Tim McG

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.

Is it illegal to reply to your own post? Amphetamines in the 1980s = Speed (the noun, not the verb). Kept the "dog days of august" at bay for players. No one did anything about that. Just like no one did anything about steroids and HGH and other things in the 1990s....until recently. I've concluded that you make a "steroid era" section of baseball history in the HOF- compare everyone within that era- and vote accordingly, based on the players in the era. Beginning and end is subject to debate though. Some people think I'm nuts...but I believe Ricky Henderson had a stint with steroids. Writers say they won't vote in any steroid players- IMO- they already did. Interesting conversation- however no one will convince the other they're wrong...but at least everyone is keeping the discussions in a civil tone. I'm OK with that. Just as long as they have an amphetamine/speed section, a "boo-boo-" juices section, a tobacco section [nicotine is a stimulant], an aspirin/ibprophin section, a food supplement section, a vitamins section, a juiced ball era section, a new equipment/technology section...I could go on. A MLB record walks section for Barry Bonds would be nice, too. As in: It wouldn't matter anyway if they had pitched to him section.

Ridiculous arguments. Steroids would not make a cyclist or a sprinter hit home runs, but steroids would help those athletes perform at a higher level within their skill sets. Similarly, steroids would not turn a home run hitter into a world-class cyclist or sprinter, or a pitcher into a home run hitter, but they would help those athletes perform better within their skill sets. Bonds would have been a different athlete without his admitted steroid use. You have no idea how he would have performed without them, so supposing his home runs would have been a few feet shorter is baloney. His strength and conditioning would have been measurably lowered without them, and so he may very well have had average- to below-average power in the latter stages of his career without the help of roids. And they are not illegal solely because of the harm they do to the user's body. There are medically legitimate uses for steroids, after all. They are illegal because using them is cheating. Why? Because they give the user an unfair and artificial advantage. Fact: Bonds used roids. Fact: Roids improve athletic performance. What's in dispute: Whether he lied about knowningly taking them. If you believe he used them without knowing it, then you have to conclude he's a complete idiot, AND that his longtime friend Anderson had some reason for deceiving him and placing his baseball career and legacy in jeopardy. But there's no denying his athletic achievements are tainted. The rest of the medical and sporting world realizes this. You can choose not to, but you'd be mistaken. And you have no idea how he would perform without steroids, either. Speculation is all you have offered as your contrary arguement; not facts. The rest of the sporting and medical world....really? What is the basis of your assumption? Once again, there is no qualified source which has linked the use of steriods to hitting HRs. None. I stand for facts, Dr. Papsrus, not inuendo.

I think most reasonable people believe that strength is a significant contributing factor in the distance a hit ball will travel. Thus it is a factor in the ability to hit HRs. No way around it. If you have a 98 pound weakling that can barely lift a bat, there's no way he's going to swing hard enough to put a ball over the fence. Someone with substantial muscles like Barry Bonds can easily swing hard enough to put the ball into McCovey Cove. Obviously, coordination, vision, timing, and other things are factors too, but clearly strength is a contributor. And steroids increase strength, as you admit. C'mon, be real here. I am, Aggie. Because if true, reliever Eric Gagne, OF Jason Giambi, OF Manny Ramirez and OF Jose Canseco would be HR record holders, too. But they aren't. That is my point. I don't dispute the fact steroids increase muscle mass and aid in the recovery process from use. But the bottom line is Bonds was the best HR hitter in the history of the game, with or without steriods, and if he had been pitched to during even half of his MLB record walks, he would have demolished the HR record. Steriods just make a player bigger and stronger. That's all they can do. Like I've said before, those HRs he hit were no cheapies. These were moonshots. Take away the steriods and the ball goes a few feet less far. They would still be HRs. That is why I don't get all the hugga-mugga over using steriods. Sure they are illegal but they are that largely because of the damage they do to a person's body. Remember Lyle Alzado? He was the NFL linebacker who died from cancer induced by the use of steroids. That is the bigger issue in my mind.

I just can't ignore this shit any longer. The trial began with speculation that he took steroids then "morphed" into a trial about whether he lied about taking steroids? Once again you betray an appalling lack of understanding of basic facts of the evidence, both that which was allowed into evidence by the judge and that which was disallowed. Here are the facts: Testimony was given that the 2003 "survey" results for Bonds blood sample were initially negative for steroids then when they knew what they were looking for (remember, BALCO's pitch was "undetectable" steroids) ... POSITIVE for the CLEAR and the CREAM. The test results are 100% legitimate and they show that Bonds used what BALCO and Greg Anderson were selling: Performance Enhancing Drugs. "Doping schedules" were not even mentioned in the indictment, because Greg Anderson refused to testify against his friend. Greg Anderson could have stood before the jury and said "I never told Barry that what I was giving him were steroids" but he has refused to do that and by his willful obstruction of justice took a hacksaw to the case the Feds could have presented, including: The positive steroid test results found in BALCO's records; That "Doping CALENDAR" with Barry Lamar Bonds' initials on it, which followed the Giants' baseball schedule to the T and showed Bonds receiving regular injections of various steroids. The fact that the jury spent all of Friday discussing the charges and asking to see or hear some of the evidence again is a very bad sign for Bonds, in my opinion. The defense presented no case - a signal to the jury that there is nothing to see here, they should return a not-guilty verdict in no time. If indeed "the feds got no case" then why would it take them more than a day to return a verdict? Why would they ask to hear the court reporter repeat the testimony of "Barry's girl" about watching Anderson inject Bonds? The fact that they didn't pull an OJ and take 90 minutes to acquit tells me that there are at least some people on the jury who are taking their obligation seriously. At this point Bonds may be hoping for a hung jury. No. At this point I would say you're hoping for a conviction on anything. Evidence and court cases, surprisingly, do not hinge upon your say so or put downs. I have already shown your "evidence" to be fatally flawed and biased. So let's move on, shall we?

