More on the Barry Bonds myopia – read a great post on Sports Biotch comparing Barry Bonds to Ty Cobb and the opposite ratings on the outrage meters.
The other day, I was discussing baseball history with the Sports Biotch, and it struck me; Barry Bonds is a cute, cuddly, remarkably well-adjusted version of Ty Cobb. Ty Cobb makes Barry Bonds look like Strawberry Shortcake.
Cobb and Strawbarry are hardly the only cheating a-holes to become baseball icons. I could compare Barry to any number of elite players with total success. However, I won’t, because Barry’s attitude–”the whole world is trying to screw me, but that’s okay, cuz I’m the best”–is so much like Ty’s more antisocial view of life: “I had to fight all my life just to survive. They were all against me. Tried every dirty trick to cut me down, but I beat the bastards and left them in the ditch.” Also, perhaps not coincidentally, Ty and Barry are probably the best hitters in the history of the game. Cobb is the clear king of hitting for average (career BA=.366), and I don’t need to tell anyone what Bonds can do.
Check out a list of Ty Cobb’s “achievements”
-Sharpened his spikes to make infielders fear injury every time he took a base. Regularly threatened to injure infielders who tagged him out.
-Probably fixed games. Let off by the Commissioner when Cobb threatened to reveal further corruption.
-Kicked a hotel chambermaid in the stomach after she expressed disapproval at his use of the N-word.
-Had a long history of domestic violence.
-Refused to join his team on a Cuban tour, saying “darkies’ place is in the stands or as clubhouse help.”
-Fought a black groundskeeper during Spring Training over the condition of the practice field. Choked the groundskeeper’s wife when she intervened.
-Attacked a heckler who had lost his hands in an industrial accident. When spectators told him to stop because his target had no hands, Cobb said, “I don’t care if he has no feet.”
-Slapped a black elevator operator for being “uppity.” When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb took out a knife and stabbed him.
-After Cobb’s son failed out of Princeton, Cobb traveled to Princeton to beat and horsewhip his son.
-At the plate, arranged to fight an umpire under the grandstand after the game. Teammates broke up the fight after Cobb had knocked the umpire to the ground and began choking him. “I fight to kill,” Cobb said at the time.
Yet did/does anyone talk about Ty Cobb the way they do Barry Bonds?
Ty Cobb didn’t really get punished for his entertaining, yet ridiculously unacceptable behavior, and it didn’t tarnish his legacy. Cobb was elected into the Hall of Fame on the inaugural ballot by one of the largest margins in history. Cobb got many more votes than Babe Ruth, who was elected in the same year.
This is precisely why I will not participate in the argument of the sanctity of baseball’s records and/or tradition being the reason why Barry Bonds is being singled out. You mean the tradition of excluding black players and celebrating avowed racists like Ty Cobb? No matter what people want to say about the game being the same and the records being equal, it’s not. There was the deadball era (whatever that is), bigger ballparks, the juiced ball, the higher pitching mound, and … helloooo … segregation! The steroid era is just another in a long list of the ways the game has evolved. And to say that Barry’s 756 or 762 is tainted is at best intellectually lazy.
1) Is Bonds derided so much and so often for his various misdeeds because he deserves a tarnished legacy, or due to the influence of uniformly negative portrayal in the media?
2) Does the media have ulterior motives and/or unique reasons to rail against Strawbarry? Barry’s relationship with the media is fairly complicated, and I don’t really blame Barry for being unfriendly to the media; the journalistic attacks on his alcoholic father definitely made an impression on the young Barry. Are journalists trying to make an example of Bonds because of his particularly antagonistic attitude towards members of the media?
Baseball writers have waxed poetically for years on the beauty and grandeur of a game that’s been historically full of scandal of the drug, steroid, and gambling variety. For years these writers hid the seedy truths of the game and now seem hellbent on pinning the ills of all of sport squarely on the shoulders of Barry Bonds because he’s the low hanging fruit. I must say it again – baseball sucks. But not because the game sucks (necessarily).More because it’s custodians have been doing it a disservice for years and no one can see the folly.
