Posted on 03/07/2006 4:13:52 PM PST by indcons
You obviously haven't read the SI article or some of the documentation that accompanies it. There's a list of people as long as my arm that talked about how they either sold steroids to Bonds or personally witnessed his steroid use.
Nice post, but you didn't answer my question. If those charges against him are FALSE, why is he NOT suing for LIBEL OR SLANDER?
Probably because he couldn't win. If you're a public figure, it's pretty much impossible to win a defamation suit, whether or not the information is false--so I don't think that's necessarily convincing evidence that he's juicing.
What IS convincing evidence, in my mind, are the statements by just about everyone that knew Bonds personally that said he was using steroids.
"Bonds: xxx**"
If they charges against them are false, I hardly think they would just 'look the other way'. In fact, with his financial ability to fight slander or libel, I would think he would JUMP at the chance to prove that the allegations are totally bogus. With his financial security already established, I would think that his reputation is much more important to him than money.
Unless Bonds can manage to throw a no-hitter.
Barry is no Jr. Barry's dad's name is Bobby.
Perhaps, and I think you raise a good point. But it's worth noting that newspapers (or magazines) almost--not totally, but almost--have full legal immunity for whatever they write--and that could be driving Bonds's choice not to sue.
There's no "leap of faith" involved. The book is very well documented.
Has he denied it?
I don't know. While it's fun to talk about who is the greatest of all time, it's really hard to compare players from different eras--much more difficult than, say, basketball--not because just the way the game is played has changed, but because there have been MAJOR rule changes that have practically rendered it a different sport.
Assuming we call from, say, 1920 on the "modern" era of baseball, it becomes a little easier, but certainly there are changes that make even comparisons from 1920 on very difficult. Moreover, how do you determine what makes one player better than the other when they do different things? Or how much weight do you give to fielding? Certainly Rose was one of the best hitters ever, but he also played nearly every position on the field--how much weight is that given? Tough to say. But fun to talk about.
You need to check out his HRs per At-Bat. Damning statistic.
Everyone began walking Bonds.
Face it, Bonds juiced. McGuire admitted using andro, which was legal. If Big Mac is found to have used illegal substances, his records should be removed, too.
LIES!!! ALL LIES!!!
They're jealous. Yeah, that's it, jealous. Or maybe it's because he's black. No wait, I've got it, the press is out to get him because he wouldn't kiss their butts....
The saddest part is the simple fact that he was a great ballplayer and it just wasn't enough. He threw his credibility and career away by cheating when he didn't need to.
Now only the sycophants remain in his corner (and that's pretty sad too).
Algebra?
I count four Ass-terisks. Reggie Jackson is the last great home run hitter. Amazing.
That's just not true.
The real evidence is in the book, and in the court files at the federal courthouse in San Francisco.
And This Just In, Breaking News: It's Wednesday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.