Bonds to be suspended by Selig?

by xbhaskarx on Mar 10, 2006 5:37 AM PST Comment 32 comments

Peter Gammons just said on ESPN that there is a good chance Selig will suspend Bonds. He also points out that Bonds could be disciplined just for associating with known steroids dealers, which he compared to associating with gamblers.
Remember, Victor Conte and Greg Anderson both plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute anabolic steroids and one count of money laundering.

Ex-commissioner Vincent calls for investigation of allegations vs. Bonds.
Former commissioner Fay Vincent and the lawyer who investigated Pete Rose for him called on commissioner Bud Selig to hire an outside investigator to research allegations of steroid use by Barry Bonds.

Bonds could face suspension after prior steroid warning.
Citing unnamed sources within the sport, the Chicago Tribune reported that major league commissioner Bud Selig is considering a suspension for the San Francisco Giants star among a wide range of possible responses.
The report also said a ruling could be made before the Giants' April 3 season opener.

The Tribune also reported that Selig met with Bonds during spring training in 2004 over concerns about claims that Bonds took steroids.
Selig made a vague offer of leniency to Bonds if he had anything to confess, the Tribune reported, but also warned that consequences would be "much worse" if he proclaimed innocence and evidence blater revealed him as a steroid user.

Also, Schmidt stung by steroid speculation.
Last year, "Schmidt began hearing rumblings in the San Francisco clubhouse that there was a different reason for his decline. Word got back to him that a teammate or two had speculated that his stuff was slipping because he had stopped taking steroids."

So Schmidt "changed his routine and spent part of his offseason at the Athletes Performance Institute in Tempe, Ariz. He played catch in the mornings with Boston's Curt Schilling, took a crash course in nutrition and hit the weights diligently enough to add 20 pounds while simultaneously shedding body fat."

Best quote: "If someone saw me in the shower, they'd never think I was on the juice," Schmidt said. Over at McCovey Chronicles, a reader wonders, "Was Schmidt referring to his physique or the size of his testicles?"

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

so let it be written

so let it be done

by ArakSOT on Mar 10, 2006 8:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bonds Deserves It

...but a fish rots from the head down.

I think future baseball historians will lay the chief blame this whole mess on Selig himself, who looked the other way as baseball was remaking itself into Homerun Derby on 'Roids in the 1990s.

Baseball will eventually recover (it always has), but we've only begun to fully grasp the damage done to the game by the misdirection of organized baseball since Fay Vincent's removal in 1992.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Mar 10, 2006 8:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

"Best interests of the game"

Remember when a Commissioner could make a decision with that rationale, and say it with a straight face? To me, a whole lot of baseball's problems can be laid at the doorstep of the post-Vincent declawing of the Commissioner's Office...especially those involving revenue and competitive balance.

BTW, xbhaskarx, the "Bonds could face suspension" link just takes me to the write up of yesterday's Giants game.

Defeat d'Anaheim!

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Mar 10, 2006 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yahoo changed it

the story is still "Bonds could be benched over steroid claims" even on the yahoo MLB page, but it goes to the game recap now for some reason.

i changed the link above to the chicago tribune story...

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Mar 10, 2006 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

double-typo

The correct header is actuallly "Bonds could be bunched over steroid clams" -- Barry atet a bad batch of genetically modified clams, and is suffering constipation as a result.

No poetry any more. I've moved on to more scary things. -- Miguel Batista @('.')@

by monkeyball on Mar 10, 2006 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bud, Fay, Bowie, Happy...Mountain Landis

Commissioner Landis, where are you now?

Landis banned Chicago's Buck Weaver, not because he took a bribe in the 1919 Series, but because his silence (Buck knew the fix was on) was detrimental to the integrity of the game. The Mountain's act of bannishment was largely unpopular and shocking. But, it sent a message to the fans that Baseball would not tolerate cheaters and swindlers. Landis and all of Baseball knew that other players were on the take. But the 1919 Series was the most egregious example.

Barroid-the-Steroid's actions and behavior (Alex, I'll take boorish and offensive personalities for $200) have damaged the game. Barroid is the worst/best example. Selig has his chance to take a stand and send a message. Ban the Bum! (Barroid, not Bud)

by conniemack on Mar 10, 2006 8:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

good post

i agree completely

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Mar 10, 2006 9:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But How Long Would the Suspension Be?

Just for spring training? If Bonds plays one game in the regular season it will be a travesty.

If Selig doesn't at the very least appoint an independent investigator soon , Congress should tell Mr. Bonds to pay them a visit.

by SportySpice on Mar 10, 2006 9:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

utter nonsense

Why now? Every credible, sourced allegation that's been publicized from the book, as many others here have documented, has been out in one form or another for close to two years.

If Bonds goes, Selig has to go, too. Bud Selig is by far the worst thing to happen to the credibility of baseball since at least Pete Rose, perhaps even since the Black Sox.

No poetry any more. I've moved on to more scary things. -- Miguel Batista @('.')@

by monkeyball on Mar 10, 2006 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

At some point, you say Enough

And this is that point.

