Published: Monday - October 8, 2007
Words by Eddie Huang
Barry Bonds (Photo: AP)
Every crisis needs a scapegoat. When Russia became an economic and militaristic threat, people blamed Communism. When people don't have jobs, they blame Mexicans. When we wake up on a Wednesday morning and realize, "Hey, are we STILL in Iraq?" We blame George Bush... But unlike most scapegoats, he deserves it.
The Steroids Era is a macro problem. It goes beyond juiced balls, juiced biceps, juiced ballparks, and juiced players. People love the long ball and owners try to give the people what they'll pay for. Steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, but there wasn't mandatory testing. That's like my dad putting porn magazines in the bathroom and saying, "You probably shouldn't read those when you're in there." "Sure dad, I'll just count the tiles on the floor." The owners didn't mind and nor did the league because it rejuvenated baseball after the strike in '94.
When Mark McGwire broke 61 home runs in '98, I figured he would be forced to take the fall. Not so. The McGwire-Sosa chase brought baseball back and owners needed the juice for a few more years or at least until chicks didn't dig the long ball anymore... You know what chicks and probably every person on the planet didn't like? Barry Lamar Bonds: an ornery, misunderstood, under appreciated person who just happens to be the greatest baseball player of all-time.
In many ways, Bonds is the Joe Frazier of baseball and Marc Ecko is the pork of fashion: the other white Marc not named Jacobs. But forget about Ecko, in 10 years, people will remember him as "The dude from New Jersey with a rhino fetish." Barry is the issue here and more importantly, why he is the scapegoat for the Steroids Era. He's introverted and stand-offish much like Frazier was, but is that any reason to bury the guy? He's never tested positive, he's never admitted to taking steroids, and to this day, there's no "smoking gun." MLB dug one up on Giambi, Palmeiro, Ankiel, etc, but where's the evidence against Bonds? So what if his hat size went up a couple sizes? He wanted to look like C.C. Sabathia! Okay, so maybe your head growing suffices as circumstantial evidence, but the question still remains, why him?
The year that Roger Maris hit 61 home runs, there were eight more games than there was when Babe Ruth hit 60. For this reason, Dick Young, a New York sportswriter proposed placing an asterisk by 61. The asterisk symbolically denotes a conditional attached to an accomplishment. To pick Barry Bonds as the one guy in any of the four major sports to deserve an asterisk next to his accomplishment unjustly cheapens it. If you put Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds together, they all have advantages and disadvantages regardless whether they are the result of environment or choice.
Of all the injustices in the world, much less sport, why here? Take a look around, should people who benefit from nepotism have asterisks on their foreheads? If so, Congress would look like one giant Clearasil commercial. Is there an asterisk next to the 2000 and 2004 elections? What about Babe Ruth's records? He never faced Latino, African, or Asian baseball players. Should Rasheed Wallace get extra points for playing ball in 10 lb. bricks known as A1's? And Hank Aaron, as my boy Shapiro points out, didn't face the slider or cutter until late in his career. Jordan pushed off Bryon Russell in Game 6, can I get an asterisk with my jumpman logo?
If the media consistently and fairly targeted baseball players' accomplishments for what they really are, I would have no problem with Barry Bonds being targeted, but they don't. Cal Ripken got his record using all sorts of modern technology and "performance enhancers" not available to Lou Gehrig including cortisone shots, ultra sound treatments, supplements to decrease healing time, etc. No one has ever brought these things up and they shouldn't, just like they shouldn't put an asterisk on Barry's ball. The western legal tradition revolves around making distinctions and drawing lines, but why are people so passionate about drawing the line at the clear and the cream?
Bill Belichick is a PROVEN cheater. Why is there no talk about putting an asterisk next to his accomplishments after he knowingly used video recording devices to cheat? In Belichick's case, he's the only one that's ever been caught cheating that way. With Barry, he's just one person in an entire league full of juicers. Every week there's a new culprit, this week it was Scott Schoenweiss, last week it was Ankiel, who's next? Baseball turned the other cheek and BENEFITED from the use of steroids to generate fan interest after the strike. The owners with deep pockets love Barry Bonds because he sells tickets, creates controversy and takes the target off their backs where it should be.
Even though we don't have direct evidence of owners encouraging the use of steroids, we don't need GZA's investigative reports to see that steroids = money = fame = positive reinforcement in baseball. You hit, you stay in the line-up, you go cold, you get a day job. Barry Bonds sat around au naturale for the better part of two decades watching people like Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, and Juan Gonzalez mash. He was, is, and will be better than any of those fools. But baseball didn't test for steroids and these guys had free reign to stick it and rip it. And if all the allegations (they are only allegations so far) are true, who's to blame him? Of all people in baseball, this is not the man to blame.
To place an asterisk on the ball says nothing. It's just Ecko Machismo, chest thumping, a publicity stunt. Obviously, Ecko doesn't listen to my man Papoose or he'd know better. If he cared about history or ethics in baseball, he would have approached this with more care. Blast a ball into outer space? Nice touch. What does an asterisk tell future generations? (see "Marc Ecko Announces Fate Of Bonds Homerun Ball, Bonds Calls Ecko An 'Idiot'") Nothing. If you really feel like people need to be force fed the story of the Steroids Era because it's just SO unfair and that the rest of life is fair, well, at least explain it. Place a placard by the ball and explain the controversy in a historical context without making a judgment. Let future generations decide how they feel about Bonds' achievement.
Marc Ecko holds the record-breaking 756th home run ball; Photo: AP
It's sad that we live in a capitalist society where having money allows you to impose your opinions on others. Yes, people voted on what to do with the ball (see "Marc Ecko Buys Bonds Record Ball For 750K; Gives Fans Decision For Its Fate"), but look where it was advertised? Online, daytime television (Ecko was on daytime TV publicizing), and Ecko brand affiliates. Not everyone has internet access and think about the demographic that watches daytime television. Additionally, Ecko told people how he voted, which undoubtedly influences the vote, especially if the people voting are his customers that hear about the vote through mailings.
But if he still wants to put the damn asterisk on the ball, go ahead. Cause I'll remember Barry as the guy who took the fall for baseball. Who generated ratings, ticket sales, and gave us an unprecedented period of productivity we may never see again. He gave us something to watch, talk about, and look forward to. He is baseball's Prometheus, the guy who took the criticism so the rest of us could get back to baseball as usual. That's what the blood red asterisk will mean to me. Because at the end of a crisis, that's what people want: blood.
Features Young Jeezy: Speaking To The Streets In 2008, many people are witnessing history unfold before their eyes as hints of racism, economic deficiency, and competitive ... full story
Editorials & Columns Hustle Harder: Travel Arrangements Recently I traveled down to Washington D.C. to participate in an event called the "Million DJ March," and I realized ... full story
Digg It
Del.icio.us
