I have to say, I get a lot of well-thought-out commentary to many of my posts. Many of you have expressed goodwill and advice to my recent announcement [thank you], and recently I received a comment from a "Grant Canyon" [I knew porn was all over the internet, but I had no idea porn actors were reading B.S. & S.] in response to my most recent "Linkology"-post:
I'm surprised you recommended United States of Baseball. It reads like lawyers' briefs in the case of "The Media v. Barry Bonds."
About every article is related in one way or the other with the idea that Barry Bonds is completely innocent, that there is innocent and obvious answers for his freakish growth and performance (body armor, training and conditioning, genetics, Wheaties, whatever...), and that the media are to blame for this steroid controversy (which no true fan REALLY cares about anyway) and are hounding an innocent man (who just happens to have a head like Mr. Met).
And, interesting, for a supposed "blog" (as opposed to a PR effort paid for by "B. Bonds, Inc.") comments on the opinions on that site is disallowed. Hmmmm. I wonder why? Maybe Barry isn't paying for the opposition's views...
Well, I'll admit, I haven't read every post at U.S. of B., and when I get a chance, I'll read more on Peter's thoughts on Bonds and steroids. Also, I would agree with you "Grant", comments should be offered on his site. He's missing out, because commentary from readers can add a lot to a blog...But in the meantime, I'll make mine a bit more clear:
- There are a lot of reasons for increased home-runs in baseball, not just steroids. And so, if Bonds was indeed juicing, it isn't the sole reason his annual HR totals have increased.
- As far as I am concerned, enlarged heads and touchy temperaments are not real evidence of steroid use, they fall into the category of speculation. We do have the accounts given by his "ex-girlfriend" but what makes her so credible?
- If I had to bet, I would bet that Bonds (and McGwire) did indeed juice to one extent or another, however, we may never know how much, and as I said above, we'll never know how much it mattered.
The post/article that impressed me enough to link to United States of Baseball in the first place was "More Than Ever, It's the National Pastime", which, I think, does a pretty good job of debunking the idea that football has surpassed baseball.
And I agree with that, not only for the reasons mentioned in the post -- attendance, television ratings, etc. -- but also because of, ironically, the steroid controversy.
When Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGwire were all linked to steroid use, it created quite the broo-ha-ha. Endless media coverage on ESPN, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc...All steroids all the time. Polls were taken, Congress held hearings...
But when it was recently discovered with hard evidence -- not just speculation -- that members of the Carolina Panthers football team used steroids with astonishing regularity, the reaction by the media and the public was just a fraction of what we saw in regards to baseball.
That shows me that while we spend a lot of time in the fall and winter on football, it hasn't quite reached the level in our hearts and minds that baseball has reached.
