Bull Durham Twenty Years On…

Have you ever wondered what happened to the denizens of the wonderful baseball movie Bull Durham?

Have you pondered the ultimate outcome of the Crash Davis philosophy of life?

Wonder no more. To quote Annie Savoy, “Oh My…”

Enjoy!

Barry Bonds-Too Clever by Half

A news story is up on insidebayarea.com saying that all-time Home Run champion Barry Bonds, the Ding King:

“…is tired of people accusing him of using steroids or evading taxes and has hired two prominent attorneys to ensure those who make false statements about him are legally punished. Oakland’s John Burris and San Francisco’s Todd Schneider announced Monday they will defend the slugger against false statements made by private citizens related to any illegal act someone might claim Bonds has admitted to.

Some interviewed about the plan were not impressed by:

“It’s not likely to have any legal weight,” said Stephen Barnett, professor emeritus at the Boalt Law School at the University of California, Berkeley. “For one thing, the statement has to be false. And since Bonds is a public figure, that statement would have to be knowingly or recklessly false.”

Also, once you get into court you testify under oath…and does Barry Bonds really want to be in court-where records are often not sealed-and have to answer questions about his alleged pharamceutical enhancement? Doubtful.

Two things stand out:
(1) He is not going to sue the media…so that means that once again he is passing on taking a shot at the authors of Game of Shadows, the book that really got the tongues wagging. Given that this book was the item that got folks going on both the matter of steroid abuse and income tax evasion, one might think that authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams would be at the top of his litigation hit parade. But apparently they aren’t, because they are media and because…

(2) His juicing was not specifically against the rules of baseball when he did apparently did it.  It was apparently administered, so it becomes more difficult to prove possession, and moves another step away from culpability.  Why is this important to consider?  Because Bonds will only defend “against false statements made by private citizens related to any illegal act someone might claim Bonds has admitted to”.  So if steroid use was not against the rules or his conduct “illegal”, then by Bonds definition it doesn’t sound like he has plans at all to face down someone on matters relating to juicing.

I wish he would just step up, own up and and move on. I can just imagine the press conference…shoot I can even give him the language. Remember Harold Abrahams facing down the Caius professors in “Chariots of Fire” when they challenge his training methods?

You know, gentlemen, you yearn for victory, just as I do…but achieved with
the apparent effortlessness of gods. Yours are the archaic values of the prep school playground. You deceive no one but yourselves. I believe in the pursuit of excellence… and I’ll carry the future with me.

Yep, I think Barry could take an energetic defense of achieving excellence, add the not breaking rules that existed then in baseball, tack on not failing any kind of juicing test, then wrap it up by invoking the commentary of Harold Abrahams…that would make the deal. Put it back in the face of the baseball owners…”You wanted me on that wall, you needed me on that wall, and I refuse to be criticized about my conduct on the wall by same owners who benefitted from how I did things!”

Yep, Barry goes to the Movies. That line of attack could work-throw it back on the owners and a commissioner who turned a blind eye.

Instead, he will selectively come after private citizens who fall within a narrow definition of the vast numbers of people who have criticized him over the last several years.  An empty threat to seek revenge by heading into the last place on earth he really wants to be in (no, not BALCO hq)…a courtroom.

There you have it…Barry Bonds…Ding king, dissembler, juicer, and too clever by half.

Barry Bonds-Creator of Consensus

Those following Barry Bonds HR march know that baseball commissioner Bud Seeig has attended two weeks worth of recent SF Giants games to be there when the new record is set.  Everyone seems to think he should be doing it, but some have questions about his modus operandi.

In today’s WaPo, Michael Wilbon takes issue with how Selig has followed Bonds progress, taking special aim at Seelig’s reaction to HR 755:

Study the replay and the only conclusion a person can reasonably come to is that Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks had to tell Selig to get up from his seat as Bonds rounded the bases. Selig, saved by Hicks, stood but never took his hands out of his pockets, never applauded politely, never gestured . . . just stood there disengaged, his facial expression and body language telling everyone who looked at him that he’d rather be anyplace else in the world.

On the other hand, Jon Heyman at SI.com thinks Selig’s conduct has been “altogether appropriate”:

He was there to commemorate the occasion, not celebrate it. Selig stood up and acknowledged Bonds’ 755th home run. He did not cheer. He did not even smile. Instead, he wore an expression of resignation, a slightly unhappy look that fit the event exactly. His hands were in his pockets. That fit how he felt. Had he stood and applauded, he would have looked phony.

Well, such is what happens when ones record breaking accomplishments are due less to the mechanics of your swing than the mechanics of your doping program.

