John Feinstein, self-appointed moral guardian of sports. I love this:

Only in a court of law are you innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion you can be guilty at any time, especially when the evidence of your guilt is overwhelming.

... given Feinstein's history with the Duke lacrosse case.

Being a hero is not a right granted by the constitution; it is a privilege. Bonds gave up that privilege years ago, as did every single steroid user in every single sport.

Did Bonds every say he thought of himself as a hero? Maybe he did, that's a serious question.

Bonds was a cancer, in part because he’s such a complete and total jerk

I've said this before, but if I had grown up seeing my dad treated like total crap by the press for his entire career, then went into the same line of work, I'd probably have a chip on my shoulder when dealing with those guys too. That's probably not fair to individual sportswriters whom Bonds may have treated poorly without provocation, and it doesn't excuse unprofessionalism, but I think it explains a lot of the animosity, and I think a lot of people aren't aware of that past.

Am I a defender of Bonds if I just find this entire storyline to be tiresome and not worth my time any more? Do I hate America and want the terrorists to win?

Actually he did test positive for amphetamines and did admit to a grand jury that he “accidentally” took steroids.

And people tell me there's no double-standard with amphetamines. Apparently, they only matter when Bonds takes them.

And he didn't admit to a grand jury that he accidentally took steroids, he admitted to a jury that, at some point, he took a creamy substance and a clear substance that prosecutors have suggested were steroids. Now, it seems likely they were, but Bonds hasn't admitted anything.

What mind-altering drugs are these people on?

Actually he did test positive for amphetamines and did admit to a grand jury that he "accidentally" took steroids.

QED?

Until Feinstein gets down on his knees and publicly begs forgiveness for what he did during the Duke lacrosse case (and even afterward), he is among the least qualified writers to sit in judgment of anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, he's human scum.

Bonds was a cancer, in part because he’s such a complete and total jerk, but because his angry denials about his obvious steroid use got so old and so tedious.

maybe his responses wouldn't have seemed so old and tedious if the media got as tired of asking its questions as as we all have of hearing them.

Some also made the “he’s innocent until proven guilty” argument. Wrong again. Only in a court of law are you innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion you can be guilty at any time, especially when the evidence of your guilt is overwhelming.

which is precisely why we have the rule about being innocent until proven guilty in law courts in the first place. this statement is by feinstein is about as close as you'll get to someone saying, "we need a witchburning here!" i'm no supporter of bonds, nor do i think athletes should take steroids, but feinstein is a moron and probably dangerous.

But what does Diane think of it?

this statement is by feinstein is about as close as you'll get to someone saying, "we need a witchburning here!" i'm no supporter of bonds, nor do i think athletes should take steroids, but feinstein is a moron and probably dangerous.

Again: go back and check on what Feinstein was saying about the Duke LAX kids even after it had become blazingly obvious that they were 100% innocent victims. Dude has a pattern.

She thinks Sam would've had a better baseball career if he had gone to BALCO.

even when it was becoming blazingly obvious that they were 100% innocent

Nobody is 100% innocent. Those guys are not rapists, and should not have been charged as rapists, but they are far from innocent in the matter. They could easily have been convicted on a number of misdemeanor charges and probably deserved to be kicked off the team and/or out of school.

Of course, none of that excuses Feinstein in that case or this one.

they are far from innocent in the matter. They could easily have been convicted on a number of misdemeanor charges and probably deserved to be kicked off the team and/or out of school.

What do you mean by the "matter" in "innocent in the matter"?

The only "misdemeanor" they committed was underage drinking, which apparently you think should get college kids kicked out of school.

Also to back up Esoteric's position on Feinstein, seesee

I don’t think I’ve been proven wrong, because . . . I said, I think they’re probably guilty of everything but rape.

The only "misdemeanor" they committed was underage drinking, which apparently you think should get college kids kicked out of school.

I know a couple of guys on the team who have a different view. Can't really say more than that.

#14 - Ignoratio

What kind of vague BS is that? I typically interpret statements such as yours to mean "I'm making it up but I still want to hint ominously at dark deeds and feel important." Since I think you're better than that, I ask you to please skip the Larry Mahnken "I know but I can't tell you" crap and tell us what you're talking about.

Either provide substance or don't mention it at all. The worst thing these kids seem to have ever done rises only to the level of your typical frat-boy idiocy.

And he didn't admit to a grand jury that he accidentally took steroids, he admitted to a jury that, at some point, he took a creamy substance and a clear substance that prosecutors have suggested were steroids.

