SPORTS EXTRA
Forgive Me Father, for I have sinned:
Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, and Number 756
By Frank J. Colagiovanni
I’d say a prayer. Then I’d throw two pitches.
The first, a message pitch, high and tight—chin music—brushing him off the plate. The second, to put him on base, I’d plunk him right where he carries his wallet—possibly where he sticks his needles. That’s how I’d keep Barry bonds from hitting home runs.
But I’m not a Major League pitcher.
Now as a matter of full disclosure, I don’t like Barry Bonds, never really have. But, until his head began to grow three sizes, and he started dumping dingers into McCovey Cove, I never needed to pay him much attention. He’s in a different league, in a different city, on a different coast. And as a practicing member of the First Congregation of the Church of Fenway Park, I’ve regarded what goes on in the National League as a Catholic might view an Episcopalian: similar, but not the same. Their church might resemble my church, but their service involves a lot of bunting, that and weak bats in the seven, eight and nine holes.
But Barry Bonds become the elephant on the altar, too hard to ignore, storming heaven by assaulting the most hallowed record in the Game. When this baseball blasphemy is completed, he will have passed Hank Aaron as baseball’s all-time home run leader. 755 will no longer be the number. And Aaron, who took the crown, earned the crown, from Ruth, will no longer be on top of the list—sitting at the head of all baseball tables.
At the time of this writing Bonds has 747, eight away from the record, seven away from breaking it. In a recent interview at the site of his record-setting home run, Hank Aaron, one of the true Olympians of the sport, told the press that he wouldn’t be there when Bonds broke his record.
Records were made to be broken, especially in baseball where everything is measure by numbers. But numbers are stubborn things, like facts, and they mean something. 755 has represented the fact that Aaron was the best, consistently. 756 will represent the fact that that Barry Bonds cheated. He allegedly admitted it to a Grand Jury, his numbers are tainted. There have been others who have cheated, compromised the integrity of the Game, and we know them by name. And we know the facts of their fall from grace. How is Bonds worthy of inclusion in the Pantheon of baseball if Jackson and Rose are not?
And frankly, bagging Bonds might just serve the greater good. Banning Pete Rose from baseball has likely dissuaded others from betting on the game, just as the Chicago Black Sox Scandal and the fact that Joe Jackson left baseball in disgrace has done the same. Both Rose and Jackson had Hall of Fame careers, but neither were called to the Hall because they broke the rules—cheated the game.
What makes it even more maddening is that Bonds was bound for the Hall without going on the Juice. The rare 5-tool player he could hit for average, hit for power, run the bases, throw accurately and field the ball better than almost any player of his time.
But Rose and Jackson had Hall worthy careers before their transgressions; Rose wasn’t even playing when he was banned. He was a manager. But Pete Rose was banned from baseball for life and “Shoeless” Joe Jackson was tossed out of the Game in 1920, never to return. Both remain on baseball’s Ineligible List to this day. Bonds should be out as well.
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
The fact that men will always cheat, that there will always be those who choose to break the rules should not mitigate the fact that when you catch one, you should punish him.
Because we can’t catch all bank robbers doesn’t mean bank robbery should be legal. Because we can’t catch all steroids users doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye.
On June 15th, 16th and 17th Bonds and the Giants come to Fenway, and while I have tickets I won’t be there. Other than to boo him or turn my back when he comes to the plate, I don’t want any part of Barry Bonds. It’s sometimes said that you are to hate the sin but love the sinner, but I feel contrition needs to be in there somewhere. With Bonds I don’t see any. And I don’t want to see that kind of blasphemy in my church.
Aaron won’t be there, and neither will I.
_____________________________
Frank J. Colagiovanni (www.colagiovanni.com) is an award-winning freelance copywriter and special contributing writer for Bread and Circus.
Seed Newsvine
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 16, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Curt
This HR record is meaningless except to INCREASE ESPN & MLB revenues and profits. The strike out records are pointless too.
Corked bats, easy pitches and massive doping by all players mean that MLB is now WWE.
Pete Rose used a corked bat. Sammy and others.
They cheated back in Hank’s day too.
NEVER take Tv psorts seriously. Never.
June 18, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Frank J. Colagiovanni
Curt:
Thanks for reading and thanks for your response.
While, I think you have an extremely strong point about the marketability and profitability of the Game, which is why I think the current MLB administration turned a blind eye to both Sosa and McGwire in 1998, my argument was about cheating—but more specifically about getting caught.
