PDA

View Full Version : Bernard Linked to Steroids


Viva Magglio
03-02-2004, 10:33 AM
White Sox outfielder (and non-roster invitee?) Marvin Bernard has been named in this article (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/02/MNGNM5C3AV1.DTL) from today's San Francisco Chronicle as a recipient of steroids from Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO). As you know, BALCO trainer Greg Anderson is under federal indictment for illegal distribution of steroids.

I say the White Sox act quickly and release Bernard outright.

Jerko
03-02-2004, 10:34 AM
agreed.

Maximo
03-02-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
White Sox outfielder (and non-roster invitee?) Marvin Bernard has been named in this article (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/02/MNGNM5C3AV1.DTL) from today's San Francisco Chronicle as a recipient of steroids from Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO). As you know, BALCO trainer Greg Anderson is under federal indictment for illegal distribution of steroids.

I say the White Sox act quickly and release Bernard outright.

I guess they're not for everybody.

soxfan26
03-02-2004, 10:51 AM
Absolutely.

markp8867
03-02-2004, 11:03 AM
What? THE GREAT MARVIN BENARD IS ON STEROIDS?! LOL!

Check out this article from yesterday's Sun-Times. It is guilty-as-sin Marvin Benard defending guilty-as-sin Barry Bonds about the steroid issue.

To read the full story, click here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sside02.html

I think releasing Marvin is way too nice. I say make him ride the pine in A ball so what little natural skills he has diminishes so he loses all the time he has left to make the big leagues. Or better yet, bring him up for one game at USCF so we can all boo him!

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 11:12 AM
The fact that this clown has been exposed as a steroid user begs the question of exactly how many players are on (or were on) these things? I for one have felt that the use of them is far more rampant than just the home run hitters. Caminiti said 1/2 of MLB - I guess we'll see over time.

kermittheefrog
03-02-2004, 11:47 AM
Funny I didn't see any proof of which particular baseball players have used steroids in that article. Guess I need to read more carefully.

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Funny I didn't see any proof of which particular baseball players have used steroids in that article. Guess I need to read more carefully.

What proof would you like to see?

thepaulbowski
03-02-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
I say the White Sox act quickly and release Bernard outright.

I guess he's guilty until proven innocent then. :?:

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
I guess he's guilty until proven innocent then. :?:

Here is a question that - while linked to steroids - also applies to an almost infinite number of other life situations.

When one says "innocent until proven guilty" - does that mean that it is wrong to have any negative judgement about the person in question - even if circumstances almost make his claims of innocence (if he ever makes one) laughable?

Innocent until proven guilty is certainly the rule when it comes to criminal or other sorts of judicial proceedings (as well it should be) - but that's not what we're talking about here - or is it?

thepaulbowski
03-02-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Here is a question that - while linked to steroids - also applies to an almost infinite number of other life situations.

When one says "innocent until proven guilty" - does that mean that it is wrong to have any negative judgement about the person in question - even if circumstances almost make his claims of innocence (if he ever makes one) laughable?

Innocent until proven guilty is certainly the rule when it comes to criminal or other sorts of judicial proceedings (as well it should be) - but that's not what we're talking about here - or is it?

People can think what they want, but to release the guy just because of what an "unnamed source" said is wrong.

fuzzy_patters
03-02-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Here is a question that - while linked to steroids - also applies to an almost infinite number of other life situations.

When one says "innocent until proven guilty" - does that mean that it is wrong to have any negative judgement about the person in question - even if circumstances almost make his claims of innocence (if he ever makes one) laughable?

Innocent until proven guilty is certainly the rule when it comes to criminal or other sorts of judicial proceedings (as well it should be) - but that's not what we're talking about here - or is it?

Thank you for pointing this out. It is one of my pet peeves. Rights that must be respected by the government do not have to be respected by the private citizens. We have a right to look at circumstantial evidence and make judgments as we see fit.

SSN721
03-02-2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
People can think what they want, but to release the guy just because of what an "unnamed source" said is wrong.

I agree, I am not telling other peopel what to think, certainly all entitled to your opinions, but I personally would think it is quite wrong to release someone with as little proof as that.

Mickster
03-02-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
I guess he's guilty until proven innocent then. :?:

In the court of public opinion: It is clearly (and incorrectly) Guilty until proven Innocent.

The court of law and public opinion are 2 different animals.

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Mickster
In the court of public opinion: It is clearly (and incorrectly) Guilty until proven Innocent.

Not always. If an outlandish comment or accusation is made concerning someone, it usually is blown off. When you start attaching souces and the like, and when the situation just kind of "smells right" - then I think you'll see the public reach its conclusion. This is one of those.

doublem23
03-02-2004, 01:02 PM
Wow, this is turning into a witch hunt.

Jerko
03-02-2004, 01:05 PM
I don't think it's a witch hunt, but we all come here and rip Scammy with less evidence than we have on Benard. Sammy at least was smart enough not to use BALCO and his name isn't in print anywhere that we know of (yet). I say can his ass and get rid of this garbage NOW! I don't want to hear about it all year! No distractions.

Irishsox1
03-02-2004, 02:20 PM
From what's being reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, they estimate that if Bond's took steroids, he started taking them before the 2000 season. Here is what his homeruns looked like in the five years before and the years after. There is no doubt in my mind that he used steroids in 2001 when he set the single season homerun record.

1995 33 HR's
1996 42
1997 40
1998 37
1999 34
2000 49 This is the year it is estimated he started using
2001 73
2002 46
2003 45

MarkEdward
03-02-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Funny I didn't see any proof of which particular baseball players have used steroids in that article. Guess I need to read more carefully.

