Friday, November 2, 2007

The Hall should boycott him

Ah, so Barry Bonds doesn't want to be part of the Hall of Fame if it accepts his asterisk laden 756 ball? Big fricken deal. He shouldn't be in anyway.

Everyone complains about Pete Rose tarnishing the game, but what Pete did 1. had no affect on actual game outcomes and 2. had no bearing on his career as a player. Pete should have been banned for life, and from the Hall as a manager (not that he could have gotten in on that count anyway!), but his role in baseball as a player was never questioned, and thus should be in the hall as a player.

Bonds on the other hand...CHANGED GAMES AND SEASONS BY CHEATING AND BY BREAKING THE LAW. Let's all be adult here. No, he never failed a test. Neither did Marian Jones who endured OLYMPIC LEVEL TESTING constantly. She passed every one. And guess what, she admitted she was doped to the gills by the same exact people that drugged up Bonds. Innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt isn't a moral code, it's a legal standard. The 'moral' standard as set by the 'Judeo-Christian ethic' is the testimony of multiple witnesses. Bonds may not be legally guilty (yet), but I do believe there has been more than enough evidence and witnesses for the public to know what happen. Even OJ beat the courts (sort of), and there is little question that he killed his wife (another court using different standards even said so). Should Bonds go to jail without more evidence? No, of course not; a man's freedom is too valuable to take away without overwhelming proof. That doesn't change what we all know happened and what has been repeatedly and regularly documented (thanks San Fran Chronicle).

Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall, and I would love it if he didn't show up. He tarnished the game far deeper than Rose did. His cheating endangered lives and altered history.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

While I don't at all agree with what Bonds did...I feel that it is unjustified for MLB and the Media to continually kill this guy for "cheating". The biggest crime to me is that the "powers that be" in baseball looked away while their superstars tarnished the game. The truth of the matter, is that whatever Bonds, McGwire, and other large headed sluggers took was not against the rules of baseball, at that time. It would be like you or me driving down the road at 55 mph one day, in a 55 zone. The next day on that same stretch of highway the speed limit is now changed to 35...and they begin pulling over everyone that drove 55 the day before because they broke the law. You can't make a law retroactive. Well, apparently baseball can. I think Bonds is a creap, but still an incredible baseball player who gained a cometitive edge that wasn't against the law of baseball. Now, if the "law of the land" would like to get him for breaking the real law, go for it, fine him, lock him up whatever...but what was done between the lines in unfortunately legit. And MLB's post '94 strike philosophy was apparently to look the other way and ignore th power surge and ballooning athletes who suddenly had the power.

As for Pete Rose, I completely agree and think he is getting a raw deal. Had Bart Giamantti not died, I think that people would be more quick to reinstate him...but I think the commissioners have some sacred loyalty to the decision he made. I think Pete will get in posthumously. Although I do disagree with your point that Pete's actions "had no affect on game outcomes"...they maybe did, maybe didn't but that's why gambling on baseball is such a no-no...becasue as a manager it very easily could have influenced his decision making in close games. But, yes, as a player his actions had no affect on the game other than to make it great but out hustling everyone!

The black eye for these two individuals careers should be worn by MLB's leadership, not by Pete and Barry.

deshawn zombie said...

Sorry but you are wrong on several counts: 1. "The truth of the matter, is that whatever Bonds, McGwire, and other large headed sluggers took was not against the rules of baseball, at that time"-I don't know why you think this is true, but it's not. Steroids have been illegal in baseball since the early 90s, but there was no testing program for them. THEY WERE STILL ILLEGAL. Other steroids like andro were legal for a time, in both the US and baseball, but that use that guys are accused of goes FAAAAAR beyond that. Even more so, these men are accused of ILLEGAL steroids, that is steroids that are not legal in USA. I don't care if baseball had a rule or not against a specific drug, it's illegality in the USA makes it defacto against the rules of baseball. Baseball has no rule against kidnapping the other starting pitcher, BECUASE KIDNAPPING IS ILLEGAL. So don't tell me that it was like 55 in a 55 zone. It was like 70 in a 30, only there were no cops around. just becuase you can get away with something doesn't make it ok. Whoever told you that steriods weren't against the rules lied to you.

deshawn zombie said...

Just to be clear, here is a website deliniating what happened and when:
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

Fay Vincent issued his policy in 1993. Just becuase there was no testing doesn't mean that it was ok. 70 in a 30 zone is speeding and is dangerous. Given the labor state at the time (a strike leveled the 94 season), it was extremely hard for the owners to impose a testing plan. The MLBA has always fought drug testing for reasons that I cannot fathom (oh wait, money!). The owners had some fault, but the real blame falls on the men who broke the rules. They cheated and broke the law of the United States of America. They won awards under false pretenses. I have zero sympathy for them

Anonymous said...

hmm, thanks for the facts. I find it interesting that no one reports on the rule that Fay Vincent instituted...at leat not sportscenter. I guess a little less ESPN and little more blog reading would be beneficial.

Well...let's just agree to lay blame on Donald Fehr. He's the bain of baseball anyways. Ok, we can blame Bonds and company as well. I might have to re-evaluate my only "good" arguement since you shot holes in it. Thanks a lot.

Maybe I just don't want to admit, as a fan, that what I see in sports isn't always true. Maybe Tom Brady is actually part machine, hmm, irobot, created for good but controlled and used for evil.

deshawn zombie said...

Part of the confusion came in 1998 when McGwire used "Andro". Andro was a legal OTC suppliment that was banned in many sports, but NOT MLB. It could be purchased from any GNC. It was not, as it turned out, the ONLY drug McGwire used. I had no problem with him using Andro at that time. It was legal 1. In the USA and 2. in baseball. This served to confuse a great number of people about what the rules were. I'm still shocked the myth that 'steroids were legal in baseball' persists, but I hear idiots like Mike and Mike repeat it all the time. Just ain't so.

Anonymous said...

It should be clear that anyone associated with ESPN is by default an idiot, unless they, like a blind squirrel, find a nut.

Greenberg is a tremendous doofus, and Golic's only there to yell "Stop it!" and laugh like a goon.

Mike and Mike is still light years ahead of anything else on ESPN radio, save maybe Jim Rome if they carry him.

It should be interesting to see all the speeches used by ESPN this week, whether it'll be apologies to everyone for honking the Pats so hard, or them getting their "I told you so's" on, even if the Pats only win by a single point.

Now, on the subject of Bonds, the Game of Shadow clearly defines that Bonds took steriods, including how a man in his late 30s starts having irregular growth, specifically in his head. Bonds is NOT the most dominant hitter in history, just the most celebrated one, who won a ton of MVPs that he didn't deserve. Just like how he gets a pass for being a cancer in the locker room that wouldn't be conductive to actually putting together a time whose average age can be descirbed as "dead". (Thanks Gene Wojecowski, you tell me how to spell it.) He tarnished the game of baseball, spat in everyones' eyes while doing it, and gets defended by the media because they made him into the monster that stole the Home Run record. Hank Aaron is the definition of class, but it had to be killing him to see Bonds rip the record like this. Which is why the accomplishment itself was praised, but not the means and certainly not the person. Hank's message was one of congratulation, it was one of hey all you young sluggers out there, take this record away from this asshat, PLEASE.

ESPN will certainly giggle themselves to sleep pondering over where Barry will go, despite the fact that there's only one place for Barry to go: away, and out of baseball forever, never to darken the hall or be mentioned except in passing. Time and ego ruined what could have been a watershed great moment that people would happily cherish for all their life, don't let him ruin the specialness of the Hall.