Imperious Entertainment

However, recognizing that he used some form of performance enhancer, whether knowingly or unknowingly, doesn’t end the debate. At the time Barry allegedly began using performance enhancers, though using them violated the spirit of the game, it didn’t violate the league’s rules. When Mark McGuire got flack for his dramatic size increase from the use of Andro (if that was all he was using), he didn’t stop using the supplement because it was against the rules, but rather due to the negative response of the public. The league’s current steroid policy wasn’t implemented until 2003, by which point the federal investigations into Bonds activities clearly would have proved a large impediment to his continued use of performance enhancers, so he almost certainly didn’t violate the league’s rules.

Some may argue that because the use of performance enhancers is illegal in the United States, it shouldn’t matter that it wasn’t against the rules of baseball. However, Greg Oden is clearly breaking the law every time he has a drink between now and his 21st birthday, but nobody’s going to question the validity of his stats because he used a prohibited substance. The problem with Bonds clearly speaks to the idea that he did something that violated the game of baseball itself. So the question becomes, how much do you punish a guy for “cheating” who didn’t actually break a rule?

The most common argument is that 756 should come with an asterisk, indicating that the record was influenced by the use of performance enhancing drugs. However, such an approach would single out one individual amongst a wide range of players using performance enhancers in baseball. Barry had to hit against pitchers that were using steroids, in fact #755 came against a player suspended for steroid use in the minor leagues (meaning he tested positive twice as the first positive test gets only a warning). There is no way to know how many of the pitchers he posterized were using performance enhancers, with the exception of those who have had a positive test. To single out Bonds with the asterisk would simply say, “because you were such a great player before you cheated the game, and then became even more successful, we think you should be punished the harshest.”

This also brings up concerns about penalizing him without ever having a positive test. Granted there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, and there aren’t even tests for detecting HGH which he may have taken, but it brings up issues of how much proof is sufficient. Do you just look to improved performance and change in physical stature? What happens if a guy started using in college and no one ever noticed a major change? Do you trust the stories of Jose Canseco and other former players, and if not how much corroboration do you need before they gain credence?

The problem with the asterisk is that it opens up a huge can of worms without Bonds ever testing positive. But maybe that’s a hassle that’s worth dealing with in light of the record that he’s breaking. Hank Aaron is an icon of baseball, known for being an equally great human being off the field as he was a player on the field. Then again, there’s no asterisk explaining that Willie Mays lost a season and a half of his career to the army, or explaining that Babe Ruth played his entire career with a higher pitchers mound, or even that Barry lost nearly a half season to a league-wide strike.

Comments (5)

...
written by Jose , August 08, 2007

I put on over 70 pounds over a period of one year through eating and training...not all of it is muscle but the vast majority of that weight is good ol' fashioned muscle fiber. i have never once have touched steroids or HGH...not saying everyone can do this but it is possible that a person with the right body chemistry can do this.

...
written by Jean , August 08, 2007

A lot of your points make sense. I personally believe that you cannot put an asterisk by his name without a positive test. I also believe he is being unfairly targeted because of his surly nature with the media. Replace him with Ken Griffey, Jr. and there is no steroid controversy. Everyone would be embracing this record and proclaiming Mr. Griffey as the greatest of all time. It isn't fair that Barry has to bear so much scrutiny based on nothing more than circumstancial evidence and speculation. Canseco and Lance Williams would be a lot more credible if they weren't cashing in on mere accusations.

...
written by Neal , August 08, 2007

Great article. I believe you hit on the head. How can one make a definitive statement such as * when one has not been proven. Circumstantial evidence is not good enough.

...
written by TPickens , August 09, 2007

Perhaps I'm a little naive (and I admit that I know little about baseball), but isn't the asterisk supposed to represent a difference when the performance or the record is affected by the league itself? (ie 61*)

...
written by gdgrossm , August 12, 2007

An asterisk can be used to denote any time there are extenuating circumstances affecting the records validity. It actually was never used with Roger Maris's record of 61. Though the commissioner at the time, who was a close friend of Ruth's, had indicated that if Maris broke the record after the 154th game of the season it would be reflected as having been broken in a 162 game season (as it was the result of a recent change), there was never an official asterisk placed on the record. Maris also suffered this negative treatment for being a surly Midwestern who was only a .270 batter that never endeared himself to the New York media, causing many to be outraged with him breaking the beloved Ruth's record. However, there's no policy that an asterisk is used to indicated that a record is influenced by an external factor such as a change in the league rather than any general note regarding the record.

---