Bonds exposed

[jessexy]

how is this book not slander? im just curious.

i believe that he took the steroids and cheated, but how can they get a book publish with "the truth" but nobody else can figure out with facts and proof that he took the juice and cheated?

[DanGenck]

I think that if what you say is proved correct by accurate citations... then it is not slander. Rob Graff, help us out here...

[Rob Graff]

Many other atty's on the board could answer this, but here goes...

From what I recall from law school, there are two primary reasons its probably not slander:

1. Truth is an absolute defense.

2. He's a public figure which lessens the standard for defamatory claims.

[Gregg Pathiakis]

I honestly haven't read this SI story or any of the stories about the SI story yet, but I don't get what the big story is. Didn't enough people already come out and say Bonds was on steroids? What new revelation does this story bring?

[bste_lax]

I honestly haven't read this SI story or any of the stories about the SI story yet, but I don't get what the big story is. Didn't enough people already come out and say Bonds was on steroids? What new revelation does this story bring?

It's Spring Training and ESPN pumped this story (possibly to try an create a baseball stir because the WBC is being played on ESPN?).

[Jay Wisnieski]

I happen to still have my Communications Law book from college, so here's the thing:

how is this book not slander? im just curious.

Slander: defamation communicated orally rather than in writing

Libel: a false communication that wrongfully injures the reputation of another. In many jurisdictions libel refers only to defamation that occurs in writing.

So as you can see, they're more likely to have a libel suit than a slander suit. Rob said it best though...

Truth is an absolute defense.

[CyLaxKeeper00]

any dope can take steriods. what bonds was able to accomplish throughout his career still takes a great deal of skill.

[Adam G]

any dope can take steriods. what bonds was able to accomplish throughout his career still takes a great deal of skill.

Skill which benefitted greatly by the use of steroids.

[jessexy]

i just heard an interview of the one of the author's of this book and, from what i can gather, Bonds is NOT the focus of the book, as it has been made to seem.

the book is about one third NFL substance, one third track and field substance, and then covers BALCO and some Bay area pro sports teams and individuals (like Bonds & Giambi). he suggested that they only focused a small portion on MLB and its steroids issues.

SI took about 1/4 of the material on Bonds as the excerpt for the SI article, which illustrates to me that the SI is still trying to attack Bonds.

[Sonny]

I honestly haven't read this SI story or any of the stories about the SI story yet, but I don't get what the big story is. Didn't enough people already come out and say Bonds was on steroids? What new revelation does this story bring?

1. Bonds has denied using steriods (numerous times in the past)
2. Bonds is on the verge of breaking one of the biggest records in all of professional sports.

[CATLAX MAN]

I don't get what all the hub-bub is about. Bonds is not the only player who has been using steroids during his career. First of all, let's keep in mind here that the use of steroids was not against the rules up until a short while ago. You can look over the list of players who have performed well over the last 10-15 years or so and I bet you will find a number of them have gotten some pharmaceutical assistance. People like McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti, Sosa, Bagwell, Boone, Anderson, Palmeiro, and on and on and on. Do you think career .235 hitter Rich Aurilia's 37 homer season just came out of nowhere unassisted? It's not just about the hitters either as pitchers have been using also to get through the aches & pains of the season.

Bud Selig is an incredible hypocrite to be now be basically saying that baseball didn't know this was going on. That is just a load of doodoo. There have been bennies, greenies, yellow & black pills in the clubhouse of every major league ball club for quite some time. Selig says he is going to investigate the "Bonds situation." Why? What is to investigate? Has he ever failed a drug test since it became illegal in baseball?

Now you have these sportswriters who are going to withhold their Hall of Fame vote for Bonds because he "cheated." Again, these holier-than-thous are somehow shocked that these players that they have been aggrandizing in their columns for years have been using drugs? Come on, give me a break. Why didn't they withhold their vote for Gaylord Perry, the most documented "cheater" of all time? Even if that were a viable excuse, Bonds has Hall of Fame credentials even if you throw out every season since 1999.

[Gregg Pathiakis]

I don't get what all the hub-bub is about. Bonds is not the only player who has been using steroids during his career. First of all, let's keep in mind here that the use of steroids was not against the rules up until a short while ago. You can look over the list of players who have performed well over the last 10-15 years or so and I bet you will find a number of them have gotten some pharmaceutical assistance. People like McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti, Sosa, Bagwell, Boone, Anderson, Palmeiro, and on and on and on. Do you think career .235 hitter Rich Aurilia's 37 homer season just came out of nowhere unassisted? It's not just about the hitters either as pitchers have been using also to get through the aches & pains of the season.

Bud Selig is an incredible hypocrite to be now be basically saying that baseball didn't know this was going on. That is just a load of doodoo. There have been bennies, greenies, yellow & black pills in the clubhouse of every major league ball club for quite some time. Selig says he is going to investigate the "Bonds situation." Why? What is to investigate? Has he ever failed a drug test since it became illegal in baseball?

Now you have these sportswriters who are going to withhold their Hall of Fame vote for Bonds because he "cheated." Again, these holier-than-thous are somehow shocked that these players that they have been aggrandizing in their columns for years have been using drugs? Come on, give me a break. Why didn't they withhold their vote for Gaylord Perry, the most documented "cheater" of all time? Even if that were a viable excuse, Bonds has Hall of Fame credentials even if you throw out every season since 1999.

Still haven't read the SI article, so forgive me if I'm ill-informed, but to start, I don't believe any cheater should be elected to the HOF. You mentioned Gaylord Perry. I know absolutely nothing about him, but if he "cheated" as you say, then yes, I agree he shouldn't have been elected in. Sonny's reply to my last post enlightened me, "Bonds denied ever using steroids." OK, maybe MLB did "outlaw" steroids until recently, but haven't they always been outlawed by the LAW? As an extreme example, if I could take a pill and become stronger than any baseball player in history (I would hope this pill would also make me in shape first) and able to hit a homerun at every at bat, should I be honored for my achievements. If Barry Bonds never took one steroid in his life, yes, he would probably still be a very good player, and probably even HOF caliber (although we will never know for sure), but he decided that he wanted to be better than himself. He decided to give himself an extra boost that others didn't have.

I am probably rambling now as my mind isn't operating at 100%, but I want to close on the fact that Pete Rose did NOT cheat (atleast in any sense than improved his baseball ability and stats) and is still being denied access to the HOF spot he deserves.

[Sonny]

I don't get what all the hub-bub is about.

I will repeat:
1. Bonds has denied using steriods (numerous times in the past)
2. Bonds is on the verge of breaking one of the biggest records in all of professional sports.

[Hackalicious]

As an extreme example, if I could take a pill and become stronger than any baseball player in history (I would hope this pill would also make me in shape first) and able to hit a homerun at every at bat, should I be honored for my achievements.

This brings up a good philosophical question of how far is to far with athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs.

I think it's pretty clear that injecting yourself with horse testosterone is an extreme step that constitutes an unfair advantage.

What about blood doping? People remove their own blood and then re-injected it before competition to increase their blood's oxygen capacity. This can be dangerous and people have died by over-dosing, but for the most part is fairly safe.

Blood doping is banned in a lot of sports. However, you can get the same effect by training at very high altitudes, and of course that's legal. So, doping is not banned because it's an unfair advantage -- anyone could get the same effect by training at high altitude. Is it banned because it's an "shortcut"?

What about extreme diets? Maybe eating 5000 calories of protein a day gives you a competitive advantage. That seems like an extreme step and I bet it has long term health consequences, yet it's perfectly legal.

I think these questions are going to get even more blurred in the future. What if you could get gene therapy that alters your DNA to gives you a competitive advantage?

[KnoxVegas]

The Onion has a very compelling and in-depth article on this subject. You can find it here:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46188