Buried at the bottom of a separate ESPNS report, these quotes.
White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen voiced his support for Bonds, even though they don't know each other well. Guillen hopes Bonds passes Ruth and breaks Aaron's record soon.
"I think it will be great for baseball," the World Series-winning manager said. "I think he's the greatest hitter ever. ... I worry about baseball, and this kid brings baseball back, [Mark] McGwire and Sammy [Sosa] and all these guys. People hated baseball then, after the strike. A lot of people will be mad when he breaks the record, but I hope he does."
The reason I ask if he's crazy, is if he wanted to make headlines he needs to crush Bonds.
Maybe I'm the crazy one. No, I heard somewhere that if you'e crazy you think you're normal, so you don't wonder about it. But then again there's the conversations with oneslf........hmmmmm.
Oh well, life goes on. Can't we all just PLAY BALL??
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
What About Us? by John Brattain of The Hardball Times
A very strong article. If you choose to look at the
web site that is referenced in the authors linked article
(www.withoutsanctuary.org), I will caution the images are
very powerful.
What About Us?
by John Brattain of The Hardball Times
March 17, 2006
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/what-about-us/
Bob Feller believes that Barry Bonds shouldn't go into the Hall of Fame
because of steroid use.
On Aug. 7, 1930, Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith were lynched in Marion, Ind.
A horrible crime against humanity? Not at the time. In fact, somebody had
framed a photograph of this event with a lock of one of the victim's hair
in the picture frame; the caption read: "Bo pointn to his niga."
On Nov. 26, 1933 John Holmes was lynched in San Jose, Calif. Photos of this
exist as well.
On July 19, 1935, Rubin Stacy was lynched in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. A
photograph of this event featured onlookers, including four young girls.
According to the New York Times, "The suspect, booked as Rubin Stacy, was
hanged to a roadside tree within sight of the home of Mrs. Marion Jones,
thirty year old mother of three children, who identified him as her
assailant." Six deputies were escorting Stacy to a Dade County jail in
Miami for "safekeeping." The six deputies were "overpowered" by
approximately one hundred masked men, who ran their car off the road. "As
far as we can figure out," Deputy Wright was quoted as saying,"they just
picked him up with the rope from the ground-didn't bother to push him from
an automobile or anything. He was filled full of bullets, too. I guess they
shot him before and after they hanged him.
"Subsequent investigation revealed that Stacy, a homeless tenant farmer, had
gone to the house to ask for food; the woman became frightened and screamed
when she saw Stacy's face."
On Oct. 15, 1938, R. C. Williams was lynched in in Ruston, La. A photo of
his body hanging from oak tree has his lower body covered with an apron with
blood streaming down his legs (suggesting castration). The picture includes
white men and young children looking on.
Over the course of those eight years, Bob Feller grew from a 12-year-old boy
to a 19-year-old pitching phenomena. What's interesting about the cited
photos above is when those lynching occurred, nobody was hiding their faces,
nobody was worried about repercussions, legal or otherwise. In fact, folks
looked quite self-satisfied and pleased. The message was clear: They felt
they weren't doing anything wrong. Some claimed body parts (in some cases
removed from the victim while they were still alive) as souvenirs. People
used these photographs as post cards and mementos” even being found in
family albums. In some cases, they were family heirlooms.
In those years, if you dared live together without being married, you were
"living in sin". Getting a divorce was a scandal. Children born out of
wedlock were bastards. Harsh physical discipline of children was
acceptable. A woman's place was in the kitchen, where she should be kept
"barefoot and pregnant." Mental illness was considered more a weakness than
a disease.
Can we fathom such a mindset today?
However, many people from that era are alive and well. Do they still feel
this way? Probably some do, though we'd like to think that with the
perspective of time that they'd feel differently today.
Of interest is Feller, who while with the Cleveland Indians, was the
beneficiary of cheating by then owner Bill Veeck, who often directed his
groundskeepers to build up the mound as high as possible for his benefit.
