gboothe wrote:That's the point! "Reported statements" and "known links". This has been a media feast from the onset, because Bonds had not treated reporters with the "proper respect" they demand, if not just shunning them. So it has turned into an agenda with them to question everything about him.
You're wrong Bird, his head was "blown to a circumference of a beach ball" before this even started. But, spiking at that age would not even have been a question if this hadn't have been "blown" out by the press with their dislike for Bonds. Many players do play well at age and even "spike" late. But, first of all, Bonds is not very likeable as you can see from the people this board, but to say that all of what he has done is because of the roids without proof is still a bit overboard on a guy that is still playing reasonable ball and not been convicted of doing anything.
When you can prove he was on roids beyond some newspaper articles, not just "everybody believes", which is what the news is selling, I'll buy your "Barry Bonds = *".
Hell, in the old days of baseball before training was as strict as it is now, it was uppers to get you running for the day and barbs to kill all the pains from the knicks and bumps. But the stars in those days did not develop many assholes like Bonds is (or as he is at least portrayed) and nobody cared, so it never got reported anywhere.
For me at least, it doesn't matter if Bonds is an asshole or not (I stated this earlier). In fact, I always thought he was a great player. So the whole "Bonds is an asshole and everyone just wants to get back at him" argument is a fallacy as far as I'm concerned.
I think most people were duped into idolizing him because he was achieving amazing records in his late thirties solely due to his natural athletic prowess. It's no wonder that the public is angry - Bonds (and Palmeiro and Canseco and Macguire) betrayed their trust. I doubt the resentment has anything to do with Bonds' personality.
Boothe, I think the Bonds case is really just a convenient cover for you to advocate mistrust of the so-called "MSM". Like your political posts claiming that the media have a liberal bias and therefore should not be trusted, you are now claiming that the media have an anti-Bonds bias and should not be trusted.
You're trying to make Barry Bonds the sports equivalent of George W. Bush - martyrs of public opinion at the hands of the big, biased media. That argument has no legs. Where is the proof that the media are out to get these people? What purpose would that serve? It makes no sense.