Witch Hunt
If you know me at all, you know that I dig Barry Bonds. I believe he's the best baseball player in the past 25 years. I believe he's a hall of famer, and I believe he's one of the top 5 players of all time. And I believe all fo this with, or without steroids. Here's the most simple fact for all the haters who wouldn't vote for him to get into the Hall of Fame: he hit his record breaking 73 home runs in 2001, so let's throw out the stats since then. At the end of the 2000 season he had 494 career home runs. At the end of the season he had 471 stolen bases. Now lets assume for a minute, that all of the steroid allegations are true. And lets assume for a minute that he didn't hit 73 home runs in 2001, and just continued on his regular career pace. He would still be the first and only person in baseball's 500/500 club. He is also one of three players ever to join the 40/40 club (1996). So anyone who believes that Barry Bonds was not a complete player, he was, and still is.
Even if you wipe out Bonds' stats from the last five seasons, he's still a Hall of Famer. I'm not sure what this witch hunt initiated by commissioner Bud Selig is trying to prove. It is a third party investigation. It is an investigation where players cannot be subpoenaed to testify. What exactly is it that baseball hopes to find out? But more importantly, what is it exactly that baseball plans on doing if they do indeed find something out?
Commissioner Selig did not once mention Barry Bonds' name in his press conference announcing the launch of the investigation yesterday. But that doesn't mean Barry wasn't the focus of the launch. The timing of the investigation should be questioned as much as intent. Why is it that everytime a book comes out, or everytime there is an outcry from the public that baseball feels they need to do something? Are they a puppet to the public? One has to question why a full investigation was not launched in 2002 when Ken Caminiti came out and talked about steroids. Why now? Why four years later?
Why not eight years ago? Everyone remembers the summer of '98 when Slammin' Sammy and Big Mac were going for Roger Maris' home run record. The country was on the proverbial edge of their seats. With each passing day in the summer, games not involving the Cardinals or Cubs were being interrupted everytime Sosa or McGuire came up to bat. But baseball didn't care then. That summer probably saved baseball in America. So MLB couldn't possibly turn up the heat on the juice then. But then what of the following three seasons where Sosa topped 60 home runs twice more? Before the '98 season, only two players had ever hit 60+ homers in a season (Babe Ruth and Roger Maris, each only once). Sammy Sosa does it three times in four years, and nobody raises an eyebrow? Nobody thinks to test him? Nobody thinks the insurgence of power in baseball is the least bit odd?
So now, a book comes out, accusing Bonds' of steroid use, and suddenly there's an investigation? Now I don't have first hand knowledge, Bud Selig is not my friend, so I couldn't tell you for sure that this book is the reason for the investigation. But nor am I a fool, and I can say with a good deal of conviction that the book clearly played a major role in the launch of the investigation. An investigation that is going to go back to September of 2002, with the authority given to George Mitchell to expand the investigation. On what grounds? That they find one player took steroids during '03? That they found 75 players took steroids?
Baseball didn't even start testing for performance enhancing drugs until 2003. And then they didn't penalize players for positive tests until 2004. I don't condone steroids, and if you ask me, I think baseball has dragged their feet on the issue. But how is an investigation that goes back four years fair? Now turn this around, say the investigation is partially successful, say they overturn evidence that 2-3 All-Star caliber players were using performance enhancing drugs in '02 and/or '03. Now what? What about the rest of the players that they cannot find anything on? What about the journeyman player who got one last contract because steroids helped pad his stats in '03, but we were unable to catch? What about the rookie that made it to "the show" because he was able to get through the non-existent testing?
The problem with the testing is not that I don't want to know who was cheating. By all means, those players should be made public, and they should be ashamed. But my problem is with the fairness. What if one team has preserved urine samples while another does not? Does that mean the 25 players from the team that does not keep samples are exempt? What if they find some key player like Bonds to be guilty? Do they stop then because one scapegoat is enough?
Jeff Horrigan of the Boston Herald said it best when he wrote, "I begrudge the era that tolerated this more than I begrudge the man. You can't wipe out the 90's." No, you can't. Not now. Not 8 years after the home run boom. Baseball messed up, the media messed up, and fans messed up when nobody stepped up to question the power surge. When nobody cared that massive men were jacking long balls all over the place. And now because a book comes out, Selig is trying to make someone else the scapegoat in his place.
So I say keep sluggin Barry. I can't definitively say he's on anything, nor can I or anyone else definitively say he ever was. The only person that probably gets tested more than Barry Bonds is Lance Armstrong. And correct me if I'm wrong, but neither has ever failed a drug test. Was Bonds on something? Its possible. But it is worth noting that men generally add bulk in their 30's. It's also worth noting that since the ban and all the testing started, Barry's remained the same size. Our current era has also seen the construction of bandboxes, or hitters ballparks like Minute Maid Park in Houston, or The Great American Ballpark in Cincinatti.
