Barry Bonds

[SphinxnihpS]

I have been asked to write a piece on why or why not Barry Bonds belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The piece can be biased so long as the facts support the bias, so in the spirit of fairness, I need to present a complete picture and let the facts speak. Since this is a subject which is entirely outside of my expertise, I thought I would ask for your help, since I know many of you are not only rabid baseball fans, but pots of knowledge on a broad variety of subjects.

I need to know everything there is to know about Barry Bonds and steroids/BALCO/HGH/etc. Not your opinions per se, but facts. What I am looking for is a link or links to some timelines and synopses of the entire case, complete with sources. I am hoping someone here is well versed enough in the story to steer me to quality articles and sources and maybe even provide some of their own insight.

Other related stuff I will need to tackle to complete this are going to be along the lines of, what it means to be a Hall of Famer, who's in and maybe shouldn't be, and who's out and should be in, at least as it relates to scandal.

Suggestions of people to PM and bug about this are also welcome, as some might miss this thread.

Though I am mainly looking for information, I wouldn't mind some healthy debate to spark my curiosity. I won't be posting in the thread except to ask questions.

I know this is essentially asking ATOT to do my homework for me, but at least it's not some inane math problem.:awe:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Is Google down? Because it seems like what you're looking for is pretty easily searchable. Google, Wikipedia, ESPN, Sports Illustrated... they've written hundreds of thousands of words on this. That's certainly the best place to find a timeline.

Who is asking you to write this paper? Does it have to present a definitive argument one way or the other or can you waffle back and forth between "yeah, he probably deserves it," and "he cheated, out of the question?"

 

[rcpratt]

Read the Mitchell Report.

Personally, though, I would make the argument that he does deserve to make it based on statistics. The case that he deserves it based on statistics (facts) is beyond undeniable. Then all you have to do is make the case that a significant number of players did exactly what he did (shouldn't be too hard) or at the very least, there is no way to definitively prove what players cheat now, much less who cheated prior to modern drug testing..

 

[zinfamous]

^ if one's knowledge is limited on the subject, then simply research via google isn't that great. Always best to start wtih the experts and those who have spent years examining the facts and tend to be passionate about it. that helps with research.


For my part, Bonds was a first ballot HoF by virtue of the years before any of the knowledge concerning PEDs is thought to have arisen. I don't know the details, but I think most link his relationship to Conte and BALCO as the beginning, but I could be wrong.

Either way, there seems to be an accepted period of time in his career where he was very likely not using PEDs, and he was dominant. He is, by far, the best of this generation and probably the best since Willy Mays because he was a true 5 tooler.

Sure, I have a problem with HoF allowing PEDs in, but not as much as I have a problem with the HoF already including admitted cheaters (bat corkers, ball scuffers, etc) and an entire room of players that are in simply by virtue of having played before the 1910s or so. basically, The HoF isn't the rosey hall of honor that it wants to pretend to be.