In professional sports, the statistical measures of men are usually airtight alibis for any character flaws a participant may harbor. On film, on paper, in the mind's eye, Barry Lamar Bonds holds his own when viewed in light of standards set by the game's all-time greats.
Besides all this, baseball's history is a veritable stew of unsavory characters ... as such, many take to task any talk of asterisks or suspensions or any other compromising of Barry's accomplishments based on his personal life and any improprieties that may be exposed. This article examines just that argument.
Bonds' problems start and finish with his attitude. There isn't a baseball fan on this planet that can argue against Barry's entire body of work in the sport: 700 home runs, 1800 runs batted in, 500 steals, 500 doubles, .300 career average, 2000 runs scored — the pure numbers are as impressive a collection as any one man can boast. Just as true, however, is the notion that there also isn't a baseball fan on this planet that can argue for the man's behavior over the past 18 years. To this end, and since this is a story about baseball, we'll employ the "three strikes and you're out" theory to Barry and his standing with the public.
Barry's behavior is that of a person who feels a strong sense of entitlement. This, as one would imagine, tends to rub the "working man" the wrong way. Why, many wonder, should we bow down to the feet of this athlete, when it is ultimately our support and the support from our peers that pay for his Calvin Klein wardrobe, his Malibu dream home, and his gluttonous habits? How dare he challenge the standards we demand of him when it is us who made him into what he is today?
Strike one.
In recent months, Bonds has been brought to the forefront of the sporting world as a key figure in a scandal that threatens to tear the delicate threads of our "national pastime." Steroids have been a very real problem in professional sports for quite some time, but only now do we begin to see widespread use by teenagers trying to gain a competitive edge on the playing fields and courts of middle America.
As a result, the rose colored glasses through which we have chosen to view our country's pro sport leagues have been replaced by magnifying glasses, shedding a whole new light on once "untouchable" grounds within baseball clubhouses, dugouts, and private lives. What we are seeing is not at all reassuring, but we press on, diligently trying to right the wrongs that we have, until now, by and large ignored.
Mr. Bonds has, to say the least, refused to jump on and ride this wave of justice, choosing rather to make excuses, pin blame on others and not always being as candid about these things as we would have hoped. The feeling the public gets from Bonds is, "I don't intrude on your house and your personal affairs, why must you encroach upon mine?" Funny, we never heard him complaining when his visage was being beamed into millions of homes a day by way of commercial, ballgame, or televised interview. It seems rather hypocritical of him to demand his space and privacy now when the results may be far less appealing than a walk-off home run or game-winning RBI.
Strike two.
Over the last few weeks, further indiscretions in Barry's life have come to surface. Now is a good time to point out that everyone makes mistakes, the public accepts this and has always been steadfast in its support of legendary athletes, pretty much regardless of what habits they partake, so long as they didn't put themselves above the same laws that we are obligated to live by. As the saying goes, the only sure things in life are death, taxes, and the Cubs losing (okay, added that last one, but am I wrong?).
Well, it has recently come to light that Barry doesn't necessarily agree with that adage. It is becoming more and more apparent that tax fraud allegations that have surfaced and resurfaced over the past several years regarding Bonds and memorabilia sales are not as far off based as previously thought. With a federal investigation apparently taking place, the public now sees that this multi-millionaire who has difficulties taking responsibility for his own actions now seems to feel that, for whatever reason, he doesn't need to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is strike three. As with most "strike three" calls, Barry is out, at least in the public's eye. The story could end there, but it doesn't — Camp Barry has brought it further in an attempt to discredit his detractors. So now we are faced with a whole new set of issues.
Many fans of Barry and the Giants are crying foul for the public distaste shown Bonds throughout these ordeals. They, and even Barry to some extent, scream "racism" and "bigotry" and wonder aloud why Mark McGwire isn't subject to these same criticisms when he clearly is every bit as culpable for the onset of performance enhancers in baseball. This is an unfortunate argument in more ways than one.
Bonds has long been a very loud voice in the battle against racism in sports. For years he has regaled us with wonderfully touching stories of how he has been used and abused by "the system" and by white owners as they make millions of dollars from his very presence and then pinch every penny on its way out the door when it comes to doling out Barry's slice of that pie.
