Should Barry Bonds get an asterisk when he breaks the home run record?
By: MICHAEL KLITZING - Staff Writer | ∞
By: MARC FIGUEROA - Staff Writer
Yes
Cheating in baseball is nothing new. Stealing signs, spitballs, corked bats, it's all been done. But when you talk about the degrees of unfair advantage, steroid use is in a league all its own. Now you know why Barry Bonds doesn't talk to anyone.
Bonds is a juicer who is soon going to break Hank Aaron's all-time home run record of 755. And since no one can tell for sure how many of those moon shots were powered by the real Bonds or his inflated alter ego-- the Mighty THG Man -- the only reasonable way to recognize this feat is with a footnote. Doing nothing indicates that he hit all those home runs the same way the other bombers did--with real muscle and normal testosterone levels. We all know that's not true, so how can we ignore it?
Webster's Dictionary describes an asterisk as a symbol used to "indicate omission or a doubtful matter." If Bonds' feat isn't doubtful, I don't know what is. There should be no debate here. The asterisk is our only choice.
The small star-like symbol has been part of baseball lore for years. When Roger Maris hit 61 round-trippers in 1961 to break Babe Ruth's single-season record, commissioner Ford Frick threatened to use an asterisk because Maris did it in a 162-game season. When Ruth hit 60 in 1927, teams only played 154 games.
Although the Maris asterisk never officially existed, the notion permeated throughout baseball, so much that 30 years later commissioner Fay Vincent ordered to "officially" strike it from the record book.
All that over just eight games.
How many home runs did Bonds hit while juiced? 100? 200? Half of his 700-plus knocks? And Major League Baseball is just going to ignore it? That makes absolutely no sense.
Contrary arguments state that Bonds hit a majority of his homers within the rules, since there was nothing in the rule book about steroid use until recently. When Bonds belted 73 homers in 2001--24 more than he hit a year before by the way -- drug testing in baseball was still three years away.
What he did was technically within the rules. While that is true, one can't ignore the fact that Bonds had an unfair advantage. He broke the rule of sportsmanship, which should be a cardinal sin in any athlete's bible. It's obviously not in Bonds' playbook, which is why many fans openly boo him when he's on the road with the Giants. Good for them.
Major League Baseball is choosing to bury its head in the sand on this one as well, and that's irresponsible. Bonds rightly deserves an asterisk, and come to think of it, so does the current commissioner. Say it ain't so Bud. He can't, of course, and that's a shame.
- Contact staff writer Marc Figueroa at marcfig@aol.com.
No
Dear Padres fans,
I know you want to agree with Marc -- he's one of you, after all.
When the Petco Park video board exhorts him to make noise, he screams like a 12-year-old girl at a Gwen Stefani concert. I hear he even once tried to start the wave in a bases-loaded, two-out situation in the eighth inning.
I'll admit there's no denying his credentials as a Friars fanatic.
As such, he naturally despises Barry Bonds. Hey, who doesn't, right?
Even if the Giants slugger has never failed a drug test and the entire steroid case against him is some leaked grand jury testimony and a heap of circumstantial evidence, we all know the guy is a cheater. Just look at him.
Lou Seal wears a smaller cap.
So, yes, it will be hard to watch when Bonds inevitably crosses home plate on home run No. 756 in the not-too-distant future. The moment will be as cheap as Donald Sterling calculating a tip after an early-bird special.
But about that asterisk.
I'm not sure that's a road you guys really want to travel down. Going back through the record books to determine the difference between legitimate accomplishments and fraudulent ones is an inexact science.
And you might not like the results.
Perhaps Bonds does deserve an asterisk next to his career home run total. But as soon as that ink dries in the baseball almanac, you'd better get ready to see another one stitched to the flag at Petco commemorating the Padres' 1998 National League pennant.
As you might recall, the third baseman that season was the late Ken Caminiti, an admitted steroid abuser. Cammy had six hits, five walks and two homers (including a key blast in a Game One win) in the National League Championship Series against the Braves that year.
So tell me, guys: Did Atlanta deserve to win that series because a key Padre was cheating?
Maybe you can see where I'm going with this.
The steroid era was not monopolized by Bonds or Caminiti, meaning what we're talking about is hanging an asterisk not just on one home run record, but on at least two decades of baseball history.
Granted, the home run history we're about to witness is almost certainly bogus.
But to denote that in the record books is to imply that all other marks were accomplished by guys as pure as Roy Hobbs.
And that's probably not the case.
