2007-05-09

Bonds Steroid Use

I don't really care about this issue. But a contributor to this blog claimed that Bonds never admitted to steroid use, so therefore all the anti-Bond furor represents racism. But here we see that when the training outfit that supplied Bonds with supplements got uncovered as a steroid supplier, Bonds explained that he had used a balm unbeknown-to-him may have been been doped. MLB officials have never stated that all of his tests have been negative, though nor have they sated that any has been positive. However, he tested positive for speed, and blamed that on eating a teammate's snack, which had unbeknown-to-him been doped with dope. I think that the people booing the Bonds HR chase have good, non-racist reasons for doing so.

32 comments:

uptownseteve said...

I seriously doubt that the contributor stated that ALL anti-Bond furvor represents racism but anyone with operating gray matter will acknowledge that much of it is.

Sosa, Giambi, Palmiero and a few others are known steroid users yet none has received one tenth of the hate and vitriol Bonds receives daily.

Bonds is a black man who smiles when he feels like it nto to comfort white people and of course that stance in and of itself will make him a "troublesome nigger" in the eyes of much of white America.

Paul Hue said...

I concede that the writer wouldn't have said "all".

I don't understand your point about Sosa, who you say admitted to steroids and has received little vitriol. Since Sosa and Bonds are both black, and if fans are targeting only one of them, then how does racism explain most of the vitriol?

The white guy Mark McGuire admitted to steroids, but even before he did, I think the fans had abandoned him. When he and Sosa chased the season record, steroids was not a controversy and they both enjoyed massive fan support. When the steroid issue manifested, both lost fan support as fans assumed that they where cheaters in light of the allegations, even before they admitted. I think that most fans no longer accept McGuire has having broken Marris' record, and if McGuire were still playing he would lack fan support.

When Aaron beat Ruth's record the US still had substantial anti-black racism. Today and for some time now Americans embrace Aaron's record, and wish to protect it from somebody who they perceive as a cheater.

uptownseteve said...

Sosa is a smiling non-threatening black hispanic.

Mark McGwire made an appearance in Baltimore Camden Yards last summer (I was at the game) and received a standing ovation from the crowd.

"When Aaron beat Ruth's record the US still had substantial anti-black racism. Today and for some time now Americans embrace Aaron's record, and wish to protect it from somebody who they perceive as a cheater."

American still has substantial anti-black racism and people like you are in denial about it.

White Americans haven't embraced Aaron's record. They've merely accepted it because they really can't do anything else.

Aaron hit 755 and passed Babe Ruth. It was there for everyone to see.

Just like Civil Rights laws, white America hasn't "embraced" Civil Rights. They have no choice but to accept them. It's the law.

Yet there is still a 5 year back log of discrimination complaints at the EEOC agency.

Think about it. A mere 16 years after the passage of the Civil Rights movement, a politican who was rabidly anti-Civil Rights won the Presidency by a landslide.

For the last 40, conservatism has been dominant among white American voters precisely because many are still angry that Civil Rights law were passed in the first place.

"Embraced" my butt.

Paul Hue said...

I am shocked to learn that McGuire got a standing ovation one year ago; however, with all the hatred of Bonds, he will probably get one also, including a few years after his retirement when he goes to games. But it looks like McGuire may never get into the hall of fame.

Very curious about that backlog of civil rights complaints, except for black actors trying to get into Tim Burton or Steven Speilberg movies.

Paul Hue said...

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050707.php3

George Will pays tribute to Aaron, ho-hums Bonds, and predicts that Alex Rodreguiz will beat Bonds' record, and that fans will embrace him when he does.

uptownseteve said...

"Very curious about that backlog of civil rights complaints, except for black actors trying to get into Tim Burton or Steven Speilberg movies."

What about Mel Gibson movies?

Paul Hue said...

Mel Gibson and other movies as well!

Paul Hue said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18546274/

This sports columnist agrees with me, and presents some polling info: most white baseball fans are rooting against Bonds, while most black fans are rooting for him. This suggests to me that somebody is being racist: one group or both. I believe that the black sports fans would be rooting against Bonds if he was white due to the steroid issue. But because he is black they are overlooking it.

uptownseteve said...

Gee, why did I know this "columnist" was white?

This is just more of the same ol tired white whining about race nowadays.