Shh! Don't you know, Kermit? You don't need evidence to prove guilt. Just a little correlation. Bonds is guilty! Look at him! I mean, he's grown bigger through the years! Don't you see? Baseball as we know it is ruined forever!

Silly stat head.

Also, Sammy Sosa is a fraud who poops his pants.

tanko
03-02-2004, 03:07 PM
I hope Marvin didn't pay for those Steroids cuz he certainly didn't get his money's worth.Get a refund Marvin.

kittle42
03-02-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
From what's being reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, they estimate that if Bond's took steroids

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go.....

BOND'S!!!??? :angry: :whiner:

thepaulbowski
03-02-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Wow, this is turning into a witch hunt.

Dusty is that you? :)

A. Cavatica
03-02-2004, 05:03 PM
Careful. Releasing Benard doesn't hurt the team much, and would probably be a good PR move -- but what if Frank or Magglio or Carlos or Crede is implicated? Do you immediately release them too? Or do you admit that there's a double standard for good players who are the core of your franchise?

SEALgep
03-02-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Careful. Releasing Benard doesn't hurt the team much, and would probably be a good PR move -- but what if Frank or Magglio or Carlos or Crede is implicated? Do you immediately release them too? Or do you admit that there's a double standard for good players who are the core of your franchise? Double Standard I wouldn't release him based on this alone. If he can help the team, keep him. If he is a distraction, let him go. These other guys may have done steroids, but they won't be implicated with Balco. Each person is dealt with a case by case basis. The organization will stand behind their players, but Mernard hasn't spent time as a White Sox. I am really indifferent with this case. If the Sox want him still, fine, if not, that's fine too.

bc2k
03-02-2004, 05:19 PM
See what happens when your team doesn't have a leader?

:hurt
Who, me?

StepsInSC
03-02-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
See what happens when your team doesn't have a leader?

:hurt
Who, me?

You've got to be kidding.

bc2k
03-02-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
You've got to be kidding.

Actually yes, this time I am.

GOC
03-02-2004, 11:40 PM
If 5-7% of the population were confirmed witches then I would be all for witchhunts .

Also , correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't he just a non-roster invitee and therefore not actually on the team yet . It just seemed a bit of a stretch when they said " Marvin Bernard , White Sox outfielder , was also implicated " .

Railsplitter
03-03-2004, 09:28 AM
Let's get some proof. Mere mentioning in a newspaper story doesn't mean something's true. Ever hear of a guy named Richard Jewel?

jackbrohamer
03-03-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Shh! Don't you know, Kermit? You don't need evidence to prove guilt. Just a little correlation. Bonds is guilty! Look at him! I mean, he's grown bigger through the years! Don't you see? Baseball as we know it is ruined forever!

A little correlation? Bonds' increase in offensive output, at an age when most players are beginning a steep decline in performance, is absolutely staggering. He was one of the best players in the game before he was 35, and his output over and above the level he started at is unprecedented in baseball history. What other athlete, in any sport, has gone from being a consistent superstar level to shattering 60 to 70 year-old-records, all between the ages of 34 and 38?

MarkEdward
03-03-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
A little correlation? Bonds' increase in offensive output, at an age when most players are beginning a steep decline in performance, is absolutely staggering.

He's a special player.

He was one of the best players in the game before he was 35, and his output over and above the level he started at is unprecedented in baseball history.

Special players do special things.

What other athlete, in any sport, has gone from being a consistent superstar level to shattering 60 to 70 year-old-records, all between the ages of 34 and 38?

I don't know about other sports, but there have been many baseball players that have had performance surges late in their careers. I can give you a list if you'd like.

poorme
03-03-2004, 02:54 PM
MarkEdward, if I'm ever on trial, I want you on my jury.

white sox bill
03-03-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by GOC
If 5-7% of the population were confirmed witches then I would be all for witchhunts .

Also , correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't he just a non-roster invitee and therefore not actually on the team yet . It just seemed a bit of a stretch when they said " Marvin Bernard , White Sox outfielder , was also implicated " .

State Attorneys have a saying:"Better to let a hundred guilty men go free then to convict one innocent man"

I suppose the folks on the flub sites are having a hayday about one of our beloved Sox taking the shammy juice. Thank God he's only an invitee

jackbrohamer
03-03-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't know about other sports, but there have been many baseball players that have had performance surges late in their careers. I can give you a list if you'd like.

It's not just a performance surge. It's becoming the greatest offensive force in baseball history after he became 35. Tell me any other player who (1) evolved into the best offensive player his sport has known at age 35, (2) whose post-35 numbers dwarf his pre-35 numbers by such a huge margin, and (3) who added 30-40 pounds of solid muscle in less than 1 year after the age of 35.

KingXerxes
03-03-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
State Attorneys have a saying:"Better to let a hundred guilty men go free then to convict one innocent man"

Not wanting to stray off course here, but this old bromide has always bothered me. The reason it bothers me is because everybody agrees with it, and yet nobody abides by it. If you really thought it was better to let 100 guilty men go free rather than risk convicting one innocent man (or a thousand men or a million men) then I guarantee you that you'd better get ready to empty the prisons - because the odds are a lock that there is one innocent man who is sitting behind bars.

Is anybody, has anybody, will anybody ever really seriously advocate that we empty the prisons (with apologies to Joan Baez)?

I just wish this old saw would go away.

KingXerxes
03-03-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
I suppose the folks on the flub sites are having a hayday about one of our beloved Sox taking the shammy juice. Thank God he's only an invitee

I was talking to a couple today. Not only Bernard, but Canseco (who admitted it), Belle etc. They are having a bit of fun at my expense.