Popularity: 2% [?]
What an illogical and biased rant! Ty Cobb was a universally disliked sociopath, but the tactics he used (sharpening spikes, for example) were permitted in the early days of baseball, and his hitting achievements were 100% unassisted by illegal or unpermitted means. Where’s the analogy with Bonds, who got an illicit edge on competing players who felt they needed to obey the law? There is none, except that he is also a sociopath. But Bonds isn’t being indicted for being a sociopath.
Nor is he being criticized in his sport for being a lousy human being. Cobb’s violent behavior was extreme, but not unusual among the Southern country-boy, illiterate players of his era; judging his racism in a modern context (just about every white person was a racist in Cobb’s era; “Birth of a Nation” was a hit movie; Woodrow Wilson, a white supremacists, was president.) is unfair, but it’s also irrelevant. Bonds cheated, set records by artificial means, and lied about it. Why is the essential wrongness of this so hard to comprehend?
Bonds isn’t being “singled out,” for heaven’s sakes…he singled himself out. His steroid use was more significant because he was a great player before using, so his achievements with drug assistance were more extensive than anyone else. He made his illicit leap forward at a time in his career when no other player in 100 years had shown such improvement, making his use obvious to anyone not in denial. Because he was so visible, his success caused more harm to youth, the sport and the culture, making the case that cheating pays. Because he broke the two biggest records in sports by being juiced, he inflicted a permanent scar on his game. And he lied in the press, in public, and under oath. Singled out? Find one other player who meets those criteria. (Hint: there isn’t one.)
Baseballs color barrier, the apparent Bad Analogy of the Week regarding Bonds, is also irrelevant. Baseballs stars in that era did the best they could against the competition in their leagues as they were constructed at the time, playing under the same rules. Yes, it’s like the dead ball era, the pre-slider era, the artificial turf era. But all of these were legal and legitimate under the rules. Cheating—”the Steroid Era”— is not in the same category. Everyone didn’t cheat, and nobody did as much damage cheating as Barry Bonds.
PS: The statement that Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds are baseball’s two best hitters is just plain unsupportable. Try Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Put Ted Williams (6′3″ and 170 pounds)on steroids, and he would have hit about 80 per season.
Comment by Jack Marshall — November 20, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
“Baseballs stars in that era did the best they could against the competition in their leagues as they were constructed at the time” – exactly my point. They were constructed at THAT time, not this time. The game changes and evolves. It’s not the same as it was even 10 years ago. Just like comparing people who benefitted from Andro or Creotine (sp?) before they were banned to those who couldn’t use them after they were banned – all things are not equal.
That’s why 60 HRs in the 20’s isn’t the same as 60HRs in the 60’s or 714 in the 20’s isn’t the same as 714 in the 70’s in my book. Barry Bonds breaking Hank’s record should mean no more than Bret Favre breaking Marino’s 420 TD mark just like Marino breaking Fran Tarkenton’s 342 and thus outrage over Barry breaking the mark is misplaced. And Favre did it while illegally on painkillers!
And the fact that Ty Cobb is being defended for being a sociopath as an argument makes my point that the priorities in baseball are waaaay off base. I don’t see anyone having parades for Jack Tatum or Kermit Washington.
Barry’s singled out because baseball has a problem and needs a surly fall guy. No one else fit the bill. Roger Clemens had the same late career performance boost and nary an inquisitive eye has turned on him like it was on Barry pre-BALCO.
Comment by webadmin — November 20, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
The issue with Bonds was never Andro or Creatine! You’re changing the subject. Bonds used substances that were ILLEGAL, as in controlled substances. Baseball didn’t have to ban substances that were already banned by the Feds. Catchers can’t shoot basestealers with a rifle…no rule against it, it’s just against the law.
