SOBB: the Saga Of Barry Bonds

You’ve probably already heard, but in case you haven’t, divisive slugger Barry Bonds, the current baseball home run champion, was indicted by a U.S. federal jury on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on November 15, 2007, the fallout from a federal investigation into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO). Bonds faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in jail.

However, before the indictment itself- and the potential impact of the trial will have on Bonds’ legacy- can be assessed, a history lesson is in order due to the long, complex gestation of the story. Bonds’ status as a contentious individual leaves the potential for a lot of misinformation, and it’s important to know all the details before one rushes to a judgement that may be too rash.

Controversy surrounding Bonds is nothing new. He has long been held as one of baseball’s “anti-heroes”, a superstar with undeniable baseball skills but non-existent people skills, famous (or infamous) for his disdain with the media and an overall appearance of a man who is both unapproachable and selfish (this couldn’t have been made more clear by Bonds’ refusal to participate in this year’s home run derby, despite the fact that the derby would be held in San Francisco). In 2001- three years after another steroid scandal involving Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa broke during their home run record chase- Bonds broke the home run record with 73 home runs in 2001 at the age of 36, adding his name to the list of baseball players alleged to have taken steroids. In the ensuing years, Bonds’ name came to be merely one in a long list of other stars like Rafael Palmeiro, the aforementioned Sosa and McGwire, Jason Giambi, and Ken Caminiti, with “rampant steroid use” already alleged in a tell-all book by Jose Canseco, himself admitting being a former user. The furor eventually found its way to the U.S. Congress, where McGwire, Canseco, Sosa, Palmeiro and Curt Schilling were all asked to testify at a 2005 hearing. At the hearing, Sosa didn’t speak a word of English, Palmeiro denied steroid use, McGwire denied to confirm or deny steroid use (although the truth of McGwire’s comment- “If a player answers ‘No’, he simply will not be believed; if he answers ‘Yes’, he risks public scorn and endless government investigations”- couldn’t have been more accurate), Canseco admitted a rampant problem and Schilling derided it. A year previously, Caminiti lost his life due to a drug overdose (unrelated to steroids), two years after admitting steroid use during his 1996 MVP season.

At this stage, Bonds seemed like a peripheral figure, but as the major players in the initial phase saw their cases (mostly) resolved- Palmeiro was indeed found to have used steroids (and suspended for them in 2005), Sosa’s injury-prone ways (where he infamously took out his back while sneezing) have stopped the talk there somewhat, and Giambi admitted (though never directly) to steroid use- Bonds and his steadfast denials found themselves in the spotlight. His specific story started in 2000 when he began work with a personal trainer named Greg Anderson, at that time a worker for BALCO. At the time, Bonds states Anderson gave him arthritis cream and flaxseed oil which investigators allege are “the cream” and “the clear”- components of the designer steroid THG. In 2003, the United States District Attorney for North California investigated BALCO after U.S. sprint team coach Trevor Graham made an anonymous phone call to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (the U.S. organization responsible for implementing the World Anti-Doping Agency’s policies). The ensuing investigation obtained on September 3, 2003 a list of customers that included baseball players Bonds, Giambi, and Gary Sheffield, shot-putter C.J. Hunter, his wife sprinter Marion Jones, fellow sprinter Tim Montgomery (who had a world record stripped), boxer Shane Mosley and several members of the Oakland Raiders, including All-Pros Dana Stubblefield and Bill Romanowski. The four BALCO defendants- including Anderson- stuck plea agreements in August of 2005 that prevented them from naming their customers, but in March of 2006, the book “The Game of Shadows” would be released that did just that. The book proved to be the most responsible in establishing a link between Bonds and steroids, as the writers- Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada- included within their exhaustive research grand jury testimony (against BALCO) of which Bonds was a part of.

April of 2006 saw the beginning of two new processes- the 2006 Major League season, where Bonds was on the cusp of breaking Babe Ruth’s mark of 714 home runs (held to be “the” standard despite it being second to Hank Aaron’s 755 home runs), and a perjury investigation into whether or not Bonds lied under oath at the BALCO hearings in 2003. Anderson refused to testify against Bonds, arguing it violated his plea agreement, but U.S. District Judge William Alsup sentenced him to prison, siding with prosecutors who argued their plea agreement didn’t preclude a subpoena. Anderson spent over a year and a half in prison as a result of his refusal, released only after Bonds was indicted.

