# Breaking news: Barry Bonds has been taking steroids!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

If this story is true, Bonds and the other guilty players should be kicked out of baseball. Confirmed steroid use going back several years would make Bonds' home run numbers completely bogus.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/02/BALCO.TMP&type=printable


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

the article never stats the Bonds took steroids.


----------



## basketballrusty (Mar 4, 2003)

This is breaking news?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "the article never states that Bonds took steroids."


The reporter is being careful. But it's clear that Bonds wasn't getting the steroids for his daughter.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> If this story is true, Bonds and the other guilty players should be kicked out of baseball. Confirmed steroid use going back several years would make Bonds' home run numbers completely bogus.


This suprises you?

Take a look at the guy age 20-30. 

A guy doesn't put on 20-40 pounds of muscle as he ages.

Also, his face is about as puffy as you can get. Mix that with temper...

I would have thought it was common knowledge.

But, so is everyone else or darn near. 

Play.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

If you gave 10 sports reporters the choice of saving their mother from a burning building or getting the scoop on busting Bonds for steroids, 9 of them would let their mothers burn.

They're not being careful. They don't have dreams of fabulously hot women falling for them; They fantasize about nailing Bonds.

Before you jump to discredit the amazing things he's done consider that there's a huge gray area in determining what is a legal substance and what is not. The list constantly changes. If an athlete doesn't try to use whatever is legally available to make himself better, is he really trying hard enough?

Why is steroids considered the unforgivable sin? Steroids won't make you recognize a changeup any faster. They don't give you the split second decision making to take a pitch that's slightly outside and moving at 90+mph. They don't give you the most compact, efficient, lightning fast swing ever seen. Heck, they don't even give you big muscles unless you combine them with a no-pleasure diet and hours upon hours of torturous workouts every day.

Even if we call him guilty before hearing any evidence, you can't say that any of his accomplishments are only becuase of steroids. Steroids didn't make him hit 73 HR's. The only thing they might do is make his 450 footer into a 475.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

actually, the peak age for bodybuilders is late 30's

Any bodybuilder knows that, yes, you can put on 20-40 pounds in your 30's.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Clank</b>!
> actually, the peak age for bodybuilders is late 30's
> 
> Any bodybuilder knows that, yes, you can put on 20-40 pounds in your 30's.


Bonds is NOT a body builder.

Play.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

wow, post of the day...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "If an athlete doesn't try to use whatever is legally available to make himself better, is he really trying hard enough?"


You're joking, right? I thought "trying harder" meant putting in more hours in batting practice, or doing more work in the field, getting in better shape, studying more film, etc. Not to mention just "trying harder" during the actual games. 



> "Before you jump to discredit the amazing things he's done consider that there's a huge gray area in determining what is a legal substance and what is not."


Hasn't steroid use always been illegal in baseball? Besides, if there is nothing wrong with the stuff, why has Bonds always denied taking it? Seems to me he would be boasting that he is taking it to "try harder," as you said. 



> "Steroids won't make you recognize a changeup any faster. They don't give you the split second decision making to take a pitch that's slightly outside and moving at 90+mph. They don't give you the most compact, efficient, lightning fast swing ever seen. Heck, they don't even give you big muscles unless you combine them with a no-pleasure diet and hours upon hours of torturous workouts every day."


So steroids don't give you a competitive advantage? Then why would anybody want to take them?



> "Even if we call him guilty before hearing any evidence, you can't say that any of his accomplishments are only becuase of steroids."


One simple question: What is more impressive--Hank Aaron's home run numbers that were achieved without steroids, or Barry Bond's home numbers that were "helped along" with steroids?


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

Are you kidding?

His workouts would put many professional bodybuilders to shame!

The man spends more time in a day working to be a great baseball player than most of us spend awake!


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Bonds is NOT a body builder.
> ...



Bonds IS a professional athlete....


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Clank</b>!
> Are you kidding?


No.



> His workouts would put many professional bodybuilders to shame!


They work out differently all together. 

Body builders typically are not as strong as their mass would indicate. Body builders work out for mass while athletes work out for power, speed and possibly endurance.

These are separate things.



> The man spends more time in a day working to be a great baseball player than most of us spend awake!


I won't deny it. But it doesn't mean that he isn't using steriods.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> Bonds IS a professional athlete....


I am a professional worker, does that mean my routine consists of the same stuff as someone in a different profession?

No. 

Same goes with working out. 

I WAS a professional athlete. This stuff isn't rocket science. 

Play.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

You're right it isn't rocket science...

If professional body builders can put on large amounts of muscle in their late 30's then so can professional baseball players.

Stop trying so hard to be right, man.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> I am a professional worker, does that mean my routine consists of the same stuff as someone in a different profession?
> ...




Wow. Honestly, I don't give a damn if you are a professional worker or not, since it is not related to what we are talking about at all. 


I said Bonds is a professional *ATHLETE* meaning the guy dedicates himself to working out during the whole off-season. And I don't have to assume Bonds works out hard, since he has been such a great player his whole career. 


And who said a 30 year-old man couldn't put on 20-40 pounds of muscle? Is this scientifically proven? If so, give me something other than hearsay. 


Putting on 20-40 pounds of muscle is near impossible even for the "professional worker", but it's definitely not impossible for a professional athlete.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> You're right it isn't rocket science...
> 
> If professional body builders can put on large amounts of muscle in their late 30's then so can professional baseball players.
> ...


It has NOTHING to do with TRYING to be right.

I am right. 

Is it possible? Yes. 

But, it is not probable, nor is it beneficial. 

The amount of time needed to bulk to that level and then adjust to the new mass is detrimental to someone who require timing and skill. 

A baseball players workout regimine is COMPLETELY different to that say of a "body builder" or "football player" or "hockey player" or "tri-athlete". 

They each are trying to train muscle groups that will benefit them in their sport. 

Bonds dropping on thirty pounds of muscle on a frame that was rail thin (Ken Griffey like) is highly unlikely. 

Play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

-->>FWIW


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> Wow. Honestly, I don't give a damn if you are a professional worker or not, since it is not related to what we are talking about at all.


Yes it is. It is called an analogy. Ever heard of those, or do you not care about them because it doesn't suit you.

Professionals all have different skill sets. The skill set of a truck driver would not be the same skill set as a stock broker who would not have the same skill set of a CEO of Zerox.

The same goes with athletes and their training. A basketball player will not have the same training as that of a body builder or a baseball player.

Body builders train to BULK up. They work to PACK ON MUSCLE. The muscles are typically NOT as strong as those of a professional athlete - pound for pound. Nor do they need them to be.

THUS - Barry Bonds working out to pack on 30 pounds of muscle is POSSIBLE - it is highly unlikely, since the muscle would be useless.

Why do you think most football players are MUCH softer looking then a body builder? We lift weights EVERY darn day. We just lift for power instead of mass. 




> I said Bonds is a professional *ATHLETE* meaning the guy dedicates himself to working out during the whole off-season.


Yes, and...



> And I don't have to assume Bonds works out hard, since he has been such a great player his whole career.


