Everybody's known baseball players were juiced for years now; hell, we've all known Giambi and Bonds were juiced, we all knew Big Mac was--we've just been waiting for the cream to hit the fan. Selig, for all his talk, has turned a blind eye, and there's a special place in hell reserved for Player's Association president Don Fehr who has defended valiantly his players' rights to destroy their bodies.They're all complicit, and every time one of their guys gets various cancers and parts of his body start falling off, they are at partial fault. And every time a kid orders some of this crap off the inter-tron, that place in hell gets a little less cozy.
If baseball won't do something about it, John McCain will, as he's told the NY Times:
As Major League Baseball's steroid scandal widened to include the sport's most prolific active home run hitter, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said yesterday that he will introduce legislation imposing drug testing standards on professional athletes if baseball players and owners do not adopt a stringent crackdown on steroids by January.In the wake of the disclosure that San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds used substances provided him by a trainer who has been indicted in a steroid distribution ring, McCain, in an interview, gave baseball until next month to adopt the more stringent drug testing requirements of minor league baseball or face federal action.
"Major league baseball players and owners should meet immediately to enact the standards that apply to the minor leagues, and if they don't, I will have to introduce legislation that says professional sports will have minimum standards for testing," McCain said after returning from a European trip late yesterday. "I'll give them until January, and then I'll introduce legislation."
This isn't going away. Giambi was just an appetizer (and by the way, does anyone think the Yankees would be trying to get out of his contract if he had hit 50 home runs last year? No? I thought not.) and Barry's the main course. Barry hurts, I think, more than the rest because he has given us a glimpse of the finest professional sports has to offer--true greatness. There is little doubt that Bonds would have been one of the best players of his era without the BALCO--but these substances have elevated him into one of the best players of all time. And it is a lie. A fraud. Smoke, mirrors, and "the clear." He pretends to show us something beautiful and rare, but he lies. Professional sports are supposed to be fun, a wonderful diversion--but they can come to mean so much more. And when we see Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, possibly purse-carrying A-Rod--or even when we see Torii Hunter make a dazzling catch, Joe Mauer take a swing, Justin Morneau send one into the upper decks, BatMom strike out a lefty, President Santana do anything--we're reminded of humanity's capacity for greatness. True greatness inspires, excites, and enlivens--whereas false greatness breeds nothing but disappointment and cynicism. And it hurts baseball. And no one hurts baseball on Batgirl's watch, dammit.
Here's an excellent Thomas Boswell column from the Washington Post, so good, in fact, that Batgirl is putting up the whole thing:
Now we know how much of Barry Bonds was real and how much was fake. Half was a fraud.Bonds's reputation has lived by his statistics. Now, let it die by them. Forever. Before Bonds hooked up with his old friend and alleged steroid merchant Greg Anderson in '98, he had 411 homers in 6,621 at-bats, one per 16.1 at-bats. The next two years, as he acquired and adjusted to a new body, he hit 83 in 835 at-bats, one per 10 at-bats.
In the past four seasons, from ages 37 to 40, as he has done the deeds and committed the offenses against his sport for which he will always be remembered, Bonds hit 209 home runs in 1,642 at bats -- one every 7.9 at-bats.
In those four years, Bonds won four straight National League most valuable player awards, two batting titles and set the all-time single-season records for home runs, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, walks and intentional walks.
All those records are now a steroid lie. Without Anderson's illicit help, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Bonds could have approached, much less broken, any of the all-time marks for which he lusted so much that he has now ruined his name.Posted by Batgirl at December 4, 2004 11:58 AMThrow every record that Bonds has set in the past four years into the trash can that history reserves for cheats.
We need no asterisks or erasures. Word of mouth, from box seats to bleachers, from generation to generation, will suffice. Bonds's 21st-century deeds have been obliterated in the eyes of anyone who knows baseball. Nothing will ever bring them back.Let Bonds keep his 411 homers and three MVPs before he linked his fate to Anderson in '98, though we can't be sure what he might have used to aid his play before that. At least we now know what he's willing to use: anything that's put into his hands.
Bonds still claims he didn't know what he was taking. If you read the grand jury transcripts in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle and still believe Bonds, then look outside your door. A line of bridge and swampland salesmen may stretch to the horizon. In baseball at least, sticking to the Big Lie as a winning strategy just isn't what it used to be. Pete Rose devalued the market.
