Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Arse Dept.

wordygurdy · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:54 pm

Barry's making retirement noises? Good! Get out, you selfish, arrogant punk, and leave the record books to those who deserve them. You can blame the media all the way to jail, which is probably where you're headed for perjury and possibly tax evasion, and ponder how it was that the media forced you to take a mistress and take steroids.

How Bonds has any fans is really far beyond me.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:22 pm

My first thought: he's going to let the bad news die down while his knee heals and legal difficulties play out. At his age, even minor knee surgery takes a while to heal--and he needs to get into shape without the help of certain pharmaceuticals. No sense trying to pass Ruth's and Aaron's HR totals while you're stiff, weak and getting booed mercilessly.

In the meantime, blame it on the media. Everyone else does.

But then, he might be deluded enough to believe what he says.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:06 pm

I don't follow baseball as closely as I used to, but I do not understand the animosity toward Barry Bonds.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:15 pm

Wayne Countryman wrote:

My first thought: he's going to let the bad news die down while his knee heals and legal difficulties play out. At his age, even minor knee surgery takes a while to heal--and he needs to get into shape without the help of certain pharmaceuticals. No sense trying to pass Ruth's and Aaron's HR totals while you're stiff, weak and getting booed mercilessly.

In the meantime, blame it on the media. Everyone else does.

But then, he might be deluded enough to believe what he says.

I think you got it right, Wayne. He doesn't want to pursue Ruth's record with this big cloud over his head.

SuchASlot · **Joined:** Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:01 am **Posts:** 1189

I've been trying to stay out of here, but I also find the outrage toward Bonds more than puzzling. I have my theories, but what I really want to know is, where is the outrage toward Congress and its preoccupation with baseball?

Wabberjocky · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:42 pm

As far as I can tell, people hate Bonds because he insists on being hated.

PunkOnce · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:59 pm

I understand the questions about why Congress is involved, but it's simple to explain: more than any other sport, baseball exists in its current state at the pleasure of Congress (due in part to that old chestnut, the antitrust exemption).

Think of it as a kind of public trust -- not unlike the airwaves (har har). Thus if you (Mr. Selig) appear to be managing a public trust with all the skill and acuity of a myopic fifth-grader, it's proper for you to be called before the people's representatives to explain yourself.

(If you want to ask questions about Congress, ask how all those Republicans got in there. Regularly losing the presidency I can see, and losing the Senate I can understand on occasion...but how could the Democratic Party fall so far that small-government Republicans outnumber them in the House? I'm still chewing over that one, and it's been a full ten years now.)

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:00 pm

Phillip Blanchard wrote:

I don't follow baseball as closely as I used to, but I do not understand the animosity toward Barry Bonds.

He's the Richie Allen of our day. Make that Dick Allen.

My only gripe with Bonds is that he apparently used steroids during his record-setting years.

wordygurdy · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:54 pm

ADKbrown wrote:

My only gripe with Bonds is that he apparently used steroids during his record-setting years.

And he doesn't give even half a fig that we, the members of the paying public, know it and that he has perpetrated a fraud on the sport and made a mockery of legitimate athletic achievers like Henry Aaron and Willie Mays. The only "good" thing that has come out of the recent steroid-use revelations is that they will ensure that Bonds (I agree with Wayne that Mr. Sunshine probably will not go gently into that good night) will always be regarded by true fans as not having the actual home-run record. If you want to call it a mental asterisk, fine.

Wabberjocky is essentially right when he postulates why Bonds is hated. He's never been media- or fan friendly, which is bad enough in a sport in which the players' individual performances are so celebrated. But in addition, he's been revealed to be an athletic cheater and quite possibly an adulterer, perjurer and tax evader to boot. Other than that, he's a prince.

And if you want to argue that there are plenty of unsavory characters in the Hall of Fame, you won't get a counterargument from me. That doesn't change my opinion of Bonds.

Ted Williams' fans apparently felt the same way about him in his day from the reading I've done about him, and yet by the end of his life he was venerated--at least by the same Boston fans who used to excoriate him for various on- and off-field transgressions--as a living idol, which he was in baseball terms. Williams was also, shall we say, wary of if not outright antagonistic toward the media and did not tolerate gladly fans who booed. So maybe one day Bonds will be sufficiently rehabilitated and worshipped at the end of his life the way Williams was, and all this animosity will be history.

Maybe.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:00 pm

I have said this before, but the last time I checked, the "allegations" that Bonds used steroids are unproven.

SuchASlot · **Joined:** Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:01 am **Posts:** 1189

wordygurdy wrote:

Wabberjocky is essentially right when he postulates why Bonds is hated.

Well, then, Barry Bonds certainly has the two of you wrapped around his little pinkie. Brilliant.

Big picture, anyone? Perspective?

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:09 pm

I agree that Congress has bigger issues than baseball to worry about. And in the grand scheme, steroids kill fewer kids and other humans than many other drugs.

