Barry Bonds Used Steriods


Recommended Posts

On top of that, he testified using, what he didn't know was steroids, only in 2003.  Show me how those steroids enhanced his season any.  Show me the terrible season he had when he came off the roids, like Giambi had.  Despite the steroid talk, the buy is clearly a great player, and it seems the roids didn't help him at all.

585032997[/snapback]

But he cheated. Plain and simple. He is tarnished. Whoever breaks Hank Aaron's record will not be Barry Bonds.

But he cheated.  Plain and simple.  He is tarnished.  Whoever breaks Hank Aaron's record will not be Barry Bonds.

585033900[/snapback]

He did? What did he do, throw the ball over the fence?

Considering everyone chasing Aaron's record broke at some point (Griffey, McGuire) and Bonds hasn't, and is a good overall hitter and can still run... I doubt he's been very juiced. IMO, we don't pay these guys insane salaries to watch them be mediocre.

lol at his quote

Bonds said that Anderson had so little money that he "lives in his car half the time." Asked by a juror why he didn't buy "a mansion" for his trainer, Bonds answered: "One, I'm black, and I'm keeping my money. And there's not too many rich black people in this world. There's more wealthy Asian people and Caucasian and white. And I ain't giving my money up."

;)

If you guys actually believe that he "didn't know" he was taking steroids then I have a beautiful piece of land in the everglades to sell you :)

How do you not notice that rapid gain in weight, strength, and an increase of two sizes in your baseball cap...I mean your head isn't supposed to grow any when your 35 years old :)

585032818[/snapback]

because I have never watch him seen him or know who he is. :woot:

He did? What did he do, throw the ball over the fence?

Considering everyone chasing Aaron's record broke at some point (Griffey, McGuire) and Bonds hasn't, and is a good overall hitter and can still run... I doubt he's been very juiced. IMO, we don't pay these guys insane salaries to watch them be mediocre.

585034410[/snapback]

You are kidding, right? He used steroids. That's cheating. Plain and simple. Performance enhancing drugs. Doesn't come any more simple than that.

"I doubt he's been very juiced" -- What a comment. You might as well say: "I doubt he cheated all the time" :rolleyes:

You are kidding, right?  He used steroids.  That's cheating.  Plain and simple.  Performance enhancing drugs.  Doesn't come any more simple than that.

"I doubt he's been very juiced" -- What a comment. You might as well say:  "I doubt he cheated all the time"&nbsp:rolleyes:s:

585034547[/snapback]

So you're going to go back a discredit every player who has ever done it? It's pointless. The drug questionably beneficial, and it puts most every hitter in the last 10 years in question.

Like I said, I don't blame them for taking it. The public expects players to keep getting better, otherwise they lose interest in the game. Bonds, juiced or not, is a great hitter. When he breaks Aaron's record, all the better for him. Maybe they will drop an * next to his name. Who cares. There should be one next to Ruth's as well, noting he got pitched softballs compared to todays game. There should be on next to Aaron's name saying he hit his final homers through a barrage of deaths

So you're going to go back a discredit every player who has ever done it? It's pointless. The drug questionably beneficial, and it puts most every hitter in the last 10 years in question.

Like I said, I don't blame them for taking it. The public expects players to keep getting better, otherwise they lose interest in the game. Bonds, juiced or not, is a great hitter. When he breaks Aaron's record, all the better for him. Maybe they will drop an * next to his name. Who cares. There should be one next to Ruth's as well, noting he got pitched softballs compared to todays game. There should be on next to Aaron's name saying he hit his final homers through a barrage of deaths

585034874[/snapback]

Consider the point missed completely.

Fine. Ruth hit softballs. He didn't cheat.

Fine. Aaron hit final homers through a barrage of deaths (whatever the heck that means). He didn't cheat.

Bonds cheated. That can never be debated.

Others do cheat. I don't debate that, and if they get caught, they should be punished as well, and their statistical integrity questioned.

Consider the point missed completely.

Fine.  Ruth hit softballs.  He didn't cheat.

Fine. Aaron hit final homers through a barrage of deaths (whatever the heck that means).  He didn't cheat.

Bonds cheated.  That can never be debated.

Others do cheat.  I don't debate that, and if they get caught, they should be punished as well, and their statistical integrity questioned.

585034920[/snapback]

My point was, different eras, different game. If Bonds was like many hitters of his generation, but wasn't approaching a record, no one would care. Notice how Sosa gets off the hook so much easier, even though statistically he's seen the same change as Bonds. You expect these hitters to be better, and then question their methods when they actually are good.

My point in comparing other hitters was that, if you want to compare them, give them equal credit for the homers they hit. Maybe Ruth would only hit 200 in todays game. Maybe Aaron deserves 1,000 for the pressure he was under. But are you going to say Bonds deserves none of the homeruns he hit? Or half? I still say, in todays game, he deserved every one he hit.