I don't disagree that he is one of the best ... ever... regardless of steroid abuse. 

Personally, I don't see a real competitive advantage in baseball. 

But, that doesn't mean he isn't doing it. Heck, his own friends have turned on him on this one.



> And who said a 30 year-old man couldn't put on 20-40 pounds of muscle? Is this scientifically proven? If so, give me something other than hearsay.


Oh jeez. 

I said it is possible. Highly unlikely, especially given how a baseball player works out. 

Also, hearsay means that I am espousing something that someone else told me. I am not doing that, thus I am not giving you hearsay. I am giving you first hand experience.

Just for your factual knowledge:

Skeletal muscle mass declines about 15 percent between the third and eighth decades of life, and as much as 30 percent afterward. Stranger yet, muscle loss seems to be most noticible in certain key areas such as the arms and thighs, which can especially hurt athletes. 



> Putting on 20-40 pounds of muscle is near impossible even for the "professional worker", but it's definitely not impossible for a professional athlete.


No it is not impossible. Unlikely. 

Play.


----------



## 82 (Jul 11, 2002)

obviously people assume Bonds did roids, and though I would like to think he didn't , for whatever reason, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain this belief. 

However, did roids help Bonds become maybe the geratest baseball player ever? No, I doubt it. Bonds doesn't break his own walk record every year because of roids. Nor does it help him to be the only 500/500 player in history. 

Someone mentioned Aaron's record as impressive without the aid of roids, but how do we know what Aaron really did? The turth is we don't. And, since I think we can agree that there is little added benefit to taking roids and being a baseball player why can't everyone just drop it. The fact is that baseball pitcing is spread thin and parks are smaller. That should be the main concern for all the HR's, not roids.

And drug testing policies are a joke. Look at the NFL. I would be shocked if in excess of 60% of the league didn't roid. There is just too much advantage to gain in doing so.


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

*
I knew Bonds was using by how defensive he got with the media the other day.
*


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>82</b>!
> obviously people assume Bonds did roids, and though I would like to think he didn't , for whatever reason, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain this belief.
> 
> However, did roids help Bonds become maybe the geratest baseball player ever? No, I doubt it. Bonds doesn't break his own walk record every year because of roids. Nor does it help him to be the only 500/500 player in history.
> ...


AMEN!


Of course ... this is all part of Bush's new drug policy. He said he has to come down hard on steroid abusers. 

STEROID ABUSERS?! 

I mean if there is a segment of "unlawful" society that really doesn't cause many problems ... it is probably them. 
Play.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> A guy doesn't put on 20-40 pounds of muscle as he ages.


You are flat wrong here. A dedicated athlete can change their physical makeup dramatically over the course of a few years without the use of roids. I know this truth from personal experience. I'm 5'10, and have had my weight swing from as low as 160 (when I was training mostly aerobically), to close to 200 when I was lifting more weights. At both of these weights I had a very low percentage of body fat. 

Bonds is about the size of an average NFL outside linebacker or a large WR. I'm obviously not privy to whether he's achieved his body type through steroids or not, and this article doesn't clear up matters for me. Having had 2 separate involvements with SF Chronical stories, I know what a tabloid piece of bleep rag it is. In my experiences, they competely turned a blind eye toward the bland truth to run with the sexier rumor mongering angles. 

Bonds will be tested throughout this season. I've seen spring training pix, and he's still huge. If he tests clean and he's still dominant, I'm sure the Bonds haters will still find reasons to smear his name and achievements. We'll see what happens...

Side note, did anyone else notice how the USA wasn't able to qualify for the Olympics in baseball? Reportedly thats because the best college players couldn't pass the drug tests and they had to go with scrubs who could. Pretty sad statement about baseball in general IMO.

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Play, 

I'm not seeing your point.

You seem to be making the argument that a baseball player wouldn't put on a lot of muscle because it would be undesireable - ie, hard to adjust to the added weight, etc...

You are not disputing the fact that it is possible to put on that much extra weight at his age in light of the fact that body builders often do it. 

You seem to simply be making the claim that it wouldn't do him that much good... 

First of all, any added muscle is going to make you stronger. There are of course different ways to work out, but the fact is one way or another, Barry decided that he wanted to bulk up...

You can dispute whether or not that was a good idea or whether he used steroids to do it, but the evidence suggests that it is more than possible to do it without steroids.

I'm sure he had to make adjustments with timing and everything like that whether he used steroids or not, so what's the point of your argument? 

So what if he's a baseball player? He put on the muscle, essentially acting as a baseball player would not in your world.

Cheers


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes it is. It is called an analogy. Ever heard of those, or do you not care about them because it doesn't suit you.
> ...




Since you have gone from saying this about Bonds....




> A guy doesn't put on 20-40 pounds of muscle as he ages.




....to this....




> No it is not impossible. Unlikely.



...ruins my argument. 


Since you have seemingly taken a lighter stance on the topic from your first post to this last one, I have nothing to argue with you. It is possible Bonds put on 20-40 pounds of muscle, but yes, it is probably unlikely. 


But why is it possible then? Could it be because he is a professional athlete? As a professional athlete, I'm sure Bonds knows his fare share of weight-lifting techniques to put on 20-40 pounds of muscle, even at the age of 38 or 39. If you agree that it is possible that Bonds added 20-40 pounds of muscle as he got older, then there is nothing to argue about.



Another thing: there is a huge advantage in getting stronger in baseball. Why do you think baseball players actually lift weights? For the hell of it? Yes, you do have to know how to hit a baseball, but the stronger you are, the farther and faster the ball can potentially go. How do I know this? From experience. There is defintely a reason for Bonds to get stronger, oh like holding the most precious record in baseball: The Career Home Run Leader. Bonds knows he is a few more great years away from reaching that record, so what's he going to do? Lift weights? Get stronger? That makes sense to me...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> You are flat wrong here. A dedicated athlete can change their physical makeup dramatically over the course of a few years without the use of roids. I know this truth from personal experience. I'm 5'10, and have had my weight swing from as low as 160 (when I was training mostly aerobically), to close to 200 when I was lifting more weights. At both of these weights I had a very low percentage of body fat.


But, to what end? 

What I am pointing at is that an athlete does not change the way they train. Pounds of muscle and the training involved to become that way would be a detriment to a baseball player. 

What you are saying is Bonds stepped away from baseball training and explored football workouts. I just don't buy it.



> Bonds is about the size of an average NFL outside linebacker or a large WR. I'm obviously not privy to whether he's achieved his body type through steroids or not, and this article doesn't clear up matters for me.


He is now, but look at him in his prime. Look at him at 22. He's a rail.



> Bonds will be tested throughout this season. I've seen spring training pix, and he's still huge. If he tests clean and he's still dominant, I'm sure the Bonds haters will still find reasons to smear his name and achievements. We'll see what happens...


Again, being an athlete I promise you -- they have it down to a pretty fine science. A baseball player can ONLY be tested throughout the season. Steroids aren't in the system for an extremely long period of time, and with the right mix, the gains will stay for the length of a season with minimal upkeep. 

Thus, a player could quit steroids months before the season and be perfectly okay throughout.

