BONDS EXPOSED!!!

quote:

defending a College coach that referred to one of his players with a derogatory racial term (which, contrary to that nonsense you posted, the player and the father were highly insulted by what he said)...and you don't have a problem with it...

2seamer...I happen to know Joe Dunigan and his father. Where did you get your information that they were "highly insulted"?

Frankly, I was highly insulted by the American Idol judge commenting about a "white boy"; and, by Gumbel commenting about the Winter Olympics as a Republican convention because of the lack of black athletes.

Don't you think that both of them should be fired, too?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
NYDAD

You back my point--- if he, Bonds, is doing it and they know of others who are doing it as well go after them---but they wont--there is no press in the others--

I believe this is TR's main point and I agree with him fully about there being no press in the other players. That's the way things are.

Does he deserve to be investigated? Yes. Does he deserve to be singled out? No!

quote:

He has apologized," Joe Dunigan Jr. told The Oklahoman. "Those words are powerful and derisive. They were inappropriate and offensive. But he is a man who has done so many good things in his life.

Yes, he made an inappropriate comment. Yes, it was racial. The family was offended, calling his comments powerful, derisive, inappropriate, and offensive. I would categorize that as highly insulted. Comments, even those made off the cuff, can have consequences, even if you're a heck of a nice guy that's done a lot of good.

Yes, Bryant Gumbel has a history of racial comments...yes, he should be fired. American Idol, I haven't heard that one...I'll have to look it up to see who said what. Barry himself throws every racial zinger he can get in. There shouldn't be a double standard, unfortunately there is. Reverse discrimination and discrimination is the same thing...it should be held to the same standards.

quote:

I believe this is TR's main point and I agree with him fully about there being no press in the other players. That's the way things are.

Does he deserve to be investigated? Yes. Does he deserve to be singled out? No!

Barry isn't being singled out...there is overwhelming evidence of what he did and when he did it. If they had the same overwhelming evidence on other players, what makes you think it wouldn't be released? After all...innocent until guilty, right? If they release a player's name and tie him to steroid use without definitive evidence, then that player could sue.

Which is exactly why Barry won't sue...he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

2seamer

Why is there overwhelming evidence on Bonds and not other players? Because Bonds is being investigated. When other players get investigated, there will be overwhelming evidence on them. That's the whole point.

Compare it to background investigations done by law enforcement for hiring purposes. Nobody knows anything about a ceartin recruit. After testing, the investigation starts, they go to all the places you went to school, the neighborhoods in which you grew up etc..

A lot of recruits are dismissed at this level because of the things discovered during this investigation. If they were not investigated, there would be no evidence and no basis to stop the hiring process.

Same thing with Bonds/rest of baseball. You're probably right about why Bonds will not sue but that has nothing to do about singling him out. It's about the home run record.

well now that we've beaten this subject, MLB has just announced that former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell has been appointed to conduct an investigation into steroid/performance enhancement use/abuse. Mitchell has apparently been given complete authority to act on behalf of MLB, with a team of legal counsel and to look into any violations after the implementation of the 2002 bargaining agreement AND to look into anything else that make lead from that time period, impact upon it etc. i.e. to look at the whole ball of wax.

Here we goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

quote:

Does he deserve to be investigated? Yes. Does he deserve to be singled out? No!

To expand on your quote, Do the owners, commissioners office, Selig, Fehr and the players union deserve to be investigated - YES!
MLB across the board should be subject to this investigation as they are ALL guilty parties in this mess.

The investigation will only confirm the obvious and that is that the players have been juicing big time since mid/late 90's and the owners, commissioner and players union were aware of what was going on. At the end of the day is everyone in MLB going to act surprised by the findings. What a farce

The bigger question is what is the next course of action as the damage is already done. Bottom line is you really can't take this investigation nor the current drug policy too seriously as it's all window dressing. The day they allow blood testing which is necessary to detect HGH and some designer steriods is the day you'll know MLB is serious about protecting the integrity of this great game.

Until then just chuckle at it all

There is evidence against Bonds because Balco was investigated; Bonds was questioned within that inquiry and records regarding him discovered. Had Bonds been being investigated, he would not have been offered imunity.

