I mean, at least debate against the right people.

Many fans of Bonds simply suggest the following::

a)If you want to talk about *asterisks* or "fake records" because of steroid use, then to be consistent, all records before Jackie Robinson(at LEAST) should be erased or asterisked. There isn't a sensible way to debate that records made when the league banned people from the league based on skin color are any more valid than records set with performing enhanching drugs. Don't try, because you'll look like an idiot. Trust me.


b)If you really want to look at players who benefitted from steroids, the best place to look is not to the players who were hall of famers BEFORE their power surge, but instead the AVERAGE players who improved drastically. Bonds was already the best player of his generation as of 1992 or 1993. Without roids, its likely that he still would have reached 500-500, when in addition with this glove work(one of the best defensive Left fielders ever), makes him one of the 3 best all around players to ever step on a field(arguable, but not by very much).

Again -- AS OF 1993.

c)When you consider point (B), the implications for Bonds' use of steroids are far, far, far, far, far, far less dramatic and impactful on his legend than Palmeiro, Canseco, Giambi, Sosa, Mcgwire and the dozens of others who haven't yet been caught. All of the latter, save Palmeiro(who was a good all-around hitter) made their money solely by the long ball, and the long ball alone. There are few gold gloves, and no seasons with 50 stolen bases amongst those other dudes(Canseco did have 40, of course).

d)Despite this, Bonds' bad relationship with the media(as brought up by B9) guarantees that the impact of Steroids on Bonds' career will be conflated with the impact of steroids on Mcgwire and Giambi's career, when they aren't comparable, at all.

3)(Warning, race dialogue to follow) Throw in the fact that he's a notoriously defiant black man, and you have the recipe for a witch hunt that is less about Steroids and more about a vendetta against Barry Bonds. Surely, all players who have exposed as using 'roids get blasted in the media, no doubt about it(perhaps deservedly so).

That said -- Might I make the humble point that one needn't be Farrakhan to suggest that race has **something** to do with his negative press? And that this coverage can be present even when Bonds *did* so something wrong?

I make this last point because the reflexive white argument is that none of Bonds' negative coverage has anything do with race at all -- its solely because he's accused of doing something very, very, bad. I've even had white people conjure Pete Rose to argue why Bonds' negative treatment isn't race-related. What they miss, like most yts, is that a situation doesn't have to be exclusively about race to be race-related.


But I digress.....I should have just waited for one of the white liberal okayplayers to make the exact same argument, in which case it would be automatically be more plausible.


But at least consider it, even with the fact that it came from a rabid nigger.


Lol.