I fully concede the point that there was cheating when Aaron played, just as there was when Ruth played. But, that fact that there are, and always have been, cheaters shouldn’t make it acceptable.
Whether the records are meaningless or meaningful, cheating—and getting busted or called on it—should engender some kind of response. We’ll never catch every cheater or criminal, but when we do catch one, something should be done.
In addition to whatever rules Bonds has broken with regard to steroids or other performance enhancers, he also broke the fabled 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not get caught.
June 18, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Curt
I understand your sentiment and share it.
BUT–cheating is an institutionally accepted and NECESARRY element of Disney Holdings (ESPN) success. GE/NBC Olympics too.
The cheating is not a choice—put a policy. IOC, NFL, MLB etc..
Doping, corked bats, meaningless records boosts ratings and media revenues.
Cheating is good for business. Essential as rigging a quiz show. (Charles van Doren ring a bell?)
Hence, we must accept TV baseball and all TV underwritten sports as WWE entertanment NEVER to be taken seriously.
Anyone who believe in Nike miracles is being played for a fool. A retail consumer fool.
Sober, sad, tragic but true.
June 18, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Erin Dionne
Cheating as a policy? Then why play at all? If all pro sports are such a farce–putting $$ in the pockets of the networks/owners/athletes with no regard for quality of the game–that’s a pretty sad state of affairs for America. And it means Americans are pretty dumb, putting entertainment over sportsmanship and talent.
Then again…
June 18, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Curt
Americans as a group are dumb. Very dumb.
Disney (ABC, ESPN), GE-NBC, NewsCorp (Fox), Time Warner consutruct entire markeing platforms around mindless, meaningless sports, news, entertsainment.
Ever wonder why the so-called Network NEWS reports never mentions the $1 BILLION US embassy in Baghdad or the 14 new air forces bases? We are NEVER leaving Iraq, not with $10 TRILLION in oil reserves and more oil in bordering Nations. Exxon, Chevron and Haliburton are staying–as are US tax dollars at work.
Steroids in sports are essential today. Fans won’t pay to see natural play. Too boring.
Sports are now marketed to non-athletes and coach potatoes.
Nike swooshes are too cool.
Drunk coach potatoes demand action else they turn the channel to WWE, Joe Millionaire, Dancing with the Stars or Jerry Springer.
Never take TV sports to heart. No lessions to be learned there.
Anyone believe the NFL is clean? Or do they have a massive doping problem? College football too? You betcha.
Americans place far too much trust on the black tube.
June 23, 2007 at 8:43 pm
BigTrain
Curt – you make many interesting points, but I’m not so sure that cheating is limited to Americans, or American sport. Look no further than FIFA and the Italian Football scandal of a few years ago. While I appreciate a screed against late capitalist America as much as the next guy, I don’t think it’s necessarily relevant here. I think in the 90s MLB knew what was going on re: steroids, but overlooked it for a number of reasons, primarily their need to recover from the disastrous ‘94 strike and their desire to avoid going head-to-head with the players union (again), especially over a non-revenue related issue. While you’re right about the pernicious influence of ESPN on sports, I think the significance of the HR record (and the general interest surrounding all the other MLB records) long predate ESPN, and TV in general. People like numbers.
You said ‘Steroids in sports are essential today. Fans won’t pay to see natural play. Too boring.’ The exact results of the Steriod era can be argued, but it seems to me that their use doesn’t necessarily translate into your percieved degradation of the game. Juiced baseballs, smaller stikezones, lower mounds – these result in the type of ball you disapprove of – Steroids seem to come into play for those records that are more endurance related (Season HR record – gotta stay off the DL for that, Career HR record – gotta stay healthy and in the game to get there), but don’t seem to really affect performance – you’ve still got to see the ball to hit the ball.
June 29, 2007 at 11:48 am
Frank J. Colagiovanni
BigTrain, Thanks for reading and for continuing the discussion. It’s an interesting topic, with a lot of points, and one that I’ve given a great deal of thought.
I agree that, most likely, by the time MLB realized what was going on—and to what extent—with regard to the Sosa and McGwire home run chase. They were already so deep into it that there was no way out. I’m under no dissolution that the MLB brass didn’t know about performance enhancers in the 90’s, but I do think that, like a snowball rolling down hill, the way it happened caught them a little off guard. Either way they (MLB) handled it poorly, and continue to do so. I look at the NFL and see that they at least seem to be making an effort and at most are sanctioning and suspending players.
