Asterisks, windbags & fools in high places

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I see you don't dispute the "homily" reference.

It wasn't a reference, it was a quickdraw charaterization which you employed as a substitute for any explanation regarding what it was with which you disagreed. It is disputed as such.

You are failing to make even a small amount of sense with any of this save perhaps to yourself.

[Nimajneb]

... and THERE is the rub. If we are to reserve the right to judge a player and mark indelibly his reputation for future generations, I say we MUST demand a standard FOR OURSELVES, as judges, at least as demanding a burden of proof level at trial. If we don't subject ourselves to such a standard, we are lying hypocrites.

...a trial where officers of the law have purchesed plane tickets to the opposite side of the earth, walked off into a nice rural rice paddy sat down in the mud put their fingers in their ears and glued their eyes shut. To all appearances of present legal judgment of the matter, Bonds TOOK steroids from BALCO, resulting in the present investigation regarding whether he did so knowingly and therefore perjured himself in grand jury testimony.

I'm not going to send Bonds to jail based on my judgment, nan, and I imagine that he couldn't care less what I think and is similarly indifferent to the opinion of most baseball fans that think so little of him, but there wasn't effective monitoring of steroid use in the relevant time period, and even the present scheme isn't as rigorous as could be desired. If you don't think the evidence is adequate that is your prerogative, and you're free to cheer.
I won't.

[nanwynnfan]

From the interviews and comments I've seen, read and heard over the last several years, including a few this past week, some recalled comments have come from people I'd consider to have more credibility than the likes of Fay Vincent or Bud Selig:

1. During the McGwire-Sosa HR race, Ted Williams was asked his reaction to rumors of "substance" abuse, particularly as it was alleged of McGwire.

Williams responded that, in order to condemn McGwire's use of supplements, from the athlete's perspective, it made good, common sense if:

a. the player's physician, trainer or other trusted advisor, like a nutritionist, approved its use, or at least raised no substantial question of side effects;

b. MLB, despite verbal posturing, had implemented no written directives forbidding such supplements and had not posted written, official guidelines defining use of forbidden substances along with penalties, fines and other punishments for offenses;

Williams framed his statements in the context of young men facing constant performance standards, others vying for their jobs and a limited relative career horizon. Observing McGwire, he focused on bat speed, hip and leg drive and bat speed, enhanced by powerful forearms.

2. Mike Schmidt was totally open and guileless in his interview regarding the mushrooming HR production and the natural temptation of young players to capitalize on any mechanism to enhance or extend brief careers. He flatly stated that he had not used such products; and, from his present knowledge of possible side-effects of some products, he doubted that he would have used them [steroids] had they been available during his playing days.

Schmidt went out of his way NOT to moralize, making it a point to emphasize that the temptation would have been considerable and that he hoped he would not have knowingly cheated ... but not morlizing guarantees.

3. Frank Robinson, with a touch of class, got himself above the fray by concentrating on Bonds' obvious and rare five-tool gifts as a player; his Spartan work ethic and training routines and his dedication to staying in shape, the more positive aspects of pro athlete discipline.

4. Al Downing also concentrated on Bonds' natural gifts, the eye, the patience, the discipline, the production.

All of the above mentioned at some point the eternal "search for an edge" but all put the morality of the thing in a larger perspective; and all of them had the essential element of class to reserve judging Bonds in the absence of tangible proof that he cheated.

That's enough for me.

[nanwynnfan]

Nimajneb wrote, in part:

" ... there wasn't effective monitoring of steroid use in the relevant time period, and even the present scheme isn't as rigorous as could be desired. If you don't think the evidence is adequate that is your prerogative, and you're free to cheer."

Exactly. If one is not rigorous in defining and enforcing rules, one dilutes his authority to punish. It's that simple.

However, just to set the record straight on where I stand with Barry Bonds, and why:

1. I've seen Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Hank Greenberg, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, etc. in play several times; and I just missed seeing Lou Gehrig in action by 1-2 years. However, the period from Gehrig's farewell through a year after his death, I saw countless displays of Gehrig hitting on film, with my father, a big Gehrig fan, pointing out the nature of his "stroke."

2. There is one player, and only one [other than Lou Gehrig], whom I've ever seen with a short, piston-like stroke in which the bat speed seems to flash for the briefest instant, where the viewer is unaware of a follow through. That is Barry Bonds.

3. I'm no fan of body armor; but then i'm no fan of throwing at a hitter with intent to injure, so we may have a wash.

4. I despise the hitter who feels compelled to watch and admire his HR's. To me it's "bush" and looks as if it's the player's first or last, a rare experience to be filed away for memory or never expected to occur again. That, too, is Bonds.

But overriding all, for me, is the unique gift I'm watching; and it's that gift and the accomplishment it aggregates that I cheer.

[GerryInCS]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

I want to see an asterisk next to Babe Ruth's numbers who did not have to hit against the best in the world (or his own country for that matter)...AND had a ballpark built to suit his hitting.

