MLB 2007

[tongue-tied lightning]

Barry Bonds took some swings at his critics - namely broadcaster Bob Costas and Red Sox right-hander Curt Schilling. Costas interviewed chemist Patrick Arnold and Schilling on "Costas Now." Arnold claimed to have confirmation that Bonds used steroids, and Schilling said Bonds' silence is tantamount to an admission. Bonds called Costas, "a little, midget man who absolutely knows jack [bleep] about baseball. Never played the game before. You can tell Bob Costas what I called him. "I can't wait to see him face to face someday." As for Schilling, Bonds said, "Don't worry, my day will come,'' before laughing.

 

can't wait to see his day

[Sir Stewart]

The Onion:

Barry Bonds Home-Run Scandal Somehow Becomes Feel-Good Sports Story Of Summer

 

SAN FRANCISCO—Although Barry Bonds remains the target of criticism over his possible—some say almost certain—use of performance-enhancing substances, the fact that Bonds has not been implicated in dogfighting, nightclub shootings, gambling, or murdering his family has transformed his controversial pursuit of the all-time home-run record into the feel-good sports story of the summer.

 

"Until we have definitive proof one way or the other, the very presence of so many questions about Bonds and steroids will haunt his achievements forever," ESPN's Peter Gammons said Monday. "However, at this moment, I think we'd all have to agree that having a raging juiced-up misanthrope break the greatest record in sports is a ray of sunshine compared to everything else on the sports page."

 

"What kind of person electrocutes dogs, let alone fights them?" Gammons added. "I simply can't comprehend it. Go, Barry!"

 

While Bonds has been routinely greeted with booing and jeering whenever he played outside of San Francisco, the taunting seems to have abated for the moment as sports fans across America lapse into a reflective silence as Bonds approaches the plate.

 

"I know Bonds is probably 100% pharmaceutical Frankenstein," said Brewers fan Charles Michaels, who waved a banner reading "Make Us Relatively Proud, Barry" while not exactly rooting against Bonds at Milwaukee's Miller Park Sunday night. "But I also know for a certainty that gambling problems didn't compel him to affect the outcome of the NBA playoffs. You have to give him that much."

 

"Bonds is not exactly my hero," said Braves fan Bradley Hanson, who flew to San Francisco for Monday night's Braves game in order to pointedly not boo Bonds. "But he's a reminder that in these troubled times for sports, there are still players whose crimes are simple, pure, and only tarnish our beloved sport and everything it stands for without killing anybody."

 

Bonds defiantly refuses to acknowledge, much less answer, any of the dozens of questions regarding his use of illegal substances, often lashing out at clubhouse reporters asking even innocuous baseball-related questions. Yet as of press time, Bonds had not yet been involved in even one single murder.

 

"Say what you want about Bonds, but he's not a murderer, or even an attempted murderer," San Francisco Chronicle reporter and co-author of Game Of Shadows Lance Williams wrote in Sunday's edition. "The only thing I believe Bonds did was inject himself with Winstrol, Deca-Durabolin, insulin, testosterone, synthetic testosterone, testosterone decanoate, human growth hormones, Norbolethone, Trenbolone, Clomid, and possibly commercial racehorse laxatives, all in order to make himself a better athlete. Not to allow himself to gut-shoot a gentleman's club bouncer, but to become a better athlete. A better athlete…it doesn't seem so bad when you think about it like that."

 

"It's a relief of sorts to see someone putting performance first," Frank Deford said in a New York Times Magazine editorial Sunday. "I think we all believe that Barry has taken steroids, and that they made him into a hulking monster who rewrote the record books. But they didn't turn him into a hulking monster who drugged his wife and children into unconsciousness before strangling them to death and hanging himself from a weight bench. And in these troubled times, Bonds' performance is one we can all reluctantly applaud."

[MrRain422]

 

This book is nerdy, even for me. But it's engrossing.

 

That book is great. Have you read the Bonds/Ruth breakdown yet?

[Chendizzle]

Barry Bonds took some swings at his critics - namely broadcaster Bob Costas and Red Sox right-hander Curt Schilling. Costas interviewed chemist Patrick Arnold and Schilling on "Costas Now." Arnold claimed to have confirmation that Bonds used steroids, and Schilling said Bonds' silence is tantamount to an admission. Bonds called Costas, "a little, midget man who absolutely knows jack [bleep] about baseball. Never played the game before. You can tell Bob Costas what I called him. "I can't wait to see him face to face someday." As for Schilling, Bonds said, "Don't worry, my day will come,'' before laughing.

 

can't wait to see his day

 

Schilling does have a great point about how Bonds doesn't pursue litigation against anyone. Surely if Bonds never took steroids then the book by the two SF Chronicle writers was libel...but he dropped the suit because he has no way to prove that he never took steroids, and all the evidence points that in fact, he did. Again, he could sue Curt or any of the eight million people who say he took steroids for slander, but he's got no case. I agree with Schill about the silence being tantamount to admission from Bonds and McGwire.

[MrRain422]

Perhaps, but it also might be argued that Schilling is sort of a self righteous asshole in his own right anyway. Of course Bonds did steroids, but even if he didn't, that doesn't mean he'd be suing everyone who claimed he did. Sometimes lawsuits just aren't worth it, even if you're in the right.

 

Hypothetically, if Bonds were innocent and decided to sue everyone who said he did steroids, how many people would he currently be suing? Thousands? Limited only to media, still in the hundreds, and limited still to national media, perhaps still dozens. There's enough evidence that Bonds did steroids without Schilling having to resort to such weird and unnecessary extrapolations.

[Sir Stewart]

There's enough evidence that Bonds did steroids without Schilling having to resort to such weird and unnecessary extrapolations.

