Bonds and Roids: Part II

posted by BH

First of all, how crazy is it that excerpts from a new book about Bonds and steroid use comes out in ESPN the Magazine one week after excerpts from another book comes out in a "rival" publication? Is it coincidence? Is it the ugly cousin trying to keep up with his hot counterpart? I know these magazines have been in publication for some time, but I have an idea that Sports Illustrated's piece was leaked and ESPN the rag had to scramble. Secondly, who the hell is Jeff Pearlman? Most will remember him as the guy who wrote an article in Sports Illustrated on John Rocker a few years back, then followed it up with a piece about how fat David Wells was; a piece that did not actually contain any information from Wells himself. Obviously, he is monumentally qualified to write a book about how to go about doing one's job in a correct and ethical manner.

Apparently, the big news in the book is that over dinner at Ken Griffey Jr.'s house one night, Bonds said,
"You know what, I had a helluva season last year, and nobody gave a crap. Nobody. As much as I've complained about
McGwire and (Jose) Canseco and all of the bull with steroids, I'm tired of fighting it. I turn 35 this year. I've got three or
four good seasons left, and I wanna get paid. I'm just gonna start using some hard-core stuff, and hopefully it won't hurt
my body. Then I'll get out of the game and be done with it."

Irony is beauty. Basically, Bonds says that the media attention paid to the McGwire/Sosa chase of '98 motivated him to turn to steroids. Now the media rips Bonds for it. Remember when reporters found Andro in McGwire's locker and few people if any gave a crap? Remember when it was all but swept under the rug by a media enamored with his home run chase? Remember when steroid use in baseball was not against the rules? Why? Why wouldn't Bonds look at what Sosa and McGwire were doing and not go for an improvement? What did it get Bonds? A home run record, attained by breaking no rules.

Furthermore, in the story, former Giants scrub Jay Canizaro estimated as many as 13 players on the '99 Giants were steroid users and that he was sure Bonds was a user because of the signs, including his body size and acne on his back. Canizaro said Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson, gave him details about Bonds' steroid intake. "The Giants that year were really out of control," Canizaro is quoted as saying. Canizaro's allegations are backed up by the fact that the '99 Giants were literally Giants, won the west by 47 games, and swept the World Series by beating a fire-breathing dragon.

As far as the Griffey revelations go, ESPNnews has been very careful to tell viewers that Griffey, "was not the source of the allegations." After all it's important that we protect the images of our biggest stars. Griffey responded to the excerpts, saying,
"The conversation we supposedly had, I don't ever remember happening," Griffey said at CalState Fullerton, where Team
USA held a workout between games in the World Baseball Classic. "I just don't remember us ever talking about the use of
any performance-enhancing drugs. I mean, the only thing Barry and I really talked about was me coming out to San
Francisco and working out with him. And I told him for six weeks, I can't leave my family. Just like me asking him to come
down to Florida for six weeks. It's tough when you have families. ... He said, 'You just need to get out here. Jerry Rice is out
here.' As for the other thing, that conversation didn't happen."

And Griffey's feelings about Bonds and whether or not he's been clean? "Does it really matter what I think?" he said before pausing. "Yeah, yeah."

Okay. Here are some of the fundamental issues I've got with the piece based on limited knowledge of what it contains. The first quote from Bonds seems to be a lot of information to be able to quote unless you've got a tape recorder. The quote itself should raise a red flag simply because, a)for steroids being such a huge issue, and seemingly so secretive, to announce these intentions in front of a number of people so brazenly would be insane, b) Griffey doesn't remember it, yet Pearlman quotes Griffey's response at the party, and from the point of view of Griffey, writes
"Nevertheless, Griffey understood how Bonds felt. For most of the past decade, they had been the sport's two top players.
Now, from their point of view, men with significantly less talent were abusing drugs to reach their level. Where was the
fairness? The integrity? Griffey didn't agree with Bonds' position, but he certainly empathized."

It seems like a memorable moment in the Bonds/Griffey relationship, at least so much that an unknown source was able to recall every single word of the interaction.

The other issue has to be Canizaro. Faced with the option of using steroids, as he had in his college days, the story tells us that "Canizaro was tempted. He was fighting for a job against other players who were clearly using. But then he remembered the acne and the shrunken testicles -- and the time he blacked out while injecting steroids into his rear." Dude, if the choice is making a major League roster full-time and putting up with shrunken cobbles and acne, I'm taking the stuff. Give me a break. The dude used steroids in college. He was drafted based on what he did in college. Problems here? Of course, and I don't believe the "my nuts would shrink and my back would look weird excuse." It also doesn't answer where Pearlman found Canizaro. Was he soliciting Bonds steroid dirt? Pearlman cites this guy as credible, when in the piece he gives obvious reasons for why Canizaro would hold some level of resentment for the Giants and their players.

We know Bonds did steroids. Obviously, few people if any have real evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is monumental. What is most troublesome about the Bonds and steroids focus is the seeming willingness by many to accept "revelations" published in books and magazines, designed to make a profit, as gospel. Few seem willing to question the motivations of these authors, despite the almost certain idea that these men are looking for and writing only that information that supports a preconceived hypothesis. For what it's worth though, from the excerpts I've read from Pearlman's book, Bonds come off as a little more sympathetic figure than was portrayed in "Game of Shadows."

When is the next book coming out? When does it begin to look like writers are out to make a buck off Bonds? When Pete Rose admitted to gambling on baseball and came out with his book around the same time, the effect was opposite what he wanted. Public sentiment turned the other way in a hurry. I'm wondering if that's kind of what's going to happen with Bonds. Right now, it's all a bad movie. We know that the bad guy is really bad. He kicks kittens and puppies. He beats up his girlfriend. He even crapped in the beans at Taco Bell. He's Sack from "Wedding Crashers" or Johnny Ringo in "Tombstone." But maybe there's more to the bad guy than we're led to believe. Maybe he's Norman Bates. Yeah he's messed up and in trouble, but you feel bad for him because he's had his ass kicked by his mother his whole life, and now she's dead and stored upstairs. When do the good writers start writing the movie? Or in this case, the book?



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/15/SPGP6HOD3J1.DTL

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2368395