Trainer: Bonds Used Steroids in '03


Recommended Posts

No one has ever questioned his ability or questioned the fact that he's a good player.

Stereoids make you hit the ball further, not better.

Way way way too many people saying he did take them for me not to believe all this.  I talk to an 11-year MLB player every week.  He's seen what it does first hand.  He has no doubt Bonds is on the juice...or was.  Oh what.....he only hit 40+ home runs this year?  That's interesting.  For being at the top of his game, he sure has had a huge letdown in terms of HR.

584756879[/snapback]

Until there's ANY kind of proof, he's innocent. There is absolutely nothing about his game that even HINTS at him taking roids. He only hit 45 this year? How about we mention he was walked 230ish odd times this year. Starting in 2001, he has been walked 177, 198, 148, 232. That's insane. OR how about we mention he had NO ONE around him who could protect him. Or how about we mention he's been hitting upper 30s mid 40s in homeruns for the past 12 years. He had ONE rediculous year. Seriously, who didn't have a career year in hrs between 98 and 2001.

Why aren't we talking about Clemens or Randy Johnson taking steroids? They are both in the mid 40s...like Bonds. Both are playing as good as they ever have....like Bonds.

Until there's ANY kind of proof, he's innocent.  There is absolutely nothing about his game that even HINTS at him taking roids.  He only hit 45 this year?  How about we mention he was walked 230ish odd times this year.  Starting in 2001, he has been walked 177, 198, 148, 232.  That's insane.  OR how about we mention he had NO ONE around him who could protect him.  Or how about we mention he's been hitting upper 30s mid 40s in homeruns for the past 12 years.  He had ONE rediculous year.  Seriously, who didn't have a career year in hrs between 98 and 2001.

Why aren't we talking about Clemens or Randy Johnson taking steroids?  They are both in the mid 40s...like Bonds.  Both are playing as good as they ever have....like Bonds.

584759304[/snapback]

How is arguing his walks arguing in his case at all? :laugh:

Um, I have, I'm the one who started it.

Saying Bonds has a lot of walks does nothing to support his case. If anything, it nulls the entire thing. WALKS have NOTHING to do with if someone is taking steroids or not. Walks come from being feared... if you take steroids, you think you're going to be feared? I certainly think so.

Uh.... say again? You want steroid-enduced players to get fair treatment? I think not. If they can't play fair, why treat them fair?

584769651[/snapback]

Who are you to say they are on steroids? Can you provide us with legitimate evidence of this?

Who are you to say they are on steroids?  Can you provide us with legitimate evidence of this?

584770396[/snapback]

Did you even read my post? I never said anyone was on steroids in that post. I never even implied it or got remotely close. He stated that he wouldn't care if players used steroids and that they should be treated as an equal if they do, and I disagreed.

I believe he (Bonds) has done steroids. The evidence and claims certainly point in that direction, and they're just as much valid as any claim you can make that he doesn't/didn't use steroids. Yet none of that was even implied in the post you quoted.

Um, I have, I'm the one who started it.

Saying Bonds has a lot of walks does nothing to support his case. If anything, it nulls the entire thing. WALKS have NOTHING to do with if someone is taking steroids or not. Walks come from being feared... if you take steroids, you think you're going to be feared? I certainly think so.

584763707[/snapback]

Here's a big fat hint....read Boog's posts (Y)

I believe he (Bonds) has done steroids. The evidence and claims certainly point in that direction, and they're just as much valid as any claim you can make that he doesn't/didn't use steroids. Yet none of that was even implied in the post you quoted.

584770454[/snapback]

There is no evidence OR claims that hold any water. Here...let me write something in my blog that says Bond's didn't do steroids. Since you believe EVERYTHING and ANYONE that posts otherwise, why not mine? This guy or the SF Chronicle is no more reputable, especially given their sources, than what I'd write on my site.

Just a reliable?!? All you have to do is look at his career...how you can infer from his stat career that he's doing roids is beyond me. You're just looking for something...no, anything, that you can villify him with. It's a witch hunt.

Again I ask, why aren't people on Clemes or Johnson's back on this? There is just as much "proof" (older players doing VERY well) :rolleyes: as Bonds. Only the people around them can keep their secret better

Again I ask, why aren't people on Clemes or Johnson's back on this?  There is just as much "proof" (older players doing VERY well)  :rolleyes: as Bonds.  Only the people around them can keep their secret better

584770563[/snapback]

That's easy. They've both been playing like that their whole careers. Bonds never hits close to 50 home runs, and all of a sudden, he's hitting 70's and 60's home runs in his mid 30's.

Clemens and Johnson have been consistent in their entire careers.

Actually, players tend to get better as they age. Hell, Hank Aaron got better as he entered 40 years of age. Just because a player starts putting up numbers during their late 30's doesn't mean they're drugged.

Have you guys noticed that everyone is making a big deal of this and when McGwire admitted using them, no one really cared? Makes me think its just because Bonds is a colored player.

Actually, players tend to get better as they age.  Hell, Hank Aaron got better as he entered 40 years of age.  Just because a player starts putting up numbers during their late 30's doesn't mean they're drugged.

Have you guys noticed that everyone is making a big deal of this and when McGwire admitted using them, no one really cared?  Makes me think its just because Bonds is a colored player.

584774416[/snapback]

Nah, McGuire wasn't using a steroid it was a non-approved supplement (Androstenedione). Chemically different, close but not quite a steroid...

Also, if you check Aaron's stats toward the final seasons when he set the record, his production was way down.

