New York Daily News says that he actually failed a test fro amphetamines last season, but due to MLB policy, it wasn't reported. (They only get reported or suspended for the 2nd failed test.)

Lovely.

And of course the classy Bonds had to blame it on soemthing he took from teammate Mark Sweeeny's locker. What a guy!

Give Barry a break! He thought he was snorting two lines of talcum powder! Frikken Sweeney! Prankster!

Amphetamines? Not even worth mentioning. Every baseball player does that. Unlike steroids, which the majority of players do not use, taking amphetamines, drugs that a majority of MLB players use, does not provide Bonds with an advantage. Even kids in little league take them. I've seen it with my own eyes. Not defending Barry Bonds; still think he's a cheater (allegedly) but the amphetamine story is much ado about nothing.

The real story is selling out and blaming his teammate. That's unforgiveable.

If every baseball player takes amphetamines, it seems there'd be a lot more of these announcements since they test for them now. And they may not build the muscles the way steroids do, but they certainly do help with a player's energy levels or else players wouldn't take them.

Meanwhile, Bonds denies throwing Sweeney under the bus:



He doesn't confirm or deny the positive test, though. And his contract for 2007 hasn't been finalized yet. Reports say they're trying to finalize contract language regarding Bonds' compliance with team rules, as well as what would happen if he were to be indicted or have other legal troubles. Then he'd have to pass his physical.

Barry Bonds continues to live in interesting times.

Joe, I thought testing for amphetamines was started recently. When exactly did the they start testing for them? I'll bet a dollar that a majority of players use them, even with the test in place, thinking they will beat the odds. Isn't the test conducted randomly? It's my understanding that tests are random until a player is caght red-handed (so to speak); then they must get tested regularly.

What a sorry excuse for a human being this pathetic idiot is.

There's no suspension for amphetamines unless they test twice positively, so we have no idea how many players other than Bonds have tested positive once. It's ironic that people are so blase about amphetamines, though, as they're probably more dangerous than steroids. At the very least, the health risks of amphetamines--which are pretty much the same as cocaine--are far better documented.

I did a little research. The agreement between ownership and players was signed late in 2005. Last season was the first season where the new rules took effect. EVERY player is tested in spring training when they get their physicals, and EVERY player is tested one other time during the season on a randomly selected date. There are additional random tests that are conducted any time of year, including the off-season, and players are subject to a random test regardless of how many previous times he has been tested.

Unlike the steroid rules, the first positive test doesn't result in suspension and is not announced publicly...not officially, anyway. Obviously in this case word leaked out. A second test results in suspension. So it seems to me that if a majority of players used them in 2006, odds are someone would've tested positive more than once and been suspended. No one was suspended under this provision in 2006.

Amusing article about Barry Bonds, Victim:

Joe, don't get the impression that I like Barry Bonds. I don't. I think he's a cheat, and a poor excuse for a human being. But that has nothing to do with my belief that he should be in the HOF. My position is that, unless it can be shown that BB violated a baseball rule, he should still get HOF consideration. What BB is as a person shouldn't, in my opinion, be linked to what he does at the plate. I think it sets a bad precedent to link on and off the field behavior. In my opinion, it places an undue burden on all baseball players when HOF voters expect them to abide by some morality-based "off-the-field code of conduct", because once HOF voters go down that road, they become morality police, and we will never get a consenus on "acceptable off-the-field" behavior because morality is based on individual perferences and values.

If HOF voters start down this road, it might be possible that players could be left off the HOF ballot because they were, or are, alcoholic, belonged to a race-exclusive organization, smoked weed, contracted AIDS, beat his wife, etc.. No, Barry Bonds is not a good person, but as I said, that shouldn't prevent his name from appearing on a HOF ballot. There are accepted and traditional baseball guidelines that prevent players from receiving HOF consideration, and so far Barry Bond has not done anything that would prevent him receiving HOF consideration.

By the time Barry Bonds is eligible for HOF consideration, we will know for sure whether he took PEDs. Then we will be able to judge for sure whether he deserves to be in the HOF. Agreed?

P.S. Thanx for the info about the baseball drug testing program.

But, Tom, should a person get into the HOF if artificial means enabled said person to achieve what he otherwise would not have likely achieved? If one uses performance enhancing drugs to break records, this isn't due to his performance on the field but due to his performance in a medicine cabinet.

Just my 2 cents.

No argument from me. If Barry Bonds is shown to be guilty of taking PEDs he shouldn't be in the HOF. All I'm saying is that, so far, he hasn't been shown to be guilty of that. If it can be shown that he took PEDs, at any time, I think BB's name should never appear on a HOF ballot.

But, you'd be surprised at the number of people who believe that BB should get HOF consideration, regardless of the outcome of the PED investigations.

Once again, as MLB had NO restrictions against such substances at the time, how can you justify barring Bonds (or dozens to hundreds of others) from the HOF? especially as we'll NEVER know who took what?

I'm assuming you guys have heard that the Commissioner rejected Bond's $15.8M/yr contract with the Giants because of a clause relating to additional personal appearances. Players are allowed no more personal apearances than described in the CBA. Bonds' contract included language requiring additional personal apearances. Bud Selig sent it back to the Giants for revision.

Bond's contract also contains strange clauses designed to protect the Giants should Bonds get arrested, indicted, or convicted of a crime. Here are a few examples, as reported by the Associated Press:

"Player acknowledges and agrees that an indictment for any criminal act under (CBA rules) is proper grounds for termination of thsi contract."

"Player also acknowledges and agrees that he will not grieve, appeal, or otherwise challenge any club action to terminate this contract as a result of player's indictment for any criminal act....nor cause or authorize any third party such as the Major League Baseball Players Association to grieve, appeal, or otherwise challenge any club action to terminate this contract as a result of player's indictment for criminal acts."

The contract does contain language that bans Bond's personal trainers from all Giants facilities, but rewards Bonds in other instances; e.g., Bonds is guaranteed a luxury hotel suite for all away games, and, he get reserved expensive stadium box suites and tickets for all home games.

As of today, Bonds has not signed the contract. If I were Bonds, I'd never sign such a contract. Considering the number of federal agencies working round the clock to build a case against him, there's a real chance that he might get indicted. His contract with the Giants gives the team the right to nullify his contract in the event of an indictment. Even though I think Bonds is guilty as sin, I don't think the Giants should be allowed to appoint themselves judge and jury. An indictment doesn't prove anything; it means only that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal charge. Bonds deserves his day in court, like any other citizen accused of a crime. I don't like it when the sports commissioners and owners appoint themselves guardians of morality in a kangaroo court. The only laws that matter are those laid out in the MLPA's CBA with the league, and state and federal laws. The Giants should not be allowed to construct statutes stricter than those already in existence. In Bond's case, there was no reason for the Giants to draw up moral benchmarks at all. All this legal mumbo-jumbo designed to cover their asses and assets is stupid. If the Giants believe that Bonds is guilty, or even a PR risk, all they have to do is tear up his contract and walk away. It really is that simple.

The Giants want to have their cake and eat it too. They desperately need Barry Bonds because they need people in the seats. Without him their attendance will take a huge drop. But now suddenly they're worried about his various issues. What a mess this whole thing has become.