I am not sure that I trust any of the sources, considering they all seem to have a bone to pick with Bonds. But it is hardly groundbreaking.

If you see defamation lawsuits, you can bet Bonds is probably telling the truth. [though there could be monetary and PR reasons for not bringing suit]

Do you think there is a reason he wasn't prosecuted for perjury?

There is one thing I have never understood about complaints with steroids in baseball. People seem to complain that certain people were using, and believe their records are tainted. But, if steroids are widespread, why do they matter? [from a competitive standpoint] Sure, the few guys [assuming the ~85% number] who weren't taking steroids may have been screwed, but isn't there a pretty much level playing field if nearly everybody is on the juice?

Also, it should be noted that many of the steroids are detectable in the blood for ~ 18 months and would have shown up is his tests year. [not sure Winstrol is on of them]. Of course, it appears that THG cannot be detected.

Ultimately, I have no clue. I wouldn't be horribly suprised either way. But I do have a tendency to disbelieve pissed off ex-girlfriends and convicted felons.

It's really too bad. There's likely just too much information in the book for it not to be true.

From the SI article:
"The authors compiled the information over a two-year investigation that included, but was not limited to, court documents, affidavits filed by BALCO investigators, confidential memoranda of federal agents (including statements made to them by athletes and trainers), grand jury testimony, audiotapes and interviews with more than 200 sources. Some of the information previously was reported by the authors in the Chronicle. Some of the information is new."

Full SI story:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html

I guess the lesson here is to not be the best. The Yankees get criticized for spending the most, but the Red Sox don't for spending nearly as much. Bonds gets demonized because he puts together the most amazing season ever, but Sosa generally gets a pass.

Finding out the truth is one thing, but the envy and hatred with which all of this has been conducted really does scare me. It just seems to be much more about bringing one person down than it does about any quest for the "truth." The authors want to help prevent steroids in youth sports... and they really think the best way is to expose that the way to hit a ton of home runs is to use steroids? Wow, that's really effective.

Even if Bonds did use steroids for five seasons, which would've been 1998-2002, to my knowledge they were not banned by the league during that time. That means no aterisk, and it should also mean no demonization. Players have been trying to do whatever it takes to be better and stronger all along, and even if Bonds did use steroids, if he stopped before they were banned by the league, then we should never hear the word "cheater" associated with his name.

It is not Barry's job to make people feel comfortable. It's his job to hit the hell out of the ball, and it disgusts me the way that people try to tear him apart. His actions are frustrating at times, but when it comes down to it, he's an entertainer, and in the world of sports there hasn't been much more exciting over the past several years than to see him hit...

The evidence is not proof positive, but it's pretty likely that Bonds was taking steroids during that period of time. That said, he almost certainly was off the juice from the 2003 season on (once the BALCO scandal broke), and still put up the kind of numbers he had been before the scandal, calling into question whether the drugs really made any significant difference in his game. They couldn't have hurt him, but I don't think the difference between clean Barry and juiced Barry is wide enough to affect his HOF status or the consensus among people who don't have a grudge against him that places him with Ruth, Mays, Williams and Mantle as one of the greatest few ever to play the game.

From my personal end, I don't really care what Bonds put into his body then, and I don't care what he puts into it now.  Morals be damned... as long as he's playing for the San Francisco Giants I'll take every hit he gives the team with a big fucking smile on my face.

I'm waiting until I read the book to decide if the evidence stacks up. But I will say this, these reporters are pros and would be very unlikely to publish something this damning unless they could easily defend themselves if they were sued. And more importantly, the Chron and SI have deep pockets and would be very unlikely to open themselves up to a major, embarrassing lawsuit unless they were very sure it was true. Sure, some of the girlfriend's comments should be taken with a big grain of salt, but audiotapes and e-mails that were kept without the person's knowledge are not impeachable in the same way.

Also, I think attacking the messenger is the wrong way to go. Do these guys want to break a big story, of course they do. But just because they want to break a big story doesn't make it untrue. And of course Bonds gets more attention that Sosa or Palmeiro, he's Barry Bonds, quite possibly the greatest baseball player ever. I don't think any of us would care nearly as much if we found out Angel Chavez was juicing.

