AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2006 > July > 21 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCourts, not Selig, must rule on Bonds
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Terence Moore
Here’s a quick lesson in Logic 101: If Barry Bonds told the truth that he didn’t “knowingly” use steroids, then why wouldn’t Greg Anderson, his former trainer and boyhood friend, just appear before a grand jury and verify the claims of the San Francisco Giants slugger?
Well, uh, hmmm. Anderson already has chosen the slammer over testifying, and his attorney, Mark Geragos, told USA Today regarding future requests by the feds to speak to his client, “They obviously need Greg, but he’s not talking.”
They obviously know why Anderson isn’t talking, which is why they obviously will continue to pursue an indictment of Bonds for perjury, tax evasion or both until they get what they want. With or without Anderson, they’ll succeed (see Al Capone and Pete Rose), but here’s a reminder to the overly giddy regarding Bonds’ self-inflicted mess: An indictment isn’t a conviction.
Are you listening, Allan H. “Bud” Selig, baseball’s commissioner?
In other words, Selig would be as wrongheaded to suspend Bonds after an indictment as former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn was 26 years ago when he tried to boot Ferguson Jenkins out of the game after his arrest for possession of cocaine, marijuana and hashish.
An indictment means that a group of jurors believes a person may have committed a crime. An indictment means that a person could be found innocent in a subsequent trial, and that you could look rather silly after, say, suspending that person from baseball early in the process. Mostly, an indictment means that, if you’re Selig, and if you’re wondering what to do with Bonds, you don’t swing for the fences. You bunt, which means you allow the judicial system to drive justice home.
Neither income-tax evasion nor perjury violates baseball’s Basic Agreement. So, if Bonds is indicted, and if Selig suspends him anyway, baseball would do so because Bonds isn’t the most pleasant guy ever to wear a uniform, and because the Commissioner’s Office wants to use any means necessary to keep “755” and “Hank Aaron” linked together as the game’s magic pair for home runs. Barring injury or jail time, Bonds is on a steady pace to surpass Aaron, and Aaron is among Selig’s closest friends. Thus a trio of understandable reasons why Selig would suspend Bonds, but they wouldn’t be advisable ones.
The Players Association would fight such a suspension faster than one of Bonds’ shots to McCovey Cove. Just as Selig said there is a precedent for suspending Bonds (the Jenkins case), there is a precedent for an arbitrator telling the commissioner to stifle (the Jenkins case). Two weeks after Kuhn issued his punishment to Jenkins, a future Hall of Fame pitcher, an arbitrator overturned the suspension.
Kuhn blew it. Well, that time. Contrary to popular belief, he was one of the two most underrated commissioners in sports history. During his tenure from 1969 through 1984, attendance tripled. He presided over the game’s first massive television contracts. He also showed the guts of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis to ban the likes of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle for casino involvement and to issue the unprecedented suspensions of drug abusers. Through it all, Kuhn kept mentioning the “best interest of baseball” clause that has existed for all of the game’s commissioners. He just went too far with Jenkins.
Now Selig could become Kuhn in a couple of ways. As for the good, Selig is the other most underrated commissioner in sports history. Under his watch, baseball has smashed all-time attendance records. He was proved correct after forcing the game’s traditionalists to institute interleague play, wild cards for the playoffs, realignment and home-field advantage at the World Series for the winning league of the All-Star Game. As for the bad, Selig could become Kuhn by going beyond his authority to make a point.
If Selig does suspend Bonds after an indictment, for instance, the big picture of his point would be this: Baseball wants to flaunt the fact that it really cares about its image. Plus, since Bonds is about as popular outside of Northern California as a bowl of resin bags for breakfast, baseball is going to play to the crowd by telling Bonds to get lost, even though baseball knows an arbitrator will rule otherwise.
The thing is, Selig still has time to get this Bonds situation right. All the commissioner has to do is nothing while the courts do everything.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Braves / MLB, Terence Moore
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Robert(Justice Is The Best)
July 21, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this
The fact is this obsession the federal government has with Bonds is having an adverse effect to the one they want. They are making him sympathetic. If this isn’t a witch hunt, I don’t know what is. Now. before everyone starts blasting me with “of course, Bonds is guilty” or veiled racist statements about Terrance Moore or my comments, I’m not saying in any way that Bonds is innocent. I’m simply saying that this smacks of a witch hunt. Don’t believe it. Why were they so persistent in trying to wire Jason Grimsely to nail him. Grimsely didn’t even speak to Bonds. The only reason he got raided was because he wouldn’t cooperate in the witch hunt.
Now, Mr. Moore suggests that Anderson’s relcutance to testify obviously means that Bonds is guilty and he doesn’t want to have to say as much on the stand. I say that could be true but also it could mean that he knows HE didn’t give Bonds anything and he doesn’t want to be tricked into implying that he did. I know for some its hard to believe the government would make somebody lie to make their case. But, you know what? They do.
The fact is that to only single him out is categorically wrong. Bonds wasn’t the only one on the “juice”. I mean lets get real. Giambi all but admitted to using it and he is now a hero. Everyone loves him again.
Is that right?
By bugger
July 22, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this
I seriously doubt Barry Bonds will become a sympathetic figure. Those who hate him equate him with O.J. Simpson. Really. I’m no Bonds fan and am a great admirer of Aaron. But I agree (for once) with Moore. If Bonds broke the law, then the courts should handle it. But then again, in this country, celebrity seems unable to lose in criminal court. It usually wins in civil court, but what would be the claim against Bonds and who could make it.
By braveswildcard06
July 22, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Very well said, Mr. Moore. I agree with you 100%. Selig should have nothing to do with this Bonds fiasco, the courts should handle it all.
By proeye
July 22, 2006 08:53 PM | Link to this
Bonds sucks.