Open Thread

This will

probably turn out to be the biggest story in the hostory of baseball (unfortunately). Past performances will be analyzed; records will be challenged; contracts will be voided; records will be voided. I wince at the thought of the depth and length of this horrible black mark on sports.

by Napasteve on Dec 3, 2004 10:05 AM PST reply actions

Steroids

I don't think it will hurt the sport, at least not its integrity and spirit. Purging the game of steroids will only do the game good. However, purging baseball of these roided monster sluggers will likely hurt baseball sales. One thing's for sure, if the Bonds and Giambi are punished, it will hurt the Giants and the Yankees, and that's always good for the game, IMHO.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 3, 2004 10:26 AM PST reply actions

Voiding Records

I can't even imagine how they would begin to do this, given that we can pretty much assume that a lot of today's athletes have dabbled in performance-enhancing drugs that are now banned.

However, what I would like to see is for Barry Bonds to be brought to task for perjoring himself to a grand jury (which I fully believe he did).

by LD on Dec 3, 2004 10:28 AM PST reply actions

Once again

'the' game has been sullied. But, I'll still enjoy going to the ballyard. Records will mean nothing until they are 'certified'.
All contracts should contain 'clean' verbage.
Agents and especially the players' union are culpable. In fact, it's my opinion, the union should be decertified.
AND, is Selig the weakest sister, or what!! A new, strong commish would go a long way toward righting the ship.

by PhillyAs on Dec 3, 2004 10:29 AM PST reply actions

Do you even know what "decert" means?

It means that the bargaining unit members petition the National Labor Relations Board for a vote on whether to continue to be represented by the union that is currently their certified bargaining representative. It cannot be done in the middle of a contract, only if a petition signed by at least 30% of the workers involved is submitted to the NLRB in a designated period of time (60 to 90 days) before the expiration date of the current contract.

So what you're saying is that the players should vote their own union out of existence. Why? Out of shame? How about if George Steinbrenner blows up Yankee Stadium and commits seppuku to restore the honor of the pinstripes?

If the players are angry at their leadership for how steroids have been dealt with, there's a simple solution: the players elect a new union leadership. The union is a democracy. If many players have been too loyal to Fehr or Orza to make this an issue inside the MLBPA, well, get over it. If the majority of players want something done, they have the tool in their hands to get it done within the union.

by Nick on Dec 3, 2004 11:09 AM PST up reply actions

'Decertify'

I may have chosen the wrong word for the action; but, the point was to force a reorginization of the union. And this can be done by independent action taken by the NLRB (reason: union failed to protect the welfare of its members).
As far as unions being democratic--give me a break! My memory of unionism must be a hell of alot longer than yours! And I happen to believe in the ideals of the union movement.

by PhillyAs on Dec 3, 2004 11:41 AM PST up reply actions

This is all kinda OT...

but what NLRB action are you talking about? The NLRB will do absolutely nothing on its own initiative. Would players file an unfair labor practice charge? On what basis? Didn't they vote for their leadership? Didn't they vote for the tentative agreement that became the current CBA with the steroid testing regime in it? Most people seem to be accusing the MLBPA of advocating too much for the members' interests, at the game's expense. How is that a breach of the duty of fair representation? Or would the Board say they were a "management dominated union" -- the MLBPA may be a lot of things, but it's certainly not a stooge for the owners (Gene Upshaw, are you listening?)!