Thanks for listening. You may nowİrefocus your attention on the cap dance.
Sincerely,
A Bonds apologist
-- Contact staff writer Michael Klitzing at mrklitzing@gmail.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Not a fan wrote on May 20, 2007 9:44 AM:I like my sports motorized so maybe my opinion is uninformed but I had a thought and figured I would toss it out there. Assuming that roid use was wide spread during this era wouldn't the pitchers also be chemically enhanced? Following this logic wouldn't it be harder to get a hit on them? The down side to this theory would be the harder the pitch is thrown the greater the energy available once the batter connected bat to ball. I suspect this all comes down to nobody wants to see their hero's records broken. A good example of this would be the reaction of the fans when Jeff Gordon tied and then surpassed Dale Earnhardt's career wins total.
Barry Bonds should be wrote on May 20, 2007 11:02 AM:thrown out of baseball right now! Today! and banned from the hall of fame.
hector wrote on May 20, 2007 5:21 PM:Barry gets all the bad pub because the media eats because of him. He is not that bad of a guy. When Mike Darr killed himself driving drunk, he donated autographed things for the auction, that did not get printed. Nobody would read the good things... Giles must have been doing something during his Pirates day, and don't blame it on Petco, but because he is a likeable guy, the media does not write about it. This is the steroids era, just like the dead ball era. It is an era. They only used science to improve their games. If a player has tommy john surgery, or lasik eye surgery. They are have an unfair advantage over Hank Aaron and Bob Gibson as well. It is all relative. I admit that those substances are banned now, but they were not banned then. It is all relative. No Asterisk
Lou wrote on May 21, 2007 7:54 AM:Once you start giving out asterisks, it's hard to stop. Why not give Hank Aaron an asterisk for playing in Atlanta's Fulton County Stadium, also known as "the launching pad" because it was such an easy place to hit homers? Contrast to Willie Mays, who played at Candlestick Park, one of the most difficulat places to hit homers. Also, Mays missed most of two seasons serving in the military in the Korean War era, came back and won MVP. Outside factors do affect a player's performance, but what matters in the record books is how many times the ball goes over the wall.
MIKE IN LSM wrote on May 21, 2007 8:42 AM:Now I admit I'm not a sports fanatic, but as far as I am aware, as yet, Mr. Bonds has not been convicted of any crime or violation of any rule/regulation. So until and unless that happens, no asterisk.
No way wrote on May 21, 2007 2:16 PM:Sportswriters and those they've convinced think Barry should get an asterisk simply because they don't like him. It's been a vendetta against him for many years. He has never tested positive for any banned substance. This is pure sniping by a resentful press, and quite disgusting. Just to make a point, it's not only the record-holder but ALL supposedly steroiders' records, their stats, that should be considered anyway. When the baseball encyclopedias are written will you have asterisks in the season/career stats of every player of that era? For sure, you'd have to include those whom we know were users, but you'd have to include every other player as well: they pitched, fielded, and batted against steroid users, so their records are unfairly LOW. Absurd. And to the press regarding Barry: grow up! Your liking him or not does not determine his actual skills. Look at the statistics today. Who leades the majors in on-base percentage? Barry. Who leads the majors in slugging percentage? Barry. Give it up. He's the best.
Roider wrote on May 21, 2007 2:23 PM:and take away those Super Bowl trophies from the 70s Steelers, and from the Raiders in the early 80s while your at it!
Joe wrote on May 22, 2007 3:36 AM: You don't need an asterisk. Just treat Bonds the same way Mark McGuire has been treated. When his turn comes up for the Hall of Fame.......don't vote him in. Perhaps he will get voted in his 2nd or 3rd or eventually......but I recommend not the first time. That will send a message. Just my opinion.
John wrote on May 23, 2007 10:36 PM:He shoud be able to use steroids, HGH and sunflower oil. Corked bats should be ok too. I want to see a show
Randy wrote on May 24, 2007 7:55 PM:If you give Bonds an asterisk, you must do it for every record set since the early 90s. Cheating is so prevalent and Bonds is just a part of it. So long as he doesn't cop to it, there appears to be no real proof. Without proof, nothing can be done. He knows this and this is no doubt why he's not talking.
