DOJ drops its case against Bonds

[Hangman]

So did david Ortiz use PEDs?

Clemens?

Both denied it. For Ortiz only "proof" is a list of players names who failed a drug test before it was inacted. it doesn't say why he failed. For all we know it could be something else banned or it did not happen. I notice that the names have stopped coming out in the NY Times. Why is that? Who is giving out those names and why should we believe him? The Times uses Liberal propaganda all the time to show their views. I can't believe anything they "report."

Clemens had someone say that they injected him with them. But again no convictions or proof. Both should go to the hall.

 

[msgkings322]

Both denied it. For Ortiz only "proof" is a list of players names who failed a drug test before it was inacted. it doesn't say why he failed. For all we know it could be something else banned or it did not happen. I notice that the names have stopped coming out in the NY Times. Why is that? Who is giving out those names and why should we believe him? The Times uses Liberal propaganda all the time to show their views. I can't believe anything they "report."

Clemens had someone say that they injected him with them. But again no convictions or proof. Both should go to the hall.

Clemens and Bonds both used, and they both belong in the Hall. 2 separate issues.

Again, you are taking the increasingly unhinged view that many used and weren't caught but none of those included Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, etc. Despite all the circumstantial evidence.

Take a breath and think about it.

 

[Hangman]

So until there's proof, no one used? You just said many used but weren't caught. Why couldn't Barry be one of them? Forget common sense, that's just illogical. Again: there are many who used who didn't get caught (your words). Bonds didn't get caught, but by the prior statement that means nothing as to whether or not he used. Because many who used never got caught.

To think Bonds is not one of the many who used but never got caught is really really Bonds homerish. And while it's your right to have that opinion, you won't convince many others. Including Giants fans like myself.

No, that is logic. Because common sense is wrong a lot. Using the scientific method and coming to concrete conclusions are logical.

Just watch some episodes of Brain games to see how often common sense is wrong. Or how something appears one way but is something else completely.

 

[msgkings322]

No, that is logic. Because common sense is wrong a lot. Using the scientific method and coming to concrete conclusions are logical.

Just watch some episodes of Brain games to see how often common sense is wrong. Or how something appears one way but is something else completely.

Again, address the final point here, which you are dodging because it hurts your case too much:

Are you telling me that among the players who used but did not get caught (your words), we cannot include Bonds, Clemens, or Ortiz? Simple yes or no.

 

[Hangman]

Clemens and Bonds both used, and they both belong in the Hall. 2 separate issues.

Again, you are taking the increasingly unhinged view that many used and weren't caught but none of those included Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, etc. Despite all the circumstantial evidence.

Take a breath and think about it.

That is not my position at all. My position is that many used and some were caught and some were accused. Being accused and backing up that accusation with proof is needed to keep someone out of the hall. Speculation is not proof. A 3rd party's word who is getting something out of it is not proof.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Both denied it. For Ortiz only "proof" is a list of players names who failed a drug test before it was inacted. it doesn't say why he failed. For all we know it could be something else banned or it did not happen. I notice that the names have stopped coming out in the NY Times. Why is that? Who is giving out those names and why should we believe him? The Times uses Liberal propaganda all the time to show their views. I can't believe anything they "report."

Clemens had someone say that they injected him with them. But again no convictions or proof. Both should go to the hall.

Im not talking about the hall.


So you say ortiz may have, and clemens may have...but bonds didn't?

There is far more circumstantial evidence on bonds than there is on clemens and Ortiz.

 

[msgkings322]

That is not my position at all. My position is that many used and some were caught and some were accused. Being accused and backing up that accusation with proof is needed to keep someone out of the hall. Speculation is not proof. A 3rd party's word who is getting something out of it is not proof.

I'm not talking about the Hall, I think Bonds and Clemens deserve to be in it even though I think they also used.

There is a set of players who used steroids but were never caught (your words). Are Bonds and Clemens in that set of players or not? The point being, they could have used and not been proven to. That doesn't mean they didn't use.

And again, both belong in the Hall, even as users.

 

[Hangman]

Again, address the final point here, which you are dodging because it hurts your case too much:

Are you telling me that among the players who used but did not get caught (your words), we cannot include Bonds, Clemens, or Ortiz? Simple yes or no.

I said that players who used and did not get caught should get into the hall. I also said that players who used and were accused but there is no proof should get into the hall. Hell if you used and got caught you should get into the hall too. It should be based on what was accomplished on the field. Just like the NFL. But writers don't see it that way.