But the steroids hearings aren't hindering the solving of any problems. (I don't buy into the theory that the issue is being used to distract the public from the anniversary of the Iraq War's start, for instance.) The hearings are the work of one committee; that the media are so eager to cover them is the fault of the media. We're free to march in the streets about other issues.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:11 pm

The last time I checked, the "allegations" that Bonds used steroids are unproven.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:12 pm

I can't say with certainty that Bonds used steroids to attain and retain that physique. However, knowing what i do about baseball, physiology and steroid abusers, and the company he's kept during his training, I'd be amazed if Bonds didn't.

As a fan, I dislike Bonds for more reasons that that I strongly suspect that he's a cheater on and off the field.

Bonds has gone from an outfielderr with the physical ability to play centerfield to a bigger liability than necessary on defense. Sure, all players slow with age, but he often doesn't even try. Anyone remember how he stood and watched a ball go over his head, assuming it was going to be a home run, until it hiit off the wall? Assuming is as bad in leftfield as it is in the newsroom. Bonds tries hard when he feels like it. And even then, he messes up often.

At least Sosa, whose symptoms of steroid abuse are even more obvious, will go hard after a ball. But like Bonds, Sosa slowed when he suddenly bulked up and lost flexibility needed to field ground balls.

I don't care that Bonds talks to reporters only when it suits his needs. I dislike him because he's always been a selfish player who uses people.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:22 pm

If a player who is a liability is sent to play the outfield, it is a management problem. Apparently the Giants think he is not.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:56 pm

Wabberjocky wrote:

As far as I can tell, people hate Bonds because he insists on being hated.

It seems to me that the media insist we hate him, not Bonds himself. I doubt that he cares much one way or the other.

Roger Maris was a nice guy who happened to hate being dogged by an aggressive ("vicious" might be a more apt term) New York media. As such, he was often depicted in said media as something less than nice. We reap what we sow; if a celebrity is hounded day after day and then written about with frequently nasty speculation and accusation, they're not likely to show a happy face to reporters. That's the side of them that makes headlines, and upon which we base our opinions of them.

Shouldn't we, in particular, know better? And, for that matter, why do we care?

SuchASlot · **Joined:** Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:01 am **Posts:** 1189

I agree with Wayne that the overly zealous media coverage of the hearings is our own fault. But how about we sic a House committee with some spare time on the allegations against Kenneth Lay or someone else whose cheating has cost real people their livelihoods and retirements?

And I have yet to figure out the monstrous uproar about steroids in the first place. Yeah, steroids are dangerous and a bad example for kids. So is booze. So is beating your girlfriend, and so is fill-in-the-blank-with-any-number-of-unsavory-activities-by-professional-athletes. But as far as cheating goes, Timeâ€™s columnist, James Poniewozik, said it well in the Dec. 20 issue: In the steroid debate, whatâ€™s often cited is fairness, not to current players but to the records of retired and dead ones. Yet middling athletes of today routinely outdo greats of the past thanks to legal advances in everything from nutrition to sports medicine to biodynamics to equipment.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:41 pm

I'm in favor of House committees going after worse people than Mark McGwire. Of course, they won't go after the Ken Lays until people are rioting--if then. The refusal to tackle corporate corruption and other serious problems has nothing to do with baseball.

Objecting to steroids because of the threat to records set generations ago is an act of sentimentality, not logic. As Such says correctly, modern players don't need steroids to outperform the best of other eras.

The bigger problem is the unfairness to current players, and not only in the pros. College and even high school players have been abusing steroids for more than a decade; as this continues, more of them will feel the need to do it to compete and to progress to the next level.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:59 pm

SuchASlot wrote:

In the steroid debate, whatâ€™s often cited is fairness, not to current players but to the records of retired and dead ones. Yet middling athletes of today routinely outdo greats of the past thanks to legal advances in everything from nutrition to sports medicine to biodynamics to equipment.

By that logic, one could justify making such "legal advances" as titanium bats, fences pulled to 250 feet, five strikes, etc.

It ain't about sentiment, it's about uniformity. If steroids were OK'd, we'd need two sets of record books â€” not because it wouldn't be fair to the old guys, but because it wouldn't be fair to future generations who'd otherwise think, "Gee, the ballplayers of the 1990s were way better than those of the '50s."

Funny thing is, despite all the advances, they aren't really any better, are they?

JeffW · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:37 am

Why is Bonds hated? Not because his defensive skills have faded (which they have), but because (as others have noted) he has, on several occasions, simply not tried. To fans, I think this is the worst sin a pro athlete can commit. Many other athletes are surly, and many don't get along with the media, but Barry often takes it to another level. Instead of just walking past a group of fans who are asking for autographs (as many other athletes do) or saying, "Sorry, can't do it now," Barry has walked past groups of autograph seekers and dropped comments such as, "Get a life."

With steroids: They're illegal, they're dangerous and they enhance performance. The question of fairness isn't regarding new records vs. old records; it's about current athletes feeling they have to turn to an illegal substance just to compete for a job against guys who are using them.