I'm not saying this IS the case, but that would be my stance.

I don't really think it diminishes his accomplishments though. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> Since you have seemingly taken a lighter stance on the topic from your first post to this last one, I have nothing to argue with you.


I'll be the first ot admit that I often state things strongly, but only as a matter of expression. Look WAY back, I often apologize for this. 

In common speech you'd hear the inflection. 



> It is possible Bonds put on 20-40 pounds of muscle, but yes, it is probably unlikely.


Very.




> But why is it possible then? Could it be because he is a professional athlete?


That is the main reason I would think that this is NOT the reason. But, I could be wrong. 

All baseball players I know have VERY similar weight routines. Bulk is not the desired after-effect.

Bonds has not had a frame to support mass from his younger days. Some people have the natural propensity to bulk up. I am one of them. I used to not be able to lift certain reps heavily because I'd balloon. 

Naturally, I have a large frame. 

Bonds is on the opposite end. He has always shown the propensity towards being lean. I don't think he switched that much late in his life.



> As a professional athlete, I'm sure Bonds knows his fare share of weight-lifting techniques to put on 20-40 pounds of muscle, even at the age of 38 or 39. If you agree that it is possible that Bonds added 20-40 pounds of muscle as he got older, then there is nothing to argue about.


Most "professional" atheletes are weight room dumb. I wish I could provide you with a copy of the "Athletic Manuals" I used to get with teams. They were funny. 

Things like just because you work out doesn't mean you can eat McDonalds are all in there. 

Just because you dedicate your life to a sport doesn't mean you are a fitness guru. Typically, we only know what we are required to know. 

Bonds may be an exception though. He might know how to bulk up. But, I just highly doubt it. 

Sheffield on the other hand. I could believe him to be natural. 

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Breaking news: Barry Bonds has been taking steroids!*



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> This suprises you?
> ...


Have you ever heard what this guy's off season workout consists of? He LIVES in the weight room. Two sessions per day, four hours per session. All winter long.

Normal guys don't put on 40 lbs of muscle over 10 years...but normal guys don't hit the weights like Barry Bonds has.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Bonds dropping on thirty pounds of muscle on a frame that was rail thin (Ken Griffey like) is highly unlikely.


Have you been watching baseball the last decade and a half? Bonds was "rail thin" when he *entered* the league. He increased his frame far beyond Ken Griffey Jr's even before this late-age muscle mass spurt.

In 1997-98, he was big and cut. He was not a wirey, willowly player like a Griffey Jr.

So, he didn't "drop thirty pounds of muscle on a frame that was rail thin." He took a powerful frame and built it up to nearly mild body builder levels.

And yet, his prodigous size is not the reason Bonds has been "all-time great" brilliant the last few seasons. His greatness has come from having the best eye in baseball and thus refusing to swing at a bad pitch, having the quickest, shortest swing in baseball and making contact with frightening ease.

Steroids aren't proven to have any effects that would improve those three things. *If* he's taken steroids, the payoff has been homeruns going even further and looking more impressive.

Not his greatness.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Have you been watching baseball the last decade and a half? Bonds was "rail thin" when he *entered* the league. He increased his frame far beyond Ken Griffey Jr's even before this late-age muscle mass spurt.
> ...


Also adding muscle might slow down a batters swing and on top of that cause/risk more injury. Remember the year Juan Gonzalez bulked up and proceeded to accomplish nothing that year?

Good point about Barry.

-Petey


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why is Bush wasting his time with this crap? Why doesn't he talk about the ****ty economy and troops all over the world? 

Bush is such a joke. :upset:


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Why is Bush wasting his time with this crap? Why doesn't he talk about the ****ty economy and troops all over the world?
> 
> Bush is such a joke. :upset:


Baseball is still america's national past time no matter how much people think otherwise. Baseball has 2x more games then the next major sport (NBA), so it is watched by more people per year in person and in their homes. For alot of people it's their release and life's passion/enjoyment. Have you ever read the stories about the 80 year olds at the game, doing this and that? That is why he is commenting about it. It's about the US as much as the economy or any other topic.

-Petey


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

They gotta stop taking steroids so that the American viewers don't see veins popping out on their new mandatory High Definition Television sets...

Thanks big brother!


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> Why is Bush wasting his time with this crap? Why doesn't he talk about the ****ty economy and troops all over the world?
> 
> Bush is such a joke.


1. What did that have to do with Barry Bonds?

2. Our economy was going through a down-turn when Bush took office. (And it always goes up and down.) We as a nation suffered the most horrific attack on our own soil that we've ever faced -aimed at our economic foundation- and yet our economy has been improving! That is a testament to the greatness of our nation. What more do you expect?? What is Bush "talking" about it supposed to accomplish? Maybe he should pull rabbits out of hats and turn lead into gold.

3. The world needs our troops. I'm proud that we have the courage to go out and make the world a better place.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Have you ever heard what this guy's off season workout consists of? He LIVES in the weight room. Two sessions per day, four hours per session. All winter long."


8 hours a day lifting weights? I have a very hard time believing that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Clank</b>!
> 
> 
> 1. What did that have to do with Barry Bonds?
> ...


Keep telling yourself that. I also don't see a plethora of jobs in retail as an improving economy. I don't want to really take this off-topic, but the fact that the federal gov't would step in is ridiculous. How about finally stopping the C.I.A. from distributing drugs on our streets like Heroin and Cocaine? That would be a better start than freaking B.A.L.C.O. Can't upset the cash cow can they? :no:


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

I'd believe it. I don't remember those exact numbers, but I've read in newspapers, sports mags and bodybuilding mags about his workout routine. The guy's a freak. All he does is work on his body or his game.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that. I also don't see a plethora of jobs in retail as an improving economy. I don't want to really take this off-topic, but the fact that the federal gov't would step in is ridiculous. How about finally stopping the C.I.A. from distributing drugs on our streets like Heroin and Cocaine? That would be a better start than freaking B.A.L.C.O. Can't upset the cash cow can they? :no:


Nah, I can see you have no intention of going off topic. I'm sure there's some huge conspiracy, the CIA was ordered by Bush to make little Sally from two houses down into a crank fiend. The dang flouride in the water was Bush's fault and the aliens are using it to control our minds!! etc etc blah blah.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> How about finally stopping the C.I.A. from distributing drugs on our streets like Heroin and Cocaine? That would be a better start than freaking B.A.L.C.O. Can't upset the cash cow can they? :no:


Um. Yeah.

I've unfortunately never seen a street named Heroin or Cocaine. Maybe I don't get out enough?

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I have no idea whether Bonds uses steroids or only semi-legal supplements (as McGwire did). I would offer up a couple of points.

First, Roids do not improve batting eye, or hand-to-eye coordination. Bond's OBA has always been at least as impressive as his power. 

Second, as one wag on ESPN pointed out, Bonds is almost *exactly* the same size as Brett Farve. Farve is noticably less slender then when he came into the league. Does this prove that Farve is on Roids?


If I was looking for "proof" someone was on Roids, I would look at a guy like Juan Gonzalez or Rueben Sierra who bulked up and then became highly injury prone.

