I have recently released two articles on RealGMBaseball.com which detail the Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams story and contain RealGM Exclusive interviews.
There are two different articles, one of which is a news-report, reported on a straight-fact basis and is much shorter than the editorial piece. I would encourage you to read the editorial piece, but if you'd rather read the report, it will take less of your time.
As Floyd Landis parades around France, declaring his innocence, hundreds of syringes are heaved at him; his security agents parrying as many as possible. Millions of Americans are flooding sports-radio phone lines, anxious to divulge their inner hatred for the man. Apparently, Landis is preparing to embark on his own TV show, Landis on Landis, to be aired on ESPN.
Oh -- wait -- that’s Barry Bonds, the man who has never tested positive. But how can this be? Certainly, the evidence is much more convincing when it comes to Floyd Landis. Many contend it’s a matter of racism -- but is that really true? Do we really hate the man because he’s black? I think not.
In a world full of rap music, a predominantly black profession; music which millions of Caucasian people listen to with regularity -- are they just trying to diversify the ethnicities of those who sing the music they enjoy? In a world of judicial activism which is, many times, exploited to mollify any animosity which remains between races, Brown-vs-Board-of-Eductation-style -- are they just trying something new? In a world where it's politically incorrect to call someone of a minority-race a racist, when whites are incessantly accused of the crime -- are we just being nice? All good questions.
These days, African-Americans dominate sports; with the exception of NASCAR and the NHL, there is seldom a sport where one cannot find much diversity in ethnicities and color. Is there still racism today? Of course. But to the point where baseball fans and non-viewers alike disgrace a baseball player simply because of his color? It's just unreasonable to believe such a thing.
The Barry Bonds malevolence goes much deeper than skin-color -- this is a matter of the public's apprehensiveness towards the breaking of cherished records such as Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron's, we want to believe that to break such a record is impossible and that there must be a explanation for said success. It is for this reason that we are fleeceable when it comes to accusations of cheating aimed at Barry Bonds. Jump to conclusions? Absolutely!
Where's the positive test? We have all the circumstantial evidence one could ask for, so if the case is so solid; why haven't we been able to trace any of the drugs that we seem to "know" he's taking? Wouldn't it be easy to conduct an experiment, knowing the outcome of the operation before carrying it out? I guess not.
And some will be quick to point out that drug developers are "far more advanced" than the drug testers, even though the social-perception of steroid use is negative, making the number of doctors working to prevent drug use far more than those who promote it. Even if this was true, are we assuming that Floyd Landis didn't have access to these smarter doctors, who can mask heavy drug use through four years of rigorous testing -- drug use which the testers are indefatigably trying to prove.
No -- we have the defense for good old Floyd. He's clean, and we know it! Alleging that he was involved in flagitious activity is just counterfactual and Barmecidal -- or some would assert. It all relates back to our flagrant nationalism in times of vain for our country-at-war, which leads to wide-spread antipathy towards the French; thus making American dominance of an event hosted by France even more gratifying. We want Floyd Landis to be innocent. One can't say the same about Barry Bonds.
What about those French scientists? All hidden away in their secret laboratories, scheming various ways to conspire against Floyd Landis, who they somehow knew was going to win the race -- what about those guys? After all, everyone knows French scientists hate American cyclists -- didn't Thomas Paine write about that hatred in Common Sense? The chances of something of the sort are just about as high as a Fourth of July Parade in North Korea. With the risk of extreme American antagonism if their plot was ever discovered, it is quite doubtful that France would try to nullify Floyd Landis' without just cause.
And if this is the reason for the skepticism towards the test results against Floyd Landis -- then is it so farfetched and ridiculous to believe that the MLB might be doing something similar? Certainly the MLB wants Barry Bonds to be proven guilty as much as the French want to see Floyd Landis' title taken away. Where are the conspiracy theories on this one? Oh -- right, there hasn't been a positive test, I'm sorry, I keep on forgetting.
Nobody has robbed Floyd Landis of a Tour de France yellow-jacket. In fact, it's quite Pecksniffian to question Landis' guilt when one declares Bonds' with rabid passion. The rules are the rules -- when a racer tests positive for a banned substance, their title is revoked, period. This is the stringent system that many are pushing for in Major League Baseball, and perhaps there is a middle-ground between the uncompromising attitude of the Tour de France officials towards drug use and the indifferent attitude of MLB officials -- but the French have banned people of many different countries, including favorites Jan Ullrich of Germany, Ivan Basso of Italy, Oscar Sevilla of Spain, as well as Rudy Pevenage of Belgium -- it's safe to say that the French seem to care much more about the integrity of their sport than the Americans do, at this point.
Maybe it's time to start accepting the truth about Floyd Landis, no matter how hard it might be.
Grand juries haven’t exactly treated Barry Bonds very well in the past few months.A leak from grand jury testimony, published in Game of Shadows, which was written by a duo of San Francisco Chronicle reporters, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams formally released to the public what Barry Bonds had wished to withhold.This also sparked what is now known as the Mitchell Commission, which is Major League Baseball’s own steroid investigation.
A grand jury investigated how the two Chronicle reporters obtained this information.According to the San Francisco Chronicle, itself, Victor Conte, founder of BALCO, might have released Bonds’ grand jury testimony to a San Francisco Chronicle reporter, as detailed in a series of emails between Conte and Fainaru-Wada where the two constantly refer to a CD-ROM which is believed to have detailed the grand jury testimony.
And now, a grand jury is looking to indict Barry Bonds for perjury – which many believe, will be the last-chink-in-the-armor for Bonds and jail time will undoubtedly follow.But, according to Wikipedia.org, Judge Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of New York State, “Once was quoted as saying, ‘A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.’”It’s no coincidence that many jurisdictions have elected to discontinue the use o####rand jury.
