Does this make it better?

now, how ironic is that. maybe the bat and the ball were juiced also.

I would bet there are lots of pitchers who pitched to him while using.

Just yesterday Tigers second baseman gets caught, again for using steroids.

It doesn't make it right.

I never really understood it all, it wasn't about getting bigger stronger (maybe in hitters case) but in pitchers case, it was about quicker recovery so they could get out there 5 days later and do it again. The large number of pitching injuries you are seeing now is from lack of use. Rehab is a very long process and so is the bodies recovery. It's frustrating to have to wait for your rehab appointment. My son is learning for the first time and so are we, that baseball is a brutal sport on ones body.

What amazes me is the lack of good training given to
the new players, all clubs future. This should be a priority for all clubs to help their players to get into top physical shape. This came from a friend of my sons in another organization, who has his PT license and graduate studies in nutrition and sports health. He is actually making money on the side from helping players learn proper nutrition and excercise because they can't get it anywhere else.

As some of the more wiser parents of players of pro ball players have said, it's a business, the fittest survive and get ahead, the truely talented ones don't need to cheat, that is what makes me angry about Bonds and those that have. He didn't need it, he had natural ability and talent. With all the pressure to get to the show and make lots of bucks, it's tempting and was more tempting when no one cared, or looked the other way.

I heard a commentary the other day about Ripkin, did he use steroids to help his record? I don't think there is anyone we could ever trust in the steroid error.

If Bonds breaks the record, instead of an asterisk can it be 756S?

TPM, I guess clubs figure they don't need everybody to be great players. Just a few great ones are needed to replace the ones who get old or hurt. Why spend money developing all the players?

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:

Just yesterday Tigers second baseman gets caught, again for using steroids.

Let's get our facts straight. Quoted from AP story in USAToday:
"Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80 games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned stimulant..."

Not steroids.

dbg_fan

Your point is well taken---more players are on stimulants, banned or not, than steroids---the ones getting nailed are those using stimulants---huge difference from 'roids

Good point, but I guess it is cheaper to rehab them than to prevent injuries?

My son is lucky he had pretty good training at school, great facilities and worked with a PT in the off season. But being a young healthy guy like most of them, he didn't do all he should have done. I am actually surprised by how much he has taught himself just recently in nutrition and recovery. One of the reasons he came back to FL, the trainer for his team (who he said was very good) was really on overload so the ones who really needed work each day come to the main facility to rehab. If he had known what strengthening excercises he needed when he first felt badly, he would have done that. I think you can relate to that. The quick fix is stim when playing, now he is doing strengthening excercises he could not do there. He is actually progressing rather quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by dbg_fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:

Just yesterday Tigers second baseman gets caught, again for using steroids.

Let's get our facts straight. Quoted from AP story in USAToday:
"Tigers infielder Neifi Perez was suspended for 80 games Friday after testing positive for a third time for a banned stimulant..."

Not steroids.

You are correct. I would tend to think without steroids to recover, stimulants are needed.

BTW,
All players are given a number for MLB and an email address and instructed to call for any ingredients for over the counter meds and supplements. You can email them all ingredients and quantities and they will provide you with a response for clearance. I don't think this is a new policy.

Steroids, stimulants, no excuses.

We should, perhaps, recall that "stimulants" covers a number of pharmacologic classes, some of which are used recreationally, like cocaine and meth. Nefi might have an issue bigger than that of trying to improve his onfield performance. Strawberry comes to mind.

Rule number 1

You are not supposed to break the law.

Baseball or no baseball - criminal activity is unacceptable.

Clean the house baby.

while i am totaly against steroids. i do understand the use of stimulants. i for one have never worked 162 days out of roughly 180 +-. while jetting or riding buses acrossed the country. it's easy for us to be judgemental never having done it. and your right it is just a game, but it can be grueling. i for one use a stimulant daily ,coffee. and alieve daily all i do is work.

Actually its not a game, its a business with millions of dollars as the prize.

And if memory serves me correctly didn't Barry test positive for stimulants. Is it ok if that truck driver who is out there making a living to use stimulants to get through his 20 hour day. He doesn't make 16 million a year so I guess it is a crime for him to use speed.

20dad the last time I checked coffee wasn't a felony. Now if your beef is with the legalization of drugs than make that argument not some lame argument that Barry's life is hard so he should be able to use illegal drugs.

The original question was does this make it better? No because Hensley was subjected to a drug testing policy that was much stricter than BARRY and he didn't have the benefit of the Player's Union to protect him. Barry is still the biggest jackass to ever put on a uniform.

TRhit what is the big difference between steriods and stimulants? Both are illegal and both improve performance. Apologizing for Barry doesn't make one better than the other.

TPM mom, I have been making the argument for years that the MLB clubs are unwise when it comes to their assets. If you would own a lawnmowing business you wouldn't avoid maintenance on your equipment or let it go unsupervised for 6 months out of the year.

No it doesn't make it better that the pitcher has tested positive. If Barry had been subjected to the same drug testing as the pitcher we wouldn't be having this debate. The pitcher didn't have the luxury of working under the MLB player's union.

deldad

Get off you soap box pal !!!!!

Stimulants can be legal---coffee---exedrin- advil----shall I go on-- and mixed with many energy drinks they can be very powerful and still be legal

I am not condoned and have not condoned the use of either, although in your small mind you think I have(perhaps you might want to open your mind a bit to the real world)---for whatever the reason you want a piece of me and that is your choice but it wont work pal--- you need to read what I post not what you want to interpret--nor have I ever apologized for Bonds---all I have said is that minds like yours have convicted him and yet he has been proven guilty of nothing ---I thought our country allowed people to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not in a court of public opinion


Have a nice evening and watch when Barry hits the record breaker---I sure hope it doen't happen tomorrow night because I understand one of our former players JOHN LANNAN, Siena College, is due to pitch against him.

I'm in no way condoning drugs and I wish the Players union would protect players by endorsing tougher testing.
But the MLB knew players were taking steroids and allowed it.I can understand why players would use them just to stay on a level playing field with the other using players..Is it right ? NO Thats why I want more testing.... To keep the playing field level

Soapbox, TR I have been reading your high and mighty opinions on this board for years. So you need to relax PAL. If you think coffee and stimulants, the illegal ones are similar then I guess we agree to disagree. Stimulants, as refered to in this discussion are the illegal ones. If they are not different than roids than explain that to me.

As far as wanting a piece of you, I forgot you don't disagree with the TRHIT. I apologize for questioning your highness.

Stimulants, steroids, and every other illegal drug has no place in baseball. You can argue over the shades of gray but that doesn't change the color.

So to get back to the topic, does it make it better? I reiterate that the answer is no. But it shows the inequities of the system.

Never questioned the inequities in the system and you can blmae MR Selig and the union for those inequities--as long as they make $$$$$$$$$$$$ they will be fine and continue to tap dance all nite long. He sat there like a doofus last nite while in the meantime ESPN is giving special coverage to each Bonds at bat--who is reaping the benefits of the added time and commercials--it sure isnt BONDS--it is baseball

NOW

Think about this a minute---once your child turns 18 you, as a parent, without the permission of your child, have no right to their medical or academic records--so how can anyone demand the players medical records ? where is MLB going with this? They sure know what the laws are not to mention that Mr Mitchell has an affilitation with the Red Sox---get the picture---we have an investigator with an affiliation and a commissioner who is the owners "patsy"--the owners claim they are olosing money but they all build new stadiums and sell teams at a hug profit---it is a game---it doesn't make it right but that is the way it is and if you think they, th eowners and the union want to let the cat out of bag you are saddly mistaken---too many dollars involved

And SIR, there are legal substances, stimulantsif you so desire, which when combined or used inheavy dosages will cause a test to show positive---too much coffee will do that---too much Red Bull will do that--

You interpret as you wish but baseball has created a problem and truly now they do not know what to do with it and how to handle it but don't condemn a person or persons who have not been found guilty of anything---that is all I say


And what happens when "Mr RAT", Jose Canseco, starts talking about AROD which will happen shortly

No I do not condone what is going on but it is what it is and it is not going to change--at least not in my lifetime


I have never had a problem with people disagrreing with me--read my posts carefully--sure I am blunt and direct but there are many who have sparred with em and we are the best of friends both on here ands personally--the problem is that the PC poster does not know how to handle the upfront answers--they term it rude--crude and abusive--LOL---nobody want to offend anyone anymore---too bad---the truth is what it is--I am what I am--take it or leave it and I have said it before and say it again--

Yes I blame the PA and MLB for the inequities, but the question was "does this make it better?"

If it is a condition of your employment that you give up your medical records so be it.

I will disagree with you when it comes to testing for amphetamines versus excess doses of Red Bull or coffee. I have handled a large number of drug testing matters in a court of law and I have never seen anybody fail a test for coffee or Red Bull. Amphetamines yes, and they have never been mistaken for coffee.

As far a Canseco talking about Arod, I find that indefensible.

I don't have a problem with your upfront nature, and you can express your opinions in any way you chose. But when the same style is used to question one of your opinions, don't take it as a personal affront and challenge the person because you feel victimized. I also have strong opinions and will return the respect that is given. I enjoy the lively debate and find that the more challenging the debate the more open I am to the opinions of others. I wasn't offended just returning in kind.

deldad
as i understand it unless you or i have played 162 games a year this would be an opinion. and as such we are each entitled to our own.i agree my stimulants are not illegal,bad choice of words.
as i said i don't agree with the steroids, but i do understand the use of stimulants. things that you and i take everyday MAY be illegal to mlb. as i said it is easy to have a view of things we haven't dealt with. and we probably agree on more than you think. but if that truck driver needs to get that load to memphis and has to fudge his driving log or throw down some greenies to get it there to feed his family? he just may break the law. while a pro player gets paid more in the bigs he still needs to feed his family. work is work and nobody can't be replaced. thats my point. not that i am in favor of it but i understand the use of it. i'm not sure how it improves performance as much as it keeps you awake? which is an impovement from napping.
njbb
you are right it is a huge business disguised as a little boys dream.

As I read the MLB drug policy, only Schedule II drugs and steroids are prohibited. Schedule II narcotics include amphetamines, as well as other drugs of abuse. It does not include any drug that can be attained without a prescription.

TR,

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty. But this is purely a matter for the courts and has no bearing on public opinion.

For example, what man in his right mind would let his daughter date a guy suspected--but not convicted--of rape? Maybe a melodramatic illustration, but the same rule of thumb applies. I don't need to see a conviction in a court of law to persuade me that Barry Bonds cheated.

TR,

Are you a former teamster? Your perspective appears to favor union positions over management.

Iscream


I do not agree with your analogy---I worked some 30 plus years in the construction industry in NYC but I was the management side of things

I just think that Bonds has been made the "poster boy" for Selig and his buddies and I hate seeing people convicted when not proven guilty---


By the way there are no former teamsters---once a teamster always a teamster

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
TR,

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty. But this is purely a matter for the courts and has no bearing on public opinion.

For example, what man in his right mind would let his daughter date a guy suspected--but not convicted--of rape? Maybe a melodramatic illustration, but the same rule of thumb applies. I don't need to see a conviction in a court of law to persuade me that Barry Bonds cheated.

Bum,
You make it sound as if our courts are on a different planet. Aren't we, as American Citizens, ALL a part of that system?

Let's remove Bonds from the picture for a moment. What if your daughter were accused of doing drugs at school? She says she's innocent, but the charges have already been circulated by the admins in order to send a warning to other students. Wouldn't you want her to have a fair hearing before any type of punishment were handed down and the whole school casts her out as a misfit?

My point is that we should all try to fashion our personal opinions more on the model of the courts and less on the public opinion model. If you can be persuaded by inadmissible evidence, how would you perform as a juror?

We all need to take a big step back and put some distance between ourselves and lynch mob mentality. Let the courts work as our founding fathers intended them to.

Yeah, OJ was found innocent.

spizzlepop


Thank you !!!

A former teammates of Bonds says it is 'hard to dispute' the argument that Bonds cheated to enhance his athletic performance. Read the article here.

dbg

I read the article twice---does he say he ever personally witnessed him taking anything---I do not think so--- just another guy looking for publicity


You have to love the lynchmob mentality-- and it is all conjecture---

Bonds testified that substances didn't work

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594

To expand some on CD's thoughts.
There are at least 3 different aspects to Bonds and the steroid issue.
First there is the ongoing criminal investigation before the grand jury. From that perspective, TR and others are correct. Bonds hasn't been convicted of anything.
Secondly, MLB has it's own ongoing investigation and it's own employment rules. MLB has the "Best interests of Baseball clause," the Bonds contract, and the collective bargaining agreement, amongst the items and issues it must consider in any efforts it may take to discipline Bonds. The fact that only Rafael Palmeiro has tested positive for steroids suggests the MLB tests are not very effective. But Bonds does not need to be convicted in a Courtroom to be disciplined by MLB. Take a look at the NFL and what they did with PacMan Jones. He hasn't been convicted either and he isn't playing. But if MLB isn't going to move forward with Sheffield after his comments on HBO on the use of the clear and the cream, it seems pretty clear MLB is making Bonds an issue in name only.
Finally, there is the public opinion aspects.
Bonds is a public figure in the eyes of the law. He is in a much different position than anyone's child from a legal view. Diverging views about being "proven guilty" is fair game in the Court of public opinion. The fact that MLB has only proven one major leaguer guilty is fascinating, to me, on how reliable it is to be "proven guilty."
What does being "proven guilty" really mean in the Court of public opinion? I would imagine a number of posters on this site drove over the weekend and exceeded some posted speed limit, whether it be a 25mph or a 65 mph. Unless there was an officer there, you were "guilty" of the violation but not charged and never "proven" guilty. Barry Bonds is denying he ever drove over 25mph in a 25 mph zone.
His "denial" continues while his personal trainer and childhood friend does time in a local county jail for refusing to answer questions about Bonds steroid use. Just so happens the trainer/friend plead guilty in the Balco steriods cases.
When I evaluate all the information, I believe Bonds did drive over 25mph at some point, and did it knowingly. Has it been proven? No. But we are all in the Court of public opinion.
Personally, until the Grand Jury ends and MLB ends it charade with the Mitchell effort, I am comfortable with my views on Bonds. He is a great hitter, one of the best of his era. My respect for his talent ends when he walks off the field and my respect for what he accomplished on the field is tempered with my belief his denials aren't any better than Sheffields.
My respect for Henry Aaron and his record grows because of what he accomplished on the field, what he has done off the field, the era in which he did it, and his integrity as a person.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

Bonds is a public figure in the eyes of the law. He is in a much different position that anyone's child from a legal view.

Could you please explain?

quote:

Could you please explain? Confused

Probably not!
But here is a start:

If this were a child about whom drug allegations were made, the child would have legal rights that prevent names from being disclosed. If the information was false, then the child and family could sue over the use/dissemination of false information and would not need to prove malice, etc. In other words, they could sue the school over the charges/investigation and could sue over the dissemination of any information by the school which attached the name of the student to drugs and to the investigation. They could also sue over privacy violations. Proving malice or ill will or intent to harm would not be necessary for the child.
Bonds is not a public figure, and has different rights. For instance, when "Game of Shadows" was released, as a public figure intending to pursue a lawsuit, Bonds would need to prove the information in the book was false and that it was published with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The fact that Bonds never filed a lawsuit is interpreted by some to show he could never carry the burden of proving the information to be false. Even if he could, he would open the door for a jury to decide whether he did or did not, and he won't do that.

Thank you. It seemed that you were implying that because Bonds is a public figure, he is subject to a different set of laws than anyone else. Of course we protect our minors, but that point wasn't given in the scenario I offered.
Say it's your wife then, and she stands accused of embezzlement. Fair trial then public shame? If vice versa how does she stand a chance? Jury not lynch mob.
That's my only point.
Out

quote:

Jury not lynch mob.

I am not sure I understand.
I don't think there has been a single post on this site that would be "lynch mob" mentality. We are all commenting on and debating information that is in the public domain, about a public figure. Bonds is a public figure but wants it to be on his terms, and it does not work that way.
Bonds is making around $16,000,000 or so this year.
Each day Bonds heads to the ballpark and collects a portion of that salary, his childhood friend sits in Santa Rita County jail because he will not answer questions about Bonds use of prohibited and illegal substances.
I wonder why others get so upset over what is happening to Bonds when Bonds seemingly could care less about what is happening to his friend.
IMO, Barry Bonds is a public figure with a lot of power which he is using, successfully, to fend off a grand jury and other investigations.
Greg Anderson is not a public figure and doesn't have power. Greg Anderson's silence is likely one major reason Barry Bonds has yet to be "proven" guilty.

Bonds implicit admition, by his non-denial and lack of legal action, of assertions in Game of Shadows, is more than enough to sway reasonable adults to conclude his use of substantial performance enhancements. Whether he broke laws or rules is an additional issue. He's not been convicted yet most agree he performance is anything but clean.

Nor is the everyday performance of doctors, lawyers, senators, congressmen,and movie and TV idols that clean

I know surgeons who had certain days you did not get operated on because of their pre operation day eves "meetings"

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Nor is the everyday performance of doctors, lawyers, senators, congressmen,and movie and TV idols that clean

I know surgeons who had certain days you did not get operated on because of their pre operation day eves "meetings"

So two wrongs make a right??

The issue in question is Barriod.

The sad part is he was a Hall of Famer without juice, with probably 600+ home runs if he did it clean. His greed ended up tarnishing his legacy. He is certainly not alone though.

Frank

Where do you see me saying anything about what is right or what is wrong ???--I am just offering info on what I know