Marty: The season is thirty-two games old and Giant fans are wondering if this is going to be one long, unpleasant year. There are sufficient reasons to conclude just that. In last place, four losing games out of first. A bullpen with the worst ERA in the majors. A first baseman clearly overmatched by major league pitching, the dreary Bonds watch occupying much of the space in the press and on the tube.

Let’s deal with the Bonds story and leave the ball club’s woes for another day. In this past Sunday’s New York Times review of a book titled “Love Me, Hate Me; Barry Bonds and the Making of an Anti-hero” the reviewer comments that the author refers to Bonds as “baseball super-star, suspected drug cheat, possible perjuror and pariah”. The reviewer also mentions that a more appropriate title of the book would be “Hate Me, Hate Me”. To put the final nail in the coffin, the author of the book is quoted as concluding that “Bonds is a thoroughly miserable guy, the kind of person who throws sweat socks on the floor just to watch the clubhouse attendant stoop to pick them up.”

Click below for more!
Nevertheless, after conceding that Bonds is not the most likeable fellow around, this is not a fair fight. The fans in Philadelphia behaved only a few steps less obnoxiously than a European soccer fanatic. Bonds was not going to pursue them into the stands, they were safely behind the fence. It didn’t take a great deal of courage to shout obscenities and throw unseemly matter into Bonds’s playing area.

Not so long ago, the Times ran an article on Bonds, not particularly praiseworthy, that began on it’s front page and continued on the inner pages. This was not the sports section we are talking about. This is the section of the paper which describes the shortcomings of the administration, the murders of innocents in Darfur, the misdeeds of Ken Lay and his ilk. How did Bonds make the front page?

Does Bonds deserve this treatment? Exactly what can we reasonably conclude he has been guilty of? Boorish behavior, without a doubt. Disdain for the media? He would be the first to plead guilty. The knowing use of steroids to enhance performance? There is much evidence to support such a conclusion. Denial of such use, under oath and otherwise? He continues taking that position.

What separates Bonds from the other users? It is unquestionably the case that steroid use was widespread for years. It was prevalent before Bonds became an adherent. He was a Hall of Fame player before he ever took the drugs, a three time MVP, a better ball player than any of the other prominent drug users, too numerous to mention.

His downfall is that he isn’t the man Henry Aaron is, whether he ends up hitting more home runs or not. Aaron would not take drugs. He would have concluded there was something dishonest in doing so. There weren’t very many Aarons out there. There were a few, who deserve mention, the like of Frank Thomas. Moreover, there is the union, the owners, the Seligs, who looked the other way because it was in their financial interest, or so they thought, to do so.

Is Bonds more deserving of contempt than they are? Bonds isn’t very smart. He could easily have been a hero. even after being seduced by the drug. He could have stood up, admitted his use, conceded the error of his ways, and asked to be judged on his record before using the drug and after.

He didn’t do so. Knowing Bonds, we should not have expected him to be so forthright. He is going to pay the price, a heavy one. In all likelihood, he will shortly be indicted for perjury. Martha Stewart survived. Bonds is a similar target, but one far less likely to survive. Martha Stewart’s public image was benign. Bonds image is quite the opposite. Is the image, justified though it may be, sufficient to warrant the hate?

In one corner, Bonds. In the other corner, the media, the fans outside the Bay Area, the criminal prosecution, the pariah label. Why don’t they pick on someone their own size?

Ed