Don't know how many of you guys listen to Mike & the Mad Dog - I usually am a 1050 ESPN listener but had them on the other day and was absolutely stunned by what Chris (a longtime SF Giant fan) had to say about the Bonds situation.
Basically he is saying that the timeline for Bonds' steroid (started in 99) used in the new book is wrong for two reasons:
1) Because Bonds went 2-17 in the playoffs against the Mets in 2000
2) Because Bonds 99 stats are comprable to his 93 stats - meaning it wasn't a huge jump.
I now have no respect for his knowledge of sports or his common sense. He has lost all credibility in my mind with these absurd arguments. What he is saying is that if you are on steroids, you can't possibly be a human being and choke and go 2-17 in a pressure situation (wrong) and also that the day you start taking steroids, you immediately find the best dosage, cycling and hit your peak efficiency. CLEARLY, you can take a performance enhancing drug and have a couple of bad at bats (not to mention come across some better pitching in the playoffs) and CLEARLY he could have started taking steroids in 1999 and not fine tuned his usage to hit the stats he got in 2000.
Anyone else hear this? Driving me crazy I couldn't get through and set this idiot straight, had to write this...............