Of course, he told those stories as he lounged in his custom leather massage chair in the San Francisco clubhouse or as he climbed into his gold-plated Hummer and sped towards his 120-acre mansion atop his own private mountain. Thusly, we always took his comments on these issues with a grain of salt, but yet spoke of them with a bit of trepidation, for fear of awaking a dormant dragon of a story that none of us really wanted to try to slay.
Now we are forced to throw ourselves headlong into the path of the dragon, as race is clearly and unfortunately being brought into this conversation. Yes, Barry Bonds is a rich black man in a "white man's world." Without devolving into a political commentary here, there is no doubt that America's wealthy are predominately white males and that much of the country's inner cities are filled with minorities, particular those of African American ancestry.
Equally as clear is the fact that, while the playing field is evening, white men in positions of power still feel, by and large, superior to black men even if they have similar assets and resources. This is a travesty, but it is not the rule, but rather the exception. To that end, for Barry Bonds or any of his supporters to hide behind a curtain of racism whenever the "going gets tough" is not only a blatant misuse of a very serious and problematic reality, but it is a flat out untruth. Proof? Three words: Peter Edward Rose.
Pete Rose is as white as white gets. With his Mayberry haircut and unassuming facial features, he was blue collar in everything he did as a player and manager (disregard, for a moment, the gambling addiction — I'm talking on-field qualities here, I'll get to that other stuff later). Rose is one of four children from Cincinnati, lived his life in the city he was raised, and became synonymous with Ohio's working class values. As has been well-documented, Mr. Rose made some very large errors in judgment and then compounded said errors by lying and deceiving his fans, his accusers and the general public.
(For those of you who have been in a cave (or in a baseball void like Tampa Bay) for the past 10 years or so, Rose was accused of and found guilty of illegally betting on sporting events in the early-'80s, including his own games when he was manager of the Reds. After denying the latter of these facts for years, Rose finally publicly admitted as much in 2003 and seemingly took responsibility for his actions, though admittedly much, much later than any of us would have hoped.)
This is the extent of Pete Rose's improprieties, at least in regards to the legal side of things. He broke a law, paid his price to society, and now is required to pay is debt to the sport he disgraced. As a result, the all-time Major League Baseball hits leader is not in his sport's Hall of Fame. Never before has a player of his stature been levied such a stiff penalty. The accolades that Rose earned playing baseball have, rightly or wrongly, forever been tainted by his off-field actions. Statistical excellence be damned, Rose has not yet been given his due, and, at least in my opinion, for good reason. He felt he was above the game and he learned through swift and effective punishment, that he was not.
Did Pete Rose get special treatment based on his race? As my Magic 8-Ball says, "All signs point to no." "Charlie Hustle" was found guilty of sports gambling, which is against the law here in the U.S. If he hadn't bet on baseball — specifically games in which he was involved — he'd likely be in the Hall of Fame today next to other unsavory stars of yesteryear like Mickey Mantle (alcoholic), Babe Ruth (pandering and partying), and Ty Cobb (general evildoer). But in disgracing and disrespecting the game that defined him, he broke the "golden rule." The punishment must fit the crime.
In comparison, is Barry Bonds getting a raw deal because he is black? The facts imply otherwise. Put it in perspective: Bonds may well have broken the law of the land on two separate, very clear occasions. Steroids are illegal, as is the use and sale of THG. It is possible that Bonds not only was a user, but enabled other users (see Gary Sheffield), which would make him a trafficker or accessory, as well. Add to this federal tax evasion charges, and Bonds could wind up being a two-time offender of some big-time illegal activities.
Now, all of that is well and good, the man may be ilk to the afore-mentioned "ne'er-do-wells", but this shouldn't and wouldn't take away from his accomplishments or standing in the sport. However, since the tax issues are based on an opportunity afforded Bonds by Major League Baseball and since his [alleged] steroid use is something that will have negatively affected the standing and reputation of professional baseball, the similarities to Rose are clear and inarguable and, as was the case with Pete, the punishment must fit the crime.
I'll be the first to admit that Major League Baseball used to clearly see colors and weigh that into any discussion, but Jackie Robinson broke through that barrier and Hank Aaron tore it down. To be sure, remnants still exist, especially in those areas where the wall was the thickest. Likely, there will always be such remnants. But the wall is low enough now for most to step over it.
