Throught?

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Here's a guy who obviously gets it.

In any case, thank goodness we only have to put with this nonsense for eighteen more days.

Like a moth to a bug zapper...

If only he'd have been nicer to the media, imagine how great he would be.

it's obviously a contraction of "thought through"

It's a thought trout; a notional fish.

In any case, thank goodness we only have to put with this nonsense for eighteen more days.

Amen, Joey.

In any case, thank goodness we only have to put with this nonsense for eighteen more days.

Is that when you're going to kill us all?

Bonds Created His Situation; Now He Suffers Throught It

He never should have turned 44. What the hell was he thinking?

Also, not signing with someone earlier has really hurt his chances of signing with someone.

Bonds may or may not have made this bed himself, but either way this article is preposteridiotic.

“You’ve got a story now—the little engine that could

...collect welfare."

Is that when you're going to kill us all?

No, it's when every team's 40 man roster is set for the rest of the season and the postseason, and we can finally give this dead horse the good and proper burial that it deserves.

Is that when you're going to kill us all?

No, it's when every team's 40 man roster is set for the rest of the season and the postseason, and we can finally give this dead horse the good and proper burial that it deserves.

...then you're going to kill us all?

...then you're going to kill us all?

No, I'm just going to laugh at all the poor miserable little Bonds fanchildren, and maybe gloat a little bit.

No, I'm just going to laugh at all the poor miserable little Bonds fanchildren, and maybe gloat a little bit.

When he's done that--then he'll kill us all.

Best Regards

John

No, I'm just going to laugh at all the poor miserable little Bonds fanchildren, and maybe gloat a little bit.

Like you did when he couldn't come back after his knee problems in 2005, and like you did when he fell short of Ruth's HR mark, and like you did when he washed out before reaching Aaron's record?

Keep guessing, sooner or later you'll get one right.

I for one welcome my new Joey B overlord.

No, it's when every team's 40 man roster is set for the rest of the season and the postseason, and we can finally give this dead horse the good and proper burial that it deserves.

Didn't the Angels take this rule behind the woodshed in 2002, bringing up K-Rod?

Is that when you're going to kill us all?

No, it's when every team's 40 man roster is set for the rest of the season and the postseason, and we can finally give this dead horse the good and proper burial that it deserves.

But don't forget to save the head for McGwire's pillow.

Didn't the Angels take this rule behind the woodshed in 2002, bringing up K-Rod?

And let's not forget Mark Kiger, owner of the most structurally unique BB-ref page.

Didn't the Angels take this rule behind the woodshed in 2002, bringing up K-Rod?

The loophole allows you to replace anyone who's on the DL, but I'm pretty certain that the replacement still has to be someone officially within the organization before the deadline.

So a team could sign Barry to a minor-league deal, never bring him up, and insert him on the postseason roster assuming that it has at least one player on the DL (and what team doesn't)?

I'd sign him on that basis; if you make the playoffs, you have decisions to make. If you don't, you don't.

So a team could sign Barry to a minor-league deal, never bring him up, and insert him on the postseason roster assuming that it has at least one player on the DL (and what team doesn't)?

Is Barry likely to agree to a minor league deal, if it's not accompanied by a promise to bring him up within a certain period of time? I'm inclined to think he isn't, at least based partially on his agent's statement that Barry is not willing to play in the independent minors.

well i would say that truth is that the problem with signing barry really is the MEDIA - that is unless the owners don't dare buck buddy boy. the real situation barry created is with the MEDIA who has been itching for revenge.

even lance berkman said he'd welcome barry - hey, we'd already put up with kent (who is a jerk deluxe) and carl everett and a few assorted drunks/wifebeaters and prima donnas

but i went to the game the other night and some woman was trying to bring a SIGN BARRY sign into the game and they wouldn't let her

but i went to the game the other night and some woman was trying to bring a SIGN BARRY sign into the game and they wouldn't let her

Yeah, right.

Yeah, right.

I can believe it. I've seen various people have their signs taken away from them on their way into the Rogers Center. It doesn't have to be a team policy, however. Often it's just a matter of an overzealous employee taking a very broad view of whatever may cause offense to others.

Oh, for the good old days when fans could throw soda bottles on the field, or throw a fish at Ted Williams. What's happened to the first amendment?

