Bonds, Rose Deserve Similar Punishment

As Barry Bonds gets closer to breaking the all-time home run record, a lot of debate has been brought up about his alleged steroid use. Of course, Bonds hasn't exactly come out and categorically denied he's ever "juiced," but he hasn't admitted to it, either. I guess we'll find out for sure once the investigation is over.

However, some baseball experts already have found Bonds guilty of using illegal performance-enhancing substances. In that regard, one of the solutions proposed to deal with Bonds' records — including his single-season home run record — is to simply erase them from the books. In my opinion, this is one of the most ludicrous ideas ever brought forth to deal with a situation like this, and there is a much simpler solution should Bonds be found guilty of taking steroids.

Now, I know that there's a difference physically between taking steroids and gambling on games your involved with, but a number of comparisons can be drawn between the current Bonds situation and Pete Rose's of the late 1980s. One of them is the argument regarding the game's "integrity."

Rose bought himself a lifetime banishment from the game by tampering with baseball's integrity at the team level on the field. In the same light, Bonds is accused of compromising the game's integrity by cheating at the individual level on the field. Granted, Rose's scandal came after his playing days while he was a manager and Bonds' are alleged while he is still an active player. But if what Rose did as a non-player garnered the punishment he received, what Bonds gets should be comparable.

Speaking of comparisons, is it just me or do these two characters seem quite similar? Rose holds one of baseball's greatest records (all-time hits leader) while Bonds is chasing maybe the greatest (all-time home run king). Both have been or are disliked for a variety of reasons. In Rose's case, it mainly was due to his no-holds-barred attitude on the field. Many thought his running over catcher Ray Fosse in an All-Star Game was a bit over the top, especially for an exhibition game. Rose didn't care. In Bonds' case, most of those who dislike him do so because of his attitude in general, both on and off the field.

Both also view themselves as the victim. Rose believes baseball and its alumni don't want him in the Hall of Fame regardless of what he does to get back into good graces. He doesn't understand why every one of his appeals have been turned down by commissioner Bud Selig and why more writers or veterans (whichever group is voting on his HOF election) aren't writing him in on their ballots.

For Bonds, his statement to reporters before last season that "you wanted to bring me down, you've finally brought me and my family down," sums up his attitude toward the press and baseball fans in general. No, Barry, we didn't want to "bring you down" because we don't like you as a ballplayer, but because you're a major league jerk. But I digress...

Here's what's different between Rose and Bonds, though. First, Rose was a champion and, actually, a pretty humble guy during his playing days. He knew his World Series rings probably would not have come if it weren't for the surrounding cast he had in both Cincinnati and Philadelphia. But he was also Mr. Clutch. As for Bonds, other than being the greatest home run hitter since Hank Aaron, his biggest legacy is for being known as a postseason choker (ask anyone in Pittsburgh who admits to remembering him playing for the Pirates). And we already know about his lack of humility.

Second, Rose was known as "Charlie Hustle," the guy who would sprint to first on a base-on-balls. As I mentioned before, he played all out regardless of the situation. Bonds, on the other hand, has built a reputation as a lazy ballplayer, not hustling after fly balls in the outfield and loping down the first base line on ground balls.

So, with more similarities than differences, particularly in the realm of sins against the integrity of baseball, Bonds' punishment — should he be found guilty of the steroid accusations — should be no more than what Rose has received. Sure, make him quit playing and ban him from participation for life. Strip his eligibility for the Hall of Fame. But don't take away his stats. If what he says is true that whatever substances he took were not illegal at the time when he hit his 72 home runs, then there's no reason to even notate it.

Does the NFL have a footnote to Fred Biletnikoff's numbers explaining he used inordinate amounts of stickum — legal at the time — which could technically be classified as a "performance-enhancing substance"? No, and neither should baseball in Bonds' case. They didn't strip the "legal spitballers" of their stats, even though the pitch wasn't banned until 1920.

Another suggestion I've heard is to annotate the record book for a period of years to be known as the "steroid era." This, too, is a ridiculous idea. Can anyone pinpoint when the prevalence of steroid use actually began? Probably not. Sure, there are other "eras" of baseball that are generally recognized as periods of time where the game saw a significant change — the Dead Ball Era, the Lively Ball Era, the Expansion Era. But the Steroid Era? I don't think so.

In the end, though, Bonds will likely get the career home run record and it will be up to baseball officials to determine if it goes into the books if he eventually turns up guilty of steroid use, or if he even gets into the Hall of Fame. But if the final determinations is a lifetime ban from baseball, there are other worthy individuals who aren't in the Hall for a variety of reasons — Shoeless Joe Jackson, the aforementioned Rose, and Roger Maris.

If Bonds is left out, does that mean people will forget about him and his accomplishments in the future? Probably about as forgetful as they are about the trio I just mentioned. Oh, wait. Did I say Maris should be in the Hall of Fame? Well, it is the Hall of "Fame" and not the Hall of "Lifetime Achievement." But that's a different topic for a different day.