>played for 21 years. Two things helped him: longevity, and
>DHing which allowed
>him to have longevity. There was nothing abnormal about his
>body or offense.
>He didn’t have some crazy 60 hr year.
>
>The most he hit in a season was 52, and he consistently hit
>between 30-40
>throughout his career.
his highest home run totals were between 2001-2006, outside of that he only hit 40 once. I'm just saying, his peak output coincided with Bonds' run. It's not Brady Anderson ridiculous by a long shot, it's just that they were throwing allegations around at damn near anyone who was hitting in the high 40s for homers.

I put him in the Ken Griffey category
>as far as home
>run hitting goes. Natural swing, natural power, and
>consistent...both
>Finished with 600 something HRs.
>
>He passes the eye test, so I am going to say he was clean, and
>I think
>most people feel that way.
>
>Baseball purists want sincerity and integrity on top of the
>stats.
here's my point. do they sincerity and integrity with HISTORIC stats or all of them? Because of PEDs healing properties, many middling players could have used it to make it TO the league. or mediocre MLBers could have used them to look better or an all star game or two. Is it any better for them to use than it was for a player who was just BETTER than them regardless (Bonds)? they had little interest in finding out ALL who used, just those who had a high profile.

I have absolutely no trust in the sincerity and integrity, for that reason.

>I have no idea why Bonds, Clemens, etc are still in denial.

probably because they recognize that many players who used did so without any scrutiny whatsoever.
>
>
>