While perusing MySpace, exploring with amazement the number of bands that come from Lithuania that want to be my “friend,” I came across the Barroid Bonds* page.
Also known as “The Virtual Asterisk Petition Page,” the Barroid Bonds site acts as an online petition in favor of placing an asterisk on the homerun record set recently by Barry Bonds, the San Francisco Giants player who has turned his body into a veritable punch bowl of banned performance-enhancing drugs.
The question as to whether asterisking juiced ball players is a good idea will be discussed later in this column; however, the question as to whether Barry Bonds is a great big stinking cheating cheater is no question at all.
The Bonds’ supporters argue that it takes more than strength to hit a ball out of the park. They say hitting a homer is about timing, vision, bat speed, concentration and a slew of other abilities that anabolic steroids don’t improve, which makes me wonder if the Bonds supporters weren’t all attending the National Convention of Total and Utter Idiots on the day God was passing out brainpower.
Steroids improve all of those things.
“Steroids increase strength and stamina,” says self-described baseball historian Jamie A. Capria on his virtual-asterisk blog, “which in turn creates bat speed [and] bat power and [reduces] fatigue.”
Why this isn’t obvious to every human on the planet is beyond me. More strength equals more bat power equals more and farther hits—no duh. But it’s the “reduces fatigue” part that really brings it home.
Fatigue affects every aspect of hitting: Fatigue diminishes concentration. Fatigue diminishes vision. Fatigue diminishes bat speed. Fatigue diminishes batter timing. Fatigue diminishes the stamina of a player near the end of the game. Fatigue diminishes the stamina of a player near the end of the season. And fatigue diminishes the stamina of a player near the end of his career.
Fatigue plays a huge role in every aspect of the game, thereby giving juicers a distinct advantage over juice-free players, and it just seems that that should be noted somehow.
But for me, the most fascinating part of this debate isn’t whether we should officially asteriskerize Bonds’ homerun record; rather, whether the whole asteriskerization concept should be introduced into the record books at all. Because doing so would open a huge can of worms. For one thing, you’d have to identify all current and past steroid stackers.
Secondly, cheating is not limited to the chemical variety. There are numerous ways to fleece the game, and if you are going to punish stackers, then you’d have to punish the bat-corkers, too—as well as ball-scuffers, point-shavers and sign-stealers—which means, you’d have to go all the way back to the beginning of baseball and scrutinize each player individually.
Also complicating matters is the varying degrees of cheating. Since some flimflams are worse than others, we’ll probably have to come up with different symbols to denote the differences between the flims and the flams.
For instance, it wouldn’t be fair to give Norm Cash—the Tigers infielder whose corked bat helped win the ’61 batting title—the same symbol as Barry Bonds. Corking doesn’t give you nearly the advantage that stacking steroids does, which means, if fairness is what matters, we’d have to come up with different symbols for different offenses. If I were in charge of the process, for example, I’d give the bat corkers an asterisk and give the steroid-users an asteroid—like one of those floating little boulders from the old Atari arcade game—to denote his rock-like muscle mass.
Of course, I’d have to give Sammy Sosa an asterisk and an asteroid for being a steroid-injecting, bat-corking cheating cheater not worth a piece of petrified dogturd impaled on the cleats of Ernie Banks.
I’d put a smudged asterisk next to former Dodgers reliever Jay Howell for pitching with pine tar in his glove. I’d put the @ symbol next to Joe Niekro’s name to represent the extra movement his knuckler enjoyed via a nail file. I’d put a dollar sign next to Pete Rose’s various records, which, while not flattering, would at least denote that he wasn’t doing the kind of cheating that inflated his numbers or his overall athletic amazingness. And I'd have to put a little frowny face emoticon next to every white player who set a record while blacks were still playing in the Negro Leagues.
The point is, the whole process could get really ugly . Confusing too. Not that the rewards wouldn't be profound. For one thing, the new system will provide deterrence. With a potential blemish on looming over his name, a player would have to make a conscious decision whether to take a chance on cheating—also known as an aster-risk. Another advantage is that it would make statistics truer and more informative, which is crucial, I think, because if a statistic isn’t informative and true, then what does it even want to be a statistic for?
