Rob Parker: "Shame on Aaron for not being supportive of Bonds"

Saying what?
"A -- for accused in a book of using drugs that may or may not have been against the rules of his sport at the time."
Or
"S -- for scapegoat."

 

I don't agree with this rationale, and I'm surprised it's coming from one of the most rational people here. To me, it suggests that any notable athletic feat is acceptable, even if it came with some help.

Parker's column, to me, was built on one theory -- that Bonds is clean. Aaron is somehow not giving him his due. I don't know if Bonds is clean or not, but there seems to be enough evidence around to cast huge doubts on the validity of his accomplishments.

Interesting sidelight: My oldest son, who's a Little Leaguer and a big baseball fan who mainlines on ESPN News, said he's not interested in Bonds' march toward the record because Bonds "cheated." He arrived at that conclusion without any help from me.

I think he's in the vast majority, and Parker, who I don't think much of as a columnist, isn't. Calling him a coward is an attention-grabber, and it's wrong. Parker is making a faulty assumption that Aaron would rip Bonds if he wanted to take the platform. How does he know?

 

Do you really think George Mitchell's investigation is going anywhere? Maybe it will pleasantly surprise us, but I doubt it. And based on what we have now, I'm not sure it is appropriate for baseball to go so far as to put an asterisk on anything relating to Bonds.

And even if it is, it should not be done before putting one next to every single accomplishment of Gaylord Perry and every other player in the history of the game who we know cheated.

 

Yeah, I get it. Norm Cash is dead. RIP. His views on Bonds v. Aaron are still more credible than Sheffield's.

Hate to quibble with an otherwise perfectly good cartoon, but Bonds is left-handed ...

 

Oh, so now we're going to determine how bad the offense is by how effective the cheater was? Gaylord Perry was a Hall of Fame pitcher with the cheating. How do we know what he would have been without it? Maybe he would have sucked. Can you prove otherwise?

Maybe the numbers of players that have been using steroids really is as high as some have suggested. Maybe Bond really was just keeping up with his peers.

I'm not sure I believe that, but I honestly don't know. That is the problem here and the reason we can't judge these things as subjectively as you would like to. We don't have all the facts and most likely never will. So yes, given that, you do have to treat all cheating the same. Either wipe 'em all out, put asterisks on all of them or just let them be and accept the fact that some of the records of baseball are now tainted.

It sucks, but that is the reality we are faced with.

 

And don't be surprised if others think cheating is cheating. The overall effect on the game, to me at least, is not as important as what the particular brand of cheating did for the actual offender. Bonds was a Hall of Famer clean. I remember watching a still very skinny Bonds when he was the best player in the game in Pittsburgh. No, he never gets a sniff of Aaron or of 60 homers in a season if he stays clean, but I believe he still would have been a 500-500 guy and a Hall of Fame lock.

And by most accounts, Bonds was one of the people who turned to PED's because he saw so many others do it. It's not like he started baseball down that slippery slope. I think we've all read or heard the theory that he saw what McGwire and Sosa did and the acclaim they got for it and his ego just couldn't take it. He believed, most likely with good reason, that they were using PED's, so he decided it was time to do the same.

I buy that story for a couple of reasons, primarily because it fits in with the enormity that is the ego of Barry Bonds.

 

The thing that sets Bonds apart is that in his case, there is evidence against him beyond the inflated stats. The only thing I recall against McGwire was the andro in his locker and Jose Canseco's book. The only thing against Sosa was his corked bad (sort of a tangent, but cheating nonetheless, though to be fair, he was punished for it) and the Reilly column. The BALCO raid produced a plethora of documents linking Bonds to PEDs. The fact that he's about to break Aaron's record only adds to the angst.

The stuff about amphetamines is a null argument; Bonds, like everyone else in the game, was likely using those, too, but it can't be proven any more than it could for Aaron.

 

It became against the rules when they, you know, made a rule against it which he then broke. This, to me, does not seem that difficult a concept to understand. You cannot break a rule that does not exist. You can violate protocol, fail to live up to a tacit understanding, behave furtively as regards your profession, but none of those are cheating, no matter how many magic wands get waved out of the Grand Jury.

 

I am so freaking tired of people bashing Rob Parker. Can you do better? If you can, then write a damn column and quit criticizing. Some on here are so angry that they're not in the postion Rob is in. Get over it.
If you can do better, than do it. Otherwise, leave the guy alone.