Archive for April, 2006
I just finished my copy of The Only Game in Town, a new book written by former baseball commisioner Fay Vincent. It is the first volume in what is intended to be an on-going oral history of the game. In this volume, some of the players from the 1930′s and 1940′s are the focus, including Dom Dimaggio, Bob Feller, Monte Irvin and Larry Doby.
As an oral history, the book lacks a sense of pace or focus; in that, for the most part, it appears that the players were interviewed, and then the tapes were simply transcribed and published. This leads to a lot of strangely composed sentences and paragraphs, making it a less enjoyable read. I would have liked to have seen the players words refined or smoothed out, (Simon & Schuster published the book, but it doesn’t appear to have been edited).
Studs Terkel is famous for this type of writing, and as I read this book, I found myself longing for Studs’ ability to make me feel as though I were actually with the person talking. Here’s an example:
And it was that kind of baseball. So when I got back to Sarasota, my uncle subscribed to the Amsterdam News–that was the New York Weekly. And my father subscribed to the Pittsburgh Courier and the Chicago Defender. See, these are the weeklies. We don’t get the paper until around Tuesday. But Tuesday evening, everybody would come to my house and we’d spread these papers out in the yard.
Now, the guy–I would probably be Rube Foster; another guy would be C.I. Taylor, and so on. So because–and it gave me a hope that I never had before, because the guys that I’d seen making a living playiong baseball, they were white. So now, this was a chance for me to make my living playing baseball. So that’s it.
John “Buck” O’Neil
Now, don’t get the impression that it’s not important to record the thoughts and words of Buck O’Neil, a baseball immortal who is loved by everyone who has ever met him. Better editing would have allowed me to feel his presence, to hear him more clearly.
Other than that one issue, the stories told by these players are a part of the history of the game, some of them lesser lights who were overshadowed during their day. The Baseball Oral History Project is important, and these players voices are too. If you’d like to pick up a coopy of the book, the link above will take you right to Amazon.
It’s really amazing to me that some of the people who are writing comments are still reading my work. Palinurus, why are you still coming here? And how can you imagine that your anonymous and snide remarks carry any weight or act as any type of critique of what I am trying to say? Here’s your pal, Lou, missing my points as completely as you have:
Weary of continuing his indefensible insistence that Bonds didn’t use steroids or cheat and that Bonds’s critics are either bigots or mooncalves being led around by their noses by Mike Lupica, Perricone has now moved on to suggesting that competitive sports should legalize the use of harmful but performance-enhancing drugs because athletes will always look for ways to get a competitive edge (so what’s the use trying to stop ‘em, right?). While we’re at it, let’s allow boxers to get steel plates inserted beneath the skin covering their skulls so it will be harder to knock ‘em out. Let’s allow basketball players to wear leg extenders so they can block more shots. The possibilities are limitless.
Let’s see…. I have never, ever written the words; “Bonds never used steroids.” Ever. I have never used the race card in defending Bonds, although I have posted comments that my readers have written that have included such an argument.
I have suggested that controlled, medically supervised use of PED’s would probably be a better way to handle the complex realities of today’s athletic world; as opposed to the Orwellian efforts being undertaken by organizations like WADA. I have challenged anyone, anywhere to send me to the studies that prove that the use of any kind of steroids are harmful, something that the US Government’s own anti-steroids website does not do, by the way. A challenge that has never even been attempted, I might add. Are you up to that challenge, Lou? Or are you just another blowhard trying to be funny in the dark, hidden from scrutiny?
As for “what’s the use of stopping them,” well, no one’s doing that now, obviously. Using punitive measures to control the actions of individuals has never worked, and likely never will. Continuing Lou’s absurd premise, that “stopping them” be our goal, I’d suggest that the only way to do that would be to have them live in a completely enclosed world, under constant supervision, and living with virtually no privacy or rights as individuals at all; the absurd conclusion of all of these, “make ‘em pee in a cup” ideas.
As for his last comments, regards steel plates and leg extensions; well, there are already numerous surgical procedures in use today that artificially extend an athlete’s career, (for instance, Tommy John surgery), that are, in fact, just incremental steps down the road to surgical enhancement.
And finally, if you think that Lupica, Verducci and the other writers running around screaming about the sky falling aren’t leading you around by your nose; how do you explain the recent spate of ridiculous “polls” these media outlets have published, in which they tell us that, lo and behold, their readers agree with what they write.
I’d like to hear you put together an argument for why athletes should give up even more of their rights, with your full, real, name, in a public forum, (sort of like what I have done for most of the last four years). Included in this argument, I’d ask that you come up with a formula for allowing someone else to manage your own life decisions and actions that you would buy into yourself, in your current job, in your current life, (again, as I have done in my writings).
I stand behind my writing and my ideas and my critiques. I post them under my name, with my personal email address available for anyone (including Mike Lupica and the gentlemen who wrote Game of Shadows with whom I have exhanged emails in the past) to write to me directly. I have posted numerous critiques of my ideas and writings, and continue to welcome the writings of my readers and other writers who have taken the time to take on my ideas critically.
To those of you like Palinurus, anonymously calling me names and ridiculing my ideas by taking small, unrelated bits and pieces and then suggesting that I am advocating absurdities, (Is that a straw man you’ve got in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?) I’d suggest you put your name where your mouth is, and put your writings out there for the whole world to swing away at, as I have done. Until you have the guts to do so, you embarass only yourself.
And again, if you think I’m such an asshole, why are you here?
I just want to point out, again, the folly of trying to legislate risk. This morning, there are two NY Daily News articles, one which is full of all of the unintended irony you can find in five paragraphs, and the second, which is just full of shit.
The first article explains that a Daily News poll of some 800 baseball fans has the fans saying they want tougher steroid rules, and that they don’t like Barry Bonds. For those of you who don’t know what irony is, well, suffice to say; those views are, (coincidentally, I’m sure) consistent with the position the paper has taken for most of the past two years.
The second is a continuation of the same position, taken to its absurd conclusion. If you’re gonna try and stop athletes from doing everything they possibly can to win, you might as well stop competition.
The Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency, which dictates doping policy for all 35 Olympic sports federations, has accused FIFA of noncompliance with its doping code because of FIFA’s unwillingness to adopt WADA’s recommended two-year ban for first-time drug offenses.
You can have a lifetime ban for first-time offenders if you want, it won’t stop competitors from taking anything they feel comfortable taking to improve their performance. It just won’t.
Science will work to beat the tests, so will teams, coaches, GMs, countries, and athletes. The world of sports has become one of the top ways to earn a living for tens of thousands of athletes world-wide, and the lure of a championship, with the riches that follow, have forced the athletes (and by extension, the teams or countries they represent) towards ever-increasing extremes of training, equipment and technology. PED’s are a natural extension of high altitude training, ridining bicycles in wind tunnels, and whatever list of training methods you can come up with.
Is it fair that some athletes have access to these technologies while others don’t? Of course not.
Does that matter? Of course not.
Pedro Feliz is mired in the midst of one of the worst stretches of hitting in his brief career. Currently batting .186/.213/.329, Feliz hasn’t seen a fastball since before the All Star break last season, and appears unlikely to do so in the near future.
How bad is he? He batted an anemic .217/.271/.402 in the second half last season, a line that would represent a substantial upgrade over what he’s doing right now. It’s clear that teams will not throw him anything but off-speed junk, regardless of the situation. The Rockies just walked Moises Alou on four pitches to get to Feliz, prefering a bases-loaded with one out situation over even attempting to get Alou out. Feliz immediately grounded to third on the first pitch he saw, ending the inning.
Feliz has one main problem; he won’t stop swinging at every pitch he sees. Until he actually proves he can lay off the breaking balls off the plate, he’ll be killing the Giants with his complete failure at the plate. Last season, Feliz worked the count to 3-0 just one single time all season, and 3-1 just 12 times. He just saw a 3-1 count (3rd time this season) a minute ago, and hit a flare to right center that Freeman made a circus catch on.
The Giants have come out of the gate unprepared for the season’s action for the second year in a row. The bullpen is in shambles, the hitters appear to be clueless, they appear to have no plan, no set approach…. I mean, with five of the ten regulars hitting below .200, it sure seems to be a coaching issue. If it weren’t for some very timely hitting, and some very solid starting pitching, the Giants would be looking at a repeat of last season’s devastating start.
As it is, if Durham, Matheny, Bonds, Vizcaino, Neikro and Feliz don’t start hitting, and if the bullpen can’t perform better than a run per inning, this early run at first in the NL West will prove to be an illusion.
Let’s see now. Knowledge and facts. Steroids are illegal. Or as Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale points out, depending on one’s point of view, hormones. Viable medical studies by experts indicate that steroids cause little, if any harm when not mis-used. They are actually beneficial to overall health. “Roid rage” occurs in people with anger and other psychological issues because steroids increase energy levels.