This was one of a great many rules, written or understood, broken by Veeck
to give Feller and Co. as much of a competitive advantage as possible. Of
course, nobody weeps and rends their garments over this. It's a part of
baseball lore. Itâ's greeted with a nudge and a wink and a knowing
"Wasn' that Veeck as rascal, eh?" and we enjoy a good laugh.
Ah, when it was just a game.
Back then it was cheating, but five or six decades later it's an
interesting piece of baseball history. A footnote at best. During that
time, however, the Lords of Baseball were up in arms over some of Veeck's
stunts. So much so that when they had a chance, they arranged matters so
that he had no choice but to give up ownership of his ball club (the St.
Louis Browns, at the time).
Now we chuckle at what a bunch of humourless stuffed-shirts the other owners
were back then.
Funny how time changes our perspective. Things that were once acceptable
become abhorrent and things once considered abhorrent become acceptable.
Often it happens within the span of a single lifetime.
For the record, I'm not comparing lynching with the treatment of Bonds.
This isn' about Bonds, but rather our reaction to recent revelations
about Bonds.
Still, there are parallels.
For example: many are thinking that Bonds has brought the current
circumstances upon himself, and that had he not juiced he wouldn't be in
this situation. Or, for that matter, had he not been such a disagreeable
sort, folks likely would be more forgiving.
Many lynching victims were accused and guilty of breaking the law; many were
taken out of jail cells and strung up. Do you not think that a good number
of people in those crowds were thinking, "He brought this upon himself",
and had he not committed the crime, he wouldn't be dangling at the end of
a rope?
During this period of time, not only was media complicit to these
atrocities, they often helped plant the seeds that whipped up public opinion
and aided people to feel that it was okay to go ahead and lynch somebody
without due process. The media would even publish the time and location in
advance of a lynching, so as to draw the largest possible crowds to the
event, even going so far as to print the schedules of trains and buses that
would be going in that direction, with nary a pang of conscience.
In other words, by acting on what "seemed right at the time," terrible acts
were committed that make us recoil today. The participants/spectators in
those lynching photographs are our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc, not inhuman monsters. They were people just like us doing what they felt was right at the time. Chances are good that the following Sunday they went piously to church, feeling that all
was well between they and their Maker. After all, in their minds they had done nothing wrong. They probably felt that they were just, enlightened, and open-minded just as we do today.
Of course, the perspective of history teaches us just how wrong their
actions and mindset were, regardless of what crime the lynching victim may
have committed.
How history will view Bonds' accomplishments is one question, but let's
not forget the question of how will history view our reaction to Bonds.
What if history plays out that Bonds' drug usage is viewed as marginally
worse than an illegal mound, a rigged infield, a corked bat, a loaded
baseball, and greenies? Will there be "pictures" of us gleefully pointing
at an asterisk in a record book and grinning like fools as we proudly point
to a space in the wall in the Heroes Gallery in Cooperstown where Bonds'
plaque might have hung our; countenances beaming with a sense of pride
because we felt we had a hand in it? Will our children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren look back at those "photographs" and wonder, "What
were they thinking?"
And it could happen in our lifetime. Look at the changes in attitude during
Bob Feller's lifetime.
But that's what happens when we become impatient and want things to happen
"right now." Lynch mobs didn't want to wait for due process, they wanted
something done immediately. The media (and some fans) want something done
with Bonds right now asterisks, suspensions, ineligibility for the Hall of
Fame, etc. History teaches us that immediate gratification can lead to
terrible decisions, irreversible ones.
However, the reason we want something to happen right away is because Bonds is threatening to overtake Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron on the all-time home run list, and something should
be done right now to prevent that from happening.
What else has history taught us? Well, Roger Maris topped Ruth's single season home run record, Aaron eclipsed the Bambino's career home run mark and guess what? It didn't
diminish Ruth's stature in baseball history one iota.
History put Maris and Aaron in their proper place in baseball's
chronicles. It put them there the same way it put Ed Walsh and his career
ERA record, Dutch Leonard's single season ERA record, Cy Young's career
wins record, Charley Radbourne's single season wins record, Sam
Crawford's career triples record, Chief Wilson's single season triples
record, Nolan Ryan's career strikeout record, Matt Kilroy's single
season strikeout record, etc.
