Asterisks, windbags & fools in high places

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

RE:

"sour grapes is a b.s. term. calling it as we all know it to be. i have zero vested interest in this."

As WE ALL [that presumes unanimity] KNOW [presumes having documented, first-hand FACTS] it to BE [again, facts, documented and recorded]. I see more imagination than agreement and more speculation than fact. I'd also question that zero interest allusion; you're heated posts betray that as not quite certain, either.

Congratulation to BB!

contratulations bb in a post directed at me? are you 5 years old? is na na na na na next?

just curious nan - what would your position be if bonds is ultimately proven through federal investigation to have knowingly abused ped's?

[unreal654]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I'd also question that zero interest allusion; you're heated posts betray that as not quite certain, either.

If ESPN decided to cover paint drying for the next 2 weeks, most of us would be equally as heated about that. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE INTERESTED.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

RE:

As WE ALL [that presumes unanimity] KNOW [presumes having documented, first-hand FACTS] it to BE [again, facts, documented and recorded]. I see more imagination than agreement and more speculation than fact.

do you think:

(a) the leaked testimony about bonds admitting to using the clear was made up?
(b) the leaked testimony is accurate, but bonds lied and never really took clear?
(c) the leaked testimony is accurate, bonds took clear, but that doesn't count as knowing he was chemically enhanced?

[nanwynnfan]

"contratulations bb in a post directed at me? are you 5 years old? is na na na na na next?

"just curious nan - what would your position be if bonds is ultimately proven through federal investigation to have knowingly abused ped's?"

kflo: Lighten up. I responded to your post AND congratulated Bonds in the same post. It's a bit like walking down the street AND chewing gum at the same time, a fairly easy feat and not one requiring a whole lot of practice.

As far as NYA-NYA [correct phonetic spelling, to capture the phonemes], not at all. I'd suggest is is you whose thin skin is chafed.

Oh yes, I passed my 5th birthday some time ago.

[1Perry]

But you didn't answer the question.

[nanwynnfan]

"But you didn't answer the question."

There was NOT a question, but three.

What I THINK doesn't matter, because my thinking it doesn't make it fact. [I do not practice alchemy].

[1Perry]

This is an opinion board. You were asked your opinion. {shrug}

[kflo]

the first question was this:

just curious nan - what would your position be if bonds is ultimately proven through federal investigation to have knowingly abused ped's?

you didn't answer.

the 2nd question pertained to the FACT that bonds testified to using the clear. unless you dispute it actually being a fact. frankly, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on this fact. it does make it tiresome that you would dispute whether bonds was chemically enhanced and say we have no facts though.

[nanwynnfan]

The nagging for my "opinions" being so intense, here goes, admittedly very much FWIW:

1. I believe that Barry Bonds, being proud to the point of arrogance, saw the McGwire-Sosa HR duel in 1998; and, provoked more by Sosa's production tha McGwire's [since McGwire had hit >50 before], got to thinking what the heck is going on here?

2. I believe that Bonds, also a legitimate member of the >40 HR club previously was fully convinced that he was far superior a player and hitter to both McGwire and Sosa; and I believe that Bonds, approaching 35, wanted to prolong his career and enhance his output;

3. I'm thinking that Griffey's two year back-to-back 56 HR seasons in 1997-98 added impetus seeing this "kid" as another threat to his desired image as dominant player of his time;

4. Here is where pure opinion really sets in: Bonds, a 5 tool player with a great eye, plate discipline, contact skills and unfocused power is a "throwback," a player raised in the regimine of mechanics, form swing planes - a throwback to the old ways where weigh lifting and muscle building were anathema to athletes.

This goes back to the 1939-1951 era as well, where the long muscle groups were considered key; and lean musculature made for better whip-like movements that added to production on the field and at the plate.

There were players who were anomalies, like Lou Gehrig; but the ideal was the Williams, Musial, DiMaggio model. Lean.

5. I believe that Bonds wanted to perform up to his maximum capability; and I believe he sought expert input on combining weight training with his existing routines, and the use of nutritional supplements to complement both routines.

6. I believe that Bonds cared very much about conditioning, avoidance of injury, avoidance of side effects that might undermine his playing ability; and at his age, supplements to help an aging body recover from workouts and the wear and tear of a long summer season.

7. I believe he sought out the best possible weights/supplements trainer; and I don't doubt for a moment, that he also sought medical advice in cost-benefit of things used. He had long-term goals to reach; and he didn't want to screw up his body with damaging stuff that could wipe him out in a heartbeat.

8. I believe he took supplements that complemented his nutrition and his weight training' and as a result, he bulked up.

Personal note: at age 60 or so, I joined a gym and gradually worked weight training into my aerobic and stretching routines. I asked around, at the gym and at nutrition outlets and my gp; and for a time I took creatine daily. I gradually got up to 220 pounds pressing, 3 separate sets at 12-15 reps per set. I started to push on to 240# and strained my left shoulder. My doc told be to ease up on the wights and to concentrate on reps and form. He advised I drop the creatine.

9. I believe he wanted an edge not previously had. I cannot imagine an ego like Bonds, taking/buying/trying "junk" handed out by clubhouse attendants and random suppliers: His body pride would prohibit that.

Finally, as I understand "the clear" relative to Bonds, he has allegedly stated that he used it but was unaware at the time that it was either illegal or a steroid substance that would jeapordize his career or reputation. Yes, I believe he used supplements; but I do not believe he knowingly violated a MLB prohibition, even one with no force of testing or penalty.