:twocents:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

LOL...How pathetic....Sure, Bush is to blame for ALL of the ills in society today. :uhoh: Really...how pathetic....


Watching Democrats\Liberals wriggle, squirm and vent in frustration over Bush being president is hilarious. Too bad so many infest these boards :sour:


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

What's funny to me is just how slimy all politicians are and how we'd die or send our kids to die in a foreign land for a leader that most wouldn't buy a car from.

The difference between the parties is really not very much anymore. They all answer to the PAC and Special Interests Groups first and you the voter a distant 14th if you're lucky.

This years election is just another sad volume in the apathy called American Politics.

In one corner you have W, JR or whatever you want to call him;
an ex coke head drunk driving son of a president, who's in way over his head:

VS:

Kerry a career politician who's spent his life sucking up to the biggest checkbook he could find both professionally and personally.


Then we wonder why America doesn't vote? 


It's like picking between the Hawks and Wiz, no one really cares, cause neither will make a real impact ever.

Back to Roids, something maybe we can solve! Going on a hunt for the past makes no sense to me. Sure many players in all sports have tasted the juice we all know that, so as of today make it law that if you test positive for juice you're done. No suspensions, therapy or anything else. Game over and you're contract is waived. That will stop this craze dead in it's tracks.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> 8 hours a day lifting weights? I have a very hard time believing that.


working out, not just lifting weights. I've heard Bonds claim this on Rick Barry's local radio show. Thats been repeated by many folks who claim to have seen him go through his daily routine including the Giant's GM Brian Sabean and other players like Gary Sheffield who've trained with him. Sabean claims that the club doesn't even try to contact him during the day during the offseason, because he's always with his trainer (Anderson)doing his workouts. 

btw, you seem to REALLY dislike BB and hope that this speculation is true... just curious, why?

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> What I am pointing at is that an athlete does not change the way they train. Pounds of muscle and the training involved to become that way would be a detriment to a baseball player. What you are saying is Bonds stepped away from baseball training and explored football workouts. I just don't buy it.


An athlete doesn't change the way they train??? Whaaah? In BB's baseball career, the methods/science of training (nutrition, weight lifting, equiptment, and techniques) have advanced considerably. How can you claim to have been a pro athlete and not be aware that guys can sculpt their bodies towards speed or power through specific programs designed to enhance one trait over another? 

When Barry was entering the league, I doubt he was traveling with a personal nutritionist, trainer, and a chiropractor like he does now. Those professionals are with him to help him hone in on being the best he can be. That he's focused on being a power player rather then a speed guy, isn't surprising considering that he's older and has had multiple surgeries on his knees, back, and elbow. He's stated that he doesn't want to expose his aging joints/body to the rigors of continuing to steal bases. After his historic season clubbing 73, he said that he was going to tone down the power training and carry less weight to hopefully stay healthier during the year. So the next year he came back a bit leaner and won the batting title, the oldest guy ever to do that. 

I hope that the best player of his generation (by far) didn't resort to taking steroids to boost his achievements, but then again I would hope that no player does this and thats obviously not the case. Is there anything that he can do that could prove definitively that he didn't?

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> 
> 
> Also adding muscle might slow down a batters swing and on top of that cause/risk more injury. Remember the year Juan Gonzalez bulked up and proceeded to accomplish nothing that year?
> ...


Thanks. Yeah, I think the net effect of steroids, if Bonds did take them, was to weaken his fielding and base-running (both of which were stellar earlier in his career) and add distance to his home runs.

Beyond that, I think steroids are fairly irrelevant to what he accomplished.

It would be a shame that he took them and opened himself up to this kind of debate, but it wouldn't invalidate his impressive seasons to me.


----------



## Trailbeaver (May 30, 2003)

So how come any time a Blazer gets caught smoking weed ther is a huge uproar on this board yet when these baseball players get caught doping (allegedly) people are saying that it doesn't really bother them?

Furthermore the arguement that taking roids isn't really going to help you out much is ridiculous. Saying that it will only make his homers go from 450 to 475 is a joke. Yes the roids probably did make his homers go an extra 25 feet, what then is the result of his homers that go 330 if he doesn't have the extra length? That's right, that's called an F-9.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trailbeaver</b>!
> So how come any time a Blazer gets caught smoking weed ther is a huge uproar on this board yet when these baseball players get caught doping (allegedly) people are saying that it doesn't really bother them?
> 
> Furthermore the arguement that taking roids isn't really going to help you out much is ridiculous. Saying that it will only make his homers go from 450 to 475 is a joke. Yes the roids probably did make his homers go an extra 25 feet, what then is the result of his homers that go 330 if he doesn't have the extra length? That's right, that's called an F-9.


First of all, the Blazers were caught numerous times. It was an additive problem. The first time somebody got caught with weed nobody even blinked. Who was the first? I can't even recall, can you? Evidently it wasn't a big problem back then. Hell, the first few times nobody cared. It was only recently that it became a big problem, because it got out of hand with a guy getting busted every couple months for something. 

Second, these are still just allegations. Innocent until provem guilty.

Those are big differences in my opinion.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Furthermore the arguement that taking roids isn't really going to help you out much is ridiculous. Saying that it will only make his homers go from 450 to 475 is a joke. Yes the roids probably did make his homers go an extra 25 feet, what then is the result of his homers that go 330 if he doesn't have the extra length? That's right, that's called an F-9.


Excellent point. That extra 25 feet could mean the difference between a double and a home run. To suggest that taking steroids wouldn't make any meaningful difference is ludicrous.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> you seem to REALLY dislike BB and hope that this speculation is true... just curious, why?


I don't dislike Barry Bonds. I dislike anyone who cheats. Taking steroids is cheating.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Excellent point. That extra 25 feet could mean the difference between a double and a home run. To suggest that taking steroids wouldn't make any meaningful difference is ludicrous.


An extra 25 feet would be a huge advantage to most players, but not so much to Bonds. Barry doesn't often hit a pop fly that you think just might be able to make it. Most of the time when he swings, you know it's gone.

-----

As far as the moral high horse over steroids: Does anyone really know the difference between legal supplements and evil 'roids? It's not very big. Check out a bodybuilding magazine. Half of it will be advertisements for tons of different products. Is it cheating to use them?? A couple months ago you would have found ten to twenty ephedra product adds. Now it's illegal. As soon as something is banned, some other research brings along another product. It's not a black and white, good and bad issue. So please don't try to compare it to mind-altering narcotics.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't dislike Barry Bonds. I dislike anyone who cheats. Taking steroids is cheating.


I agree with that. IMO steroid use taken strictly for the purpose of perfomance enhancement would be very condemnable. There could be some wiggle room in my eyes if they were taken for some of the other reasons that steroids are taken... for instance... I've taken Prednisone (sp?) almost every spring to get over my yearly bout of poison oak. I get it just from the pollen in the air.

