|
> >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.
Although I already put an asterix next to records prior to baseball integration....When you're comparing individual accomplishments....it's different...we are comparing Hank Aaron w/o roids...to Barry Bonds w/ roids. Now that comparison can be made w/o making a judgement about the roids...but rather a specification the 2 records were acheived under different conditions...
I mean how much smaller would Babe Ruth's HR total be if he faced some Black pitchers?? maybe a bit smaller..but not like 100 smaller or anything......The only difference would be that there would have been other players who would have had somewhere close to or more HRs than he..ie. Josh Gibson. But as far is it meaning that his total # of HRs is tainted....I don't buy that at all.....
but with Bonds V. Aaron, that's a different story...
and what else is involved here is that Steroids are illegal in society NOW (where as when baseball discriminated against Blacks, doing so was NOT illegal at that time) so Barry and the others who used them...AND MLB and the players association are actually culpable in a crime. It's a crime to use steroids..posses them....and facilitate their usage....and that is just further evidence why Bonds HR total should be distinguished from Aaron's
> >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.
Ken Griffey Jr. would have something to say about him being the best player of his generation....
but regardless.....I think it's justifiable to look at a guy who so drasticlly increased his power numbers....and whose appearance demonstrates evidence of usuage in an environment where it was accepted.
AND...a guy who people are first hand saying that he was on them...including people such as Gary Sheffield who have nothing to gain by admitting it....
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.
I wouldn't deny he was a great player...but that conjecture isn't speaking to the potential for a shortened career...ie. the brother in my avy...or an Albert Belle....
and again...a POSSIBLE 500 is not the issue...it's the likely 755 that's the problem.
> >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).
So because others who weren't as good as Bonds used them....folks should only focus on those guys, and pretend like Bonds didn't use them even though the evidence he did is monsterous???
> >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.
the impact on how his career will be viewed is great on him because (a) he's still playing (b) he's getting close to 755, (c) He's been less than honest about his use of them despite all the evidence
is he liked by the media,and some of his teammates??? no. but that doesn't erase the a,b,c I just mentioned.....
Eddie Murray had as salty a relationship with the media as anybody...yet his accomplishments warranted by first ballot..and he was.
> >3)(Warning, race dialogue to follow) Throw in the fact that >he's a notoriously defiant black man,
Let me cut you off right here. Barry Bonds is not a notoriously defiant Black man.....not at all and the false perception that he is only saw the light of day when he came under scrutiny for roids...
What Black issues has Barry Bonds supported??? What "risk" has he placed himself in to stand up for principals of a Black man??
A guy who sets himself apart from his teammates, has a different sized locker...different chair than the rest of his teammates...maybe considered defiant..but not in the since of being a defiant Black man...in the since of being a selfish, self-centered, cry baby...
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).
when you act like an a-hole..you get treated like one..that's how life works.
and the bottom line is that this is no witch hunt.....Barry Bonds used steroids, and human growth hormones....others did it too...and baseball and the union are culpable...but he used them....
and steroids are illegal in society.
and Hank Aaron did not use them....
that's the bottom line.
> >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?
Black people are generally treated different in America than Whites....That's a fact.
But Barry Bonds is an asshole....
he's used steroids and growth hormones...
And that this coverage can be present even >when Bonds *did* so something wrong?
I must have missed the part of the Senate Hearings where Bonds testified, and where they asked him point blank if he was on them...Maybe I turned the channel or something...but from here, it looks like he's actually being PROTECTED against these accusations...
and another thing...when you are obviously lying...and the people you are lying to don't call you a liar.....aren't those people you're lying to cutting you some slack???
> >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.
He's accused of doing something illegal....and I think it's actually a reflexive Black argument to make the assumption that people do not believe that you can hold Bonds accountable to the truth, and admit that he has some image problems (self-created image problems.)
Playing the race card usually works better when it's being used with someone who actually wanted to be Black before their problems....ie. OJ and Barry would have probably cursed you out for associating them with a Black cause prior to their "problems" ...
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.
saying something is race related now is about like saying the sun will rise in the east tommorow.....
and none of that should impact the facts of this issue.
>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. >
honestly...we should make sure to defend those on the basis of race...who actually wanted to be included in our race before they had problems.
|