However, if Bonds’ legal team could prove that the grand jury testimony was leaked by a government official – the chance that Bonds could be acquitted would be dramatically increased.
On Sunday, December 12, 2004, about one week after the grand jury testimony was released by the Chronicle reporters, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, “Why we brought you the BALCO story.”
In discussing Williams and Fainaru-Wada’s reasons for disclosing the testimony, Chronicle staff writer, Phil Bronstein writes:
"Here is how we decided to publish secret testimony: We don't believe that it's our responsibility to enforce federal secrecy provisions surrounding grand jury proceedings.”
According to Jeralyn E. Merritt, criminal defense attorney in Denver and one of the principal lawyers in the Oklahoma City Bombing trial, as published on TalkLeft.com:
“Under federal law, only prosecutors, case agents, government and court employees and others on that side of the fence are prohibited from disclosing matters that occur before the grand jury. The defense is under no such prohibition. If a person associated with the defense had been the source, there would be no federal secrecy provision to enforce.”
This, she believes, rules out the possibility that the leaked testimony was obtained from an associate of the defense.Furthermore, Conte, among others, has incessantly asserted that the government was the source of the grand jury leak.If, indeed, this is true, the case against Bonds could take a major hit.
Bonds’ legal team could then turn the case against the government, and could claim that the government intentionally leaked the grand jury testimony in order to assist in the investigation over Bonds’ alleged perjury.Why would the government do such a thing?By releasing the testimony to the Chronicle writers to be published, it would allow another grand jury to use the published materials against Bonds.As noted in the quote from Merritt, prosecutors, case agents, government and court employees are prohibited from speaking of grand jury testimony.Conversely, now that the grand jury testimony is published material, it may be used to prosecute Bonds to the fullest extent.If this were true, the government would be guilty of a major infraction of the law; and it would, at the least, constitute a full acquittal of Barry Bonds on the count of perjury.
But no matter what you chose to believe, if Bonds is indicted for perjury and tax evasion, we’re in for a lengthy trial that could end up in jail time for Bonds and/or others.It’s simply not as clear-cut as many seem to believe.
.314 career batting average. 459 career home runs, 20 of which are grand slams (ranking him 2nd all time). 8 Silver Slugger awards, including one in each of the last 7 years. Finished in the top-10 for MVP voting each of the last 8 years. The 2002 batting champion. Twice has led the league in on-base percentage, three times in both slugging-percentage and on-base-plus-slugging percentage. Top 10 in home runs every year since 1998. On-pace to hit 614 career home runs, with an 18.2% chance of hitting 700, based on Bill James's "favorite toy" statistical analysis. And, according to Baseball-Reference.com's Hall of Fame standards scoring system, where a value of 50 is an average Hall-of-Famer, Manny Ramirez scores a 54.0. He's only 34 years old.
If you were to compare Manny Ramirez's numbers through age 33 to those of Willie McCovey, who is a current Hall-of-Famer, what you would find is astonishing. Ramirez leads McCovey in games-played, runs, hits, doubles, home runs, RBI's, walks, batting average, on-base percentage, slugging-percentage, and stolen bases.
And somehow, countless media personalities and sportswriters find the nerve to curtail Ramirez's statistics by calling his actions "crimes against baseball". One of these "crimes" includes his most recent decision not to play in this year's All-Star Game. Calling his injury a "fake", telling Manny what is and what isn't wrong with his body -- yelling at him for caring about his team's success. Perhaps it's jealousy of his proficiency in the game of baseball, or his team's recent World Championship Title; but, more than likely, it's the media's knowledge that, whenever they chose to poke-fun at Manny's baseball skills, he won't seek reprisal. No, Manny could care less what the media thinks about him, which probably irks them even more -- no matter what is written, said, or published about him, Manny will show up the next day with a smile on his face and nothing on his mind except winning the game which he loves so dearly. And by some means, despite all the "crimes" that Manny seems to commit daily -- at least, according to certain media luminaries -- the Red Sox keep on winning. Imagine that!
While Barry Bonds awaits his indictment, Terrell Owens tears-apart NFL teams, Ron Artest punches fans, Ricky Williams smokes marijuana, and Jason Grimsley passes-out human growth hormone -- Manny's the one ruining sports, by not running out a fly ball-or-two (even though they never land in fair territory), and not getting to outfield hits fast enough (albeit, he lead the majors in outfield-assists last year). Not to mention that numerous other MLB Superstars are guilty of the same "crimes" -- even the great Albert Pujols has been accused of not running on a fly-ball. Did it ever occur to anyone that, by some stretch-of-the-mind, these players, after playing in thousands of games, simply have a good eye for foul-balls? If they can pick up a curve ball at 76 miles-per-hour after a fastball was just blown by them at 98, is it so tomfool to think that they know when a ball is going foul?
Nope. The media just will not accept it. They have to keep players in check. They feel the need to usurp the position of head coach, briefly, to set Manny Ramirez straight -- even though they already know that he will never respond. Why would they do such a thing? For the attention -- or for the self-confidence-boost of being able to flout a Major Leaguer's effort. Manny, a guy who shows up early for every game to take batting-practice and work on his fielding abilities. Manny, a guy who agreed to play for the Red Sox enthusiastically, a fan-favorite, although he wanted to be traded. He does all these things, posts amazing numbers, and "fakes" an injury to get out of the All-Star Game? I doubt it.
