The Miner Part 2 wrote:gimmie a freakin break, read the context of my post where i said that. i was speaking on ruth and just quoting you.
I LOVE how this is the one theme you continue to focus on. No response to the countless other posts on the previous page, that have disproved everything you've said?
I'm really interested to hear it. You want me to apologize? Fine. You never defended Hank (I don't know this because I haven't gone back and read, but frankly, I don't care...I want to see you respond to the other posts made).
Well? On with it...
Last edited by BronXBombers51 on Wed May 31, 2006 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The_Met_Threat wrote:Do you understand why people think the Bonds Haters here are hypocrites?
back to the pot calling the kettle black. you are doing the same exact thing, just with far less evidence to support what you say. well actually zero evidence.
You guys are accusing Bonds of something without any hard facts. All you've presented is hearsay from some book that two SF journalists with a grudge against Bonds have printed.
So we played along. You want to call Bonds a cheater? Ok. Well Babe is a cheater too. Hammerin' Hank was a lousy cheater as well.
And what do you do? You jump out of your shoes to defend Babe and Hank. Not Bonds though. Bonds is a dirty cheat.
Oh...and Hank Aaron admitting he used greenies is 'zero evidence'? Perry admitting that he doctored baseballs is 'zero evidence'? Multiple sources reporting that Babe used trick bats is 'zero evidence'?
And what's your Bonds evidence? Irod clad?
What's funny (and now I will have to find it), is that Ruth was quoted all over the place complaining about the commish making the Crawford bat illegal. That's so Ruth.... talk about using common sense Miner.
wow he complained because he had a legal advantage taken from him. what is your point?
My point is he didn't try to hide it, he did it, he kept doing it afterword and that's all typical of Ruth's personality. It makes common sense.
PinotResa wrote:My point is he didn't try to hide it, he did it, he kept doing it afterword and that's all typical of Ruth's personality. It makes common sense.
youve showed no evidence of him doing it afterword.
PinotResa wrote:My point is he didn't try to hide it, he did it, he kept doing it afterword and that's all typical of Ruth's personality. It makes common sense.
youve showed no evidence of him doing it afterword.
Even if he didn't, what the difference?
He tried to gain an advantage. It wasn't illegal in baseball when he did it. It was made illegal afterward, because of him.
PinotResa wrote:My point is he didn't try to hide it, he did it, he kept doing it afterword and that's all typical of Ruth's personality. It makes common sense.
youve showed no evidence of him doing it afterword.
It's there, trust me. There are newspaper articles of the day where Ruth is quoted complaining about the bats and references to umps catching him using them later on. In your case, you'd probably have to go search the archieves of old newspapers. In my case, I understand history, the sources I've read this info from and really don't care enough to pay someone and the NYT to dig it up and send it to me. Sorry I don't have one of the modern articles reffering to Ruth's Crawford bat use, post 1923. For what it's worth, common sense should tell you he did use them post 1923.
Controversy or no controversy, Leyland would like to see the accomplishment recognized.
"I'm not looking for any trouble," he said, "but I think they're singling out Barry Bonds, and I think it's totally unfair. I just think it's totally singling Barry Bonds out. I love baseball. I love the history of it. But who the heck knows how many home runs were hit with corked bats? Who knows how many games where the pitcher doctored the ball for one game? Does anybody know for sure? No. So to me, they should let it lie. If you want to think what you want to think, that's fine."
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by The Miner Part 2 » Wed May 31, 2006 7:52 pm 
No response to the countless other posts on the previous page, that have disproved everything you've said? 
