Bonds Overturned Conviction Upheld: Media Got it Right For Once With Bonds

Following is my comment after the news that Bonds' conviction is finally laid to rest, the government will not push this to the Supreme Court for judgement, I was happily surprised by the journalist's take in his article regarding Bonds finally clearing his name for that outrageous conviction for "obstruction" (if that is obstruction, then any politician and/or lawyer who ever spoke to a Grand Jury - hello Bill Clinton - should be convicted for felony as well).

ogc thoughts

Finally, an accurate recounting of Barry Bonds' testimony! Basically EVERY recounting of his convictions (at least that I've read) states that he admitted his guilt in taking steroids, whereas this account notes that he was not aware that he was taking it. He has been indicted by every journalist I've read until now (and I read widely). I applaud Howard Mintz for doing a good job of journalism!

Friends Can Screw You Sometimes

Now, I don't know whether Bonds knew or didn't know whether it was steroids or not, but at minimum, his story was at least plausible, that a friend whom he trusted, gave him illegal drugs that turned out to be steroids. Perhaps with Bill Cosby's well publicized admission that he took advantage of friends and acquaintances by supplying drugs unbeknownst to them will now convince some of the public that sometimes people will take advantage of their friends.

If a friend told you that he was using herbal remedies to help you naturally heal, flaxseed oil and rubbing balm, and that friend was also your trainer and buddy you hang out daily and exercise with, would you take his stuff and analyze it to see what's in it?

Or let's put it into a situation where most people have experience in. If you went to a pot luck, would you bring a food analyzer to check out every bit of food before it goes into your mouth? It would be kind of insulting, wouldn't it?

That's why I'm disappointed by Ted Robinson. He was hosting a show on KNBR once and noted that a control freak like Bonds would not use something without testing it out, and thus, he declared openly, he was guilty of deciding to use the drugs. But like the fable of the elephant and the six blind men, how much did he really know Bonds? It was not like they were friends, he only saw one side of Bonds. And I really like him as an announcer and as a host, which made it more disappointing to me.

Bonds Could Be Innocent

And Bonds' side of the story makes some sense. Look at it from the angle assuming that Bonds is innocent. A friend is jealous of his boyhood's friend's success, and it don't help that Bonds was cheap with his entourage. He decides to take advantage of his friend's success by selling the drugs that many in the game is accused of using by at minimum, using his access to the clubhouse through his friend, implying to buyers that he gives the same stuff to his buddy Bonds.

Now whether he actually gave steroids to Bonds or not, I have no idea. I'm sure he gave similar substances. Maybe he gave the real stuff to Bonds but the drugs to his clients. Maybe he was mad at Bonds and gave him the stuff to pay back "Mr Cheap and Mighty".  Maybe it was just all about the money.  We have no way of knowing.

Only Anderson Knows

Unfortunately, the only person who knows is Anderson and he refused to testify. Either way, he had incentives to not testify. If Bonds was not guilty but actually given flaxseed oil, then that means his friend used his friendship to make big bucks. If Bonds was not guilty but was given the drugs, then that means his horrible friend poisoned him in order to make big bucks. If Bonds was guilty, then his friend would be outing Bonds, snitching. Plus, by not testifying, it makes Bonds looks guilty while making Anderson look like he was the accomplice protecting his buddy, instead of a lousy friend who took advantage of his friend, making him look good, as he's sitting in jail presumably so as not to testify to his friend's guilt.

But nobody knows, not even the IRS agent who started this expensive wild goose chase, nobody but Anderson. People point to Bonds' improvement as he aged, but other baseball greats improved as they aged, Ted Williams and Hank Aaron are two notable exceptions (so was Darrell Evans, for long time Giants fans). It's an anomaly but not unprecedented.  And he continued hitting well even after BALCO exploded on the news scene, and presumably he wasn't using anymore.

Plus it makes sense given what we know and see of how he hits, approaches each AB, and sharp eye.   We all know that a big athlete does not necessarily translate into home run power.  Hank Aaron and Ted Williams were skinny phenoms when they came up, and that didn't prevent them from hitting a lot of homers.   As he likes to state, he's blessed with god-given talents that none of us have and thus can't understand.

Maybe It Was A Juiced Ball

And people don't even understand what is possible with drugs or how hitting a baseball works. There is great info at this site, written and updated by the real genius who wrote the A's baseball bible, Eric Walker:  steroids-and-baseball.  He makes a great case that it was juiced balls that created this offensive era (much like the "live ball" era in the 1920's), and that a lot of the assumptions people make about PEDS and how hitting a baseball works are simply wrong. Ironically, he was told off by other sabers because "it don't pass the smell test."