Yes, I know…the Bonds defenders-such as Wilbon-say the case is circumstantial, as if circumstantial evidence has no value. Wilbon somehow forgot to mention that the penitentiary is full of folks who took the fall due to circumstantial evidence.

Heyman’s article brings home the real awfulness of what Bonds has done in pursuit not of pennants but of personal glory. Heyman goes on to say he will vote for Bonds for the baseball Hall of Fame:

Believe me, it isn’t because, as Selig has tellingly said in his statements, that Bonds is “innocent until proven guilty.” Because for the purposes of his Cooperstown review, I am as convinced Bonds juiced as I am that Mark McGwire juiced.

I didn’t vote for McGwire in this past election because I felt he used his syringe to turn himself into a Hall of Famer. Therein lies the difference, at least for me. Long before he ever started juicing, Bonds was Cooperstown qualified.

The man already had a Hall of Fame worthy career, yet he chose to juice.

To quote Bing Crosby in “White Christmas”, “Well, its a reason. Not a good reason, but a reason.”

It is startling to see how Bond’s single minded pursuit of glory to the exclusion of all else-team, personal reputation, mark on the game-drives reasonable men to positions that are poles apart.  So much for consensus…

I doubt Barry will be seeing the same high vote marks as Cal Ripken and Tony Gwinn received in the last election.  Then again, isn’t that a consensus of a type?

Why Barry Bonds Ticks Me Off…

This morning over breakfast I read on as Sally Jenkins agonized over Barry Bonds incipient breaking of Hank Aaron’s lifetime HR record. As I read, and then drove in, I pondered her lament and her question:

Many of us are cringing at the prospect that Barry Bonds will break Hank Aaron’s home run record, starting with yours truly, because of allegations he used performance enhancers. A record should be joyful, but this one makes us regretful. Why should Bonds’s personal health choices matter to us so much? Because he forces us to address head-on the possibility that sports have become utterly riddled with doping.

These are good questions, and made me wonder why Barry Bonds ticks me off…

It caused me to consider in the elephantine velocity of the capital beltway why his obvious doping bothers me. I have come to terms with his breaking the record, although I will always consider Babe Ruth the greatest slugger of all time. Despite the absence of a positive test for steroids, his complete body transformation and carrer change in focus at the age of 37 leaves no doubt in my mind. But beyond the the matters like using controlled substances and setting a bad example, why does it bother me so?

Today it hit me-it’s a matter of ingenuity and rascality and team support and even motivation.

While I view all these doping matters as bad, I tend to analyze them against the backdrop of their sport. Every sport has its own unique backgrounds, and doping has to be analyzed against the sports traditions. For instance, I imagine one reason why Americans react so vehemently against doping in track and field and aquatic sports is because during the Cold War our boys and girls, amateurs all, got to go up against soviet and eastern bloc atheletes who were not only state supported, but highly juiced.

Baseball has its own traditions, including winking at those who skirt the rules. Groundskeepers water baselines to slow runners, and slightly grade the baseline dirt from home plate to 1st or 3rd to keep balls fair. Back in the day outfielders kept hideaway balls in the tall grass in case a ball got by them and were lost. Pitchers doctor the ball by applying substances or nicking it, and are assisted in this by other players. Teams try to steal signs from the opposition to anticipate what is about to happen. Baseball fans have even been annoyed with those who seize on legalisms and the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of the game. The late Billy Martin was a fan favorite, but he probably lost a couple of points from the Pine Tar incident, even though he was correct in his reading of the rules.

But therein is the difference with traditional baseball ingenuity and juicing. When it came to the ingenuity the whole team had to be in on it. Everyone benefitted from signs being stolen. If groundskeepers doctored the field, they did it on orders from club management who had discussed it with the players. Pitchers not only doctored the ball, but often teammates did it for them. Everyone was in on it…because they did it to help the team win.

There was also the need to have the brass to not only figure out the scam and try these stunts, but also a willingness to pay the price if caught. Gaylord Perry loaded up, but on the few occasions he was caught he took it on the chin, kept his head up, and waited for his next rotation and dared the umps to catch him again. He had to be a “wascally wabbit” to get away with it over a career.

And at sum it is not just what Barry Bonds did but how he did it that ticks me off. By all accounts in the end range of a Hall of Fame career Bro Bonds decided he was not getting enough attention or money, and started to juice so he could beat Mark McGwire at his own game. Guys like Perry did it to to survive in the major leagues-Bonds did it out of pique because no one was genuflecting to him. Groundskeepers played with the field, players scuffed the ball and stole signs to help the team win, not to pile up statistics…Bonds did it for personal glorification. Yes, he did play a major role in getting the Giants to the World Series in 2002, but personal aggrandizement was the prime motivator, not winning.

