« Home | An abject apology » | Fiddling with numbers, Nova Scotia style » | Evident, Yet Obvious » | A fish story » | Bush's poll numbers hit 31% » | War as a cultural imperative... » | Now that's just not nice... » | Navel-gazing and lint-picking from the Halifax cou... » | Sometimes It's Scary out on the Edge of Exploratio... » | I'm not one to advocate violence... »

While I'm off-topic

Whatever "topic" means in this forum, I appear to be off of it, so I'll continue on (off?) that vein for a moment.

I'm not a rabid baseball fan, I enjoy playing and watch the odd game, but I would say that I have my eye on the sport passively. Barry Bonds is very likely going to surpass Babe Ruth's career home run total in the next couple of weeks, and might well get Hank Aaron's overall career record before he is done.

Here is my question to you: If Bonds sets a home run record, should it count? Should it be "asterisked"? If you are a ball fan, do you consider his feats valid or are they tainted by the drugging allegations?

I remember when Hammerin' Hank was going to go 715 in 1974. Back then the controversy was one of hope - it was a black man about to break a white mans record just 30 years after the colour barrier had been crossed.

I was 7 and was rooting for him, even though I was an Expos fan (yay Rusty Staub!). Baseball back then was still a wholesome untarnished sport, where controversy usually was due to booze or outside influences (racism against Aaron, the Black Sox of 1919).

Today, after strikes by millionaires, cheating with steriods, lying to Congress, baseball has lost its lustre and the fans are cynical and jaded.

In the spring of 1974, even with Viet Nam still going on, Watergate and the OPEC embargo, most evening news casts would report on every hit Hank got, counting down to 714 and eagerly awaiting 715 on that first day of the season.

Yesterday, I found out that Bonds was 1 hit away from 714, not because of fan fare or count down, but because he was robbed of that magic number by a Cubs outfielder. It was an "in your face Bonds!" announcement rather than a "Go Barry!" liek I remember from 74.

I think America is a lot more angry and a lot less forgiving than they were 30 years ago.


This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

I would be in the camp that would have the asterisk. Bonds lied. He perjured himself in front of Congress and the Baseball world including their fans. This is a slap in the face to all of us. I would like to have him banned from playing baseball for life for his use of steroids, however, I am not sure that steroids were officially banned until recently (If someone knows for sure, please inform me.) and those participating in baseball, prior to this time, using the drug would have not been really cheating. Thus, if he should miraculously beat Hank Aaron's record, he should get an asterisk and be glad that his name is in the books.
At this point in time, this old (42-43 year old) geezer in baseball years is presently showing what power he really has without steroids. He is on pace to hit about 23 home runs this season, which will keep him well short of the record. Lets hope his bat remains limp.

Bonds has tied the Babe, and I'll toss in my 2 bytes worth.
Ruth's record will stand as is, regardless of Aaron and Bonds. He reached his milestones in fewer at bats.
Regardless of what drugs Bonds may or may not have used, he's an awesome hitter.
If he wasn't on steroids, he'd still be third on the list. That's quite an accomplishment.
Remember why Bonds started on steroids - he was competing with others we're even more sure were using steroids.

And, uh, Barry, baby, I'm not saying you are on steroids, I'm defending you, big fellah!

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link