The truth of the matter is, Manny is beginning to age -- he's beginning to feel the wear-and-tear of the season more than all of the young-guns in this year's All-Star Game. His knees are bothering him, David Ortiz can attest to that. In fact, according to recent reports, Ramirez has a tear in his medial meniscus -- how about that? Writers and radio hosts everywhere wanted Manny to come out and tell the "truth," that he doesn't want to play in the All-Star Game; and, of course, if he ever did say such a thing, he would never hear the end of it. It's hypocrisy, friends. It's jealousy. It's sensationalism. It's the media.
While Sammy Sosa sneezes his way into injuries, Manny's "faking" injury -- forget the fact that he's missed only 32 games since 2003, one more than Albert Pujols. If Manny's dishonoring the fans, what is Barry Bonds doing? If Manny's dishonoring the fans, what is Delmon Young doing? Oh yeah, the media's already mutilated their reputations -- they just figured it was time to get a new target for controversy.
Keep your eyes open. Understand the facts. Respect Manny Ramirez for what he is -- a future Hall-of-Fame player. And enjoy watching Manny Ramirez make his place in history. The next generation of sports fans won't be seeing the media's portrayal of him, they'll be looking at a spreadsheet of his career statistics in Cooperstown -- and if anyone were to come up to them and say, "Manny Ramirez? That guy didn't play hard at all," they would just point to the statistics and laugh.
Somewhere between the NBA Final’s officiating, HGH in the MLB, Terrell Owens in Philadelphia, and Barry Bonds – we’ve found yet another sports-subject to complain about.Fan voting.You know, the typical baseball-devotee – MLB-aficionado – who thinks his or, at times, her knowledge surpasses that of the commonplace fan.The one who always complains about the All-Star Game fan-voting every year?Only this year, “It’s different”, this year the fans are out “to get” the MLB – designating all these undeserving All-Stars on the 2006 rosters.
The only thing that I find any different about this year is the amount of complaining.It’s doubled – at least.It’s what every trendy baseball-know-it-all is complaining about these days.It’s on the radio – on ESPN.Hasn’t anyone noticed the complainers are fans themselves?Do they realize that fan voting has been around as far back as 1947?And, somehow, it’s just starting to create problems now?
To understand the present, one must take a look into the past.The MLB All-Star game as been around since 1933; originally, the manager selected his entire team, however, in 1947, fan-balloting was introduced.This lasted until 1957, when a Cincinnati newspaper began printing pre-marked ballots for each position, which Reds fans used to congest the ballot-boxes.That year, Cincinnati Reds were elected to every position except first base and fan-voting was subsequently discontinued.From then, until 1969, only active baseball players and coaches could select the All-Stars.Fan voting was reinstated in 1970 and has been used to select the starting lineups ever since.
Let’s get one thing straight: No matter how many Red Sox, Yankees, White Sox, or Mets are in the 2006 lineups, no one is stuffing the ballot-boxes.Each fan has a limit of 25 votes online and has the opportunity to vote when he or she attends a Major League Baseball game.
Now that we’ve examined the past, let’s get to the present complaints and use our knowledge of the past to determine the validity of them:
One Representative from Each Team:
Since the early days of the All-Star Game, a rule has existed that each-and-every Major League Organization must be represented by at least one player.Because of this rule, Mark Redman of the Kansas City Royals who possesses a record of 5-4 with a pitiful ERA of 5.59, was selected to the All-Star roster.Why would such a silly rule exist?One has to consider that when the rule was put into effect, each league consisted of only 8 teams – at the time, one player from each team was quite reasonable.Now, the National League contains 16 teams in conjunction with the American League, which has 14.And while the number of teams has nearly doubled, the roster-size has only increased from 26 to 35.The rule was quite valid then, but in the expansion-era, perhaps the rule should be changed.One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if a team isn’t represented, much of its fan-base will be lost as far as viewing goes.
Validity: Legitimate
The Fans are Ruining the All-Star Team:
This is one of the complaints that really gets to me.Firstly, the one doing the complaining is almost always an ascending fan who thinks he knows-it-all.Secondly, the argument is unsubstantial and doesn’t support the facts.One must realize that the fans only vote for the starting lineups, nothing more.Only eight-out-of-the-thirty-five players, or 22.8% (if you want to be technical), of the players are elected by the fans.If one is unhappy about the All-Star Team, he or she should be blaming the managers or the players, who appoint the other 77.2% of the team.What’s more, the eight who are decided-upon by the fans would most-likely be selected by the manager anyways.
Validity: Nonsensical
Representatives Should Be Selected by the Players:
Some believe that the players are the most qualified to select the All-Star representatives.What these people do not understand is that players compete with their teammates – most teammates are friends, and would vote for one another no matter their credentials.In fact, AJ Pierzynski publicly stated that he voted for each-and-every-one of his teammates at their respective positions – is this who we want to be deciding our All-Star rosters?I think not.
Validity: Invalid
Representatives Should Be Selected by the Managers:
Much like the above, this argument can be solved by simply looking at one of the current managers.Ozzie Guillen selected 6 of his own players – some of whom were, perhaps, undeserving.Mark Buehrle, among those selected by Guillen from the White Sox, is 9-5 with a 3.86 ERA and 1.31 WHIP, while Curt Schilling of the Red Sox is 10-3 with a 3.63 ERA and a 1.10 WHIP – you tell me who is more deserving.Again, in the case of managers, friendships and loyalties are involved – the managers want to reward their players, especially after having won the World Series.
Validity: Invalid
Red Sox and Yankees Are Over-Represented:
One of many new rules being discussed is to limit the number of players from each team.What we know is, media markets affect loyalties and fan-bases.Obviously, more fans follow the New York Yankees than the Kansas City Royals; but if one is to argue that the one-player-from-each-team rules is invalid, he or she must submit to the consequences.If the aforementioned rule is removed, the probability of big-market teams being heavily-represented is increased substantially.But such should be expected.Large states have more Representatives than smaller and have more electoral votes – it’s democratic.No matter who appoints the players, such trends will be seen.