Alzaedo died from a brain tumor, but it had nothing to do with steroids–never mind that his lifestyle with fraught with risks as was Ken Caminitti’s and all the others apparently, whose premature deaths were blamed on steroids.
Current medical studies with steroids and stem cell research at acclaimed universities are underway. There is great promise that the big breakthrough in preventing/curing the Big “C” that has so many people frightened to death is just around the corner.
Yet they are illegal. Seems to me, this country has been down this path before–It was called the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. It went into effect on January 16, 1920 and was repealed by another amendment to the Constitution, the 21st on December 5, 1933.
During that time period, one George Herman Ruth set the single-season record for home runs; 60. The vast majority of his 714 career home runs were hit during that time frame. It is also well documented that Mr. Ruth, and many other baseball players imbibed from time to time in such controlled substances as prohibited by the Constitution of the United States during this time period. Mr. Ruth died prematurely of cancer in August of 1948. Babe Ruth was, still is, and deserves to be; a larger than life baseball hero.
But unlike today, in Ruth’s time there were no congressional hearings. There were no media outcries that Mr. Ruth deprived the NY Yankees of his substantial talents by indulging in illegal drugs. There were no accusations of cheating. There were no federal grand juries convened. There were no daily headlines implying that Ruth was defiling the game of baseball and leading children to hell in a hand basket. No New York opinion writers demanding his banishment from baseball. There was no hue and cry by sports writers, or any other “subset” of memorabilia collectors, stat freaks or former owners/players turned president/congressmen to prevent Ruth’s induction into the Hall of Fame.
It is also documented that the misuse of alcohol is a leading cause of violence, heart disease, cancer, organ failure, and insanity not to mention destruction of property, death by auto, and other forms of abnormal behavior, not the least of which is rendering Major League Baseball players senseless in strange hotel rooms, night clubs, and other public and private places. None of these can be reasonably connected to the proper use of steroids.
So why all the fuss over Bonds?
“There’s a whole subset of the industry that’s very devoted to the record books,” says Rodney Fort, Washington State University professor of economics and author of Pay Dirt: The Business of Professional Team Sports. “These are everyone from the people who make baseball cards to the journalists who cover baseball. They believe you can’t argue about who’s the best batter ever if some of the best batters were on steroids. They’re a subset, but they’re an impactful and vocal subset, and when it came to steroids, they were almost unanimously against.”
Well, okay. I can understand that. Reasonable people disagree all the time about issues that are complex and nuanced. And if one has a financial interested in existing records, than the disagreement can escalate.
But what boggles the mind is the pure wild-eyed unadulterated hate directed at Bonds by media, politicians, and so-called fans. Nightly since the season started, Bonds is verbally assaulted by shrieking men, women, and children in the most venomous way–many under the influence of alcohol. I look at these people as the cameras pan across the crowd and cannot help but be reminded of the 7th century whackazoids that run the streets of the Middle East demanding retribution, and death to infidels.
So lets compare and contrast:
Ruth took performance debilitating drugs.
Bonds is alleged to have taken performance enhancing drugs.
Neither Ruth nor Bonds is alleged to have been the sole indulgents. On the contrary, the widespread use of steroids is used as an indictment against Bonds: “He looks just like all the other users,” and an excuse for Ruth: “Everybody drank during prohibition.”
Both substances were illegal during each player’s respective careers. Neither substance was against the rules of baseball at the time. Ruth is confirmed to have indulged in illegal controlled substances. Bonds has not. And Bonds neither drinks, nor uses tobacco — his health regimen is well known. Alcohol has wreaked more havoc on American Society than any other chemical known to mankind outside of tobacco, another now legal drug. Steroids actually have many medical benefits and are one of the many weapons modern medicine is using to prevent and combat many debilitating diseases.
Even under worst case scenarios, any rational person could/should at best decry the use both. So where does the hatred come from?
The only differences between Ruth and Bonds that I can see are these.
1. Ruth had no “subset” of vested interests to contend with, thus no organized opposition to his use of drugs.
2. 21st Century America Life is frantically paced compared to the 1920′s. Society is slammed in the face on a daily basis with changes so rapid that it spins ones eyes to just try and keep up. It is all too much to bear sometimes. Baseball affords its fans and the country in general the opportunity to reflect that some things in life do not change. There are constants. That there is stability in an unstable world. That there is a place for green grass, sunshine and the little kid in all of us.