Cheating is not, and never has been, a legitimate and acceptible condition of any sport. It is, rather, a disease, and those who willfully spread the disease deserve sanction and condemnation. Ty Cobb didn’t cheat. Babe Ruth didn’t cheat. Hank Aaron didn’t cheat…but Barry Bonds did. That makes him special, just like Shoeless Joe. And he deserves the same treatment.
I agree with you to this extent: an asterisk is stupid. Baseball let players play using steroids, and they hit real home runs that won real games. I would have suspended him in 2004, but now Bonds has the record, just like the 1919 Reds have the World Series title. It is what it is.
But none of that makes him any less of a disgrace to the game. Cobb’s despicable conduct outside the lines had no impact on the integrity of the game, and what he achieved, he achieved with pure ability, not chemistry.
And while I would not be surprised in the least to descover that Clemens was a user (and if he was, nail him), pitchers do not have the same typical career curve as batters. Many, many pitchers perform as well or better in their 30s as they do in their 20s. Clemens in his 40s has NOT been as good as he was in earlier decades, unlike Bonds. It’;s a loussy analogy…not as lousy as Bonds to Cobb, but still pretty lame.
Comment by Jack Marshall — November 20, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
“Cheating is not, and never has been, a legitimate and acceptable condition of any sport.”
How can you say that about baseball. Baseball has been LITTERED with cheaters. Sign stealers. Ball scuffers. Foreign substance users. Bat corkers. I mean – I constantly hear the phrase “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying and it’s not cheating until you get caught” associated with baseball. Sammy Sosa would have been shamed for life if he played golf.
What Bonds may or may not have done (and we finally get to have a jury and the law decide instead of all the rampant speculation and banter) may have been against the law but until he’s found as guilty according to the rules of baseball the same way Raffy or other roiders have. Until then he’s on equal footing with Pudge or Giambi in my eyes. Or Clemens. No exceptions for position. As for being as effective – certainly not this year but IIRC he had some kind of ridiculous ERA in his last year or 2 years for Houston but didn’t get as many wins because of the Astros’ bats. Perhaps he cycled off once testing came in.
So as much as you say Ty Cobb didn’t cheat the game but Barry did – neither of them have been found by a legal or collectively bargained method to have been afoul of the rules of the game, but both have had others question their ethics with regard to the game and as character guys (a criteria for the Baseball HOF). To put Barry Bonds in any different category until something is proven is, again, why I think baseball’s priorities and values are wack.
Comment by webadmin — November 20, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Can you honestly say that Major League Baseball through it’s network of media contacts and people who cover the game haven’t and aren’t using Barry Bonds as a scapegoat for all steroids in baseball? That by putting him on a pedestal while IGNORING other suspected or even proven violators they are leveling unfair treatment on him because he is a convenient target and because his downfall will make people feel better about the sport? And once the publicity is over they’ll go on as if nothhing happened?
Can you honestly say that over the past 20 years MLB haven’t done themselves a disservice on how they’ve addressed this widespread issue of steroids? I think baseball’s ownership and management is shambolic and I think the only reason baseball is still popular is because of all the pull it gets in the media. Give it 20 years and it will be a shadow of itself. I guarantee.
Comment by webadmin — November 20, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
The comparison between sign-stealing (which is NOT prohibited in baseball’s rules) and felony drug use is laughable. Bat-corking gets players suspended, and any player caught doing it consistently would be kicked out. Sammy Sosa isn’t with the Cubs any more, and his bat-corking has a lot to do with it. All of the measures you mention have at most single game impact; steroid use affects seasons, standings, careers, awards and records. It’s like comparing jay-walking to armed robbery.
Bonds’ steroid use is way, way beyond “speculation;” you could quite possibly get a criminal conviction, sans drug test, based on the mountain of other documents and testimony. “On the same footing” as I-Rod? How can you defend that? There is zero evidence of I-Rod’s steroid use besides the assertions of Canseco, a documented liar, and the fact that he’s about 20 pounds lighter than he used to be.
