Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
by antinous on May 14, 2007 7:40 PM PDT
Email
PrintThe best writer in baseball, Joe Posnanski, has a neat blog entry about market size today:
http://thesoulofbaseball.blogspot.com/2007/05/its-not-size-of-market.html
Deep inside this excellent piece (read the whole thing) is a nice, compassionate mention of Bonds approaching the Record.
"I will admit, though, feeling a certain unexpected feeling about Barry as we come closer to the record. Yes, I firmly believe he cheated with steroids. I firmly believe he knowingly and deliberately cheated. I firmly believe he knew exactly what he was doing -- he was actually pretty late to the steroids party -- and I don't buy it as an excuse that baseball didn't test back then. That's lame. To me that's like saying that cheating on a test is OK because the teacher was too clueless to catch you. It's wrong. Period. And everybody knew it.
"BUT ... Barry's the greatest player I ever saw. Bar none. Not even close. As a young man, he was the greatest combination of power, speed and defense I ever saw. As an old man, he was probably the most feared slugger the game has ever known -- I think more feared than Ruth. I love baseball, of course, and it has been one of the great joys of my baseball life watching Barry Bonds play. I don't like that he cheated -- frankly, I preferred watching the svelte, power/speed Barry over the big-headed Barry who mashed balls over and over into the Bay. The steroid and human growth hormone stuff will sully his legacy and reputation, no doubt about it, and that's right. Like I say, he knew what he was doing. But I feel like, as Barry closes in on the record, that it should be celebrated. He should be celebrated. The game has never seen anyone like him. ... Maybe the feeling will pass.
"And, by the way, I don't think there's any doubt that the Commissioner should be there when he breaks the record. It's his game. It's the most hallowed record in his game. And it happened on his watch. I've read those who say it would be hypocritical for Bud to be there. I think it would be hypocritical for him NOT to be there."
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Who should absolutely NOT be at the park
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Also, if there was some sort of rule against the clear and the cream and it wasn't enforced, does it really mean anything? No. it would be a totaly empty rule. A rule without enforcement isn't a rule, it's a guideline or a suggestion, at best, to be followed or not followed. Some may want it to mean something, but it just doesn't without enforcement. It's the strike zone. We all know that it goes to just under the armpit, but no ump ever calls it that way, so the strikezone ends at the belt.
So if there weren't rules, Bonds didn't cheat.
by nostocksjustbonds on May 14, 2007 9:14 PM PDT reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
My question remains: so what?
In lots of other cases, baseball players cheat almost casually, and nobody gets too worked up. Did Kenny Rogers doctor the baseball in the World Series? What a scamp. How about Sammy Sosa corking his bats? Ho ho, what a goof. Guys have Lasik surgery even though they have perfect vision to begin with - how is that any different from the cream and the clear?
Plenty of teams groom their infield to hinder the other team and help themselves - is that "cheating" (because it gives the home team an advantage) or not (because both teams use the same field)?
Even if you accept that steroids or HGH or whatever were "cheating," strictly defined - how is it any different from plenty of other things players do that nobody cares about at all?
I do not understand how Posnanski (and virtually every prominent sports columnist I'm aware of) can be so outraged about steroids and so blase about the greater universe of cheating, including stuff that was actually against the rules when the offending parties were doing them.
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
I kinda like him more now that I know.
Likely: Barry would by now have been a broken down, lean and creaky line drive hitter, not able to pull the fastball anymore, had he not used the flaxseed oil judiciously.
More likely: He would have been out of baseball, as this grinder of a game passes by many guys pushing 40. Even many former superstar guys.
Bonds stayed in the game, though, and we who have witnessed the awesome displays of these last seven seasons are beneficiaries.
I'll never forget it, and I can't thank him enough.
Re: I kinda like him more now that I know.
Re: I kinda like him more now that I know.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 15, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
I'm with you when you talk about federal law, and cheating the system at large, but steroids cheating baseball specifically... I don't see it. The name of the game is performance enhancement. From diets to training to vitamin supplements to surgery.
"guys taking steroids is wrong" is usually the kind of statement that somebody makes when they hear 500 other people say the same thing, even though none of them give an actual reason.
Federal law. That's where he was wrong. But this was never an unfair advantage kind of thing like people seem to think it is. Otherwise Jesse Foppert has an unfair advantage over Tim Lincecum because he had the surgery and Tim didn't.
by howtheyscored on May 15, 2007 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Health is where I draw the line for "wrongness" in performance enhancement. Law is different.
by howtheyscored on May 15, 2007 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
by English Professor on May 15, 2007 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 15, 2007 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
was just testing for steroids with no penalty until a second failed test in 2005. In 2005 we finally have penalties for steroid test failures. Heck, in 2006 they tested for the first time for amphetamines but without penalties until a second failure.