Change threatens all that we hold dear sometimes. Jackie Robinson represented change. Roger Maris represented change. Henry Aaron represented change. Divisional Playoffs, The Giants and Dodgers move out West, expansion were all changes from the pastoral norm of baseball, and all were decried as bad for baseball from one source or another. Looking back now, time has passed and there is context. None of that change seems bad now.
3. That still doesn’t explain the rabid vitriol coming at Bonds. Most in the media hate Bonds for whatever reason or reasons. The media hatred has given cover to closet racists, who pump up the volume on the vitriol. They are to be sure a minority of the spiteful, but the color-blind rest of the haters have given them cover.
So do not dismiss lightly the term lynch-mob. Bonds’ life is threatened on a daily basis. The SF Giants, sports-writers and Bonds’ family are being innundated with racist hate-mail. The difference between Aaron’s time and Bonds’ time is that the media spoke up for Aaron and decried the racism. This time MLB and the media are in denial.
+mia -special to OBM-
There’s a new addition to my Steroids & Baseball section, an outstanding article by Steven Kotler, which was brought to my attention by reader Allan Wall. Sympathy for the Devil details the history of steroid discovery, use and subsequent criminalization, and along the way, debunks the hypocrisy and distortion found at every turn in today’s culture of sanctimony. Here’s a taste:
…. If you want to know anything about steroids, Mauro Di Pasquale is a pretty good place to start. He’s a two-time world-champion power-lifter, eight-time Canadian champ, two-time Pan-American and two-time North American champion. Along the way, Di Pasquale also went to medical school and became one of our foremost authorities on performance-enhancing drugs. He has since written eight books on the topic, worked as a columnist for half a dozen fitness magazines and as editor in chief for the international quarterly newsletter Drugs in Sports and the bimonthly Anabolic Research Review (both are no longer published). In the early ’90s, when World Wrestling Federation founder Vince McMahon decided it was time to get his empire off the juice, Di Pasquale was the one who got the job. He later became the medical director to the World Bodybuilding Federation and the acting medical review officer for NASCAR, helping both sports develop their stringent drug-testing policies.
I reached him at his home in Toronto after a frustrating morning spent trying to find a clear-cut definition of steroids. “You won’t find one,” said Di Pasquale. “When people use the word, they are usually talking about one of two things. Doctors use it to mean corticosteroids, which are catabolic hormones that break tissue down. Corticosteroids are the body’s natural anti-inflammatories, produced as part of our normal reaction to stress. When the general public talks about steroids, they sometimes mean our actual sex hormones, but mostly they mean testosterone or substances designed to mimic testosterone.”
…. “As used by most people, including athletes, the adverse effects of anabolic steroids appear to be minimal,” says Di Pasquale. “Steroids do not cause cancer. They don’t cause kidney failure. There have been thousands of steroid studies and about a hundred of those point out bad side effects. But if you look at those studies carefully, there’s no one-to-one correlation, and a one-to-one correlation is the hallmark of good science. Do anabolics produce ’roid rage? They produce an incredible amount of energy, but you need to think about the kind of people taking steroids. If really competitive and aggressive people start taking drugs that give them more energy, then common sense says that sooner or later you’re going to have some problems, but are steroids the problem or the fact that this person didn’t know how to control their anger long before the steroids came along?”
…. The general feeling is that steroids threaten all of these (sporting) enterprises because steroids threaten the level playing field that many people think is the very foundation of sport. In other words, juicing is considered cheating.
That steroids threatened the level playing field became readily apparent in the 1960s, when androgynous Eastern Bloc female athletes started doing a little too well at the Olympics. By 1975, steroids were added to the Olympics’ list of banned substances. College and professional football followed, with other sports eventually following suit. But it was already too late. The word had gotten out: Steroids built muscle, shortened muscle recovery times, helped speed the healing of injuries and made you feel good along the way. And the word was bad for business.
It wasn’t just that using steroids was cheating — other factors came into play. “There’s a whole subset of the industry that’s very devoted to the record books,” says Rodney Fort, Washington State University professor of economics and author of Pay Dirt: The Business of Professional Team Sports. “These are everyone from the people who make baseball cards to the journalists who cover baseball. They believe you can’t argue about who’s the best batter ever if some of the best batters were on steroids. They’re a subset, but they’re an impactful and vocal subset, and when it came to steroids, they were almost unanimously against.”