Edited by armeck
There is no evidence OR  claims that hold any water.  Here...let me write something in my blog that says Bond's didn't do steroids.  Since you believe EVERYTHING and ANYONE that posts otherwise, why not mine?  This guy or the SF Chronicle is no more reputable, especially given their sources, than what I'd write on my site.

Just a reliable?!?  All you have to do is look at his career...how you can infer from his stat career that he's doing roids is beyond me.  You're just looking for something...no, anything, that you can villify him with.  It's a witch hunt.

Again I ask, why aren't people on Clemes or Johnson's back on this?  There is just as much "proof" (older players doing VERY well)  :rolleyes: as Bonds.  Only the people around them can keep their secret better

584770563[/snapback]

For one, were you ever Bonds's trainer? For some reason, I have to doubt your validity if you have never even talked to the man. Do you honestly believe that these are just random people saying these things? His trainer was caught on tape saying it. I have a hard time believing that someone would just make up hearing his trainer say that on a tape. So, tell me -- what makes you more important than his trainer? Do you know something of Bonds that we do not? And, last time I checked, his trainer wasn't just anyone.

Also, as for your "big fat hint". I read it. I've read every post in this entire thread. Being walked a plethora of times has absolutely nothing to do with if you take steroids or not -- what do you not get about that? It's an obvious statement. Him being walked a lot has absolutely NOTHING (NOTHING!) to do with him taking steroids or not taking him, so don't bother bringing up mute points.

And, as BOOG said, he hasn't had the consisentcy. Bonds has always been a good hitter and stealer, but he didn't start hitting massive (massive being the key word) amounts of home runs until recently. I don't know many people that are at their prime in the later years, especially when they haven't been doing anything near the feats they're doing now. I mean, sure, in track Michael Johnson seemed to get better as he got older, but he was still consistent.

And, as the previous post mentioned, McGwire never, ever admitted to taking steroids. He took supplements that are similar (but not as effective) as creatine -- something you can buy almost anywhere and (as far as my knowledge) isn't banned by any sport or league (including in High Schools). The substance McGwire took was only banned after he said he used it because people assumed that it was a major performance-enhancing drug. McGwire's pretty much always been a beast like that. Bonds has always had talent, but he's never been that strong.

Have you guys noticed that everyone is making a big deal of this and when McGwire admitted using them, no one really cared?  Makes me think its just because Bonds is a colored player.

584774416[/snapback]

Oh geez. It's not because he's black, it's because he's an ass, and McGwire is not.

And as was mentioned, Andro was not a steroid....plus admitting it gains you respect.

why is it a shame? these guys get payed retarded amounts of money for playing games.... why not let them destroy themselves if they so wish? make baseball full contact with swords and steroids and **** and maybe these guys will be earning their money :p

if you are looking for a clean, untainted version of the game... go play with your friends.

Wierd. Bonds is a good guy, he was cool when I met him in the Bahamas taking pictures with kids and signin sigs. Sheffield really hates him though so u never know, he said every1 thinks hes a bad guy cause he doesnt like attention and press, and i told him to just stop hittin dingers and hell get his wish. mwahaha... :( he didnt listen....

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I like the show more options. The only problem with it is that it's not always in a consistent spot in the menu. If the copy/paste/cut, happens to show on top, then more option is the last in the menu. But if copy/paste/cut happens to show on the bottom, then more options is before the copy/paste/cut. But I do like the more options because it hides the stuff that I rarely use. But I would like to choose what it is or isn't hiding. That would make it better.
    • I wonder if "put it back the way it was for decades" ever crossed their minds? 🤣
    • Rescind the stupid "Show more options" in context menus and just give us the full menu instead of adding more steps to get to what we want. The "simpler by default" makes me think they'll go in the opposite direction. Every context menu should have a configure button so you can pick and choose what options should be shown, I know you can do that with some registry fu but that shouldn't be required.
    • This is why competition must exist. Finally, pressure is mounting on Microsoft to move in the right direction.
    • Microsoft is making Windows 11's context menus faster, simpler, and configurable by Taras Buria Five years ago, Windows 11 introduced redesigned context menus, offering users a simpler, more modern design. However, customers quickly discovered that the new menus leave a lot to be desired. Many are unhappy with performance (they are really slow), while others dislike the double-layed design, where many options are hidden behind the "Show more options" button. In addition, over the years, menus became cluttered and overloaded. While Microsoft has already fixed plenty of pain points across Windows 11, context menus remain mostly unchanged. Fortunately, Microsoft is finally listening. Marcus Ash, Design and Research Lead for Windows at Microsoft, responded to a tweet on X, confirming that the company is working on fixing Windows 11's context menus. Reworked context menus are supposed to be faster, simpler by default, and "configurable to what you use most." What the latter means is unknown, just like whether Microsoft plans to keep the classic menu alongside the modern one, but according to Marcus, the wait should finally be over soon, as he promised to "share our approach soon." Improved context menus will most likely appear first in Windows 11 preview builds in the Experimental Channel. While we wait for Microsoft to release them, you can try fixing context menus on your PC with a simple tool called Windows 11 Context Menu Manager. It lets you disable entries you do not need, not only cleaning up context menus, but also making them significantly faster. Microsoft has already improved Windows 11's Start menu and taskbar, so hopefully it will address user criticism of the context menu as well. Stay tuned for new Windows 11 preview builds, which usually arrive every Friday.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      I2D earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Dr Jared Dental Studio earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      RG INVESTMENT GROUP earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Very Popular
      The Norwegian Drone Pilot earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Very Popular
      s0nic69 earned a badge
      Very Popular
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      468
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      64
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      61
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!