So, can someone explain to me how it was cheating in baseball for a player to use steroids and HGH from the 1998/99 OffSeason thru the 2003 Season? This is all Game of Shadows accuses Barry of. Even if it is true, how is this cheating? New rules and new penaties, like new laws and new sentances, can not and must not be retroactively applied! Yes, it was a loop hole that should have been closed sooner. But it wasn't closed sooner and it is just wrong to try and go back now and apply this standard to past behavior.
I'll try my explanation
by lyricalkiller on May 15, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'll try my explanation
by giantsrainman on May 15, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'll try my explanation
Look, if Bonds were facing 30 years in prison because he'd cheated at baseball, yes, there would be a genuine discussion about justice to be had. It's not. This is just about people thinking Bonds is a prick who they'd rather not root for. The standard for thinking somebody is a prick is fairly low. My guess is you're maybe doing it right now, at this moment. There's nothing wrong with this. Let the people have their villain, and just worry about the Giants winning games.
by lyricalkiller on May 15, 2007 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'll try my explanation
And, if all we're concerned about is whether they think Bonds is a jerk, well, groovy. Ty Cobb was a huge jerk. Babe Ruth - kind of a jerk, really. Lots of great ballplayers are also world-class jerks.
What I have a problem with is the double standard that gets applied to Barry, or McGwire, or Palmeiro because they used steroids - or people think they did. Was using steroids cheating? Maybe, maybe not - depends on your P.O.V. But we know - for a fact - that plenty of guys (Hall of Famers, All-Stars, MVPs, you name it) also cheated - and nobody really cares. Why is it different with steroids?
"Steroids are gross" doesn't cut it as an explanation. Personally, I think having someone burn off part of my eye or reattach muscles in my arm or put a cadaver's tendon in my leg are pretty freakin' gross, too, but none of those things generate the kind of heat that steroids do. And I think that's an indefensible double-standard to use when evaluating players as players.
If you want to evaluate ballplayers as decent human beings, that's different; but I don't think many people stopped rooting for Mike Scott because of his sandpaper use.
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
I just can't get all upset over a baseball player using steroids anymore then I can over my kids smoking "medical" pot. Now that it is cheating in baseball as defined and enforced by baseball's rules I am upset about those that continue to use. But I have (and think everyone should have) no issues with those that used in the past.
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Which is a bad reason for any law to be in place. Steroids are, by and large, extremely beneficial, and when used properly can be good for the health. Even when used improperly, I haven't seen anything that tells me health is at serious risk.
by howtheyscored on May 15, 2007 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Also, Bonds went from a power/speed player to a pure power hitter. Simply abandoning the speed aspect of his game and bulking up would have led to HR increases. I don't know how much of his added bulk was due to steroids and how much was due simply to changing his training approach and concentrating on weight training to bulk up. I just don't have those answers.
That said, though, Tommy John surgery, LASIK, and the other red herrings aren't equivalent to steroids. There are certainly well-documented health detriments to steroid use, especially when the steroids are not carefully administered by trained medical staff. When any player appears to have benefited from steroids, there is going to be a rash of back-of-the-gym stanolozol-type use that will result in the Lyle Alzado-type problems. Also, unlike Bonds, look what happened to backne-laden McGwire and his rapid health breakdowns. Were they due to steroids? If so, how much? There is a lot of damage potential here.
LASIK doesn't have the potential for these long-term dramatic ill effects. Sure, there is risk, and LASIK can go wrong. But it is performed by professionals and not handed out in the Gold's Gym locker room. Also, the risks are minimal, and LASIK isn't going to be done over and over and over again. Tommy John surgery may not be that effective, but it isn't likely to be disastrous. Also, TJ isn't performed unless really needed.
I think there is room for reasonable debate about the benefits of steroids, particularly when controlled and administered appropriately. It isn't legality that I worry about so much as rampant, stupid use of steroids, and the fact that there is pressure to use them when others appear to be benefiting from their use. That is a legitimate concern not only for pros but for college and HS athletes as well.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 16, 2007 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
But the basic premise of the steroid as performance enhancement is not particularly different than somebody getting surgery on already perfect eyes for the sake of seeing a pitch a little better. I do believe that we have to know more about the long term effects of steroids and the risks involved with abuse before we jump on just calling them ok, but back acne and small testicles aside, the long term health risks are still somewhat of a mystery.