And what specifically do you think is undemocratic about the MLBPA, since that's the union in question? Don't forget, one option in a democracy for a member/citizen/voter is to blow the whole process off and let someone else bother with it. And if lots of members say "I'll just do what my rep tells me and not ask questions," or if Fehr or Orza tell the players to shut up and do what they say, well, then they're all screwing up. The government will not "reorganize" a union because part of the CBA makes some people unhappy. They have no authority to do so. The players are the ones who can judge if their interests are being represented, and if they think not, or if they think there's a bigger picture here, they should get new leadership.

by Nick on Dec 3, 2004 1:01 PM PST up reply actions

Nick, you're on to something here

I second the notion of George Steinbrenner blowing up Yankee Stadium and committing seppuku. All in favor?

by Faust on Dec 4, 2004 3:15 PM PST up reply actions

So tempting

And yet I think it would actually be bad for baseball if it happened. You need the demented owners like Steinbrenner and Al Davis to throw a little crazy into the works.

by grover on Dec 4, 2004 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

Catch a clue

Maybe Giambi's health problems and public humiliation will discourage other players from drug use. How much cooler is Carlos Beltran (I'm assuming he's clean) than Barry Bonds?

kkd in napa

by kkdaz on Dec 3, 2004 10:42 AM PST reply actions

Well,

Considering how suprised I am that Giambi and Bonds were using steroids I have to admit I accepted long ago that many players are not playing on a level playing field. I played professional sports for a while, though there was nto enough money in it to make people risk there health like this. I would have been furious to learn that the guy ahead of me on the depth chart was standing on a false footing. So I am torn, but at this point I want it to get as big as it needs to get to get it over with. I would love to cheer for a clean sport. I would accept as many years away as needed to ensure ti happened. If there was no MLB until 2008, I would be disspoitned but I would be there when the doors opened. I would be proud that baseball did what the NBA and NFL will not.

by mikedaviswhereareyou on Dec 3, 2004 10:45 AM PST reply actions

Most younger people don't really care

The gym that I go to is full of ordinary people (not just muscle monkeys)using performance enhancing substances. Some legal some not. Take a look at the "Health Bars" at any gyn or General Nutrition Centers and the things they are selling. Living better through chemistry" is a slogan that was popular in the 60's. Steriods are just part of the progression.
Do these revelations hurt baseball? The thing that hurts baseball is allowing this to go on while condemming it.

by bayfrank on Dec 3, 2004 10:56 AM PST reply actions

It's going to take a high profile death...

...for this to get serious attention. Or maybe a disabilty. Can you imagine Barry Bonds suddenly having a stroke and having to be in a wheelchair like Roy Campanella or Christopher Reeve did?

Until then, too many people have accepted this as commonplace in sports, And as far as "asterisks" go, where do you draw the distiction? Not only did Ruth, Mantle, and Maris not have performance enhancing drugs, they also did not have all the perfectly legal health and wellness breakthroughs of the last 50 years.

I feel guilty, but as an A's fan, I was hoping that this would bring down Bonds and the whole Giants organization.

...it wont happen.

by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Dec 3, 2004 11:13 AM PST reply actions

I'm not sure even that would do it

One might have thought that Lyle Alzado's illness and death would have been a deterrent to steroid use, but it didn't.

by Ray of Lite on Dec 3, 2004 12:40 PM PST up reply actions

Is This a Kenesaw Mountain Landis Moment?

The whole idea of a centralized, powerful baseball commissioner came out of the Black Sox scandal and several other less important, but similar problems in baseball.

I'd like to see a cabal of owners and top players and agents get together and work out a deal to (1) fire Selig and Fehr immediately and (2) appoint a commissioner outside of the current structure of major league baseball to deal with this situation.

by jrbh on Dec 3, 2004 11:27 AM PST reply actions

AAAmen,

brother!

by PhillyAs on Dec 3, 2004 11:42 AM PST up reply actions

Landis

I do not understand how that guy is still revered in baseball circles. The guy was a vicious, nasty racist who practically single-handedly kept Blacks out of major league baseball for 30 years.

by Kevin2 on Dec 5, 2004 12:30 AM PST up reply actions

I'm a big union guy...

...and one of the umpteen reasons I loathe George W. Bush is his mindless hostility to them. Well, not mindless. He wants to trash centers of opposition to the concentration of wealth in this country.