alamoana9 wrote on May 26, 2007 10:02 AM:Mike Klitzing'a atory about Bonds is interesting in it's theme. He's basically trying to say that because other scenarios' in baseball history, including the Padres Pennant win over the Braves to get to the World series, involved players who used steroids that we shouldn't put an asterisk by Bond's name for passing Aaron. This is a common theme in making an argument, i.e. because others did such and such it makes it OK to ignore the flaw. Well sorry. It doesn't make it OK. You cannot ignore the fact that Barry Bond's, who looked like a slim Wille Mays in the first 2/3's of his career and now looks more like Sean Merriman, obviously has used steroids to accomplish this feat. And it is NOT OK, regardless of what anyone else did or did not do. This is like saying that because other people killed their wives OJ should deserve our sympathy. NO WAY.
to alamoana9 wrote on May 26, 2007 2:37 PM:Your argument about others' cheating doesn't make anyone's cheating ok is correct...except that Barry has never tested positive for any banned substance. Several others either have so tested, or else have admitted using such. So if your principle applies at all, it only insists that the history books carry asterisks for those who are guilty. I think (my gosh, I hope) we can assume that Barry is not using illegal substances now, yet he is among the league leaders in slugging and on-base percentage. Give him his due, or, seriously, your picking him out for your ire sounds utterly irrational. It sounds like you just hate the guy, much more than others who have been proven to be steroid users. Why?
to the guy who wrote alamoana9 wrote on May 26, 2007 7:48 PM:irrational is the rather narrow view that testing is the only way to make an assessment about steroid use. Physicians have since time immemorial made diagnoses based on physical assessment. So based on just the changes in his body, his neck size, his more pronounced facial features you could say that he is using. The only way we'll ever know according to your "I must have only the proof I am seeking" attitude would be to go back a few years and test him. That's not going to happen. To your other point about being a league leader, I guess you haven't figured out what all the issue is about steroids, i.e. they make you the league leader!! Further, Picking him out is by virtue of the storm he's inflicted on himself and the inuendo of the Balco controversy. I guess those who want to find him innocent will ignbore any fact that convicts him. The records are for the one who did it honorably; Aaron, Ruth, Mays, the rest. Not the juiced players of the last generation.
the guy wrote on May 29, 2007 4:23 PM:I still say that to justify asterisks, you need to have good evidence. You want the baseball encyclopedia to have a kind of asterisk to denote people that most people think used steroids? Does it matter if they were banned at the time of use? What about all the other players, especially the pitchers, who looked bigger? Do you use the steroid-asterisk for every player of the generation because steroids impacted the game for all of them? If Bonds got bigger while the steroids were "legal", than what's his crime? How many baseball players of the past used amphetamines? How many pitchers doctored a baseball at crucial times? My point is that if you are going to demand asterisks without court-type proof of illegality, there's no end to it and all you've got left is completely fad-driven biases. As to the current stats, I may be completely wrong but I am assuming that Barry is not stupid enough to be currently using. If that's true, his stats speak for themselves. Barry is being used as a scapegoat by fans and reporters who hate his personality. If he tested positive or admitted use of illegal enhancers, I'd be first in line to condemn him, but since that's not happened, I just don't see how to justify the asterisk. I also just do not see how to put that asterisk next to every line of the Baseball Register.
Ken wrote on Jun 6, 2007 10:18 AM:It seems that we all have varying opinions about whether Barry Bonds should have an asterisk next to his name in the record books or even if he should be in the Hall of Fame. I think we can compare Barry Bonds' situation similarily to that of Pete Rose. Rose had more hits than any MLB player in history of the game, yet has been denied the Hall of Fame and reinstatement into baseball. It is true for totally different reasons, but cheating is still cheating no matter what type of cheating it is. Like somebody above wrote it's "circumstantial" evidence, and for years the evidence againt Rose was just as circumstantial as is the evidence against Bonds, though Rose later admitted to it. In my opinion, if Bonds gets into the Hall of Fame, then certainly Pete Rose should also, while on the other hand if Rose is denied the Hall of Fame, so should Bonds be. Let's be consistent here. Also, for the sake of a peaceful settlement that we can all agree on a player having the all time homerun record, perhaps we should root for Ken Griffey, Jr. to break Bonds and/or Aaron's record in the coming years after Bonds retires. Griffey has never been known to do steroids, he is clean, and he has never cheated with corked bats and the like that we know of. For the sake of everybody being in agreement and feeling satisfied, let's hope Ken Griffey, Jr. in the coming years breaks the all time homerun record. Even Hank Aaron said he believed that of all of the current players (this was some years back) that Ken Griffey, Jr. was the one most likely to break his record. Almost as if Aaron prefered that Griffey breaks it if anyone has to. I think everybody has made valid points with their arguments, and there is no right or wrong here. It's an unclear situation.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement