Jump to content

Bonds is not the Home Run king


Puma

Recommended Posts

Just for the record, Barry Bonds is not the home run king.

 

"NANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOUUUU!" is not a valid position, especially not if you think Hank Aaron is the homerun king.

 

My position is that nobody has their best years from age 35 to 39 without some seriously freakish stuff. Bonds made a mockery of the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, Barry Bonds is not the home run king.

 

"NANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOUUUU!" is not a valid position, especially not if you think Hank Aaron is the homerun king.

 

My position is that nobody has their best years from age 35 to 39 without some seriously freakish stuff. Bonds made a mockery of the whole thing.

My position is that it wasn't against the rules for most of that, not to mention that Hank Aaron and his kind used amphetamines to enhance their performance. And don't even get me started about guys like Gaylord Perry because I might explode.

 

Either the home run king is Babe Ruth or it's Barry Bonds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Aaron and amphetamines" argument is weak. It was something he tried one time while he was in a slump, and he hated the effect it had on him. He said he felt like he was having a heart attack after they hit his system, and it was a stupid thing to do. So the effect they had on his home run hitting ability is ultimately non-existent. That doesn't mean it was right of Aaron to take them, but let's be realistic...the one-time use of amphetamines pales in comparison to the stuff Bonds was on. It's like comparing shoplifting to murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Aaron and amphetamines" argument is weak. It was something he tried one time while he was in a slump, and he hated the effect it had on him. He said he felt like he was having a heart attack after they hit his system, and it was a stupid thing to do. So the effect they had on his home run hitting ability is ultimately non-existent. That doesn't mean it was right of Aaron to take them, but let's be realistic...the one-time use of amphetamines pales in comparison to the stuff Bonds was on. It's like comparing shoplifting to murder.

 

That's not the way I heard it.

 

And it's more like comparing something legal with something else legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Aaron and amphetamines" argument is weak. It was something he tried one time while he was in a slump, and he hated the effect it had on him. He said he felt like he was having a heart attack after they hit his system, and it was a stupid thing to do. So the effect they had on his home run hitting ability is ultimately non-existent. That doesn't mean it was right of Aaron to take them, but let's be realistic...the one-time use of amphetamines pales in comparison to the stuff Bonds was on. It's like comparing shoplifting to murder.

 

That's not the way I heard it.

 

And it's more like comparing something legal with something else legal.

 

The legality of it is not the issue. They were both legal at the time. Bottom line is amphetamines hardly helped Aaron if at all, whereas steroids greatly helped Bonds. So therefore, in the minds of majority of baseball fans, what Barry Bonds did was not legitimate. That's why there was a collective "yawn" around the time Bonds hit #756. It was like a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is. How can someone be vilified for following the rules?! It's RIDICULOUS.

 

 

First of all, he wasn't following rules. Show me the rule that said you must use steroids. Just because they were within the rules doesn't mean he was following the rules. There's a difference. He didn't have to use them. He could have easily opted not to use them. Nobody put a gun to his head and told him to shoot up. Besides, they were/are illegal in the United States and it is a federal offense to be in possession of them. So because MLB allowed all of this to happen, I should just accept what Bonds did as legitimate and declare him the home run king? Hell no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, depending on which ones he used, they weren't illegal until George W. Bush signed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 on Janury 20, 2005.

 

 

That was only an ammendment to the original Controlled Substances Act of 1988, adding prohormones to the list of controlled substances. I can use google too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because they were both legal to use.

 

And why? Because it completely changed the face of the game, tilting the favor too far to the hitter. Same reason they lowered the mound and banned the spitball to a certain extent (F***ING GAYLORD PERRY!). That doesn't matter, he didn't do anything wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, depending on which ones he used, they weren't illegal until George W. Bush signed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 on Janury 20, 2005.

 

 

That was only an ammendment to the original Controlled Substances Act of 1988, adding prohormones to the list of controlled substances. I can use google too.

Exactly. What's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because they were both legal to use.

 

And why? Because it completely changed the face of the game, tilting the favor too far to the hitter. Same reason they lowered the mound and banned the spitball to a certain extent (F***ING GAYLORD PERRY!). That doesn't matter, he didn't do anything wrong.

