Bonds not so bad, By: Stephen Dawkins
May 01, 2006
Barry Bonds has become possibly the most hated player in baseball history.
For someone who is considered by most to be one of the best hitters the game has ever seen, the San Francisco Giants slugger is greeted at every ballpark except his own with a cascade of boos instead of cheers of appreciation for his feats. Bonds is heckled mercilessly in left field and even receives hate mail regularly.
Most fans hate Bonds because his assault on baseball's record books has been aided by steroids, which is pretty apparent even though he has never failed a drug test. The condescending attitude Bonds displays toward the media and the fans is icing on the cake.
Fans don't want to see Bonds break Babe Ruth's and Hank Aaron's home run records because they think Bonds' alleged steroid use gave him an unfair advantage over the two.
Baseball insiders are saying the late 1980s to 2005, when an MLB steroid-testing policy was implemented, will be remembered as the "steroid era," and the accomplishments of Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and others will forever be tainted. This may prove to be true, but, if so, will be a complete travesty.
The game of baseball has changed so dramatically over the years that it is impossible to say "steroid era" sluggers don't deserve recognition. Sure, Aaron and Ruth didn't use steroids, but they also didn't face pitchers who were on the juice.
If anything, the unbelievable amount of home runs in the past 20 years can be more effectively attributed to the shrinking size of new ballparks and the increasing tightness of the baseball itself.
So far, the most surprising thing about this season has been the fact that more home runs were hit in the first month than during any first month of the "steroid era."
Fans love to see the longball, and owners are giving them just that by building monstrosities such as Coors Field, Minute Maid Park, Citizens Bank Small Park in Philadelphia and the Great American Launching Pad in Cincinnati. Should Bonds refuse to play in these parks every year because other hitters in the record books never got to?
On an ESPN telecast last week, former pitcher Orel Hershiser talked about the difference in the baseball now compared to when he was breaking into the majors. For example, Hershiser said that, in the mid-1980s, a sharply hit baseball would actually flatten at the point of contact. Hershiser said you would never see that now because the balls are more consistent and wound more tightly.
This could be a conspiracy by baseball's leaders or simply the result of improved baseball manufacturing technology. Either way, the fact remains that baseballs are traveling farther. Should Bonds demand, for the sake of fairness, that baseballs be wound more loosely?
The importance placed on records are one of the things that makes baseball special to me, but, in the end, they are just numbers and should be put in the proper perspective.
So there was an era of the game's history that saw a large percentage of players using performance enhancing drugs. So what? Ex-players have said the use of amphetamines was prevalent as far back as the 1970s. Many pitchers set records by taking the mound during the "dead ball era."
Do they deserve punishment? Could the dirt on which Rickey Henderson stole 1,406 bases have been more firm than that Lou Brock and Billy Hamilton ran on? What about the special massages and improved injury treatment that today's players receive? The playing field is not, never has been and never will be completely level for every player in baseball history.
Steroids should be taken out of baseball because of the harm they can do to young players who see steroids as their only option and end up destroying their bodies.
But players who were caught using steroids or who have been accused of using steroids should not be eternally condemned. There should be no asterisks.
Stephen Dawkins will be a senior staff reporter for The Crimson White this summer.
