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?