(The following is being syndicated from The Captain’s Blog).
Collateral damage is the “unintended or incidental” consequence of an action. Although unfortunate, collateral damage is usually considered to be a necessary evil required to achieve an objective. Almost 600 years ago, an Italian scholar named Machiavelli articulated a philosophy centered on this phenomenon. In a nutshell, “the end justifies the means”.
Three years after being indicted, Barry Bonds finally has his day in court (Photo: AP).
This morning, Barry Bonds walked into a federal courthouse in San Francisco to answer charges that he lied during testimony to a grand jury investigating the BALCO scandal that uncovered systemic use of performance enhancing drugs throughout the world of sports. In the seven-plus years since Bonds first testified that he did not knowingly take steroids, the U.S. government has pushed the limits of Machiavelli’s axiom in an attempt to prove their case. Meanwhile, the mainstream media, acting as a self appointed custodian of the game’s morality, has engaged in similar tactics, convicting countless players of a variety of transgressions without anything more than the slightest circumstantial evidence.
The merits of the government’s case against Bonds are open to debate, but the amount of money spent and tactics used to compile evidence make it hard to believe the ultimate goal is justice. And, if it is, what price is being paid to attain it?
There’s no arguing against the importance of upholding the sanctity of the criminal justice system by prosecuting cases of perjury, but that doesn’t mean the end justifies the means. The hypocrisy employed by the government is best illustrated by the many leaks that have emanated from the federal prosecutor’s office. Just as witnesses have an obligation to tell the truth, the government has an obligation to protect the privacy of testimony. To date, there have been no charges filed to uphold that sanctity of that confidentiality.
As shameful as the government’s conduct has been, the sports media’s actions have been even worse. For them, Bonds hasn’t been a means. He has been the end, and the damage done to countless others has been the collateral damage.
From little-league teams all the way up to college and professional ranks, the breakfast of champions these days is likely to be some drug: upper, downer, painkiller, muscle-builder. The genie of the pill bottle threatens both athletes and athletics.” – Jack Scott, director of the Institute of for the Study of Sport and Society, The New York Times, October 17, 1971
Contrary to what many would like to believe, steroids are not a modern creation. The documented usage of performance enhancing substances predates Barry Bonds’ prolific homerun spree by decades. Only after Bonds name surfaced amid allegations, however, did moral outrage ensue.
- Most other sports have handled steroid issues without much fanfare. The NFL, for example, had a rampant problem in the 1970s that it eventually (allegedly) brought under control without the fire and brimstone that baseball has had to endure. Of course, if not for Bonds, it may have also been possible for baseball to escape without the level of scrutiny it eventually received.
Since early in his career, Bonds’ mistrust of the media has caused him to look over his shoulder.
Bonds was never a popular player among the media. To say that the slugger distrusted the press would be an understatement. Throughout his career, he refused to pay deference to those holding tape recorders, so a natural level of mutual contempt arose between the two parties. As long as he was hitting homeruns and establishing his legacy as one of the greatest players in the game, Bonds could get away with treating the media with disdain. When the steroid allegations arose, however, the media finally had the ammunition needed to go on the offensive. The result was a relentless onslaught that sought to destroy Bonds’ reputation and anyone else’s who got in the way.
Getting Barry Bonds spawned a cottage industry of “gotcha journalism” disguised as investigative reporting. Meanwhile, major league baseball, under pressure from the U.S. Congress, created its own collateral damage with the misguided creation of Mitchell Report. Now, after essentially being blacklisted from the game and having various indictments hang over his head for three years, Bonds finally gets the chance to defend himself. Ironically, however, no one seems to care anymore. And, why should they? Bonds’ reputation has already been destroyed. The mission has been accomplished. The end justifies the means.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
10 Responses to Collateral Damage: “Getting Bonds” Has Been the Real Objective of the Steroid Era
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
Will, this is one of your most well written pieces, and that’s saying something.
“Getting Barry Bonds spawned a cottage industry of “gotcha journalism” disguised as investigative reporting.”
Yup. No real purpose to any of that stuff except some vague notions of protecting the game from something that plenty of fans do not even care about. They elected themselves moral arbiters of the sport and then went about policing it under the terms that they created.
An outstanding piece of work. First class!
Bravo! You have a bright future in writing and journalism!
Terrific piece, but I have two minor quibbles
convicting countless players of a variety of transgressions without anything more than the slightest circumstantial evidence.
Well sure, the media does that all day long. People say stuff, they report it, and were supposed to make up our own minds who to believe or not. I have some trouble with using the word “convicted” here. I know you mean it metaphorically, but Bonds faces no sanction, no loss of freedom by anything written in the press. If he’s convicted, it’s in the court of public opinion. Which leads me to my next quibble:
Ironically, however, no one seems to care anymore. And, why should they? Bonds’ reputation has already been destroyed.
Yes, destroyed by the public becoming aware of what HE himself did. Let’s not shoot the messenger here. Bonds has been destroyed by his own hand, and by his own hubris. He claimed he was clean, and the media went about disproving HIS claim. Had he kept his mouth shut, you’d have a better case for painting him as the aggrieved party here.
You were correct to assume that I meant convicted metaphorically, but that doesn’t mean Bonds hasn’t faced a “sanction”. I would argue that his being persona non grata around baseball is at least partly the result of the media’s relentless campaign to brand him as the game’s greatest villain. After all, Bonds didn’t retire…no one would offer him a job. If Bonds should win this case, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a lawsuit filed against baseball because I can’t think of a good reason why a man with an OPS over 1.000 couldn’t find a job.
Also, I would point out that my use of “convicted” wasn’t limited to Bonds. For example, the media has “convicted” Bagwell without any evidence, and I would argue that his not being elected to the Hall of Fame as a result is, in fact, a sanction.
As for your second point, we really don’t know what Bonds did. Everyone thinks they know what he did, but there really hasn’t been definitive proof. I don’t agree with your assertion that the media has disproved his claim. Otherwise, why has the government needed three years and millions of dollars to build its case? If after all that effort, the case against Bonds still falls apart, I think it calls into question what we think we know. Of course, everyone’s mind has already been made up, so it won’t matter, which is precisely my point.
What depresses me most about this whole issue is the hypocrisy exhibited by the media.
Back in 1998, Steve Wilstein was demonized by the media for daring to mention the bottle of (then legal) Androstenedione in Mark McGwire’s locker. Last year, when the McGwire story acquired fresh legs, I emailed the presenters of a well-known baseball podcast and posed the question, didn’t they feel that the media was in some way complicit all along in PED use in baseball? Had they not (in effect) known all along what must be going on?
The podcast presenters trotted out the familiar defensive statements. No, of course they hadn’t had the faintest idea that players were using PEDs. It all went on completely behind closed doors, and they – the very same baseball journalists who have in many cases been hanging around locker rooms for their entire 20, 30 or even 40-year careers – were entirely blameless.
Of course, such protestations are risible, and they would just be plain funny were it not for the fact that, as soon as the cat was out of the bag, these very journalists had not taken the moral high ground in condemning anyone associated with (or suspected of) PED use.
Just as the puritans attempted to prove their own devotion to God by condemning others for their lack of piety, it’s almost as though the baseball hacks want to demonstrate their own innocence by rounding on PED users in a spiralling competition of condemnatory oneupmanship.
I don’t agree with your assertion that the media has disproved his claim. Otherwise, why has the government needed three years and millions of dollars to build its case?
You seem to be conflating the role of the media and the role of a federal prosecutor. One is a court of law, the other is the court of public opinion. The media doesn’t only print things that are admissible in court, if that was the standard then newspapers would be empty. Their only obligation is to give both sides the opportunity to respond. When someone makes a claim about Bonds, and they ask him or his representatives to comment, their job is complete. Again, it’s a much lower standard because much less is at stake.
Anyway, it’s a minor point. I largely agree with your take.
I am not conflating the roles at all. The point was if the media has already convincingly proven Bonds lied, wouldn’t you expect the prosecutors. with all their millions and sharp legal minds, to have been able to quickly compile a slam dunk case? I’d like to think that if sports writers around the country can so easily make the case, the U.S. government could as well, but maybe I am being naive.
I also realize the media has no burden of being responsible with the “evidence” they print, but again, that’s my point. The media has had incredibly low standards…and they are getting lower every day.
The point was if the media has already convincingly proven Bonds lied, wouldn’t you expect the prosecutors. with all their millions and sharp legal minds, to have been able to quickly compile a slam dunk case?
Not necessarily. What you personally believe and what you can prove in a court of law are often two very different things.