Bonds blame? Writers need to refocus
From the start of "Game of Shadows" the San Francisco sports writers link Bonds desire to bulk to watching Mark McGwire break the home run record with 70 long balls in 1998. Can you blame Bonds at that point for wanting to emulate McGwire? How many times have you heard an expert on sports radio or a caller who "did" steroids say you would have to be blind not to know that a guy was juicing? Well Bonds looked at McGwire, knew this guy was cheating and saw the big money rolling in for the red head and his Latino tag team partner Sammy Sosa.
"So why not me?" Barry says to himself, and according to the book Bonds starts a major regiment of undetectable steroids, human growth hormones and every other enhancer they gave the 6-million dollar man. "We can rebuild him. . . We have the technology." (cue music)
The result:
"Nice head."
Lets face it, fans have no faith that Commissioner Bud Selig is going to lift a finger against Bonds short of Barry admitting he used the drugs. If Bud was going to do something it should have happened after the initial grand jury leak that contained testimony from Bonds that he had indeed used, "unknowingly", steroids known as the cream and the clear.
Chances are better that Bonds would retire if Bud was pressured into taking action anyway. So what about taking action against McGwire? Forget it. MLB has no hard evidence, much less desire, to remove any of McGwire's records. So how do we achieve change?
It starts and ends with the baseball writers (above) who hold the player's entry into the Hall of Fame in their hands. Too many writers, like that idiot Tim Kurkjian on ESPN, are willing to look the other way and vote these cheaters in the Hall without a second thought. "IF" these writers wake up and take action to keep McGwire out of the Hall of Fame (the vote is coming up this year) it will send a clear signal that the fans are being heard and that cheating will have ramifications. Just call it wishful thinking from your Uncle Buck.
1986
1992
1998
2001
2004
2006
"Sure Mark, sure."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home