Steroid use was already widely known when I was taking Sports Med classes in the mid-1980s, and even then -- in the days before much testing was being done -- we were seeing cases of high school kids who were using steroids to get a better shot at college. Yes, there are worse drugs and things that kids can do and take, but steroids can seriously mess up a body (especially a young one), and deserve their status as a dangerous, evil drug.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:59 am

SuchASlot wrote:

But as far as cheating goes, Timeâ€™s columnist, James Poniewozik, said it well in the Dec. 20 issue: In the steroid debate, whatâ€™s often cited is fairness, not to current players but to the records of retired and dead ones. Yet middling athletes of today routinely outdo greats of the past thanks to legal advances in everything from nutrition to sports medicine to biodynamics to equipment.

To elaborate on Wayne's point, steroids create an unfair playing field among current players. It may be true that today's players can outdo past players, but baseball statisticians have devised methods of comparing players from different eras. One method measures a player's greatness by the standards of his era. Ruth towered over his contemporaries. Maris did not. But this kind of analysis cannot be fair if the player in question cheated by using steroids.

SuchASlot · **Joined:** Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:01 am **Posts:** 1189

I agree with you guys about steroids creating a poor environment for current players (though I think there are many additional ways that players set unhealthy examples that I could get equally fired up about). My post and the column citation were in response to some of the comments about record-setting earlier in this thread. And in my opinion, baseball only needs one record book. The sport has always mirrored social trends of the times. If people want to nit-pick with asterisks, maybe we should divide the record books into the Dead Ball Era vs. the Live Ball Era (when even baseballs get juiced!).

As far as Bonds goes, I think ad hominem attacks on the man regarding his â€œarroganceâ€ and his anger, at the least, often disregard social context. He's no saint, but the role of steroids in his career hasn't been established (or even proven).

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:24 pm

Phillip Blanchard wrote:

If a player who is a liability is sent to play the outfield, it is a management problem. Apparently the Giants think he is not.

Bonds is a tremendous hitter/walker/run scorer. Perhaps more important to management, he draws fans to the park, boosts broadcast ratings and inspires the purchase of souvenirs.

Because of his age, bulk and loss of flexibility (whether the result of steroid abuse or not), he's a liability in the outfield. He continues to play the outfield because his league doesn't allow designated hitters, he's a great batter and he's good for marketing.

But Bonds has no excuse for not trying harder on defense. That's his fault. It hurts the team and demeans the sport. Management can be blamed for not standing up to him, but standing up to him only makes him sulk--and play worse. That's been true for years.

PunkOnce · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:32 pm

Hold on, hold on, former Enron stockholders. The steroid-takers/Ken Lay comparison would be apt...if Lay were not safely within the clutches of another branch of government: the judicial system. Congress has more or less done its duty with Lay (whatever you think of that duty).

Lay's fate will be decided in the courts, which you have to admit is the way we want it to be. Calling him before Congress again would accomplish nothing and could complicate efforts to prosecute him.

Not so for baseball players...except, I've read, for Bonds. In fact, can anyone confirm that the reason Bonds wasn't called before Congress was because he's knee-deep in other legal trouble that could potentially keep him in court long after Lay's trial is complete?

wordygurdy · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:45 pm

PunkOnce wrote:

In fact, can anyone confirm that the reason Bonds wasn't called before Congress was because he's knee-deep in other legal trouble that could potentially keep him in court long after Lay's trial is complete?

Everything I had read even before Kimberly Bell popped up indicated that was the case, PunkOnce. The feds were building a perjury case against Bonds, and that was why the Justice Department didn't want him to testify in front of Congress. Now the feds might double their pleasure by adding tax-evasion charges if her account proves true.

And to all who keep saying that there's no proof Bonds used steroids, that is technically true until Bonds says "I did steroids" or some such. And I understand the journalistic need not to libel him by labeling him a steroid user. Every newspaper account I've read about Bonds since his December 2003 grand jury testimony was leaked to the Chronicle (it shouldn't have been, but that's a separate issue) has carefully attributed statements by Bonds to the Chronicle and to the leaked grand jury testimony.

But in that testimony, Bonds admitted to using substances that were steroids but that he claims he thought were flaxseed oil. And his comments in the past few weeks about baseball players being entertainers and that people should let them alone to entertain indicate he is dancing around the notion of an outright admission without actually making one, as if that's fooling anyone. People who cling to the fact that he has not admitted steroid use are just deceiving themselves.

ndugan1 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:49 pm

My favorite response to all of this: My local TV station's sports director played the video of Barry blaming the media for everything, then added his own little commentary after the story aired:

"Right, Barry, because we were the ones who told you to take steroids and then told you to take a mistress who would write a book about your using steroids."

Objectivity at its best, but that's what I get for watching television.

And as an aside, this is the 25th response to this particular topic. The last topic on this board to get close to that many responses was -- quelle surprise -- a post about steroids and the illustrious Mr. Bonds made back in December, with 24 replies.

Wrapped around his finger, indeed.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:54 pm

This is probably one of the more thoughtful discussions of this topic you'll find. (Not surprising, considering it was led by WordyGurdy.) Let's end with yet another reminder that we know Barry Bonds only via the media filter and that while he hasn't been convicted and executed for steroid use, he probably abused them to turn into the home run monster who mocks the record books.

Just another handy reminder to appreciate what's left of the sport and not get too wrapped up in professional athletes.

Testy Copy Editors

Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Arse Dept.

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links