And you can’t say, “no exceptions for position.” Look at the career figures. It is inherently suspicious when a guy hits 35 and starts playing 20% better, because player peak from 227-30. Pitchers don’t…many, many have improved as they age. Clemens’ ERA went down as he went to a new and inferior league and pitched less, and had only one unusual ERA year. Do you really think he started taking steroids AFTER he retired the first time, jeopardizing his reputation? His ERA’s with the Yankees were nothing special. You should get off Clemens…if he was a steroid-user, he was for a long time. But nobody has ever presented any evidence that he was; it’s grossly unfair.
Three facts alone make it obvious that Bonds used steroids extensively: the fact that Greg Anderson, a steroid pusher, was his trainer; the fact that Anderson refused to testify under oath; and the fact that Bonds didn’t sue the authors of “Game of Shadows” for libel, which he could afford to do and needed to do, if he had in fact any integrity to protect. There are no credible explanations for those things, other than that Bonds was juiced. Saying that you have to test positive to be proven a steroid-user is like saying that you have to have DNA evidence to convict someone of murder. It just isn’t true.
So you “constantly hear the phrase ‘If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying and it’s not cheating until you get caught’ associated with baseball”. So what? That doesn’t make it true, fair or right. It’s a disreputable statement, typically made by jerks. Your whole argument is predicated on the hoariest and least valid of all rationalizations for unethical conduct: “Everybody does it.” Well, 1) “Everybody” doesn’t and didn’t and 2) that wouldn’t make it right anyway.
Comment by Jack Marshall — November 21, 2007 @ 9:36 am
“Can you honestly say that Major League Baseball through it’s network of media contacts and people who cover the game haven’t and aren’t using Barry Bonds as a scapegoat for all steroids in baseball?”
Sure I can. SCAPEGOAT? The man is the King of Steroids, a walking advertisement that says cheating makes you successful and rich. The man put himself at the top of the career and season home run list. Of COURSE MLB focuses on him! It’s both fair and logical.
“That by putting him on a pedestal while IGNORING other suspected or even proven violators they are leveling unfair treatment on him because he is a convenient target and because his downfall will make people feel better about the sport?”
What are you taling about? Rafael Palmiero is retired in infamy. Mark McGwire’s reputation is shot, and he may never get in the Hall. Ken Caminiti is dead, and Jose Canseco is regarded as the Devel. Sure, Giambi should be suspended in my book, but unlike Bonds, he’s been something approaching honest. Who’s been “ignored”? And who says Bonds downfall will make anyone feel better about the sport? Bonds made a mockery of the game, and the game made a mockery of itself by letting him. Proving that should make people want to shoot Don Fehr and Bud Selig.
“And once the publicity is over they’ll go on as if nothhing happened?”
What, with a list of 20 or more other cheats coming down with the Mitchell Report? Bonds is just the beginning. But because of the high-profile damage he did to the game’s integrity, he will remain the All-Time worst, the Poster Boy for Steroids…unless it turns out that Cal Ripken was a user.
Don’t bet on it.
“Can you honestly say that over the past 20 years MLB haven’t done themselves a disservice on how they’ve addressed this widespread issue of steroids?”
I never said that. I agree that they botched it. Selig is a jelly-spined weasel.
“I think baseball’s ownership and management is shambolic…”
SHAMBOLIC???
“… and I think the only reason baseball is still popular is because of all the pull it gets in the media. Give it 20 years and it will be a shadow of itself. I guarantee.”
Oh, nonsense. It is bigger now than ever, even with a steroid-pumped, race-baiting misanthrope as its most prominent player. It will be more popular still in 20 years. You’re being silly.
Comment by Jack Marshall — November 21, 2007 @ 9:53 am
Well, I’m sure that baseball appreciates fanboys like you who explain away every level of cheating except those that involve needles. Corked bats and emery boards, i would assume, can travel from game to game.