Validity: Plausible
Deserving Players are Left-Out:
This is true for just about any sport’s All-Star game.I could go through a list of 30 players who were probably deserving of an All-Star spot and will not receive one – but, there are only so many spots on the roster.As noted before, the increase in teams (and thus, players) and All-Star spots is disproportional – players will be left out, it’s inevitable.
Validity: Valid, yet Accepted
Overall, this year’s All-Star Game was decided the same way they have been decided for the past 35 years. And until something as significant as the 1957 Reds ordeal occurs, there is no real need to change the All-Star Voting System.
"Although Grimsley has never referred anyone to the source he got from [an undisclosed MLB player], Grimsley stated that he is sure that 'boatloads' of players in baseball use this same source."
This was one of many implications that Jason Grimsley, the now former-Arizona Diamondback, made to Special Agent Jeff Novitzky in a recent affidavit. Released to the press with black ink covering each and every name contained in Grimsley's conversation, the affidavit is a wake-up call to the MLB and fans around the world. This is the beginning, and perhaps the end of the Human Growth Hormone (HGH) Era.
How many names did Grimsley divulge? Let's just say that Novitzky had a lot of scratching out to do -- the pages are literally drenched in black ink. And yes, I did say pages -- with an 's' -- that's plural. Could this conversation be the inception of mass-suspensions in baseball, possibly even jail time? It's a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
Grimsley's comments serve only as a confirmation of the conceptualizations which have been sitting in the back of the minds of thousands of baseball fans. And what may ensue could be catastrophic for baseball and its players.
Among other things, Grimsley recollected a conversation he had with four other baseball players about "how they were going to play the baseball season next year when Major League Baseball banned the use of amphetamines and began testing for them."
I can't say that I know Jason Grimsley, but those who do have relentlessly noted that he was a nice guy -- good at heart, someone who was engulfed in controversy and didn't know how to get out of it. This is the government we're talking about here, not the MLB. They're not trifling with us -- it's not just suspensions that are at risk here, it's possible jail time.
It will be interesting to see how the MLB handles this. They seemingly brushed off BALCO after pursuing the trial of Victor Conte rather than the players involved -- the rest was blamed on Barry Bonds. But this situation is deeper, and potentially more devastating. Grimsley is a guy who has played for the Phillies, Indians, Royals, Angels, Yankees, Orioles and Diamondbacks -- his connections don't lack in variety.
What the MLB has to do is take the initiative and start taking blood samples from every MLB player. There exists no current test for HGH, but when we do come up with a test, at least they'll be prepared. Such a test would instigate fear into the seemingly invincibility that players feel like they have when it comes to HGH and perhaps, start to rid the game of a dangerous drug.
-"Why is it that, as of recent, the Detroit Pistons have become the trendy pick to win the NBA Championship? How could any favorite be tied with Cleveland?"
-"Barry Bonds is now suffering, as he should be, since he has stopped using steroids."
-"What were the statisticians thinking when they selected Steve Nash as the MVP of the NBA?"
-"How can Mike Lowell be leading the league in doubles and hitting .326? What a sleeper pick for the Red Sox! He batted only .236 last season. They were just thinking they would pick up his contract, and they ended up a with a superstar, amazing!"
-"Terrell Owens has no chance of succeeding in Dallas, he will tear that franchise apart."
-"Vince Young will not succeed in the NFL because he does not have the correct arm-slot."
-"The Texans made the biggest draft mistake in the history of the NFL by not selecting Reggie Bush."
-"The World Baseball Classic was a complete failure and subsequently led to the injuries and bad-performances of several MLB batters and pitchers. It was never really a serious competition anyways."
It has always been beyond me why people become so vulnerable whenever they turn on the TV. How can one person seem so open-minded in the office, and so feebleminded in front of a television set?
I am a very talkative person and whenever the topic of sports is brought up, I love to state my opinion. The other day, I sat alongside some of my friends, trying to convince them that the Mavericks weren't going to win the series against San Antonio in 5 games -- and I realize that this result remains-to-be-determined, just bear with me. But my friends, just being the home-town fans that they are -- which I respect in them, wouldn't even consider my logic as rational. Later that day, I sat with the same group of friends -- this time, though, I tried to convince them that hatred of Barry Bonds was unwarranted. Once again, they abstained from accepting my reasoning -- this is just how my friends are, they make up their minds, and they stick with it. No matter what I say, they will still believe in their own conceptualizations of sports -- and, as I stated stated before, that's respectable.
The following evening, I was with this very group of friends (and I know you're thinking, "Do you have any other friends?"); but this time, we sat in front of a 60-inch television, SportsCenter in HD showing on the screen and blasting through the surround-sound speakers (any ESPN fan's dream). And what I heard amazed me. As Stuart Scott and Neil Everett went down the list of current hot-topic sports news and brought in outside analysts to hear various opinions, my friends sat in awe. After what seemed like every sentence, one of my friends would comment on how much he "agreed" with whatever came out of the mouth of the diverse group of sports analysts. It even came to the point where, for a couple of minutes, they were praising Barry Bonds after a comment by Joe Morgan that Barry was a "sensational athlete".
The same friends who seemed so logical in their reasoning, and so decisive in their views of sports were hypnotized by something as insignificant as an episode of SportsCenter. What is it about the television that impairs the judgement of so many people in the world? Why do we make such erronious statements as the ones stated above about topics we know little about?
