Bonds Fails An Amphetamine Test

Has the smoking gun finally been uncovered? Can we finally determine, conclusively, that Barry Bonds is a cheater? I do not like the guy, I would not want him on my team, but I have always gave him the benefit of the doubt when it came to conclusive evidence. As much as I despise is personality, his numbers speak for themselves.

With that, this is sure to inject some doubt on his merit. Especially on the timing, with McGwire not being voted into the Hall Of Fame.

NEW YORK (AP) - Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the New York Daily News reported Thursday.

When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney's locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.

"I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night.

"Mark was made aware of the fact that his name had been brought up," Sweeney's agent Barry Axelrod told the Daily News. "But he did not give Barry Bonds anything, and there was nothing he could have given Barry Bonds."

Bonds, who always has maintained he never has tested positive for illegal drug use, already is under investigation for lying about steroid use.

tsn.ca...

They are already investigating if Bonds purjured himself when he testified in front of a grand jury in 2003 when he said, he never willingly or knowingly took steroids.

Logic tells us that Bonds has taken some sort of controlled substance, and he has taken something that has enhanced his performance. I hope they come across something conclusively sooner rather than later, because I would hate to see Hank Aaron's record fall and then only put an asterisk next to Bond's number.

Some of our records are sacred, Bond's is entering a territory he should not enter lightly.

NEW YORK (AP) - Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the New York Daily News reported Thursday.

When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney's locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.

This guy takes the cake. He steals something out of his teammates locker (how many million is he making per year?) and then turns around and blames the teammate for the failed test that resulted from it.

I wish MLB would put an asteric along side every one of the records that he breaks.

Considering Bonds does not currently have a contract for this upcoming season, I can see this putting a huge cloud over a possible signing. He is reportedly looking for about $16 Million a year, with this new information circulating, I can see this bringing that figure down a few notches.

The only team I can possibly see offering him this money, in the NL, is the Giants. I am sure the Yankees would love to see him in their line up as a possible DH, but the Bo-Sox already have Ortiz for the designated role.

Personally, I'd rather see him retire tomorrow. Leave Aaron's record standing, and lets all forget about Barry Bonds.

One thing I see too much of is comparisons between Bonds on the one hand, and Big Quack and Sosa on the other. I watched Bonds at least 120 games per year on TV, living as I do on the far North Coast of California, starting with the time he came to the Giants. He was a phenomenal player, and there's no reason to think he was taking steroids during those years. He won 3 MVP's in 4 years, and should have won all 4, but the sportswriters understandably hated him and loved Terry Pendleton.

I am confident that what Bonds did through 1998 or 1999, he did on his legitimate, natural merits. And I agree with what Bill James providentially wrote after the 1999 season: that Bonds, counting his career through only his modest 1999 season, is about the 13th greatest player in MLB history. (The 12 guys I have ahead of him are not identical to the ones James has, but we agree he's #13 as of late 1999.)

So, Bonds must be considered one of the greatest players who ever lived. He was probably the best defensive left fielder of all time, including Rickey Henderson (whom I also saw all the time). He was perhaps the greatest combination of speed and power ever. Had he stayed clean, he would have hit 600 HR's and stolen at least 700 bases.

He never took part in game-fixing, the one unpardonable sin, so on the basis of what he did through 1998 or 1999, it's obvious he belongs in the Hall of Fame. No question about it, and any comparisons to the turgid, one-dimensional Mark McGwire, or the wildly erratic and undisciplined Sammy Sosa, are off-base... except for the obvious cloud. But those guys were not real Hall of Famers until their bodies exploded--Sosa had no shot; McGwire was a more likable version of Dave Kingman, with a huge HR/AB ratio but nothing else.

However....

Just as I would put the phony numbers of McGwire and Sosa in the incinerator, that's exactly where I would put Bonds' numbers from 2000 on. Nobody suddenly becomes 3x better a hitter after age 35, and it's absurd to think what he did from that point on was legit--even if you weren't watching him every day and didn't see the "marvelous" explosion like I did (exploded stats, exploded head, exploded heart beat....). Moreover, the guy never hit a HR over 450 feet without a lot of help from the wind until he was almost 36. Since then, he's done it about 3 dozen times, with several "marvelous" shots of far over 450 feet... many of which I watched in silent disgust.

Yeah, it was all a fraud, and 98% of the baseball fans I know agreed there was no other non-delusional interpretation of it. The remaining 2% got awfully tiresome....

