Maybe it is just me, but I notice on a very regular basis that steroids sparks divisive conversation. And on almost every instance the name Barry Bonds comes up. "What do you think about Barry?" "How do you feel about Barry breaking the record?" I think I depress the question askers with every response. "I am not only happy to see the greatness that is an athlete eclipsing a great milestone like the homerun record, I could not be happier for Barry Bonds!" Amidst all of the controversy and troubles he can still achieve great things. To me this is a display of the best of human spirit, if we believe it we can achieve it. I have read reporters calling Barry a fraud and a cheater, but to me I can only see him as great. A man who has never tested positive of anything gets defined as a cheater and a fraud, but others in his profession and around professional sports get a pass. Why is that?
How can someone, anyone define the greatest player since Willie Mays (if not ever?) as a fraud? A player that has accomplished so many things in his career, in comparison, I would be willing to bet that none of the naysayers (be it fans or journalists) have accomplished anywhere near that much in their own careers! A record as difficult as 755 homeruns certainly does not come over night, and it doesn't come from the tip of a needle. Only hard work, twenty plus years of standout play, and a passion to be the best you can possibly be can result in that many home runs. A player with the most 30+ homerun seasons, tied for the most 40+ homerun seasons, and the single season homerun record seems like a player one could hardly accuse of the lack of a credible resume.
So if Barry is a fraud? What defines a fraud? Last year one of the freshest faces in sports tested positive for performance enhancing drugs and the sporting news community laughed it off like hiccup. How does Shawne Merriman test positive for steroids, then go on to be the cover boy for ESPN the Magazine the next issue? Is he not a fraud? Or is it simply that they like Shawne Merriman, and reporters have an axe to grind with Barry? I don't ever want to hear any praise for a player that tests positive for steroids, but is excused because the press like him, if they can't give the same respect to another player that has never tested positive of anything besides arrogance. We see the power of the press everyday, with the way a good writer can influence the beliefs of so many readers. I want to see the end of irresponsible reporting, not on the behalf of Barry Bonds, but the improvement of public knowledge. There is nothing more powerful than ignorance, and nothing sounds more ignorant than someone trying to tell me that Barry Bonds isn't the greatest player of my time.
1 comment:
Barry Bonds is no fraud, Barry Bonds is no cheat. What he is, however, is an exceptional professional athlete that became extraordinary by beating the system. Did he take steriods? OF COURSE HE DID! Did he know he was taking steriods at the time? OF COURSE HE DID! Did he think it was wrong? NO! There lies the heart of the matter. Was it, in fact, WRONG?
This era (early to mid 90's until 2005) will go down in the history books as the "Steriod Era". Just like the "Dead Ball Era", "Live Ball Era", "Integration Era", "Expansion Ear", and "Free Agent Era". Barry Bonds will be know as the greatest baseball player of his ERA, and rightfully so. He hit more home runs, stole more bases, and won more MVP's then any of his counterparts. Did they all do steriods? Not all, but alot did.
Lets look at, for example, one of the greatest pitchers of the 1970's, Bob Gibson. He pitched during the so called "Expansion Era". His numbers are no were close to the great Cy Young's career wins, who pitched in the "Dead Ball Era". Some will argue Cy Young pitched in more games and the baseballs were not as tight, that was his advantage. Others will argue Bob Gibson pitched against weaker talent and the mound was higher during the Expansion ERA, that was his advantage. Then, who was better? Both have a sound argument. Everyone must take each era, examine the advantages and disadvantages of each, and make there own decision.
Ok, back to Bonds. He has competed and thrived during the "Steriod Era". Is his "numbers" better then Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, etc. etc., yes they are. Are his numbers better, relative in comparison to his peers, compared to Mays, Aaron, Ruth, and Gehrigs, peers. Comparable, yes, out-right better, no! So then does that mean Mays, Aaron, Ruth, and Gehrig cheated in some form? No, they were just exceptional athletes who became extraordinary, and rose above their peers.
I believe Barry Bonds will be remembered in two ways, what he was, and what he became. He was a three time MVP with the Pirates, and early Giants, perennial 30-30 guy, with gold-glove caliber defense. Then he became a bigger, slower, bomb-dropping muscle man, who won four more MVP's, and set the single season HR record, and now the career HR record. Did he use performance enhancing drugs during his early years, I believe no. Did he during his later year, I believe yes. Is he a Hall Of Famer, I believe yes. Is he one of the greatest of all time, I believe yes. Did he cheat, no, but he did however beat a flawed system, which is now on its way to correction, I hope. All of this argument comes down to one simple question. ARE YOU A FAN? I am not a fan, but I will stand up and acknowledge his accomplishment. Do I think he is the "GREATEST OF ALL TIME", no, but he undoubting is the greatest player of "HIS ERA", THE STERIOD ERA.
Post a Comment