When I heard the statement on Sportscenter today, I was flabbergasted. They couldn't have butchered something so easy any worse. Simply "Congratulations to Barry Bonds blah blah blah" pablum would have been exactly what was expected. Instead, it was a page-long rambling mess with multiple references to PEDs.

Anyone else think Selig's embarrassed himself and baseball on this issue? He clearly doesn't respect Bonds' 755, yet doesn't want to be remembered like Bowie Kuhn is for not attending Aaron's 715. He's too cowardly to stand up for what he believes in, instead desperately trying to find a safe middle ground. I hope the image of him standing, slack-jawed and impotent as 755 sailed into the left field stands, is shown for ever and ever.

Anyone else think Selig's embarrassed himself and baseball on this issue? He clearly doesn't respect Bonds' 755, yet doesn't want to be remembered like Bowie Kuhn is for not attending Aaron's 715. He's too cowardly to stand up for what he believes in, instead desperately trying to find a safe middle ground. I hope the image of him standing, slack-jawed and impotent as 755 sailed into the left field stands, is shown for ever and ever.

Selig is a small-group politician, according to most who have worked with him, so this kind of thing is not his forte. I am not a fan of Selig's, but I don't think he had a really good course of action here. Bonds has not been indicted and has not tested positive for steroids under MLB's program, yet I would say about 85% of baseball fans nationwide firmly believe Barry Bonds used steroids and is now lying about it. Selig was going to get skewered whichever way he went, so in that sense, you could argue he should just say what he thinks, but as MLB's highest official, he can't really accuse Bonds the way people yapping on the net and columnists can.

BTW when Bonds was asked about Selig at the post-game press conference, Bonds was very gracious, saying Selig had not spoken to him but he would be happy to see "the Commissioner whenever he was willing to show up."

On another note, a reporter at the press conference asked about something I had not thought of: asking (I think--I couldn't hear all of it) whether Bush will call Bonds and/or invite him to the White House. Bonds was kind of rude to that reporter, saying he "did not understand the question" and did not know what the President had to do with it.

I would have been a wholelot more rude if someone had asked about GWB. I'd describe his reaction as pretty restrained.

I said about a year ago that I think Rodriguez will break Bonds' record and retire as a hero after all, so I agree with Maury Brown on that.

4.

The question was "Do you know who was President when you hit your first home run?"

I would have been a wholelot more rude if someone had asked about GWB. I'd describe his reaction as pretty restrained.

Fair enough. Bonds did look at the guy like people look at a dogturd, amd made it clear by his tone he thought the guy had asked a dumbass question, as I assume Bonds has been doing to reporters since his ASU days. I thought one noteworthy column during the Bonds furor was Joe Posnanski's column, pointing out that Bonds has always been really nice to him. Posnanski is well-known as being a good guy and a thoughtful, intelligent writer so part of this perhaps, is that Bonds is not the kind of guy who suffers fools gladly and thinks the world is rife with fools. Another reporter--someone Bonds apparently knew already and liked--asked a question soon after the Bush question, and Bonds gave this guy a warm smile before he answered and talked in a reverantial tone about Hank Aaron.

I watched about 10 min of the press conference--something I almost never, ever do, because it occurred to me that since I avoid that part of the coverage of the game, I had never actually seen or heard Barry Bonds interact with the media.

Of course Selig is an embarrassment here.

Leaving aside his silly "process" of deciding whether to attend, his childish body language, the general thrust of his press release, and his inability to just occasionally act like a real fan, his reference to the presumption of innocence is moronic. As Maury says, there's no criminal act in the first place to which the presumption would apply. But even if there were -- and this is something that appears widely misunderstood -- "innocent until proven guilty" is a presumption relevant principally in the context of a criminal trial. It means that the prosecution has the burden of proving each and every element of the criminal offense, not that non-participants must reserve their own judgment until the jury returns a verdict. By invoking the presumption here, Selig is (1) showing his ignorance of the criminal process, and (2) using this misunderstanding as a tool for distracting the public and failing to honor the game he represents.

The question was "Do you know who was President when you hit your first home run?"

Well, there you go, and that makes the example better: that IS kind of a silly question, but certainly innocuous. So, I'd say Bonds was kind of rude and has little patience with dumb questions.

Kind of a silly question?

Kind of a silly question?

Well, yeah, but Bonds could have laughed politely and said, "Shucks, gosh, you are making me feel old up here, buddy. I guess Reagan?." If he had been answering questions like that in that way since 1985, more reporters might think he was a heckuva guy.

And since most sportswriters are fools, it's no wonder they hate the guy.

But even if there were -- and this is something that appears widely misunderstood -- "innocent until proven guilty" is a presumption relevant principally in the context of a criminal trial. It means that the prosecution has the burden of proving each and every element of the criminal offense, not that non-participants must reserve their own judgment until the jury returns a verdict.

Obviously, but public opinion isn't supposed to matter in a criminal trial. That's why they sequester the jury. Here, public opinion matters somewhat more, because the entire situation is public; tens of thousands of people are standing no more than a few hundred feet from Barry Bonds every night, and a lot of them hate his guts. If someone murders him or something, I'd say that Selig is partly to blame for not defending him or at least staying completely out of it. Now, Selig has all but stated that he thinks Bonds's record is hogwash. That could only serve to embolden the lunatics out there.

Well, there you go, and that makes the example better: that IS kind of a silly question, but certainly innocuous.

That's a "trap" question. If he gets it right, who cares. If he gets it wrong, everyone can go ahead and make fun of him in some way. It has almost nothing at all to do with the moment at hand, and I'd probably be a bit pissed if someone was trying to lay that down on me during a press conference.

It's like asking a Nobel Prize winner in mathematics, "Can you explain the quadratic formula?" during a press conference.

That's a "trap" question. If he gets it right, who cares. If he gets it wrong, everyone can go ahead and make fun of him in some way. It has almost nothing at all to do with the moment at hand, and I'd probably be a bit pissed if someone was trying to lay that down on me during a press conference.

I think you are overreacting. The question may have been intended to remind Bonds how long he has been at this, what a long, strange, wild trip it has been as it nears the end. But this little thread is instructive, as it was instructive watching Bonds with reporters for a few minutes.

Vaux, but that's my point: there are ways to characterize either a pro- or anti-Bonds position so as to also promote and honor the game, but by quoting an irrelevant legal presumption, Selig's halfhearted attempt at staking out a middle ground amounted to a complete whiff. Just more evidence of Selig's spinelessness when it comes to fulfilling his role as the public face of baseball, I guess.

15: Of course, there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. Also, Grigoriy Perlman doesn't give press conferences.

If Bonds had a sense of humor, he'd dedicate #756 to Selig. "He's a great commissioner who has done a lot for the sport, and I am honored to salute his oversight and service to the great game of baseball."

If he had been answering questions like that in that way since 1985, more reporters might think he was a heckuva guy.

That's true. It's also true that the press could have confined their response to the lack of civility he showed them simply by writing about that lack of civility, rather than maligning his ability as a player (can't win the big one) or the embodiment of greed (seeking to have his alimony payments reduced just because, due to the strike, he was no longer making any money).
I guess they deserve each other.

I guess they deserve each other.

This is what Andy, a PEDs-redass of the first order, said. I am old enough to remember Pete Rose's and Steve Garvey's respective careers, and I come from Northern KY and grew up in SD, as a transplanted Reds/Padres fan and Dodgerhater, so I paid attention to those guys and what was written about them. As such, I am quite skeptical of making moral judgments about ballplayers based on media coverage of them.