Somehow, between selecting ESPN from the TV guide and turning off the TV itself, SportsCenter anchors are able to usurp our minds, manipulate our views on sports, invert our opinions, and turn a perfectly-nice guy into a self-proclaimed sports-genius a.k.a. Mr. Know-It-All. Whether it be the appeal of having sports-knowledge, or conforming with, what seems like, the entire world of sports-enthusiasts, these shows gain the following of millions of irreproachable minds throughout America and the world.
And the media's influence goes far-beyond the sports world, extending into politics, economics, and even morality -- we just can't seem to get enough of it.
But, luckily, it can all be fixed by simply thinking before accepting. This world could benifit perpetually by just turning off the TV. Maybe then we would see the real opinions of everyone around the world and in the sports universe. Unchanged, unaltered, unaffected, original opinions. Wouldn't it be great?
No more two-paragraph articles condemning Barry Bonds. No more constantly vacillating opinions. No more hasty generalizations on poor performances by players like Mike Lowell. No more articles where the writer plagiarizes a speech from SportsCenter on Vince Young's arm-slot and passes it off as their own. No more incessant hype about a college football player who is unproven in the NFL a la Reggie Bush.
Maintain an open-mind. Understand what you're viewing. Challenge everything that you hear. And, most importantly, have your own opinion. Just because the entire FoxSports blogging communtiy, all of the ESPN anchors and analysts, as well as the sportswriters from around the nation think one way, doesn't mean that you should too. It's an rudimentary principle, yet one often forgotten. One thing that everyone can respect is a little bit of originality.
The elevator jerked to a halt and the doors flung open to reveal a pack of waiting journalists. Met with a quick glance, even a slight nod from some, Alexander Rivers squeezed himself in the back of the elevator. He clinched his fist around his mini-notepad, straightened his tie and held back a smirk as the mass of reporters joined him in the elevator. Today was his day -- the day of his first big story, the beginning of what he hoped would be a long career of sportswriting.
Each successive reporter stepped into the now tightly-packed confines of the elevator almost methodically, their suits unbuttoned, their ties undone, their briefcases in hand. The doors closed, and the elevator began to rise. The numbers carved into the steel of the elevator overhead began to illuminate in sequence while the group of men below stared, with sheer anticipation of the stop which awaited them.
Once again, the elevator slowed, and without warning, jolted and the doors slid to the side and a gust of wind rushed over the quickly exiting journalists.
Alex followed closely behind, until he found himself in front of a double-door guarded by an old man. Alex flashed his press pass to the guard and promply
yanked on the door handle and there, in front of him, lied SBC Park -- the fans roaring as Barry Bonds stepped up to the plate, in search of his 714th home run.
The air was cool that afternoon, the wind blowing steadily out towards right-center field. He stood in the on-deck circle, scanning the crowd, who payed no attention to the game -- but instead had their eyes fixated on the man standing, waiting for his chance to bat.
"Strike three," the umpire wailed, and with a flick of his wrist, the batter scamperred back to the dugout and Barry Bonds made his way to the batter's box.
His job was simple: Swing a piece of wood and make contact with a ball which is to be thrown by the pitcher, but these swings meant more. Today, Barry Bonds stood, face-to-face with the great Babe Ruth.
Bonds held his hand up to the umpire and dug his feet into the ground, tuning out the crowd and concentrating on the pitcher as he did. A silence followed as the pitcher stared in, received the sign from his catcher, and stepped back into the wind-up.
The pitch was delivered, and Bonds knew what was coming. He took his signature jab-step and, with every ounce of power left in his withering body, smacked the ball into deep right-center field and began his trot around the bases.
Alex watched in awe as the ball sailed over the fence and into McCovey Cove and the room lit-up with excitement. He drew his cell-phone from his pocket and scrolled through his phone-book and pressed the 'talk' button.
"Newsroom," the voice on the other end of the phone squealed into the receiver.
"Bonds just hit 714," Alex exlaimed with excitement, "I'll have the story on your desk by 11."
"Perfect, and make sure you finish up your article on Bryant," the voice reponded, and with a click, the line went dead and Alex lowered his phone.
He hadn't really started the article on Kobe, but was confident that after he inteviewed Bonds, he would still have time the next day to get a quote from Bryant.
Alex had never been a Bonds fan -- as a matter of fact, he disliked Bonds. He had read all of the stories, kept up on the grand jury case, read Game of
Shadows -- but this was history. And although Alex renounced Bonds' accomplishements and despised Bonds for his cheating in the game of baseball, Alex realized the importance of his story to the newspaper.
Bonds sat at the back of the locker-room, readying himself for the short trip home. Alex approached him apprehensively, "Excuse me, Mr. Bonds?"
"Get a life kid, if you're hear to ask me about hitting homeruns and juicin' up on steroids, forget about it," Bonds mumbled, his back to Alex, zipping up his athletic bag and starting towards the door.
Alex hesitated -- he didn't want to come off as unprofessional. "Please, Mr. Bonds, just a few questions," he said with increasing volume, trying to stop
Bonds before he exited the room -- but it was no use. Bonds continued out the door, raising his left hand as he left, as if to say good bye, although he never turned back towards Alex.
Alex had tried to contact Barry all afternoon, extending his efforts into the night; and, alas, only one number remained uncrossed-out. The screen of his computer monitor was the only light-source in the now dark room. Scattered all over his desk were contact numbers, letters, email addresses -- all of which should have gotten him in contact with the great slugger, none of which succeeded in doing so. The screen was blank, an open Word document the only item open on the screen, the underscore flashed, seemingly waiting for something to print on the screen -- but Alex didn't move.
He leaned back in his office chair, enjoying the soft feeling of the leather against his back -- after all, barring a miracle, he wouldn't be enjoying leather much longer. He ran his hand through his greasy hair in deep thought.