I can believe it. I've seen various people have their signs taken away from them on their way into the Rogers Center. It doesn't have to be a team policy, however. Often it's just a matter of an overzealous employee taking a very broad view of whatever may cause offense to others.

Especially if it causes offense to that particular employee.

it's when every team's 40 man roster is set for the rest of the season

"That's the rules that I've just made up. And I'm backing it up with this gun..."

Joey B. Posted: August 13, 2008 at 02:20 PM (#2901465)

but i went to the game the other night and some woman was trying to bring a SIGN BARRY sign into the game and they wouldn't let her

Yeah, right.

- and what is not real too clear to you here?

the astros ball club is hypersensitive. they wouldn't let fans bring "fire garner" signs in last year neither. you can't bring in any sign that goes against what management wants.

4 years ago, a couple of guys - not drunk - were yelling "YOU STINK" at richard hidalgo and the ushers went up and told them to stop it or leave. you can't yell out the word "suck"

and you can't bring anything you could possibly eat or drink into the park except pre-mixed baby formula

this ain't ny

Wojciechowski spent six years as a college football beat writer for ESPN before becoming a columnist, and still writes frequently about both pro and college football in his column. And yet as far as I can tell he's given a complete pass over the years to the rampant PED use in that sport (at least, I can find no columns of his focusing on the subject of PEDs in football).

dontchu love it when football writers write about a guy they never covered and a sport they don't know?

as for PEDs in football, like who cares? they just a bunch of nameless, faceless ghetto gangstas who last a couple years then are thrown away like used toilet paper.

and there are no beatified stars like The Holy Sainted Babe Ruth (sin-free too, i might could add, who played for The Storied Franchise) who hold SACRED records

and there are no beatified stars like The Holy Sainted Babe Ruth (sin-free too, i might could add, who played for The Storied Franchise) who hold SACRED records

Well, since you imply that you know so much about Babe Ruth's sins, let me ask you where you got your information from, if not the mainstream media and the mainstream writers themselves? And they've been writing about Ruth's private life for at least 34 years. Your implied coverups were from an era where pretty much every public figure's private lives were considered private by the media. So to say that Babe Ruth was somehow protected back then compared to Barry Bonds today isn't really saying anything at all.

Who today is being "covered up by the media?" Facts, please, not rhetoric.

And whose private life in Babe Ruth's time was being put out to dry? Again, give us some names. Fatty Arbuckle comes to mind, but that's about it, unless murder or high society scandal was involved. Nobody exposed athletes.

Beyond this, what MSM figures can you name who have really made much of an issue at all about Barry Bonds's private affairs, other than steroids? Has the way he treated his wife been dwelled upon more than say, the affairs of Steve Garvey or Wade Boggs?

To the extent that Bonds has been singled out by the media, it's because of two things: His steroid use, and his relationship with the media.

His steroid use isn't unique, but for better or worse, it seems to have benefitted him more than it benefitted most other players. But look at McGwire's HoF support and tell me with a straight face that Bonds is the only one affected by this.

You might as well complain that a president's affairs get more ink than those of a janitor.

And as for Bonds's relationship with the media affecting his coverage, I completely agree with you that it does. But who's primarily to blame for that? Your implicit assumption is that athletes have every right to brush off and disrespect the media. And you're right---they do.

But by the same token, the media are only human, and the way that an athlete treats them is bound to affect their coverage of him, just as it would affect your coverage, if your job depended in part on access to players.

Which brings it all back to square one. Bonds himself is personally responsible for about 99% of his negative coverage. He didn't have to juice. And he didn't have to treat the media the way he has. Both of those choices were his, and his alone. He's a great player, and I agree that it's certainly suspicious that he hasn't gotten any offers, but please don't pretend that his current status isn't almost entirely self-imposed. This is a perfect case of the chickens coming home to roost.

Who today is being "covered up by the media?" Facts, please, not rhetoric.

Well Andy it would be safe to say that we don't know this, because they are covering them up. Once they fall out of favor though, then the stuff gets published .. See Manny Ramirez, flushing hand towels down the toilet, and hating on cancer kids.

and he didn't hate on cancer kids just once. that tent was setup for years, and he kept hating on them.
but it only became news once he wasn't being protected.

you ask alot of questions.