I guess I got my impression from your seeming readiness to discount his achievements on this vague report and the exclaimation mark in the topic thread. Whatever... we're good  

STOMP


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

Why would someone "receive but not take steroids?" That would eliminate the purpose of him receiving them. They took those roids. I agree with everything STOMP said.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

woops


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trailbeaver</b>!
> So how come any time a Blazer gets caught smoking weed ther is a huge uproar on this board yet when these baseball players get caught doping (allegedly) people are saying that it doesn't really bother them?


Because we're all individuals. I was one of the individuals who *wasn't* in an uproar about a player smoking weed.

It would bother me that he felt the need to artificially enhance himself, I just don't feel it makes a huge difference to what he accomplished.

There's a difference between the two.



> Furthermore the arguement that taking roids isn't really going to help you out much is ridiculous. Saying that it will only make his homers go from 450 to 475 is a joke. Yes the roids probably did make his homers go an extra 25 feet, what then is the result of his homers that go 330 if he doesn't have the extra length? That's right, that's called an F-9.


Yes, so he probably would have lost some homers. Maybe he wouldn't have set the record. But a few homers lost wouldn't have significantly changed how amazing his seasons were.

Most of his homers, as I recall, were pretty much no doubt blasts. He rarely snuck one over.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Most of his homers, as I recall, were pretty much no doubt blasts. He rarely snuck one over.


I'm not a baseball expert, but It seems to me that the extra strength you get from steroids could make all kinds of things possible. I know that when I used to play, some days I just felt better than others, and that helped me to hit the ball harder, or throw it farther, or hit more jump shots, or whatever. I had a little "edge." Now, if Barry Bonds is taking steroids, he has that "edge" every single day. So he's always "up," and he's always feeling good, and he's more likely to hit a home run. A lot of this stuff is psychological, as well. If you think you have an advantage, you probably do. Barry Bonds has apparently been giving himself a drug-induced "edge" all this time. And that's wrong.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> I'm not a baseball expert, but It seems to me that the extra strength you get from steroids could make all kinds of things possible. I know that when I used to play, some days I just felt better than others, and that helped me to hit the ball harder, or throw it farther, or hit more jump shots, or whatever. I had a little "edge." Now, if Barry Bonds is taking steroids, he has that "edge" every single day. So he's always "up," and he's always feeling good, and he's more likely to hit a home run. A lot of this stuff is psychological, as well. If you think you have an advantage, you probably do. Barry Bonds has apparently been giving himself a drug-induced "edge" all this time. And that's wrong.


I think trying to make up a psychological edge from steroids to discount what he's done would be tragic.

You could also make up more effects...his great physique scared opposing pitchers into throwing worse pitches or some such stuff.

Taking steroids doesn't make you "feel" better, nor does it even have positive effect unless you *also* work incredibly hard while taking. If Bonds felt any good feeling, it was from all the hard work. That "good feeling" is called endorphines. I've never read any literature that steriods act as a constant endorphine flow or as a "never-ending Red Bull." So I don't think he had that sparkle that you say made you perform better.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not a baseball expert, but It seems to me that the extra strength you get from steroids could make all kinds of things possible. I know that when I used to play, some days I just felt better than others, and that helped me to hit the ball harder, or throw it farther, or hit more jump shots, or whatever. I had a little "edge." Now, if Barry Bonds is taking steroids, he has that "edge" every single day. So he's always "up," and he's always feeling good, and he's more likely to hit a home run. A lot of this stuff is psychological, as well. If you think you have an advantage, you probably do. Barry Bonds has apparently been giving himself a drug-induced "edge" all this time. And that's wrong.


Have you ever heard Bonds speak like 6 years ago? He already has that mental high and edge. 

-Petey


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Clank</b>!
> actually, the peak age for bodybuilders is late 30's
> 
> Any bodybuilder knows that, yes, you can put on 20-40 pounds in your 30's.


Yes, and all those freakisly huge body builders are on steriods. LOL! :laugh: That's common knowledge and kind of proves the point on Bonds.

Ever see an All-Natural body building competition? They are about half the size. Most men would peak in terms of muscle mass in their late 20's...early 30's max.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

1. Remember, most baseball writers have hated Barry Bonds and his arrogant attitude for more than a decade so anything that can discredit his accomplishments would be a wet dream for most of them.

2. Barry Bonds had one season that was, for his career, out of wack when he hit 73. Other than that season, his numbers have been pretty consistent.

3. Back to the sports writers, why are they so quick to believe an unsubstantiated report from some anonymous source more then Barry Bonds?

Heck, has anyone seen the difference in Orlando Shaq and MVP Shaq? Is Shaq on steroids?


----------



## Trailbeaver (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Clank</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the moral high horse over steroids: Does anyone really know the difference between legal supplements and evil 'roids? It's not very big. Check out a bodybuilding magazine. Half of it will be advertisements for tons of different products. Is it cheating to use them?? A couple months ago you would have found ten to twenty ephedra product adds. Now it's illegal. As soon as something is banned, some other research brings along another product. It's not a black and white, good and bad issue. So please don't try to compare it to mind-altering narcotics.


I agree with you on the fact that there is a very fine line between what is considered a steroid and what is just an enhancer. That line is also constanltly shifting one way or the other.
.....But, you make it sound as if drugs that alter you physically are more acceptable than drugs that alter you mentally.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 3. Back to the sports writers, why are they so quick to believe an unsubstantiated report from some anonymous source more then Barry Bonds?


Because without this anonomous source spilling the beans, they'd have to put real news on the top of the Chronicle. 

Whats going to sell more papers in the Bay Area? Barry Bonds took steroids according to an unnamed source (Pete Vescey?)... or... 117 Shiites in Iraq killed in bombings... or... another day of running pictures/stories of people being slaughtered in the streets of Haiti? It's sensational bleep journalism from a newspaper that does it daily... putting stock into their established song and dance is on the reader.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Back to the sports writers, why are they so quick to believe an unsubstantiated report from some anonymous source more then Barry Bonds?"


If Barry Bonds is taking steroids, he's not going to tell some sportswriter. And if asked about it, he's going to deny it. Why would a sports writer trust Barry Bonds' word on this, especially since he looks so beefed up? And especially since other players have already accused Bonds of using steroids?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Huh??? If Barry Bonds is taking steroids, he's not going to tell some sportswriter. And if asked about it, he's going to deny it.


Right TH  BB's on record emphatically denying taking steroids. His lawyers have stated that very clearly as well. BB knows whether he took them or not. If he did, he's likely very much aware if anyone associated with him (like Anderson) has spilled the beans on him. An annonomous source (always a collumnist's best friend), supposively stated otherwise. This source (the collumnist himself?) is not going on record likely because they'd be served a lawsuit the next day, but they'd win that suit if the evidence they claim to be privy to is really there.

If BB is proven to have taken human growth hormone (and the like) by the fed's evidence, BB will be branded a liar and all of his accomplishments will likely be largely discredited. That day will come soon enough if there is evidence of it. 

Tough choice for fans... innocent until proven guilty or until smeared by someone without the guts to let you know who they are?

TH- You've stated in the past it's more fun to presume the worst about some athletes. To me thats unfair to them as human beings living in public eye. It's certainly not why I pay attention to sports.

