Another take on Bonds and steroids

It's too late to change baseball's fate: The 1990s will forever be known as the steroid generation. Fans, owners, players and journalist all helped by ignoring sometimes obvious problems. As with most things that take us by surprise or hurt us, people want to take immediately actions to solve the problem. What can we do (if anything) to help heal the sport? Should the 'roiders be kicked out of the game? Should there stats have an asterisk? Should certain players be banned from the hall? There are no right answers when it comes to this, but by looking at precedents set by earlier players, I have my own solutions.

What do you think of when I say Shoeless Joe Jackson? Mostly people think of the biggest black eye for baseball ever, the Black Sox scandal. SJJ 'is' a Hall-worthy player (.356 career BA, .408 rookie ave - highest ever, etc) but will never be inducted because of his association with that White Sox team. It doesn't matter that people still debate whether he helped throw the 1919 world series (a judge ruled him innocent), SSJ will always be guilty by association. This is the same situation Barry Bonds finds himself and will ALWAYS be remembered.

Bonds was a Hall-worthy player even before he allegedly started using steroids (1998), and is generally considered the best player in the decade of the 90s. He's never failed a drug test and all steroid allegations seem to bounce off (much like TN in college FB...but that's another story :). But by being the poster-child for the Steroid Generation, his legacy will always be a tainted one. You can't delete his stats from the books because you would be singling out Bonds when there were so many more 'roiders, BUT the good news is that historians won't need to put an asterisk by his statistics because he will always be guilty by association.

Pete Rose is the other player I can draw comparisons to Bonds dilemma. Rose is also a Hall-worthy players. Besides being the all-time hits-kings, Charlie Hustle was one of the most likable players during his day. He is of course banned from baseball and not eligible for Hall consideration even though his biggest sin (betting of the game) occurred AFTER his playing days.

This is one of the biggest arguments for the pro-Bonds crowd. They say he was already Hall-worthy before he started taking the 'roids so even after discounting his stats from 1998-06, he should still be in the Hall. Well, if you go by the Rose case, then no, he shouldn't. BOTH players committed sins against the game. By betting on games, He affected the integrity of the sport. I argue that Bonds did the same thing.

In closing, Bonds will forever be guilty by association. Even though you can't erase his statistics from the records books (you can't single him out), his legacy, like Shoeless Jackson's, is tarnished. Also, both Bonds and Rose had Hall-of-Fame careers, but neither deserve to be in the Hall. Each affected the integrity of the sport by their actions.

Knowing that the 'roiders generation and all their inflated stats will forever be tarnished is all I need to heal. Baseball is about more than 70+ homer seasons. It's about players like Dale Murphy who played the game the right way. It's too bad his stats pale in comparison to the 'roiders, but he has something they never will: integrity.