Which is why, ironically, I loathe the MLBPA. It has chosen to represent only a small percentage of professional baseball players, and concentrate the wealth among that same small percentage. They're a union like the Bohemiam Club is a union. All of the minor league players -- the guys who sacrifice their bodies and education just as surely as the MLB guys do -- are ignored, left to languish in a system that makes sharecropping look enlightened.

by jrbh on Dec 3, 2004 11:47 AM PST reply actions

I share your view of unions

and of Bush, but I think the MLBPA is just a traditional craft union -- a "brotherhood" of people who do a particular, skilled task with particular tools who get together and sell their services as a group so they get a better deal. They don't see themselves as part of a social movement -- it's "business unionism" at its finest (and worst).

I disagree with you on 2 points:

The bottom-level players do reap significant benefits from the CBA -- the minimum salary, pension, rules on travel, working conditions -- even a Lehr or Castro benefits enormously from the CBA. Minor league FA rules, arbitration, also help the non-stars a lot.
The minor leaguers aren't members of the MLBPA -- MLBPA doesn't represent them, so they just don't show up on the radar screen. I think it's dumb and myopic that the major-leaguers haven't tried to organize the minors, but bosses are much more sophisticated about busting unions now than they were in Marvin Miller's day, and the society as a whole has become generally hostile to unions. I don't think Fehr and Orza would have a clue how to start organizing the minors, nor do they probably think it matters, which speaks really poorly of them. I think the NFLPA is by far the lamest sports union, largely because the members seem ready to climb over each other's dead bodies (or cross their own picket line) to suck at the NFL's teat. So they have their salary-capped, no-guaranteed-contract setup, in the most violent, most lucrative sport in the country. Way to go...

by Nick on Dec 3, 2004 1:14 PM PST up reply actions

Sports and their unions

Canonize Fehr and the MLBPA if you want; bury Upshaw and the NFLPA if you must. Which sport is on firm ground?--which sport is causing all the furor?

by PhillyAs on Dec 3, 2004 8:14 PM PST up reply actions

Exactly

The question is, in a sport as rich and successful as professional football, why are players compensated and treated the way they are? Owning an NFL team is a license to print money, often (as Oaklanders know) a lisence to extort taxpayers for our money. Who's out there every day literally risking life and limb earning that money? Jerry Jones? John York? No. It's all the players.

Businesses often make money hand over fist by screwing their workers. Look at Wal-Mart. The NFL can absolutely afford to pay and treat their players better. But the owners, understandibly, won't pay the players a cent more than is absolutely necessary to get them to play. In fact, they're probably jealous of the set-up the NCAA has, where players earn tens of millions for colleges and coaches get million dollar salaries while the players only get a "scholarship" to a school that encourages them to take gut classes, have other people do their work, and then leave without a degree.

Now, the NFL has figured out how to market a sport without the players pretty well: guys can tailgate, hang out with their buddies, paint their bodies, act like idiots in public, and gamble even if half the roster changes every year and their team sucks (and with betting lines, you can bet for your favorite team no matter how bad they are). The NFL markets the "experience" instead of the sport better than anyone else. But still, if the players had any sense of solidarity, or any common sense at all, they'd stick together and demand more money (at least through a higher salary cap) and more guaranteed money in their contracts than they have now.

And as far as furor is concerned: the NFL has had a ton of scandal and controversy. Drug use (Lawrence Taylor), steroid use, anti-social or criminal behavior (Ray Lewis, anyone?). The league is 100% complicit in condoning or covering up almost all of this.