Has the way he treated his wife been dwelled upon more than say, the affairs of Steve Garvey or Wade Boggs?

yes in the late 90's, Bonds marital stuff was all the rage in the MSM

But by the same token, the media are only human, and the way that an athlete treats them is bound to affect their coverage of him, just as it would affect your coverage, if your job depended in part on access to players.

Which brings it all back to square one. Bonds himself is personally responsible for about 99% of his negative coverage

Correct, if you include his skin color. If not that it is closer to 50%.

Mark was just as much an ass to the exact same press corp.
Roger was an ####### too ... they all got passes by the MSM.

Media: "Teams can't sign Bonds, he'll distract the team with all that bad coverage he'll get from us, the media!"

he didn't have to treat the media the way he has

Isn't this somewhat telling of how far the media is from an objective observer and reporter of the facts? You're acknowledging that the media likely treats Bonds more aggressively than they would if he was nicer to them, right? How can you expect the sources not to color the Bonds stories according to an agenda the way they do with everything else?

This isn't to say that they are even being dishonest. There are very few places left to get objective accounts of the news. The pace of the information age and the ease of correcting errors are placing speed over accuracy. I wonder what they teach in a modern journalistic program these days.

I wonder if they ever taught what I imagine as fundamental to fair journalism, where opinion is clearly represented as opinion, and facts are presented in the least distorting manner possible. I like to hope so.

Roger was an ####### too ... they all got passes by the MSM

My memory is going ... did Roger Clemens get a pass for all the Piazza chin-music stuff? Or for that matter (way too far back to trust my memory here) for the 1990 playoff ejection against Oakland? My impression was that the press was always just waiting for Clemens to behave like a jerk so that they could point it out. He sometimes obliged.

I wonder if they ever taught what I imagine as fundamental to fair journalism, where opinion is clearly represented as opinion, and facts are presented in the least distorting manner possible.

What is taught in the classroom and what is taught in the newsroom are two completely different things. These days, survival is being taught in the newsroom, even though no one is sure just how to do that.

The idea of a "Fair" press is pretty much a myth propagated by the press itself (the press is very adept at blowing smoke up its own ass). The good old days of fair journalism really didn't exist, despite what guys like Buzzinger claim, although there was a time in which the writing was much, much better than today.

Joey B:
it's when every team's 40 man roster is set for the rest of the season and the postseason, and we can finally give this dead horse the good and proper burial that it deserves.

The boy wouldn't disappear, Joey fell on his knees,
started crashing his head against the locker,
started crashing his head against the locker,
started laughing hysterically

When suddenly Joey gets the feeling he's being surrounded by
horses, horses, horses, horses
coming in in all directions
white shining silver studs with their nose in flames,
He saw horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses.

So, Red Juice, are you complaining that Manny was protected, or that he wasn't?

And for the McGwire - Bonds comparisons, please get it straight.

The media was lax in its coverage of steroids, no question. And all players benefitted from this. Bonds as well as McGwire.

What changed that were two things: the BALCO revelations, which affected Bonds. And the Fifth Amendment Blues, which did in McGwire.

There were people making comments about McGwire and Bonds during their respective record-breaking seasons, but it wasn't until the Winter of 2004-05 that those comments escalated into threats of HoF blackballs. And as of today, McGwire is the only player who's been demonstrably affected by this unofficial blackballing.

For the past three and a half years, McGwire has been out of the news 51 weeks a year. Until this year, Bonds has been an active player, and breaking a new record with every home run. Are you really surprised that there's been more media attention paid to Bonds's juicing than to McGwire's during this period?

Has the way he treated his wife been dwelled upon more than say, the affairs of Steve Garvey or Wade Boggs?

yes in the late 90's, Bonds marital stuff was all the rage in the MSM

The operative word in my question was "more." If you mention Bonds today, "marital stuff" isn't what comes to mind. But mention Steve Garvey, and what you'll most likely get is a bunch of scatalogical one-liners. And for every fan who can name Bonds's mistress, there are ten or a hundred who know the name of Margo Adams.

Which brings it all back to square one. Bonds himself is personally responsible for about 99% of his negative coverage

Correct, if you include his skin color. If not that it is closer to 50%.