On top of that, I’m sure baseball supporters would also like to see that you’ve already tried and convicted this case without a judge or jury because just as baseball is, that’s the American way. And making distinctions on steroid use by a batter vs a pitcher or Giambi vs Bonds really proves that your hatred for Bonds is really what’s driving this extreme opinion. I would say it’s because of Bonds’ attitude, but I suspect defending Ty Cobb makes some reprehensible actions OK and others not.
BTW – I never said Bonds shouldn’t be punished if found guilty by a process (not just yammering talking heads on TV) because everyone else is doing it. If anything I’m saying everyone else should be punished – or even blackballed with the same veracity, not this selective morality with the low hanging fruit. I’m also saying the records are not as holy as they are being made out to be.
Comment by webadmin — November 21, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
If one can’t make distinctions intelligently, one’s opinions make no sense, and your lumping of “stealing signs,” which is done on the field and has been an accepted part of the game for 110 years, doctoring the ball, which is against the rules but which doesn’t involve breaking the law as well as rules, and steroids shows why that’s true.
[By the way: reading what I wrote correctly would be a good idea. I didn’t make a distinction between the wrongness of steroid use by a pitcher and that of a hitter. I said that post-35 significant improvements in performance are common for pitchers and almost unheard of for batters, so you have no reason to suspect Clemens on that basis, while Bonds’ amazing post-35 transformation IS suspicious. Get it?)
As for deciding Bonds is guilty: every person with a brain is fully capable of making a judgement well ahead of a jury in such cases, and has the right to do so. “Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law,” you know (or perhaps you don’t), is merely a courtroom presumption to establish burden of proof; it is not any kind of obligation or national creed. Any idiot, for example, can look at the evidence and know that O.J. was guilty as sin, and the fact the jury got it wrong doesn’t make him “innocent.” Joe Jackson was (rightly) banned for life by baseball, but acquitted by a jury. If some group of San Francisco Bonds-enablers who think like you get on his jury and acquit him regardless of the weight of the evidence because they misguidedly think he’s being “singled out,” that won’t make Bonds innocent either. All it will mean is that he’ll stay out of jail.
I was waiting for the “hater” ploy, the last refuge of a Bonds defender who has run out of bullets. I don’t “hate” Bonds; I don’t hate people I don’t know. I certainly don’t respect him, and I hate what he has done, which is pretty much beyond argument, but this isn’t personal.
“Everybody should be punished”? Sure, and every long-time steroid user who warps baseballs records, lies to the press and the fans, and commits perjury before a grand jury
while encouraging others to use steroids by his example and warping baseball’s records in the process should receive the exact same punishment as Barry Bonds. But if you’re saying,as so many other Bonds apologists are, that UNLESS every single person who used steroids can be punished by Baseball, then it’s unfair to punish Bonds, that’s A-B-S-U-R-D. A lot of crimes go unsolved, but it sure isn’t “unfair” to punish the crooks who are caught.
The argument that the records are not “holy,” by which I assume you mean full of variables, is an easy one to make without defending Bonds. Hank Aaron took thousands more at bats to hit 700 homers than Babe Ruth. Ted Williams would have passed both of them if he didn’t lose 4.5 seasons by fighting in two wars. Pete Rose has more hits than Cobb, but was nowhere near as good a hitter, he just played forever. Cy Young won 500 games with dead balls, teeny gloves and different rules. Nobody can disagree with all that. But all those records were accomplished playing by the rules in effect at the time, with only ability distinguishing the greats from their contemporaries on the field. Why you can’t see that steroid use is different in kind is a mystery, unless you just don’t want to see it.
Comment by Jack Marshall — November 21, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Dude – you have no idea why burden of proof is so important or why trials by jury exist do you? Sure you can have your opinions – I grant you that. But you’re not the one putting him in jail. And neither should baseball. Any idiot can look at any evidence (like Canseco’s book or testimony that says Clemens used steroids) and conclude one thing or another. That’s why there is a process. Our society creates processes so we’re not at the whim of someone’s emotional response as yours is to Bonds.