I'm not holding up the MLBPA as a model union -- I called them a "craft union" in my comment above, and that's not a compliment in my book. But the level of anti-union ranting in this country is just unbelievable, and is one of the many social issues that gets discussed largely in the context of pro sports. The Union isn't responsible for making ticket prices high, or "forcing" the owners to get taxpayer money. And again, if the players as a group want to institute a more stringent testing regime, then they already have the ability to get that done at the table with MLB. The members should step up and stop whining about how Fehr and Orza won't "let" them. You guys are adults, you make plenty of money, it's your union, get it done or stop whining about it.

by Nick on Dec 4, 2004 10:37 AM PST up reply actions

everyone is culpable (blameworthy)

the players
the owners
the unionist
the suppliers
the commissioner
but most of all the fans.

we ALL knew a high degree of bb players were using steriods.if you didn't you're naive. we bought the ball shirts, went to games, cheered the scores on espn fully knowing this.

let's not now play victimhood.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 3, 2004 12:43 PM PST reply actions

Asterisks are for Comic Strips

On the one hand, I am inclined to say that it's ridiculous to talk about cracking down on any one of these steroid users. It's like cracking down on marijuana use--part of the reason it hasn't happened is that there is a sizable minority of people who will argue that the stuff shouldn't be banned. And with new technology, in some cases the substances these guys are alleged to have used HADN'T YET been banned at the time of their use. So how is it fair to hand out some huge suspension to the first couple of guys who get caught using it just after it becomes illegal?

On the OTHER hand, it is disturbing as hell to think that one such user, Barry Bonds, transformed himself into SuperSlugger, a hitter combining power and talent in a way that turn the whole game on its head, and garnering statistics that make us salivate in awe. It's a lot of fun looking at Barry Bonds' stat line; I liked checking in this year to see if he would wind up recording more BBs than outs. (I think he ended with about ten more outs than walks). It's troubling when you're trying to worship a guy and his incredible stats, and someone comes along and says, "he cheated to get those."

Of course it's complicated as hell--steroid use isn't cheating the same way A-Rod trying to knock the ball out of Derek Lowe's hand was cheating, or the same way corking a bat is cheating. There are people out there who will argue that drugs should be legalized, and I don't even want to get into that.

But what I'll say, as a Bonds admirer is that while this will not at all diminish my enjoyment of the game of baseball, it does to some extent diminish the joy I will have in gawking at Bonds' daily heroics during the summer. Maybe baseball does need to keep him out of the record books, and if that's the case, an asterisk wouldn't be enough. A home run is a home run, and nobody gives a shit about punctuation. If they really want to make a statement, they need to suspend Bonds for a year or two, just to make it really difficult, if not impossible, for him to break Hank's record. Leave Giambi alone, he's pretty much ruined as it is, which is why he 'fessed up. It's Barry who's the important one here, because he's leaving a big legacy no matter what. He'll be remembered as the greatest player ever; OR, he'll be remembered as one of the greatest players ever, but who, due to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, was suspended toward the end of his career, effectively halting his pursuit of Hank's record.

Then, if he came back from his suspension a year or two later, I could maybe gawk at his heroics again, guilt-free.

by rubin sierra on Dec 3, 2004 1:09 PM PST reply actions

Everyone knows anyway

It has been obvious for some time that guys are on steroids. I hear the argument that steroids doesn't help hand to eye coordination therefore it is of no benefit. What younger guys don't realize is that hand to eye is the last thing a person loses, what steroids does is make you stronger. Bonds was a great hitter before he took steroids, but he didn't hit homers or at least not a lot of homers, 25, 30, 35. But with steroids all of a sudden he wasn't just hitting HR's he was hitting titanic shots, it doesn't happen that an older gets stronger, he gets smarter, but not stronger. It is so obvious and has been for 4 or 5 years that Bonds is juiced, his face looks more like Ben Johnson than Barry Bonds.
China Bob

by china bob on Dec 4, 2004 12:38 AM PST up reply actions

Other cheaters

Other confessed cheaters like Gaylord Perry are in the Hall of Fame. Perry has no asterisk next to his 300 wins.