Here's what I think I know:

1. A .250 hitter with a bat speed on contact of 60 mph may hit a pitch of 80 mph with a contact force of 92 mph; and if the ball is hit solidly with say a 37 degree arc, it may have a hang time of 4 seconds and travel 358 feet. If that .250 hitter trains and has a strength-building program that speeds his bat by 10%, that same ball will travel 370 feet. He's gained 12' of distance; but he has to hit the ball first.

2. Similarly, a batting student like Barry Bonds, may enter the training program with a bat speed @ 75 mph at contact. If he hits the same 80 mph pitch, pre-training, it will leave the bat, at contact @ 110 mph, have a hang time of 4.2 seconds and travel 431'. If Bonds ended up with a 5% increase in bat speed on contact, that same ball would travel 460' a pickup of 29 feet. He,too must hit the ball first.

Bat speed and the ability to make contact are the primary hitter inputs in generating power. A weak hitter will not become a powerhouse threat simply because if he can't make solid contact to build on, we have a factor of "0" and any number times "0" = zero. A dedicated athlete can enhance his results with strength training; but it doesn't enhance what wasn't there to begin with.

Conversely, a guy with a great eye, mechanics, strength and contact skills to begin with, can drive a ball somewhat further with increased bat speed; and that may be a gain of 15' to 30' depending on the quality of initial contact. Does it make sense for a star player to enhance his skills? Yes. Does he see results in others? Yes. Do we assume one size fits all in training routines and supplements? I think not.

The bottom line for me is MLB cashed in on the HR craze and then got religion. OK, you start right now, with rules in place; and enforce your standards from the day you set set them clearly and programmed your treatment of offenders.

[kflo]

so, you think bonds was free to blab to whoever was interested about this "clear" substance that was improving his weight room performance and recovery time? that his "body pride" would prohibit taking "junk" from the clubhouse, but didn't know what the "clear" was?

regarding the impact of ped's, we do know that 61 was the record for a long time, and it was smashed, all by users of ped's. we also know bonds had a dramatic increase in production.

it's pretty safe to say that bonds would not have the numbers he has now without breaking the rules of baseball, and the law. some are ok with that. some less so. he knew what he did. and now he lies. and acts indignant.

and nan buys it.

again, i'm fine with everyone acknowledging what occured, recognizing bonds accomplishment in that context, and moving on. but not acting as if nothing happened.

[1Perry]

so, you think bonds was free to blab to whoever was interested about this "clear" substance that was improving his weight room performance and recovery time? that his "body pride" would prohibit taking "junk" from the clubhouse, but didn't know what the "clear" was?

Does seem a bit conflicting doesn't it?

[nanwynnfan]

RE:

"it's pretty safe to say that bonds would not have the numbers he has now without breaking the rules of baseball, and the law. some are ok with that. some less so. he knew what he did. and now he lies. and acts indignant.

"and nan buys it.

"again, i'm fine with everyone acknowledging what occured, recognizing bonds accomplishment in that context, and moving on. but not acting as if nothing happened."


1. "It's pretty safe" ... what depth of consideration; what weighing of the facts .... impressive it's not.

2. preceded by "blab" a revision to 61, where Maris, not even Ruth, is the former standard ... such a fixated sense of history ..

3. " ... acting as if nothing happened" - Oh, something happened, Bonds hit #756, closed a chapter on the books .......... move on ............ [I certainly am from senseless debating with those whose minds are locked shut].

4. "and nan buys it' ....... didn't cost me a penny

Then there's 1Perry's "Does seem a bit conflicting doesn't it" ....................
PRICELESS! Little Sir Echo strikes again.

[kflo]

i see alot of rationalization from you on this nan, and little recognition of the facts. we know bonds performance shot up at an advanced age, along with his muscles and facial features. we know he used clear. we know others testified that he was a user. we know that all the players who surpassed 61 either unequivocably used, or have high probability of using. you don't seem to want to discuss any of that. you seem to think it was ok regardless. that's fine. but don't then turn around and act as if it's unsubstantiated, or that it had no impact. it's laughable.

and i have no idea what the ruth reference was for.

[1Perry]

PRICELESS! Little Sir Echo strikes again.

This is the way you rectify your conundrum where you say Barry would never do something to harm his health but yet say he may have taken something without knowing what it was?

[Grandstander]

When Bonds arrived for the 1999 spring camp, everyone took notice of the dramatic changes in his appearance. His teammates had a number of nicknames for him related to this, the media noticed and questioned him about it. Players on the other teams noticed and commented to the media. The fans, myself being one, noticed and talked about it.

Are we to believe that everyone who saw him that spring noticed this, but Bonds did not? That Bonds believed that this huge alteration was the product of rubbing balms and oils? Are we to believe that this person whose personality is such that he insists on controlling his own world and everyone within that orbit, went way, way out of character and abdicated responsibility for his physical shape to his trainers who pumped him with steroids, causing this massive increase in size...all without him knowing or even asking? That Bonds' body underwent this incredible metamorphisis and Bonds did not think anything was unusual was taking place?

Bonds may be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but baseball fandom is not a court of law. We may make up our own minds employing whatever standards of proof we feel are sufficient. We are dealing with a case where all of the circumstances scream "yes, he did steroids." We have the evidence of the unprecedented improvement of a 35 year old player who not only became better, but became the greatest hitter ever, five years after the end of his normal physical prime. We have the evidence of the physical changes in Bonds' body. His personal trainer has been convicted of steroid distribution. We have the testimony of Bonds' mistress. All of these things suggest that Bonds was doing steroids. Against all this we have the denial of the person who is suspected.

How can anyone look at the circumstances here and conclude anything other than ...Bonds did steroids?