"If only he wouldn't have taken steroids," he muttered to himself, "Cheaters! They always have someone to blame, always have an excuse. You'd think he would have thought about the bright career in front of him before he decided to start juicing. What kind of #### would cheat at baseball?"
But his complaints did him no good, the underscore flashed unceasingly, and the screen remained blank. He jolted forward, picked up the phone and dialed the last number. He felt somewhat guilty for calling the guy at home, but quickly recuperated himself with the thought of steroid injections.
"Hello," Bonds said quietly on the other end.
"Hi, Mr. Bonds, I'm the reporter that you told to 'forget about it' earlier today," Alex responded.
"You got nerve calling me at my house at this time of night, my little girl's sleepin' man."
"I understand, Mr. Bonds, and I apologize, but would it be too much of a hassle to answer one question?"
"Yes. As a matter of fact, it would be a hassle -- so you have a good night."
"Just tell me, how did it feel to match Ruth's total," Alex offered, in a final attempt to get something -- anything -- out of Bonds.
"It felt great. Happy now? Goodbye," Bonds scolded in a sarcastic tone and hung up the receiver.
Alex sighed, it wasn't much, but it would have to do -- at least he would get one of his articles completed. But by now, it was too late to try to get a quote from Kobe, and no matter how great his Bonds article might be, he would still most likely be fired for missing the deadline -- or so he thought.
He stared at the screen. The flashing cursor. The blank screen. He glanced around the room, as if he expected to find someone, watching over him. Slowly he leaned into the computer and reached for the mouse. The cursor scrolled to the bottom left-hand corner of the screen and clicked on the small Internet Explorer icon on the toolbar. Into the address bar he typed 'www.google.com' and clicked enter. Up popped the land of opportunity that was the Google search engine and into the 'search' box, he typed 'Kobe Bryant'.
Alex stepped into the newsfloor and briskly walked towards his cubicle in the center of the room. But before he could take a seat, a yell from across the room caught his attention, "Rivers!" There, in the doorway of his corner office, stood his editor, who motioned towards Alex.
The door slammed behind him as he entered the office.
"Take a seat," Sal, his overbearing editor said, offering Alex one of the chairs in front of his mahogany desk.
"I got a call earlier today. A woman. She claims that you didn't write that article about Bryant. Is this true?"
"What are you saying? You think I plagiarized it," Alex shot back.
"I won't rule it out," he paused, "Look kid, we all make mistakes -- you just have to suck it up and move on, just tell me the truth, and I'll see what I can work out."
Alex's stomach dropped. The image of the article he had copied flashed in his mind. There was no way out of this one. He should just confess. Yeah, that's what he'll do, everything will be okay.
"The truth is -- I wrote that article. I would never plagiarize anything! That's outrageous!"
"Were you at the game last Wednesday, like you said?"
"Of course, I interviewed Kobe and wrote the article on Wednesday. I told you that before!"
"I checked with Avis and Hertz, they don't have any record of you renting a car that day."
"They were closed, I went to another place."
"Alex, you and I both know that's ####, just tell me the truth."
All of what could have been -- what would have been. All wasted. His life's work, demolished overnight. And there he was, he hands clenching the railing, glaring down thirty-stories to the street that awaited below. He climbed over the railing, and turned around, fitting his feet between the bottom of the railing and the concrete balcony.
As he turned back towards his apartment, the shadow of a man startled him -- almost causing him to lose grip, but he recovered to see his editor, Sal, standing inside his apartment.
"How'd you get in here?" Alex shot at Sal.
"Your door was open."
"What do you want?"
"C'mon, Alex, it was just a mistake -- we all make them, just come back over here and we'll figure this whole thing out."
"Just stop it. You think you understand them don't you?"
"What do you mean?"
"Cheaters. Barry Bonds. Alexander Rivers," Alex replied, "You think you have us figured out. But you don't."
"Apparently not," Sal scorned, pointing at Alex's position on the other side of the railing.
And for a second, you could have heard a pin drop on the other side of town as Sal gazed into the eyes of Alex. Alex dropped his head and started laughing.
He looked back up at Sal, and continued to laugh. Trying to lighten the mood, Sal joined in. But their eyes remained the connected, trying to extrapolate anything out of the mind of one another.
Today was his day -- the day of his first big story, the beginning of what he hoped would be a long career of sportswriting. Mark sat at his computer, the image of the late Alexander Rivers on the screen.
He smirked, "What kind of #### would cheat at sportswriting?"
It's all about the mistakes. The mess-ups. The people who give sports a bad name. It's about the fans who pay more attention to the media than they do their own families.
It's about the boo-ing. It's about the superciliousness. The willingness of one corrupted man to look straight-in-the-eye of another corrupted man and have the ignorance to laugh.
Why is it that we love controversy so much? Is it our own self-consciousness that makes it feel right to laugh in the face of those who do wrong?
We've all made made mistakes before. But what gets lost in the media's translation is forgiveness. You don't have to like Barry Bonds -- but why must you hate him?
It's human nature to think "that'll never happen to me." We brush off our worries and our greatest fears by simply saying "it will happen to somebody else." But like anything else, it's always going to happen to someone else, until, one day, you're the one in the car accident, you're the one pulled over for speeding, you're the one who kills someone because you were "a little bit drunk" behind the wheel.
Take the initiative to put Barry Bonds aside. If he did take steroids, justice will be served -- he will pay the price, but you're not the tax collector, and it doesn't concern you. Let fate take its course.
We'll always be remembered for our mistakes -- but judge others less by the ones they make, than by how they handle them.