It is a shame that Barry Bonds and his supporters are trying to add mortar to that wall so that he has a place to hide. Three strikes and you're out, Barry. Black, white, red, or yellow, those are the rules of the game.
May 10, 2005
Jeff:
“(U)nsavoury stars of yesteryear like Joe DiMaggio (alcoholic)…” You meant Mickey Mantle, no?
That said, two further questions, neither of which are intended in any way to acquit Bonds of being a jackass on those occasions (perhaps too many) when he has been one:
1) Aside from the point that the “strong sense of entitlement” Barry Bonds seems to feel may hold hands with a very possible strong sense of wanting to get even with the game he may think done his daddy wrong, since when is Bonds either the only or the most ostentatiously shameless in a sense of “entitlement” about the rewards he has reaped from his baseball play?
And,
2) Leaving aside however he does or does not play the blame game, why on earth should even his space or privacy be begrudged, merely because he happens to receive exposure enough when he performs the specific tasks of his chosen profession, on the field or astride it? Are you suggesting that they who accept broad exposure on or astride the field of their profession are obliged to accept it away from the field?
(Try an example I have posited myself from time to time, as the occasion arose to justify it: How would you like it if your job included your performing it in front of an audience which seems to believe the price it paid to watch you do your job entitled them to attack you when you make even a single mistake while doing your job? And, how would you like it if said audience claims a right to be invited into your home and into your “personal” affairs merely by dint of having paid admission to see you doing your job? It does not, by the way, imply that you lead or attempt to lead a less than exemplary life away from your job, if you should believe that such an audience has no damned business, really, involving itself with anything else but your job if it pays its way in to see you do it.)
P.S. You cannot be banished from baseball for failing to pay your taxes, to the best of my knowledge, never mind that there is no proof yet that Bonds has failed to do so. There are reasons enough why gambling is baseball’s Original Sin but tax evasion is not, and perhaps they only begin with the points that a) the outcome of no baseball game ever rode on whether or not Pitcher A or Pinch Hitter B shenked his taxes; and, b) when all is said and done Frank Chodorov was right when he said, “Taxation is nothing more than organised robbery, and there the subject ought to be dropped.” If Barry Bonds is guilty of tax evasion, for better or worse the State will deal with him far more severely than anything or anyone else ever will, as the State always does to those who stand athwart her presumption of first claim upon a man’s property.
May 11, 2005
Matt Thomas:
Great comments Jeff! I generally wouldn’t respond to comments on one of my articles, but in this case I feel it is appropriate.
The point of my story was not to impeach Bonds as the sole malcontent in baseball. There have been many and will be many more, and I had hoped to express just that with my reference to a few of the past greats (and yes, that should have read Mantle…had DiMaggio reference in an earlier paragraph that I later edited out and I must have got my wires crossed…appreciate the “catch”). But it should be reiterated that this sense of entitlement Bonds seems to have goes all the way back to his high school days…hard to attribute that to a vendetta against the game that “did his daddy wrong”. I don’t think there is much argument that Bonds is universally known as one of baseball history’s most vocal and most surly malcontents, especially in his dealings with fans and the press.
That takes me to your second point, which has to do with the scrutiny he receives. If I was paid a couple of hundred thousand dollars A DAY, I would expect much scrutiny. In America, you cannot have it both ways, this is a universal truth. If you are a star on tv or the big screen or in the arenas of our land, you have now put yourself in a position to where the country’s children will look to you for guidance. That said, as is the case with our teachers and our civic leaders, we hold you to a much higher standard both publicly AND privately. I suppose this goes to a whole different level of where that line should be drawn, but we need to all remember Mr. Bonds chose his profession, not the other way around, so he has the power to remove himself from the spotlight as Mark McGwire has done rather successfully. Bonds seems to operate as if the rules that have governed the land and baseball do not apply to him, and this is when an athlete’s reputation and legacy become threatened.
Lastly, I see your point on the differences b/w tax evasion and gambling, and understand why one is a big deal and the other may not be, but MY point is Bonds’s tax evasion will become a big deal because it deals directly with memorabilia sales, which are usually associated with MLB. This reflects poorly onto the league, a big no-no in terms of how a player should treat his meal ticket. All the State’s punishment aside, if he is found to have evaded his taxes in respect to a baseball-related activity (non-salary issue, of course), MLB will deal with him as well.
Thanks again for your comments…enjoyed them!!!