Like I said, I'm reserving judgment, but so far it doesn't look good.

Go Giants.

My major problem with this is that they are not out to show steriod use in Baseball and the effects on ability and is the testing in the league up to spec now. No this is simply to take down one man, and to me that shows the integrity of these authors, which is little if any.

As I'm sure this will dominate the sports pages for weeks to come, I'd like to recommend a book for everyone who will actually want "facts." Something Bruce Jenkins is unlikely to provide.

Will Carroll's book "The Juice" will give you the skinny on almost every question you have on how steroids affect play (or don't) and what the current state of the problem is.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156663668X/sr=8-8/qid=1141764077/ref=pd_bbs_8/102-1066261-2217731?% 5Fencoding=UTF8

I'm a huge Barry fan, I also believe that Barry used PED's at some point. I also believe that this story is crapola.

I haven't seen the book, but the excerpt in SI makes it clear that Fainauru-Wade and Williams, while relying on a superficially impressive list of "government reports, affidavits, etc." don't have that much.

Let me explain why: if the evidence is as incontrovertible as the reporters claim, then Barry Bonds committed perjury. Period. And seasoned federal prosecutors, those who went after Victor Conte and co. aggressively, and whose policy is generally to be equally aggressive against those who obstruct their investigations (see Libby, Scooter) have all the evidence these reporters have. And more. But they also have to weigh the credibility of those pieces of evidence (i.e. the triple hearsay "testimony" of Hunter and Montgomery, the hardly unimpeachable testimony of Kimberly Bell.

So in all this nonsense, there is one unassailable fact: aggressive federal prosecutors (despite all of the breathless reporting) have decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge Barry Bonds with lying about his steroid use. That the SF Chronicle reporters have been able to assemble into a book what amounts to a "raw" FBI file is impressive. But that don't make it accurate.

I still believe Barry used PED's. But the ongoing breathless re-hash of stories whose foundation is a combination of ax-grinding (Bell and Novitzksy) and unnammed sourcing is not good journalism, even when tarted up with some "unsealed" government reports.  

Listen: if federal prosecutors have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed perjury, they aren't going to be dissuaded from prosecution by a group of baseball owners. Your point about Martha Stewart, though, is an apt one: if the evidence is there, they WILL prosecute.

The evidence (once the sources' courtroom viability is independently evaluated) does NOT seem to lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At least, not from the U.S. Attorney's perspective.

I won't pretend to know all the nuances of steroids.  What I think I know is that steroids don't magically make you stronger, you still need to devote your time to build up your muscles, you still need to put the work in.  It allows you to work out more often because your body needs less rest time before you exercise again.  So basically, you still need to earn your bigger muscles by putting in the work.

In addition, while I believe that he probably used some sort of PED at some point, whether on purpose or via someone giving it to him unknown to himself, I feel that ballplayers have been using illegal substances since WW II, in particular amphetamines.  "Greenies" was more widely used - Willie Mays was known to pass it around - so it probably contributed to more career numbers than steroids, on an overall basis.  And it didn't require the user to work to earn that advantage, you just take it and "pow" you got an advantage over someone who isn't taking.  So no asterisks is necessary otherwise just asterisk anything since WW II.

Great point, Martin. Even if the home runs directly came about because of strength gains from steroid use, steroids don't do anything without working out, and from all accounts, Bonds is an extremely hard worker.

This is what makes the hysterical response as Grant mentions above so frustrating. He didn't get signs relayed via code from the bleachers. He didn't pay off opposing pitchers to throw only change-ups. He worked incredibly hard, improved his eye and his patience, (at least appeared to) not so stubbornly take close pitches with two strikes and consequently struck out less, and in all ways possible with his age improved his hitting each year.

Also, we can talk about this all we want, but only the players know how prevalent this stuff is, and considering that at the time steroids were not banned, if Bonds knew that a good portion of the league was using, and less-talented players like McGwire and Sosa were possibly unfairly passing him by in reputation because of them, then I really can't blame him if he did use.