I suspect that Bonds will maintain to his dying day that he didn't know he was using steroids, and I suspect that no one will ever be able to prove that he did. His records will stand, and he'll go to the Hall. Fans can choose to admire him, admire him with reservations, or hate him, as they see fit.

by matthias on Dec 3, 2004 1:55 PM PST reply actions

Bonds Can Say Whatever He Wants,

but if the Chronicle story is accurate, he's screwed, and there isn't any chance at all that he's going to skate, or be able to maintain with even the tiniest bit of credibility that he didn't know what he was doing.

by jrbh on Dec 3, 2004 1:58 PM PST reply actions

Typical

This won't hurt "the game", but Bonds will feel it. His attitude is typical, playing dumb. Will Conte name him tonight? I think so, and then Bonds will be seen as the person people have always claimed him to be, an arrogant prick. Maybe he and Kent had a few arguments over the issue of steriods??? Bonds final descent into the abyss will begin with the dealing of the race-card, claiming this is only happening to him because "he's black". So predictable.

On Giambi: what would this situation be like if he was still in Oakland? I'm sure the commish would come down alot harder on one of the so-called "small-market" teams than he will on the Yankees. Probably even helping them get out of the contract with Giambi while if this was an A's issue it would be one more sign that "small-market" teams just can't compete in today's MLB.

One more thing kinda off-subject but still back to G: Ron Artest incident.
One thing that really pissed me offf about this was how the media really said "there is a problem in the NBA" vs: what they said when a very similar incident in Oakland happend in 2004? Total BS! It was all about the bad fans in Oakland who got a chair thrown at themselves while now the NBA has a player problem. This gets me back to how we would be treated if Giambi was still in Oakland. Thank God for small favors.

by Force on Dec 3, 2004 2:04 PM PST reply actions

Let's clean it up and move on...

I don't see how anyone can claim to be shocked or surprised at any revelation of steroid use. We've known professional athletes have used and abused all sorts of drugs for years and years. Let's drop the stigma of it, and evaluate it for what it is: a health issue. Abusing controlled substances (of any kind) is -- in the long run -- very detrimental both to the players and to the sport. I'm more concerned with the health (and example) set by players than I am with how their substance use may or may not affect their abilities. I'd like to see MLB and the MLBPA agree to an open and comprehensive drug policy; however, it's important (IMHO) that it be structured in such a way as to be supportive of health rather than disciplinary in nature.

As for Bonds in particular, any revelation of steroid use (intentional or not) would not change my opinion of his playing ability. What he does is simply unbelievable. There are plenty of players out there who have admittedly taken steroids who can't even come close to what Bonds has done over his career, let alone the last few years. How it would affect my opinion of him as a person is different. His abilities, juiced or not, are astounding... juice makes you stronger... it's unclear to me if it makes you any better overall. It still takes an amazing amount of hand-eye coordination, quickness, and recognition skills to be so damn effective at the plate. Steroids are not so beneficial in these areas.

by sfodoug on Dec 3, 2004 2:17 PM PST reply actions

I agree

It's not surprising that many baseball players will risk steroid use for possibly bigger performance and paychecks -- particularly since MLB has just winked at it.

Bonds is still an incredible athlete, juice or no juice.

The policy outlined by sfodoug would be likely be fair and effective. Unfortunately, MLB is probably the most backward in professional sports.

by OaklandSi on Dec 3, 2004 4:42 PM PST up reply actions

Wake up and smell the coffee

Bonds apologists' rallying cries have gone from "He didn't do steroids!" to "Great eye-hand coordination!". Gimme a break. If Bonds were that naturally inclined to hit home runs, how come he didn't even hit even 50 of them in a season when he was a young, peaking 30-year old? Looking at the numbers he hit his natural peak around ages 30-32, then came indicators of a natural, expected decline, but suddenly another peak surges out of nowhere when he should be gracefully fading away.

What caused this sudden spurt of prolonged productivity? Just looking at photographs you can see he that his second peak came into effect as soon as he bulked up, so in the case of Bonds there IS an obvious correlation between muscle mass and home run totals.

The mounting evidence that 1) steroids help you build your body and 2) Bonds did steroids, strongly suggests Bonds was only able to do what he's doing now (chasing Hank Aaron, setting the single-season home run record) thanks to steroids.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 4, 2004 3:42 PM PST up reply actions

here's how it's affected me....