Really? Then why were they covering up for Manny Ramirez's treatment of the cancer kids, as you say they were? Is it because Manny was passing as white? Why is it that BBC's no-names are still getting a pass, even though many of them are black?

The bottom line is simple: If Bonds hadn't juiced, he'd be taking the heat for many things, but the intensity would have gradually worn off.

And if Bonds had treated the media with a bit of basic respect, he would be getting a lot more of it in return. But those were his choices. Unless you have information to the contrary, I don't think it was Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams who forced him to hang around with Greg Anderson.

My memory is going ... did Roger Clemens get a pass for all the Piazza chin-music stuff? Or for that matter (way too far back to trust my memory here) for the 1990 playoff ejection against Oakland? My impression was that the press was always just waiting for Clemens to behave like a jerk so that they could point it out. He sometimes obliged.

and yet he still got a pass.
Commercial endorsements, favorable treatment from the media, cameo spots on sports center, his minor league rehab games covered live nationally. Roger lived a very privileged life when it came to media treatment. Especially with all the stuff coming out now about his misgivings during his playing career.

If Barry Bonds farted, it made headlines in SF. if it stunk, it was national news. Everytime, without fail.

could you imagine the horror, if Barry was as so much to be mentioned as to be hanging out with a 14 year old white girl, that he met at a Karoke bar?

Andy, prior to the media deciding to waive their moral finger about steroids, Mark was treated by the press with respect, even though he showed them none. Heck, when it was first discovered that he was using something, the MSM bashed the reporter for bringing it up. There was another six years until the Congressional hearings, and during that time, he was still given a pass. They named freeways after the guy for gods sake.

the tune didn't change until Mark (properly) invoked his 5th amendment in a round about way.

Really? Then why were they covering up for Manny Ramirez's treatment of the cancer kids, as you say they were? Is it because Manny was passing as white?

there is a difference between Latin Americans and blacks when it comes to racism. Don't ask me why, there just is. i didn't make the rules, i just witness them.

Why is it that BBC's no-names are still getting a pass, even though many of them are black?

cus they are no names. nobody cares about steroids Andy. they just don't. They only care about them when the media whips up a lynch mob. Its pretty hard to get together a lynch mob for the no names.

And for every fan who can name Bonds's mistress, there are ten or a hundred who know the name of Margo Adams.

Serious question (and I agree with your premise): how much of that was Margo Adams?

he didn't have to treat the media the way he has

Isn't this somewhat telling of how far the media is from an objective observer and reporter of the facts? You're acknowledging that the media likely treats Bonds more aggressively than they would if he was nicer to them, right?

I'm acknowledging human nature, c-bird.

I wonder if they ever taught what I imagine as fundamental to fair journalism, where opinion is clearly represented as opinion, and facts are presented in the least distorting manner possible.

The Golden Age of objective journalism exists mainly in people's heads, and the difference between the 21st century and the mid-20th century lies mainly in the proliferation of opinion journalism, which naturally provides ammunition for anyone who wants to claim some sort of "bias." I strongly suspect that when most people complain about "media bias," what they're really complaining about it that their own pets don't get to control the coverage. This isn't to say that there aren't times when it seems to get pretty lopsided, but that's mostly like the weather: If you don't like it today, just wait until tomorrow.

The idea of a "Fair" press is pretty much a myth propagated by the press itself (the press is very adept at blowing smoke up its own ass). The good old days of fair journalism really didn't exist, despite what guys like Buzzinger claim, although there was a time in which the writing was much, much better than today.

In a word: Bullshlt. Just as with athletes, the best of the past were up there with the best of today. But trust me, once you go into the serious press, the sheer amount of quality journalism has only risen. The big quality dropoff has been in the networks and the papers that have been taken over by bottom line beancounters, but that has far more to do with the capitalist imperative than it does with any inherent ideological bias.

To that last point, I'll make my own semi-rebuttal: There are only three serious U.S. newspapers left. But since most of the rest of the media, while admitting it or not, mooches off them, their influence goes far beyond their own limited circulation. And their worst enemies confirm this every day by the continuous stink they raise about their "bias."