STOMP


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Trailbeaver</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you on the fact that there is a very fine line between what is considered a steroid and what is just an enhancer. That line is also constanltly shifting one way or the other.
> .....But, you make it sound as if drugs that alter you physically are more acceptable than drugs that alter you mentally.


That's how I'm hoping to sound. I wouldn't say "acceptable". Our laws need to be followed. If anyone, including Barry Bonds, abuses a substance that is illegal, they should pay the price required by the law. However, there is a HUGE difference between drugs that enhance your physique and those alter your mind.

Steroids:

Will hurt your body. Can give money to bad companies like BALCO. In some cases, will give you an unfair advantage in a game.

Mind-altering drugs:

Will hurt your body. Will destroy your mind. Will probably hurt your family, friends, and whatever poor random person who happens to get in your way while you're altered (i.e. When you drive, work, or rob the local 7-11 etc.) Will give money to an economic system which stretches from the scumbag dealer down the corner all the way to the cartels in countries around the world. These cartels become so powerful that they are untouchable by their governments, and are able to rape/steal/murder at their whim.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm not going to take sports writers or the players opinions on this matter cause both have motives; but I will take the word of a man who is the all time home run hitter and Hank smells something wrong here.

I'd say Hank has seen his fair share of great pitchers and when he said he witnessed an all star home run hitting contest that had Maguire, Bonds and Sosa, he knew these guys had some extra help blasting balls 20 yards further than anything he ever swatted away.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hank has also stated that he knows BB is clean. While that may or may not be proven to be true (BB being clean), here's a link to today's SFGATE the website of the Chronicle that just might get a reaction from Blazer fans... http://sfgate.com/

STOMP


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> I'm not going to take sports writers or the players opinions on this matter cause both have motives; but I will take the word of a man who is the all time home run hitter and Hank smells something wrong here.
> 
> I'd say Hank has seen his fair share of great pitchers and when he said he witnessed an all star home run hitting contest that had Maguire, Bonds and Sosa, he knew these guys had some extra help blasting balls 20 yards further than anything he ever swatted away.


Ok, but consider this. Hank probably didn't have a whole entourage of professional fitness experts, nutritionists, chiropractors, weight trainers, yoga gurus, accupuncturists etc etc. Nor did he have the last 30 years worth of scientific study in strength training. He didn't get to use a computer that analyzed each millisecond of his swing and mathmatically determined power-draining flaws so he could fix them.

Even if every player in the league was juiced, it would only be a small reason for why the players have taken the game to a new level.

I'd like to believe it's not true, but it is possilbe that Aaron has a motive for saying that. Would you like to see guys playing who could take away your record? 

Hank is great, but don't pass judgment based on what he "smells".


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm listening to Rick Barry's noon to 3 Bay Area sports talk show right now. ESPN's John Clayton is talking about the 49ers and Raiders situations. On the 9ers recent decision to release Jeff Garcia for cap purposes, he said it was made considerably easier by backup Tim Rattay's good showings last season, and that former Miami Hurricane QB Ken Dorsey has been able to put *40 pounds* of solid muscle onto his once frail frame and is now able to lazer the ball all over the field.

Rick on the steroid issue is ademently defending the modern player's ability to put on good weight legitamately, siting the transformations he's seen his sons go through without the use of artificial enhancers. His upcoming guest is none other then Andy Van Slyke... you can tune into his show on the web if you punch in KNBR into google.

STOMP


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Clank, what I should take seriously is a bunch of ball players with sales to and from a known steroid outfit? 

It would be one thing if these guys were on the mailing list, but that's not what's going on here, these players are making purchases and they've come back to bite them in the ***. 

Stomp? As for Dorsey who's put on 40 pounds of muscle in a year, I have to say BS! Either he hasn't really gained that much weight, or he is using something that's put on the wrong type of weight as in bulk weight. IF however he's cut and gained 40, he using something the guys above are. 40 pounds of muscle is just to much in 1 year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> Stomp? As for Dorsey who's put on 40 pounds of muscle in a year, I have to say BS! Either he hasn't really gained that much weight, or he is using something that's put on the wrong type of weight as in bulk weight. IF however he's cut and gained 40, he using something the guys above are. 40 pounds of muscle is just to much in 1 year.


It's difficult, not impossible. 40 pounds in one off-season might be stretch, but in a year...it's possible without steroids.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Stomp? As for Dorsey who's put on 40 pounds of muscle in a year, I have to say BS! Either he hasn't really gained that much weight, or he is using something that's put on the wrong type of weight as in bulk weight. IF however he's cut and gained 40, he using something the guys above are. 40 pounds of muscle is just to much in 1 year.


Right on the money Terrible. 40 pounds of muscle is major BS in one year.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel? Ken was a twig in Miami and his coaches used to laugh about it cause they said he ate like a horse. Coker used to comment on how many hamburgers Ken could eat and never gain a pound. 

Now in one year he's gained 40 pounds of muscle? HELLLLL NO!


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Clank, what I should take seriously is a bunch of ball players with sales to and from a known steroid outfit?
> 
> It would be one thing if these guys were on the mailing list, but that's not what's going on here, these players are making purchases and they've come back to bite them in the ***.


Yeah, sure. Go with that. 

"BALCO: We specialize in all your steroid needs!!"

"BALCO: We make 'roids... only 'roids"

I'm sure they have no other legitimate products. I went into an AM/PM today, so go ahead and tell me I'm an alcoholic. 

Here's something I found interesting in the paper today. THG, the substance that these guys supposedly received, is illegal to sell, but not to use. But you know, let's crucify Barry in the streets and strip his records anyways.

Another funny thing: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=thennow/cards


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel? Ken was a twig in Miami and his coaches used to laugh about it cause they said he ate like a horse. Coker used to comment on how many hamburgers Ken could eat and never gain a pound.
> 
> Now in one year he's gained 40 pounds of muscle? HELLLLL NO!


Holy crap! Millions of dollars in scientific study; People who spend their whole lives to learn about human performance; Professional athletes who's only job is too improve their skills and their bodies, and who devote rediculous amounts of time to it, and still people can't believe a guy can put on weight! Of course it's possible!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Clank, the point that you're missing and many others are as well is this, these drugs whether THG, Ephedra or your run of the mill Mr. Ed specials are very dangerous. 

These drugs kill and cause major health problems. Cancer, stroke, high blood pressure to name a few. These players in all sports make a ton of money, if getting the edge could cost them their lives, is it good for their sport, their team or most importantly them?

These drugs need to be banned before we see one of these guys have a freaking stroke right on TV!


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Clank, the point that you're missing and many others are as well is this, these drugs whether THG, Ephedra or your run of the mill Mr. Ed specials are very dangerous.
> 
> These drugs kill and cause major health problems. Cancer, stroke, high blood pressure to name a few. These players in all sports make a ton of money, if getting the edge could cost them their lives, is it good for their sport, their team or most importantly them?
> ...


I would completely agree. However, I can't find fault in a guy using something to improve himself before it's banned. Before being banned, all these products were marketed as "Safe and Effective!". Let's not treat these guys like criminals for working hard to be better.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Clank you are just wrong here! Some people can gain muscle easier than others and Dorsey is not one of them. This is one of those guys that can clean out an all you can eat bar and then be starving two hours later and not gain a pound. 