The federal law against steroids is one that puzzles me to a degree, but I don't have enough facts to really call it a bad law. It just sometimes seems like a strange one.
But if something came along that had the benefits of steroids without the probable risks, I don't see what makes it worse or less desirable than unnecessary eye surgery or specialized vitamin supplements.
And tommy john surgery was always a bad example for me to use. It's just an interesting case of he advantages players have now over other eras.
by howtheyscored on May 16, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
Steroids have well-documented side effects and anyone who takes them is playing a very dangerous game with his health, in a way that guys who cork their bats or scuff baseballs do not. But that's not the issue with respect to the game on the field. That's a good argument for banning steroids, as MLB finally did. It's not a good argument for distinguishing steroid use from other "acceptable" forms of cheating/performance enhancement.
It's very rare to see a sportswriter making the argument that steroids are bad because in 10, or 20, or 30 years Bonds might have a heart attack and die. I personally can't recall ever seeing it. I've seen lots of arguments that it's "bad for baseball" or "cheating" because, essentially, Bonds (and others) did amazing things while he (and they) was juiced. And also it's gross. By the same logic, Tommy John surgery is "bad for baseball" because it lets lots of pitchers do their thing better and longer than they would have otherwise.
My point is that the arguments about steroids tend to confuse entirely different issues in a blanket condemnation of behavior that a lot of people find abhorrent for reasons that appear to have little to do with baseball at all. If MLB is concerned about the long-term health of the men who play the game, they have good reason to be concerned about the use of HGH and steroids. If MLB is concerned about the effect of steroid use on high school and college kids who might be tempted to use steroids because a whole lot of major-leaguers use them, ditto. If Federal prosecutors made the prosecution of professional athletes for illegal steroid use a priority, I bet MLB would be very, very concerned.
But those issues are totally distinct from the allegedly "distorting" effect of steroids on gameplay, which is where most sportswriters - Posnanski included - seem to hang their indignation.
Re: Posnanski Excerpt on Barry
While most sportswriters don't blatantly say "what about the children!!1!11!!" in their columns, though, the argument is implicit. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Now you may say that the sportswriters don't make sense enough that we shouldn't be surprised this time. That is fair enough.
But the argument has to rest on the idea that steroids provide an unequal playing field. Otherwise, anything "unnatural" provides an advantage: TJ surgery, LASIK, eyeglasses, casts for broken limbs, ACE bandages, ibuprofen, taping ankles, helmets, etc.... The question is one of risk. No one would get worked up about someone wearing glasses. No one would get voluntary TJ surgery unless there already was a problem with his arm. There isn't much risk in those things - no one is going to have long-term damage from wearing glasses, and the risk of TJ surgery is mitigated by the fact that to have it, your arm already has to be damaged to the point that baseball isn't likely in your future. Surgery always has inherent risks, but I haven't heard of any long-term damage from TJ surgery (no worse than that from throwing a baseball overhand at 90+ mph, anyway).
Steroids are different, though, because otherwise healthy players would not take them unless they conferred some benefit or the promise of a benefit. The risks aren't entirely understood by players, and some players are certainly willing to take the risks anyway for the promise of improvement. Therein lies the problem, because players who would readily wear glasses, get LASIK, or allow the trainer to tape their sprained ankles may not accept the risk of steroids. The playing field isn't unequal when everyone is willing to take measures to correct their vision. It is unequal when some players aren't willing to take certain health risks when others are.
Now LASIK may be more of a risk, although I can't see a 20/20 vision guy taking the risk of getting LASIK in the faint hopes of getting 20/15 vision. The guy who has 20/40 vision is already working from a disadvantage, though. Excessive cortisone shots are certainly a risk. That said, however, many people bring up "enhancements" that aren't really in the same ballpark, if you will, as steroids.
I think we agree on this, Mel, so many of my points aren't really directed at you. I agree that the sportswriters are misguided on this issue. Baseball is essentially unfair: players are not on an equal playing field to begin with because some players are just far more talented than others, and sometimes, no amount of hard work can overcome that. Worrying about Bonds and the record book is a bit silly. What are you going to do? Give the record to the most talented player, regardless of outcome on the field? Give the record to the hardest working player? Detract from the talented player who doesn't work hard enough? Bonds was better. Get over it.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 16, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