According to the Paul Hues' and Tim Dahlbergs of the world white people are over the race issue and blacks are still milking race for all they can get and all the so-called "white guilt" they can elicit.

Yet all these same white folks do is stereotype and demonize blacks as well as assigning special "behaviors" to blacks.

79% of baseball fans (overwhelmingly white) feel that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame despite betting on baseball and his own team!!!!!

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0717/1582288.html

But of course, you don't want to talk about THAT, right Paul?

Paul Hue said...

Sure, I'll talk about anything you like. Why do honkey (and, I suppose, black) baseball fans all cheer Pete Rose and want him in the Hall of Fame, despite his gambling? For one thing, I assume that black and white fans agree on this, and I can imagine a good, non-racist reason why they support Rose: his gambling didn't pad any of his record-breaking numbers.

I can't believe that white fans are being racist in their disapproval of Bond because white fans uniformly adore too many black athletes, including those who broke honkey-held records, and they despise too many white athletes.

A good fraction of black fans also disapprove of Bonds, about 30%, including Hank Aaron. Thus surely some solid non-racist reason exists to disdain the guy and cheer against him.

uptownseteve said...

I don't see how you can call black fans racist for supporting Bonds.

I see Dahlberg making the obilgatory reference to OJ regarding black vs white opinion.

I personally felt OJ was guilty before the trial but after I saw the overwrought reaction of white America to the verdict, I was glad he was aqcuitted.

Gave ya'll a taste of what we've been eating for 200 some odd years of so-calle "American Justice".

And you din't like one bit, did you?

Much was made of black people cheering the OJ verdict but where I was, in a Bethesda MD company cafeteria one of a few blacks surrounded by whites, I saw white people crying, grimacing, grunting, banging on tables and slamming doors.

I didn't see white folks acting like that when Claus Von Bulow or Robert Blake were acquitted..

Barry Bonds, like OJ Simpson, is not a beloved figure in black America.

I've never really cared for him.

But we know damn well that 90% of the vitriol he receives is because he's perceived as an arrogant nigger who doesn't know his place and it's because he doesn't grin and dance for white folks.

And that's why many blacks want to see him break the record.

Just to pi$$ ya'll off.

Paul Hue said...

===== Steve writes: I didn't see white folks acting like that when Claus Von Bulow or Robert Blake were acquitted..
=================

Because a bunch of loud-mouths around the country didn't proclaim daily that these guys were innocent and being railroaded by cops who reflected some horrible personal flaw rampant amongst white Americans.

Every body assumed those guys were guilty, and their brilliant attorneys didn't put the entire US on trial, linking a non-guilty verdict with an indictment of American society. In particular, their defense attorneys didn't create a racial divide on behalf of their clients, nor did the usual media race-baiters.

To the contrary, OJ's attorneys and media race-baiters portrayed his prosecution as an act of racism. When this was going on, I was a full-time student at FAMU. I was disgusted that the horrible case of Medger Evers and countless ones like it were going to be countered by permitting some super rich black guy get away with killing a couple of rich honkies.

How does solving today's problems, or correcting those of the past, get helped along by black folks now cheering the acquittal of a guilty black murderer? Is that what Nat Turner fought for, that one day black folks would spend their energy cheering a rich black guy performing a jealousy snub?

Do you really think that those disgusted white folks are white folks who are not otherwise cheering for black folks to succeed in the US? If you believe this, you have an incorrect understanding of what honkies think. Did you notice these same crackers -- or any crackers -- cheering when the Rodney King beaters got off at their first trial? And while we're on that subject, did any of these honkies angry about the OJ verdict riot, target non-white bussinesses for arson and looting, or take any violent vengeance against random black folks, as occurred in the Rodney King riots? And did any white folks react angrily when the second Rodney King trial resulted in guilty verdicts?

Interesting that the OJ apologists view his criminal non-guilty verdict as evidence of actual innocence, yet they rejected the first Rodney King verdict, and ignore the "responsible" verdict in the OJ civil trial.

uptownseteve said...

What "loudmouths around the country" were proclaiming OJ's innocence?

I don't recall anyone but OJ's lawyers making that claim in the media.

Can you name any prominent figures who proclaiming OJs innocence or who came out in support of OJ before or after the trial?

He's a pariah.

Every body assumed those guys were guilty, and their brilliant attorneys didn't put the entire US on trial, linking a non-guilty verdict with an indictment of American society. In particular, their defense attorneys didn't create a racial divide on behalf of their clients, nor did the usual media race-baiters.