Before the testimony of Bonds and Giambi was leaked, I was a shoo-in for season tickets for the 2005 A's season. Now that this news has come out, I'm holding out on making my purchase until I find out what MLB/Players union will do about it.

If they do nothing, and pretend everything is fine, I will give the A's not one red cent. I refuse to support an institution that is as corrupt as the MLB seems to be.

If they come down...HARD...on steroid users, IE make it a one way ticket out of baseball like gambling is, then I'll reconsider.

I don't plan on spending the money though, because I don't have any faith in the people in charge.

http://www.grandtheftblogger.com

by jester1176 on Dec 3, 2004 3:26 PM PST reply actions

The main issue about Bonds

Sure other players who have taken steroids didn't come close to doing what Bonds did, and it's arguable whether steroids will give you that much more power, but the main fact is that steroids have PROLONGED Bonds' productive years. Instead of declining with age he got better BECAUSE steroids allowed his body to stay fit, stay strong. The prolonging effect of steroids, coupled with his natural ability and his workout regimen, created those stats people like to gawk at. Without steroids I would argue that Bonds would have been hitting fewer home runs as the years went by after he had reached his peak in the 90s. He'd have had a great, HOF career, but he wouldn't be chasing the all-time home run record.

That is the big advantage that steroids gave Bonds. Not the power, not the eye-hand coordination, but the prolonged productivity that has allowed him to go after Hank Aaron's record.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 3, 2004 4:43 PM PST reply actions

In addition . . .

I'm sure this point may have been raised here before, but anyway . . .
how many of those home runs would have made it only to the warning track, if that far, but for the relative increase in strength derived from his steroid use? Of course Barry might have made solid contact with many more balls than most other players (due to bat speed, hand/eye coordination, intelligent guesses as to what the pitcher would throw, etc.), but that additional boost in strength would still be unfairly achieved.

by Ray of Lite on Dec 3, 2004 4:55 PM PST up reply actions

SI's Tom Verducci put it nicely

From SI.com:

SI.com: What do you make of the fact that Bonds and Giambi testified that the drugs did not help their game?

Verducci: It's complete baloney. That's the first tipoff of suspicion. If you hear an athlete say it doesn't do anything for a player, there go your bells, sirens and whistles right there. The reason why these people are taking these substances is because they make them better, period. I grant you that these people start out with a world class level of some sort of athletic and hand-to-eye coordination . They are taking these substances specifically to get to levels they naturally would not get to. The story of sprinter Kelly White was extremely revelatory in that sense. She said she was able to train longer and harder in order to get better results than are humanly possible.

Steroids and these performance-enhancing drugs allow them to work harder than they otherwise could, especially when they get into their late 30s. At that age, when you train that hard, you break down your body instead of building it up if you don't provide for enough recovery time. What the growth hormone and the steroids help you do is work at a higher level, work at a level that a young man could do, and that gets you results than would otherwise be possible.

SI.com: What can these drugs do specifically for baseball players?

Verducci: You take a good baseball player and you can make him great by improving his bat speed, his strength and his ability to train and recover. And that is not even getting into the proven results of HGH on eyesight. There are tangible benefits. That's why athletes are using this stuff. That's why track and field athletes are setting these records. It works.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 3, 2004 5:22 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed.

It's complete nonsense to say that steroids don't really help all that much. It's also nonsense to say that that's so because it doesn't (supposedly) help eye-hand coordination. If you're stronger, you can whip that bat around faster, which means you can not only hit the ball farther but you can also wait a split-second longer to identify the pitch. This has the exact same effect as improved eye-hand coordination: it allows you to improve your odds of nailing the ball squarely.