You're telling me that Miami doesn't have a state of the art gym and slews of trainers? Think again, I live here and the Canes have it all. So Ken just decided not to get any bigger while being a Cane? He sure could have used that extra 40 pound when the Buckeyes were smacking him in the teeth in the national championship game don't ya think?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Miami is not as state of the art as various sports nutritional labs that do nothing but train athletes for exhorbitant costs.

The first thing the 49ers did after drafting him was clap him into one of those labs, in Phoenix...one of the best in the country, one that lots of A-list athletes use.

I know Miami is the best at everything to you, Terrible, but they're merely a top college football program...they're not the leading edge of sports training research.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Clank you are just wrong here! Some people can gain muscle easier than others and Dorsey is not one of them. This is one of those guys that can clean out an all you can eat bar and then be starving two hours later and not gain a pound.
> 
> You're telling me that Miami doesn't have a state of the art gym and slews of trainers? Think again, I live here and the Canes have it all. So Ken just decided not to get any bigger while being a Cane? He sure could have used that extra 40 pound when the Buckeyes were smacking him in the teeth in the national championship game don't ya think?


I may be wrong, but isn't it possible that maybe he just wasn't trying as hard then? He was able to lead his team to the national championship while being skinny, so maybe it was good enough to him. When you get to the professional level, it's not as easy to have the impact you did in college. When you've got multi-million dollar contract opportunities, wouldn't that be an incentive to try a lot harder? 

Plus there's a whole lot more science involved in weight gain/performance than making a second trip to the all-you-can-eat bar. 

So did he juice up or work hard? Who knows? I just think it's scientifically possible to see incredible results without steroids.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Clank, you do realize that all the drugs in question are not FDA approved and half aren't even tested? All natural means very little when you consider that pot, coke, shrooms and peyote are all natural as well.

Just because a drug is not on the banned list doesn't mean it can't hurt ya it just means it may not have been circulated enough yet. How many strokes happened before ephedra was yanked?


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Clank, I been weight training since I was 13 years old, I've played football at the highest college level and I can tell ya that 40 pounds of muscle in one year on a kid that has had a tough time gaining weight is pretty unrealistic. 

Yes there has been a lot of science and drugs on the market over the last 10 years to help but please note that red flags go up when you hear reports like that.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel I'm a Nole, the Canes are our worst rivals but they do have some great and knowledgeable people there to make your weight dreams come true if you want to take advantage of that service. Guess Ken had to find his muscle in the Bay.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

IMO, the most disturbing fact that we know about this scandle is that 5-7% of MLB players tested positive for steroids last season dispite being fully aware that they would be tested. It's pretty reasonable to presume that some players were smart enough to stop using prior to these tests to avoid coming up positive, or were using designer steroids that tests haven't been developed for yet. Suspentions are coming for the guilty. 

I hope/trust this issue will be seriously addressed by both the players and management in coming months/years. Guys shouldn't have to use to keep up with their peers. Hang out in front of a GNC the next time you're at a mall and you'll see most of the customers are teenagers. As I stated earlier in this thread... Team USA failed to qualify a baseball team for the Olympics this year because the best college players couldn't pass the drug tests. Hopefully the scorn that is heaped on the MLB players who are suspended this coming season makes an strong impression on the next generation.

Glad its not hoops.

STOMP


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> IMO, the most disturbing fact that we know about this scandle is that 5-7% of MLB players tested positive for steroids last season dispite being fully aware that they would be tested. It's pretty reasonable to presume that some players were smart enough to stop using prior to these tests to avoid coming up positive, or were using designer steroids that tests haven't been developed for yet. Suspentions are coming for the guilty.
> 
> STOMP


I read somewhere that a MISSED test counted as a failed test. I have no link, but did read a report a while back on the subject. A few players that wouldn't let themselves be named had deliberately missed tests (the report was implying they were pitchers) so that the mandatory testing of all players would be invoked.

So that could lower that 5-7% total some. Still...even one positive test is too many, and I'm sure that quite a few guys did test positive. 

Baseball is in pretty sad condition right now.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel I'm a Nole, the Canes are our worst rivals but they do have some great and knowledgeable people there to make your weight dreams come true if you want to take advantage of that service.


Yes, but as usual you ignored the points that you had no ability to refute.  Miami may have "knowledgeable people," but there are plenty of high-priced training centers that are far, far beyond a collegiate program's ability to train athletes.

And, as I said, Dorsey went to one in Phoenix, one of the best in the nation. Nothing the Miami Hurricanes could compete with. Sorry.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Clank, you do realize that all the drugs in question are not FDA approved and half aren't even tested? All natural means very little when you consider that pot, coke, shrooms and peyote are all natural as well.
> 
> Just because a drug is not on the banned list doesn't mean it can't hurt ya it just means it may not have been circulated enough yet. How many strokes happened before ephedra was yanked?


Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I only said they were advertised as "Safe and Effective". I didn't say I buy into it. But we don't go crying out about banning former ephedra users from baseball and disavowing the records they set, do we?

... well, only if it's Bonds.



> Clank, I been weight training since I was 13 years old, I've played football at the highest college level and I can tell ya that 40 pounds of muscle in one year on a kid that has had a tough time gaining weight is pretty unrealistic.
> 
> Yes there has been a lot of science and drugs on the market over the last 10 years to help but please note that red flags go up when you hear reports like that.


I try to research my own training. 
Yeah, it's unrealistic. Sure, it might set off red flags for some people. Does that mean we should jump on the guy and call him a drug user? If those results are possible (they are) then wouldn't it make sense that a professional athlete would be the one to beat the odds and pull it off?


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel have you been to the training facility in Phoenix? I'm not saying your wrong, but I'll bet top dollar you never set a foot in either location and once again your reciting some article you've read as law.

I've been into the Miami training facilities and it's not crap + they have a slew of top doctors at that teams beck and call.

Course Miami has only the most national championships of any team in the last two decades guess all that money went to the science lab huh?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel have you been to the training facility in Phoenix? I'm not saying your wrong, but I'll bet top dollar you never set a foot in either location and once again your reciting some article you've read as law.


Once again? What are you talking about? And I haven't set foot inside the Johns Hopkins medical school and the FSU medical school (if such a thing exists), but I know Johns Hopkins has the far superior medical school.

Of course you're not saying I'm wrong; you realize I'm correct but you're too stubborn to just let it go, so you bring up some irrelevant point about whether I've, personally, appraised both joints. 



> I've been into the Miami training facilities and it's not crap


Did I say it was crap? Or is this you once again inventing what I said to more easily argue?



> Course Miami has only the most national championships of any team in the last two decades guess all that money went to the science lab huh?