Then there is the method. Bonds did his cheating outside the ballpark, safe from discovery. He hooked up with a sports wannabe (Greg Anderson) who pushed ‘roids and hgh created by an unscrupulous charlatan (Victor Conte of BALCO), substances that at that time could not have been detected in a drug test. His manipulations took place behind closed doors and away from the clear sunshine of the ballpark. It is an industrial manipulation of the body done in private and with boutique drugs and a process that would not have been caught even if there was testing. Remember, the BALCO drugs did not come under the spotlight until a disgruntled Conte associate sent a sample of the substances to the USADA. The SF Giants, although they were certainly enablers and took advantage of Bond’s new HR production to build a new stadium, were never part of the plan.

So there it is….Baseball has always had its cheats, but they took place on the ballfied, in view of everyone. There was a daredevil aspect to it, a combination of ingenuity and rascality done with team support in hopes of helping the team win. Bonds was done in private, using tools that defied detection, in pursuit of personal glory. It was done not to survive in the game, or even to thrive, but to enhance ego.

That is the difference between Bonds and guys like Gaylord Perry…that’s why Barry Bonds ticks me off.

Folks Taking Themselves Too Seriously

Today’s WaPo has an interesting story that reminds me of just how many folks today take themselves too seriously.

In this story a father from Alexandria umping a Little League game is uncertain about a call, making one call and then overruling himself. When he realizes he is uncertain of the right call, he contacts Little League and is told he cannot have a copy of the rules because he is not in the class of folks in the organization who need to know what the rules are:

“Little League told him that its rules were not secret, just restricted to those authorized to see them — not the first time he’d heard that argument. Among other things, the league frets that unlimited access to its rules would allow competing leagues to dupe parents into thinking their children were playing for the one true Little League. So only two copies of the rule book go out to each sanctioned team and others are provided upon a showing of genuine affiliation and need.”

When offered his own copy (at cost), said parent declines saying the rules should be open and available to all parents. He goes on to say he has a secret classification and works in the E-Ring of the Pentagon and can handle secret information. The Little League is not impressed:

But Little League spokesman Lance Van Auken seemed unmoved by Hilferty’s frustrations. “There is no way we can give special treatment to someone just because they are in the Pentagon,” he said. “We don’t give preferential treatment. Everybody has to abide by the same rules. The books are available through the proper channels — someone in the military should know that.”

The WaPo goes on to suggest that LL is not just teaching its traditional sportsmanship, but also about secrecy that is carried out by the Bush Administration.

The ruling/issue at hand?:

A ball struck third base and rolled wide, and Hilferty, as acting umpire, was unsure what call to make. He declared it foul, then reversed himself when challenged by another dad.

Before we go on, please note that the challenging father is correct…if a batted ball hits a base it is fair, even if it rolls foul afterwards. That is the really sad part of this whole thing. Rules of play in baseball used to be part of the fabric of everyday life in this country…and now it is not.

Moving forward, let’s count the various levels of silliness here…

a) That the father escalated to Little League International when there were intermediate steps to go with in the first place. Apparently he looked on line and in a sporting goods store, and found nothing. The thing is that what he is dealing with is a rule of baseball, not just little league-and as such the proper statement of the rules is found in numerous places online. This is not a rule of organization-and confidential to LL-but a rule of baseball that has been in place for generations.

b) That LL won’t put out the official playing rules for official use by parents. They have used copyright laws to shut down at least one site where the rules were listed. This reminds me of how Weight Watchers has brought copyright actions against numerous websites offering spreadsheets of handheld apps for tracking WW points. What in the world is the harm of putting out a copy of the rules of play for players and parents? I really see no harm in it…and ultimately how can the Little League expect players to play and not make the rules readily accessible to them?

c) On a slow news day the WaPo in its continued disdain for George Bush presuming to say that the Little League position is teaching children to keep secrets. After noting situations where leagues did not allow the competing children to see copies of scouting reports or what their draft position was-something designed to not hurt players feelings and has been a policy for at least forty years, the WaPo them bloviates the following opinion:

In a society steeped in secrecy, Little League might just be the perfect training ground for any number of careers. In August 2001 the Little League Hall of Excellence inducted a former catcher for the Cubs of the Midlands, Tex., Central Little League. His name: George W. Bush. He is the first Little Leaguer to become president. The venue and stakes may have changed, but arguments over secrecy persist, whether to call fair or foul.

My goodness. Little League a perfect training place for the Bush White House?

A slow news day, which offers up the chance for the WaPo to show not only how desparate some writers are for a subject, but to show the truth of a college professor who once told me,” In church or acadmic politics, the fighting is more vicious because the stakes are so..small”.

Looks like we can Little League baseball to the list.