Evidence against Bonds, discovered though the Balco Investigation, was published. MLB is only just now announcing their intention to investigate steroid abuse, including Bonds'.

Again, Bonds' numbers, the hr record and the approaching career hr records are the reasons he should be investigated first; his stats give reason to believe he has had, shall we say, assistance. MLB looks bad enough after ignoring the situation for years without allowing Bonds to continue toward Aaron's record (breaking Ruth's along the way), completely untouched while they spend time on Sheffield, Giambi, A Player To Be Named, or (worse) guys who are no longer playing.

It would be interesting to know which decision came first --- Home Depot, Pepsi and (as I recall) Bank of America's decisions not to sponsor any Bonds record-breaking coverage, or MLB's to investigate him.

You are right Orlando.....Bank of America and Home Depot will not support Bond's....and Pepsi states right now any celebration would be "muted".

...to those asking, why is everybody picking on Barry.....Selig answered it best when he announced the investigation....while other players will be investigated too....Bond's association with Balco and all the circumstances and evidence coming out of the book...have led us to this point.

I've mixed emotions....the past is important, and legitimate records should be preserved and not broken by cheaters......but my hope is that whatever they learn now....they will transfer it to the future.....and improve testing...and testing requirements.

In other words....I hope this isn't just a public relations move....and is it too little too late?

Now Victor Conte, released from jail today, says he will release facts showing that he did not give Bonds steroids and that the stuff in the book is false.

This is going to get wild.

Well and they just revealed that the INDEPENDENT investigator, George Mitchell, is a director of the Boston Red Sox.

Mitchell is also an official/director/officer of the Disney Company which owns ESPN.

Apparently Bud Selig is a bigger idiot than I would have ever thought and clearly has NO idea of what a conflict of interest means. Of course given that he owned the Brewers while commish and now MLB owns one of the teams, I guess conflicts of interest are meaningless as most likely the investigation will be.

As far as Victor Conte, starting the investigation taking info from a convicted felon would be the best place to start.

What a joke. this "investigation" stinks before it has even started.

I understand that the grandson of Babe Ruth, Tom Stevens, may not participate in the scheduled ceremonial first pitch on April 28 when the Cubs host the Milwaukee Brewers. According to the article, the last place Stevens and the rest of the Ruth family want to be is the site of Bonds' 715th career home run that would place him second on the all-time list behind Henry Aaron, who hit 755.

Due to the cloud of controversy, the Ruth family attorney's and their sports agent who looks out for the family's commercial interests, have recommended that they distant themselves from the Bond's issue. Stevens goes on to say that he has met Bonds, and that Bonds couldn't have been nicer.

However, in this same article, Stevens says, "At the time, (Bonds) wasn't breaking any (MLB)rules and neither was (Mark) McGwire. There was no policy in place. That's unforgivable. Baseball really brought it on itself."

BeenthereIL and others who feel that the Dunnigan family was not offended about the coach's comment about their son are way off base. I don't care if you do know the family and even if Mr. Dunnigan told you that he was not offended, he was. No right thinking Black person (which I think Mr. Dunnigan is) wants anyone to associate their son with that word. Mr. Dunnigan is looking out for his son and was doing everything that he could to minimize any residual damage this could have caused his son. I probably would have said the same, if, in fact, he said he was not offended. As stated in a previous thread about this issue, I'm not sure that the coach should have been fired, but, as a head coach, he certainly shouldn't have said what he did.

...And BeenthereIL, I agree, the same scrutiny should have been given to the American Idol "White boy" comment and the Gumbel comment as well.

By the way, Stevens thinks the use of an asterisk next to the names of alleged steroid abusers would be "one way to treat it, certainly. It is a very awkward situation."

1991 MLB Illegal Drug Policy

Orlando....

WOWOWOWOWOWOW...I think it is clear. Was clear in 1991.

Goodbye: Bonds, McGuire, Palmeiro, Sosa and everyone else.

The Commish, obviously, had no "ba..s" in 1991 and beyond.

WOWOWOWOWOWOW...It was crystal clear in 1991.

