Barry Bonds' Rookie Card

[Brian Fein]

Sure Bonds was caught. He was accused in a grand jury of having taken steroids. A book just came out detailing Bonds' steroid use very carefully. Everyone in their right minds, as you point out, knows he did it. So how was he not caught?

Find one single drug test where he tested positive.  You're talking about circumstancial evidence, hearsay, and suspicion.

[Dphins4me]

Sure Bonds was caught. He was accused in a grand jury of having taken steroids. A book just came out detailing Bonds' steroid use very carefully. Everyone in their right minds, as you point out, knows he did it. So how was he not caught?

Being accused & someone writting a book does not mean he was caught.  Just someone trying to cash in on it.

[ADeadSmitty]

So you guys are not sure that Bonds has taken steroids? Wow. You are very naive.

[Brian Fein]

No, I'm just saying you have no positive proof.

You have alot of circumstancial suspicion.  You have no confession and nothing rock solid.  There is still reasonable doubt.

Try to get that to pass any jury.

[ADeadSmitty]

Who gives a shit about reasonable doubt? This isn't a criminal trial. The question is whether he's been "caught." If you are trying to do something in secret, but now everyone knows that you've done it, you've been caught. It doesn't matter how people found out, or what the penalties are.

[Dphins4me]

Who gives a shit about reasonable doubt? This isn't a criminal trial. The question is whether he's been "caught." If you are trying to do something in secret, but now everyone knows that you've done it, you've been caught. It doesn't matter how people found out, or what the penalties are.

When was he caught?   Did they catch him with a needle in his arm?  Did he test positive for it?  Just how was he caught?

The only thing positive you have is conjecture.

Where you are confused is no one knows for sure he did it.  We can speculate that he has but in the end we only have an opinion.

I believe Bonds did it.   I have zero proof other than my opinion. 

[ADeadSmitty]

There's testimony from the guy's personal trainer that he gave Bonds steroids. That isn't conjecture. It's direct evidence.

[Brian Fein]

Can you provide evidence as to the validity of the trainer's argument?  How do you know he's not lying...?

This is the court of public opinion.  There are other ways to build muscle mass and bulk up over 20 YEARS.  (you do realize 1986 was 20 years ago, right?)

[Denver_Bronco]

Can you provide evidence as to the validity of the trainer's argument?  How do you know he's not lying...?

This is the court of public opinion.  There are other ways to build muscle mass and bulk up over 20 YEARS.  (you do realize 1986 was 20 years ago, right?)

You don't gain 20lbs of muscle at the age of 37 in an offseason. Ask any gymrat.

[Dphins4me]

There's testimony from the guy's personal trainer that he gave Bonds steroids. That isn't conjecture. It's direct evidence.

That is not evidence.   Evidence is a failed test.   Evidence is catching him while making the purchase.

That is just someone saying he did it.    How good is this man credibility?   Is the man lying?  Does he have something to gain by lying?   Did he say Bonds knew what he was giving him? 

Like I said.  I think he did it, but as of right now.  No proof.

[Brian Fein]

hear·say 
n.

   1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
   2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

[ADeadSmitty]

Um, the testimony of a person saying "I gave Bonds steroids" is not hearsay. Check your definition.

[Brian Fein]

I got it straight from dictionary.com - I didn't make it up.

I don't know the trainer from a hole in the wall.  The guy could certainly have made up a bunch of lies to (a) get a book deal and (b) get a bunch of notariety.  Any time money is involved you must question the validity of the source.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone lied in public to get rich quick...

[ADeadSmitty]

I'm not questioning your definition, I'm saying just read it. The statement "I gave Bonds steroids" is drawn from the personal knowledge of the witness, so it falls outside the definition of hearsay.

If you decide not to credit this evidence, that's one thing. But that's not to say that it's not evidence.

In any event there's much more evidence besides this guy's testimony. There's the dramatic change in Bonds' body shape. Look how big his head is and fat his face is! There's also his sudden transformation from a balanced power/speed guy to a meathead slugger in a very short period of time. The guy had never hit 50 homers in a season, then he hits 73? There's also the reports of many major league players that steroid use is rampant in baseball. And then there are all the detailed allegations in the book. It's just sticking your head in the sand to say "there is no evidence" about Bonds' steroid use.

If you're not convinced, fine. I think that's naive and reflects an inexplicable desire to defend not just a steroid user but an incorrigible asshole. But it is definitely ridiculous to say there is no evidence on Bonds and steroids.

[Brian Fein]

Don't get me wrong, I think Bonds is a scumbag and should be expelled from the sport, but without "catching him in the act" by failing a test, confession, or some other type of indisputable evidence, there's nothing MLB can do.

I don't doubt he juiced, I'm just arguing that all the "evidence" is merely public suspicion based on the several valid points you've mentioned.