Roger Maris with the Indians, so this would be 57 or 58
Notice the arms ...
The infamous Roger Maris picture of him hitting number 61 at age 27, only 3 years after the first picture. Notice the arms? Plus he went bald that year. He claims it was stress, but how do we know he is not a liar? On top of that he only hit 30 plus homeruns once for the rest of his career (33) never surpassing it again. I might also add that he never played a full season after that, because he was always injured.
You guys had "convicted" Barry Bonds years ago, using just as much circumstantial evidence, and now you want to go after Brady Anderson and who knows whom ever else, ... "using evidence of abnormal changes to a player physically, and changes in their performance"
Its is sicking actually.
Well there you go ...
Evidence of abnormal physical changes
Evidence of change in performance.
In the case of Maris, there was no known link between him and a steroid manufacturer.
His personal trainer, if he even had one, wasn’t distributing steroids to other prominent athletes.
As much as the NY media hated him, there were no stories of any type of grand jury testimony indicating that he admitted to using steroids.
In fact, to my knowledge, he was never even subpoenaed to testify in such a case. The subpoena alone indicates probable cause of a relationship involving illegal activities.
After all, I never got a subpoena. . .for steroids.
Barry Bonds’ troubles aren’t just about a statistical spike. They stem from his associations with admitted steroids traffickers combined with an unprecedented statistical boom in his late 30s. I’ve stated on another thread that circumstantial evidence, taken piece by piece, can easily be dismissed piece by piece. But when you combine all of it together, as it’s considered in many a criminal case in this country every day, including murder, it’s a pretty damning picture.
If someone can go to the gas chamber on circumstantial evidence, then Barry Bonds can be labeled a steroids user on similar types of evidence – just so long as each piece is factual. BTW, “proof” beyond a reasonable doubt is rarely a silver bullet piece of evidence. It’s almost always the totality of smaller pieces of evidence.
And wrveres, let’s take the inverse of everything. Do you actually, seriously believe that a major newspaper would deliberately fabricate a news story related to a government document, which can easily be verified one way or another, just to discredit one athlete?
I’m sorry but the liability for the SF Chronicle and its employees and investors far far outweighs any type of gain from smearing one athlete who the majority of their readers idolize.
Keep in mind, grand jury records aren’t dumped into a black hole. They can become unsealed in certain circumstances. A libel suit on the part of Bonds against the SF Chronicle would be such an occasion. If there is a government document that would support a potential Bonds contention that he didn’t say what was reported, the court would allow it – and vice-versa.
Somehow, I think your entire belief system with respects to this issue, rests on the notion that we will never know what was actually said. That ship sailed the moment Bonds testified on the record.