There is no reason Bonds should ever again be considered one of the top 10 hitters who ever lived. The true elite -- including Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams and Willie Mays -- are back where they belong. If you seek current players to keep them company, start with Alex Rodriguez and his 381 home runs at age 29. At that juncture, Bonds had 222.
The career of the authentic Bonds was long and well defined, lasting 12 seasons until he was 35. After that point, almost all players decline in productivity. Without Anderson in his life in recent years, Bonds's production would probably have dwindled. We'd be grouping him now with other 500-homer hitters, such as Rafael Palmeiro (551) and Ken Griffey Jr. (501), who coped with age and injury all by themselves even as Bonds, the glory thief, stole their headlines.
The jaw-dropping irony of Bonds is not that he used steroids to improve himself or slow athletic aging, but that the particular cocktail Anderson handed him actually worked too well. While other cheaters merely prospered, he rose to the skies like a god. He became so great so suddenly and stayed so young so long that his lie became larger and easier to read than the 25 on his back. His deceit and its results were so obvious that other players such as Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi flocked to him. Sheffield's tissue-thin defense is that he merely asked Anderson to give him what Barry gets and didn't know exactly what that was -- the "clear," the "cream" and a side order of "red beans." As for Giambi, he chose honesty over perjury before a grand jury and rolled over on himself. In time, by coming clean, Giambi may eventually wash some of the dirt off himself.
They call it a devil's bargain for a reason. Because when the price comes due, it's no bargain at all. There's just hell to pay. Other BALCOs in other cities may have their own lists of sinners. That's irrelevant. Society only jails the crooks it can catch.
Few in baseball loved Bonds, who has always resented the sport for the shabby way it treated his troubled father during his own career. Armchair psychologists can wonder whether Bonds's intense and tangled relationship with his alcoholic dad spurred him to make his late father's last years, riddled with catastrophic illnesses, into a kind of son's tribute tour at any cost.
That falls into the category of explanation, but not excuse. "To know all is to forgive all," it is said. Perhaps. Understanding Bonds has always been a full day's work. Still, his manner has ensured that few hearts within the game will break for him now.
Barry wears his demons on his sleeve and has used them as an excuse throughout his career to put his ambitions and ego, his personal pain and problems, ahead of anything else. So, he shouldn't be surprised if baseball now values its own good name above his shame and discounts much of what he has done by a factor of 25 pounds of muscle that he never earned.
The glory of Roger Maris's 61 home runs, which felt heavy to him in life, became a buoyant legacy to his family after his death. The disgrace of Bonds's 73 tainted home runs will become heavier with time until even fake muscles may not bear the weight. What will the future make of all Bonds's vainglorious finger-to-the-sky home plate celebrations as if heaven was on his side when it was more likely that hell had just called a holiday?
If Bonds plays next season, many fans will boo his 500-foot homers and cheer his intentional walks. As for a 715th home run to pass Ruth, much less a 756th to surpass Aaron, the thought of it is now almost too revolting to endure. If nothing else, maybe Bonds can find the decency to retire before he passes Aaron. Last season, he raised that possibility. Now we know why.
In time, Bonds will realize that both he and his sport would have been better off if his feats of the last four years had never happened. The longer he lives, the more his "unbreakable" records, protected by better drug testing, may seem like a curse. As he ages, he will wish, perhaps even pray, that he could extinguish them all. But they will never disappear from the game's history.
For Bonds, the number 73 will only loom larger. Even as, for the rest of us, it moves toward the horizon of memory and shrinks until it finally takes its place, remote but still distinct, next to that other sad number that never entirely fades: 1919.
Dear Bat-Girl,
If they name portions of the seats in the new Nationals stadium, don't you think the distinguished Senator from Arizona has cemented his claim on having a portion called the McCain Grandstand?
-Shoeless Joe
Posted by: ShoelessJoe at December 4, 2004 12:49 PMDearest Mr. Joe,
Not exactly the riskiest of political positions, Batgirl grants you.
Sincerely,
BG
Well written, Batgirl. I find myself finally accepting his fraud. I've resisted as much as I can. I give in to those who would take from him his glory. He has, in the end, taken much more away from baseball than he has given to it. The awe through which I have watched his amazing performance these last 5 or 6 years is still there. It's just now like watching an actor play Barry Bonds; it's not really him....it's hardly even real. And, yet, he could take away more of the glory that belongs to Willy, Hank and the Babe than he already has....which makes him a true villain....a bad guy. I hate it: the most incredable swing in history and it's a fraud...a damn fraud....damn.
Posted by: Brian from Alaska at December 4, 2004 02:03 PMBarry Bonds will be coming to the Metrodome this year. I suggest we:
1) Show up in great numbers to support our beloved and (so far) untainted Twins
2) Make signs of all shape and variety that have nothing on them except a very pronounced asterisk
3) When Mr. Bonds gets up to bat, make no noise at all and just hold up our "*" signs.
BTW - loved the A-Rod photo. Brilliant!
Posted by: BadAndy48 at December 4, 2004 05:19 PM>If Bonds plays next season, many fans will boo his 500-foot homers and cheer his intentional walks.
Does Boswell really believe this? I think many fans suspected Bonds was juiced long before the grand jury leaks. But how many booed his homers and cheered his walks this season? What reason is there to think that will change next year?
Posted by: Franorama at December 4, 2004 06:02 PMEthical issues aside, I am struck by the pure stupidity of MLB in letting things get this far out of hand. Although anyone with half a brain recognized the seriousness of this issue years ago, somehow, the owners and players both seemed to think they could go on ignoring it with impunity. Imagine if they had taken a strong and decisive stand against the use of performance enhancing drugs, say, three years ago, with a real testing policy and real penalties. Sure, people would still have whispered about the legitimacy of past achievements, but if they had truly worked to clean things up and restore a sense of trust, I'm betting no one would really want to go back and open up old cans of worms (forgive the clumsy metaphor). Now it has reached such a crisis point that everything is going to be called into question. Messy, messy, messy, and so avoidable.
Without in any way excusing it, it is understandable that people like Bonds thought they had a license to cheat. The message could not have been clearer that everyone prefered to turn a blind eye; why should they expect that to change?
Brilliant as always, BG. I'm already practicing my "BALCO" screams for this June. Really anxious for some consquences to play out.
Anyone see the Torii bit on EspnNews? Basically re: the Bonds/steroids thing, defending him... as much as I disagree for the most part, makes me love him even more.
Posted by: Sammi at December 5, 2004 01:12 AMWay to take a stand on the important issues right away John McCain XD
Posted by: Mimiru at December 5, 2004 03:47 AMBatgirl, I LOVED your paragraph on greatness. Amazing.
I am also a fan of the purse pic.
Posted by: Stacy at December 5, 2004 10:38 AMJust for the sake of argument, where do injected painkillers fit into this discussion? Shilling certainly couldn't have pitched without them, and I'd be willing to bet that what they did to him could cause health problems down the road. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, obviously, but I don't think this issue is as black-and-white as the dialogue on it has been.
Posted by: cowdisciple at December 5, 2004 11:30 AMIf we're going to blast McCain for grandstanding (which I think is totally called for), then how about the faithless Boswell, too? Jumping on Bonds for "cheating" is about as challenging for a DC sportswriter as making fun of Redskins owner Dan Snyder for his Steinbrenner-wannabe antics.
Where is the blame in this polemic for Bud Selig? When he wasn't trying to destroy your franchise, Twins fans (and borrowing money from your SOB owner), Ol' Temporary Commish for Life was doubtless wringing his hands over the shame of all those majestic jacks hit by (admitted Creatine user) Mark McGwire and (proven bat-corker) Sammy Sosa in 1998. Oh, what's a used car salesman to do when "chicks dig the longball" and fans come flocking back to see chemically mutated supermen destroy long-standing records? If Fehr is going to hell, I hope he's still able to defecate on Selig, roasting away at a still-lower level.
(Not to mention that Selig gave us George W. Bush, thankyouverymuch. If the Bud Man had kept his reported promise to let Bush take over as MLB Commissioner in 1992 or '93, I don't think the Idiot King ever would have entered politics... keep that in mind as things go to hell over the next four years.)
Steroids weren't even regulated by MLB until 2003 or so. Thus, technically, Bonds and Sheff and Big Mac and the rest weren't in violation of any rule. Just win, baby...