Philanthropy. A word that, all-of-a-sudden, seems to define our sports society -- if an athlete isn't an active supporter of man-kind, he shouldn't be an athlete. And now, our new-found society of baseball philanthropists are concerned about whether or not the MLB Record Book is up to moral-standards. Fear not, good Samaritans, for your record book is in the good hands of Charles Darwin.
Records are meant to be broken -- and as cliché as that might sound, it is nonetheless, a truism. But, even with the mass-acceptance of this concept, there are those who still insist upon calling certain records "unbreakable". In an article I recently read, a writer (whose name I will not mention) deemed five records as "unbreakable". And let me point out that this writer is an excellent one, his success as one would blow that of myself into an oblivion; so I will politely disagree.
One of these "unbreakable" records, according to the writer, is Babe Ruth's single-season mark of 119 extra-base hits. But how can one call this record "unbreakable" if it has been both threatened in recent-memory and is on-pace to be broken this year. Apparently, this writer hasn't heard of Albert Pujols, who is on-pace to hit 85 HR's this season -- and while Albert probably will not pile-up 85 homers, it isn't ludicrous to think that he could reach into the 70-80 HR range. If Albert were to hit 69 home-runs this season and match last year's league leader in doubles, he would tie Ruth's record -- this isn't even considering the possibility of more than 70 home runs or even one, single triple. And take note that this very same author deems Albert Pujols "capable" of hitting more than 74 HR's this year -- meaning that if he matched his seasonal-average in doubles (46) and triples (2), he would break Ruth's record by 3 extra-base hits (122). His article seems a little bit contradictory if you ask me -- and not just because of Albert's superb hitting ability, but for the simple reason that it defies the common-logic stated above.
The aforementioned prodigious philosopher/scientist, Charles Darwin, calls it natural selection -- survival of the fittest. As our species continues to develop, our abilities do just the same -- it is for this reason that there is no record that is insurmountable. If one human was capable of setting it, another is capable of breaking it -- it's pretty simple.
No one has to worry about asterisks -- they won't be there for long. This whole idea -- asterisks in the record books -- has been blown way out-of-proportions. Every record that Barry Bonds sets can and will be passed someday; those who try to act as if they were the ultimate humanitarians by saying they want to put an asterisk by Barry Bonds' name in the record book are either being over-protective or are just submitting to media pressure. Asterisk-or-not, Barry Bonds will hold his records for an unknown period of time.
And some would say, "It's not the records I'm worried about, it's the hall-of-fame, he doesn't deserve to be in the hall-of-fame," but their perturbation is unwarranted. Not-just-anyone can go online and vote for the Hall-of-Fame like they can for the All-Star Game -- there is a select group of individuals who do so, to ensure that those who vote are knowledgeable of the game. They don't need an asterisk next to Barry Bonds' name to know of the controversies that surround him -- believe me when I say that those with a Hall-of-Fame vote are already thinking about what they are going to do when the name Barry Bonds shows up on the ballots.
I understand your concerns, the anxiety that surrounds the breaking of a record which you and I have cherished for many years -- but the breaking of records is natural, and is imminent. Worry not, for records will be broken, and re-broken as long as the game of baseball still exists -- just sit back and enjoy what you can, because, one day, the time will come when your baseball-watching days will be over. And at least then, you'll be able to look back and see what new records have been set and what old records have been broken.
By now, most of you are probably outraged by the title of this article; just hoping to find more reasons why you don't agree with what you're reading. But, if only for a few minutes, put down the Sports Illustrated magazine, put your personal copy of Game of Shadows back on the shelf, turn-down the SportsCenter re-run, close the internet-window with the steroids article pulled up, and open your mind. It's okay, you can "Google-it" again right after you're done reading -- I promise. Now, close your eyes.
Gotchya. And for those of you who really did close your eyes, don't feel bad -- it's just a little comic relief. Remember? You're supposed to be mad! Go back and read the title again, then you can continue reading.
Barry Bonds. And I know -- you cringe whenever you read that name; you're supposed to. Think about him for a second. What goes through your mind when you read that name? Do you see the big, bulky figure of an African-American male with the high-pitched voice and slightly disproportional face? Don't lie -- you do. Doesn't that just make you mad? His head grew so much! He put on 30-pounds for God's sake! You've seen the pictures -- you know, the ones where one side is anorexic-looking Barry in the early-90's and the other is cumbersome Bonds hitting #700. Why can't everyone see that the man took steroids?
Now let's back up for second and look at what you just did. And for those of you who were livid when you read the title of this article -- don't try to act innocent. You're so close-minded that when you see a picture of the guy, you just know that he took steroids. You see him as an African-American -- and, no, I'm not saying that the whole reason that people are after him is because he's black. But, it's just like anything else. When you see a homeless man on the streets, you're not thinking about going up to him and having a happy-conversation. It's called stereotyping. But I've got good news! I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance be switching to Geico (comic-relief reoccurring theme). But seriously, there is good news: You're not the one doing the stereotyping. You're just letting the media make that adjudication for you. It's okay, however, you can still be saved from the ever-enlarging swamp that is the mass-media. The Truth Shall Set You Free.
So let's just admit it -- just put it on the table. We all like Barry Bonds. C'mon, I know you do -- but it's okay, we're all friends here, you can admit it; we won't make-fun of you. The first step in facing a fear is acceptance. And to fully accept your fear, you have to talk about it. So just say it: You are enjoying every last second of this home-run chase. When Barry Bonds hits #715, you're going to crack-a-smile and, in twenty years, you'll be able to tell your kids (or grand-kids) what you were doing when Barry Bonds passed Babe Ruth. You love the controversy -- all of the articles about why you should root for Bonds, and then turning to page to find the next sportswriter writing about why Barry Bonds should be banned from baseball. If you can admit that -- you're one step-ahead of most of the American public, who is so sucked-in by the media that they can't even tell what's real, and what's hype. And if you can't -- well -- then you're still afraid, and you may never face-your-fear.