Bonds was a truly great player at 29, clearly on a Hall of Fame path. Then through his "declining years" he morphed into a much greater player at 39, a goddamn ubermensch. That just doesn't happen. EVER.

by Faust on Dec 4, 2004 3:41 PM PST up reply actions

Corked Body aka Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi

What if you knew every home run hit by these guys was with a corked bat? Wouldn't you be outraged? I hear on KCBS Giants fans just passing off the steroid use by Bonds as another day at the beach.
Time to wake up fans. This is steroids... as in hit the ball further, harder and quicker than other non-juiced players ( the majority thank god).
Steroids will kill them eventually -- lest we forget Lyle Alzedo so quickly. The players Union won't take a stand because they are weasels and claim civil liberties are violated in drug testing. Wake up Union your gonna get Government intervention here if you don't police your own house ( Maybe take a look at the NFL standards and testing to start with knuckleheads). Don't we all have to take some sort of drug test when applying for a job nowadays?

Morada Mudshark

by Morada Mudshark on Dec 3, 2004 7:02 PM PST reply actions

Roids

I'm hurt by the actions of these players, though deep down, I always knew athletes were prone to using performace enhancing substances. I lost a lot of interest in baseball after the 1994 strike and now I've come back to the sport through a love for the green and gold several years ago. My question to everyone is this.... if YOU had the chance to be a pro athlete, why would you jeapordize your career and image for such drugs? I'm 6'1 185lbs and in decent shape with plenty of athletic ability. I watch sports to live vicariously through these athletes and what they've accomplished. I would give anything to have what they have. But I wouldn't cheat to do it.

what we do in life, echoes an eternity......

by Utah on Dec 4, 2004 12:47 PM PST reply actions

Would I do it?

No. Whatever happens in the world, I have to live with myself first and forever.

by Pepper on Dec 4, 2004 1:40 PM PST reply actions

This is really random

but i have a question. How does it get determined where the all-star gane is going to be every year? I noticed that this year it is going to be in Detroit and last year it was in Houston but I see no pattern. Could someone please explain this to a ditzy fan?

AM dumps Zito, moves on to Bartolo Colon, ERA booms to a 6.0,"Me amor, Alissa (I love you my sweet chicken puff) is muy bitchy. Donde esta me masseuse". -ohad

by GreenNGoldGirl on Dec 4, 2004 7:17 PM PST reply actions

All Star game

Basically Bud Selig is handing All-Star games to teams as a reward for new ballparks, and to his inner circle of buddies. Especially if the team is struggling despite its new digs.

Notice how it's been a while the All-Star game has been in the much maligned older ballparks (other than Fenway, Yankee Stadium, and Wrigley). Minnesota, Florida, Oakland... if it's up to Selig (and it is) the All-Star game will never reach those places until a new stadium is built.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 4, 2004 9:54 PM PST up reply actions

This hurts young athletes

Unless baseball deals with these steroid freaks,
more and more young athletes may be tempted to use steroids...this is the real shame of it all.

I already consider all records set in the last 5 years to be bogus. I won't even discuss it with anyone...all the records are tainted.

I hope the Players union has the guts to deal with this - because they are the ones that can help control this problem.

by Okeydokie on Dec 5, 2004 10:25 AM PST reply actions

Ben Johnson

No one has mentioned this in regards to the Bonds/steroid issue, but if people here are old enough to remember, when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids after he broke the world record in the 100m in the 84 Olympics, his defense was "I didn't know I was taking it." He claimed that his gatorade was spiked or something. The same excuse was given in 92 when U.S. swimmer Angel Myers tested positive for steroids, only her excuse was a little more creative: "It must have been the birth control pills I was taking."

"I didn't know" has been a common excuse for years among those caught for drugs.

If we're to believe Bonds, then we need to believe all the others that came before him with the same stupid excuse when they got caught. I gaurantee you that the same Bonds' apologists would be screaming if a player not on their team came up with this ridiculous idea of not knowing, and many in fact were in all liklihood laughing at Ben Johnson in 1984 claiming the same thing, because he was not on "our team."

by oakfaninsd on Dec 5, 2004 5:30 PM PST reply actions