King on Bonds- Irrational

Not to pick on King, but his Tuesday edition of MMQB includes perhaps the best example of the MSM’s bizarre and irrational reaction to Barry Bonds.

 

Aaron of Toronto asks King: "Will your boycott of an alleged steroid cheat extend to confirmed cheats such as Shawne Merriman?''

 

To which King responds, “No. Merriman was tested, caught, and suspended. Barry Bonds was not tested, not caught, not suspended ... for years.”

 

Being an NFL beat writer, King may not be aware that steroids were not actually illegal in MLB until the past 2 (3?) years. Thus, there would be no reason for Bonds to be tested. And if Bonds wasn’t tested, then he of course can’t be “caught.” And certainly not “caught” for something that wasn’t against the rules. So why is King holding it against Bonds that he wasn’t suspended when he wasn’t tested and wasn’t caught?

 

King’s attitude takes a bizarre turn when he seems to dismiss Shawne Merriman’s proven violation of the NFL steroid policy. Somehow, King is ok with Merriman cheating – in a sport and with a drug that is exponentially more important in football than baseball – since Merriman was “punished” with a four game suspension. Presumably, everything would be hunky-dory with Bonds in King’s view if Barry had sat out at least a handful of games as a form of punishment.

 

The anger Barry Bonds generates among fans and most obviously in the press is astounding. Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa don’t seem to engender the same vitriol combined.

 

What is it about Bonds that gets everyone’s dander up? Is it that he is going to break Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record? That there is such deep suspicion that Barry used performance enhancing drugs and that he didn’t get caught? (and really, if that is the case, isn’t that anger misplaced and should instead be directed at MLB that looked the other way in what is now becoming known as the “steroids era?” Is it the media’s attempt at payback since Bonds is by all accounts an unpleasant personality and has treated the press with such open contempt? Is it because Bonds is black?

 

One other example of the media’s frenzied frustration with Bonds. Tom Loverro of the Washington Times has said he and others should boycott watching Bonds’ campaign to break Aaron’s record because, in essence, Bonds lied to a grand jury.

 

Since when did that become the standard for appreciating a player’s performance? More to the point, like King, Loverro fails to admit or acknowledge that Bonds has NEVER been charged with perjury. Maybe he will. But he hasn’t as of yet. So it is ridiculous to suggest that we should boycott Bonds for something that he has never been officially accused of (other than Loverro’s own conviction as judge and jury.).