A few years back, Major League Baseball (Baseball? I thought this was a piece about NASCAR!) went on strike and alienated their fan base. Basically, no matter what the experts say was the rationale, it was because they got greedy and thought fans would be apathetic, sympathetic and then forgive and forget about it. Wrong! Fans revolted against MLB and went elsewhere to fulfill their baseball fix, namely the Minor Leagues. Minor League attendance tripled and quadrupled in some cases and the money started flooding the coffers. Result? MLB still has a black eye, arguably still hasn't gotten over the strike backlash and Minor League basebal is flourishing with beautiful new ball parks, loads of fresh new talent and baseball being played for the enjoyment of everybody. Ever been to a minor league ball game? It is what the majors once had and wish they could get back again, before the ga-jillion dollar salaries, egos and steroids got in the way. For less than fifty bucks, I can take my two kids to a game, buy them hot dogs, popcorn and drinks, buy myself a couple of beers, have an outstanding game at an intimate ball park and leave with a smile on my face and change in my pocket. It can't be beat for real family entertainment value. That's why baseball back up until the early 70's bacame America's past time, because of it's intimate appeal to the masses and its real entertainment value. Then the media, the superstars and the Bob Sugar's of the world, got too big for their britches and destroyed the game. Okay, so why am I writing a paragraph about baseball if this piece is supposed to be about NASCAR? Because NASCAR is heading in the same direction. What was once a close-knit intimate sport, has become a Mega-Circus that even ancient Rome could have never imagined. That's what I compared this era of entertainment to, in the United States. Ever been to a NASCAR event? All you have to do is imagine that each racetrack is the Roman Colliseum and that the race cars are chariots, each replete with its own team of drivers and caretakers. The hawkers and the fans fill the air with sights and sounds associated with a huge carnival, until a hush falls over the crowd as the emperor appears, gives a short speech and chariots begin to roll. It is really beautiful to behold. So, why am I writing this again? My first NASCAR race was the Daytona 500 back in the 60's, when my father drove an ambulance for Beacon Ambulance Company and had work the race in case there was an emergency. I was way too little to remember much, but I do remember the sights, sounds and smells, especially the smell of that high-octane fuel. My dad tells me that the drivers used to be so personable that a couple of them used to buy me bags of Oreo's, Coke's and milkshakes in the time spent hanging around the garage. Years later, I went to Dover and had to pay my way in to the race. The atmosphere was still personable, the drivers accessible and friendly, the prices fairly reasonable and a good time had by all. My last race was Martinsville, VA, last Fall. I paid almost $100 per ticket for two tickets, I bought a T-shirt for $20, a beer cost $6, a Coke was $5, a hotdog was $4, parking was $25, scanner rental was $75 per scanner, the codes for the scanners was $10 and of course I didn't just purchase one of everything because I had a friend with me. By the time that litle entertainment excursion was over, I had paid almost $500. What does Brian France think he is doing? NASCAR used to have several quaint, intimate and exciting tracks they raced on, but Brian France and company think that racing on 1.5 mile cokkie-cutter tracks is more appealing. Why? Because it lines his pockets and the pockets of all of his cronies. And don't forget who your average NASCAR fan still is, the 9-5 blue-collar workers out in the fields, and factories. Brian France is trying to change this dynamic, but part of the problem with alienating the good-old boy club in favor of a more mature and intellectual crowd, is that the intellectuals may cough up $500 once or twice in a blue moon, but not every time the circus comes to town. Especially when you pack 100.00 people in like sardines and make them pay for a seat they don't use. Let's face it, they are more concerned with other social events and their own persoanl lives than they are with swilling beer at a race twice a year and paying $500, or more to do so. And the good-old-boy club? Most have been relegated to one show per year, now. Mostly bacause NASCAR has priced them out of the market. I recently wne tonline to purchase tickets for the Michigan race in June and the cheapest tickets I could get were $115 a piece. Outrageous! Especially when the Busch and Craftsman Truck series tickets are less than half that price and they usually put on a better show. Not to mention that a lot of Nextel Cup drivers, also drive in the Busch and/ or truck league. I met Bobbly Labonte when he won the truck race at Martinsville a little over a year ago, and it was a great race. Darlington last year? The truck and Busch series races were far superior to the Cup race. There is a reason why NASCAR needs to be on the defensive and reconsider some of their decision. They have alienated themselves from a large part of their fan bas already and continue to do so. While it is true that they are still filling the stands at the really big races, I have noticed attendance and some of the other races falling off sharply, namely California, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Richmond didn't seem as full as usual this year. And yet, this was the reason giving for taking the second race date away from Darlington, which is arguable the best racing action on the circuit. NASCAR fans have two choices to plea their case; either boycott going to the races and watch them on TV en masse, thus forcing NASCAR to make concessions, or watch NASCAR keep manipulating themselves into extinction, just like the ancient Romans. Personally, I love racing and going to races, I just can't afford it any more.