Weather ESPN has had a “pernicious influence … on sports” is in some respects beside the point, at least from my perspective. Especially when you look at the past history of the Game and those players who were tossed out of it. By your logic, at least if I’m reading correctly, it’s only the prowess of the player that matters, despite the fact that the player may have violated the rules—and might have been called on it.
Rose was fantastic in every aspect of the Game, but he broke the rules, and was caught doing so—red handed with betting slips. Jackson was possibly one of the greatest hitters ever to play the Game and, even though he hit and fielded well in the Series, the fact is he took the money.
Bonds, a 5-tool, MVP caliber player has been called to testify before a Grand Jury, admitting he took “something”—admitting he broke the rules.
Prowess, acumen and ability enable a player to perform at a high level, but if they are performing “outside the lines” then they are really not playing the Game. I’d never sit down at a chess table in Central Park, drop my five dollars on the board, if the guy sitting opposite me had queens in place of rooks. Set up with a standard backline, I’d never stand a chance. Not because that guy is likely better than me, but because the “rules” he is starting with are not the “rules” I’m starting with.
That chess-guy likely has me beat on ability; his juced lineup just makes my defeat so much faster. But to say that he’d have beaten me anyway so it’s fine that he had a two-queen advantage—or that Bonds, Sosa and McGwire already were performing at a superior level so it’s OK that they took enhancers—leaves me confused. Seeing and hitting the ball, just like executing a Blackburn Shilling Gambit, is only part of each respective game. The ability to do each of these effectively is important. However equally important to playing a game, any game, is that the rules apply to everyone, equally. Unless, of course, you feel that, as Orwell put it “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Bobby Fisher was arguably the best chess master ever, but it would never be acceptable for him to play with different pieces despite his ability to “play 12 moves ahead.” Playing with a different set of pieces would likely result in his defeating his opponent in faster—record setting—time. Just as performance enhancers likely have enabled players like Bonds, Sosa and McGwire to have, at least, longer—record setting—careers.
July 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Zack
Everyone who is accusing Bonds of wrongdoing and states that the game will forever be tarnished when he breaks the record is guilty of judging someone based on appearance whom has met the requirements of the sport. They have tested Bonds, repeatedly, for Steroids. Not once has he failed that test. Thus, he met the requirements for the sport. You say that he stood in front of the Grand Jury and said the he took “something”….well, what is that “something”? For all you know it was Tylenol or aspirin or Ben-Gay. You are making the assumption that he did something illegal because of the way he looks, which is stereotyping.
July 23, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Frank J. Colagiovanni
Zack:
Thanks for your reply and for keeping this discussion going.
I’m not stereotyping Barry Bonds at all.
In fact, I’m dong exactly the opposite. I’m using the facts of the case as I know and understand them to reach a calculated conclusion. Stereotyping is a knee-jerk reaction, grounded in pre-conceived notions and assumptions. A judgment based on available fact is, at the very least, a reasonable verdict.
While his physical appearance, and the extremely dramatic change in that appearance, is a factor in the conclusion that I and many others have reached, it’s not the “lead indicator” — not by a long shot. Especially when it’s considered in the context of the “bulked-up, late-90’s” that saw McGwire, Soso and Giambi all put on a lot of “mass.”
As for the illegality that hasn’t been a part of my argument at all. I don’t think he should necessarily be prosecuted, at least not yet. But the burden of proof incumbent upon the State to prosecute a crime is significantly different than the burden of proof incumbent upon MLB—especially when considering the “in the best interest of the game” clause the commissioner has at his discretion.
For all I know “it was Tylenol or aspirin or Ben-Gay” that he took, but the evidence points in a different direction, evidence including the leaked Grand Jury testimony, the contents of the Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams book Game of Shadows, interviews and statements made by the founder and president of Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO), Victor Conte, and the fact that the investigation has just been extended by the Federal government. Those are all fairly good indicators that something stinks in Denmark.
For all you know he was taking a performance enhancer that did not register on the test or was using a masking agent to cover them up.
Additionally, there has been very little commentary recently about presumed innocence, in fact it’s taken on air of “settled law” that Bonds did use substances he shouldn’t have. Even the fence-straddling media members calling the All Star Game were willing to concede the point that the evidence, and there is plenty of it out there, points to cheating in some form. That’s why I find it so odd that the comments then turn to the “he was great before he cheated, so it really shouldn’t matter” variety.
I’ve looked at the information available, considered the presidents of past “cheating” in baseball and reached a measured conclusion. None of that is consistent with stereotyping.