…. This entire fracas meant that something had to be done, though what was actually done seems asinine until you remember the history of hallucinogens and exactly what became of Nixon’s war on drugs. “The organized-sports establishment decided they would solve the whole problem by educating the athletes,” wrote Rick Collins, one of our foremost authorities on performance-enhancing drugs and the law, in his book Legal Muscle: Anabolics in America. “They would present the facts to discourage competitive athletes from using steroids. The establishment devised a strategy: to convince competitive athletes that anabolic steroids don’t build muscle. But they needed a credible source through which to sell the message. It was decided that the American College of Sports Medicine would be the entity to spread the news, a bit like the ‘Ministry of Truth’ had the job of spreading false propaganda in George Orwell’s classic book about a totalitarian future, 1984.”
This wasn’t yet 1984, this was 1977, and the College of Sports Medicine took to issuing proclamations: “Steroids had no effect on lean muscle mass; the effects athletes were seeing were water retention; the effects athletes were seeing were the placebo effect.” These claims were propped up by what many consider to have been flawed studies. Nonetheless, they held sway until the real 1984, when there was so much anecdotal evidence to the contrary that the college finally had to admit that, yes, those 300-pound beasts playing left tackle could only have gotten to be 300-pound beasts with the help of anabolic steroids.
So they came up with a different approach — tell the athletes that steroids are bad for them. Make them sound horrible. As these things can go, they made them sound horrible enough that the media picked up the story (and ran with it and are running with it still). Then another fact came to light — high school kids were starting to use steroids. Saving our children fills war chests, and Congress couldn’t resist. In 1988, Ronald Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which made trafficking in steroids illegal, and a variety of subcommittees were formed to hear testimony about whether or not steroids should become a controlled substance. Among those who testified was Charles Yesalis, a professor of health and human development at Penn State and the world’s leading steroid authority at the time. “Steroids do have a medical use,” Yesalis testified. “From an epidemiologic point of view of the health dangers, I am much more concerned about heroin; I am much more concerned about cocaine; I am much more concerned about cigarettes than anabolic steroids.”
The American Medical Association, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration — the four regulatory agencies that are supposed to have control of the drug-scheduling process — all testified against turning steroids into a controlled substance. It didn’t matter.
I don’t want to cut and paste the whole article, but there’s a lot of good stuff right there. I’ve quoted Dr. Yesalis many times, and he seems to be uncomfortable with what the government wants him to say about steroids. That quote is a couple of decades old. It’s not what he’s saying now.
Whenever we hear Lupica telling us about how steroids are bad because they’re illegal, it helps to remember that he has a vested interest in keeping steroids out of baseball. Remember that (for almost 50 years), our misguided politicians have fueled the entire industry by pushing it underground; which, in turn, keeps it available to children in ways that it wouldn’t be were it still a matter of choice between you and your doctor. How would many of my critics justify the shabby treatment of Bonds if steroids weren’t made a controlled substance, against the advice of the four major organizations in charge of deciding which drugs should and shouldn’t be?
Read the article. It’s headlining in my Steroids in Baseball section.
Here’s Lupica today:
…. For the sake of conversation, let’s say it’s all true about Barry Bonds.
Let’s just say that he not only possessed illegal anabolic steroids, but injected and ingested them at a torrid, home-run-like pace. Let’s say he perjured himself in front of a grand jury when he said he didn’t know what he was taking.
Let’s say he’s guilty of giving lots of money to an ex-girlfriend and then encouraged her to hide that money from the federal government.
If he did all that, and broke various laws of the land, somebody explain something to me:
How is this a witch hunt?
How is Bonds the first political prisoner in baseball history?
How does that all work, exactly?
Is that an amazing line of bullshit. or what? How is that a witch hunt? Since I am as loud as anybody calling this sham a witch hunt; let me answer Lupica, (since he has never answered my emails):
It’s a witch hunt because even if you’re right, singling Bonds out is wrong. You, and the rest of you hypocrites have chosen him to hammer at continuously for the last three years, to the point where the SF Chronicle has the balls to run a poll that asks if fans think Bonds has cheated, ignoring the immeasurable irony inherent in a paper that has been attacking him for the last three seasons wondering if their readers believed them or not.
If I’m to believe Verducci and the rest of you, steroids was widespread, virtually every player, star or otherwise was pumped to the gills. You sanctimonious loudmouths have the audacity to suggest, in print, that, since Giambi has recovered from his problems in 2004, he must be using something you can’t test for. You have made a mockery of the game you proclaim to love, holding a simple and childish view of a complex and nuanced issue.
Here’s John Donovan ignoring the obvious one time after another:
…. How do you think the BALCO hearings, which included equal parts baseball and football players, turned into the exclusive property of MLB? (I’ve heard the argument about records, which I don’t really buy. Baseball numbers before 1947 are extremely tainted.) It seems to me that bodies in the NFL have transformed over the last 20 or 30 years. What is going on with what seems to be unbalanced reporting?