Key is severity of the penalty (penalties) to be imposed by baseball...which included a permanent ban from baseball.

quote:

Originally posted by Orlando:
1991 MLB Illegal Drug Policy

I would be willing to make a wager that more than 99% of people who saw this statement in 91 thought it only referred to things like speed, cocaine and marijuana. I know that in 91, I never thought about performance enhancing drugs. Little did I know.....

Steroids (without a prescription) are specifically mentioned on Page 2.

It's obvious that cajones were in short supply, particularly as long as seats were being filled with people in love with the long ball.

To All

15 pages and counting...

It goes to show that Barry hasn't lost hius touch to fill the seats...

The money he represents to the MLB protects his franchise importance to baseball. This is why Barry Bonds will never be held to account for anything he has done. The only people who will hold a grudge will be those who are the HOF voters. And of course they will be sorry losers as they have shown with Pete Rose.

The SF Chronicle (front-page) had an article on fan reaction to Bonds versus the sports reporters...overwhelmingly more support for Bonds than for sport reporters.

Barry has the upper hand here, why, because they have to prove a negative which is virtually impossible.

IMO baseball should build a statue to Jose Canseco in his honor for exposing the truth about how corrupted baseball has become with drug use in pursuit of $$$$.

But they won't because they would have to admit to their own cupability in this whole fiasco. They will go on blaming the players, and the fans when the responsibility lies right at the feet of the owners and the commissioners lap.

Canseco was right...baseball has joined the ranks of ET like all entertainment groupis envovled in drugs, s*e*x, and rock-and-roll. Let the good time roll.

Hum-baby, playball!!!

Ramrod....don't judge all fan reaction by San Francisco's....beleive me when I say....they don't speak for the majority of America....

quote:

It goes to show that Barry hasn't lost hius touch to fill the seats...

The money he represents to the MLB protects his franchise importance to baseball. This is why Barry Bonds will never be held to account for anything he has done. The only people who will hold a grudge will be those who are the HOF voters. And of course they will be sorry losers as they have shown with Pete Rose.

As for Barry and his "touch for filling seats"...he doesn't have to worry about me filling a seat to watch him...and there's plenty more people that could care less about Barry and his "star power".

"His franchise importance to baseball"? His only importance is to the Giants, who are on the hook for $18 million or so, and are sweating, hoping this stuff blows over. Contrary to your belief, Barry isn't bigger than the game. He could retire tomorrow, get suspended tomorrow, or get run over by a truck tomorrow, and guess what...the sun will still rise the next day, and baseball will continue on.

quote:

But they won't because they would have to admit to their own cupability in this whole fiasco. They will go on blaming the players, and the fans when the responsibility lies right at the feet of the owners and the commissioners lap.

Also, be sure to blame the players themselves, as well as the players union. Curt Schilling was livid that Canseco would break the bonds of secrecy of what MLB players do...there are players that know exactly what's going on, but they don't want to talk, and be thought of as a snitch. Look at the guys that have shrunk miraculously in the last year...Bret Boone looked like a batboy before he retired this spring with the Mets. What baseball needs is for more players or ex players to come out with what's going on.

quote:

Originally posted by cong:

quote:

Originally posted by Orlando:
1991 MLB Illegal Drug Policy

I would be willing to make a wager that more than 99% of people who saw this statement in 91 thought it only referred to things like speed, cocaine and marijuana. I know that in 91, I never thought about performance enhancing drugs. Little did I know.....

In November, 2005, Fay Vicent gave an interview to Maury Brown which covered a lot of topics. Regarding the 1991 statement he says:
"And, I think it was really our attempt to be on record, if this was our universe, if we controlled the whole thing, this is what we would do. And we did it, but we did it only for the people that were not covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement." He also comments that they were concerned about cocaine usage, and that the statement was aimed at the "the clubhouse man, and the coaches [who] would hardly be taking steroids."
http://www.businessofbaseball.com/vincent_interview.htm

His comments on this issue are near the end of the interview.

3FingeredGlove:

Welcome aboard the HSBBW.

Thanks for the link...that was a good interview.