Juice, not to contradict you, but was Bonds always vilified all that much? Didn't he do that cute ad with Hank Aaron? When he showed up with his A-game for the '02 World Series, didn't he get some credit from the MSM? Wasn't he a highlight-show darling for his HRs? Again, I may be fabulating all this, or I may have been sleepwalking through those years. It just seemed to me that Bonds, though never a cuddly character like Sammy Sosa, was pretty well given a "pass" in many important respects (certainly as compared to Clemens or Jeff Kent or even JD Drew for that matter, to name some unpopular white guys) – at least till BALCO.

There are only three serious U.S. newspapers left

The NYT, the WaPo, and the San Francisco Chronicle? or the CSM, maybe? I might have said the LA Times, but they just killed their book-review section, so I am taking them less seriously ...

Juice, not to contradict you, but was Bonds always vilified all that much?

Yes he was. he was constantly ripped apart by the SF Press corp. Constantly. and since that stuff went straight into the AP pool, that was the "news" across the country when it came to Barry.

There are only three serious U.S. newspapers left

NY Times, The Washington Post, and LA Times. No way the Chronicle is up there.

Wasn't he a highlight-show darling for his HRs?

That much is definitely true. SportsCenter gave him a pass a lot longer than any other media outlet in the country, since he gave them highlights.

In any case, thank goodness we only have to put with this nonsense for eighteen more days... I'm just going to laugh at all the poor miserable little Bonds fanchildren, and maybe gloat a little bit.

No, Joey. After this latest non-deadline deadline, you get to sit through the postmortems of which 9th- and 10th-seeded teams threw away their seasons by not signing Barry Bonds, and were thus spared the distracting media circus of the postseason.

The availability of Bonds will continue to be a story in 2009, too, and the discussion will only increase if (when?) the trial goes his way. How long did we get Rickey Henderson updates?

MLB believed it could wish the very bad man into the cornfield and be done with him. MLB guessed wrong. They, and all the gleeful Bud-boys who applauded the poorly-thought-out ends/means strategy, are finding out that it's possible to get exactly what you want and still not be very happy.

Despite the title of Wojciechowski's piece, Bonds isn't the only one to "suffer through" a situation of his own creation. Some dead horses continue to run, and a few outpace the field.

My memory is going ... did Roger Clemens get a pass for all the Piazza chin-music stuff? Or for that matter (way too far back to trust my memory here) for the 1990 playoff ejection against Oakland? My impression was that the press was always just waiting for Clemens to behave like a jerk so that they could point it out. He sometimes obliged.

and yet he still got a pass.

Commercial endorsements, favorable treatment from the media, cameo spots on sports center, his minor league rehab games covered live nationally. Roger lived a very privileged life when it came to media treatment. Especially with all the stuff coming out now about his misgivings during his playing career.

And yet look at how Clemens has been treated since the Mitchell Report. He's now joined at the hip with Bonds, and unless one of them confesses while the other continues to deny, I'll bet that their HoF percentage will be within a few points of each other's, whatever that percentage turns out to be.

Why is it that BBC's no-names are still getting a pass, even though many of them are black?

cus they are no names. nobody cares about steroids Andy.

I completely agree, but then why are you raising the race question about Bonds? The only true comparisons for Bonds are McGwire (post-BALCO and Fifth Amendment) and Clemens (post-Mitchell Report). And in those two comparisons, there's no big distinction that isn't largely a result of Bonds's continuing to be active in baseball after the steroid revelations. Only if Bonds had quit at the same time McGwire did---or if Clemens had been formally named in 2005, not 2008--- would you have any true pre-2008 comparison.

And for every fan who can name Bonds's mistress, there are ten or a hundred who know the name of Margo Adams.

Serious question (and I agree with your premise): how much of that was Margo Adams?

I honestly don't know, but I suspect it had something to do with Boggs's obsession with chicken as much as his obsession with poontang, and with Adams' recipe for chicken cacciatore as much as her recipe for pusssy pie. He's one of those players who's pretty much been pegged as an idiot savant, a genius in batting technique but a wacko or a me-firster in just about everything else.

The availability of Bonds will continue to be a story in 2009, too, and the discussion will only increase if (when?) the trial goes his way.

Only to the most delusional and obsessed fanboys such as yourself.