My whole pretense of this whole thread was that there was nothing on Bonds. The Government gave up trying to find anything on him. He belongs in the hall.

 

[Hangman]

Im not talking about the hall.


So you say ortiz may have, and clemens may have...but bonds didn't?

I did not say that either. I said there is no evidence so to me they have not done steroids. They belong in the hall. Speculation is not proof. A NYTimes article is not proof.

 

[msgkings322]

I said that players who used and did not get caught should get into the hall. I also said that players who used and were accused but there is no proof should get into the hall. Hell if you used and got caught you should get into the hall too. It should be based on what was accomplished on the field. Just like the NFL. But writers don't see it that way.

My whole pretense of this whole thread was that there was nothing on Bonds. The Government gave up trying to find anything on him. He belongs in the hall.

AND WE KEEP SAYING ITS NOT ABOUT THE HALL OF FAME.

He deserves to get in.

Now then. In your opinion, no proof, did he or didn't he?

 

[Hangman]

I'm not talking about the Hall, I think Bonds and Clemens deserve to be in it even though I think they also used.

There is a set of players who used steroids but were never caught (your words). Are Bonds and Clemens in that set of players or not? The point being, they could have used and not been proven to. That doesn't mean they didn't use.

And again, both belong in the Hall, even as users.

You are asking me to speculate and I won't. They may have. But I have no proof that they did. So until there is actual proof they did not use. It is not hard to understand.

 

[Rock Strongo]

I did not say that either. I said there is no evidence so to me they have not done steroids. They belong in the hall. Speculation is not proof. A NYTimes article is not proof.

Do you know what circumstantial evidence is?

Im in a similar camp on Ortiz. No proof, links to any clinics (even circumstantially). Rumors about shakes and a confidential list for who onows what. Difference is...well...bonds had direct and indirect ties to balco. His body changed so dramatically you would have to be blind or naive not to connect the dots.

Ortiz has had nothing close to the level of suspicion and circumstantial evidence bonds had. He was never toed to anyone or anything, federal grand jury or not.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

When Kobe Bryant was the same age as Bonds was in that picture he could not do 1 bench press of 185lbs. He must have used steroids to get as strong as he is. That is your logic. People do work hard and people lift weights and improve themselves.

I'd bet Bryant juiced. Bonds did for sure.

I think Bonds should be in the HOF, though.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

That is a lie. Reread the grand jury testimony. He said he used flax seed oil and an arthritic balm. Someone on the panel said that sounds like the clear and cream. They asked him if his trainer ever gave him steroids and he said not knowingly. That means the trainer might not have known it was steroids. People twist words to fit their own need. Read it for what it is and don't listen to the bs the media puts out there.

Are you Barry Bonds' grandma?

 

[Hangman]

Just to let you know where I am coming from. Brady did not order any deflation of the footballs either. Again, there is no proof and the investigators misused data and testimony to get a desired results. May he have. Sure. But until it is proven then he didn't. Science proves the balls were just soft due to the cold weather. So there was no actual deflation.

Its like saying you are guilty of bank robbery and there actually was no robbery. Now serve 4 years in jail. And get fired from your job and lose your credibility.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Tom bradys "dr" wasnt popped by the DEA.

I'd bet Tom Brady is on steroids. Probably takes Viagra too.

 

[The Derski]

Why can't it be natural? It is over the course of over a decade. My body has changed in that time. Thinking that people don't work hard and can't improved themselves without cheating is ignorant.

Did the size of your head also double? Dude was on the juice. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Just stop.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Do you know what circumstantial evidence is?

Im in a similar camp on Ortiz. No proof, links to any clinics (even circumstantially). Rumors about shakes and a confidential list for who onows what. Difference is...well...bonds had direct and indirect ties to balco. His body changed so dramatically you would have to be blind or naive not to connect the dots.

Ortiz has had nothing close to the level of suspicion and circumstantial evidence bonds had. He was never toed to anyone or anything, federal grand jury or not.

Ortiz has mainlined stem cells freshly squoze from aborted feti.

 

[Hangman]

Did the size of your head also double? Dude was on the juice. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Just stop.

We already went over that. The Giants equipment manager who was his equipment manager long before he was thought to be on steroids said his hat and helmet size remained the same. All you have are pictures taken from different camera lenses and from different distances that make his head appear larger. And your eyes are lying to you.

 

[The Derski]

Sad part is if Bonds never injected he would still have gone down as one of the top 5 hitters ever. A lot of the players who roided needed to do it to stay relevant. Bonds didn't.