Bonds has a park built for him, too. That wall in RF is tailor made for Barry to knock balls over.

[1Perry]

Seems someone agrees with me.

EXCLUSIVE: Barry Bonds' Home Run Record Tainted by Mechanical Device

3. I'm no fan of body armor; but then i'm no fan of throwing at a hitter with intent to injure, so we may have a wash.

Nobody wants anyone injured. Extremely rare when anyone is injured. It's usually when someone isn't trying to hit someone that a batter gets injured.

Not sure why you had to add that to the discussion. I think to deflect from the fact that the armor is indeed cheating.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by DR3AMR

And he should pay the price for that if he indeed do anything against the law. His body certainly will.

But, within the rules of the game, what he did was perfectly fine. It was something that was implicitly encouraged by Selig and the owners in a drive to restore the game's popularity after the strike and boost revenues.

And let's not look past the heart of the issue - if Bonds was a nice guy or if he was white or if he was both, then this wouldn't nearly be as big of a deal as it is right now.

it was explicitly banned in baseball, and subjected users to suspension and banishment. it simply wasn't part of the collective bargaining agreement for testing. but it was against the stated rules of baseball, and communicated to every team in the league.

http://bob.sabr.org/docs/1997Memo_Ba...on_Program.pdf

mcgwire was well liked and white, and he's considered a pariah right about now.

selig is a disgrace, his indignation a joke. him and fehr maintaining their respective posts while overseeing the entire debacle, and then acting appaled afterwards and casting judgement on others is nauseating. they all are.

bonds is a cheat. one of many.

[nanwynnfan]

In response to kflo: [nutshell summary from Wikipedia];

"Over most of the course of Major League Baseball, steroid testing was never a major issue. However, after the BALCO steroid scandal, which involved allegations that top baseball players had used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, Major League Baseball finally decided to issue harsher penalties for steroid users. The policy, which was accepted by Major League Baseball players and owners, was issued at the start of the 2005 season and went as follows:

"A first positive test resulted in a suspension of 10 games, a second positive test resulted in a suspension of 30 games, the third positive test resulted in a suspension of 60 games, the fourth positive test resulted in a suspension of one full year, and a fifth positive test resulted in a penalty at the commissioner’s discretion. Players were tested at least once per year, with the chance that several players could be tested many times per year. (See: List of Major League Baseball players suspended for steroids)

"This program replaced the previous steroid testing program under which, for example, no player was even suspended in 2004. Under the old policy, which was established in 2002, a first-time offense would only result in treatment for the player, and the player would not even be named. The 2005 agreement changed this rule so that first-time offenders were named and suspended."

Why is this time reference important? Well, a super sleuth like Sherlock Holmes might have become suspicious in 1998 when Mark McGwire clubbed 70 HR [with some credibility because he'd hit over 50 before] and a a bit more doubtful about Sasmmy Sosa, who had never hit more than 40, and that only one.

Some very bright sleuths, like Sam Spade and Phillip Marlowe, might have done some gumshoing into Sosa's 63 and McGwire's 65 the very next year; but when McGwire was basically through with big HR production in 2000 and Sosa dropped to a more sensible 50 that year, they might heve been distracted and eased up on their vigilance.

When Sammy Sosa soared to 64 in 2001 and Barry Bonds slammed 73 in 2001, Inspector Clouseau might have noticed and reported something in the air to Inspector Dreyfus, IF anyone wanted to make accusations, gather evidence, bring charges and make the issue a headline grabber for the sanctimonious.

As stated in the Wiki bit above "the old" standard was established in 2002; AND:

1. it interpreted "cheaters;" test results NOT as a punitive measure, but one to HELP a player with a problem;

2. it preserved offending players' anonymity.

The graduated punitive policy was adopted in 2005, 4 seasons after Bonds hit 73 HR. I'm guessing by that time, fan attendance, eyeballs on tv sets, media cash flow and increased revenues to stars for endorsements had grown to a point that convinced the MLB rule-makers & power brokers that the strike of the recent past, and its negative repercussions, were history.

[kflo]

did you read the link i provided?

[nanwynnfan]

It did not work.

[kflo]

The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club also may take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steriods or prescription drugs.....

[kflo]

nan, the players union stood in the way of this. they thought protecting the players privacy was more important than the integrity of the game (and the players health, ultimately). things changed only when it had to. they dug in for as long as they could.

[nanwynnfan]

The Vincent 1991 memorandum was sent to MLB clubs and effectively was a CYA memo on Vincent's part to put the problem in the laps of the club owners and GM's.

I will not pretend to crawl into the mind of Fay Vincent and interpret his motivation beyond the basic observation above; but his current advice to Bud Selig on the Bonds HR record chase betrays him as both an "ego" and a gamesman. His advice to Selig to stay away for Bonds' #756 because of how his presence will "play" to the fans betrays more about him than any conjecture I might make.

Earlier, in 1986 I believe, Peter Ueberroth addressed substance abuse; and I believe that in the '90s, he would have handled the issue, negotiations and program implementation far more deftly and forcefully than either Selig or Vincent. Then too, there was the strike - a major distraction for any Commissioner.

In sending a memorandum to clubs, Vincent betrayed the figurehead nature of his own office and invited a number of interpretations and enforcement clarity as diverse as the number of franchises. It was a noble gesture, lacking authority and impact.

In a climate of misdirection, pro athletes will find the edge; UNTIL some AUTHORITY ENFORCES PROHITIBITIVE RULES.

That did not happen until after 2002, and even the, with no force until 2005.

From this link of Latin maxims: qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnare and illegitimi non carborundum

"Laws come to the aid of those who are vigilant and not those who sleep."

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

The Vincent 1991 memorandum was sent to MLB clubs and effectively was a CYA memo on Vincent's part to put the problem in the laps of the club owners and GM's.

I will not pretend to crawl into the mind of Fay Vincent and interpret his motivation beyond the basic observation above; but his current advice to Bud Selig on the Bonds HR record chase betrays him as both an "ego" and a gamesman. His advice to Selig to stay away for Bonds' #756 because of how his presence will "play" to the fans betrays more about him than any conjecture I might make.

Earlier, in 1986 I believe, Peter Ueberroth addressed substance abuse; and I believe that in the '90s, he would have handled the issue, negotiations and program implementation far more deftly and forcefully than either Selig or Vincent. Then too, there was the strike - a major distraction for any Commissioner.

In sending a memorandum to clubs, Vincent betrayed the figurehead nature of his own office and invited a number of interpretations and enforcement clarity as diverse as the number of franchises. It was a noble gesture, lacking authority and impact.

In a climate of misdirection, pro athletes will find the edge; UNTIL some AUTHORITY ENFORCES PROHITIBITIVE RULES.

That did not happen until after 2002, and even the, with no force until 2005.

and none of that means it wasn't against the rules. the rules were difficult to enforce without testing. but steriod users were still cheating. the concept of self policing though was shameful. again, they're all guilty. any of them could have pulled a canseco and facilitated change years earlier.

[nanwynnfan]

Just for a moment, let's put ourselves in the place of a MLB player, Hiram Spaatz, a 6'1" 160 pound, 24 year old OF, bats left, throws right and just called up when Fay Vincent's memo hits his team's GM desk.

Spaatz is a good fielder, makes contact, hits around .280; but in the OF, the club would like more power than Spaatz, who generally hits 12-14 HR per year.

The GM on this club is a middle-of-the-roader: nothing in writing but covering the bases. He calls a meeting.

"Guys," he says,"the Commissioner's office has sent each club a memo. They want to crack down on illegal substances and they are adding steoids to the list of prohibited substances. It looks like the Commissioner really wants a crackdown here, which could put users' careers at risk. Be advised."

Now Homer Spaatz is not established and he's a worrier as well. But, he just got his shot. A coach advises him, if he's worried, to see Gimp Gilkerson, an independent trainer.

Gilkerson hears Homer's tale of woe, asks if there is any testing or screening, asks what official notices are posted in the clubhouse and what threats are made in writing.

"None," says Homer.

"Take this, it's a nutritional supplement, as directed on the label. Keep this stuff to yourself, keep your mouth shut; keep to your workout routine, and I think you'll be happy with the results."

Homer keeps working out and starts taking Gimp's "nutritional" supplement. He still hits around .270 -.290 but from here on, he cranks out 20-25 HR's a year.

He heeds Gimp's advice and keeps his supplements at home, wherever that is on the road. He occasionally gets nutritional upgrades, newer improved versions of his supplement as Gimp advises. He never asks for details, because he likes the results and has no worrisome ailments not common to an athlete. He may be a bit edgier than usual; but he figures that goes with the job.

In 1998, Homer is 31 and 185 pounds has lost a step or two and watches in awe as McGwire-Sosa battle it out. Homer hits 24 that year, out with minor, nagging injuries. By 2004, he'll be out of the game, apparently never having been tested [at least he's never been challenged in any way] and coaching at a junior college back home.

1. Is Homer Spaatz a cheater?

2. If Homer is ever called by George Mitchell and says he never took steroids, is he a liar?

3. If Homer asks a Mitchell field interrogator why the question was raised; and the interrogator replies:

a. Look at these tapes of you at play in 1991, skinny as a rail, 14 HRs;
b. Here you are a year later, a little bigger, what 175? 22 HR's
c. Look at this, at least 185 pounds, see- it's right there on your Topps playing card, 185#
d. Here you are in 2000, 37 HR ... and look at your head!

4. Is Homer insane to ask, "What's wrong with my head. I have an IQ of 135."
"It's your hat size!"

5. Is Homer wrong to end the interview with, "What are you, a haberdasher? I never took steroids; I never cheated; and I only took what my nutritional trainer recommended to me."

Is Homer not only a cheater, but also a prospective perjurer?