Final thought: How much of this is really outrage about what Bonds did, and how much is payback for the fact that he's never been particularly interested in sucking up to the media? You may not approve of Bonds' self-enhancement, but I would argue it represents less of a true moral transgression than the things Kirby Puckett has been reported to have done. I loved Puck, too; how could you not? But when his sins were revealed, the press took a more-in-sorrow-than-anger line, reward no doubt for all those great quotes and big smiles he furnished them over the years.
Bonds is in the alternate tradition of Ted Williams, Steve Carlton and others, who either battled the Knights of the Keyboard or just ignored them. The only people who were more upset by his phenomenal performance in the 2002 World Series than the Angels, were the mediots who had to give up their cherished storyline of Bonds as an "October choker." Now they've got a new hold on his reputation, and they're squeezing tight.
Posted by: jeffstoned at December 5, 2004 01:20 PMI blastd McCain because he's a politician not a sports writer, team owner, etc.
[EDITED BY BG. YOU'RE WELCOME TO ARGUE POSITIONS, NOT INSULT POSTERS.]
Posted by: Mimiru at December 5, 2004 01:46 PM1. There were plenty of mediocre baseball players taking steroids who were still mediocre (like Jeremy Giambi and Marvin Benard to name 2 off the top of my head). You can't take these substances and sprout muscles without doing the extra weight-lifting work required. There have been no studies that prove that these substances make a player better.
2. They weren't illegal until 2003 and, even then, the substances bonds likely took, "Clear" and "Cream" weren't tested for by baseball. What rule did he break? If we want to take away the stats he put up the last 5 years, shouldn't we go back and take away all the statistics from pitchers who threw spitballs before they were made illegal in the 20's? You shouldn't be able to retro-actively charge someone with a crime.
3. We don't know what the long-term health effects are because it hasn't been studied. Lyle Alzado made a claim that steroids caused the problems that led to his early death. It was never proven medically. If steroids have bad long-term effects, why doesn't Bonds show any effects?
4. The difference between the steroid problem in baseball and football is that the NFL is much better at public relations. Sure, the NFL "appears" to be taking care of the steroid problem but do fans really think that many of those unnaturally-large lineman aren't still taking something?
Posted by: Roberto at December 5, 2004 07:30 PM(From "BALCO: The Musical")
Pee can mean anything
You can bet that's true
Pee can mean just about anything...
What does pee mean to you?
Well, a tee pee is a special tent
That Native Americans make,
And Pee Dee is a hockey town
In South Carolina state!
Yes! Pee can mean anything
Anything you want it to,
It's the sixteenth letter in the alphabet
It goes right between O and Q!
In jolly old England it stands for pence
In our football it stands for "punter"
It doesn't mean what you think it does
So get your mind out of the gutter!
'Cause! [CHORUS]
Posted by: kw at December 6, 2004 11:06 AMI could put into words how I feel, but I think I'll like my co-writer do it instead. Josh emailed me about this whole thing and I agree for the most part on what he says:
Don't forget the untold story here: grand jury testimony is not public. This information should not have been leaked and the fact that it was hurts the judicial system as a whole. It pisses me off that a "political" agenda is harming everyone's rights to a fair and just judicial process.
Also, there is no evidence to show that performance-enhancing drugs actually enhance performance in baseball. In fact, since Giambi's pituitary tumor is likely a result of his injections, we have one case where it ruined an entire season and possible the rest of his career.
Looking at Bonds and Giambi, in the 4 years prior to 2001 (the year Conte says he began providing drugs) vs. the 4 years from and including 2001, we see the following OPS ranges:
Bonds (pre-2001): 1.006 - 1.128
Bonds (2001 on): 1.278 - 1.378
Giambi (pre-2001): .857 - 1.123
Giambi (2001 on): .721 - 1.137
It appears that Bonds might have received a boost but there is nothing to suggest that Giambi impoved. This is not enough data for drawing conclusions, but it certainly isn't a clear case that these drugs actually do enhance performance in baseball.
The pseudo-defense rests, your honor.
Eric,
Could it be that you are using statistics to prove (or disprove) a point inaccurately? For example, merely because Giambi's OPS "range" dips, doesnt mean that he did not obtain a benefit from the steroids. How about home run numbers? Also, a Giambi OPS "range" bottoming out at .721 could show a decline due to the effects of steroids. Remember, too, that merely because these steroids were not being used until allegedly 2000, others (or these for that matter) may have been used beforehand.