– Tony Muetz, Martinez, Calif.
A valid point, Tony. Other than getting dragged in front of Congress a couple of times, the NFL has had it easy in this steroids scandal. I see a few reasons for that. First, the NFL has had a fairly strict drug policy in effect for years (just ask Ricky Williams).
…. Um, John? Ricky Williams smokes pot.
I’ve said this to just about every sports writer and no one acknowledges it. Babe Ruth. Ty Cobb. Joe DiMaggio. Mickey Mantle. They would all have done whatever it took to win — and that includes taking steroids. Bonds may not be a desirable human being — most great people are not as nice as people think anyway. But will everyone get over the steroids thing already?
– Chet, Grand Rapids
Heard that before, too, Chet. Don’t agree with your side.
I remember a talk with a former big league player I had last year. This player — he had a long career that ended in the ’80s — had an opportunity to take steroids but, after some soul-searching, simply couldn’t do it. He was unsure of the health consequences. He was uncomfortable with the idea that he might gain an unfair advantage. So he simply said no.
Yeah, right. Sanctimonious? You bet. You can bet that whenever a retired player says he thought about it and decided to say no, it was the health consequences, (trumped up and exaggerated as they are) that weighed heaviest in his mind. How about, as a reporter, you ask them this question:
What would you have done if you thought there were little or no side effects??
Nah…. Why bother with real journalism? Attack Bonds. He’s a dick. Who cares?
Randy Winn hit his first homer, and Jamey Wright pitched another excellent game, as the Giants beat the Dodgers 2-1 after an almost two hour rain delay. Bonds is playing with bone chips in his elbow, and Moises has a bum calf, again. Apparently, being 40-years old and playing professional sports can be difficult.
Here’s a question, where has Jamey Wright come from? A career 63-88 record, with a 5.10 ERA, I mean, all of his numbers are terrible. Lot’s of walks, home runs, baserunners, not too many strikeouts…. I know he’s played in Colorado a lot, and for the most part he’s been on very bad teams, but he’s looked terrific so far in orange and black. And he only makes $500,000 this season.
As for Bonds, now he will really face the music. The government, not satisfied with leaking his grand jury testimony, will pursue perjury charges against him, a waste of taxpayers money and the US Attorney’s office’s time, since everyone admits that, for the most part, perjury cases are virtually impossible to win. But the vendetta against Bonds is such that this was inevitable.
Here’s Michael McCann’s two cents:
Keep in mind, perjury charges are typically very difficult to prove. Perjury is the act of knowingly, intentionally, and materially lying to a court after taking an oath to tell the truth. So the prosecution must establish that a defendant knowingly and intentionally misstated a material fact, rather than having merely suffered from 1) a faulty recollection while answering a question; 2) a misunderstanding of the question being asked; or 3) a misunderstanding of his own response to the question. Moreover, an intentional lie must have a consequential effect on the case’s ultimate outcome, a hurdle which can also be difficult to establish.
Bonds’ situation is getting worse, not better, and he’s hurting, slow, out of shape, not hitting…. His catching Ruth might be doable, but it sure looks like he’s not gonna get Aaron.
There’s a new Giants website, Giants Daily, run by Brian. Lots of interesting things, plus great color scheme. He’s listed in my Up & Coming section. Check him out when you can, he’s got pictures. Oooooohhhh!!!
Also, reader Tom Wilson sent me to 756asterisk.com, which offers fans the chance to buy a foam asterisk. Depending on whether you or the people selling them are tight-asses, it’s either funny or insulting. Nice. I mean, for the most part, funny is insulting.
A 4-2 start is nice. Vizquel and Moises have come out of the blocks red-hot, let’s hope Alou keeps in mind that these guys are 40 years old, and gives them the rest that they’ll need to stay hot, (unlike last season when he played his son for something like 35 games in a row right off the DL).
Schmidt’s allowed 9 earned runs already, Tyler Walker’s playing himself out of baseball, Taschner’s allowed 5 runs and gotten two outs. Durham, Matheny, Feliz, Bonds, and Sweeney are all waiting for that first big day at the plate.
The real surprise so far is Finley, who looks younger, faster and better than I would have expected. He’s making Sabean look pretty good right now. The depth of this outfield will determine how well the season goes, and if Finley can perform like this, (or even close to this), he and Winn could easily make up for the missed time we can expect from Alou and Bonds.