Even in the unlikely event that he ends up being fully acquitted of every single charge against him, no major league baseball team is singing him in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or the year 2525. His career is over, a fact which I suspect even he fully understands by now, his amusing jokes at Outfielder Appreciation Night notwithstanding.

The only thing that's going to change is that guys like you are only going to look more and more ridiculous as time goes by.

There are only three serious U.S. newspapers left

NY Times, The Washington Post, and LA Times. No way the Chronicle is up there

NY Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. The LA Times is a shadow of its former self. And we'll see how the Journal holds up after a few years of Murdoch.

And BTW as an addendum to what I said above about the Golden Age of Journalism, I'll put many of Michael Wilbon's and Sally Jenkins' commentaries on sport and society up against any mainstream sportswriter of any age. And yes, I remember Red Smith and Shirley Povich, etc., etc. Their styles were different and reflected their eras, but their substance wasn't any greater.

why are you raising the race question about Bonds?

you keep drawing this imaginary line with regards to media coverage, post Balco. I am saying it is the bigger picture. The coverage through out their entire careers. A large contingency of Americans hated Barry Bonds long before Balco. Why? Because the media told them too.

Even to this day, I would say that the overwhelming sentiment is hatred for Bonds, and simple disappointment for Roger and Mark. That is the media doing. They planted and watered those seeds, not just after Balco, but pre-Balco.

you said it was 99% Barry's doing. I'll agree simply to agree. But his skin color is a large chunk of that 99%.

Only to the most delusional and obsessed fanboys such as yourself.

Yeah, I think you've said that once or twice already. The horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses.

As it happens, you're wrong again. From the beginning of the year I've written, delusionally and sycophantically, that Barry Bonds would never be signed by anyone in 2008.

More to the point, my post in this thread talks ONLY about the persistent coverage of MLB's ironclad decision not to sign Bonds, and MLB's shortsightedness in thinking the tactic would successfully cut off such coverage. There's not a word about my secret fairydust wishes that my beautiful Barry will be signed tomorrow. But that would be a distinction and I understand you don't like doing those.

The only thing that's going to change is that guys like you are only going to look more and more ridiculous as time goes by.

What's this? Why... I'm in a cornfield!

I honestly don't know, but I suspect it had something to do with Boggs's obsession with chicken as much as his obsession with poontang, and with Adams' recipe for chicken cacciatore as much as her recipe for pusssy pie.

I can't find a recipe for ##### pie in any of my cookbooks.

But trust me, once you go into the serious press, the sheer amount of quality journalism has only risen.

The serious press? What exactly are you talking about? That sounds like a small, elite "group", which would contradict "sheer volume."

>>>The big quality dropoff has been in the networks and the papers that have been taken over by bottom line beancounters, but that has far more to do with the capitalist imperative than it does with any inherent ideological bias.<<<

Wow, you really are all over the place. I said "writing", not journalism. I also came nohwere near suggesting that the quality of wqriting had dropped because of inherent, idealogical bias. I didn't mean to imply that there aren't writers (in the profession of journalism) today who aren't as talented as yesteryear -- and yes, ther ewer ecertainly bad writer in the press in those days. However, across the board of the profession, the quality of writing has dropped -- for many reasons, although the beancounter's bottom line has been the driving force.

>>> There are only three serious U.S. newspapers left. But since most of the rest of the media, while admitting it or not, mooches off them, their influence goes far beyond their own limited circulation.<<<

I am not even sure there are three left, but that is another debate. For discussions's sake, let's say there are three. How can you possibly say that the writing in three newspapers are carrying the profession?

dontchu love it when football writers write about a guy they never covered and a sport they don't know?

Credit where it's due: "Wojo" doesn't know football very well, either.

Ah, so I'm not the only one who remembers Wojo from his L.A. Times days.

It's pretty sad; I grew up reading the Times Sports section when it featured Jim Murray. Nowadays, the columns are unreadable.

And BTW as an addendum to what I said above about the Golden Age of Journalism, I'll put many of Michael Wilbon's and Sally Jenkins' commentaries on sport and society up against any mainstream sportswriter of any age.

I would agree and add some more. However, across the board, writing had declined in the profession.

>>>The Wall Street Journal.<<<

That is the one I have serious doubts about.

>>>The LA Times is a shadow of its former self.<<<

I would say it isn't even the same paper; just the same masthead.

Gene Wojciechowski seems to write about Barry Bonds -- and steroids in baseball -- quite a bit. I guess it is pretty easy to do. It has grown stale.

But hey, some days I phone it in at work, too, so who am I to criticize.

Actually, I find the steroids / Bonds threads weirdly fascinating. I keep coming back. I have been reading these things (as a lurker) for years. I don't really know why, other than I find the personalities involved in these threads rather interesting. I feel like I sort of know all of you.

At this point, I wish some crappy team would sign Bonds. My preference would be the Reds, because I live in Cincinnati, and the season has sort of been a rough one. I have a few more games in my ticket pack, and now that Adam Dunn is gone, Bonds would give us something more to watch. He might hit, he might be terrible, the fans might cheer or boo; but it would be interesting. And Dusty Baker would be the perfect guy to defend him in the local paper.

why are you raising the race question about Bonds?

you keep drawing this imaginary line with regards to media coverage, post Balco. I am saying it is the bigger picture. The coverage through out their entire careers. A large contingency of Americans hated Barry Bonds long before Balco. Why? Because the media told them too.

But what brought on this media reaction in the first place? There were plenty of black players in Pittsburgh who got good press during their careers, even at a time when the media was far whiter and less diverse than it is today. The media hostility to Bonds had to start somewhere, and such feuds usually don't begin with the press.

Even to this day, I would say that the overwhelming sentiment is hatred for Bonds, and simple disappointment for Roger and Mark. That is the media doing. They planted and watered those seeds, not just after Balco, but pre-Balco.

Words like "hatred" and "disappointment" are subjective, but HoF votes are there in black and white. Let's see how the best hitter and the best pitcher of their generation---both named, but both in denial---stack up when the first ballots have been tallied. And while it's tough to compare a lesser player like McGwire to a pair of legends like Bonds and Clemens, 23% is still a pretty damn strong message.

you said it was 99% Barry's doing. I'll agree simply to agree. But his skin color is a large chunk of that 99%.

I doubt if it's more than a small percentage, though that's one of those things that's hard to prove one way or the other. But it's sure a lot closer to 1% than to the 50% you cited earlier. Bonds is a unique individual, and the circumstances of his shaming are likewise only comparable to one, or perhaps two players.

-------------------

I can't find a recipe for ##### pie in any of my cookbooks.

That's funny, I found it right here on the first try.

But trust me, once you go into the serious press, the sheer amount of quality journalism has only risen.

The serious press? What exactly are you talking about? That sounds like a small, elite "group", which would contradict "sheer volume."

I'm off for the evening, but your entire post warrants an answer, and if you can come back later, I'll try to give you a fair reply. I'm not sure we're really in that much disagreement.

Gene Wojciechowski seems to write about Barry Bonds -- and steroids in baseball -- quite a bit.

Actually, this took time away from his numerous recent articles portraying Ted Thompson as the Anti-Christ and shoving a halo on Farve (although it's possible that was the general edict from ESPN), so he had to spit this one out fairly quickly.

I'm not sure we're really in that much disagreement.

I don't think we are either. I think there was just some confusion over what I meant about "writing".

I can't find a recipe for ##### pie in any of my cookbooks.

That's funny, I found it right here on the first try.

Outstanding! I should have Googled. Now that I am at home, and not at work, it is OK to Google ##### pie. At work, not so much.

NY Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. The LA Times is a shadow of its former self. And we'll see how the Journal holds up after a few years of Murdoch.

And the Christian Science Monitor makes 4.

I've always been a Bonds fan, but he brought his current situation upon himself. Barry in his prime couldn't be brought down by the press, but he had to know eventually they'd have their day. It takes much more skill to play baseball than skewer an athlete in the media..

Sportswriters have never really been journalists, and I say this as a former sw. It's a subset of the entertainment press, which is mainly pr.

As for the regular press, it's a load of horse manure, including the NYT and WP. WSJ has always had the best news coverage because it's readership demands accurate, up-to-the-minute news because huge sums of money are at stake.

Sure, there are nuggets of undigested truth in the horse patty, but too much exposure to that crap will kill any sense of smell you have for finding it.

Wonderbread.