We understand that some of these records were set when the game was played
under different circumstances than they are today.
We're attempting to force Bonds' accomplishments into historical
perspective long before history gets a chance to weigh in. We must be
patient with regards to Bonds.
It may not be the most satisfying course, but it is the correct one and it protects our legacy.
In the short term, rules are in place to deal with Bonds, and he deserves baseball's version of due process.
As to his place in history,well, we'd be wise to wait because of the 'Bo pointn to his niga' caption on the framed lynching photograph. "Bo" is somebody's father, grandfather, brother, brother-in-law, uncle, cousin and friend, maybe yours. Were that the case, how would you feel about his legacy? After all,"'Bo" was doing what he felt was right at the time, but ... We run the same risk.
How does that saying go? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to
repeat it.
web site that is referenced in the authors linked article
(www.withoutsanctuary.org), I will caution the images are
very powerful.
What About Us?
by John Brattain of The Hardball Times
March 17, 2006
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/what-about-us/
Bob Feller believes that Barry Bonds shouldn't go into the Hall of Fame
because of steroid use.
On Aug. 7, 1930, Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith were lynched in Marion, Ind.
A horrible crime against humanity? Not at the time. In fact, somebody had
framed a photograph of this event with a lock of one of the victim's hair
in the picture frame; the caption read: "Bo pointn to his niga."
On Nov. 26, 1933 John Holmes was lynched in San Jose, Calif. Photos of this
exist as well.
On July 19, 1935, Rubin Stacy was lynched in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. A
photograph of this event featured onlookers, including four young girls.
According to the New York Times, "The suspect, booked as Rubin Stacy, was
hanged to a roadside tree within sight of the home of Mrs. Marion Jones,
thirty year old mother of three children, who identified him as her
assailant." Six deputies were escorting Stacy to a Dade County jail in
Miami for "safekeeping." The six deputies were "overpowered" by
approximately one hundred masked men, who ran their car off the road. "As
far as we can figure out," Deputy Wright was quoted as saying,"they just
picked him up with the rope from the ground-didn't bother to push him from
an automobile or anything. He was filled full of bullets, too. I guess they
shot him before and after they hanged him.
"Subsequent investigation revealed that Stacy, a homeless tenant farmer, had
gone to the house to ask for food; the woman became frightened and screamed
when she saw Stacy's face."
On Oct. 15, 1938, R. C. Williams was lynched in in Ruston, La. A photo of
his body hanging from oak tree has his lower body covered with an apron with
blood streaming down his legs (suggesting castration). The picture includes
white men and young children looking on.
Over the course of those eight years, Bob Feller grew from a 12-year-old boy
to a 19-year-old pitching phenomena. What's interesting about the cited
photos above is when those lynching occurred, nobody was hiding their faces,
nobody was worried about repercussions, legal or otherwise. In fact, folks
looked quite self-satisfied and pleased. The message was clear: They felt
they weren't doing anything wrong. Some claimed body parts (in some cases
removed from the victim while they were still alive) as souvenirs. People
used these photographs as post cards and mementos” even being found in
family albums. In some cases, they were family heirlooms.
In those years, if you dared live together without being married, you were
"living in sin". Getting a divorce was a scandal. Children born out of
wedlock were bastards. Harsh physical discipline of children was
acceptable. A woman's place was in the kitchen, where she should be kept
"barefoot and pregnant." Mental illness was considered more a weakness than
a disease.
Can we fathom such a mindset today?
However, many people from that era are alive and well. Do they still feel
this way? Probably some do, though we'd like to think that with the
perspective of time that they'd feel differently today.
Of interest is Feller, who while with the Cleveland Indians, was the
beneficiary of cheating by then owner Bill Veeck, who often directed his
groundskeepers to build up the mound as high as possible for his benefit.
This was one of a great many rules, written or understood, broken by Veeck
to give Feller and Co. as much of a competitive advantage as possible. Of
course, nobody weeps and rends their garments over this. It's a part of
baseball lore. Itâ's greeted with a nudge and a wink and a knowing
"Wasn' that Veeck as rascal, eh?" and we enjoy a good laugh.