I think it's refreshing to hear someone, especially a current major leaguer, just say it.

[Lammycat]

Schilling does have a great point about how Bonds doesn't pursue litigation against anyone. Surely if Bonds never took steroids then the book by the two SF Chronicle writers was libel...but he dropped the suit because he has no way to prove that he never took steroids, and all the evidence points that in fact, he did. Again, he could sue Curt or any of the eight million people who say he took steroids for slander, but he's got no case. I agree with Schill about the silence being tantamount to admission from Bonds and McGwire.

This has been the main thing for me all along. If he's innocent he'd be suing and screaming to anyone who'll listen that it's lies. He hasn't done that. It would certainly be worth it as his integrity and legitimacy as a ball player are on the line. There's no reason he would not pursue a lawsuit against the writers of the book, at least, if he were innocent.

 

Schilling does have a big mouth and I haven't seen the interview, but I believe he was merely answering a question from Costas and gave an honest answer. It wouldn't be the first time he's talked openly about what he believes.

[boywiththorninside]

A reason not to sue is the legal standard Bonds would be up against as a public figure. Bonds would have to prove actual malice which is difficult to do. He could prove the authors' statements about him were false, and still not win a suit without proving the authors published with a reckless disregard for the truth. Again, this is very difficult. If I was him, I wouldn't bother suing either.

[Lammycat]

If I was him, I wouldn't bother suing either.

O.k., let's assume what you're saying is reasonable. How about speaking out against the allegations, at least, then? Wouldn't you be inclined to at least vehemently deny false allegations against you? I don't know what he has to gain by dodging questions, being elusive, and not frankly stating "I did not use steroids." Does it make any sense for an innocent person to remain stubbornly mum regarding serious allegations to his character?

[MrRain422]

So long as there are any investigations going on, he's not going to say anything that hasn't been vetted by his lawyers.

[Lammycat]

So it's unreasonable for him to sue for libel/whatever and it's unreasonable for him to deny his innocence? His lawyers are telling him not to say he's innocent, in other words.

[boywiththorninside]

So long as there are any investigations going on, he's not going to say anything that hasn't been vetted by his lawyers.

 

That's it. The guy has a potential federal indictment hanging over his (over-sized) head. To say anything at all would be insane.

[MattZ]

He's not innocent. That's why he's not saying he's innocent.

[Sir Stewart]

He's not innocent. That's why he's not saying he's innocent.

Thanks again, Curt.

[MrRain422]

Is anyone arguing that he's innocent?

[MattZ]

Is anyone arguing that he's innocent?

 

No, but you seem to be saying that Schilling shouldn't call his bullshit, bullshit. Right? And my point, is that Schilling is just calling em as he sees em.

[Lammycat]

Is anyone arguing that he's innocent?

I don't think so, but I disagree with some people who think Schilling is a douche bag for answering a question honestly. Schilling is a douche bag at times, but I don't see this as one of those times. He answered a question from a reporter and the answer happens to be in agreement with what most people already believe.

 

What's really "newsworthy" about the situation is how Bonds goes after Costas with the name-calling because he had the audacity to ask Schilling the question. That's a good bit, there.

[cryptique]

Schilling is a douchebag, but on this, I agree with him.

[MrRain422]

I'm not saying Schilling shouldn't say anything about steroids at all. I just think this particular comment was a stupid one.

 

And yeah, I definately have a knee-jerk reaction to Schilling, but I think this would bug me anyway. It's just a silly thing for him to say.

[MattZ]

Sports needs more douchebags willing to speak their minds these days.

[MrRain422]

Like Gary Sheffield?

[MattZ]

Like Gary Sheffield?

 

Yes.

 

EDIT: not that this needs clarification, but I'd rather have knuckleheads like Sheffield speaking their mind than robots like ARod worried about how their comments will impact their marketability.

[boywiththorninside]

My criticism of Schilling's comment is that its based only on emotion. Legal fact, logic, or context seem to be of no concern to him. I wonder if Schilling would be as outspoken as he would like Bonds to be if he faced charges as Bonds might. As Schilling himself has admitted, he turned reticent when he was under oath in front of Congress testifying about steroids. Under oath, Schilling became tight-lipped. It's easy to speak your mind when your blogging it or talking to HBO. It's another thing to speak your mind when you're sworn in or are under the threat of indictment. Schilling had his chance to call it like he sees in 2005, and he didn't do it. Also, would he really expend the time and money to file a lawsuit that, because of a near impossible legal standard, would go nowhere? Just to make a point? I doubt it. Finally, what would a Bonds denial prove? Would it convince people he's innocent, and that we have been wrong about him all along? OJ has been professing his innocence since 1994, and yet I'm still sure the gloves fit and the jury was wrong to acquit. I just don't see the need, or understand the want, for public proclamations of guilt or innocence. They're really meaningless. I understand the disdain for Bonds, but, in his situation, his actions make perfect sense.

[bjorn_skurj]

A reason not to sue is the legal standard Bonds would be up against as a public figure. Bonds would have to prove actual malice which is difficult to do. He could prove the authors' statements about him were false, and still not win a suit without proving the authors published with a reckless disregard for the truth. Again, this is very difficult. If I was him, I wouldn't bother suing either.

That is a correct analysis.

[rareair]

That is a correct analysis.

 

I agree that actual malice is necessary to win but not that he should only sue if he can win.

 

there is no downside to suing (which obviously helps p.r.) if you feel wronged, even if the ultimate legal standard is challenging.

 

bonds does not sue because the truth is an absolute defense not that he is worried about whether the facts can establish actual malice.

 

and costas is short.