So, Dayn Perry wants us to shrug off the Bambino's accomplishments like they were something any mortal could have and should have done in the past, oh 75 years, or so. Let's take everything Dayn has to say and examine it, shall we? First of all, there is this statement: "Back then, the right-field line was only 295 feet from home plate, and it was only 350 feet to straightaway right field. Contrast those with the current dimensions of Yankee: 314 feet down the line and 353 to straightaway. Yankee Stadium, over the last three full seasons, inflated the home-run rates of left-handed batters by seven percent. While we don't have the necessary data to get the figures from Ruth's day, it's safe to assume that Yankee Stadium back then was even more beneficial to lefty power hitters." Hmmmm....are you sure about that, Dayn? Is it really safe to assume that Yankee Stadium was even more beneficial to lefties? Have you done any more research to find out just exactly how many dingers were just outside the park or cleared by a great distance, or hoe many were just inside the foul pole, or just outside the boundaries of right-center field? And I think you mean that the right-field wall was 295 feet from home plate, not the right-field line. Now you say the porch in right is 314, compared to 295, which encompasses a whole 19 feet. So 19 feet really makes that big of a difference? 7%. Let's see...how many times did Ruth actually hit dingers to right field, of his total of 714? How many of those were in Yankee Stadium, and how many were affected by the wind, weather, hecklers and the number of beers and cigars Ruth had the night before? Have all of these been tallied? Okay, let's move on. "More important, however, is the social context of Ruth's era. Ruth played when black Americans and dark-skinned Latinos were barred from playing in the major leagues. This evil arrangement - besides being symptomatic of the racism of the day - also made things easier for Ruth. The artificially restricted talent pool meant that Ruth was thriving (and piling up all those numbers) against a lesser peer group. For instance, imagine the kind of stats, say, Lance Berkman could put up if he never had to face a Pedro Martinez, a Dontrelle Willis, a Johan Santana, a Carlos Zambrano or a Mariano Rivera and never had the likes of Andruw Jones, Torii Hunter or Mike Cameron turning doubles into fly outs." How can you even suggest this fallacy with a straight face? So, Ruth's numbers are artifical because he had to play in an all-white environment? Well, when I pick apart your next allegation, it'll put this myth to rest, but for the sake of argument, let's not forget that Ruth also played in an era that saw much heavier lumber and much softer balls, as well as those woolen uniforms. You also must be suggesting that the merits of Honus Wagner, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb and Cy Young should all be negated, as well. Hmmmm....and how many of their records have been eclipsed by modern day players? Not many. Moving on... "Ruth was a drunk (he was experimenting with alcohol by age 7 and drank heavily throughout his career), a glutton (his diet consistent mostly of hot dogs and soda), a malcontent (as a Red Sox, he ignored signs at the plate, once threatened to punch his manager in the face, went AWOL from the club on a semi-regular basis and ritually broke curfew) and a philanderer (he was unfaithful to his wife on a number of occasions, and it was rumored that a 1925 illness was the result of a runaway case of gonorrhea). As a result, Ruth neglected his obligations to the team by failing to stay in even passable physical shape." Hey, what else needs to be said? If you ask me, I think Ruth's accomplishments speak even louder when you add this bit of qualitative analysis to the equation. Just think of what Ruth's numbers would have looked like had he "juiced up" and had mega-million dollar doctors attending his every need to stay healthy. We could play this game all day long, Dayn. "Were the media of Ruth's age not so chummy, they would've etched a thoroughly different portrait of the man. These days, when many parents outsource their role modeling to celebrities, you can be sure Ruth would be derided as a bad influence to American's youth because of his lifestyle and frequent insubordination." This is a purely subjective statement, just like the rest of your story, Dayn. The fact is, Ruth was fun to be around. He took care of those around him, too. He was chummy, with everybody, including the press, and if