The fact ppl consider him a HOF'er after he admitted to using steroids, but the greatest hitter of all time is not a HOF'er cause of something he did, when he wasnt even a player is astounding. He should be forever tainted, and all his records should be noted as such.

If you cheat you cheat, period. Any creditability you have is gone.

yea you guys are right, he has hit a constant amount of homeruns for the past 10 or so years. except, his ab's have gone down for the most part. which means his homeruns per at bat has gone up. lets compare 1993 with 2002. same number of homeruns, 46. HOWEVER his abs 539 in 1993 with 403 in 2002. over a hundred less ab's yet the same amount of homeruns. what does that say there. so when most people are gettin older and weaker, he is getting larger and larger.

yea you guys are right, he has hit a constant amount of homeruns for the past 10 or so years. except, his ab's have gone down for the most part.  which means his homeruns per at bat has gone up.  lets compare 1993 with 2002.  same number of homeruns, 46.  HOWEVER his abs  539 in 1993 with 403 in 2002.  over a hundred less ab's yet the same amount of homeruns.  what does that say there.        so when most people are gettin older and weaker,  he is getting larger and larger.

585035462[/snapback]

Find the average HR/AB rate in 1993 and 2002 for all players. He's not alone.

yea but im sure his ratio is much greater then anyone elses.  even look at the year when he hit 45 homeruns and had like 371 ab's.  almost a 200 difference from 93

ill make anyone a 20 dollar bet that noone is close to that ratio

585035561[/snapback]

Bonds: 9098AB 703 HR 12.9 AB/HR

McGwire: 6187AB 583 HR 10.6 AB/HR

BOOG: I'm glad someone else see's it the way I do too.

585034614[/snapback]

Me too. I wasn't suprised when he started getting enormous. Seriously, look at pictures of him when he played for the Pirates and look at him now. He looks like he hit a super-growth spurt. Theres no way you go through that kind of physical change and not know something is up.

MLB says PEACE.

Bonds: 9098AB 703 HR 12.9 AB/HR

McGwire: 6187AB 583 HR 10.6 AB/HR

ok almost had a point there, BUT, im not talking career ratios. im talking season ratios. of one season to another. meaning, comparing ratio of amount of homeruns lets say 30 with ab's lets say 500. to the same player diff year. 30 homruns to 300 ab's. not career.

Thought this was worth posting again....

The year after barry hit 73 home runs he walked only 27 more times than he did the year before. The next? He walked 29 times less than his 'record' year. This year? 55 times more.

So...in his record breaking year, he hit 1 home run every 6.52 at bats. Next year? 1 per 8.76 at bats. 8.66 the next, and this year, 8.28.

As you can see, the walks have nothing to do with it.

Well bonds did cheat but neverthless he still will go down as the greatest...