So show me a positive test belonging to Barry Bonds from his record breaking 2001 season. Show me a picture of Bonds with a needle in his rear. Show me some type of hard evidence rather than a wash out like Jose Canseco, or some author claiming dates and times that Bonds and other players took steroid injections. I'm sorry, but anyone could come out and claim that they saw someone getting injected with steroids. What is it that Selig could know now that he didn't know weeks or months ago? Probably nothing, besides the release of the book. And I hope the information remains nothing, and Selig's witch hunt turns out to be nothing more than that.
Even if you wipe out Bonds' stats from the last five seasons, he's still a Hall of Famer. I'm not sure what this witch hunt initiated by commissioner Bud Selig is trying to prove. It is a third party investigation. It is an investigation where players cannot be subpoenaed to testify. What exactly is it that baseball hopes to find out? But more importantly, what is it exactly that baseball plans on doing if they do indeed find something out?
Commissioner Selig did not once mention Barry Bonds' name in his press conference announcing the launch of the investigation yesterday. But that doesn't mean Barry wasn't the focus of the launch. The timing of the investigation should be questioned as much as intent. Why is it that everytime a book comes out, or everytime there is an outcry from the public that baseball feels they need to do something? Are they a puppet to the public? One has to question why a full investigation was not launched in 2002 when Ken Caminiti came out and talked about steroids. Why now? Why four years later?
Why not eight years ago? Everyone remembers the summer of '98 when Slammin' Sammy and Big Mac were going for Roger Maris' home run record. The country was on the proverbial edge of their seats. With each passing day in the summer, games not involving the Cardinals or Cubs were being interrupted everytime Sosa or McGuire came up to bat. But baseball didn't care then. That summer probably saved baseball in America. So MLB couldn't possibly turn up the heat on the juice then. But then what of the following three seasons where Sosa topped 60 home runs twice more? Before the '98 season, only two players had ever hit 60+ homers in a season (Babe Ruth and Roger Maris, each only once). Sammy Sosa does it three times in four years, and nobody raises an eyebrow? Nobody thinks to test him? Nobody thinks the insurgence of power in baseball is the least bit odd?
So now, a book comes out, accusing Bonds' of steroid use, and suddenly there's an investigation? Now I don't have first hand knowledge, Bud Selig is not my friend, so I couldn't tell you for sure that this book is the reason for the investigation. But nor am I a fool, and I can say with a good deal of conviction that the book clearly played a major role in the launch of the investigation. An investigation that is going to go back to September of 2002, with the authority given to George Mitchell to expand the investigation. On what grounds? That they find one player took steroids during '03? That they found 75 players took steroids?
Baseball didn't even start testing for performance enhancing drugs until 2003. And then they didn't penalize players for positive tests until 2004. I don't condone steroids, and if you ask me, I think baseball has dragged their feet on the issue. But how is an investigation that goes back four years fair? Now turn this around, say the investigation is partially successful, say they overturn evidence that 2-3 All-Star caliber players were using performance enhancing drugs in '02 and/or '03. Now what? What about the rest of the players that they cannot find anything on? What about the journeyman player who got one last contract because steroids helped pad his stats in '03, but we were unable to catch? What about the rookie that made it to "the show" because he was able to get through the non-existent testing?
The problem with the testing is not that I don't want to know who was cheating. By all means, those players should be made public, and they should be ashamed. But my problem is with the fairness. What if one team has preserved urine samples while another does not? Does that mean the 25 players from the team that does not keep samples are exempt? What if they find some key player like Bonds to be guilty? Do they stop then because one scapegoat is enough?
Jeff Horrigan of the Boston Herald said it best when he wrote, "I begrudge the era that tolerated this more than I begrudge the man. You can't wipe out the 90's." No, you can't. Not now. Not 8 years after the home run boom. Baseball messed up, the media messed up, and fans messed up when nobody stepped up to question the power surge. When nobody cared that massive men were jacking long balls all over the place. And now because a book comes out, Selig is trying to make someone else the scapegoat in his place.
So I say keep sluggin Barry. I can't definitively say he's on anything, nor can I or anyone else definitively say he ever was. The only person that probably gets tested more than Barry Bonds is Lance Armstrong. And correct me if I'm wrong, but neither has ever failed a drug test. Was Bonds on something? Its possible. But it is worth noting that men generally add bulk in their 30's. It's also worth noting that since the ban and all the testing started, Barry's remained the same size. Our current era has also seen the construction of bandboxes, or hitters ballparks like Minute Maid Park in Houston, or The Great American Ballpark in Cincinatti.
So show me a positive test belonging to Barry Bonds from his record breaking 2001 season. Show me a picture of Bonds with a needle in his rear. Show me some type of hard evidence rather than a wash out like Jose Canseco, or some author claiming dates and times that Bonds and other players took steroid injections. I'm sorry, but anyone could come out and claim that they saw someone getting injected with steroids. What is it that Selig could know now that he didn't know weeks or months ago? Probably nothing, besides the release of the book. And I hope the information remains nothing, and Selig's witch hunt turns out to be nothing more than that.
posted by Trevor at 11:33 AM
0 comments