Incidentally, you might find it hypocritical that such a staunch supporter of drug legalization would come out against steroids. I have been pondering that hypocrisy myself. Here’s how I have chosen to justify it: Baseball is a contest, contests have rules, and rules provide equal footing among players. I couldn’t care less if somebody takes steroids recreationally, so long as he excuses himself from the contest of Major League Baseball. For all the players who want to play baseball and take steroids, let them start up their own all-steroid league and knock themselves out until their limbs fall off and they start shitting organs. But Barry Bonds isn’t taking steroids recreationally. He takes steroids to have an advantage in the contest, which is a bullshit maneuver that must be called out. The only question for me is, is the asterisk system the way to do it?
Hard to say. I’m not entirely sure it’s worth it, or that anyone would even want to pursue such an endeavor. The good news is that even if the asterisk is never introduced, there will always be an implied asterisk—one that will hover over Barry Bonds’ records like a DEA surveillance helicopter and make us murmur and snort whenever his name is mentioned. And for that reason alone, he will never truly get to sit back and revel in his astonishing accomplishment—not like Babe Ruth did, or Hank Aaron. Not a chance.
EJD
08/22/07
Other Relevant Links
Ruth vs. Bonds (Dispelling the Myth)
Do Steroids Improve Hitting (NY Times article)
*[Authors Note:The Barroid Bonds link at the beginning of this article is not functioning properly. This is because, shortly after the article was published, MySpace shut down Capria's page. They did not convey a reason to him, but my guess is they were worried the Bonds camp might sue; to which I utter a resounding "Bleah!"]
Comments (8)
Hi Ed, How open minded do you think you are? Maybe you are already brainwashed and i'm wasting my time but if you are still open minded , consider this; I don't think Bonds is innocent because others used, i think he is innocent because he did nothing more that what he told the Grand Jury, used some salves and creams his trainer gave him.
I think this will come out in time. Greg Anderson will finally tell his tale. It will include how he slipped Bonds some creams for Barry to use for his arthritis. Barry and Greg were friends since childhood. Greg also worked part time for this up and coming research facility [Balco] that had access to state of the art sports meds. Bonds paid Greg very well and followed Greg's workout routine to a tee. The only thing Bonds wanted in return was Greg's assurances that he was to be given the best available training and meds but "nothing illegal".
Greg betrayed Bonds and Bonds confidence in him. Yes, Greg slipped in some "stuff". When Bonds found out, he did not turn his back on Greg or turn him in. He was unofficially very pissed off but stuck by him none the less.
So now Greg sits in Jail. He will not testify that he gave Bonds PHD's. He won't do so because Bonds stood by him, gave him a great job, and didn't betray him when Barry found out what Greg had done.
Question; why is Greg Anderson sitting in jail?
Answer; because he feels guilty for betraying his long time friend and will do nothing more than he already did to hurt him.
Bonds did not do needles, did not use injections, did not do the things Canseco, McGuire, and many ,many others in MLB have done. He did do what he told the Grand Jury. For that, i believe he is innocent and all this will eventually come out when Greg is ready to talk.
Ed, for you to print articles such as this one without proof positive is sad. Your not the only one. But not being the only one is no excuse, just as you state in your article.
Barry Bonds is simply "that good" He is the best to come around in a long, long time and people don't like it. [unless he plays on their team]
Backer
Chester, Ca.
Posted by Paul Cardoza | August 24, 2007 2:08 AM
Posted on August 24, 2007 02:08
Hey Paul, thanks for your comments. I don't know though, sounds like your engaging in quite a bit of conjecture yourself. Do YOU have proof positive about any of this? I'm open minded to your claims, but I haven't seen or heard anyone espouse them.
Still, if it turns out that that's what happened, then fine, Bonds got screwed. But the point about taking steroids remains true -- it gives you an advantage and taking them (knowingly) makes you a cheater. End of story.