You keep talking about breaking records and lying to the press like it’s material to him taking steroids. It’s not. It’s a completely separate issue. From a legal standpoint the evidence will be presented and weighed accordingly according to the rules of the legal system.
From a baseball standpoint, the ENTIRE ERA has been tainted, not just one record or one person. You don’t know how many people have been using or were using all through the 90’s and through until they put testing in. It’s part of the era. Legal or not it affected results not just including Barry Bonds. You can’t change that by putting Bonds on the pedestal and firing shots. If he’s found guilty – fine. But it does NOTHING to right the sport. And if you think the Mitchell report or any report will right things, you’re begging.
Why you can’t see that all forms of cheating whether accepted or not, illegal or not, are wrong. Or is should I accept that baseball’s core is so rotten that back is front, in is out, left is right, and wrong is right too. Except when it’s wrong. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Comment by webadmin — November 21, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
“Dude”…I’m a former prosecutor, criminal defense lawyer, legal ethicist and a member of two bars…don’t tell me I have no idea about the legal process.
My conclusions about Bonds aren’t emotional; they are based on logical deduction from facts. I knew Bonds was going to be indicted years ago, because he was so obviously guilty. Baseball isn’t putting him behind bars. Baseball is just going to consign him to the Bad Egg Bin, with Hal Chase, Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Palmeiro , Canseco and others to be determined…where he belongs.
And there’s no testimony linking Clemens to steroids, just innuendo from Canseco. The Rocket’s a jerk, but there’s no evidence so far that he’s a cheater.
Saying that one form of cheating is “just as wrong” as any other is a nonsensical statement. All are wrong, but some kinds of misdeeds are obviously worse than others. Ten tear-olds understand that. And breaking the law, defying rules, getting an illicit edge, cashing in on that edge to the tune of millions, lying about it and committing perjury to boot is obviously worse than stealing signs. Sure: the whole era was tainted. And Bonds was the biggest tainter of them all.
Go ahead—keep making excuses for the creep, “Dude.” It just reduces your own credibility.
You’re hopeless. I have more open-minded people to debate with.
Comment by Jack Marshall — November 21, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
So as a prosecutor, ethicist, and what not, doesn’t Bonds get to defend himself in court? I’m just asking … since I don’t know anything. I thought I learned that in 7th grad civics class. I thought the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and the defense gets their chance in court to attack the process used by the prosecutor as well as the evidence to make sure that his client got a fair trial – in court. That’s how I thought it worked. Maybe I’m wrong.
And who’s making excuses for Bonds. I’ve never said that he didn’t do anything. But it seems like being a skeptic in a society where witch hunts happen all too often is considered being hopeless and closed minded. If anything here – you’re the one making excuses for MLB and are being closed minded about the issue
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2609002
I don’t see Roger suing anyone.
Comment by webadmin — November 24, 2007 @ 5:14 am
[...] testosterone-shooting roider that he is. Maybe now these myopic baseball fans who want to string up and asterisk Barry Bonds as the lone gunman will now see that the entire sport is on roids and that it’s the era that needs exposing, not [...]
Pingback by Put An Asterisk On The Whole Damn Sport at myopiclunacy.com — December 13, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Update: Well, Barry IS getting that chance in court, though it will be defending against perjury. Roger IS suing, though legally he has nothing.
And for something to qualify as being like a “witch hunt,” there have to be no witches. Steroid-users and sports cheaters, unlike witches, are REAL. This is just one more little thing your flawed analogy skills got confused—just like the fact that you need to be convicted in court before you go to jail, but you don’t have to be convicted in court for reasonable people to decide you’re guilty as ever-living sin.
Comment by Jack Marshall — March 12, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Ahh … I’ve recognized my flaws, now. Whether or not they’re ever convicted, I think Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and pretty much everyone else in the game is guilty as ever-living sin and I’m glad people are now coming around to the idea that this whole era was tainted, not just one or two players.