As far as the walk numbers go who cares your right? Its more about the picthes he gets to hit all are mostly crap therefore the sports center focuses on the walk stat aka crap picthes which do matter.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It STILL has horrid theme support. Hard to look at for me. The white is too bright, and the black too dark. I'm using classic outlook for the Dark Grey theme. It's just right for me.
    • inb4 someone leaves the usual "what an unfortunate name" comment
    • Cuktech 10 Ultra charger review: big display, four ports, 110W total power by Taras Buria Cuktech recently announced a couple of Ultra-branded chargers, including a desktop 300W charger, which I reviewed a few weeks ago. For those who do need that much (or who do not want to spend that much on a charger), Cuktech also offers the 10 Ultra, a traditional wall charger with similar features. Four ports, a big display, and up to 110W of power output. After using it for a few weeks, here are my impressions. Disclaimer: Cuktech provided the review unit without any editorial input or pre-approval. Like the 30 Ultra, the 10 Ultra arrived in a box made of nice cardboard with quality print all over it. Inside, besides the charger, you will find a 240W 6A charger, which, this time, is fully braided. While Cuktech always bundles high-power cables with its chargers and power banks, they are usually regular and unassuming. This time, the cable is much nicer, matching the charger's $59.99 price tag. The charger itself measures 67 x 76 x 33 mm or 2.6 x 3.0 x 1.3 inches and weighs about 250 grams. Considering the charger has four ports and a big display, I would say the compact size is quite impressive, albeit a little hefty. The overall design is similar to other chargers from the manufacturer, minus the chrome Cuktech logo next to the four ports. The Cuktech 10 Ultra has retractable prongs for better portability. Its front side is covered with piano black plastic housing two elements: a capacitive button with backlight and a quite large display for various charging stats. Ports are downward-facing, and I have mixed feelings about such a design. It is not the most convenient when you frequently connect and disconnect cables. It makes you bend over to find the right port to connect, and it is a no-go with outlets mounted closer to the floor. On the bright side, design like this eliminates clutter and sagging, especially when using four cables at once. Plus, you get plenty of space for a big display. Ports include two high-speed USB Type-C ports, one Type-C for less demanding devices, and one classic USB Type-A. The first two ports deliver full 100W, while the third is capped at 45W. As for the Type-A port, its maximum output is 18W. In total, the charger delivers 110W of power, but in my testing, I managed to squeeze 117W when charging two power banks and a tablet. Quite impressive. Type-C1 Type-C2 Type-C3 Type-A Single-port 100W 100W 45W 18W Two ports 80W 20W - - Three ports 65W 20W 20W - Four ports 65W 20W 10W 10W The charger can detect handshake protocols and balance power across all four ports according to each device's needs. As such, power is not limited to the values in the table above. You can have two ports charging at 55W, three ports at 45W + 20W, and more. For some reason, Cuktech is not listing the supported protocols, but a quick test showed that it is compatible with PD3.0, PPS, QC5, DCP, and UFCS. When you connect a compatible device, the charger automatically detects its charging standard and displays it on the screen, for example, Apple 6A or Samsung 3A. Speaking of the screen. The main highlight of the 10 Ultra is its 1.57-inch display with a maximum brightness of 700 nits and 160-degree viewing angles. The display takes up most of the front, and it shows various charging-related information, including total output power, current temperature, power distribution across ports with watts, volts, and amps, a screensaver, and more. You can toggle between the different views by tapping the button, and holding it changes the screen orientation (portrait or horizontal, plus flipped) according to your socket position. The screen is very nice. It is sharp, vivid, and the fonts are easy to read. As for settings, you can change the following: Keep the screen on or off Lock the screen orientation (hold the button to change the screen orientation) Keep the USB Type-A port on Toggle power modes The charger has three power modes: AI: standard mode that automatically allocates power to each connected device. Power Priority: prioritizes power for high-demand devices, such as laptops or power banks. Balanced: splits power evenly across connected devices according to their needs I was skeptical at first, but after testing a few devices in different modes, I can see the benefit of these three modes. The most useful is power priority, which gives the first Type-C port more power. When I was charging a 100W power bank (port 1) alongside a 140W power bank (port 2), Power Priority split the total output about 75-30. Balanced mode, as the name suggests, splits the total output between the two ports more or less equally. As for AI mode, the charger uses its brain to detect which device needs more power. In my testing, it figured out that the 140W power needs a bit more juice. As I said, I expected this to be more of a gimmick, but the three built-in modes turned out quite useful. For example, you can prioritize your laptop while giving other ports a little less power, but still enough to charge at acceptable speeds. Unfortunately, unlike the 30 Ultra, this charger cannot display the battery level of the device being charged. This small feature turned out to be very useful when I was testing the 30 Ultra, as it allowed me to see my phone's battery level without picking it up. Like other Cuktech chargers I tested, the 10 Ultra one proved itself reliable and well-made. It uses Gallium nitride semiconductor technology to reduce the charger's size and improve efficiency. It is also better at dissipating heat, but I have to say that when charging two power banks at 117W total, the charger got hotter than what I would call comfortable (hold it for a few seconds, and you start feeling a burning sensation at your fingertips). However, the built-in thermal indicator remained below the temperature threshold, with the screen reassuring that the device operated at "High performance" (I tested it in a 21 °C / 69 °F room). Overall, the Cuktech 10 Ultra is a solid choice. If you need four ports and you like to nerd out on various stats, it is a very easy recommendation. It will take care of your laptop, phone, tablet, and power bank without breaking a sweat, plus the build, material, and cable quality are top-notch. The mode switcher is handy when charging different devices with different power needs, too. I cannot say a display is a must-have in a charger, especially when it makes you more conscious about where to plug it, but it is a neat addition if you have a socket at your table or bed level, so that you can actually use the display and its features. The more important fact is that despite its size and quality, the display does not make the charger that much more expensive than similarly powerful chargers from competitors. Plus, you can save 10% on the 10 Ultra with a promo code on Amazon. Buy Cuktech 10 Ultra charger - $53.99 on Amazon with a promo code As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Last week I was investigating an issue with contacts and tried using the new Outlook. In the real (Classic) Outlook, you can easily go to any Outlook folder and present it in a Table View, then customize the columns to show/sort any field, which was exactly what I needed. But of course, the new Outlook doesn't have this feature at all. I gave up. Oh, and can we possibly stop claiming the new Outlook has PST support? What it really has is the ability to use the real Outlook in the background to pretend to have PST support. There is no PST support without the real Outlook installed.
    • Honestly just before Panos left it started to feel like MS just wasnt interested in them so they were being less innovative with them, and then when he DID leave for Amazon its kind of clear the direction is gone. It felt like Panos had both goals and drive, and a vision, but it felt like no matter what his title/department was the Surface devices never had the full interest of the rest of management and he was just pushing a bolder up a hill that MS was adding dirt to as he went.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      477
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!