Ah, when it was just a game.
Back then it was cheating, but five or six decades later it's an
interesting piece of baseball history. A footnote at best. During that
time, however, the Lords of Baseball were up in arms over some of Veeck's
stunts. So much so that when they had a chance, they arranged matters so
that he had no choice but to give up ownership of his ball club (the St.
Louis Browns, at the time).
Now we chuckle at what a bunch of humourless stuffed-shirts the other owners
were back then.
Funny how time changes our perspective. Things that were once acceptable
become abhorrent and things once considered abhorrent become acceptable.
Often it happens within the span of a single lifetime.
For the record, I'm not comparing lynching with the treatment of Bonds.
This isn' about Bonds, but rather our reaction to recent revelations
about Bonds.
Still, there are parallels.
For example: many are thinking that Bonds has brought the current
circumstances upon himself, and that had he not juiced he wouldn't be in
this situation. Or, for that matter, had he not been such a disagreeable
sort, folks likely would be more forgiving.
Many lynching victims were accused and guilty of breaking the law; many were
taken out of jail cells and strung up. Do you not think that a good number
of people in those crowds were thinking, "He brought this upon himself",
and had he not committed the crime, he wouldn't be dangling at the end of
a rope?
During this period of time, not only was media complicit to these
atrocities, they often helped plant the seeds that whipped up public opinion
and aided people to feel that it was okay to go ahead and lynch somebody
without due process. The media would even publish the time and location in
advance of a lynching, so as to draw the largest possible crowds to the
event, even going so far as to print the schedules of trains and buses that
would be going in that direction, with nary a pang of conscience.
In other words, by acting on what "seemed right at the time," terrible acts
were committed that make us recoil today. The participants/spectators in
those lynching photographs are our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc, not inhuman monsters. They were people just like us doing what they felt was right at the time. Chances are good that the following Sunday they went piously to church, feeling that all
was well between they and their Maker. After all, in their minds they had done nothing wrong. They probably felt that they were just, enlightened, and open-minded just as we do today.
Of course, the perspective of history teaches us just how wrong their
actions and mindset were, regardless of what crime the lynching victim may
have committed.
How history will view Bonds' accomplishments is one question, but let's
not forget the question of how will history view our reaction to Bonds.
What if history plays out that Bonds' drug usage is viewed as marginally
worse than an illegal mound, a rigged infield, a corked bat, a loaded
baseball, and greenies? Will there be "pictures" of us gleefully pointing
at an asterisk in a record book and grinning like fools as we proudly point
to a space in the wall in the Heroes Gallery in Cooperstown where Bonds'
plaque might have hung our; countenances beaming with a sense of pride
because we felt we had a hand in it? Will our children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren look back at those "photographs" and wonder, "What
were they thinking?"
And it could happen in our lifetime. Look at the changes in attitude during
Bob Feller's lifetime.
But that's what happens when we become impatient and want things to happen
"right now." Lynch mobs didn't want to wait for due process, they wanted
something done immediately. The media (and some fans) want something done
with Bonds right now asterisks, suspensions, ineligibility for the Hall of
Fame, etc. History teaches us that immediate gratification can lead to
terrible decisions, irreversible ones.
However, the reason we want something to happen right away is because Bonds is threatening to overtake Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron on the all-time home run list, and something should
be done right now to prevent that from happening.
What else has history taught us? Well, Roger Maris topped Ruth's single season home run record, Aaron eclipsed the Bambino's career home run mark and guess what? It didn't
diminish Ruth's stature in baseball history one iota.
History put Maris and Aaron in their proper place in baseball's
chronicles. It put them there the same way it put Ed Walsh and his career
ERA record, Dutch Leonard's single season ERA record, Cy Young's career
wins record, Charley Radbourne's single season wins record, Sam
Crawford's career triples record, Chief Wilson's single season triples
record, Nolan Ryan's career strikeout record, Matt Kilroy's single
season strikeout record, etc.