EJD
Posted by edwin decker | August 24, 2007 2:18 AM
Posted on August 24, 2007 02:18
i dont see WHY jamie capria doesnt hav a job at sum huge company like ESPN or sumthn. he has a blog on TSN called "BLOG THIS!". u can see it here: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/JCapria
hats off to u, jamie capria. ur an amazing writer/analyst! ESPN or any otha sports conglomorate needs to knock on ur door wit a 6 figures job!
Posted by freestyle | August 24, 2007 12:51 PM
Posted on August 24, 2007 12:51
Wow... what are the odds that your first comment would be from the president of the "National Convention of Total and Utter Idiots?"
Talk about living in a fantasy world.
Maybe he should have read the "documented steroid use" link you provided.
Posted by Anonymous | August 24, 2007 1:31 PM
Posted on August 24, 2007 13:31
I think you should take over as baseball commissioner. You have more commone sense then Bud (Never Will Act) Selig.
Posted by Nancy Tomoney | August 27, 2007 2:47 PM
Posted on August 27, 2007 14:47
Props to you for having a brain on the issue, Ed. First, I agree with you that an asterisk isn't needed. We all know. That's all that matters. What I do disagree with, however, is that you throw up your hands like we have no choice but to lump all cheaters together. Taking steroids and scuffing a ball is like comparing a mass murderer to a jaywalker. They aren't the same. And based on your observations in the first half of this article, I'm shocked that you'd make the implication that they should be considered on the same page. A player juiced up on roids is cheating every minute he is on the field. Whether he's running the bases, chasing after a fly ball, just standing there at the plate and intimidating the pitcher, or taking a juiced swing. A scuffer, sign stealer, corker, and the like can pick their moments. You can't put a cloud over entire seasons of a player's career for scuffing or corking. You have to be an idiot to do it on every single pitch because you will get caught. Not to mention, a corker isn't cheating when he's in the field. Barry Bonds is always cheating.
I've done some research on the effects of Bonds' cheating on his statistics. Up until 1999, Bonds' highest rate of home runs per ball put in play was 10.6% in 1993. In 2001, he nearly doubled that number when 19.1% of every ball he put in play became a home run. At the age of 36. This is ridiculous. If he would have declined like a normal human being, he wouldn't have had a record to play for. He wouldn't still be in the game today. What, you think he'd be around to play for a World Series? Yeah, not happening. He would have finished with 550 home runs, and I have statistics to back me up. So comparing someone's success based on scuffing, corking or stealing signs to someone who gained 200-250 home runs, 50 points on his batting average, many additional runs for his team (thus affecting many outcomes) is downright asinine.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
The Burab
Posted by The Burab | August 28, 2007 3:14 PM
Posted on August 28, 2007 15:14
Yo Burab (The),
Thanks for your comments. One thing though, I'm not sure how you could possibly say that I equated bat corking/scuffing etc. with Steroid cheating. I thought I made it clear that they were different and therefore needed different types of asterisks.
And then there is this sentence from the article that proves my point:
"For instance, it wouldn’t be fair to give Norm Cash—the Tigers infielder whose corked bat helped win the ’61 batting title—the same symbol as Barry Bonds. Corking doesn’t give you nearly the advantage that stacking steroids does..."
I think if you go back and read again you will see that I have the same position as you. Thanks for stopping by though. Stay in touch.
EJD
Posted by edwin decker | August 29, 2007 9:26 PM
Posted on August 29, 2007 21:26
Thanks for the response, Ed. My bad for not being more articulate. I realize your points are tongue in cheek, but the whole idea of putting an asterisk on all cheaters is really my complaint here. I'm not saying I'm ok with other forms of cheating, but I just don't really care all that much about ball scuffing and stealing signs. It's not that I think you equate these types of cheating with steroids, I just don't want to overcomplicate the matter by deciding we need to asterisk all cheaters -- even if the asterisk is different from offense to offense. Again, I realize it's a joke, but there are far too many writers out there who are willing to write off steroid use because the cheating issue is too complicated for their simple minds.
You are clearly not one of these simple-minded people. I fear that if they read your article, though, their heads will explode.
Burab (The)
Posted by The Burab | September 7, 2007 8:40 AM
Posted on September 7, 2007 08:40