 

 

Ugh. You're not getting it. It really doesn't matter if they were legal or not. THEY HELPED HIM HIT HOMERUNS! A lot. Barry Bonds is one of the most talented baseball players to ever walk this earth. When you add steroids, you've created a monster. What he did was freakish. It wasn't genuine. What Aaron did was, for the most part, genuine. You can bring up his one-time amphetamine use, of which is questionable at best as to whether it help him hit even one home run. Therefore, I consider Hank Aaron the true home run king, not Barry Bonds. Most baseball fans feel the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, depending on which ones he used, they weren't illegal until George W. Bush signed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 on Janury 20, 2005.

 

 

That was only an ammendment to the original Controlled Substances Act of 1988, adding prohormones to the list of controlled substances. I can use google too.

Exactly. What's your point?

 

That they were illegal in the United States at the time he was using them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, depending on which ones he used, they weren't illegal until George W. Bush signed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 on Janury 20, 2005.

 

 

That was only an ammendment to the original Controlled Substances Act of 1988, adding prohormones to the list of controlled substances. I can use google too.

Exactly. What's your point?

 

That they were illegal in the United States at the time he was using them.

No no no good sir. You're misunderstanding. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 added prohormones in addition to other anabolic steroids to the CSA. Now, some anabolic steroids were on there before hand due to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. But the stuff we know big leaguers were using, stuff like Andro, "The Cream", "The Clear" were all legal at the time. Hell, The Cream is technically still legal, though noone makes it anymore and it's banned from every sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no good sir. You're misunderstanding. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 added prohormones in addition to other anabolic steroids to the CSA. Now, some anabolic steroids were on there before hand due to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. But the stuff we know big leaguers were using, stuff like Andro, "The Cream", "The Clear" were all legal at the time. Hell, The Cream is technically still legal, though noone makes it anymore and it's banned from every sport.

 

 

Ok, that's fine. Like I said, nobody put a gun to his head and made him take steroids. Everyone knows steroids are wrong. The fact that they were subsequently banned by baseball speaks to that. But totally unimportant. What's important is that steroids had a serious, serious impact on Barry Bonds' ability to hit home runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because they were both legal to use.

 

And why? Because it completely changed the face of the game, tilting the favor too far to the hitter. Same reason they lowered the mound and banned the spitball to a certain extent (F***ING GAYLORD PERRY!). That doesn't matter, he didn't do anything wrong.

 

 

Ugh. You're not getting it. It really doesn't matter if they were legal or not. THEY HELPED HIM HIT HOMERUNS! A lot. Barry Bonds is one of the most talented baseball players to ever walk this earth. When you add steroids, you've created a monster. What he did was freakish. It wasn't genuine. What Aaron did was, for the most part, genuine. You can bring up his one-time amphetamine use, of which is questionable at best as to whether it help him hit even one home run. Therefore, I consider Hank Aaron the true home run king, not Barry Bonds. Most baseball fans feel the same way.

Not most, really. When asked who the greatest home run hitter was; 36% said Aaron according to Gallup just before he broke the record. 34% said they would say Bonds was once he broke the record.

 

33% said Babe Ruth was.

 

62% said Bonds should be in the HOF too.

 

According to an ABC/ESPN poll:

 

"If Bonds does pass Aaron, do you think Bonds should or should not be recognized as the new career home-run leader?"


.
Should 	Should Not 	Depends Unsure 	 
% 	% 		% 	% 	 
ALL fans 	57 	34 		4 	5 	 
Blacks 	78 	15 		1 	6 	 
Whites 	53 	36 		5 	6

I wish there were new polls, all these are 3 years old, when the story was hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows steroids are wrong.

 

 

And everybody is wrong.

 

Also: Lifting weights is not genuine; It's using science to build muscle mass in order to hit home runs. Do you look down on players who weight lift?

 

Running on a treadmill is not genuine; It's using science to build stamina and speed.

 

The vast amount of legal supplements players use are not genuine; do you look down on those who drink creatine?

 

Why single out steroids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Most" is a broad term, so I'll just say "majority". Depends who you ask I guess. I don't know how many people were polled. Most baseball fans I have encountered, whether it be in person, on message boards, or blogs/websites, don't recognize Bonds as the true home run king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Most" is a broad term, so I'll just say "majority". Depends who you ask I guess. I don't know how many people were polled. Most baseball fans I have encountered, whether it be in person, on message boards, or blogs/websites, don't recognize Bonds as the true home run king.

 

None of the polls say that the majority think that.

 

And I don't get the impression that most people agree with you, though it did seem like that when it happened. Mostly because the angry minority is always the loudest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...