitchers were on the same team, they would be unstoppable.

I'm the same way. Though I've never liked the Dodgers I have always liked Vin Scully's voice....and I can't believe Chick Hearn is gone either. The Lakers are the only LA team I root for since way back in the 60s. So...is Scully retiring? With Scully, it's year to year, he says he needs to see how he feels at the end of each season. How he has put up with the McCourt's is beyond me. I was wondering last night if Scully has been muzzled, because the Dodgers were getting booed loudly, and not a discouraging word was heard from Vinny's mouth. And not a word on the ridiculous security at Dodger Stadium -- two armed police at each section? What The Heck???? Dodger Stadium was empty, I doubt there were over 20,000 thousand in the stands. Sad times in Dodgerland. Can't say that I'm unhappy about the heightened security. The guy those Dodger thugs beat up is still in a coma...with brain damage, too. OTOH, the Dodgers have had a hard time filling the stands for some time now. But you're right, the ownership is really doing a number on the team. I remember when Bob Lurie wanted to move the Giants [to Florida of all places], Candlestick was a ghost town. A new ownership team stepped in and a new ballpark was built. Giants stayed. This, too, shall pass.

I'm the same way. Though I've never liked the Dodgers I have always liked Vin Scully's voice....and I can't believe Chick Hearn is gone either. The Lakers are the only LA team I root for since way back in the 60s. So...is Scully retiring?

More Giants Torture, but the end result was they won their second three game series this season and against the hated Dodgers. Cain tonight...must be a four man rotation now. This is supposed to be Zito's start. Maybe they can keep it going!

I...nah. Forget it. **************************************************************************************** To the rest: You guys hash it out. Label it whatever you'd like, Pick the word that makes you happy. OK? I don't give a rip. Bonds was not found guilty of the big, bad, steroids charge. The Feds had no case. I was right from the start and all of now know that one, too. My time is up here and so is the time you are spending on my back. Out.

It's a little surprising, although maybe not, that Goodspeak misunderstands this. Pretty basic. Not being privy to the court documents, all I have to go by is the media sources I checked. All of which used the term "acquit". You have some court documents with difinitive wording to the contrary then let's have it. Otherwise, this just a word game. From NPR: "They did not convict Bonds of lying in sworn testimony about his drug use." I dunno. That sure sounds like a finding of lack of evidence for guilt, Boyz. Hence, by definition, they acquitted him. source: NPR.org

No confusion here: "The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com

No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts. So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks. Not exacly. You are using the only number Dan provided. "The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com That, my friend, was "pretty much everyone" in the jury. Non-Case closed. Only Danny would have so much hatred for one human being as to wish a 10 year sentence on a side charge having absoltely nothing at all to do with the real reason the trial began in the first place: Knowingly using steroids. He was AQUITTED of knowingly using steroids/HGHs, Danny. [Read: Not found quilty] You are frighteningly dense to use "aquitted" (sic) in regards to the charges that he wasn't found guilty of. To say that this means "not found guilty" and is some victory is just beyond asinine. Who does better in a re-trial, the prosecution or the defense? The prosecution always does better, because it knows what worked and what didn't. They know now not to call the doctor who hurt their case. They know to prepare Hoskins better. If they do re-try him here's a side benefit: More time in jail for the weasel who shirks his responsibility as a citizen, Greg Anderson. Why do you do this, Dan? Isn't it obvious that nobody is calling anything a "victory". Only you are, OK? And for you to call anybody "dense" is laughable, at best. Let me help you out here: acquittal noun Law . judicial deliverance from a criminal charge on a verdict or finding of not guilty. source: Dictionary.com Open your eyes once, Dan. You know, it is quite possible that you just might be wrong once in a while.

No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts. So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks. Not exacly. You are using the only number Dan provided. "The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use." Source: ESPN.com That, my friend, was "pretty much everyone" in the jury. Non-Case closed. Only Danny would have so much hatred for one human being as to wish a 10 year sentence on a side charge having absoltely nothing at all to do with the real reason the trial began in the first place: Knowingly using steroids. He was AQUITTED of knowingly using steroids/HGHs, Danny. [Read: Not found quilty]

To All: And I told you so

If someone lies to a Grand Jury, they should be tried. You can't draw the line and say it's ok to lie to Grand Juries, about anything. Bonds has admitted to taking steroids. That's good enough for me (and I presume most realistic people) to forever put an ASTERISK next to his records. The real HR heroes: Hank Aaron - MLB HR King - 755 Josh Gibson - American HR King - 800 Sadaharu Oh - World HR King - 868 As long as we do the same for Eric Gagne and his Cy Young. Mannywood and the Red Sox WS victories. The A's WS victories with Canseco and McGuire....yeah, I'd be OK with it, too. MLB HR King: Barry Bonds.....PERIOD.

Correction, Dan: The final votes were 8-4 to acquit Bonds of lying about steroids and 9-3 to acquit him on lying about HGH use. Source: ESPN.com Furture payment to Anderson...? What, even more speculation? Kathy Hoskins is a liar like her brother. Dr. Ting proved that one. The ex-girlfriend lied, too. And all they could do is convict Bonds on some prosecutorial add-on [which never would have occurred if they just left it alone in the first place]. It was a joke trial, a farce and a complete waste of taxpayer money. Haven't we had enough of this? Or he's not guilty. Or see above. At least the trial established that Bonds took roids. No, it didn't. Bonds' attorney already admited to the court he took steriods before the trial even began. They, as I predicted, couldn't prove their own case against Bonds: He knowingly took steroids. The only thing the trial proved was he obstructed justice. That's it. The Feds had no case.