One question I posed when I wrote about this on my blog long ago--when I actually posted regularly--was whether or not people would be opposed if Bonds was merely bringing his testosterone levels in line with a 25-year old.

What do you guys think really upsets these people so much? What underlies this phenomenon whereby Bonds seems to be more vilified than many murderers? Something is just a bit off here, and while I think envy factors majorly into this, I'm curious what the rest of you think...

I'm kind of offended that you all attack the press.  The press protects our freedom and brings to us information we couldn't get for ourselves.  For example, would any of you know that the US gov't is hiding the outer space creature at Roswell N.M. if it weren't for the press?  Didn't think so.  How about the baby boy that was adopted and raised by a pack of wolves?  I didn't even know that was possible.  Or that wolves cared.  And there really are WMD in Iraq.  Aren't there?

It's not surprising but a little sad to see so much blame the messenger sentiment here. It's just what the Bush Administration does when the media prints something about its secret spying or torture programs. You're not out to tell the truth, they say, you're only out to undermine us! Grow up, everyone. These reporters stumbled into BALCO, then spent two years of their life working the story without knowing where it would go. Of course they are going to put it all together in a book and get paid for their extraordinary effort. Of course it's going to be solid -- I'll bet anyone that Bonds isn't foolish enough to sue for libel -- and, of course, SI is going to fall all over itself for the right to play it big. You've got the greatest ballplayer of his generation and, even though the cheating doesn't eliminate his greatness, he's still a liar, a lawbreaker, and all around asshole. Do you really want the media to duck that story? Give him a free ride just because he's Barry and, despite all this, first round HOF? And by the way, don't read anything into the Government not suing Barry yet for perjury and obstruction of justice(always a tough call whether they pursue these things) and tax invasion (near certainty they will go after him on this). They don't rush these things. The one thing I worry about is Barry being so emotional that he really loses his bearings and does something tragic to himself or others. Let's all hope he finds the strength to be silent if he can't be honest, has a great season, and gets to the promised land of a ring without the 'roids. He's off to a hopeful start. He needs your prayers more than your anger.    

I beg to differ with you, NN.  There really are WMD in Iraq, but the media won't tell us.  And what spying or torture programs?  I mean, the AG said it was OK.  And W said we don't do it even tho it's legal.  So, there.  

I'm kind of looking forward to a future without Bonds.  Don't get me wrong, he's just about the greatest hitter in the history of the game.  But we've been the San Francisco Barry Bonds for a long time, I'd like to see a future where our identity is not so dominated by one player.  And besides I'm fu***ng sick of seeing something scandalous about Barry every time I read about baseball.  Let the vultures go circle around another team.    

Kimberly Bell is used as a source....any book that uses Kimberly Bell as a source is not legit...

End of story.

There are books out right now that prove incontrovertably that the feds were behind 9/11....must be true....they are in print.

What a load of hooey.

There is nothing new here, just a book by the same two hacks who wrote the series for the chron last spring....big deal

More things to remember:

