Reporters lambaste Barry once again; but who watches the Watchmen?
When will the press, as Bonds says, deal with their own problems first? As I noted in another article, "Just Say No, Barry", the press has been unfair in their "objective" reporting of Barry in the past. Why don't any of them point out these untruths (or "lies" as Barry called them) and lambaste one of their own? Then there is SI's vendetta against Bonds since he rudely snubbed one of their star reporters. How objective are they, how can we view what they write as unbiased?
And isn't one of the major tenets of our American society "innocent until proven guilty"? Thus far, all we have proof of is that Bonds trusted his friend too much and apparently inadverdently took some of the designer drug. Every thing else has been hearsay and gossip.
Plus, aren't Grand Jury testimony suppose to be secret? How can anyone testify before one from now on and think, "what if this was leaked out?" Because it has happened before and could happen again if someone is overly zealous. No one talks about how that might affect our justice system or how detrimental it might be. I would be interested to see what the ramifications of this might be.
Some may say that this is too trusting or naive on my part but I'm a bit paranoid about being accused of something I didn't do and it got me thinking: what if Bonds IS innocent? What if he did trust his friend too much? What if the "mistress" is just some opportunist thinking she can make so easy money? The newspapers have been reporting all this as truths when nothing substantive has been shown yet. These are the lies that Bonds talked about. I even succumbed to it with my post below on the mistress, I just assumed the worse. That's what the reporters in general have been doing regarding Bonds for years now.
Personally, I don't know what to think other than to accept his word for now. However, if it turns out that Bonds is guilty, I think he should just retire then and there and call it a career. Any achievements he gets would be viewed with scorn and disgust. They would not be viewed as legitimate achievements. Not that I think it would ruin records, I just think, why bother, he's a bald-faced liar, he should leave the game for abusing the fan's trust. I could not stand Jeff Kent's lies and was happy he left, despite the hole he left in our lineup, and would feel the same about Bonds.
However, it would not bother me that he took steroids if he really did. I just think it is hilarious that some people talk about the purity of the game, its traditions, its career statistics. As I noted in a previous post, amphetamines are just as bad as steriods, perhaps worse because of its prevalence. All the complaints about career records not meaning anything if a player used steriods? Same thing with the amphetamines, it allows players to play at the end of the season at around their normal abilities when they should be so dog tired that they whiff at pitches they killed earlier in the season.
How is that different? Players compile better seasonal stats via this drug and that adds up during a long career. That makes the stats of players during the 50's to 70's just as tainted. Plus prior to the 50's, no African America or Asians for that matter, were allowed to play in the majors, boosting the hitting stats for the white players who played in that era. Again, stat inflation and career totals that are boosted artificially, though that was not totally their fault (though someone could have made a stand for non-white rights).
Plus there are known past cheaters. Should Gaylord Perry's wins be all counted as losses and his Cy Youngs be given to the second place guy? He admited to cheating, should he get an asterisk? How about all the pitchers caught with nail files and stuff on them? Should we change all their wins to losses and take back their awards? Or put asterisks on their records?
How about the "lively" ball that came in during the 1920's? Should we asterisk all stats that are affected now that these players can hit more homers and power? That's a form of "cheating" relative to the players prior to then. In addition, that was around the time when the MLB started replacing balls instead of keeping them in play until they were beaten to a pulp. Should stats after that be asterisked as well?
There are a multitude of reasons why one era of players do better or worse than another era. We cannot legislate equality with an asterisk. We cannot "Harrison Bergeron" everybody. What's done is done, we can't change any of that back.