Skip to content

No, the Giants don’t need to “do something” about Barry Bonds

Apr 7, 2011, 9:12 AM EDT

bonds in att park

In light of the Barry Bonds trial going to the jury as early as today, Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury News has a concern:

Question: If the verdict is not guilty on all charges and Bonds wants to celebrate by making the short trip to AT&T Park for some baseball viewing, what happens? … Even more problematic: What if Bonds is found guilty of perjury and still wants to show up at a Giants home game a few hours later?

Considering that Pete Rose routinely takes in Reds games at the best seat in the park — and where he is always given a standing ovation when he is shown on the big scoreboard screen, which he invariably is — I fail to see the problem. Being found guilty or heck, even not guilty of perjury charges doesn’t make one ineligible to buy a ticket to a ballgame. And, unless Major League Baseball bans Bonds as a result — which it almost certainly won’t do —  nothing could stop Bonds from even suiting up for the A’s to DH or taking a job as the Assistant VP in charge of testicular atrophy policy for any major league team.

But Purdy goes on, noting that a Giants’ attorney has been watching the Bonds trial, and there he has heard the grand jury testimony in which Bonds disparaged Giants team employees. Here’s Purdy again:

None of those facts was contested. None of that testimony was denied by Bonds or anyone else. So tell me again: This is the man you want throwing out a ceremonial first pitch? Don’t think so. Not at my old-timers celebration.

Fact: the testimony Purdy is referring to took place in 2003, was widely reported on and has been public now for several years, as have the Kimberly Bell allegations he mentions, by virtue of her multiple interviews over the years. Fact: despite knowing this, Bonds threw out the first pitch at the NLCS last year and was met with a standing ovation. He has also been the guest at games of the Giants owners on multiple occasions.  If the Giants were cool with Bonds’ testimony for purposes of the playoffs last fall, I fail to see how they wouldn’t be cool with it now for an old-timers celebration.

Purdy acknowledges all of this later in the column, and he also acknowledges the Reds/Pete Rose thing.  What I don’t understand is how he can do that and still take his “what ever will we do?!” stance.  He’s demanding a solution to something that no one besides him thinks is a problem.

Like Pete Rose, Bonds may be a national pariah. But he’s not a local one, and the Giants of all teams — who are playing in a ballpark that likely wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Bonds — shouldn’t make him into one.

  1. pdxdeadhead - Apr 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    Barry used steroids, and is a horse’s arse but he’s our horse’s arse and I’ll never forget the dozens of games he flat out turned the Stick or PGE Park into a madhouse of delirious cheers. Glad he’s gone but miss dropping everything to watch one of his at bats. He’s like one of my in laws – I have to have him over for family events and wish the best for him, but can’t stand the guy,

  2. jkcalhoun - Apr 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    A little perspective please, Purdy: The Giants chose to ignore MLB’s directives regarding access to the clubhouse in order to appease their star player. That was their mistake; it’s not all on Bonds.

    Also, Mark Cuban says you need to label this column as “opinion”.

    • clydeserra - Apr 7, 2011 at 4:23 PM

      hey, I am getting reports from the courtroom that the defense is pushing the “Materiality” in their closing.

      Good call

      • jkcalhoun - Apr 7, 2011 at 8:49 PM

        Thanks, but that much was an easy call — naturally they’d mention anything in closing that might raise doubt as long as they could do so without an appearance either of desperation or of a gross misunderstanding of the evidence.

        I just don’t know how the jury is supposed to evaluate materiality. We’ll see how it goes.

  3. bravesfaninbama - Apr 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

    As long as he doesn’t go to a Giants game at Dodger Stadium, he should be ok.

  4. grizz2202 - Apr 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM

    FACT: Bears eat beets.

    Saying “FACT” in a blog post doesn’t make your point any better, it just amps up the “douchebaggery” content of the post and makes some readers less likely to pay attention, and more likely to think of Jim mimicking Dwight in The Office, saying, “FACT: Bears eat beets”.

    Find a better way to get your point across. Perhaps you could start with, “Webster’s Dictionary defines Douchebag as…”. Or is that just as bad as saying, “FACT!”?

    Editor’s note: It is.

    • cur68 - Apr 7, 2011 at 12:56 PM

      Kudos on The Office reference. But, um “douchebaggery”? Really? One of these days Craig’s gonna write something truly off the wall that’ll be worth getting riled at him about and then what are you gonna do? You’ve used your best insult and a totally spiff Office line for a minor criticism because you consider ‘fact’ a turn off for readers. IMO; t’aint “douchebaggery” just “Shrute-like”.

  5. feartherallythong - Apr 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM

    Hmmm – at the risk of butt-kissing, considering the volume of blog entries Craig churns out on a daily basis, I think the literary quality is pretty good, the Douchbaggery level very low. Even though he once used one of my posts in its entirety as an negative example, I would not use the d-word on him.

    He’s no Old Gator, but pretty entertaining nonetheless…

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2503)
  2. D. Span (2346)
  3. G. Stanton (2279)
  4. Y. Puig (2246)
  5. J. Fernandez (2200)
  1. B. Crawford (2080)
  2. G. Springer (2023)
  3. M. Teixeira (1821)
  4. M. Sano (1816)
  5. J. Hamilton (1748)