Page 1 of 2
Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 08, 2007 5:10am
by Nyx
Should Barry Bonds be the new Home Run King because he took steroids.
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 08, 2007 11:53am
by Robbie Hendrix
Thats fair, but would barry bonds be the home king because he took steroids, most people say he was a HOF before he was accused of taking steroids, He still hasnt been found guilty. Though Im a big fan of his I still think he took them, and Honestly for some reason I dont really care, It was said he started taking in 2002 so we dont really know how many years he took them, with the strict new steriods testing, I dont think he,s been taking steriods for the last couple of years, So I still think he should be the king!
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 1:06pm
by Dragon X
There's no proof he took steroids.Innocent until proven guilty.So for now he is homerun king.
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 5:24pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:There's no proof he took steroids.Innocent until proven guilty.So for now he is homerun king.
The evidence says otherwise. Adults do not grow 3 hat sizes in 1 year without steroids. It just doesn't happen. And if you look at him when he started Major League Baseball, he was downright small, but 2 seasons later he was [censored] huge. Also, he was already ratted out by Jose Conseco (sp?).
Even if he didn't use steroids he tested positive for amphetamines in a recent test. So no, he should not be Home Run King
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 5:27pm
by Dragon X
so he was probaly lifting weights you do get bigger by lifting weights and eating to much.
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 5:32pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:so he was probaly lifting weights you do get bigger by lifting weights and eating to much.
You don't get that big naturally. And if you did it would take many years, not just 2 seasons.
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 5:33pm
by Dragon X
you could gain 100 pounds in one years
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 5:34pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:you could gain 100 pounds in one years
Yeah, but it'd be all fat, not muscle
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 5:36pm
by Dragon X
depends did it ever occur to you he might've been lifting wieght before went in the majors.
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:33pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:depends did it ever occur to you he might've been lifting wieght before went in the majors.
He still couldn't have grown so much in such a short amount of time, and he wouldn't have started out so small either. Plus weight lifting alone doesn't make you grow 3 hat sizes in a year
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:35pm
by Dragon X
he's still the same size as he was a year ago
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:44pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:he's still the same size as he was a year ago
He's likely stopped using them because of all the allegations about it. Now he uses amphetamines (which is also cheating)
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:50pm
by Dragon X
What is that
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:52pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:What is that
Stimulant drugs
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:53pm
by Dragon X
oh did they catch him using them
Re: Should Bonds be Home Run King?
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 6:58pm
by Gyro Zeppeli
Dragon X wrote:oh did they catch him using them
Yes, in fact they did, but MLB rules state that he cant get busted yet