Uh yeah...that still doesn't give them the cash to research athlete training the way an organization who reaps hundreds of millions of dollars or more from A-list athlete clients can.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I'm not a baseball expert, but It seems to me that the extra strength you get from steroids could make all kinds of things possible. I know that when I used to play, some days I just felt better than others, and that helped me to hit the ball harder, or throw it farther, or hit more jump shots, or whatever. I had a little "edge." Now, if Barry Bonds is taking steroids, he has that "edge" every single day. So he's always "up," and he's always feeling good, and he's more likely to hit a home run. A lot of this stuff is psychological, as well. If you think you have an advantage, you probably do. Barry Bonds has apparently been giving himself a drug-induced "edge" all this time. And that's wrong.


:laugh: You're right, you're not a baseball expert. Or a steroid expert. 

By the way, Bonds is a racist too, even though he has a half-white kid, and he's a bad person unlike Sosa, even though Bonds is happily married with kids, and Sosa is a wife beater. Kirby Puckett was too. And if we're going to convict Bonds anyway, what the hell, why don't we kick Gaylord Perry and ****** Ford out of the Hall, and ban Sosa from it because he corked his bat. Let's also boot Orlando Cepeda and Fergie Jenkins out because they were associated with drugs and drugs are bad. Cobb was a racist and there accounts of him attempting to kill a black man, so he's out too. Oh and George Brett cheated also, and Mantle was a drunk. Marichal beat a man over the head with a bat; can't have him in either. And, what the hell, as long as we're cleaning house, let's kick out DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Rogers Hornsby and Reggie Jackson for being jerks.

Yeah, much better. HAIL BABE RUTH. 714 FOREVER. AND EVER. AND EVER.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Clank</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure. Go with that.
> ...


Bonds hasn't endorsed too many products... but he adamantly endorsed Balco suppliments for the last few years. It would seem to me to be unbelievably brazen of him to be very publicly backing a company that he's getting roids from under the table. I know he's supposively a jerk and all, but that would be pretty over the top.

STOMP


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wiggum</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: You're right, you're not a baseball expert. Or a steroid expert.
> ...


I don't care for Sosa at all, good call Wiggum.

-Petey


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel, The point is you've never been to any of the places your talking about and just because a company sticks 100 mill into something doesn't mean it's a winner, check the Blazers over the last few years. Guess because Allen spent so much we should have the very best team?

Isn't that what you saying, money makes it better?

The point of the debate is that Ken put on 40 pounds of muscle in a year I think that's a huge stretch. You can only work out so much before you tear more muscle down that you build up, there's only so much protein your body can absorb. Your body has to rest and recover from heavy days in the gym and that's why ya just don't balloon up 40 pounds in that short amount of time. True growth goes in stages, unhealthy growth goes 40 pounds in a year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel, The point is you've never been to any of the places your talking about and just because a company sticks 100 mill into something doesn't mean it's a winner, check the Blazers over the last few years. Guess because Allen spent so much we should have the very best team?


Comparing the Blazers to something in the economy at large isn't valid. the Blazers *would* very likely be the best if they were allowed to spend money as they wished. However, there's a limit to pure Capitalism in the NBA and it's called a salary cap. That prevents Allen from leveraging his huge money into a major advantage.

A corporation has no salary cap.



> Isn't that what you saying, money makes it better?


By and large, when it comes to a capitalistic economy. Not always. But there are highly-regarded such research labs and ones that aren't so highly-regarded. In addition, the fact that some have a fantastic customer base and others do not also indicates which ones are the best.



> The point of the debate is that Ken put on 40 pounds of muscle in a year I think that's a huge stretch. You can only work out so much before you tear more muscle down that you build up, there's only so much protein your body can absorb. Your body has to rest and recover from heavy days in the gym and that's why ya just don't balloon up 40 pounds in that short amount of time. True growth goes in stages, unhealthy growth goes 40 pounds in a year.


I know how muscle building works. And you're drawing an arbitrary line as to what can be done healthily and what can't. Besides, who said he did it terribly healthily? A lot of athletes work out more than doctors would say is wise, at least for a normal person.

40 pounds of lean muscle mass is extremely hard, but not at all impossible, naturally. Dorsey has a lot more incentive to do it now then he did at Miami. In Miami, in college, he was successful as he was. Now, his entire NFL career rides on him being more powerful. That's incentive to work a lot harder than he did in Miami.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

We are not talking about 40 pounds over three years, we're talking about a year and maybe a half. 

So by your own account this world class sports training facility would allow Ken to put on 40 pounds of unsafe muscle in a hurry? Guess the 49ers would love to know that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> So by your own account this world class sports training facility would allow Ken to put on 40 pounds of unsafe muscle in a hurry?


Unsafe for most people. The regimens that most pro athletes go through would be far too much for any normal person to do healthily.

Comparing what *you* can do healthily isn't too relevant.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel, as always your applying a broad theory to a specific case which can get ya burned. If Ken were say Vick who benches 380 and squats 610 than I might be more inclined to buy a "20" pound weight increase of muscle in a year. However that's just not the case here! Ken is a very skinny guy with a great head for the game. The reason he did so well at Miami is cause he had a semi pro offensive line that kept any and all things away from him, giving him enough time to find his amazing recievers and tide ends like Shockey and Winslow.

You make it seem that every pro player can go to one of these "TOP NOTCH TRAINING FACILTIES" and put on this type of weight! He's a QB Minstrel, not an O lineman! 40 pounds of good muscle on a skinny kid like that doesn't make sense. What about the fact that all this new muscle in that short amount of time could have put massive stress on his joints which infact could destroy his passing accuracy and release time, cause you know muscle is a lot heavier than fat? 


You are forgetting his specific natural genetics to make your arguement, which makes no sense to me. This is a skinny man who ate like a horse in college and couldn't gain the "wrong" type of weight in fat! So Minstrel you being the body builder you are, it must make sense to you how much harder it is to gain lean muscle weight right? 

So in four years of high carbs in college Ken gained nothing not even fat weight, he now has been able to gain 40 pounds of lean much harder muscle in a year. Go figure! Let me tell ya something Minstrel, those are the kind of stats that put roid use in question.

That is excatly why this debate is going on!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Minstrel, as always your applying a broad theory to a specific case which can get ya burned.


Of course I am. Because all I'm arguing is that it's *possible* for him to do it. Not that he certainly *did* do it, naturally.

*You* are the one making absolute claims, saying it's impossible, removing the dynamics of individual differences.

Maybe Dorsey *did* take steroids, or maybe he didn't really add so much muscle. I wouldn't be shocked in either case.

All I've been arguing is that *if* he has put on 40 pounds of muscle in a year, working out harder than he ever has before at a top-line training facility...it doesn't mean he *definitely* took steroids.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Again, the 40 lbs comment was made by ESPN's John Clayton. I hardly take that as the bible truth of what he's put on weight wise in the last year plus. He's definitely bigger, which isn't that surprising as he is now capable of focusing soley on his sport with all the top training devices at his disposal. It's almost certain that like most pro athletes, he's taking suppliments... like all NFLers, he'll be tested for steroids this season.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I think this article warrents bumping this thread back up...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/8254723.htm

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

This link inside the first mercury news thread I just posted answeres some of the basic qusetions involved in this scandal.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/special_packages/doping_scandal/

STOMP


----------