Hence, he was not found guilty. Like I said, the Feds had no case. Correction: They couldn't prove he knowingly took steroids that pretty much everyone assumes he did.. Apparently, "everybody" didn't include the members of the jury. So much for the court of public opinion.

I fully understand your feelings on that one. The Giants keep booting the ball all over the yard. They could easily be 9-2 right now. Grrrrr

Guilty on one count: Obstruction. Big deal. Bonds verdict The mighty Fed prosecution steroids case explodes with all the intensity of a wet firecracker. What a waste of taxpayer money.

Or he's not guilty.

Coffee. Hot. Black. And in a cup.

Just as I fucking predicted, except both teams scored one more run. This however is wrong. THEIR HOLE IS MORE THAN DEEP ENOUGH ALREADY. From 2002 to 2010, there have been 39 teams that have won three or fewer of their first ten games. One of those teams managed to win 90 games or more. Two others made the playoffs with fewer than 90 games - in the parity stricken National League. http://www.actasports.com/stats_detail/?StatId=286 Is there any possible reason to imagine that if this study were extended to the entire wild-card era the results would be any different? Is there any possible way to imagine that 90 wins would make the playoffs in the American League in 2011? STICK A FORK IN THEM THEY ARE DONE. Saved for posterity....11 games into the 2011 season, Dan gives up on his team.

That's an excellent analysis! Hard to argue with that data, too. The graph for Darrell Evans was especially neat. He was part of the '73 Braves where 3 players hit 40 HRs. At 38 he and Fisk both had huge "old age" HR spikes. Yet with Darrell you can see that it was a league-wide jump in HRs, not just an individual 'roidy thing. He's kind of the poster boy for SABR where it showed a guy could hit .243 yet be more valuable than a .280 hitter because of his power, walks and for a time defense. Thanks for the link Vajerzy, I hadn't come across that one before. There was more breaking down of video in those days, too. The batting techniques were more advanced, as well. I think it just shows that players can spike in HRs depending upon the kind of year they are having. Happens all the time.

That's an excellent analysis! Hard to argue with that data, too. Spanning almost 90 years and numerous changes in health and nutrition habits, advanced batting mechanics, workout regimens, technology changes, better equipment, video teaching tools, the "juiced ball era", coaching intelligence and on a blog by an expert in what again...? At BEST this "study" only shows there were a few players in the MLB who were the best at their craft and some who had spikes in their careers. How about that. Where was the data on the other 39 players of the 45 [400] HR hitters mentioned? Yup. Nothing to argue about here, huh.

I see. So he didn't die of steroid induced cancer then? Hm. I plainly said no such thing. Just correcting the record. And not taking any bait. Chili dogs -- thumbs up or down? What about garlic fries? No bait. Just didn't see the necessity of the correction. As posted before: Chili Dogs...all the way!

I was thinking the same thing, WB3. The A's would be just plain unstoppable if they would keep all the guys they trade after they get good. Seriously. I thought it was cool Uribe got his ring and the hugs. I also liked it when he took his first AB in that ugly blue uniform how the Giants Faithful booed him lustily You're OK with us until you put on another team's uniform; now you're the enemy. Well Mulder, Zito and Giambi wouldn't have done much good, it would have nice if they kept Miggy and Dye though. They don't need Street but trading away Carlos Gonzales was a huge mistake. If I go to a Giants game where Rent or Uribe come up they get a standing O from from me for the first at bat as they were part of the 2010 WS 25, after that boos. If you take in a Giants game during the summer, give me a shout-out. We'll go together. First beer is on me

I see. So he didn't die of steroid induced cancer then? Hm. Agreed.

A) Steroids improve athletic performance by a broad measure of criteria. That's a fact. The inescapable logical conclusion, then, is that athletic performance, by this broad measure of criteria, would be reduced without the use of steroids. Therefore, it is not speculation to conclude that an athlete's performance would be lower, by a broad measure of criteria, without roids. It's simple, inescapable logic. B) The rest of the sporting and medical community acknowledges that using steroids does enhance athletic performance. Furthermore, it is broadly view as cheating. Therefore, not an assumption. Fact. C) Your argument that steroids don't enhance the specific skill it takes to hit home runs is confused. Steroids help athletes perform by a variety of measures. Like I said, roids won't help a cyclist hit home runs, but they will help the cyclist perform better within his given skill set. Similarly, roids won't help a home run hitter become a world class cyclist, but they will help a home run hitter perform better within his specific skill set. Therefore, this argument of yours, which you've trotted out repeatedly over the course of this discussion, is bogus. And now, a little break. Maybe George's excuse will remind you a little bit of someone. Steriods do not give you the ability to hit HRs. The do not make a cyclist a champion and there will never be a time steriods will do anything more than build muscles and the ability to recover faster from a workout. Listen, you can turn this around as many times as you like, it is still seculation that with or without the juice Bonds would have hit as many if not more HRs. Nobody knows that. Not even the court of public opinion. And you still haven't responded to the fact regarding the Bonds walk-a-thon and subsequent MLB record in walks factore in big time.