We can't clean up all the problems of the past. But what we are able do -- and must do -- is commit to do the best we can going forward. And this is the best step baseball can take going forward.

Do you think it was wrong to ban Pete Rose for life? Everyone knew gambling was going on and Rose wasn't the only one doing it. But it had to be done for the integrity of the game.

When someone gets caught for armed robbery, do you let him go because a lot a people who have committed armed robbery have never been caught in the past.

All you can do is sanction the ones you catch. And Bonds has been caught.

It's absolutely false that there's nothing new here. The SI article is bursting with new revelations.

by SportySpice on Mar 10, 2006 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"revelations" = alllegations

Other posters in this thread have pointed to the essential fact that baseball (a) hasn't always specifically outlawed steroids, and (b) has an established testing/appeal/punishment scheme in place.

For Selig to pursue an extralicit solution and peremptorily ban Bonds is to step outside all of those parameters.

How do you know that Barry is more guilty (if he's even "guilty" in the first place, which remains an open question) than, say, the numerous scrubeenie (and not-so-scrubeenie) players who have actually tested positive for steroids?

I want to know just how many folks who support the premeptory banning of Bonds are also opposed to the Bush Administration's policies of rejecting international treaties, contravening the Geneva Conventions, holding prisoners without charges or access to lawyers or the courts, and running black-ops prisons in foreign countries. Because -- as ludicrous as I admit the parallel is -- the root principle is the same. Support Selig banning Bonds, support Bush locking up random swarthy individuals.

No poetry any more. I've moved on to more scary things. -- Miguel Batista @('.')@

by monkeyball on Mar 10, 2006 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The interesting comment...

by Selig was that he had a discussion with Barry last year. The caveat was that if Barry "abused" steroids more than what he related to Selig at that point, Selig would make him pay. So Mr. Barry "liar and cheat" Bonds who simply claimed ignorance is busted. Does this deserve banishment? Personally, I wouldn't mind but on the opposite end of the spectrum, a simple suspension doesn't seem right either in light of last year,s steroid policy. Will Bonds make a monkey out of Selig, here? Not even Monkeyball knows.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Mar 10, 2006 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't see them suspending him for very long.

I mean, Kenny Rogers assaulted a guy and only got 10 days or something.

by miguel on Mar 10, 2006 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ain't happening

Bonds won't be getting suspended because taking steroids wasn't illegal as far as baseball was concerned when he did things. If they were going to suspend him it already would have happened with a positive test (which I'm guessing hasn't happened yet). Personally I don't think the suspension would stand a chance after being heard by an arbitrator:

Aribtrator: You mean you want to suspend someone using a rule that didn't exist?

MLB: Yes

Arbitrator: The door is that way. Stop wasting my time.

by skwid on Mar 10, 2006 9:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Skwid, meet baseball.

Baseball, meet Skwid.

You guys might want to get better acquainted. You seem to be unaware how baseball has done things for the past, oh, hundred plus years.

Don't you miss the days of martinis and greenies?

by Ozzz on Mar 10, 2006 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

100 years ago sure...

But over the last 30 years baseball (i.e. the owners/commisioner) haven't been able to do whatever they want with no consequences. If they suspend Bonds do they tell all the players who last year got 10 game suspensions for banned substances that another 40 games will be tacked on because the rules changed? Bonds didn't test positive (he was tested last year) so there really isn't much MLB can do without the union raising a big stink (which they should do, using todays rules to punish something which wasn't against the rules when it happened is typically frowned upon in the good old U.S. of A)

by skwid on Mar 10, 2006 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Blame the Union, too

For sure, Selig deserves some blame for this mess. He was happy to see the money pour in during the Sosa-McGwire HR chase and interest in the game surge.

But there is more to it. For years, Donald Fehr had stubbornly resisted calls for reform, even from some of the very players he represented. Sure, Selig could've pressed the steroid issue more, but keep in mind that back in the mid-late 90s, MLB was starting to recover from a bitter labor fight that nearly wrecked the sport. Picking another fight with the Players' Union--from a position of weakness--was not something that Selig was eager to do.

"Put a Milo on him." -Billy Beane

by kaweahkaweah on Mar 10, 2006 10:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Can't. Won't. Probably should, but won't.

Bonds has never tested positive for steroids. While there is a preponderance of evidence that he did take them, I'm pretty sure that the steroids suspensions agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement don't allow players to be suspended without failing a test, however dark the cloud of suspicion that player is under. There's just no grounds for it, and it won't happen unless both a) Selig decides to ignore the CBA, and b) the union throws Barry under the bus. The former might happen, but the latter won't simply because it sets a precedent the union can't let happen.

by ragnarok on Mar 10, 2006 10:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Equal treatment under the rules of baseball

How can you suspend Bonds (overwhelming evidence of steroid use but no positive drug tests) without suspending Giambi? Because Giambi's a nice guy, or because he appears sorry about it? Because Giambi hasn't broken any home run records? Because Giambi's white?

