Real Shyt on Bonds
- Thread starter SecondzAway
- Start date
no, but htey do hit another chicken at speeds faster than they would under their natural abilty.
does that mean i can go out and get some scrub chickens from joe blow and give them roids and expect them to go out and win in the toughest of competition in Louisiana and Mexico? of course not, they must be extremely skilled to begin with.
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEROIDS ENHANCE TRAITS.
if your a sprinter they help you get faster and help your reflexes so you can get better jumps/starts
if you a football player they make you stronger and faster, they make your reflexes faster.
if your a baseball player they make you reflexes faster, arms and legs stronger, bat speed faster.
you must be a very good hitter to begin with for the roids to enhance your bat. if you are a 100 hitter or a guy off of the street, they wont help you enough to make a difference.
does that mean i can go out and get some scrub chickens from joe blow and give them roids and expect them to go out and win in the toughest of competition in Louisiana and Mexico? of course not, they must be extremely skilled to begin with.
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEROIDS ENHANCE TRAITS.
if your a sprinter they help you get faster and help your reflexes so you can get better jumps/starts
if you a football player they make you stronger and faster, they make your reflexes faster.
if your a baseball player they make you reflexes faster, arms and legs stronger, bat speed faster.
you must be a very good hitter to begin with for the roids to enhance your bat. if you are a 100 hitter or a guy off of the street, they wont help you enough to make a difference.
THE IRONY IN THIS ALL IS THAT YOU WHO ARE HATING ON BONDS WON'T HATE ON ANY PITCHERS WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKING STEROIDS AS JLMACN POINTED OUT. IF YOU'RE AN A'S FAN OR CARDINALS FAN, YANKEES FAN OR ANY FAN OF ANY TEAM THAT HAD SUCCESS WITH A PLAYER USING ROIDS THEN STFU! LOL quit the hating he has the record, he's the best fielding and hitting LF of all time.
playing in high school and lil league please sumone explain why 110 lb leadoff philipino kids were hitting home runs and a me 235 lb clean up hitter was not??
they had better hand eye cordination than i did ,it wasnt power.my arms where bigger than these dudes legs so i still dont see how roids would dramaticly effect homers when bonds sees like 3 decent pitches agame..
they had better hand eye cordination than i did ,it wasnt power.my arms where bigger than these dudes legs so i still dont see how roids would dramaticly effect homers when bonds sees like 3 decent pitches agame..
You make a good point, which makes what he did even worse. Dude was already a HOF'er. He didn't need to cheat.
Personally I don't care. Baseball ceased being "America's pastime" ALONG time ago. I LOVE baseball, but I am not one of these records nuts who thinks Bond's should be in jail versus being the homerun king. As someone stated, baseball is a tainted sport.
People make the argument that he has never failed a drug test. HE NEVER WILL. the stuff he is accused of taking is not detectable in piss. Only idiots get popped on the new steroid "testing" policy. And no professional sport will EVER get blood testing without HUGE compromises. Even with those compromises, I doubt players will want their blood being open to review.
That is a dumb argument. name ONE pitcher chasing down the career wins record. Or some other holy pitching record. name ONE that has as much circumstantial evidence as Bond's has against him. THEN people may start looking at pitchers. the only pitchers getting popped are nobodies who probably couldn't pitch anyway
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05135/504781.stm
Bob Smizik
Smizik: In sharp contrast to Bonds, Clemens avoids scrutiny
Sunday, May 15, 2005
By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A strong body of evidence is slowly emerging that points to what so many have long believed: Barry Bonds is a steroid abuser.
Virtually no one is surprised because Bonds long has been under such suspicion. After all, he went from being a Hall-of-Fame caliber player to an all-time great, whose hitting prowess matched and often surpassed the likes of Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Baseball fans and the media were skeptical of such accomplishments. It was believed such prodigious feats could not be achieved without chemical assistance.
No question, Bonds' deeds have been staggering.
In 2001, he hit 73 home runs to break Roger Maris' record, which had stood for 40 years. That same season, he had an .863 slugging percentage, which broke Ruth's record that had stood for 80 years.
In 2002, he had an on-base percentage of .582, which broke Williams' record that had stood for 60 years.
He had won three MVP awards, two with the Pirates, by the time he was 29. When he added what would be the first of four more when he was 37, doubts increased.
No one was that good.
Of course, it was more than the majesty of Bonds' achievements that raised suspicion. The size of his body also screamed steroids use.
Where he was once a sleek greyhound, he now bulged with muscles. He had gained at least 40 pounds.
Although there was not an iota of concrete evidence and was not against the rules of baseball at the time, Bonds was widely believed to be a cheater.
It all made sense, even to those -- including this column -- that had long defended Bonds.
So why aren't people saying the same thing about Roger Clemens? Why hasn't this bulked-up, overperforming baseball senior citizen received the same treatment as Bonds?
For sure, his accomplishments are equally astounding. In fact, the case could be made that the trajectory of Clemens' career should arouse more suspicion than Bonds'.
Unlike Bonds, whose career never faltered, Clemens had a four-year period, beginning when he was 30, when many people believed he was in decline. Included in that group were the Boston Red Sox, the team he played for during the first 13 years of his career. After the 1997 season, the Red Sox did not re-sign Clemens, who was eligible for free agency. It seemed like the right move.
After going 152-72 in his first nine seasons, Clemens was 40-39 from 1993-96. What's more, his winning percentage twice was below that of his team during that four-year stretch, something that had never happened in the previous nine seasons.
Also during the span, Clemens' earned run average twice was over 4.00, a level where it had never been before.
It was a clear picture of a player in decline. And why not? He was 34 when he finished the 1996 season with a 10-13 record on a team that was eight games over .500.
Except that he wasn't in decline. Not even close.
He signed with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1997 and, on a team that was 10 games under .500, he was 21-7. It was the first time he had won 20 games since 1990. His ERA of 2.05 was the second lowest of his career.
Once again, he was Superman. And, of course, it was all due to his incredible workout routine. There was never a word about chemical enhancement.
It's not like Clemens was some kind of media favorite. Like Bonds, he has a history of being a major jerk.
Clemens is 42 and pitching as well or better than ever.
Last year, he was 18-4 with the Houston Astros -- the third-best winning percentage of his career. He won his seventh Cy Young Award -- 18 seasons after he won his first.
Going into his scheduled start against the San Francisco Giants last night, he was averaging better than a strikeout an inning and his ERA was a ridiculous 1.10.
In his tell-all book, "Juiced; Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," Jose Canseco wrote: "I've never seen Roger Clemens do steroids, and he never told me that he did. But we've talked about what steroids could do for you, in which combinations."
He also said Clemens showed "classic signs" of steroid use.
Clemens' agent, Randy Hendricks was furious. "He has passed all tests and will continue to do so in 2005."
Bob Smizik
Smizik: In sharp contrast to Bonds, Clemens avoids scrutiny
Sunday, May 15, 2005
By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A strong body of evidence is slowly emerging that points to what so many have long believed: Barry Bonds is a steroid abuser.
Virtually no one is surprised because Bonds long has been under such suspicion. After all, he went from being a Hall-of-Fame caliber player to an all-time great, whose hitting prowess matched and often surpassed the likes of Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Baseball fans and the media were skeptical of such accomplishments. It was believed such prodigious feats could not be achieved without chemical assistance.
No question, Bonds' deeds have been staggering.
In 2001, he hit 73 home runs to break Roger Maris' record, which had stood for 40 years. That same season, he had an .863 slugging percentage, which broke Ruth's record that had stood for 80 years.
In 2002, he had an on-base percentage of .582, which broke Williams' record that had stood for 60 years.
He had won three MVP awards, two with the Pirates, by the time he was 29. When he added what would be the first of four more when he was 37, doubts increased.
No one was that good.
Of course, it was more than the majesty of Bonds' achievements that raised suspicion. The size of his body also screamed steroids use.
Where he was once a sleek greyhound, he now bulged with muscles. He had gained at least 40 pounds.
Although there was not an iota of concrete evidence and was not against the rules of baseball at the time, Bonds was widely believed to be a cheater.
It all made sense, even to those -- including this column -- that had long defended Bonds.
So why aren't people saying the same thing about Roger Clemens? Why hasn't this bulked-up, overperforming baseball senior citizen received the same treatment as Bonds?
For sure, his accomplishments are equally astounding. In fact, the case could be made that the trajectory of Clemens' career should arouse more suspicion than Bonds'.
