The Barry Bonds watch

[Mark Carver]

Guess how many IBB's Arod has this year? 2. And he is having a monster year. Bonds never gets pitched too. Those 4 years when Bonds hit 73 and after were maybe the best hitting years ever. Ive never seen anything or heard of anyone being that great of a hitter. To get walked so many times and still crush the ball is ridicilous. If a pitcher made a mistake, he made them pay EVERYTIME. Thats why I am a Bonds fan. He is an amazing hitter.

And with Bonds being an asshole. I dont give a crap. I dont care how he is as a person. He didnt kill no one or ever commit a crime. The media prys in his life everyday for the last 20 years. It would get old. Especially when they killed him early on when he struggled in the playoffs.

Bonds admitted to taking steroids in a grand jury testimony. A lawyer that leaked the grand-jury testimony in the Balco investigation, is going to jail for 2.5 years for doing so. Bonds also got the steroids from a non-doctor, which is against the law.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this is one of the most overhyped media stories of the last year or so. Would fans care at all about this if the media wasn't shoving it down our throats. I say most would not.

My problem with all of this is the media's double standard between the players of the past and the players of my lifetime. Sometime during the 1960s, or thereabouts, the media changed their approach to sports. Maybe they changed their approach to everything. Maybe it had to do with Watergate and the way the press viewed itself. Maybe something else, like Ball Four. I'm not entirely sure. But as late as the 1960s most reporters and writers felt compelled to only write positive things about sports stars. They traveled with the teams, they stayed in the same hotels, they often went out to dinner and interacted socially with the players. You never read stories while Mickey Mantle was playing about his drinking problems. Or anyone's, really. The press willingly covered up character flaws and indiscretions.

But we moved into this confrontational, investigative era of the press. Then into the internet era with 24-7 coverage and wildly increased emphasis on uncovering every "scandal" and simultaneously exalting and tearing down celebrity.

The natural reaction of most players to this is to withdraw, to not reveal, to do whatever is necessary to hide every tiny indiscretion for as long as possible. And the press reacts to this by shining a spotlight on every tiny indiscretion, and we have a vicious circle.

So yes, Bonds is a jerk. And yes, Ty Cobb was, too. But most jerks from the past get a pass. Most aren't retroactively jerk-ified. They get to maintain their status as untarnished heros, while almost no one today gets that treatment. Maybe Cal, but that's pretty much it.

My reaction to all of this, which seems to be in the minority, is to cheer for the performance and for the most part ignore the other stuff.

[beaner]

My problem with all of this is the media's double standard between the players of the past and the players of my lifetime. Sometime during the 1960s, or thereabouts, the media changed their approach to sports. Maybe they changed their approach to everything. Maybe it had to do with Watergate and the way the press viewed itself. Maybe something else, like Ball Four. I'm not entirely sure. But as late as the 1960s most reporters and writers felt compelled to only write positive things about sports stars. They traveled with the teams, they stayed in the same hotels, they often went out to dinner and interacted socially with the players. You never read stories while Mickey Mantle was playing about his drinking problems. Or anyone's, really. The press willingly covered up character flaws and indiscretions.

But we moved into this confrontational, investigative era of the press. Then into the internet era with 24-7 coverage and wildly increased emphasis on uncovering every "scandal" and simultaneously exalting and tearing down celebrity.

The natural reaction of most players to this is to withdraw, to not reveal, to do whatever is necessary to hide every tiny indiscretion for as long as possible. And the press reacts to this by shining a spotlight on every tiny indiscretion, and we have a vicious circle.

So yes, Bonds is a jerk. And yes, Ty Cobb was, too. But most jerks from the past get a pass. Most aren't retroactively jerk-ified. They get to maintain their status as untarnished heros, while almost no one today gets that treatment. Maybe Cal, but that's pretty much it.

My reaction to all of this, which seems to be in the minority, is to cheer for the performance and for the most part ignore the other stuff.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly how I feel, and I feel like Baltimoreans (Again with the Ray Lewis theory) should have no problem accepting Bonds performance, whether you think he's a jerk or not.

[Cokeman]

That lousy hypocrite and so called commissioner Bud Selig better have his ass present for this.

If he doesn't, he should be made to quit immediately.

You weren't around, and I don't remember...but, was a big stink made about the fact that Bowie Kuhn wasn't in attendance when Aaron broke Ruth's record?

I know Kuhn wasn't made to quit immediately.

[beaner]

You weren't around, and I don't remember...but, was a big stink made about the fact that Bowie Kuhn wasn't in attendance when Aaron broke Ruth's record?

I know Kuhn wasn't made to quit immediately.

I don't think a big stink was made about it at all. Kuhn said he had a prior engagement. They're mentioning it a lot now, but I don't think it was a big deal back then. I think I remember hearing that he was there for 714, but not 715.

[DrungoHazewood]

That's exactly how I feel, and I feel like Baltimoreans (Again with the Ray Lewis theory) should have no problem accepting Bonds performance, whether you think he's a jerk or not.

I usually relate this kind of thing to John Belushi. When I was a teenager I was watching the Blues Brothers on TV. My dad came in the room and said something like "Isn't that the jerk that killed himself with drugs? I don't think someone like that is funny."

I respect my dad a lot, and I wouldn't want anyone to emulate John Belushi's life, but his personal problems have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was funny.

[Baltimoron]

Was Paul Tagliabue present when Emmitt Smith broke Walter Payton's record?

I don't think he was. And Emmitt is a class act.

Was Bowie Kuhn there when Aaron broke Ruth's record? (no).

[beaner]

I usually relate this kind of thing to John Belushi. When I was a teenager I was watching the Blues Brothers on TV. My dad came in the room and said something like "Isn't that the jerk that killed himself with drugs? I don't think someone like that is funny."

I respect my dad a lot, and I wouldn't want anyone to emulate John Belushi's life, but his personal problems have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was funny.

Good call, in that vain, I wouldn't want to be friends with Barry Bonds, but I sure like watching him hit.

[Baltimoron]

IMO Selig's biggest gaffe in this is his being so wishy-washy and non-committal.

Even as recently as this week, he's publicly saying that he "hasn't decided" if he will be in attendance when the record's broken.

That's absolutely pathetic and shameful.

Look Bud, either take a stand and stay away, or embrace the thing and join in the festivities. Either way I really don't give a rip. But for heaven's sake get your arse off the stinkin fence you spineless twerp.

You do realize that questions about Selig showing are in large measure a proxy for "do you think he took steroids" and "do you support him." Nobody really cares where Bud is. The questions are just a set-up to force the conversation back to steroids, and Selig is smart to frustrate these dishonest and disruptive queries.

Selig deciding what he will do will be viewed as an endorsement of one position or another, and lead to an ensuing media firestorm over an overblown and over-saturated issue. What about the NFL's far greater and more extensive and still unresolved PED problem, or point fixing by NBA refs? As the commissioner of the game, he is doing the right thing. Stonewall those creeps.

[geschinger]

For those who think Selig should be there - how far does the obligation go? If he shows up when Bonds is ready to break the record and he goes into a slump and doesn't hit one for a while, is Selig obligated to follow Bonds across the country until he does? Or does showing up for a game or a series good enough?

[DrungoHazewood]

You do realize that questions about Selig showing are in large measure a proxy for "do you think he took steroids" and "do you support him." Nobody really cares where Bud is. The questions are just a set-up to force the conversation back to steroids, and Selig is smart to frustrate these dishonest and disruptive queries.

Selig deciding what he will do will be viewed as an endorsement of one position or another, and lead to an ensuing media firestorm over an overblown and over-saturated issue. What about the NFL's far greater and more extensive and still unresolved PED problem, or point fixing by NBA refs? As the commissioner of the game, he is doing the right thing. Stonewall those creeps.

Bud's obsession with 100% absolving the owners in the PED scandal is probably the #1 reason that baseball is in the midst of a firestorm and the NFL isn't. If he'd promoted the game with vigor equal to the effort he's given to pinning everything on the players the scandal would have been much more muted. Same thing in his approach to labor relations prior to the last CBA negotiations.

[beaner]

For those who think Selig should be there - how far does the obligation go? If he shows up when Bonds is ready to break the record and he goes into a slump and doesn't hit one for a while, is Selig obligated to follow Bonds across the country until he does? Or does showing up for a game or a series good enough?

Fair question, I think he should be in Milwaukee this weekend, and in San Fran next week. At least show an effort. If Bonds doesn't break the record by the end of the next next Giants home series, I say that would be enough.

[RayFink1e]

Federal Grand Jury's have a 95% conviction rate. And Bonds got nothing, that has to be worth something in his defense

[davearm]

You do realize that questions about Selig showing are in large measure a proxy for "do you think he took steroids" and "do you support him." Nobody really cares where Bud is. The questions are just a set-up to force the conversation back to steroids, and Selig is smart to frustrate these dishonest and disruptive queries.

Selig deciding what he will do will be viewed as an endorsement of one position or another, and lead to an ensuing media firestorm over an overblown and over-saturated issue. What about the NFL's far greater and more extensive and still unresolved PED problem, or point fixing by NBA refs? As the commissioner of the game, he is doing the right thing. Stonewall those creeps.

I don't disagree with your take on the "real" question behind the question: "do you think he took steroids" or some variant.

But Selig can't run forever. He needs to confront this headon, not try and hide from it. He can't hide from it.

One day soon Bonds will break the record, and Selig will either be there or he won't. As I said, I really don't care either way. But his attendance (or lack thereof) will provide the answer to the question of where he stands.

I'd just prefer to see baseball's alleged leader be proactive and get himself out ahead of this thing. If Selig wants to take a stand, then take a stand and tell the media you'll be a no-show, and MLB's recognition of the achievement will be minor. If not, then he needs to be driving the bandwagon and broadcasting that MLB's got it's arms open to Bonds and the record.

But this pu$$yfooting around and meekly avoiding the issue altogether is just totally lame. That's not leadership.

[TGO]

Federal Grand Jury's have a 95% conviction rate. And Bonds got nothing, that has to be worth something in his defense

No, this is wrong.

The grand jury delivered an indictment against Conte, Anderson, Valente, and Korchemny. Bonds was never charged with anything. He testified to the grand jury. He was granted immunity in exchange for doing so. The only thing the government could get him on now is perjury (because he said he never knowingly used the drugs).

The federal government will almost always leverage the person using drugs to go after the person distributing if it has that option.