by SonDog
Let me begin by saying I'm sorry if this is nonsensical rambling. I could write much more about this later when I 1) settle down, 2) have the time, 3) decide it's worth my time, 4) feel that my views are not as incredibly biased as they are below. Then again, I may never speak of this again because in truth, I much more enjoy writing about Home Depot trips or the Kings' playoff run. That being said, try to make sense of the following:
So, what exactly have we learned today about Barry Lamar Bonds?
We learned that for at least one day, and probably many more to come, Mark Faiunu-Wanananana and that other douchebag make up the hottest celebrity couple on the sports-talk show circuit because they're about to release a book about Bonds' steroid use. In fact, while running on the treadmill, I watched these two jokers on the following programs: 1) NBC Nightly News 2) 360 with Anderson Cooper 3) The ABC Nightly News 4) ESPNEWS 4 Quarters 5) The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Wait... seriously? I HAVE TO SEE THESE GUYS ON THE PBS NEWS HOUR WITH JIM FUCKING LEHRER?!?! Are you fucking kidding me?!?! These guys are getting more air-time than Brad and Angelina, and I didn't think that was possible.
"We knew that our coverage was not going to be popular out at the ballpark," says Phil Bronstein, the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle (where Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams work), "but we also knew that there was the issue of role models and the growing number of kids taking steroids in high school. We kept our eye on that ball."
What Bronstein fails to mention is that all proceeds from the book, Game of Shadows, will be given to high-school charities to prevent steroid use.
(Wait...)
Just kidding. I totally made that last part up. The fact that the book is being released a week before opening day of the season in which Bonds will likely pass Babe Ruth on the all-time Home Run list make it a sure best seller, bringing in millions. Naturally, the authors will pocket this dough. So don't give me this "save the children" crap.
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but is this a big revelation to anybody? I mean, is the baseball world truly shocked that Bonds was on the juice? Really? Because, maybe I'm wrong, but I kind of thought it was a foregone conclusion that a 5-year-old with a learning disability could determine that Bonds juiced up through the last few years.
Look, I'm not saying that Bonds should be defended for taking steroids. I have never defended steroid use in any player. What I've said all along is that the game of baseball itself didn't have a steroid policy in place, meaning all kinds of players were on the juice. That includes many of the same pitchers that Bonds had an "unfair advantage" over. I firmly believe that Bonds had no more of an advantage than any other player who decided to stick a needle in his ass. Sports Illustraded detailed this last season in a cover-story detailing how many pitchers were losing speed on their fastballs due to the new steroid policy. To me, this is clearly a personal attack on one man in an effort to cut him off at the knees while the topic is fresh. There are many, many other players who have done exactly what Bonds is being accused of, but these folks would like you to believe otherwise.
If you don't believe me, I have a perfect case study for you: There is another player in baseball who A) Is much bigger physically now than he was in his 20's B) Had a startling jump in his already stellar career beginning in his mid-30's (specifically 1997) C) Is performing at the highest level well into his 40's D) Had arguably a career best season at the age of 42/43! Take a look at the career numbers for this guy right here, who has also broke/approached/threatened "sacred" baseball records. Look at his career jump beginning in 1997 (his first with Toronto), which is coincidentally the year after Boston decided to let him go because he was "washed up." Can we expect the Bay Area's version of Woodward and Bernstein to dedicate the next two years of their lives to finding out the truth behind the Rocket's late-career resurgence? Probably not. Why? Because there's no real reason to, unless they are once again looking out for the children. Then again, The Rocket is a diety in baseball circles, and why would anybody want to undercut that?
Look, for all I know The Rocket is a freak of nature whose body defies the laws of physics. I don't know if he was on the juice or not. Truly, I don't even care. What I'm getting at is this asinine fact: Two San Francisco Chronicle journalists who have never even spoken to Bonds in their lives (which they freely admitted during a CNN interview) dedicate nearly two years of their own lives to compiling mountains of evidence to condemn and tear down a San Francisco legend. Why? Because he's a pain in the ass to the media, generally unliked when off the baseball field, and what many view as the epitome of what's wrong with baseball. (There's an enormous racial aspect here that I'm not going to touch tonight because, like Jerry Maguire, I will spend the entire evening writing my own fucking novella.)
According to CNN.com, "In addition to detailing the drug usage, the excerpt portrays Bonds as a menacing boor, a tax cheat and an adulterer given to (probably because of the rampant steroid use) sexual dysfunction, hair loss and wild mood swings that included periods of rage."
That's a lot to say about a guy you've never met. Especially the sexual dysfunction part. Seriously guys, did you just make that up so we would laugh? Or are you saying that this could be the real reason why Rafael Palmeiro did the Viagra commercials? Because Bonds turned the opportunity down first? Steroids, I get... but sexual dysfunction? How did you find that out?
There's one more thing that I have to mention. Most (i.e. 90%) of the information gathered by the two authors comes from sealed federal grand jury testimony given during the BALCO case. I don't want to contradict myself and use the classic bait and switch tactic that these two authors are using, but I just can't get over this: Using steroids without a prescription is illegal. I get it. Nobody denies that. Makes sense to you and me both, right? It's a misdameanor punishable by long... hours of community service.
On the other hand, leaking or releasing SEALED FEDERAL DOCUMENTS from CONFIDENTIAL GRAND JURY TESTIMONY is a FEDERAL OFFENSE punishable by a long... prison term. Why isn't anybody talking about this? Isn't that an enormous issue as well? Is anybody at the federal level looking into pressing charges against the person who leaked this sealed information? So, just so I get this straight, Fainaru-Wada and Williams gather the preponderance of evidence from somebody who is committing a Federal Offense (leaking the sealed testimony) in order to take down somebody who has committed a misdameanor?
There are times when I think our culture's priorities are incredibly fucked up. This is one of those times.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Knee-jerk Reaction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I heard lots of radio guys yesterday saying this wasn't about journalists trying to get back at Bonds for his surly attitude toward the media of the course of his career. Then I ask, where are the books about Bret Boone, the once small middle infielder who became an MVP candidate in the middle of his career hitting oppo homers? Where are the books about Clemens who rediscovered himself around the same time Bonds started taking steroids? Of course people will say that Bonds is the face of the steroids era, but it still doesn't mean a lot of reporters have been looking for a way to get at this guy for a long time. Are the guys who wrote the book simply looking for truth? If so, why not print it all as part of a large series in the Chronicle, all the while getting paid their regular salaries?
I heard some shmoes on ESPN radio on the way home from Squaw yesterday talking about whether or not this keeps him out of the Hall. HE WAS A HALL OF FAMER BEFORE 1998!! One dickwad who writes for ESPN the Magazine said he couldn't bend his moral compass enough to vote Bonds in. What? He didn't torture baby ducks. He didn't break any baseball rules.
It's interesting to me that everyone is so ready to take these two opportunists word as fact. For anybody that reads this that doesn't know me, I'm an auditor and have a pretty good idea about what goes into tracking data. That 2,000 page grand jury testimony that they keep flinging about, why not just publish that if it's so condemning? Why does the general public need their opinion f it says it all in one document? The answer is painfully obvious in that the evidence is not as conclusive as these guys are making it out to be. You can take pieces of anything and turn it into what you want it to say.
Do I think he did steroids? Yes. But I don't think he broke any baseball rules that were in place while he was doing the steroids, and I can't wait to take my son to a Giants game so he can talk about when he saw Bonds play to his kids.
Peter Gammons' blog this morning is pretty good. If you get a chance, go to: http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=gammons_peter#20060308. I can't argue with much of what Gammons says in his piece, except the part where he calls these two guys the "Woodward and Bernstein" of this era. I think I said something like that in my post, but I was being facetious.
I just emailed Bonds through his site. Pretty 12-year oldish I know, but I felt I had to do it. What I told him was (not that he reads it): the only way to shut these motherfuckers up now, is to go out and have a great year and help the Giants win. How great would be if they won it this year and were able to give a collective fuck you to the media and rest of the sports world.
Hey Sonny - I don't have insider. WOuld you mind cutting and pasting the Gammons' column into an email?
drewstapes@hotmail.com
If Bonds hits 45 bombs this year, it's going to do nothing to shut up the haters. Last year he hit a home run every 8.4 at-bats. This was hardly mentioned by anyone. I'm afraid that this year, he could hit one out every five AB's and people still won't give him any credit. They will always look for something new.
One word: Brittany
Oh yeah, and Bonds is the greatest and all that shit. Go Giants!!
In the immortal words of Jake Taylor, "Well, I guess there's only one thing left to do... Win the whole fucking thing."
I would love nothing more than to see Bonds and the Giants win the Series and have Bonds retire as the second greatest homerun hitter of all-time, and World Series champion.
Hell yeah!! That would be the culmination of my childhood. To see my favorite baseball player (there will never be another) win his crown and a fancy record to shut people up.
The thing is, there have been drugs since the days Indians were alone on this wonderful continent we call home. And it doesn't take a genius to see that drugs have evolved just like everything else. So how can people disregard everything players were doing until the mid 80's?? The intelligent side of my brain (as small as it may be) can't believe that players before then weren't privy to the best pain relievers, strength enhancers or whatever else. And NO, just because Henry Aaron seems like a nice old guy on TV, doesn't mean he monitored every pill that was given to him by trainers. I furthermore don't believe that the great Babe Ruth (aka: chain smoking booze hound) would have even thought once about some pills he took to feel better. "Hey I drank two bottles of Jack last night and I feel great today hitting 3 homers!" Now yes, I do understand that technology has evolved so I doubt that anything back then worked with your DNA, or Genes or hormones and all that designer jazz. BUT, it would still give an advantage to the player or players that were taking it. Hence creating an uneven playing field. So maybe back in the day the Babe was nothing more than a juiced up lab rat, we don't know. And of course he is a hero just like Roger Clemens and we're just dumb if we were to question men of they're stature. FART SOUNDS!!!!!!
Sorry there is more... Many of these players that go along with the "steroid age" weren't that good of players without the drugs. Mark McGuire(who will be a first ballot hall of famer, who admittedly took roids, who wouldn't come clean, who doesn't have #'s even close to Bonds but we forgive him and will just blame Barry for everything that happened) was a good player in his time. Good, not great, just good. Roids made him great for a couple years. Well if you take his homers away he still looks pretty average or "good” Bonds on the other hand was great. Roids made him perhaps the best of all time. Caminiti took roids and hit what, 44 homers during his MVP year? Bonds took the same kinda shit and hit 73!! With an average, with less at bats due to walks, during an era in which a lot of the pitchers he faced were on dope too!! So anyone who doesn't think Bonds is one of the greatest or shouldn't be in the hall of fame can lick my asshole clean. Seriously I'm not kidding cause your lack of intelligence and false morality makes you a piece of shit. So if you are one of them, shut the fuck up and just enjoy watching greatness. Dmo bitches
DMo, that is the best comment you've ever posted on here ever. I almost completely agree. We can't all talk about how the numbers don't mean the same as those put up by Ruth or Aaron without mentioning that athletes today across the board have humongous advantages over those of the past. People talk about putting an asterisk by Bonds' home run numbers, but let's put it by anything achieved through means not available to Ruth or Aaron or anyone else who played. Advances have made strengthening the human body through clean means far more efficient and effective than ever before. Because Ruth had to use a sewn up medicine ball and did push-ups, does that mean there should be an asterisk by anyone who trains in a different or more advanced way?
Post a Comment