1. In sum and substance, the allegations contained in the book appear to be identical to those made in the Chronicle series early last year. There are apparently some new, colorful details, but the drug allegations, and the foundation for them, are substantially similar.
2. To overcome the fact that this is an old story (and to sell books, which is their right), Williams and Fainauru-Wade note that there are newly "unsealed documents." Well, yes. But the substance of those documents was leaked to the reporters and printed in their series last year. This is a mere rehash, in book form, of last year's stories.
3. People who argue that the allegations detailed in this book are true "unless Bonds sues" are idiots. Public figures have to prove "actual malice" in a libel case, an almost insurmountable hurdle. I think the reporters are quite sloppy, but certainly not involved in some malicious smear. The more salient legal fact is not that Bonds won't sue to "prove his innocence," but that the U.S. Attorney's office seems disinclined to try and legally prove his guilt. If the "facts" that the reporters have outlined are so unassailable, prosecution should be automatic. That it has not been forthcoming should give us reasons to doubt.
4. I would be quite interested to learn whether or not Greg Anderson is Deep Throat here. Anderson has more information about Bonds' PED use than anyone, and if he's talked to reporters (which I doubt) it highly increases the soundness of the reporting.
5. The reporters' point that they have "over 200 sources" sounds highly impressive, but it's likely misleading. I'm certain that they did literally talk to more than 200 people. But the "star witnesses"...the ones who provide the specific details about Bonds' use seem to be limited to 1) IRS agent Jeff Novitzsky and 2) Bonds' ex-lover Kimberly Bell. Both are highly, highly compromised.
6. By far the most credible evidence about Bonds' PED use comes from the material seized from Greg Anderson's home, as well as the recording of Anderson talking to a friend about Bonds' PED use. It's one thing for C.J. Hunter to tell Jeff Novitzsky that Victor Conte told him that Barry Bonds is using certain drugs (this is triple hearsay). It's quite another thing for Greg Anderson to "lie to his diary" or to a friend when he has no idea he's being recorded.
7. The best documentary evidence we have (the Anderson tape and drug schedules) amount to this: we have strong evidence that Barry Bonds used PED's that were not banned by the federal government or his workplace at the time he used them. "The cream" and "the clear" were not illegal (though this is a legal loophole) to possess or use in 2002-2003, which is why Conte and Co. were charged under different and less severe statutes for the designer drugs (mere FDA regulatory violations) than for the large scale steroid distribution. HGH is not illegal to possess in the United States. Clomid is not illegal to possess in the United States.

 

anybody impressed that sfgiants.com posted a story about the bonds thing? they probably have no control over the site.

I got this from the Chron (ironically), it's from Barry's lawyer's statement to the press:

"Although most of the authors' supposed 200 or so "sources" for this book remain anonymous, we know and understand that one of the most prominent sources is a woman who previously attempted to extort Barry for money, and who, after that failed, told Geraldo Rivera that she never saw Barry take illegal or performance-enhancing drugs, but explained that her source of knowledge supposedly came from conversations she had with him -- conversations she intended to report in her soon-to-be published (and yet to be published) book."

I didn't know the lawsuit failed - did Bonds ever acknowledge that he had an affair with her?  Any lawyers out there with access to this lawsuit?  Would the Smoking Gun have anything?

Her credibility has got to be shot.  She sues to get money from him and when that fails, she takes her story to the press with alleged conversations that she had with him, after admitting that she has never seen him do anything illegal.  

But there is huge financial motivation to embellish her account of her story - else what would attract anyone to read yet another story of a high-priced athlete, even one as good as Bonds, having an affair.  In particular, she would have made a whole lot more money publishing her book first and skipping the lawsuit, assuming all she said is the truth.  Anybody could see that there was more money in a book than a lawsuit if you have something on Bonds regarding steroids that people have been alleging for years.  And yet she sues first?

Let me be right upfront and identify myself as a Dodger fan. So why am I here?  Because when I wonder how Giants fans are reacting to the Dodgers/the rivalry/baseball in general, I come here.  This is your equivalent to the Dodger Thoughts site that I go to.  So you can take this with a grain of salt if you like.

I'm going to skip over the question of guilt or innocence here -- because I doubt anyone's minds will be changed -- and ponder what might happen next.  A very large proportion of non-Giants fans is now completely convinced that Bonds used steroids. Whether he did or not, if Bonds keeps playing, this is going to be a hatefest.  I can't think of another time when such a big record was being chased against the wishes of most of the sports world.  He'll be booed harder than ever before in every road game. If he passes Aaron (or Ruth) in a road game, it will be seriously dark theater, not to mention bad PR for the Giants and baseball in general.  Even if it happens at home, the sight of Giants fans rejoicing in his new record will look odd at best.

I think we can all assume that Bonds won't willingly retire to avoid this.  I have to think that MLB is praying that his knee falls apart and he has to retire, a la Palmeiro.  What about the other Giants players?  This will be a huge distraction, even if Bonds isn't playing much.  Since you have a better feel for this than I, how likely is it that the Giants release him if he's not hitting well and the hostility starts dragging the team down?  Clearly the Giants have been depending heavily on Bonds' on-field success for several years.  Do they have a breaking point here?  Or do they suck it up?  

I ask this not because I think you care whether a Dodger fan likes Bonds or not, but because, frankly, I think it's a discussion you might want to start.