Media Frenzy Over Barry Bonds Gets Story Wrong, By:Randy Shaw

March 14, 2006, Beyond Chron

The Barry Bonds steroids story once again shows that the volume of media coverage can have little relationship to accurate reporting. The critical fact regarding the controversy---that Major League Baseball had no ban on steroids during the relevant period---has receded into the background even though the media accepted this argument when applied to Mark McGwire. Instead of the more fitting comparison to known steroid user McGwire, much of the media and fans are connecting Bonds to Pete Rose, whose betting on baseball did violate MLB’s laws. Some are even arguing that Bonds should be prevented from playing baseball because he violated a federal law requiring prescriptions for steroids, even though nobody questions convicted felon George Steinbrenner’s right to own MLB’s flagship team, New York Yankees. The media and public’s anti-Bonds slant is too disproportionate to the harm to be simply payback for his bad personality and hostility to the media, which is why Bond’s race should not be so quickly excluded as a factor in this controversy.

Contrary to what many local fans believe, the San Francisco Chronicle is not the only media outlet providing major, ongoing coverage of the Barry Bonds steroids story. Sportswriters across America are having a field day bashing Bonds, providing a surprisingly misleading and inaccurate account of the “scandal.”

For example, many of the stories have emphasized Kentucky Senator and Baseball Hall of Famer Jim Bunning’s view that Bond’s should be banned from baseball and his records expunged. But no story reported that Bunning’s mental competency has been in doubt since the eve of the 2004 election, when the Senator’s bizarre behavior almost cost him re-election in the solidly red state.

Bunning also has a history of putting down modern players, believing that their records diminish those who played with him in the “good old days.”

Bunning argues that it is irrelevant that MLB had not imposed an absolute ban on steroids when Bonds used them because both MLB and federal law prohibited their distribution without a prescription (MLB also required that players notify their team of their steroid use). But does anyone doubt that Bonds could have obtained such a prescription if necessary? Does anyone think that the Giants would have ordered him to stop taking steroids?

More importantly, does anyone believe that Bonds' compliance with MLB's prescription and notification requirements would have insulated him from attacks on the legitimacy of his performance?

Bunning and apparently most of America’s sportswriters appear to forget that committing a felony has never triggered a baseball suspension or the expunging of career records. The Commissioner of baseball has banned players, managers, and owners for the “good of the game,” but this is not triggered by a felony conviction.

Yankees owner George Steinbrenner was suspended from ownership for a whopping nine months for committing several felonies in making illegal campaign contributions to the re-election campaign of President Richard Nixon. Steinbrenner then was allowed to own the team as a convicted felon (he pled guilty) for thirteen years before being pardoned by President Ronald Reagan.

Bunning and sportswriters want to destroy Bonds’ career for using steroids without a prescription, but expressed no similar outrage when a convicted felon was allowed to own a Major League Baseball team. I did not see any article on the Bonds furor that even referenced baseball’s toleration of felonies committed by a wealthy Republican owner.

Another common falsehood permeating media coverage of Bonds is the supposed analogy between his conduct and that of Pete Rose.

Pete Rose bet on baseball, a clear violation of MLB rules. Those defending Rose claim he was never convicted of such action, ignoring that no trial was necessary because he signed a statement admitting to the offense.

Barry Bonds allegedly used steroids at a time when MLB did not prohibit their use, but only required that they be issued via prescription and that the player's team be notified. Bonds very well may have committed perjury in his grand jury testimony, and he may have violated federal law and the technicalities of MLB regulations by not getting a prescription, but whereas betting on baseball was clearly prohibited, taking performance enhancing drugs was not (which is why no testing of players occurred).

Does this sound like nitpicking? Well it sure didn’t come off that way when Mark McGwire’s steroid use was uncovered while he was still on the homerun chase in 1998.
The reporter who accidentally discovered steroids in McGwire’s locker was vilified by fans, while the sports media jumped to the slugger’s defense.

What was this defense? Steroids were not illegal in baseball.

The defense that got McGwire off the hook is now considered off-limits for Bonds.

When a much shrunken McGwire (his head was half the size of 1998) refused to discuss his steroid use in Congressional hearings last year (he stated he was there to “discuss the future, not the past), the media did not call for his 68 homeruns in 1998 to be removed from the record books. The sports establishment quickly moved on to other stories, and expressed sorrow at McGwire’s dismal performance at the hearing (Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa continued to insist McGwire never used steroids, as Mark was “not that type of guy”).

Longtime Giant fans might recall Gaylord Perry, a mediocre pitcher whose Hall of Fame career commenced when he began violating baseball rules by scuffing balls and guiding his pitches by putting Vaseline and other illegal substances on the ball. Perry had elaborate procedures to conceal his illegal conduct, and umpires would come up empty even after virtually undressing Perry on the mound.

After he reached the Hall of Fame, Perry revealed what everyone suspected: that he had cheated his way to 300 wins. Was Perry attacked for his dishonesty and corruption of baseball purity? No. Rather he was almost congratulated for his clever “country boy” ingenuity in figuring out how to violate baseball rules without being caught.

Nobody to this day has suggested that Perry be removed from the Hall or have his records expunged, even though his doctored balls gave him an advantage potentially even greater than Bonds achieved through steroids.

Perry’s offense was not the isolated sign-stealing or ball-scuffing of which many players partake---rather it was cheating as systematic and ongoing as taking steroids. And to this day the same people who want Bonds barred from the game have no problem with Perry in the Hall of Fame.

Barry Bonds answers media questions in such a bizarre, non-responsive fashion that he almost gives the impression of not being all there mentally. But Bonds is not stupid. His father played with Gaylord Perry, and Barry knows that people looked the other way as an obviously bloated Mark McGwire “saved” baseball in 1998 with his chase to beat Roger Maris’s homerun record.

Bonds’ Godfather, Willie Mays, resented the lack of endorsement deals he got compared to fellow New Yorker Mickey Mantle in the 1950’s. Henry Aaron always resented the lack of media attention to his achievements, and since retiring has publicly criticized what he perceives as MLB’s persistent racial discrimination against blacks.

Bonds now sees the media assault on him as reflecting a racist double standard, a charge the sports industry and fans are quick to reject. But neither McGwire nor Perry were chummy with the media during most of their careers, so race may well be the best explanation for the disparate media treatment of Bonds and his white colleagues.