We understand that some of these records were set when the game was played
under different circumstances than they are today.
We're attempting to force Bonds' accomplishments into historical
perspective long before history gets a chance to weigh in. We must be
patient with regards to Bonds.
It may not be the most satisfying course, but it is the correct one and it protects our legacy.
In the short term, rules are in place to deal with Bonds, and he deserves baseball's version of due process.
As to his place in history,well, we'd be wise to wait because of the 'Bo pointn to his niga' caption on the framed lynching photograph. "Bo" is somebody's father, grandfather, brother, brother-in-law, uncle, cousin and friend, maybe yours. Were that the case, how would you feel about his legacy? After all,"'Bo" was doing what he felt was right at the time, but ... We run the same risk.
How does that saying go? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to
repeat it.
WBC Championship Game: Japan prevails over Cuba
I would have been happy with my pre-tournament favorite the Dominican
Dandies winning the whole thing. But the Japanese and the Korean teams
defensive efficiency was something to watch.
My impression of the Cuban team was that of a talented team, who given
the circumstances of their inclusion in the event, was obviously
motivated to win. I just couldn't get over how much they looked like a
beer league softball team. Coulda been the uniforms. Coulda been the
somewhat less than mid-season form of the players physiques. These guys
are obviously not missing to many team meals. Or maybe it's the per
diem.
I would have been happy with either of those teams winning as well as
the Puerto Rican team, because of the obvious passion and joy to simply
play the game of baseball at that level each of those teams displayed.
Something Team U$A apparently lacks. I wonder why tha i$?
Anyway much congrats to Team Japan.
Dandies winning the whole thing. But the Japanese and the Korean teams
defensive efficiency was something to watch.
My impression of the Cuban team was that of a talented team, who given
the circumstances of their inclusion in the event, was obviously
motivated to win. I just couldn't get over how much they looked like a
beer league softball team. Coulda been the uniforms. Coulda been the
somewhat less than mid-season form of the players physiques. These guys
are obviously not missing to many team meals. Or maybe it's the per
diem.
I would have been happy with either of those teams winning as well as
the Puerto Rican team, because of the obvious passion and joy to simply
play the game of baseball at that level each of those teams displayed.
Something Team U$A apparently lacks. I wonder why tha i$?
Anyway much congrats to Team Japan.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Conte again refuses to roll over on Bonds!! What's wrong with this guy?
So let me get this straight, the guy with the most to gain by giving up Bonds, the ultimate "stay out of jail free card" in this entire investigation, again refuses to do so. This after giving up virtually everyone else of lesser value. (ie: Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, et al). Makes perfectly logical sense.
And the authors of "Game of Shadows" continue to pick and choose what "evidence" consider "fact" and what they consider "fiction".
Quote: Lance Williams, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter who has written "Game of Shadows" with Mark Fainaru-Wada using the federal interviews to detail Bonds' alleged steroid regime, discounted Conte's denial.
"He did not come to court and challenge the drug agent and say, 'You lied,' " Williams told USA Today. "The guilty plea was pretty convincing to us that everything was true. Our belief is that he's doing this because he feels bad that he gave all of those people up."
OK, whatever. Hand these guys a Pulitzer Prize.
When one of these authors appeared on ESPN when this story first broke, he defended the use of Bonds' ex-girlfriends testimony, even though she has since contradicted some of it on Geraldo's show, by saying, and I quote " Why would his girlfriend lie?" If you read the excerpts and believe that it's true, you can only conclude, why wouldn't this woman lie? He treated her like shit it appears. Who among us would want to be judged by the character reference provided by an ex-spouse or girlfriend? Has this guy ever been laid? Has he not heard of the phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorned?" I would guess the answer to be NO to both questions. But let's just hand them a Pulitzer prize for their "most excellent journalism".
And how about the treatment of Greg Anderson? If the excerpts are to be believed, why in Hell wouldn't this guy have turned on Barry? He apparently treated him like dog shit also. And yet, when he was interviewed by the prosecutors he ends an interview with the famous line "I don't want to go to jail". And these prosecutors can't close the deal and get him to roll over on Barry? Have they not watched any cop shows on TV? This guy was begging for a deal. And yet he goes to jail rather than rat out on Bonds? This Bonds guy must be a real prince.