But Bonds should not be lumped with McGwire and Sosa. PED's did not turn him from a fairly good player into a great one. They turned him from one of the game's greatest players into its greatest "peak" player ever. Yes, greater than Ruth from 1920-1924, or at least that's my opinion--but his stats could have been twice what they were and they still would be fraudulent and meaningless to me.

Should Bonds be barred from the Hall because he's a world-class jerk? Only if they're prepared to expel, among countless others, Ty Cobb (my #3 player), Tris Speaker (#6), Lefty Grove (#10), Joe DiMaggio (#12) and Ted Williams (#4).

Should he be barred because he racked up fraudulent stats? Only if they're going to bar an entire generation or two of players, and even then, Bonds arguably should be the one cheat who gets in, because his pre-cheat numbers were far too good to keep him out. (Much like Clemens, if, Heaven forbid, they discover the greatest pitcher of my lifetime--including Koufax--has elongated his greatness with PED's.)

Maybe people should think about that parallel. Clemens has won 2 more ERA titles (7) than every pitcher ever, except Grove (9). If it came out Clemens' last 6 years were frauds, would you want him barred?

If not, Bonds can't be barred, either.

B.H.N.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by BaseballHistoryNut]

BHN, as always your posts are impressive. I will respond later to more of your reply, but firstly I would like to ask this.

Does Bonds alleged doping taint what he did as a professional before he was juiced?

Without a doubt he was one of the best ball players, in all aspects, in history. His stats before he was juiced would certainly merit a first ballot induction. However, his decision to juice taints everything for me and leaves him undeserving of a ticket to Cooperstown. His accomplishments are all for not, and he is to blame for it.

If you are caught doping, on any level, at any point in your career, Cooperstown is out.

Now, is this failed amphetamines test enough?

Originally posted by chissler
Considering Bonds does not currently have a contract for this upcoming season, I can see this putting a huge cloud over a possible signing. He is reportedly looking for about $16 Million a year, with this new information circulating, I can see this bringing that figure down a few notches.

The only team I can possibly see offering him this money, in the NL, is the Giants. I am sure the Yankees would love to see him in their line up as a possible DH, but the Bo-Sox already have Ortiz for the designated role.

Personally, I'd rather see him retire tomorrow. Leave Aaron's record standing, and lets all forget about Barry Bonds.

Agreed, I couldn't add anything to this. I hope he does Major League Baseball a favor and retires. I don't want to see him again....

Should we be surprised? To be honest,I have no use whatsoever for this guy. I hope he is never placed in the hall of fame, and I hope that all of his hits that he received after he started taking performance enhancing drugs is removed from his record. He is scum in my honest opinion. :shk:

[edit on 23-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Chissler of course it taints what Bonds did before, who's to say that he hasnt been taking banned substances for a long time. No one knows for sure how long, just that he has taken something in his career. People say about his stats before he took something, how do we know he wasnt taking something then? There will always be doubt now...

Me personally, if he is found guilty of taking any sort of banned substance, he shouldnt get into the hall of fame. He should be thrown out of baseball altogether. If you take a look at other sports, if people are found guilty of taking a banned or illegal substance. They are banned for life or banned for a substantial amount of time in their given sport. One thing that definatly happens is that they are stripped of any medals - titles - records they have won over a given period of time.

Baseball needs to follow suit and on that Bonds wouldnt get into Cooperstown.

While I'm not surprised that he blamed it on a teammate I am surprised that the league doesn't just kick him out already. Everybody and Their mom knows he's full of it.

He should only go into the Cheaters Hall of Fame when he finally does everyone a favor and disappears.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Royal76]

Originally posted by chissler
BHN, as always your posts are impressive. I will respond later to more of your reply, but firstly I would like to ask this.

Does Bonds alleged doping taint what he did as a professional before he was juiced?

Without a doubt he was one of the best ball players, in all aspects, in history. His stats before he was juiced would certainly merit a first ballot induction. However, his decision to juice taints everything for me and leaves him undeserving of a ticket to Cooperstown. His accomplishments are all for not, and he is to blame for it.

If you are caught doping, on any level, at any point in your career, Cooperstown is out.


Chissler:

I understand the perspective that any bogus stats achieved by PED use should cause a Hall of Fame ban, but as I said in my post, I do not agree with it. Throwing a World Series game--which Hall of Famers Tris Speaker and Harry Hooper, and perennial Hall of Fame candidate Joe Wood, did--is another story. THEM, I would expel from the Hall in light of the overwhelming evidence they threw Game 6 of the 1912 Series--knowing full well they must then beat Christy Mathewson in Game 7, which, it pains me to say, they did.