Glad to hear you are supporting the court finally. So if or when Bonds is found guilty, you will finally admit to what Bonds has already admitted, that he took drugs that enhanced his performance, rendering his records worthless and undefinable. And regardless whether the court finds him guilty, I stand by my statement that he will be forever guilty in the court of public opinion. I have always believed the court system needs to handle this, not the media or photoshop bullshit. However, I think the prosecution has no case and is, at this point, desperately trying to justify the colossal waste of taxpayer money by getting him on something...anything. The so-called "court of public opinion" is morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt, Aggie. That same "court" was the source of lynchings, too. You think about that. This must be a personal gripe for you, Aggie. I mean, every response you make has to be some angry commentary about what you think I believe. Yet, with a little research, you will note that I never said Bonds didn't take steroids. All I have ever said is there is no proof that he did. I have already acknowledged that he took "the clear". And, if you will further note, I have said [numerous times] that I couldn't care less if he did use steroids. Why? Because steroids do not make a player hit HRs. They just make them bigger. Tell me, if he is found not guilty, will you finally acknowledge there was no proof he ever took steroids or is this just a one sided thing with you? Hm. You completely avoided the point of my comment. Being a supporter - an advocate even - of the court, you have to accept their conclusion if Bonds is found guilty. And your powers of perception are completely off, as usual. There is no anger in any of my comments. Maybe some paranoia or persecution complex on your part, I'd guess. If he is not found guilty, that simply means the jury didn't think there was enough evidence presented to convict. Greg Anderson sitting in jail throughout the trial is convincing enough to most thinking-people to be a clear sign there is guilt on Bonds' part. Period. End of story. Steroids do in fact increase strength. Just take a look at the link I provided previously, from a credible source. You skipped right over that before. Increased strength CLEARLY helps power hitters hit the ball further, creating the potential for additional home runs. No way to deny that, for reasonable people. So you accept the court's decision on OJ Simpson murder trial then? Steroids increase strength not the ability to hit HRs. There is no documented proof or credible source which will link HRs to steroids. None. Speculation and photoshopped pictures notwithstanding. Gimme a break, Aggie.

Again, this trial is not about determining whether Bonds "ever took steroids"... it is a trial centered on notion of perjury. As an aside, wouldn't the positive test observed through regular MLB testing constitute proof that he took steroids? On the contrary. This trial BEGAN with the speculation Bonds took steroids. It has morphed into a trial about whether or not he lied about taking steroids. There were no positive tests which could be substantiated as legitimate; a controlled environment. The "tape" about "doping schedules" said nothing about steroids, either. The "court of public opinion" and the media coined the phrase "doping schedules". The prosecution is relying upon guilt by association and angry ex-girlfriends. They have no case here and they know it.

Glad to hear you are supporting the court finally. So if or when Bonds is found guilty, you will finally admit to what Bonds has already admitted, that he took drugs that enhanced his performance, rendering his records worthless and undefinable. And regardless whether the court finds him guilty, I stand by my statement that he will be forever guilty in the court of public opinion. I have always believed the court system needs to handle this, not the media or photoshop bullshit. However, I think the prosecution has no case and is, at this point, desperately trying to justify the colossal waste of taxpayer money by getting him on something...anything. The so-called "court of public opinion" is morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt, Aggie. That same "court" was the source of lynchings, too. You think about that. This must be a personal gripe for you, Aggie. I mean, every response you make has to be some angry commentary about what you think I believe. Yet, with a little research, you will note that I never said Bonds didn't take steroids. All I have ever said is there is no proof that he did. I have already acknowledged that he took "the clear". And, if you will further note, I have said [numerous times] that I couldn't care less if he did use steroids. Why? Because steroids do not make a player hit HRs. They just make them bigger. Tell me, if he is found not guilty, will you finally acknowledge there was no proof he ever took steroids or is this just a one sided thing with you? Hm.

What a difference two days makes. Gigantes still won the weekend series...in spite of Zito.

Even Tejada contributed with his walk-off double! But don't count the Rocks out just yet. Those guys are always a tough out. Ugh. Well, so much for .500 ball I'll be taking in the Giants vs. Braves game on April 22nd. Sanchez figures to pitch that day; no Zito.

