IF, IF, IF and ONLY IF he is proven to have used steriods should his stats be tainted???

I don't think it should count.  To me it is just like cheating.

That being said, I don't think Barry did take steroids.  He was too quick to agree to testing.  I think he is clean.

I don't think it should count.  To me it is just like cheating.

That being said, I don't think Barry did take steroids.  He was too quick to agree to testing.  I think he is clean.
I sincerely hope he's clean too...but if he's not.... >:(

I don't believe they should count either because useing steroids is cheating.  If they do keep his stats, if he is using steroids (which they probably will), I don't believe he will break Hank Aarons record because Barry is getting old and with his size you know that it will become very hard from him to stay healthy and not pull or tear something.

Though unlike Dagwood I wouldnt be surprised if he is using steroids because even with the kind of workout he has it would be hard to get that large and powerful as he is.  I mean he hardly swings and the ball goes over 400 feet.  Him agreeing quickly to steroid testing could be a cover up to make people think he is not doing them.  Kind of like when the police ask to search a car if the person gives the a quick answer of yes then in a lot of cases they wont search the car.

But then again if they let people who do drugs keep their stats then why not let Barry keep his.

Yeah...Tom Arnold was saying that steriods don't make you hit the ball any further ::)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Are you absolutely SURE, hoogbest :D ;)

No!Didnt Mark Maguire use "enhancers" and he still got his credit?I think Bonds is using "enhancers of some kind"I seen him bulk up alot over the years.

No!Didnt Mark Maguire use "enhancers" and he still got his credit?I think Bonds is using "enhancers of some kind"I seen him bulk up alot over the years.
Mark used a substance that was LEGAL at the time....and may still be? Bonds may or may not be using a BANNED substance....HERE is an interesting article....the end may or may not refer to Barry ::)
MARK McGUIRE SWEARS OFF ANDRO
By Max  Furek

Posted on NaturalStrength.com on June 19, 1999

In one of the most dramatic revelations in the arena of sports supplementation, high-profile slugger and current American sports icon Mark McGuire reported on Wednesday August 4, 1999 that he had discontinued taking the dietary supplement Androstenedione since May,1999.

"I don’t like the way it was portrayed like I was the endorser of the product, which I wasn’t. I don’t like how it’s portrayed, but young kids take it because of me. I don’t like that," the St. Louis slugger said.

McGuire is quickly becoming one of the most recognizable and marketable sports personalities in the world. Sidestepping any potential controversy, he is cleaning up his act and taking a hard stance against the substance. He said, "I discourage young people from taking it. If you’re old enough and you have your own mind, you can do whatever you want."

Even though it is allowed in major league baseball, Andro has become the poster child of banned substances. It has been banned by the NFL, Olympic Games, NCAA and both men’s and women’s tennis. Al Thurston and his NABF was the first natural bodybuilding sanction to ban the precursors and the NGA, according to a statement from President Andrew Bostinto, will ban Andro and other precursors that convert to steroid hormone in the liver, on January 1, 2000.

Many continue to debate the actual benefits of andro, some citing that there are none. And in yet another report, medical studies indicate that prolonged use of andro may lead to enlarged male breasts. Despite the controversy, Andro and related products are allowed by the FDA to be sold over the counter at health food stores and gyms. At least for now.

This article used by permission from Steele Jungle Publications. Subscribe now. Only ten dollars for four super issues. Check out our ad in Natural Strength Resources Section for subscription information.

"jungle@epix.net"




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHEMICAL WARFARE: THE TRUTH ABOUT ANABOLIC STEROIDS

Were steroids (or whatever Bonds was using) against the rules?

If they were against the rules, then erase his entire record.  If they were NOT against the rules, then you can not expect to change them after the fact.

Were steroids (or whatever Bonds was using) against the rules?

If they were against the rules, then erase his entire record.  If they were NOT against the rules, then you can not expect to change them after the fact.
All I know is McGuire admitted to using an enhancer that was LEGAL...IF Bonds is using something he is not admitting it..therefore he is either not using anything OR h'es using a banned substance. He bulked up as much or more than McGuire since his days with the Pirates ended ???

