Bond Issues

A terrifying glimpse inside the mind of a Bond's apologist. It's not, though, an uncommon attitude and, as usually, Mr. Yglesias argues the case well.

Just from my usual wanderings around the web, I've seen plenty of others making similar cases. There seem to be some basic, go to arguments when supporting Bond. Reasons why it's okay for Bonds to have juiced up in order to get more millions of dollars for hitting a ball around a patch of grass. Here are the one's I've noted:

1. Steroids weren't illegal/against league policy at the time.
2. Everyone else was juicing, too, so that makes it alright.
3. Baseball wasn't exactly clean in the past.
4. Steroids have no impact on hand-eye co-ordination, they don't help you hit the ball.
5. You're a dirty, dirty racist.

For the first point, I'm pretty sure that by the late 90s, steroids were a controlled substance, on one federal list or another, that meant you couldn't just walk up to the counter and buy them. While you could obtain the substance legally, if you really needed it, you could say the same for morphine or marijuana or any of a number of substances that are “illegal”. For that matter, although the league's steroid policy was toothless, they did, in fact, have a policy against their players using substances. But, okay, say there was absolutely no rule, no law, no guiding statute in place to prevent someone from shooting up with steroids. Does that make it right? Absolutely not because whether or not Bonds was legally justified is a separate issue than deciding whether what he did was right or wrong. It's a question of morality and that exists independently from the laws. Say you're in an anarchist state where there are no laws at all. So, technically, you can just walk up to someone and rob them but does that mean it's okay for you to do so? No, because it's still stealing. And maybe there aren't penalties for what Bond did because the law hasn't caught up to it yet or people just don't care enough. But it doesn't matter because it's still cheating.

The second point, that everyone was juicing so it doesn't matter, wouldn't fly with your pre-school teacher. As she'd tell you, just because everyone is jumping off a bridge, does that mean you should jump, too? Just because many other people are speeding down the highway, does that mean it's legal for you to floor it, too? Next time you get pulled over, try and see if the cop will let you out of a ticket because everyone else was going 90 mph and you were just following the speed of traffic. See how far that gets you. Everyone else speeding doesn't mean it's any more legal or right to speed, just that you're less likely to get caught. There hasn't been a smoking gun, incontrovertible proof, that Bonds used steroids, but he's been caught as red-handed as anyone can be – there are way too many coincidences, way too many opportunities, for him to do so, and the physical results seem to show he did (And don't give me any of that jive about how he didn't know what he was taking. Bonds is a professional athlete, more in tune with his body and his training regimine than 99% of the people out there. He knew what he was doing.). And the fact that there were a lot of other people speeding past as the ticket was being written out, so to speak, doesn't change anything.

The third point, that people have cheated in baseball since time immemorial is, likewise, unconvincing. Just because people have committed wrongs in the past, that means we can't hold anyone accountable now? Laughable. We can't correct old mistakes but that doesn't means we can't police matters in the present. If there have been wrongs committed then they need to be corrected. And we have to start somewhere. Much as I keep hoping, no one's managed to build a time machine yet so we can only deal with the circumstances of the present day.

The fourth point, that steroids don't impact the ability of someone to bat and, therefore, are irrelevant to the records Bonds has set is a bit trickier. For one thing, it's arguably true. Steroids, HGH, and whatever else Bonds might have imported into his blood stream are about bulking up not about improving hand-eye co-ordination. The problem there, though, is that Bonds was already a perfectly good hitter. A great one, in fact, from the time he entered the league. He didn't need to learn how to hit a ball, he needed the power to drive them out of the park. More importantly, steroids help speed recovery from injuries, which sounds like it would very much aid an older player trying to set a record that's about endurance more than anything. Either way, it's a bit of a moot point. Steroids did something to Bonds. That something is appreciable and different from what he would have been like without steroids, even if we can't tell exactly what it was. It doesn't matter exactly what it did, just that the drugs did it. And taking them was wrong. It's still cheating, even if they weren't that great of an advantage.

The fifth is the most troubling. People start accusing you of being Kenesaw Mountain and it's hard to do anything but sputter that you're not. And views on the Bonds issue do break down along racial lines. Whites overwhelmingly disapprove of Bonds. Blacks overwhelmingly support him. Which means not just that the overwhelming majority of people aren't happy with Bonds, but that there's a big, cultural divide here. And it stems from past prejudices and abuses that have sensitized the black community to such practices. I'm not saying that they're tilting at windmills here – I can only say that, for me, personally, it's not about the color of the man's skin nor even the content of his character, it's about whether he cheated or not – and drumming up an issue that doesn't exist. But I will say that the black community has learned that their best defense against such hatred is to scream and moan and circle the wagons. To raise a fuss, to put everyone else on the defensive, because that's the only way they get their views heard. I don't think it's warranted in this case (Or, really, when any multi-millionaire of color goes on trial. Like Michael Jackson or Vick or whoever. But, then, that's about the only time the news pays attention, isn't it? Still, I'd rather see that outrage saved for things like Missing White Girl Syndrome.) but I can see why someone can and would view it through that lens. Just as I'm sure that more than a few people do, in fact, disparage Bonds because of their bigotry. But, again, there's an objective standard here (did Bonds cheat or not?) that I'd hold anyone against – so, yes, I think MacGuire probably cheated as well and should be held in similar contempt - so namecalling doesn't phase me.

So, Mr. Yglesias and others making similar cases get my third Lloyd Bridges “Looks like I picked t week to quit drinking” Memorial Award (My second went out the other day when someone said impeachment was a tactically poor decision. But evil Scribefire ate that post and about a half dozen others that I don't have the time or desire to rewrite at the moment. Hence, it shall remain lost to the mists of time, for now.) for depressing me enough to seek self-medication. Take it away, Mr. Bridges:

Says it all, really.