The whole "I didn't know it was a steroid" defense is a cop-out. I cannot believe that a baseball player like Barry Bonds, an athelete who is on a heightened level of alert when it comes to anything that goes into his body, would not be aware that he was taking steroids. His body is the key to his well being, and I cannot believe that he would put a cream on, day after day, month after month, and not inqure as to what the ingredients are in the said cream.
Maybe I just have an arcane set of morals on me, but I cannot begin to comprehend what it would take for me to look my godfather in the eyes while I was cheating to pass his records.
FatGuyWithAMullet wrote:The whole "I didn't know it was a steroid" defense is a cop-out. I cannot believe that a baseball player like Barry Bonds, an athelete who is on a heightened level of alert when it comes to anything that goes into his body, would not be aware that he was taking steroids. His body is the key to his well being, and I cannot believe that he would put a cream on, day after day, month after month, and not inqure as to what the ingredients are in the said cream.
Maybe I just have an arcane set of morals on me, but I cannot begin to comprehend what it would take for me to look my godfather in the eyes while I was cheating to pass his records.
I agree. I also have a hard time believing that Bonds can hang out with this trainer for years and not know a thing while Giambi knew him for 2 weeks and was all roided up.
Did he know about the possible effects? he should have known.
Should they kick him out of baseball? No
Why not? Becuase he never failed a drug test.
What should be done? Players are given weekly drug test from now untill 2006. Starting then have every other week from every player on every team. If a player if cought using drugs, then suspend him for a year.
What type of proof do I want? I wan to Bonds to say it.
Will he say if he was drugs? Yes if he was (in 20+years) No if he wasn't
eftda wrote:Why does what I believe matter? remember this is IMO.
If people say you kill puppies, and you say you dont, then I would still belive you.
OK, I hear you. But here's the thing. Your logic is completely faulty. Now, if you want to think illogical things to keep your image of Bonds, fine.
But hear me out.
You don't like that the evidence is "stolen." This is important. It means you believe that the evidence is real (thus, stolen), but refuse to believe it. It's not like you think the evidence is fake--a possible, although I'd say it's an unlikely, scenario.
So to you, the evidence is real, but you ignore it because you didn't see Bonds say it personally.
This creates many problems--but you may be ok with them. For example. OJ said he didn't do it, but all evidence I've seen is overwhelming. But he said he didn't do it. Do you believe him?
Edit: As Lo points out, statements under oath carry a lot more weight than a regular old statement. You seem to trust the latter more.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