Steriod boy just hit #700 ::)

If the pitchers who pitched against him are using steroids(safe bet) and they are intentionally walking him, more intentional walks that Aaron and Ruth,and you can say all you want about McGwires steroids being legal, it don't matter, the end results enhancers are same, McGwire keeps it, Bonds keeps it.

If the pitchers who pitched against him are using steroids(safe bet) and they are intentionally walking him, more intentional walks that Aaron and Ruth,and you can say all you want about McGwires steroids being legal, it don't matter, the end results enhancers are same, McGwire keeps it, Bonds keeps it.
I don't believe Aaron or Ruth ever used anything but thier talant...based on that I also know it took Aaron a lot longer  than Ruth to get to 714. Therefore, I'd rank Ruth #1 followed by Aaron and then Bonds...unlees someday they discover he actually took steriods :)

Just curious, when they when they say how long it took a hitter to hit homers do they count it in games,
swings, or what?  I am curious because the whole thing about intentional walks drives me crazy.  I don't think intentional walks should be allowed. It seems a bit unfair, if you can't pitch to a guy you shouldn't be allowed to intentionally walk, and it makes you wonder what they could have done without the team having being able to take advantage of something like that.. ???

Just curious, when they when they say how long it took a hitter to hit homers do they count it in games,
swings, or what?  I am curious because the whole thing about intentional walks drives me crazy.  I don't think intentional walks should be allowed. It seems a bit unfair, if you can't pitch to a guy you shouldn't be allowed to intentionally walk, and it makes you wonder what they could have done without the team having being able to take advantage of something like that.. ???
At Bats is what I've always heard..and I agree the intentional walks are kinda BS.
Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs in 600 more games and 3,000 more at bats, than Babe Ruth, who hit 714.....a mere 41 less. Anyway....for as good as "Hammerin' Hank was...I think, head to head, Ruth was the greatest of all time.

At Bats is what I've always heard..and I agree the intentional walks are kinda BS.
Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs in 600 more games and 3,000 more at bats, than Babe Ruth, who hit 714.....a mere 41 less. Anyway....for as good as "Hammerin' Hank was...I think, head to head, Ruth was the greatest of all time.


Another question, do they add the intentional walks into the at bats, or subtract them out?  I think that they
should subtract them since they didn't have a chance to hit anyway.  If they don't subtract them out, and they changed it around so those intentional walk at bats were factored out it could change the whole face.  I would think that they do subtract them out, but I don't know.

Of course intentional walks are completely fine because baseball is about one team playing another, not about giving Johnny a chance to shine (though he can shine). A intentional walk is a team admitting that they see giving someone a base to be better for their chances of winning then justing pitching to a player. Why should players be able to bunt, should they have to give their best swing every time. No they choose to do it to beat the other team.  ::)

Of course intentional walks are completely fine because baseball is about one team playing another, not about giving Johnny a chance to shine (though he can shine). A intentional walk is a team admitting that they see giving someone a base to be better for their chances of winning then justing pitching to a player. Why should players be able to bunt, should they have to give their best swing every time. No they choose to do it to beat the other team.  ::)


A bunt is a legit hit.  Intentional walk, I don't know it just has never sat right with me.  The pitcher
pitches, the hitter hits, or not.  He hits long, he hits short, it's still a hit.

I'm glad to see this thread was moved to the Sports section. Ever since B-Bo was approaching Hank Aaron's mark, this has been a major issue. And now that he's long since surpassed it, there's probably going to be lots more controversy as to whether his mark should count. Personally I don't care one way or the other.

I would say no they shouldn't due to one of the key facts being his personal trainer refusing to make any kind of testimony, plus while he is in jail MR.Bonds is paying all his bills and other things. What kind of statement is that.. Don't know about you but in my mind and others I would like to see this guy testify. If he is not guilty then the trainer could clear this all up.