No need for Blake's or Von Bulow's attorney to make race an issue. They and their victims were white.

And if "everyone" assumed these two were guilty, where was the national outrage at their acquittals?

There was none because they were white and rich white boys get off all the time.

You've admitted it yourself.

White Americans were pissed because a black got off for killing two white folks and in America that $hit doesn't and isn't supposed to happen.

How does solving today's problems, or correcting those of the past, get helped along by black folks now cheering the acquittal of a guilty black murderer? Is that what Nat Turner fought for, that one day black folks would spend their energy cheering a rich black guy performing a jealousy snub?

It is a false choice to claim that solving today's problems have anything to do with OJ.

Many white people always make these veiled threats that if blacks keep making them mad then it will harm race relations.

We black folks stay mad about the crap that goes on in this country but whites folks don't worry about that.

You seem to feel that good race relations are predicated on your good will...ie..."black folks not pissing you off".

What are you going to do?

Revoke the 14th Amendment?

Start a race war.

No, you're going to do what you've been doing for 40 years, ever since the passage of the great Civil Rights Acts.

Vote Republican because you hope that they'll keep the "kneegrows" in check.

I don't see any white folks cheering for black success.

Enlightened white people realize that success for black people means success for America.

Many others seem to feel that black success is at their expense.

Nobody cheered the initial Rodeny King verdict because the same thing has happened so many times in America.

White folks victimizing and brutalizing blacks and not being punished for it.

In 1992, after a damn VIDEOTAPE showed the brutalization to the world, an all white jury acquitts the whites.

The black and latino community in LA had enough and exploded.


I don't know too many people who proclaim OJs innocence today but there still is a term in US law called reasonable doubt.

There was a VIDEOTAPE showing those cops beating Rodney King.

And an all white jury let them off.

And nobody rioted after the OJ civil trial.

Nadir said...

I'm sure Paul is referring to me as the Barry Bonds/OJ supporter. As was deduced by Steve, I NEVER said that references to Bonds steriod use was racist. I said that he was treated differently than Mark McGwire who is cheered. I also said that Bonds has never been found guilty of steriod use. Is the story shaky? No doubt. But what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Same with OJ who was found not guilty in a criminal trial, but somehow was found libel in a civil trial. That shouldn't be legal. The court finding him not guilty should have excused him from the civil judgement.

Do I think OJ is guilty? It doesn't matter. The civil suit was a way for white America to get its vengence through its own system. Johnnie Cochran beat them just like a thousand good (and expensive) white lawyers beat the system every day. They were just pissed because the Black guy won.

If OJ had any money left after paying Shapiro and then Cochran to defend him in the criminal suit, perhaps he could have afforded a better lawyer who could have gotten him off. Of course the judge was on the plantiff's side throughout.

Why hasn't a civil case been filed against Robert Blake? Who thinks they can win that case? He's a rich white guy.

uptownseteve said...

nadir,

EXACTLY.

President Bush came out in support of Rafael Palmiero after he defiantly testified that he never used steroids at the Congressional Hearing and then was popped on a drug test afterwards.

The fan who was interviewed in the Dahlberg column stated that he "hated" Barry Bonds.

Why?

Does he also hate Giambi, McGwire or Palmiero?

Probably not.

And you ask a great question.

Whay hasn't there been a civil case filed against Robert Blake?

Paul Hue said...

Innocence until proven guilty is a legal term that applies to criminal charges; it does not pertain to individual people deciding whom to like and what to think. Nadir and Steve, like all people, make judgments all the time about people outside of criminal court decisions. For example, Nadir is 100% certain that Bush "lied" in culling support for his war, in addition to committing countless crimes, all without waiting for a criminal prosecution and its results.

But for Barry Bonds, he pretends to need the result of some special official investigation.

Paul Hue said...

Six:

Is it possible for a white sports fan to hate an athlete who is black without racism explaining it?

By the way, do a google search on Robert Blake Civil Trial. You will learn that his victim's blood relations sued him, and the jury found him responsible and awarded the plaintiffs 30$mil.

The reason crackers didn't get mad at the Blake acquittal whereas they did at the OJ acquittal is that OJ's attorneys and black media commentators at the time claimed that OJ was an innocent black man who was framed by racist cops.

uptownseteve said...