Predictably, as Anderson’s legal troubles carried themselves out, Bonds surpassed not only Ruth (on May 28, 2006) but also Aaron (on August 7, 2007). Baseball fans sat on both sides of the fence on Bonds’ chase- some argued that Bonds’ mark was tainted by steroids (though an unproven allegation), while others chose to celebrate it, arguing that Bonds, at that point, was still technically clean. It was clear how MLB saw the experience- Commissioner Bud Selig could be seen clearly keeping his hands in his pocket while standing during Bonds’ standing ovation after he hit home run No. 756 off of Washington Nationals pitcher Mike Bacsik (who wound up winning the game, 8-6), while Aaron himself couldn’t have been bothered to show up (unlike Gordie Howe who travelled to arena to arena hoping to see Wayne Gretzky break his scoring marks). The best Aaron did was provide a video congratulating Bonds, and while Bonds appreciated it, the whole display felt forced. Later, fashion designer Mark Ecko won an auction for the home run ball, holding a vote to determine what he should do with it. The outcome was to donate it to the Hall and brandish it with an asterisk, a decision Bonds (expectedly) derided, insisting “there is no asterisk in baseball”.

That is how the story led up to November 15, 2007, which merely starts another long chapter that extends this already long story. According to the indictment, Bonds is alleged to have tested positive in a November 2000 test obtained by the federal investigators. This test was procured by BALCO, as the indictment quotes testimony that links documents recovered in the 2003 BALCO raid. That is- so far- the only definitive test that is included in the records, as the other charges the investigators are pursuing involve whether or not Bonds received drugs from Anderson from 2000 to 2003. At this stage, there appears to be no other test results in question, although- considering that investigators possess a bevy of BALCO documents, more could be unearthed as the trial progresses.

The anti-Bonds crew likely views the indictment as a positive development, a decisive cog in the battle against rampant steroid use in baseball because, now, the highest profile allegations could not escape itself from the law. The pro-Bonds camp, on the other hand, would be right to sense an air of inevitability, given the steroid shroud baseball has cast itself in and the air of hostility Bonds himself carried around throughout his entire career.

Of course, the question remains just what will happen as a result of this trial. ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser said on the November 16, 2007 episode of “Pardon The Interruption”, “if Barry Bonds is acquitted, he walks into Cooperstown”, which should be the case but given the amount of media personnel who disliked Bonds before his steroid allegations and given the amount of disbelief that the “not guilty” verdicts of Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson received in their “can’t miss” trials, Bonds’ induction is no sure bet. In theory, he has the numbers and at least the technical exoneration to get himself into Cooperstown unanimously, but Bonds will probably never be the kind of character for which any doubt can be completely excised.

If Bonds is convicted, he is certainly not going to Cooperstown, although the circumstances of such a snub is murky. Considering that Mark McGwire isn’t technically banned from baseball, McGwire’s absence from the Hall of Fame is seen as a result of the fact he wavered on the steroid question. Palmeiro is also in a similar boat, since he has not yet announced his retirement despite last playing in the 2005 season. Consequentially, Bonds may meet the same fate- he’ll simply be a “persona non grata” instead of being formally banned, although a federal conviction (of which neither McGwire or Palmeiro have) and the fact he is already such a contentious character in baseball may lead to a formal ban anyway.

Bonds’ record, though, according to precedent, seems to be particularly safe. None of the players ever banned by baseball had their statistics nullified (not even the members of the Black Sox Scandal, whose 1919 World Series statistics still remain on record), and considering that MLB’s drug policy does not call for any records to be stricken from the books (as Palmeiro’s statistics, most notably, are still valid), Bonds’ 762 home runs appear safe. Furthermore, considering that no *baseball* test exists establishing a direct link between Bonds’ performance and steroids, MLB would be hard-pressed to remove Bonds’ mark without legal difficulty. It is true that in Bonds’ case, the alleged steroid use is retroactive (unlike Palmeiro who was tested during the season), but considering that other players have kept their statistics intact despite positive tests, it’s unlikely that Bonds won’t. Whether or not Bonds deserves the record is immaterial, because that is another argument altogether, but the fact of the matter still remains that it’s highly unlikely that Bonds’ record is in any serious jeopardy.

That, of course, is all in the long run- Bonds still has to have his day in court, a clearer picture of Bonds’ future can be made as all the details of the trial emerge. As for the guilt or innocence of Bonds- that won’t be discussed here, as the point of this piece was to examine the potential impact of his legacy, and “guilt” is a better question to be answered by the courts; and that legacy seems to be at worst tarnished but will not be taken away. One thing is for certain, however- Bonds, guilty or not, won’t leave baseball quietly (par for the course given his career) and, no matter whether or not one hates him or loves him, Bonds is certainly going to be remembered. For what, though, remains to be seen.

-DG