The Bonds Argument

I am a ballplayer; considered a line-drive power hitter. I know the benefits of exercise, the critical import of a highly disciplined exercise routine, and the enormous difference technology can make in what one hits. The last three words are the critical issue in my response about Barry Bonds (and please don't forget all the others who seemed to be doing steroids like Brett Boone, Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire, etc, etc. And how come we never hear about Griffey Jr and ARod considering how they were banging out 50 plus per year?). 'What one hits" means everything. Regardless of what one does with drugs, none have an effect on the critical issue of timing and hand/eye coordination. That takes God-given ability, intense training and the confidence that you can drive the ball every time you come to the plate. Barry has excelled as no one else ever has when it comes to putting the meat of the bat on the ball. How much did steroids contribute? Considering the distance his balls travel and his exercise regimen, probably little. The intangible is what effect more distance and strength did to his confidence. I refer to Brett Boone because he had (sudden) great performance and power (compared to earlier years) until steroid use was banned in baseball. Did he lose his ability due to the drugs or a loss of confidence? Did he even use drugs? His stats inflated as so many other major leaguers did - why? We used to talk about tight balls being the cause of the home run binge. The balls we use in softball are an excellent example of the difference between soft and hard balls. A softball rated at .375/.44 travels 330 ft. A softball rated at 500/50 travels 450 ft. I think before we put extraordinary talents like Bonds in the pillary we should reconsider the issue about the balls. Ruth's home runs saved the game after the White Sox scandal. How do we know the owners didn't arrange to tighten up the balls to get them flying out of the stadiums to pull the fans back in? That seems far more likely than the unfairness of lambasting Bonds every single day. Another point - steroids, Canseco and hot baseballs were a reality in the early 90's. Baseball, unlike the other sports, chose not to impose bans on the drugs. In effect, they were pressuring the players to accept the opportunity to drive the ball over the fence. In a game where one's salary is closely tied to statistics, didn't the steroid use become a competitive issue? Those who did had more power, hit more home runs, and got paid more. Players who resisted the drug use early on could easily have been seduced over the course of a decade during which pro baseball did nothing to enforce a no-steroid policy. The player's association is also to blame for resisting the request to have drug testing - they knew darn well that without the steroids the hr totals would drop - and so would the salaries. Let me wrap this up. The owners allow hot balls into the game and balls start flying out of stadiums. There are no bans on steroids and Canseco and some others demonstrate that if you can pack on an extra 20 or thirty pounds of muscle your average long ball will travel another 30 - 50'. For many players, it meant keeping the same batting average while 20 or 30 balls that used to fall short of the fence were suddenly going over. So with tight balls folks who were hitting 30 - 35 home runs were hitting 50 - 55. Add steroids and you have magnificent battles like McGwire-Sosa during '98 and that unforgettable show during the home run contest in Boston at the All-Star game ('98? '99? The contest was unforgettable, but the year was!). I am totally against the use of drugs for every reason and firmly agree that anyone now using them to enhance performance is dead wrong, worthy of expulsion from the game. But pointing fingers at the players from 1990 till 2003 for seeking every advantage while the game itself did not judge but rather rewarded the effects is equally wrong. Millions of dollars in income, positions on teams were at stake and the performance pressure was extraordinary. Sosa and McGwire, Inc., were raking in the benefits; why wouldn't everyone else want to ride the bandwagon? Everyone enjoyed the seasons they provided, but now the drugs are illegal and the past is water under the bridge. Bonds has tested clean repeatedly since '03 and for two years continued to put up astonishing numbers in spite of the ridiculous number of walks he was getting. Don't you guys get it? He is a phenom hitter - perhaps the best ever during a five year stretch - yet he suffers abuse that would cripple most of us. Don't like his attitude? Mad because he would not admit to steroid use? Get over it - I couldn't care less about his demeanor to the media. I only care about what he does on the field. His peers speak well of him, he is a popular teammate, and his contributions from his millions are, like many of his peers, generous. How many times were Gooden, Strawberry and their like forgiven? Bonds may have had his time of weakness but he has proven himself to be the man since and has held up under the crushing weight of irresponsible media pressure as well. He may be flawed -aren't we all - but he's been a great example of performance and determination when most others would have fallen away.