Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
The reason for my original question was this: "guilty" of what? It's unlikely that Bonds would have testified before the grand jury about steroid use if he hadn't received immunity for criminal prosecution.
More to the point, it's my understanding that nothing Bonds is alleged to have done was illegal under the 2001 rules of baseball. So, of what are we trying to find Bonds "guilty?"
My point is not that steroid use is great or acceptable - as I've said before, I'd be the first in line to support some really draconian measures to stop steroid use in baseball going forward. But you don't just get to redefine the rules and apply them retroactively - any more than the state can say that the new highway speed limit is 25 miles per hour and send out speeding tickets to everyone who's been driving 65 for years.
If Bud Selig tries to apply the rules retroactively, he will (rightfully) get destroyed by the Players' Association and the arbitrator. He knows this, and is probably trying to come up with a way around it. This is just another case of modern baseball sticking its head in the sand until public outrage forces some bizarre and disproportionate punishment for one or two scapegoats. It just shows how dismal the "leadership" in baseball has become - in 1947, baseball was on the cutting edge of public opinion. Today, Bud won't do a damn thing until a torch-bearing mob is amassing outside his door - and then will scapegoat a handful of people rather than addressing the problem.
Steroids are now an entrenched, endemic problem in MLB. Something needs to be done and soon. But blaming the guys who took advantage of a loophole in baseball's rules and rode it to riches isn't going to solve the problem.
 |
I always respect your views and enjoy reading them, Eck.
A few random observations of my own:
-- I don't know if Bonds could be guilty of any criminal offenses. If he played any role in an illegal distribution arrangement, even as a "consumer," I suppose he could be. If he testified under a grant of immunity, that certainly would leave people with that impression.
-- Is any of the pursuit of Bonds in this matter motivated by the fact that he doesn't seem to be all that well-liked to begin with? I don't know. I follow the game at a respectful distance nowadays, but from where I sit he does seem to be a popular target of criticism already.
-- Bud Selig. Another popular whipping boy, and why the hell not? Is baseball interested in cleaning anything up? Apparently not, or it would get a real commissioner. Once upon a time, the game had a crisis of confidence, and turned to Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Whatever the judge's flaws, I think it's fair to say that Bud Selig is no Landis, and that's no secret. If baseball wants to establish its earnestness here, it needs to show it.
-- I assume every player in every sport is constantly looking for every competitive edge he can get. Now, one of the reasons I don't follow sports very closely anymore is that I have trouble identifying with a guy whose neck is bigger around than my waist. But that's my preference. If people find it entertaining to watch a league of mad cyborgs, it doesn't hurt me any.
-- What does concern me a lot is the thought of junior-high kids taking steroids because their heroes do. Young people do not have much perspective on how short life really is, so they think they'd be quite willing to be Lyle Alzado at 42 if they can be Lyle Alzado at 25. To me, that's tragic.
Remember the old saying: Nobody wants to live to be 100 -- except the guy who's 99? You'll never know if shortening your life was worth it until you get there, and then you can't change your mind.