Bonds were the same way, he would probably receive better treatment, as well. The fact is Bonds is Bonds; he has the personality and charm of an asp and he is villified because of it. Ruth had a really great side to him that you never mentioned in this article, either. Ruth was raised in an orphanage and loved helping kids because of it. He gave gifts and large sums of money to scores of kids and orphanages and hospitals everywhere. He inspired thousands of people because of his big heart, his philanthropy, and his enthusiasm for baseball. What has Barry Bonds done to endear himself to the public? Bottom line? I can see somebody trying to engender a little support for Barry Bonds because of the huge microscope he is under, but do NOT try to sully the name of an actual bonafide sports hero and legend. Babe Ruth is who he is because he became baseball. He epitomized what the game is all about, having fun and enjoying the game. He lived as he did because he didn't care about chasing or setting records. He knew who he was and what he could do. Let's not forget that in the twilight of his career, he hit the first home run balls out of a supposedly un-homerable ballpark, Forbes Field. And he didn't just hit one, he hit three, all in that same game. Babe Ruth, not an icon worth revering? Puh-Leeze!

"...when one great scorer goes to write against your name, he asks not if you won or lost, but how you played the game." ~ unknown I have always remembered this old proverb which my best frined's Dad used to have hangin on a wall in the kitchen hallway. And I always wondered about its origin; it must be fairly old, because I know it hung on that wall from the late 60's, anyway. The reason I mention it however, is because of Barry Bonds closing in on the Bambino's mark of 714 dingers. If we go by the proverb, then Bond's record, when he surpasses Ruth, won't mean squat. The Babe inspired people to follow baseball; he inspired people to want to play baseball; he inspired a whole country to root, root, root for the home team. All Barry Bonds has done is cast a dark pall over baseball and veil all recent accomplishments like a funeral shroud. I think it is fitting that the Babe's extended family and the commisioner of baseball have both decided not to attend any of the Bonds hoopla when he hits number 715. Indeed there are some sports writers out there who will advocate Bonds achievements and tout modern-day baseball as different from the purist's sport. They will point to the useage of the designated hitter and the difference in pitching rotation and specialization between yesteryear and today. But, come on...how can you support cheating? There is a reason why the IOC tests for banned substances and has for years. There is a reason that some athletes have been stripped of medals in the past for using unauthorized and banned substances. It's called 'cheating'. The athlete has used a substance to physically enhance their physique and/ or performance to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors. An analogy would be some miracle substance to put into the tank of a race car to make it go a few miles per hour faster and go longer between stops for more fuel. NASCAR would probably ban the whole team for a year for that violation. Any enhancement , by unnatural means, that gives a player an unfair advatange over the competition is cheating, period. So, to all you sportswritiers who want to debate the whole situation, I can only say this, "has it been good for baseball?" "Has it been good for the players, the teams, the owners, the fans?" "Has it been something that kids can look to as an achievement and a reason to want to try to be like Barry Bonds?" If the answer is "no", then there is no debate. Either strike Bond's new mark from the record books, or mark them with an asterisk like they did to Roger Marris, and all he did was take too long to hit 61 home runs. I know that when I was growing up and Hank Aaaron broke Babe Ruth's record, I still looked to him as a hero figure. I don't see my kids, nor any of their friends looking at Barry Bonds the same way. I think Barry should stop at every kids house, from San Francisco to Cooperstown, and beg forgiveness for sullying the game of baseball. And then, when he gets to Cooperstown, let his induction be left to a live vote for or against him, televised nationally, so Americans can see his dejection in all its glory. Of course, this will never happen, though, because we all know that Barry it way too narcissistic to ever apologize for anything.