I'm sorry, and I'm not in any way defending Bonds, but you can't selectively impose penalties on certain players for any reason. Either they all go down, or none of them do.

by ragnarok on Mar 10, 2006 10:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Empty posturing

As so many others have already said, this would never fly. The CBA spells out clearly the procedure for testing, and the consequences of a failed test. In Bonds' case:
He never failed a test.
His documented use took place before the tests were in effect.
Even if you ignore the first two points, it's long past the dead line for acting on a failed test.

Selig would be badly overreaching if he tried to use the "best interests of baseball" clause on this one. There's also a question of fairness. I have no problem with the press singling out Bonds for special scrutiny, but in the case of official action, I think the same standards would have to be applied to Giambi, Sheffield, and others caught up in the BALCO scandal.

In short, if the league wanted to stop people from using steroids in 2001, they should have done something about it 5 years before, not 5 years after.

T could mean anything. G could mean anything. And pee could probably mean anything - Barry Bonds

by andeux on Mar 10, 2006 10:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

...and just to be clear...

this shouldn't be taken as a defense of Bonds. As far as I can tell he's a scumbag, and on a personal level I'm enjoying watching what's left of his reputation get dragged through the mud.

But the rules are for everyone. There's a certain irony in people expressing their moral outrage at Bonds breaking the law, and then wanting to punish him with rules made up after the fact (and that would probably violate the collective bargaining agreement).

T could mean anything. G could mean anything. And pee could probably mean anything - Barry Bonds

by andeux on Mar 10, 2006 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

amen, and amen

No poetry any more. I've moved on to more scary things. -- Miguel Batista @('.')@

by monkeyball on Mar 10, 2006 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Bonds can potentially be hauled into a non-baseball court, as he was the other day on the issue of child-custody. But within baseball, he can't be tried or punished beyond baseball's stated procedures and rules, just because a lot of people don't like him.

by Nico on Mar 10, 2006 10:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

In the 'Best Interests of Baseball'

Selig should resign and go back to being Jerry Lundegaard.

by southofcruiseamerica on Mar 10, 2006 10:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Tan Sierra! Tan Sierra!

SOCA, I just spit rice-cake pieces out my nose, thanks to you.

No poetry any more. I've moved on to more scary things. -- Miguel Batista @('.')@

by monkeyball on Mar 10, 2006 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

bonds didn't break the rules

the whole issue here is that the league let this whole mess manifest in the 90's by not clamping down on steroids. they looked the other way. i don't like bonds, and feel he has tainted baseball terribly, but he is sort of a patsy here. i can't believe i just wrote that, but yeah, everyone is dumping on bonds without realizing baseball created this whole mess in the first place. and i don't want to see barry sacrificed for selig et al who turned the other way for so long. the MLB establishment over the past 20 years has destroyed this game, by letting steroids in, and by repeatedly refusing to fix the economic disparities in the game. i want them all to pay the piper, not just bonds.

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Mar 10, 2006 12:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

another option for selig

I agree, even if the rules were a travesty, the union and Bonds can fight any suspension successfully because he didn't violate them. And I agree with the "you'd have to treat him the same as Giambi" argument too.

What the commissioner does have the power to do is order the Giants or their opponent that day not to hold up the game for a celebration when and if Bonds breaks Ruth's and Aaron's HR marks.

by vk on Mar 10, 2006 7:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't Bonds...

be suspended for hanging out with people who were known to distribute steroids? Kind of a conduct unbecoming /morals kind of thing ? The Balco guys were convicted.Anyway ,just wondering.

by IM4Oakgal on Mar 10, 2006 7:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nope

At least, not by the league. Baseball has no 'unbecoming conduct' catch-all rule. The Giants can suspend him if he violated team rules, and those can be anything they want (within reason, I'd imagine; think the Yankees' rule regarding facial hair), but the Giants want to stay as blissfully ignorant as they can, just like many of their fans, and so far, it's proved to be the best course of action.

by ragnarok on Mar 10, 2006 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No way Bud suspends Bonds.

Bottom line: It's not good for business.

"Keep the juices going by jangling around gently as you move." - Satchel Paige

by McFood on Mar 10, 2006 11:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If Bonds goes, Selig goes!

"that's the facts, Jack!" --Bill Murry, "Stripes"

twinkle twinkle, blah blah blah, etc...---D Boon

by davestewart on Mar 11, 2006 1:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

My Take...

I felt from the beginning that it was in the best interest of everyone for Bonds to be suspended for at least a year.

The benefits?

Bonds - steps out of spotlight for a whole year and allows the issue to die down.
MLB - has the appearance of authority over the game. I know, this is window dressing but in the world of appearances this is not insignificant.
The Game - if Bonds accepts a year long suspension then he can return to forgiving fans who want to give him the honor he seeks when breaking the HR records.

This is all based on the notion that Bonds is smart enough to realize he has to show SOME remorse for his actions. I don't care how many others have used steroids - BB is the one who will claim the HR title and if he does that without 'roid repentance then he'll NEVER be forgiven by fans.

"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when I generalize, I don't care." -Dave Barry

by tmail on Mar 12, 2006 1:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs