SI (Life of Reilly): Giving Barry His Due

[OHSacFan]

It doesn't affect me personally one way or the other, but I don't like the example it sets for children; that cheating to attain your goals is OK. It's not. It's against the spirit of the game. Sorry if this means nothing to you. It means a lot to many of us.

Thank you, Warhawk, for this statement. This is my biggest complaint with what Bonds, Giambi, Palmeiro, et al have done to the game. My 4-year-old played his first season of organized baseball this summer, and the awe and innocence and love he has for the game are what I have always associated with baseball. Call me naive, but watching those kids play simply because they LOVE the game is what playing any sport is all about - even if you are blessed enough to make it to the bigs.

I will point my son in the direction of following the careers of players who play for the love of the game...those in the spirit of Ryne Sandburg and Ken Griffey, Jr. and Hank Aaron.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Here is my contribution to this thread:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mother...t/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

 

[BawLa]

An Open Letter to Jay Mariotti
By Grant
Posted on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:21:36 PM EDT


Dear Jay,

I believe Barry Bonds gained an unfair advantage by using performance-enhancing drugs. That was an advantage not everyone was willing to take, and that makes Bonds's decision an ethically questionable one. On Saturday, I stood and applauded every time Bonds came up to bat. In my mind, there isn't a conflict between the two points. I must be one of those unconditionally glorifying sheep about whom you were writing. I am wearing wool socks, and I do enjoy a good salad. Guilty as charged.

Do you really think that this scenario would only play out in the San Francisco Bay Area? Is this specific region of the country the only place where Bonds's career would be glorified? If that's your position, don't worry about anything that follows this paragraph. We're done. If you truly believe that the affection the San Francisco fans have for Bonds after 15 seasons wouldn't be the same affection felt in Boston, Chicago, or Atlanta if that were where Bonds had spent the bulk of his career, you lack the critical thinking skills needed for honest debate.

If you concede the point that it isn't just a regional sickness that leads us to cheer for Bonds, then you can understand why it's silly to single out the fans in San Francisco as "unconditionally glorifying sheep." Have you ever pondered why a baseball fan would cheer for Barry Bonds? Here's a condensed answer: The Giants almost moved to Florida after 1992. Instead, they opened the following season in San Francisco after acquiring the best player in baseball. Since then, that player has done more positive things on the field for his team than any other player in baseball. Good things for the team lead to good feelings for the fan.

That's it. You can break it down psychologically or chemically if you want, but the end result is the same. Good things for the team lead to good feelings for the fan. After 15 years of watching Bonds do amazing things on the ballfield, we've grown attached to him. He's had us all hopped up on mood-enhancing chemicals (MECs) for years, and now he's the easiest target in the history of yellow baseball journalism. So we defend him and continue to cheer.

To the San Francisco fan, the performance-enhancing drug debate extends beyond Bonds. To the folks who want to sell newspapers and television advertising slots, the debate stops at Bonds. That's unfortunate. The list of players who have been caught is underwhelming. Manny Alexander? Mike Morse? Jamal Strong? More than half of the suspensions from Major League Baseball have been handed out to pitchers, three of whom (Ryan Franklin, Guillermo Mota, and Felix Heredia) have served up homers to Bonds. If performance-enhancing drugs helped, they certainly weren't magic.

Some have opined that the main benefit from the drugs comes from the improved stamina; as in, the drugs didn't create a super-Ryan Franklin, it just allowed Ryan Franklin to be Ryan Franklin at peak Ryan Franklin condition for a longer period of time. Maybe it did make a super-Ryan Franklin. I don't think any of us would be able to tell. If you want to do some hand-wringing in the name of moral superiority, think about the roster spot Franklin occupied over the years. He'll get a pension. He'll have a baseball card to show his kids. Did that come at the expense of someone who wasn't willing to take PEDs?

That's a bigger question of morality than anything to do with some intangible number. And we don't really think about it much in San Francisco. It gets in the way of baseball. And grazing. We can never forget the delicious, delicious grazing.

This is all a part of why we still root for Bonds. He made us cheer over and over and over again - both before and after he bulked up - and now he's being attacked as if he was the only one who took performance-enhancing drugs. He wasn't. He batted against other users, and he lost to teams built around other users. Every other fan base would wave the same collective middle finger back at the rest of the world. It isn't because we're mindless idiots.

Well, I know you are, but what am I?
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/user/Grant

 

[uolj]

Sorry. This anonymous letter misses the point the same way you have. I'm not familiar with the Mariotti comments it refers to, that might be deserving of criticism as well. But this letter doesn't do a good job of defending the people who currently cheer for Barry Bonds.

If you can accept cheating (knowing or not), then you can cheer for Bonds. But don't look down on those who cannot.

 

[BawLa]

Sorry. This anonymous letter misses the point the same way you have. I'm not familiar with the Mariotti comments it refers to, that might be deserving of criticism as well. But this letter doesn't do a good job of defending the people who currently cheer for Barry Bonds.

If you can accept cheating (knowing or not), then you can cheer for Bonds. But don't look down on those who cannot.

You mean like how others look down on us for cheering Bonds?


I posted this to show someone else's point of view. I have made no statements on how I feel about it.

And people that cheer Barry Bonds don't need defending.



So here's a question: If there is a world series winner that had a steroid user on their team, is there an asterisk to accompany the accomplishment?

 

[VF21]

An Open Letter to Jay Mariotti
By Grant
Posted on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:21:36 PM EDT


Dear Jay,

I believe Barry Bonds gained an unfair advantage by using performance-enhancing drugs. That was an advantage not everyone was willing to take, and that makes Bonds's decision an ethically questionable one. On Saturday, I stood and applauded every time Bonds came up to bat. In my mind, there isn't a conflict between the two points. I must be one of those unconditionally glorifying sheep about whom you were writing. I am wearing wool socks, and I do enjoy a good salad. Guilty as charged.

Do you really think that this scenario would only play out in the San Francisco Bay Area? Is this specific region of the country the only place where Bonds's career would be glorified? If that's your position, don't worry about anything that follows this paragraph. We're done. If you truly believe that the affection the San Francisco fans have for Bonds after 15 seasons wouldn't be the same affection felt in Boston, Chicago, or Atlanta if that were where Bonds had spent the bulk of his career, you lack the critical thinking skills needed for honest debate.

If you concede the point that it isn't just a regional sickness that leads us to cheer for Bonds, then you can understand why it's silly to single out the fans in San Francisco as "unconditionally glorifying sheep." Have you ever pondered why a baseball fan would cheer for Barry Bonds? Here's a condensed answer: The Giants almost moved to Florida after 1992. Instead, they opened the following season in San Francisco after acquiring the best player in baseball. Since then, that player has done more positive things on the field for his team than any other player in baseball. Good things for the team lead to good feelings for the fan.

That's it. You can break it down psychologically or chemically if you want, but the end result is the same. Good things for the team lead to good feelings for the fan. After 15 years of watching Bonds do amazing things on the ballfield, we've grown attached to him. He's had us all hopped up on mood-enhancing chemicals (MECs) for years, and now he's the easiest target in the history of yellow baseball journalism. So we defend him and continue to cheer.

To the San Francisco fan, the performance-enhancing drug debate extends beyond Bonds. To the folks who want to sell newspapers and television advertising slots, the debate stops at Bonds. That's unfortunate. The list of players who have been caught is underwhelming. Manny Alexander? Mike Morse? Jamal Strong? More than half of the suspensions from Major League Baseball have been handed out to pitchers, three of whom (Ryan Franklin, Guillermo Mota, and Felix Heredia) have served up homers to Bonds. If performance-enhancing drugs helped, they certainly weren't magic.

Some have opined that the main benefit from the drugs comes from the improved stamina; as in, the drugs didn't create a super-Ryan Franklin, it just allowed Ryan Franklin to be Ryan Franklin at peak Ryan Franklin condition for a longer period of time. Maybe it did make a super-Ryan Franklin. I don't think any of us would be able to tell. If you want to do some hand-wringing in the name of moral superiority, think about the roster spot Franklin occupied over the years. He'll get a pension. He'll have a baseball card to show his kids. Did that come at the expense of someone who wasn't willing to take PEDs?

That's a bigger question of morality than anything to do with some intangible number. And we don't really think about it much in San Francisco. It gets in the way of baseball. And grazing. We can never forget the delicious, delicious grazing.

This is all a part of why we still root for Bonds. He made us cheer over and over and over again - both before and after he bulked up - and now he's being attacked as if he was the only one who took performance-enhancing drugs. He wasn't. He batted against other users, and he lost to teams built around other users. Every other fan base would wave the same collective middle finger back at the rest of the world. It isn't because we're mindless idiots.

Well, I know you are, but what am I?

BawLa - Here's the deal. Identify where this latest posting of yours came from or it's going to be deleted. If you're going to use stuff like this to support your argument you're going to have to tell where it comes from. It's only fair.

EDIT: I was provided with a link back to the site of origin and added it to your post. In the future, however, you need to do this yourself.

 

[uolj]

You mean like how others look down on us for cheering Bonds?


I posted this to show someone else's point of view. I have made no statements on how I feel about it.

And people that cheer Barry Bonds don't need defending.

Honestly, I think it is acceptable in this society to look down on someone who condones cheating.

I'm not saying that just because you support Bonds you automatically condone cheating, but I can't argue with someone who looks down on those who do. Since it seems very likely that Bonds was among those who cheated, then I would say that the people who support him do need defending.

So here's a question: If there is a world series winner that had a steroid user on their team, is there an asterisk to accompany the accomplishment?

Not literally, but figuratively there will absolutely be an asterisk. This entire era has a figurative asterisk plastered all over it.

 

[zip95843]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/barry_bonds_home_run_scandal

Barry Bonds Home-Run Scandal Somehow Becomes Feel-Good Sports Story Of Summer
July 26, 2007 | Onion Sports

SAN FRANCISCO—Although Barry Bonds remains the target of criticism over his possible—some say almost certain—use of performance-enhancing substances, the fact that Bonds has not been implicated in dogfighting, nightclub shootings, gambling, or murdering his family has transformed his controversial pursuit of the all-time home-run record into the feel-good sports story of the summer.
Enlarge Image

"Until we have definitive proof one way or the other, the very presence of so many questions about Bonds and steroids will haunt his achievements forever," ESPN's Peter Gammons said Monday. "However, at this moment, I think we'd all have to agree that having a raging juiced-up misanthrope break the greatest record in sports is a ray of sunshine compared to everything else on the sports page."
"What kind of person electrocutes dogs, let alone fights them?" Gammons added. "I simply can't comprehend it. Go, Barry!"
While Bonds has been routinely greeted with booing and jeering whenever he played outside of San Francisco, the taunting seems to have abated for the moment as sports fans across America lapse into a reflective silence as Bonds approaches the plate.
"I know Bonds is probably 100% pharmaceutical Frankenstein," said Brewers fan Charles Michaels, who waved a banner reading "Make Us Relatively Proud, Barry" while not exactly rooting against Bonds at Milwaukee's Miller Park Sunday night. "But I also know for a certainty that gambling problems didn't compel him to affect the outcome of the NBA playoffs. You have to give him that much."
"Bonds is not exactly my hero," said Braves fan Bradley Hanson, who flew to San Francisco for Monday night's Braves game in order to pointedly not boo Bonds. "But he's a reminder that in these troubled times for sports, there are still players whose crimes are simple, pure, and only tarnish our beloved sport and everything it stands for without killing anybody."
Bonds defiantly refuses to acknowledge, much less answer, any of the dozens of questions regarding his use of illegal substances, often lashing out at clubhouse reporters asking even innocuous baseball-related questions. Yet as of press time, Bonds had not yet been involved in even one single murder.
"Say what you want about Bonds, but he's not a murderer, or even an attempted murderer," San Francisco Chronicle reporter and co-author of Game Of Shadows Lance Williams wrote in Sunday's edition. "The only thing I believe Bonds did was inject himself with Winstrol, Deca-Durabolin, insulin, testosterone, synthetic testosterone, testosterone decanoate, human growth hormones, Norbolethone, Trenbolone, Clomid, and possibly commercial racehorse laxatives, all in order to make himself a better athlete. Not to allow himself to gut-shoot a gentleman's club bouncer, but to become a better athlete. A better athlete…it doesn't seem so bad when you think about it like that."
"It's a relief of sorts to see someone putting performance first," Frank Deford said in a New York Times Magazine editorial Sunday. "I think we all believe that Barry has taken steroids, and that they made him into a hulking monster who rewrote the record books. But they didn't turn him into a hulking monster who drugged his wife and children into unconsciousness before strangling them to death and hanging himself from a weight bench. And in these troubled times, Bonds' performance is one we can all reluctantly applaud."

 

[kupman]

So here's a question: If there is a world series winner that had a steroid user on their team, is there an asterisk to accompany the accomplishment?

^^^This is a rhetorical question that pretty much captures how I think about this issue.

However, it goes even further than that. How many guys have been on WS winning teams that were on the juice but have gotten by with it completely. How many guys in the NFL with records and/or Super Bowl rings have gotten away with being juiced? How many in the NBA have gotten by with it?....NHL, Tour de France, marathoners, college FB, college BB...the list is almost endless.

This idea of the "steroid era" in baseball is absurd to me. It kind of gives the idea that it was a time-limited phenomenon that was limited to baseball. Steroids are here to stay in all sports. Every record and every title in every sport may be tainted by the use of the juice from about 1975 forward. The all-time HR is no different than any other record or championship that might be tainted.

Nobody has to cheer for Bonds. It is up to each individual.

I just know that I sleep very well at night knowing that I live in an unfair, unjust world.

 

[uolj]

I sleep very well at night knowing that I live in an "unfair, unjust world" and that gven the choice I'd rather it not be. There's a difference.

 

[KP]

"Bonds is not exactly my hero," said Braves fan Bradley Hanson, who flew to San Francisco for Monday night's Braves game in order to pointedly not boo Bonds. "But he's a reminder that in these troubled times for sports, there are still players whose crimes are simple, pure, and only tarnish our beloved sport and everything it stands for without killing anybody."


^This quote is so awesome, so pure... what a sign of the times.

 

[G_M]

Here is my contribution to this thread:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mother...t/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

BRAVO!!!!

 

[BawLa]

I sleep very well at night knowing that I live in an "unfair, unjust world" and that gven the choice I'd rather it not be. There's a difference.

Well you can tell yourself whatever fuzzy warm thing you want to help you sleep at night, but I find your statement a little hypocritical since you seem to condone and participate in judging someone guilty without due process.

I'd be hardpressed to find ANYONE on this site, let alone the world, who can prove Bonds guilty of perjury when a federal grand jury cannot do so in two years. And then again, if Game of Shadows were 100% true, I'd think that the federal grand jury would have no problem making a case. But they do have a problem. They have had the same problem for years now. But the general public has no problem. And that tells me something about the general public.

Funny how real facts get in the way of journalism.

 

[uolj]

Well you can tell yourself whatever fuzzy warm thing you want to help you sleep at night, but I find your statement a little hypocritical since you seem to condone and participate in judging someone guilty without due process.

I'd be hardpressed to find ANYONE on this site, let alone the world, who can prove Bonds guilty of perjury when a federal grand jury cannot do so in two years. And then again, if Game of Shadows were 100% true, I'd think that the federal grand jury would have no problem making a case. But they do have a problem. They have had the same problem for years now. But the general public has no problem. And that tells me something about the general public.

Funny how real facts get in the way of journalism.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. "Due process" is a legal thing. Are you saying people aren't allowed to pass judgment on somebody unless they have been convicted of a crime or the person has admitted wrongdoing? OJ Simpson had his due process and wasn't convicted of a crime, yet most would agree that it would be perfectly acceptable for people to be disgusted by him.

Obviously, the "crimes" of Simpson and Bonds are two extremely different shades of gray, but the point is the same. Whether or not somebody has been found guilty via "due process" is irrelevant to whether the public can form opinions about that person and their actions.

I sleep very well at night knowing that I can form opinions based on the knowledge I have and that I can adjust those opinions when I gain more knowledge. The Giants are my favorite baseball team. Bonds was my favorite player. I like rooting for the guys who get a lot of negative publicity. When the steroid allegations started being raised, I hoped and hoped that Bonds wasn't one of the guys who did it. People said that your head grew when you use certain performance enhancing drugs, but I heard somewhere (maybe on here) that his hat size hadn't changed since he was in Pittsburgh. I clung to that little comment for a long time, thinking maybe, just maybe, it was true and my favorite player wasn't cheating to accomplish his feats. Now, there isn't anything left to cling to. Sure, it is possible that he didn't take steroids. It is possible that he took them unknowingly. I would be thrilled if either of those statements turn out to be true. But based on what I know now, it is unlikely. And just because Bonds was my favorite player, just because I really really want it to be true that he didn't take anything, doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the mountain of evidence that says he did. Yeah, life sucks sometimes, and it can be unfair. But I still sleep well at night.

 

[BawLa]

uolj - Lets look at OJ vs. Bonds.

OJ accused of murder, Bonds accused of perjury about steroids - no comparison. You made a note to this.

OJ was given due process in his trial where high priced lawyers were able to squirm out of a heavy convcition with the infamous saying "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" and Furhman was a racist logic.

Bonds told the grand jury that he didn't knowingly take steroids. That was in 2003. And for years the grand jury, who usually acts very quickly, has been trying to build a case against Bonds. The difference being that Bonds' lawyers aren't the ones that are squirming Bonds out of this. Bonds said himself that he didn't knowingly take steriods, and he hasn't even had a trial yet to contest that point. So until there is a trial or whatever they call it, Bonds hasn't gone through the due process and therefore the OJ-Bonds comparison with respect to due process is not tangeble. And although Bonds hasn't been given his due process yet, the public led by the media haven't wasted time in convicting Bonds in the court of public opinion. The same public that has likely cheered other steroids users and didn't even know it.

Passing judgement and publicly villifying are quite different. And I am not suggesting that YOU are part of the group that publically villifies Bonds, but they are out there and there are a ton of them. Again, if the "facts" that everyone is using to "pass judgement" on Barry Bonds aren't good enough for a grand jury to convict, then how legitimate are they?


Some more points I want to bring up:

1. If steroids help you hit home runs that much, then why weren't there more home run hitters during the height of the steroid era? Besides pitchers and minor leaguers, why is it that the only other hitters accused or convicted of steriod use were already known as home run hitters? Since there was/is so much rampant steriod use in baseball, can anyone name me 5 players who were not recognized as home run hitters that started hitting a bunch of home runs?...you know, since steriods are so helpful in hitting home runs and all.

2. Why do Clemens and other big names escape being publically dragged through the mud? Because they have better personalities? So if you are a good dude and you are accused of cheating then you get a free pass?

3. With respect to the whole Hank Aaron's "no comment" comments, if Hank supports Bonds he condones steroids, if Hank blasts Bonds he is jealous. The situation is a lose-lose for Hank Aaron and that is why he does not make comments about it. People, and more importantly the media, will always try to spin the facts to support whatever conclusion they want...and I wonder what conclusion the majority wants.

4. People talk about Bonds having a career resurgance during the time when most players decline. Aaron had started declining in home runs until he turned 35, when he had a sudden jump of 15 HR from the previous season. He continued to be strangely productive from 35 until he turned 40 when suddenly he had to face all of the pressure and scrutiny of passing Babe Ruth. If people want to believe that Bonds' production in his later years was PED induced then it is equally plausable that the same was true of Aaron based on the same logic. And if people want to believe that Aaron was clean and he was just really good, then it is equally plausable that Bonds has produced so well in his late 30's becuase he too is really good.

 

[VF21]

Oh good grief.

Poor Barry Bonds. Publicly villified by tons of ignorant people blindly following the evil media while the "facts being used to pass judgment aren't good enough for a grand jury to convict."

GRAND JURIES DON'T CONVICT. They investigate and, if they find enough evidence, they INDICT. A failure to indict does NOT necessarily indicate innocence. Just one example? They never could gather enough evidence to indict Al Capone for his various crimes. He was actually indicted and convicted of income tax evasion.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Here is my contribution to this thread:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mother...t/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Yeah when I saw LB on The Daily show I actually aplauded. Love the line Bonds is being jusdged for the content of his charater not the color of his skin. Bulls eye!

 

[zip95843]

Wow, I didn't know so many Bonds haters out there...

Funny stuff, when Kobe was alledgedly raping Colorado girl - there were so many cries about "until proven guilty" stuff. I was lectured about that very hard, everybody was teaching me that's how it is in America. And now I find the situation completely reversed. Now, apparently, you don't have to be found guilty, you are guilty by simple judge of your character. Nice! *sarcasm*

PS. Go Barry! The record is yours to take!

 

[VF21]

At this point, I'm closing the thread. The subject is starting to get way too far afield and it's to the point where pretty much everything has been said anyway.

Thanks to all for maintaining, for the most part, respect and civility for your fellow KF members.

I'm sure we'll be addressing the subject again once the deed is done.