Unlike Bonds, whose career never faltered, Clemens had a four-year period, beginning when he was 30, when many people believed he was in decline. Included in that group were the Boston Red Sox, the team he played for during the first 13 years of his career. After the 1997 season, the Red Sox did not re-sign Clemens, who was eligible for free agency. It seemed like the right move.
After going 152-72 in his first nine seasons, Clemens was 40-39 from 1993-96. What's more, his winning percentage twice was below that of his team during that four-year stretch, something that had never happened in the previous nine seasons.
Also during the span, Clemens' earned run average twice was over 4.00, a level where it had never been before.
It was a clear picture of a player in decline. And why not? He was 34 when he finished the 1996 season with a 10-13 record on a team that was eight games over .500.
Except that he wasn't in decline. Not even close.
He signed with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1997 and, on a team that was 10 games under .500, he was 21-7. It was the first time he had won 20 games since 1990. His ERA of 2.05 was the second lowest of his career.
Once again, he was Superman. And, of course, it was all due to his incredible workout routine. There was never a word about chemical enhancement.
It's not like Clemens was some kind of media favorite. Like Bonds, he has a history of being a major jerk.
Clemens is 42 and pitching as well or better than ever.
Last year, he was 18-4 with the Houston Astros -- the third-best winning percentage of his career. He won his seventh Cy Young Award -- 18 seasons after he won his first.
Going into his scheduled start against the San Francisco Giants last night, he was averaging better than a strikeout an inning and his ERA was a ridiculous 1.10.
In his tell-all book, "Juiced; Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," Jose Canseco wrote: "I've never seen Roger Clemens do steroids, and he never told me that he did. But we've talked about what steroids could do for you, in which combinations."
He also said Clemens showed "classic signs" of steroid use.
Clemens' agent, Randy Hendricks was furious. "He has passed all tests and will continue to do so in 2005."
And why is it that recently (past few years), he takes a couple months off when the season starts, do his decisional BS? Does he want to be a hero? I guess he has a navy seal workout routine.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2514578
"Grimsley was caught up in the sprawling scandal involving Barry Bonds and other baseball legends.
According to an affidavit, during questioning by an IRS criminal investigator earlier this year Grimsley indicated that Clemens, Pettitte and others used a range of performance enhancing drugs. "
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2514578
"Grimsley was caught up in the sprawling scandal involving Barry Bonds and other baseball legends.
According to an affidavit, during questioning by an IRS criminal investigator earlier this year Grimsley indicated that Clemens, Pettitte and others used a range of performance enhancing drugs. "
http://baseballistic.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/did-roger-clemens-use-steroids/
"
There have been rumors the past few days that Roger Clemens waiting two months into the MLB season to sign with a team wasn't as plain as it seemed. After a report suggested that Clemens may have used steroids and been caught, a lot of evidence has been uncovered to support this. Several sportswriters have reported that Clemens may have used steroids, been caught, and requested that it be kept secret. Here's the evidence to support the theory of Clemens' steroid use.
First, when Clemens signed with the Houston Astros on May 31, it was exactly 50 games into the MLB season. The suspension for first-time steroids users is 50 games. Is this a strange coincidence, or did Clemens get suspended?
Consider the following…
Clemens has improved as he has gotten older; he has shown no signs of wearing down. The same can be said of Barry Bonds, who is assumed to have used steroids. Clemens has also shown signs of becoming bulkier and stronger. A look at the Clemens of the 1990's shows a different guy that a look at the Clemens of 2006. That much of a gain in bulk and strength is a strong indication that perhaps Clemens used steroids.
But the next piece of evidence is even stronger…
Clemens had a terrific 2005 season for the Astros, despite a poor final outing in the World Series. After this, if Clemens was in fact suspended, he would've stopped taking steroids. Before the World Baseball Classic, every player was tested for steroids, and everyone that participated was found clean. Clemens struggled in the World Baseball Classic, possibly the first time he pitched without steroids in over a season. He didn't seem to have the same caliber fastball, and his offspeed pitches were not the same. A sign perhaps that Clemens needs the steroids to pitch well.
Personally, I don't believe that Clemens used steroids, but it is a very interesting series of coincidental evidence. Alone, each of the three pieces of evidence means nothing, but together, it's a strong correlation to suggest that the Rocket's fuel wasn't natural. In my opinion, that's just what it is - a coincidence - but until it's proven either way, this will be a heavily debated topic in the world of baseball.