But I would not ban all PED cheats. Rather, I would ask if their legit feats were good enough to get them in. And IF you agree with this approach, there is no doubt Bonds' stats through 1998 or 1999 put him in the Hall. Slam dunk. As I say, both Bill James and I rate him as the #13 player in MLB history, without regard to what he did from 2000 on. I just wish everyone could have seen as much of him as I did, both before and after the turn of the century, because the metamorphasis/transmogrification was SO flagrant, it was in the "Brady Anderson school of brazen cheating."

It's really a philosophical thing. If you feel taking cr@p and phonily making yourself the size of a small mountain should be grounds for permanent Hall banishment, who am I to say you're wrong? I simply don't agree. What IS wrong are the people who insist Bonds, McGwire, et al., did nothing wrong. That's statistically ludicrous, and I don't care a whit whether MLB had banned steroids and/or HGH at the time. MLB probably hadn't banned crank, '___', PCP, heroin and a bunch of other things, either, but if those things made one 3X better a player, who would consider it legit? Nobody, right? Well, steroids violated federal law long before Bud Selig pulled his willfully corrupt and complicit head out of the sand, and what Big Quack, Sosa, Bonds and all the others did is just plain b.s. That is not something I believe reasonable people can differ about.

But on Bonds and the Hall? Obviously his pre-2000 stats make him a slam dunk Hall of Famer, even on the assumption his career ended with the 20th Century. No question about that. But whether he should be barred from the Hall anyway, due to his flagrant use of that garbage, is really a philosophical question with no definably right or wrong answer.

BHN

[edit on 24-2-2007 by BaseballHistoryNut]

Yeah, tough to disagree with that. Well said.

What I do ask though is the Brady Anderson comment. I remember him as a stand out in the O's outfield for some years. Was even an all-star a few times. What am I missing though in reference to the cheating?

[edit on 25-2-2007 by chissler]

Brady Anderson was a fairly good CF for the Baltimore Orioles. He was also frequently their leadoff hitter, and once led the A.L. with a stunning 749 plate appearances. From 1988-1995, he only hit more than 16 HR's once (21). He was, for sure, your basic leadoff hitter type and not your slugger type.

Likewise, from 1997-2002, Anderson never hit more than 24 HR's in a season, and only hit more than 19 once. So, you have a guy who--except in 1996--never hit over 24 HR's, and only made it to 20 HR's twice in his career.

But in 1996, Brady Anderson became a poor man's Babe Ruth. His slugging average was .637, a whopping 212 points higher than his career average and, more important, 160 points higher than the second best single-season slugging average of his career (before or after). Not just an uncharacteristically good season, or even just a remarkably out-of-character season, but a screaming red flag of a season.

And, in that season, he hit 50 home runs, to go with 37 doubles and 5 triples. He became far and away the most preposterous member of the 50-HR Club, racking up 92 extra base hits (previous high, 59), and making the Top 10 in the A.L. in the following major categories for the ONLY time in his career:

1. Home runs (only #2, which is also a comment);

2. Total bases (#4)

3. HR/AB ratio (#4; 1/11.6; career average, 1/30.9)

4. Slugging Average (#3)

In short, Brady Anderson's 1996 season is to HR's what "Chief" Owen Wilson's untouchable, record-obliterating 1912 season was to triples, when he allegedly compiled 36 (!!) triples, despite never amassing more than 14 triples in a season before or after that. Of course, Wilson was playing in cavernous Forbes Field, whose massive LF (365' to 408'), LCF (408' to 457'), CF (457' to 429') and RCF dimensions will be familiar to older fans, but he played there in 4 other seasons, too.

And anyway, Brady Anderson was not, in 1996, suddenly permitted to play in a re-creation of Philadelphia's notorious Baker Bowl, where it was 272 feet down the RF line and 300 FT to the shallower part of RCF (with a very high wall). No, he played in the same park he played in from 1992 on, namely Camden Yards, which will never be confused with Baker Bowl. (Neither will any other park, which is why so many people--including me--screamed bloody murder when famous Baker Bowl fraud Chuck Klein made the Hall of Fame, finally, in about 1980.)

You put all of that together and you have a huge body of circumstantial evidence that Anderson's "magical" 1996 season was a farce. Moreover, while baseball historians are split on the legitimacy of Wilson's staggering 36-triples-in-a-season record, no baseball historian whom I know, have read, or have met on line takes Anderson's monster season seriously.

Neither do I.

Brady Anderson wanted to make headlines as a power hitter in the worst way. And that's what he did.

BHN