Conte and Anderson would both rather do time and have the weight of the IRS and the DOJ on them for the rest of their lives apparently. Most of the "evidence" in the excerpts, it seems, could have been acquired by dumpster diving behind the BALCO prosecutors office. Yes, the selective leaking of testimony to make the story appear however the author's like it is Pulitzer Prize winning work. That's according to the brethren, print media and their cousins in the electronic media. Many of whom have previously disclosed their outright hatred for Bonds.
Let's remember that this BALCO grand jury evidence was convincing enough to the grand jurors to result in only two of the initial forty two charges resulting in convictions. Two for forty two? I think I could hit two for forty two against Major League pitching. And the grand jurors heard and saw all of the evidence directly. They did not have to rely on cherry picked excerpts. And they were able to see and hear the testimony of the person's subpoenaed live and in person. They were able to judge believability by the person's voice and mannerisms, not just words on a piece of paper. And still only 2-42. Good evidence.
This issue is now in the forum that the Bonds-haters want it to be, the Court of Public Opinion not the Court of Law. You can say what you want and the standards of evidence and fairness that would apply in a Court of Law are meaningless. You can mislead at your own pleasure, just as all in the media who perpetuate the "If theses charges are untrue, why doesn't Bonds or his people sue the authors for defamation. Surely these guys know that as a Public Figure, people can virtually say or rewrite whatever they want about a public figure and the chances of prevailing in the defamation suit are virtually nil. And I'm sure these journalists are properly trained by our institutes of higher learning to at least CYA in this regard.
When I hear a Frank Deford's or Rick Reilly's commentaries re: Bonds I can honestly say I have not heard such venom and vitriol in a voice since Ron Goldman's father during the OJ trial. I mean who pissed in these guys' Wheaties? Bonds did I guess when he publicly called out the media to clean up their own houses first. Called them all liars, as I recall.
We're well past the witch hunt stage at this point and have gone directly to lynch mob mentality, with all that entails. And it looks and sounds ugly and racially motivated and wrong. And all who reflexively deny that race has anything to do with this has got to have his or her head in the sand (or some posterior orifice).
Don't give me this baloney about protecting the sanctity of records. The barn door has long closed on that. You'd sound more honest if you said you were trying to protect Madonna's virtue.
We have the Weapons of Mass Destruction motivation for going into this steroid mess to begin with, the "kids are using in droves and we've got to protect the kids". Recent reports suggest that kids are reporting steroid use at about the 3% level. The experts then conclude that the number is really closer to 5-6%. OK, I'll accept 5-6% even, but it doesn't seem to be a growing problem or epidemic, like the media and Congress would lead you to believe. Not like drinking or on-line gambling or Poker (ESPN's new sport).
We have owners, who include President Bush by the way, who profited by the use of steroids by their players and looked the other way when it was right in front of their faces but now are gleefully throwing the same players under the bus now that they don't have any use for them any more. Or looking the other way while the media does it for them. Very classy behavior. Real stand-up guys. These so-called leaders, who will gladly hold others accountable to high standards but will deflect same when it's applied to themselves.
Bush's team had Canseco, Palmiero, Sosa and many other suspects by the way. Interesting how the man could see WMD half a world away that may not have been there, but couldn't see this steroid problem when it was right in front of his face and in his own clubhouse.
We have the continuing Racial Profiling Argument ("He looks like a user") perpetuated by the David Wells' and Turk Wendell's of the world. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Wells himself admitted in a recent interview by saying he would have "never guessed" that Palmeiro wasn't using while he was his teammate and yet it appears he was wrong. How can he spot a user from across country or across the diamond when he couldn't see one in his own clubhouse?
That's one of the problems in my mind with this recent hysteria. We have people who are anointing themselves steroid experts either by their use of steroids or the ability to Google the word "steroids". Heck, I could do either or both and I wouldn't be an expert.