Nothing makes me laugh more than someone who writes an article about how tired they are of reading all the articles about Bonds. I can't think of a better oxymoron. Here they are, taking cheap-shots at everyone who writes article about Bonds, and what are they doing? Writing yet another article about Bonds. Here's my question to them: If you're so tired of reading them, then why are you still reading them? And if you're not reading them, then how do you know what the article is about?
I'm going to ask you to try something for a second, and just bear with me. Imagine this hypothetical situation: Let's say that it's no longer Barry Bonds who's chasing Ruth; but, instead, it's Albert Pujols. Yeah, there are some scandals floating around him -- he did play during the Steroid-era in baseball, but there's no solid proof. And besides, when you're chasing Babe Ruth's record, the most revered record in baseball, there are going to be some questions raised -- it just comes with the territory. But, at the end of the day, you have to give the guy the benifit-of-the-doubt -- Albert deserves the same respect as every other player in baseball. There's no more evidence to prove that Albert took steroids than there is for any other baseball player out there; I mean, he never failed a drug-test. And maybe -- just maybe -- Albert was just in the wrong-place at the wrong-time with the whole BALCO scandal. We don't have any reason to doubt him. Either way, we, as American citizens, hold Albert Pujols to the same standards as we hold any other American -- innocent, until proven guilty.
Now, let's change gears for a second -- and, like I said, just try to bear with me here. This time, imagine that it's not Barry Bonds chasing Babe Ruth's record, it's you. You've worked hard your entire career -- you've gone through an intense workout-regiment to get to where you are; one home run behind the all-time-great, Babe Ruth. And now, right when you're on the brink of breaking the record that you've been waiting to have a shot at, people start accusing you of taking steroids. They're too apprehensive to just allow you to pass one of their most cherished records without first being able to accept you. And you know the truth: You never took steroids. You keep on trying to convince everybody, to ease their minds -- you even start up your own TV show, you allow cameras to follow you everywhere, documenting your every move, just hoping to prove that you never took steroids. But, alas, it's no use; you're one against a million, no one will believe you -- instead they chose to believe the media, which we all know is always reliable (sarcasm, comic-relief). So you, the most hard-working, diligent baseball player that you really were, go down in history as the most-hated player ever to grace the game.
There is something out there that is greater than the media -- and it is morality. Whatever Barry Bonds has done, whatever Barry Bonds has taken or not taken -- it's all between Barry Bonds and himself. Don't let the media dictate what you do in life -- you know what's right.
"Who is the girl in the dugout, with the long hair? What's going on here? You have got to be kidding me. Only player personnel in the dugout," said Keith Hernandez on the 22nd of April during the broadcast of a New York Mets game against the Padres at Petco Park in San Diego. And whether it was a case of sudden anger over Mike Piazza's shutout-shattering home run or a inner-belief which he had never voiced that fueled Hernandez spite of women in the dugout -- something or someone struck Hernandez as unsuitable in baseball terms. And that something or someone just happened to be a woman -- 33-year old, Kelly Calabrese, a massage the#### for the Padres, to be unequivocal. And so, the apparently bilious Hernandez felt it well-fit to communicate his opinion on the matter, "I won't say women belong in the kitchen. But they don't belong in the dugout."
Upon hearing these malevolent comments, SportsNet New York play-by-play commentator and Hernandez's broadcasting counterpart, Gary Cohen hinted to Keith that there could be "trouble brewing" around Hernandez's allegations. Keith, realizing the predicament into which he had embroiled himself, attempted to lighten the mood. "You know I am only teasing. I love you gals out there — always have," Hernandez professed, in a rather apprehensive tone.
Evidently, Keith was optimistic enough to believe that the millions of people listening to the broadcast wouldn't take the the statement as execrable. Noticeably perplexed by the fact that viewers were taking his comments seriously, Hernandez once again referred back to his second-inning attestation about women in major-league dugouts. "I stand by those statements. I think this is a man's game and I feel very strongly about it. And if anybody thinks when I made that comment about women being in the kitchen, and takes it seriously, well, get a sense of humor," he declared, in a final attempt to exonerate himself. However, this unconvincing endeavor to clear his own slate only implicated him further; and Hernandez, sat there, still flabbergasted by the viewers' opinions, and sighed into his open-microphone.
Needless to say, Keith wasn't going to get out of this one without an apology -- which is exactly what was transpired in his statement he delivered to the media the following Sunday. "In my discussion I made a couple of inappropriate comments," Hernandez said. "If I have offended anybody I sincerely apologize." However, he wasn't about to go slowly into the sunset -- he wasn't going to just let this involuntary apology mark his own hypocritical nature. No -- not him -- not Keith Hernandez. The former National League Most Valuable Player and All-Star first baseman wasn't just going to sit back while his own rectitude went up in flames. Accompanying his apology was a note, claiming that there existed a rule which permitted only the head trainer and assistant trainer to be in the dugout during game time. The following morning, Major League Baseball sent a notice to all major league teams refuting this assertion -- one member of the conditioning staff was, and still is, warranted to be in the dugout during all regluar and post-season games.
No more than five days later, in a Terrell Owens-like move, the Denver Nuggets suspended Kenyon Martin indefinitely for, what they call, "conduct detrimental to the team." Citing Martin's complaints about his playing time against the Clippers the previous day as the conduct to which they were reffering. And now, Mark Sanchez has posted a $200,000 bail after being arrested for charges of sexual assult of a female student. This, amidst all of the recent controversy surrounding sports -- the Duke Lacrosse team's rape charges, the Terrell O
