ItsTheBlog™

He hit 755 and then 756. Now he'll leave and the controversy will die down. But this calm is merely the eye of the storm. Because a man like Barry Bonds will bring lots of questions and controversy when his name comes up for consideration 5 years after he retires for entry into Baseball's holy elite--Cooperstown.

But before Cooperstown, there will be a Riverside. Riverside? What's that about you say? Riverside, CA is home to the Bonds clan. Bobby Bonds, Barry's father was born and raised here in Riverside, CA (before the smog moved in of course). Bobby is a graduate of Poly high school in Riverside and also an inductee in Riverside's Hall of Fame before he died.

In fact, there is a park named after Bobby Bonds--the Bobby Bonds Sports Complex.

The question is, will his son's name come to adorn this tribute to athletic prowess in Riverside, CA? But if not Riverside, then where? Surely there must be some local community that is willing to champion the cause of this controversial athlete? And there will be. The question is where? And to what result?

Where?
How about Riverside? The setback will be the lack of a strong local connection to this community. True he does have relatives in this area, but will it be enough? Probably not. Barry Bonds has shown little affinity for the community that raised his father. If not Riverside, there will surely be a community in Northern California, perhaps San Francisco, that will take up his cause.

To what end?
The next question is the question on everyone's mind. Granted, if it is San Francisco which chooses to place him in its sports hall of fame, they will simply look the other direction when it comes to his scandalous past.

Why the controversy?
The main issue for Barry Bonds is that he has not apologized. In Bonds' eyes he has done nothing to warrant an apology. His stance is that he never knowingly took steroids. His statement may indeed be true. But the problem with that statement is that the general public simply does not look kindly at the "stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and ignore the obvious" defense. Even the law would refuse a defendant to argue this position to a jury.

No doubt, there will be lots of controversy surrounding Bonds entry into Cooperstown. His entry into any Hall of Fame prior to Cooperstown will probably garner substanial attention. But based on recent voting, it is still not likely that Bonds will see his name in Cooperstown--(outside of course the record for most career HRs).

Mark McGwire, a player with a steroid tainted past, garnered only 1/3 of the votes necessary for entry. Jose Canseco, a player who has come out and admitted his use of steroids and also fingered others, had a mere 5% of the votes on the ballots. Both these players tout incredible records (perhaps not as impressive as Bonds) but have failed to garner the votes necessary to enter the Hall.

If Barry Bonds does make it into Cooperstown, he won't be the first player to have used illegal drugs to reach baseball's holiest of places. At least one other player fits the profile of Barry Bonds. Despite heavy usage of illegal drugs, this player still had no problems when it came time to etch his name in history.

This player too was a heavy hitter. Home run after home run. Babe Ruth was a heavy user of alcohol which was illegal during the Prohibition Era (1920-1933). But Babe has no stint attached to this name. Why? Well, most likely because acts making alcohol consumption illegal ultimately were repealed.

Babe Ruth is in the Hall of Fame. His place in history is already etched in stone as one of the greatest to ever play the game.

It is Barry Bonds who is yet to see what how the history books will discuss his accomplishments. But this is quite sad. The problem with this is that it is Major League Baseball that dropped the ball on steroid use. It failed to come out with prescribed rules regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs.

An athlete will assume that he is allowed to act in any way that is not prohibited by the rules of baseball. For example, if an athlete felt hitting with a metal bat would be more advantageous for him, then he would be perfectly entitled to use a metal bat--assuming the rules of baseball did not prohibit this.

Regardless of whether or not Barry used steroids in the past, he is not using them now. He has never failed a steroids drug test. The general public is punishing Bonds because he used steroids in the past--before they were illegal. Because the use of steroids has now been deemed illegal, the public looks at Bonds with a leary eye.

And Bonds? Bonds suffers because he had no idea that using steroids would be illegal. Regardless of whether or not he used, because of the highly negative stigma associated with the use of steroids, Barry Bonds name will forever be tainted.

Jose Canseco...Rafael Palmeiro...Floyd Landis...Barry Bonds.

Regardless of whether they used or not, their names have already been associated--permanently--with intentionally giving themselves a leg or "syringe" up on the competition.

Any athlete wants a leg up and will take it no questions asked. It is only when the sport rules--often retroaactively--that a certain behavior, substance, or equipment is illegal that athletes suffer.

This is why Barry Bonds is MLB's #1 Victim. (Please note: I'm not a Bonds fan. I don't like the guy at all. I just think he's gotten a "bum" rap)

Labels: 756, Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Cooperstown, Floyd Landis, Hall of Fame, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro

Is copying off a friend's test cheating? Yes. Is claiming extra deductions on your tax return cheating? Yes. Is taking a secret drug that is supposed to make you stronger, able to recover from injuries faster, and keep you healthier cheating? No--unless it's steroids.

You see, the answer in today's day and age is that performance enhancing drugs are illegal. One need look no further than Floyd Landis, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and Shawne Merriman to determine that steroids are not okay. They are not okay because in today's day and age the public opinion has weighed in and decided that the detrimental effects of steroids on a player outweigh the benefits received from the drugs (ie. increased performance).

The problem is that when these players were confronted with this situation, there was no public opinion for them to rely on. Instead, these players were forced to consult a crystal ball in an attempt to predict what side the public would ultimately weigh in on. They were forced to make a decision, back then, of how the public would react to steroids once they learned enough about it to make an educated decision.

Most fans live in a world where all drugs, herbal supplements, and other substances should be completely banned. The problem with this camp is that it denies the reality that many people take drugs every day. Be it a steroid to suppress an allergic or asthmatic reaction or a multi-vitamin to keep someone healthy, people in today's society routinely take over-the-counter and prescription drugs to improve their health. One need look no further than the medicine cabinets of today's average American to learn that he partakes in a variety of subtances. The average life expectancy statistic can attest to this. As the life expectancy of an average American increases, so does our use of substances to maintain our health.

A small minority of fans believe that all drugs should be legal. There are two ways this argument is made. First, these fans argue that the sports world should be a free market where each player is judged based on his talents alone and that drugs should play no part in consideration of how a player performs. The second argument is that the professional sports league has no place regulating this aspect of an athlete's life. Sadly they are both mistaken.

Addressing the first argument, a free market only works when every player is on a level playing field. When one player uses performance enhancing drugs to increase his stats, the non-using player is therefore at a disadvantage simply because he does not use (either by choice or because he is not aware of the drugs). One may argue that the athlete has no one to blame but himself for failing to take advantage of this drug, but this disregards the risk of harm the drug may have on the athlete.

The problem here is that the league has a duty to take care of its members. Even the NFL recognizes this and offers a pension program to players who have taken part in a certain number of seasons in the NFL. Recognizing that players might suffer long term trauma, the NFL has established a disability program where players are compensated for the injuries they suffered while playing football.

The problem with arguing an open market theory is that this would force the responsible sports league to completely forego that duty. It is as if the NFL would say "I don't care about your injuries, play and injure yourself, but we are not responsible."

Long gone are the days when a league would completely distance itself from an athlete who ended up injured from participating in the sport. Instead, leagues are undertaking a duty to ensure the safety of their athletes.

The second argument mentioned above is that a sports league has no place regulating this in an athlete's life. However, this could not be further from the truth. In the four main sports (baseball, basketball, football, and hockey), there are all sorts of regulations regarding equipmeny. Your bat can only be this light, the field must only be this long, etc. However, leagues have already taken steps to regulate aspects outside of an athlete's performance on the court. Take the basketball dress code for example. Here the league has chosen to regulate a non-athletic aspect of an NBA player's life. Thus, this type of regulation is not without precedence.

Additionally, there are the side effects of steroids that must be addressed. The main purpose for most sports to place steroids in the "illegal" category is because of the harm posed to the players who use them. This isn't an instance where the league is trying to stifle performance. No no. In reality, each league is trying to do its best to make its league more competitive. Instead, the leagues have determined that the risk of harm from the use of steroids far outweights any competitive advantage it may give to its players.

Interestingly enough, the effects of steroids vary depending on who is using them. Males tend to become "feminized" when they use steroids and experience things such as: reduced sprem count, impotence, development of breasts, and shrinking of the testicles. Females experience: facial hair growth, deepened voice, and breast reduction. Common side effects to both sexes include: acne, bloated appearance, weakened tendons, premature heart attacks and strokes, and liver damage. Additionally, steroids may stunt the growth of adolescents. Steroids also include numerous changes on the internal structures that may be hard to see from the naked eye ('roid rage anyone?).

How prevalent is the use of steroids? Even the PGA is toying with the idea of implementing a drug testing policy. Tiger Woods has put forward the idea that the PGA should be proactive instead of reactive, and I couldn't agree more.

The problem with professional sports leagues is that they are reactive. Drug testing is only implemented after it becomes a problem. In sports that demand a competitive edge out of every athlete, it is simply unfair to change the rules halfway through the game.

Is it fair for Barry Bonds, who has relied on steroids for numerous home runs, to have to play the rest of his career without those drugs? Yes. No one gripes about an umpire who consistently calls the outside corner of the plate. But when the umpire changes the size of the strike zone just a little bit halfway through the game, it isn't fair. In the same vein (pun intended), it's as if Major League Baseball banned steroids during the seventh inning stretch of his career.

Please don't misunderstand what I am trying to say. Am I condoning Bonds use of steroids? No. I am only proferring the argument that Major League Baseball should have been more proactive before this became an issue, rather than changing the rules halfway through the game.

MLB should take a page from the NHL. When the NHL instituted a rule requiring all players to wear helmets, it grandfathered the rule in. Let's back it up. Why did the NHL do this? Because the benefits to the players outweighed the risk of harm they would experience by playing without a helmet. Take one look at the smile of an NHL player for proof of this. But, rather than forcing every player to wear a helmet, the NHL exempted players already playing and allowed those players to finish off a career without wearing a helmet. Should MLB grandfather in steroid use? Well no. But it's attitude should be alot less "holier than thou" when dealing with players who have taken steroids. Afterall, if a drug testing program had been in place before, this would never have been a problem.

And that's my three cents.

--Legal Pundit

Labels: drugs, Floyd Landis, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Shawne Merriman, steroids