"
"
There have been rumors the past few days that Roger Clemens waiting two months into the MLB season to sign with a team wasn't as plain as it seemed. After a report suggested that Clemens may have used steroids and been caught, a lot of evidence has been uncovered to support this. Several sportswriters have reported that Clemens may have used steroids, been caught, and requested that it be kept secret. Here's the evidence to support the theory of Clemens' steroid use.
First, when Clemens signed with the Houston Astros on May 31, it was exactly 50 games into the MLB season. The suspension for first-time steroids users is 50 games. Is this a strange coincidence, or did Clemens get suspended?
Consider the following…
Clemens has improved as he has gotten older; he has shown no signs of wearing down. The same can be said of Barry Bonds, who is assumed to have used steroids. Clemens has also shown signs of becoming bulkier and stronger. A look at the Clemens of the 1990's shows a different guy that a look at the Clemens of 2006. That much of a gain in bulk and strength is a strong indication that perhaps Clemens used steroids.
But the next piece of evidence is even stronger…
Clemens had a terrific 2005 season for the Astros, despite a poor final outing in the World Series. After this, if Clemens was in fact suspended, he would've stopped taking steroids. Before the World Baseball Classic, every player was tested for steroids, and everyone that participated was found clean. Clemens struggled in the World Baseball Classic, possibly the first time he pitched without steroids in over a season. He didn't seem to have the same caliber fastball, and his offspeed pitches were not the same. A sign perhaps that Clemens needs the steroids to pitch well.
Personally, I don't believe that Clemens used steroids, but it is a very interesting series of coincidental evidence. Alone, each of the three pieces of evidence means nothing, but together, it's a strong correlation to suggest that the Rocket's fuel wasn't natural. In my opinion, that's just what it is - a coincidence - but until it's proven either way, this will be a heavily debated topic in the world of baseball.
"
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/11/01/clemens.real/index.html
One more link, but I wont copy and paste again, too much fucking reading. But the important stuff is there.
One more link, but I wont copy and paste again, too much fucking reading. But the important stuff is there.
Excellent points. I always find that the people throwing bonds to the wolves are the nerdy guys that only got to play the last 2 innings in RF every little league game. Those who can't do, are freelance writers for newspapers I guess.
....................................
I literally laughed out loud when these fuckers were saying roids helped his plate presence. Roids helping bonds lay off bad pitches!? Anyhow bonds hasn't been the strongest player in the league in the last 10 years and probably wasn't top 20 strongest players in his career roids or not. With that, why aren't dudes like Ortiz or Howard hitting 70 hr's? When Giambi was busted, what were his stats? Nobody was comparable.
....................................
I literally laughed out loud when these fuckers were saying roids helped his plate presence. Roids helping bonds lay off bad pitches!? Anyhow bonds hasn't been the strongest player in the league in the last 10 years and probably wasn't top 20 strongest players in his career roids or not. With that, why aren't dudes like Ortiz or Howard hitting 70 hr's? When Giambi was busted, what were his stats? Nobody was comparable.
LOL...okay
First of all he isnt even CLOSE to the career wins record. Looking at his current yankees record, he would have to pitch for 5-10 years and win a good amount of games each year to get close.
Either way who cares. I don't. And the people who suspect or hate on Bonds need to realize that he will never fail a drug test if he was indeed using that Balco shit.
I am in the camp that a whole lot of people were using, you can't pick and choose who you want to rag on. Although I feel Bonds get more attention than say Palmeiro or McGwire because he is still an active player. Of course neither one of them was getting close to breaking the record of a legend.
Of course no pitcher these days will get close to a career wins record. Too many scouting reports/videos of every players these days, too many pitchers are used as setup guys. Look at how many bullpen pitchers are used everyday as opposed to guys back in the days. Also many managers just use bullpen pitchers if they are rightys or leftys. Starting pitchers hardly ever pitch that many innings. Totally different era.
Look at the statistics of the older pitchers like Cy Young back in the 1890s. They said in a season he pitched 330ish innings in a season. That's 100 more innings than guys these days, with less games in a season back then too.
Look at the statistics of the older pitchers like Cy Young back in the 1890s. They said in a season he pitched 330ish innings in a season. That's 100 more innings than guys these days, with less games in a season back then too.