This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy we'll continue to see as Barry Bonds makes his march towards the home-run crown. Jeff Perlman, the author of Love Me, Hate Me, The Making of an Antihero has his own special man-crush on Josh Hamilton. Well, isn't that special? He clearly hates Barry Bonds and the example he provides, but gushes eloquently over Josh Hamilton. That's just so special.
from espn.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/070420&sportCat=mlb
Of course, this nation is so full of forgiveness, but apparently on a selective basis only. It may be full of something, but it's clearly not forgiveness.
from espn.com:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/07411&sportCat=mlb
Another comes courtesy of Sports Illustrated's Peter King, who is not going to mention Barry Bonds any more because he believes he cheated. Here's his take on Shawn Merriman after he tested positive for steroids:
MERRIMANMANIA. From Bruce White of Indianapolis: "Should Shawne Merriman be eliminated from the Pro Bowl due to his positive steroids test?''
No. If he's eligible for 12 games and plays at a very high level in those games, he should be able to play in the Pro Bowl. Now, if he were to miss three games down the stretch for any reason, let's say, I'd say he didn't deserve a bid because he missed too much time. But he paid his penalty according to the collectively bargained rules of the game.
All right, let me get this straight Mr. King:
You're going to protest Barry Bonds achievement with your silence, (sounds more like a reward than a penalty, hey whatever) but have no problem with Shawn Merriman being rewarded for his achievement by participating in the Pro-Bowl even though Merriman flunked a steroids test and to-date Bonds hasn't flunked one?
Sounds like your disdain for cheating is a bit selective, don't you think? Merriman served his time according to the CBA? Weak argument. Apply same logic to Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, than we can talk like intelligent, rational people.
Do you do any special contortionist exercises to reconcile your logic in these two instances?
I think I've about had it with the blatant stupidity of braying jack-asses like this.
Somebody on this planet needs to complete the Honesty and Integrity Trifecta (we'll call it the HIT for short) for me before I give them an ear on this issue.
That is, whenever I hear or read somebody blast Bonds, (and of course they know everything he's done or didn't do, because he's always been so open and accommodating with his time with the media) I ask, "what do you think about Clemens, might he be cheating to get the results he's getting at an advanced age?"
"Oh no, no way".
How about Lance Armstrong, couldn't he have done something to help him defeat not only Cancer but his competitors, all of whom seem to be on something? Nobody except the French seems to think he does anything but win Tour de Frances.
There seems to be just as much of a mountain of real or circumstantial evidence to implicate Clemens or Armstrong from what I've seen, heard or read. But we gleefully leak information on the one hand and blissfully redact in the other? Not to mention some other guys we let slide because they're still popular, like Pujols, Prior and many others.
And I'm a little tired of hearing, "Well these guys aren't approaching "hallowed" records" as if cheating is somehow OK, up until a point. Try that the next time you rob a bank and don't steal all the money in the vault. You want to start erasing records from the record book, you better get yourself an awful big eraser, or gallons and gallons of white out.
Guys like Perry, Sutton and Whitey Ford are in the Hall of Fame and lionized in spite of careers built on bending rules. Time to put it away folks. Never mind whatever was accomplished as a result of the use of "greenies", which were made illegal in 1970.
There is a huge problem in this country among youth with use of crystal meth. Meth being shorthand for methamphetamine or "speed". Hey, Dad baseball players use it, why can't I?
There is a also a huge problem in this country with alcohol use among youth, but I don't see any major sport turning away sponsorship dollars on principle. I know it's legal and that makes a huge difference, but spit tobacco is legal also and they took a stand there. Tobacco by contrast does not generate sponsorship dollars. Seems like we're picking our spots to take a stand based on dollars to be lost or gained (wait, where have I heard that before?).
Palmeiro I can see venom being directed at. He knew the deal and still tried to get away with something. Anyone else caught under the drug testing program deserves whatever animosity they get.
McGwire, Sosa, Bonds all of them have the Lance Armstrong defense in my opinion, they've never failed a test. You want to blame them for baseball not having adequate testing, that's pretty ignorant and unfair. I don't see anyone at work unilaterally offering up urine or blood tests unless they have to and even then, under protest. You want to retroactively punish people for behavior, start by taking racists like Cobb, Anson, et al out of the Hall of Fame, then you'll have my attention. Or take out some of the cheaters you've glorified in the past. Then I'll be impressed by your position on the issue.
And by the way, Peter King and his ilk on the Football Hall of Fame have no problem whatsoever looking the other way on all sorts of reprehensible behavior when voting on membership in the Football Hall of Fame. Drug Use, Murder, Manslaughter, anything goes as long as you perform on the field. And your little piss-ant silent protest against Barry Bonds is supposed to mean something? Give it a rest you MF-ing hypocrite.
The biggest Performance Enhancer Bonds has used in his favor IMO has always been Questec. Since being put in service in 2001, the year he hit 73 homers, his strikeout to HR ratio has turned from about 1:2 before to about 1:1.25 afterwards. Only Pujols seems to be as close in terms of HR to K ratio. That's a pretty significant change in one year.
Pitchers cannot pitch to him and get him out within the constraints of the strike zone as defined in the rule book, period. And it's possible they were never able to. However, prior to 2001, Major League pitchers had an extra 5-10 inches off the outside corner to work with. Anyone care to debate that fact? I didn't think so.
It's the same problem with Alex Rodriguez. He's so locked in and so good as a hitter and a slugger that he simply can't be pitched to. And even A-Rod strikes out about 4 time for every HR.
There is still a significant portion of the guys who study the game from statistical viewpoint who do not see the numbers of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa as being abnormal.
Here's another interesting outlook from Daniel Engber's article in Slate titled "The Growth Hormone Myth: What athletes, fans, and the sports media don't understand about HGH". The gist of the article is there is really not much data out there that indicates, from an exercise physiology standpoint, that using any of this stuff works to enhance performance on the baseball field. You have to make leaps of faith or assumptions that are not backed up by any scientific data.
The following paragraphs were I thought most interesting:
The most likely reason that athletes use HGH, though, is superstition. A ballplayer might shoot up with HGH for the same reason we take vitamin C when we have a cold: There's no good reason to think it does anything, but we're willing to give it a try. The fact that the major sports leagues have banned growth hormone only encourages the idea that the drug has tangible benefits. Why would they ban something unless it worked?
This mentality has put doping officials and athletes into a feedback loop of addled hysteria. The World Anti-Doping Agency will ban any drug that athletes use, whether or not it has an effect. The WADA code points out that the use of substances "based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is clearly contradictory to the spirit of sport." In other words, it doesn't matter if HGH gives athletes an unfair advantage. If Jerry Hairston believes he's cheating, then he really is cheating.
That twisted logic has turned the latest round of busts into a giant PR campaign for growth hormone. Every star athlete who gets caught with a vial of HGH turns into a de facto spokesperson for the drug. In a certain sense, that might be a good thing: The media hype may soon make HGH so popular that it squeezes the more dangerous anabolic steroids out of the market. That's one way to clean up the game.
Seems like a silly way to go about it though, travelling from one bogeyman to another, but that seems to be the way things get done in this country.
And who cares if Hank Aaron doesn't show up for the record breaker? As far as I'm concerned, he couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock as a player. And if Mays had played in as hitter-friendly ballparks as Aaron enjoyed, we'd be taking about Bonds breaking Mays' record. And we might be waiting a bit longer for the record to fall. Mays might have hit 800.
I'm not going to go as far as calling Aaron a coward as Rob Parker did in this Detroit News article, but I do feel it shows a lack of class and respect for the game of baseball and Bonds accomplishments.
from detnews.com
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/SPORTS08/704200362/1129/rss15
And Bud Selig can stay home to for all I care. He was gutless at the beginning of this whole "steroids" mess and it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to be gutless now. If you really want to label anyone a coward in this whole mess, the guy for me would be Commissioner Bud Selig, representing all of the owners.
And for all the whiners, who won't be able to face baseball with Barry Bonds as it's Home Run King can always cheer on Alex Rodriguez as he makes a run at 800, 900 or, if he can get to Wrigley Field on a regular basis, who knows maybe 1000 HR's as the mark for future sluggers to shoot for.
Then tell me that the size of ballparks, the springiness of the baseballs, the dilution of pitching, etc. hasn't been a factor all these years. Me, I'll celebrate a great achievement, by a great major league hitter, possibly the best all-around hitter of this generation and most others.
The Keith Olbermanns of the world can stay home and make love to their inflatable Rebecca Lobo dolls or whatever young lady they're currently stalking (ahem, allegedly stalking) and try to pretend that they are the moral compass not only for baseball, but for the entire free world. Give me a M.F.-ing break. Where have you gone Harold Reynolds?
No comments:
Post a Comment