Name ONE black media commentator who claimed OJ's innocence.

ONE.

Look, my wife is an attorney and she knew the second that Mark Furhmann was caught in a lie on the stand the OJ won the case.

The reason you have to "google" to find out about the Blake Civil trial is that the mainstream media didn't report it.

Whereas OJ civil trial was a media feast and when he was found liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron white America cheered and regarded it as a compensatory victory for the race.

Paul Hue said...

Steve: I didn't have to google to discover that Blake got sued, only to provide you the ease at which you could have checked yourself before you issued an inaccurate proclamation (had I, you would have charged me with "lying"; I instead assume you made an assumption of which you were so certain that you didn't check, which is a mistake we all make). Blake never received as much media attention as OJ for two very clear reasons.

1. He was never as famous or as beloved as OJ.
2. Nobody on behalf of him indicted American society in persecuting him unfairly.

I agree with your wife that the average US citizens who sit on juries are stupid enough to let off a murderer when a cop gets caught making a racist remark unrelated to the case.

As for your impression that leftist black commentators did not defend OJ as the victim of racism, take it up with John Ridley, who shares my opposite impression:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/hypocrites-al-and-jesse-g_b_34535.html

Perhaps black folks during the time were cheering his not guilty verdict with all the liberal black commentators mum, and people like me and John Ridley suffering from an incorrect recollection.

uptownseteve said...

LOL!!!!!!!!

You are a determined little fella aren't you Paul?

Look Paul, neither you nor John Ridley (another bottom dwelling media Rent-A-Negro)has identified any black liberal commentattors who championed OJ system.

So why don't you just admit that you made it up and let's move on.

You can twist and spin all you like.

The Blake acquittal didn't cause any outrage in White America because he was white.

And twelve years after the verdict, white folks like you are still furious about the OJ acquittal.

Because he was a nigger who got away with killing two white folks.

Any attorney will tell that when the prosecution's lead witness is found to be lying on the stand, the defense usually wins.

And please, come back with somebody more credible than John Ridley who would probably be writing for his local supermarket coupon paper, where it not for his gleeful willingness to attack his fellow blacks for the pleasure of white bigots.

That's the ticket today for black journalists in the mainstream media.

Kiss white a$$ and the skies the limit.

uptownseteve said...

I wonder why John Ridley doesn't open his mouth about all the major political and media figures who regularly appeared on Imus' show knowing full well of the vile racist vitriol that was spewed on his show daily.

You know why he doesn't?

Because the second Ridley starts attacking white folks, particularly conservative white folks, then he'll lose his cherished perch on MSNBC and his syndicated columns.

Ridley is a rent-a-negro. A pathetic media whore hired to be a black spokeman for white resentment.

Hope he sleeps well.

Paul Hue said...

My and Ridley's assumption and recollection of black leaders supporting OJ is no more made up than your assumption that Robert Blake never got sued for civil damaged. At this point, our recollection is neither proven nor disproved.

In any case the larger point stands: white folks who were outraged over the OJ verdict were motivated exclusively by non-racist (on their part) factors, including a reaction to black folks generally siding with him due entirely to racism on their own part.

Paul Hue said...

Ridley warrants the names that you call him merely because he has views that differ from yours. He has participated as a co-host of MSNBC's morning replacement for Imus, and has demonstrated that he's as much of an intellectual as anybody else on talk TV.

Paul Hue said...

http://www.melissaharrislacewell.com/blog.htm

I can't find any evidence that any black leaders supported OJ, characterized him as innocent and the victim of racist police framing him. I only found another claim by a black person that black leaders supported him.

Nor do I find any evidence that any of these leaders spoke out against characterizing of OJ's arrest as that of an innocent man framed by racist cops.

But I stand behind my assertion that this was OJ's defense, that a majority of black folks at the time embraced either that view or any other justification for letting him off, and that this was why white folks were upset that such a defense could result in a guy getting away with murder.

uptownseteve said...

C'mon Paul.

I admit that I had never heard about the Blake civil trial and when you produced evidence of it, I stand corrected..

However neither you nor Uncle John have produced one example of a black media figure supporting OJ as you claimed.

And I don't suspect you will.

As for your views about whites vis-a-vis OJ and Ridley, we'll just have agree to disagree.

uptownseteve said...

"But I stand behind my assertion that this was OJ's defense, that a majority of black folks at the time embraced either that view or any other justification for letting him off, and that this was why white folks were upset that such a defense could result in a guy getting away with murder."

Right.

It was all about race.

A black man getting away with murdering two white folks sent white America into a rage.

We've watched white boys killing and beating blacks all our lives and getting away with it and this ONE TIME the system that white folks created didn't work the way THEY wanted it to, they have a 12 year hissy fit.

Many blacks cheered but it wasn't about OJ.

Those Howard University law students cheered because they dollar signs in theie young little eyes.

A brilliant black attorney played the same courtroom games that white lawyers have been playing for centuries and WON. Beat the system at it's own game.

Blacks like myself didn't necessarily cheer but chuckled as we watched white folks throwing tantrums at this verdict when they previously told us after cases like Amadou Diallo, Willie Turks, Michael Griffith (NYC cases where white cops and/or civilians killed black men and didn't spend a day in jail) to be calm and trust the American justice system.

"It's the best in the world" ya'll told us.

Until it didn't operate the way YOU wanted it to.

Paul Hue said...

The only reason white folks were mad that OJ got away with murder is that he used as his defense an indictment against racism in the US, and daily public opinion polls showed that that a big majority of black folks were buying into at, and at the very least, black leaders who would have spoken strongly against a white murderer getting away with killing some black folks were either mum or even supportive of OJ.

You, Steve, are no more of an authority than I on the overall general feelings of white people towards black folks.

How old are you that you have "watched all your life" white folks getting way with killing & beating black folks, when for the past 30 years or so white criminals (in a nation over 50% white) have accounted for just a tiny fraction of black victims of homicides, rapes, & assaults, whereas in a nation just 12% black, black criminals account for a multiples of that fraction in the commission of murders, rapes, and assault against whites.

When I hear countless black folks describe why they have moved, or wish to move, out of Detroit, police brutality never gets mentioned, though crimes committed by neighbors always gets mentioned prominently.

uptownseteve said...

Getting emotional Paul?

You can claim all the "in a nation over 50% white) have accounted for just a tiny fraction of black victims of homicides, rapes, & assaults" all you like.

What you should be saying is that a tiny fraction of whites are CONVICTED for assaulting, raping or murdering blacks.

You can deny it all you want.

I've seen it all my life.

A childhood friend of mine is walking around 32 years later with one eye from a life threatening beating he took from white thugs in the Mt Carmel section of the Bronx.

None of the white neighbors would cooperate with the weak police investigation so no one was ever arrested or prosecuted.

Even though Jimmy said there were at least twenty watching and laughing while he was getting beaten.
The St John's University rape case in NYC in 1988 where four white boys beat and sodomized a black coed.

Their semen was found on the girls clothing and she had multiple contusions and cuts.

The white boys were aqcuitted.

Willie Turks was stomped and bludgeoned to death by white boys in Brooklyn 1989.

None of the white boys spent a day in jail.

20 miles from my present home two years ago 8 white kids in Pasadena, MD beat and stomped to death 17 year old Noah Jones.

All the white boys were aqcuitted.

When black people victimize white folks they do time.

It's often not the case the other way around.

uptownseteve said...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-te.ar.jones25may25,0,6722903.story?coll=bal-specialreports-headlines

The murder of Noah Jones.

Paul Hue said...

You can find many instances of white folks murdering, raping, and assaulting black folks, even doing so explicitly as racist acts. However, unless you go back 32 years ago as you did in the example above, such occurrences are rare in the lives of black people today and for the past 20 years, to be raped, assaulted, or murdered by a black person. Meanwhile, the likelihood of a black person being murdered, raped, or assaulted by another black person represents a risk I predict to be at least 10 times more likely.

Also, black-on-white crimes of rape, assault, and murder are several times higher today than the opposite.

Paul Hue said...

When Kobe got accuse of raping a white ho, no honkies started demanding a conviction, and when the charges got dropped, white folks left it alone, and now accept him like nothing ever happened. But then again, Kobe's attornies never presented his case as an example of a racist society gone amok.

This combined with countless examples of white folks today embracing black athletes and all-black teams, convince me that the anti-Bonds feelings among 70% of honkies and 30% of blacks is genuine; even a non-racist population of crackers will at some point encounter a black person that they dislike, for non-racist reasons.

Paul Hue said...

http://www.slate.com/id/2165738/fr/flyout

White folks also hate Roger Clemons.