"Finally, is politics all you two talk about? What happened to all the other topics from the first post? Just a thought"
Good point. And there is still lots to talk about concerning immigration (This afternoon, I ran through a crowd of what news reports said was more than 100, 000 protesters on the National Mall), transparency in goverment, Curt Weldon, Villanovans For Life, and other pressing issues. And trust me, we will say it. But JD's right. We should, in the Dialogue, respect not only the diversity of opinions, but also the diversity of topics, which we all care about, so I have one that I've been arguing about with people for months and have yet to find anyone to agree with me. Here is what I think:
THROW THE BOOK AT BARRY BONDS! I want him out. Out of baseball, out of the record books, out of every magazine, ESPN article or TV show, and most of all, I want him out of the national psyche. Wasn't there a movie a few years ago where somebody's identity was erased? (Eraser?) Let's do that with him. I want to pull out next year's baseball encylcopedia and see a big gaping whole in the 1992 Pittsburgh Pirates line-up. That's how much and how profoundly, I want him out.
Before you even think it, this is not cruel and unusual. This is merely a punishment that does all the things a punishment is supposed to do - it a. protects those whom this person may harm. b. allows this person to pay back to society in porportion to their crime and c. prevents them from recommiting the crime. Also, it fits with precedent set by previous punishments doled out by the only instances which we can compare this to.
The man broke the rules in the worst may imaginable. Doing so, he harmed everone involved in the game - players who count on its legitamcy for thier livelyhoods, fans who put their faith in the competition and sport, and all the silent moneymakers who, for all their stupidty and mis-spent power over the years, are the ones responsible for putting this product on the field for us to consume. The argument for kicking Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe out of the game was that gambling compromises the game's very integrity and existence. Without protecting it from the hands of gamblers, it might as well be pro-wrestiling. Well....what is that you think you saw in the "steroid era?" That's right, pro wrestling with bats and balls and cheaters like Barry Bonds are the reason why.
The only way we can deal with people like this is to eradicate them from the record books they imperiled. "The books" are not hallowed for silly reasons, keep in mind. This isn't about being a purist and never liking records to be broken. You should all know that I am a big Joe DiMaggio fan, but I was trully rooting for Jimmy Rollins to make a run at him and I hope to someday see a .400 hitter (Ichiro someday soon?) and, when I was younger, I was certain Ken Griffey Jr. was going to break all the home run records anyway. But you know what? He didn't! J Roll got an 0-for the first week of the season and as for a .400 season, it is anybody's guess if that will ever happen. BECAUSE IT'S HARD! It's supposed to be hard! It was hard for Hank Aaron! It was hard for Babe Ruth! It was hard for Roger Maris! For men like Aaron and Willie Mays, it was incredibly hard, let's not forget, because they had to grow up in an era in which they weren't even allowed in the big leagues! Do we go back and count their Nego league totals....or take out Babe Ruth's because he played in a white's only era? No. Because, those are the rules. Right or wrong, awful or injust, the record books reflect the game of baseball played at the Major League level by men following the rules as they were set before them....excpet for Barry Bonds.
I'm worked up now and it's one in the morning. I invite you all to comment, but I have to leave this post as a to be continued.
PS. Anyone watch the West Wing? Santos!? Come on. Feel free to disagree with that as well.
4 comments:
Well put, Chip! While I don't necessarily agree with you, at least it is a step in a different direction. While Bonds may be guilty, and in reality he probably is, he has not admitted guilt, nor has he been proven guilty. Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose both admitted their guilt, and the penalty for their infractions was clearly stated in the rulebooks. I love shoeless joe and do not believe he threw the series in 1919, but he accepted money for the game and in so broke the rules. Pete Rose is undeniably one of the best hitters the game has ever seen, but still he gambled on baseball and does not deserve to be in the hall of fame. The Hall of fame is reserved for the gmaes best, and not just at playing the game, it goes beyond that to the higher standards these great players are held to. Barry Bonds probably did take steroids. When he took them there were no rules against it, so he broke no rules at the time. He has never failed a drug test and there is no denying that he is a great hitter. Despite the 'roids he still has to swing the bat, and make contact. He hits home runs when he sees, on a good day, one strike per at-bat. The man is a great hitter and untill it it is proven that he knowingly took prohibited substances, I must disagree with you.
Point taken...except, it WAS a rule, I believe. It was poorly enforced, maybe, but it was a rule and, I should have said, "should it be proven..." then, everything I already said.
The thing with Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose is that those two broke rules that didn't (as far as we can prove) impact their performance between the baselines. Bonds saw McGwire and Sosa becoming baseball legends because of their home run prowess and figured he could top their productivity, or at least ride their wave. No one can deny Bonds' ability to choose balls and strikes at the plate, yet at the same time no one can deny the fact that his head has exploded to rival even Placido Polanco's in hat size. JD, he can pick and choose the pitches with the best of them, but the 'roids allow his body to recover quicker than those around him. It worked wonders until it all caught up to him and his knees, and now he can't make his way around the basepaths faster than Hurley from Lost. Bonds went out of his way to cheat, and regardless of anyone else in the league juicing, he shouldn't have done it. I agree with Chip, throw the book at him.
The professor in my sports writing class, George Solomon, is the ESPN.com ombudsman, and cannot stand the Bonds documentary on ESPN. I mentioned that I watched it anyway and his point was a great one - how much more insightful and interesting would it have been if PBS' Frontline was behind the cameras? And he's right. As entertaining as "Bonds on Bonds" is, it lacks any sort of edge and is clearly a vehicle for Bonds to sway public opinion back towards his favor.
Finally, can we please start ripping the Phillies for the way their front office pissed the past two plus decades down the drain? Paul Hagen's series of articles last week (check them out on philly.com) are enlightening. We already connected the dots, but these articles color in the picture.
Hey guys, first comment on this thing, I think it's a great idea. As for Barry Bonds, I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but would just like to show you guys something you might find interesting. The social critic Chuck Klosterman just wrote a really interesting article on espn.com's page 2 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/060411) where he tries to discern what this whole fiasco means. I'm not sure I agree with everything (particularly whether bonds tells us that much about RIGHT NOW, as opposed to the years when he started taking steroids), but they're interesting conclusions none the less.
Post a Comment