Whether or not your pseudo-defense holds water, medical science knows what happens to the human body when steroids are introduced. Muscles need less rest during workout phases, etc. It provides at least one advantage over those who do not take steroids. Throw in the fact that it is dangerous, and that is enough for me to denounce everything these guys have done...at least for the kids' sakes. Yes, I mean Lew Ford.
YankeeFan
Posted by: YankeeFan at December 6, 2004 01:29 PMCowdisciple
I think the difference lies in that an injected painkiller is a LEGAL substance, whilst these steroids and steroid precursers are, in general, schedule I drugs - i.e. they are outlawed in all circumstances (including medical need) by the FDA.
This is the point of the argument that has been completely glossed over by the media, asterisks are not enough, TAKE the awards and accolades AWAY and convict all who are involved in this!
Win Twins in 2005!
Posted by: talldrinkowater at December 6, 2004 04:49 PMI apologize in advance for the length and serious tone of this post on what is undoubtedly the funniest site I read on a regular basis, but…
I can't fathom how anyone can say that steroids don't help a baseball player. The ones who *try* to make that argument invariably say, "It can't teach you how to hit a baseball." That is true, but it's a bogus argument. If you can already hit a baseball with some skill, and can maintain your swing mechanics, the additional strength unquestionably improves bat speed. That turns warning track fly balls into home runs, and converts routine groundouts into laser beams that get by 'mortal' infielders. Those are all former outs that are now, with the aid of steroids, hits and home runs.
After a while, you begin to reap the benefits of being a feared hitter. Smaller strike zones, intentional walks, a mental advantage over many pitchers... it has a multiplying effect. Bonds has taken that to a new level. I live in SF and saw 15 Giants games this year. I can count on one hand the number of pitchers that weren’t VISIBLY shaken when Bonds came up.
I also can’t believe how many people are primarily concerned with the record books. WHO CARES!!! We need to send a clear message to the young athletes who idolize these guys so that they won’t fall into the same trap.
How do we convey that? A combination of things:
1) Even now, when nothing has been proven as far as Bonds goes, we say, "Look, we don’t know if Barry used steroids or not, but, IF HE DID, look at what he stands to lose! Listen to the way people feel about what he’s accomplished now... no athlete wants people to remember them this way. If he did cheat, he made a REALLY bad decision, and now he stands to lose much of what he earned because of it. If cheating is what it takes to accomplish something like this; NO THANKS. I’d rather do the best *I* can do and if I fall short, fine, at least I know I gave it everything I had. That, in the end, is MORE IMPORTANT than hoisting some trophy or a big paycheck."
2) When it’s proven that these guys cheated, take away the awards and the money they accomplished by cheating. For this reason, I really hope the Yankees are able to void Giambi’s contract, despite having been a big fan of his in the past (when he was on the A’s and purportedly pre-steroidal)
If we don't send that message now, we will always have this problem and it will only get worse as our young athletes use semantics and bogus arguments to help them rationalize the decision to cheat.
Unfortunately, I have very little confidence in either MLB or the judicial system to deal with this situation properly and send a clear message. Hopefully these kids' parents, teachers, and coaches can overcome this barrage of crap, and provide these kids with enough good reasons NOT to cheat when their time comes to make that decision.
Posted by: Freez at December 6, 2004 07:26 PMSome issues:
How do you differentiate between steroids and other forms of "cheating"? Should records be wiped out if players are caught corking bats or throwing spitters? Should Gaylord Perry and others like him be kicked out of the Hall of Fame? Should the '51 Giants be stripped of the NL pennant because they had a system for stealing signs that year? When Bobby Thomson hit the Shot Heard Round the World, and Russ Hodges screamed "The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!" the hitter may have known exactly what Ralph Branca was going to throw--because his team was cheating by stealing signs. What should be done about that now?
I also wonder, what particularly makes steroids as a tool for "cheating" any worse than other drugs which help performance but may be legal--such as creatine, painkillers, or pep pills? A player may have an injury which should have him resting at home for the next month, but he takes a drug which masks the pain to help him get on the field hitting homers, or helps his muscles heal quicker, or perks him up for a day game near the end of a tiring road trip.... That isn't exactly natural performance, and a lot of that stuff is banned by the Olympics--but MLB and its fans are OK with it. Except if you say "steroids." Then people freak out. Why?
Posted by: frightwig at December 7, 2004 09:49 PM