Remember too, the "experts" postulated that mainly sluggers were juicing and ruining the game with their inflated hoe-run numbers. But what we're finding from early returns is that pitchers are getting caught as users at a rate virtually equal to sluggers. The absolute numbers are a 1.5-1 ratio of hitters to pitchers, but that is equal to the ratio of hitters to pitchers on most rosters, so the rate is virtually equal. In the recent issue of Street and Smith's Baseball, Mike Berardino of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel did an article titled "Mounds of Trouble" documenting this surprising development. He said 35 of the first 88 minor league suspensions went to pitchers, so the ratio was 1.2-1 hitter to pitchers at that level.
We still want to glorify the guys we like like Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens and demonize those we don't like. Even when there is as much evidence or questions about one or the other. I still submit that if you truly believe Bonds is a user, you almost have to honestly admit that Lance Armstrong is a user. But few people do say Yes to both. A failed drug test, even though he and his supporters always submit the defense that he never failed a drug test, former teammates who have "testified" in the court of public opinion that he used. Why is the "evidence" of their testimony discounted so readily and others so readily accepted?
It's really unfortunate, the treatment of guys like Sosa and McGwire has taken a 180 degree shift from guys who saved the sport to guys who are now credited with ruining it.
I don't believe I've seen anything like it since the way this country treated the Vietnam veterans, who left as patriots, doing their duty to protect this country and save it from the scourge of Communism and returned to be spat on as baby killers and symbols of an unjust war. The parallels are eerily similar.
We lauded these guys for providing Norman Rockwell moments (McGwire) and were teary eyed when he broke Maris' record, with the nations', the medias and the Maris' approval I might add. And now we want to vilify them. Very nice.
And don't give me the clap-trap-crap I hear from some weak-assed media members, like a Rick Telander, who want to jump all over themselves saying they tried to warn us of the problem, but nobody listened. Baloney. When one media member poked into McGwire's locker and found Andro, the rest of the brethren pounced all over him for invasion of privacy. More likely for pissing on the parade that was the McGwire-Sosa homer chase.
This is what people wanted, "Chicks dig the Long Ball", this is what baseball owners wanted, to make us all forget that they canceled a World Series for crying out loud and it worked. The cash registers rung loud and clear. I don't hear any call whatsoever from Congress or anyone for the owners to disgorge themselves from profits obtained under a fraudulent basis. Revenues have nearly tripled from the stain of the canceled World Series. Remember that when you want to direct your venomous attacks in the future. You'll probably sound less disingenuous.
from espn.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2372623
Victor Conte continues to deny that he provided Barry Bonds with performance-enhancing drugs. Conte, who said when he went to prison in December that he had never discussed steroids with Bonds, much less given him any, reiterated that position to Friday's edition of USA Today. He admitted from prison that he had provided the cream and clear, two now-illegal steroids distributed by the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, to Bonds' personal trainer Greg Anderson.
Conte, however, declined to clarify for USA Today whether Bonds could have gotten them from somebody else connected to BALCO. "My understanding was that it was for [Anderson]," Conte told the paper. "Understand that baseball didn't have any testing. They didn't need this highly undetectable stuff I was doing with Olympic athletes. They were in another world from me. My relationship with Barry Bonds was 100 percent about his nutrition, his younger brother's nutrition and about nutrition for his father."
Conte, who denied to ESPN.com in December that he had named athletes when BALCO was raided in 2003, again denied that a memo by federal investigator Jeff Novitzky indicating he had done so was false. "Much of the information in the memorandum of interview prepared by the federal agents ... was completely fabricated," Conte's told USA Today. "I filed a declaration under penalty of perjury with the federal court regarding what was actually discussed that day, and it clearly states that I did not make a confession to the agents."
Lance Williams, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter who has written "Game of Shadows" with Mark Fainaru-Wada using the federal interviews to detail Bonds' alleged steroid regime, discounted Conte's denial. "He did not come to court and challenge the drug agent and say, 'You lied,' " Williams told USA Today. "The guilty plea was pretty convincing to us that everything was true. Our belief is that he's doing this because he feels bad that he gave all of those people up."