Comment by webadmin — March 12, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Don’t think you do “recognize” those flaws. You still seem to think that every rational conclusion has to be confirmed in court to be reliable, no matter what the non-judicial evidence is. Catch your wife in another man’s bed? Prove she was being unfaithful! See a driver weaving all over the road and throwing beer cans out the window? Can’t say he’s a drunk driver until a court agrees! It’s a nonsensical concept that runs counter to reality, experience and common sense.
No era is “tainted” and they all are “tainted;” all one can do is make conclusions about the cheaters who get caught. “Everyone should be punished” is just a silly cop out; by that standard, no punishment for anyone is fair unless every single person guilty of the crime is apprehended. In the end, that’s all your “argument” boils down to: it’s unfair for one cheater to suffer the consequences of his cheating if any one else got away with theirs. The person who escapes justice sets the standard. Illogical, non-ethical, and mind-numbingly dumb. So you resort to sarcasm. Figures.
Comment by Jack Marshall — March 12, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Whatever, man. What I suspected was that a large number of athletes were on the juice and that has now been proven to my satisfaction with the Mitchell Report, including one Roger Clemens. A comprehensive investigation was done on the entire sport, something which was missing before when the targets for this “scourge” were a few individuals. So I’m happy, now. They can throw Barry in jail if he’s guilty and shame him. But to single only him and a scant few others out just because they got caught and turn a blind eye to everyone else because their pusher wasn’t caught, especially when the list of known suspects was so long, seemed unfair.
What I do find amazing is your propensity to belittle others who disagree with you. That’s real big. And that’s not sarcasm, that’s just common courtesy. Is “we have to agree to disagree” that toxic a statement? I appreciate your input and your points, but not your tone.
Comment by webadmin — March 14, 2008 @ 1:17 am
I believe you set the tone of the discussion when you designated those who feel rule-breakers and law-breakers should be penalized or punished as “haters.” That’s below-the-belt name-calling as a substitute for reasoned argument. You publish opinions, which carries an obligation to think them out, know your facts and be logical and fair—that’s all I require for my respect. But positions on the level of “If we can’t punish everybody who broke a law, it’s not fair just to punsih the ones who are caught” are just irresponsible…harmful to society, seductive to the intellectually careless or dim-witted. They need to be called what they are, and that’s everybody’s job. Not all opinions deserve respectfful treatment. I find that opinion offensive.
I apologize, however, for making you feel belittled. There is nothing personal in any of this. I’ve never met anyone called “The Black Hornet.” At least you know my name.
Comment by Jack Marshall — March 14, 2008 @ 9:57 am
That’s not what i said. What I said was that Barry was being made the scapegoat because of who he was (the point of comparing him to Ty Cobb) and because of his records. Not once did I say he shouldn’t be punished if found guilty. Throw him in San Quentin for all I care. But don’t think that he is the be all and end all of steroids in baseball. He’s just one of many.
I questioned your explaining away Clemens’ performance despite the same kind of late-career performance with nary the injury problems that other older pitchers had. I also questioned the logic of putting so much emphasis in records and numbers when different factors influenced those numbers in each era.
To me, it was the deification of records and the bad-boy image that made people hate Barry more than the others (Canseco, McGwire, Palmiero, Caminiti, etc) and attribute him with all that is bad in the game, and the Mitchell Report is just the latest indication to show that he was far from the only one. In fact, that roids were such an epidemic (which I don’t think we needed the Mitchell Report to show) again proves that the eras are all different and the numbers are not the same. Just like I won’t compare Unitas to Favre or Mikan to Shaq, I won’t compare Ruth to Aaron to Bonds.
The point here is, until baseball (the league, the writers, etc) can clean up its act (something they’ve started to do admittedly), I won’t take it seriously. Barry is not the problem. He’s just one symptom. That’s the point.
Comment by webadmin — March 15, 2008 @ 6:11 pm