I guess your mind is greater than the vast majority of the population then. Congratulations. Oh? I have been an advocate for legal procedure from the start. As in the court system, Aggie, not the court public opinion. How you can read otherwise is for others to ponder. Never said it was, Ted...but you are. Take a chill pill, Dude.

You don't know that about Anderson any more than we know when the World will end. It is my sincere hope that all of those who pretend speculation and photoshop is truth will FINALLY get the clue about reality vs inuendo. But then again, they probably won't. I agree that Anderson is getting paid a fine sum for his non-cooperation. But I think regardless of the outcome of the court case, in the court of public opinion Bonds is toast, forevermore. Only in the smallest of minds, Aggie. The court of public opinion relies upon gossip, lies and half-truth. More's to pity.

What defense attorney in his right mind would ever put his client on the stand? It is simply not done.

The Bonds defense team rests its case today without calling ONE witness. They know as well as I do that the Feds have no case.

Geez. Calm down, Dan. It's a 162 game season, OK?

If you're buying, I'm drinking. We don't brew any haterade for the Giants down here. We just send cholos to hospitalize them. Kidding, in bad taste. No problem, Jon. They shot a Giants fan a couple years ago. At least this one is still alive. Whoa I just read about this incident. Horrible. http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6297020 It's just sad what has happened to the Dodgers and the Dodger Stadium experience. I refuse to go to games in person anymore, the atmosphere is terrible, and most definitely, I will not go anywhere close to the left field bleachers, it is way too crazy out there. This once glorious franchise is being run into the ground by the McCourt's, and they could care less, all they want is to steal all the money they can from the fans, and Dodger funds -- I used to be a die hard Dodger fan, but after Murdoch and McCourt, count me out. It's even worse when those LF Dodger thugs come up to San Francisco during a Giants vs Dodgers game....like they own the place. One time at a sold out Giants/Dodgers game [i had SRO tickets] two heavily tattooed and completely drunk Dodger thugs followed me around ATT Park shouting obscenities and just spoiling for a fight. They are surrounded by a sea of Black and Orange and yet they acted like we were in freakin' LA. Amazing arrogance. Kinda like Raiders fans only dressed in Blue.

Fair enough. That's the best approach. There have been PMs speculating that he's a troll program. So we can't disagree without somebody being a troll? Wow.

I give up; you can't even read what you write, apparently. I don't know if it's that your communication skills are that poor, or that you just automatically argue with no concern of what you've said in the past (by the way, that doesn't really work in a written medium), but either way, I'm done. OK...whatever, Jazzmoose. Geez. I never called you a liar, nor did I intimate it. However, I did call into question your claim you know exactly what is in every drug you take. If that is the same as calling you a liar then I do not know what the definition of the word is. Do people make misstatements or mistakes without being a liar? Tell you what, maybe it's time to chill to some nice Jazz tunes. Nobody is attacking you, OK? I recommend a little Horace Parlan Us Three. Great album. Point of comparison: Bonds claims he did not know steroids were in those shots he got, either.

Not true. As a general rule, elite athletes are acutely aware -- or should be -- of exactly what they are putting into their bodies. Health and conditioning aside, one of the obvious reasons for this is that they don't want to accidentally expose themselves to a banned substance. So when a trainer pulls a syringe out of his bag of goodies and starts singing the praises of the magic potion he's about to inject into your belly button, an elite athlete would have to be a complete moron not to find out exactly what is in that magic potion. And I'm not talking about memorizing the Periodic Table here. Some simple questions about whether the magic potion includes anything from the list of banned substances should be sufficient. And if the person administering the magic potion isn't qualified or knowledgeable enough to answer those basic but important questions, then they shouldn't be administering injections (or offering magic creams, or whatever). So, the choices are moron or liar. Ignorance isn't a realistic or believable excuse -- particularly for an elite athlete. Not exactly. Athletes check for any banned substances that may be present in any drugs/suppliments they use. That is not quite the same thing as knowing exactly what is in each and every drug they ingest or inject.

Um. Sure thing, Jazzmoose. Interactions and side-effects are not the same thing as knowing exactly what is in each and every drug you have been given by a licensed physician. The pharmacy gives you interaction/side-effect info when you buy the drugs. Injectables are far more difficult to decifer, content-wise. You honestly check the pharmaceutical basis for all the drugs you have been given...including injectables? How do you get past the drug patent laws? Don't you trust your own doctor? More importantly, when do you find the time to do all this research?

Really? I thought everyone did this. It's not that difficult to do in the internet age. Who said it was difficult? All I said is nobody does this...not even you, I'll bet. Nothing I enjoy more than being called a liar. ...edited to remove the kneejerk obscenity. Whoa. Where were you called a liar, Jazzmoose? Edit: Removing knee-jerk comment about a foot and a mouth.

On Sunday, I was, too. And they dumped Jon Miller...for that?

Gotta have chili on that 'dog, Boyz. World Famous Tommy's chili dog w/everything.

I was going to leave that inconsistency alone, but as long as you brought it up.... What inconsistency? I have no idea what is IN those shots, Ted/Dave. Please read what I write, OK?

Really? I thought everyone did this. It's not that difficult to do in the internet age. Who said it was difficult? All I said is nobody does this...not even you, I'll bet.