Like, whatever, dude.

I don't care how you interpret it.

But let me clarify: I wasn't trying to hint at any "ominously dark deeds." In my book, if it's only a misdemeanor, it doesn't come close to passing the ominously dark test. I don't really have an opinion of the young men one way or the other. I don't know them, and I did not witness their alleged bad acts. So I'm not in a position to judge. I do happen to know some individuals who are in a position to judge, and they do not judge kindly.

I know a couple of guys on the team who have a different view. Can't really say more than that.

Hey, only Larry Mahnken is allowed to pull this routine.

You're right that those players weren't angels (most college athletes aren't). At least one of them yelled a racial slur at the strippers (not illegal in America but certainly a vile thing to do), and at least one of them has had a scrape with the law in an unrelated situation.

What was so pernicious about that particular incident is that in the minds of some people these days, a mere accusation of rape automatically confers guilt. There are probably still some people out there who believe that they really did rape Mangum.

I hope people aren't going to try to compare the feds in the Bonds perjury case to Mike Nifong, because that isn't going to pass muster with anyone except maybe a few diehard Giants fans and some unrepentant Bonds sycophants.

Hey, only Larry Mahnken is allowed to pull this routine.

I won't let it happen again.

You're right that those players weren't angels (most college athletes aren't). At least one of them yelled a racial slur at the strippers (not illegal in America but certainly a vile thing to do), and at least one of them has had a scrape with the law in an unrelated situation.

The other trick people pull is to say that "the players" were this or that, and trot out the "racial slur" -- which was a racist comment rather than a racial slur, btw -- to say that even though they were exonerated, they weren't really innocent. A statement which ignores the fact that these were different people. (I'm not actually criticizing Joey here, but people like Feinstein.) That is, the person who yelled the comment -- in response to a racial comment from one of the strippers -- was not one of the defendants in the case.

On the other hand, this is a criticism of Joey:

What was so pernicious about that particular incident is that in the minds of some people these days, a mere accusation of rape automatically confers guilt. There are probably still some people out there who believe that they really did rape Mangum.

I hope people aren't going to try to compare the feds in the Bonds perjury case to Mike Nifong, because that isn't going to pass muster with anyone except maybe a few diehard Giants fans and some unrepentant Bonds sycophants.

You don't have the slightest bit of self-awareness at all, do you?

most college athletes aren't (angels)

My son played organized football for the first time this fall. One of his middle school coaches is a former all-conference offensive lineman at a D1 school. And he absolutely is an angel. So there's one, at least.

I hope people aren't going to try to compare the feds in the Bonds perjury case to Mike Nifong, because that isn't going to pass muster with anyone except maybe a few diehard Giants fans and some unrepentant Bonds sycophants.

Except, of course, that these feds kept Greg Anderson in jail for, what, almost 2 years, by telling the judge that his testimony was essential to the work of the Grand Jury, and they absolutely had to have it -- only to proceed to an indictment without it, proving that they were BS-ing a federal judge in order to keep a man in prison.

But never so old and tedious that Sam Hutcheson and the other Bonds-tools here don't continue to repeat them ad nauseum.

Yeah, because god knows it's only the "Bonds-tools" who've promoted discussion of the issue. Hell, I'm probably giving the antis too much credit for even suggesting the "Bonds-tools" deserve equal credit for the topic getting "old and tedious."

Hey, only Larry Mahnken is allowed to pull this routine.

Heh. Since the Mahnken reference has been made twice in the span of a few posts, I'm now curious--what "Mahnken-speak" is this in reference to?

Since the Mahnken reference has been made twice in the span of a few posts, I'm now curious--what "Mahnken-speak" is this in reference to?

In a thread about an announcer getting fired, Larry said he knew why he was fired but couldn't tell anyone.

The only thing more tedious...

... is a John Feinstein column.

The guy's a born felatio giver. I'll never watch ESPN again on the chance I'll see his fat, smug kisser that looks like more of an a-hole than his buddy's, Ratface Kzryzewski. Same for listening to NPR. I'd literally spit on him if I ever get the chance.

Unless he is on fire at the time.

I don't mean this in a wiseguy fashion, but because I'm genuinely interested: how exactly did the media treat Bobby Bonds badly during his career? I've read several references to this on this site, but have never heard any specific examples. Most of what I've read about Bobby had to do with problems he had with managers and management, not the media. Also, which media was it, San Francisco, New York, California, Chicago, Texas? If anyone can provide details, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks.