No. 756

Last night Barry Bonds broke, arguably, the greatest personal record in the game of baseball - and maybe all of American sports. During his third at-bat against the Washington Nationals, Bonds crushed a 3-2 pitch into left-center field to break the tie between him and Henry 'Hank' Aaron for total (career) home runs. Aaron held the record for 33 years after surpassing George 'Babe' Ruth's previous record of 714 career home runs. I was watching ESPN when they cut into Sportscenter to televise Bonds' at-bat live. A piece of sports history was made last night whether you like the man or not. I'll be able to tell my children I watched it happen (I have to thank Colbert for not being very funny last night. Otherwise I wouldn't have switched the channel to ESPN).

After Bonds completed his trot around the bases, a small ceremony was held in which his teammates, family, and godfather, Willie Mays, congratulated him on his historical achievement. Aaron was broadcast on the giant screen over center field with a pre-recorded congratulatory message for Bonds.

Much time will be spent over the coming weeks and years talking about whether or not an asterisk should be added to Bonds career home run total (whatever it will end up being) or whether it should even be allowed to stay on the books. The "steroid era" of baseball will always cast a shadow onto Bonds' achievements, regardless of his personal culpability. Steroids certainly make you stronger, but they don't make your swing fluid, they don't tell you whether to lay off the high fastball, nor do they allow you to identify and hone in on a hanging breaking ball. If Bonds did take steroids, I am undecided about the recourse available.

If baseball didn't have a policy prohibiting the use of performance enhancing drugs in place, then in my opinion Bonds' record should stand even if he admits to knowingly taking steroids. He didn't break any rules. Does it still leave a bad taste in my mouth? Yes. An asterisk should only be added, however, if he admits to knowingly taking performance enhancing drugs. David Oritz of the Boston Red Sox recently admitted that he doesn't know if he took performance enhancing drugs in his native Dominican Republic because there isn't a governmental institution that tests dietary supplements. He stated, however, that he no longer takes supplements from the Dominican Republic. The reason people are less angry with Ortiz, Gary Sheffield, Jose Conseco, Raphael Palmero, and Jason Giambi is because they have come clean. Bonds continues to shirt the issue and his trainer continually gets placed in contempt for pleading refusing to answer the grand jury's questions. It just creates the air of impropriety.

If Bonds did take performance enhancing drugs, it's likely the pitchers he was hitting home runs off of were also guilty of the same ethically questionable, but not officially illicit, activity. We'll probably never know the list of names of every player that took some sort of performance enhancing drug over the last decade or two. Major League Baseball would have to erase every record broken in the last 15-20 years just to be safe. Of course, that isn't to say that big leaguers from eras past weren't hopped up on substances that are no illegal but weren't during decades past. MLB needs to look at more than Bonds and this record; unless they do, then Bonds is right, he's just a scapegoat.

My personal antipathy for Bonds stems more from his pompous character and his constant need to make everything a racial issue. He was quoted (I'm paraphrasing) around the time he broke Ruth's record to the effect of: "Now we can forget this old dead white guy even existed because I broke his record." His argument is that Ruth's record is tainted, or even meaningless, because Ruth didn't have to play against the African-American players still relegated to the Negro Leagues. It's a valid point of contention, but certainly doesn't diminish the impressive career and stats of Ruth. Ruth may not have played against his African-American counterparts, but there is nothing to say that they were inherently better pitchers just because they were black. Moreover, Ruth didn't have the modern dietary and training benefits of Bonds. Ruth certainly got larger in his later years, just like Bonds. However, Ruth's girth was due to hot dogs, women, and alcohol not weight training, supplements, and strict dietary regiments. Furthermore, the ballparks of lore were generally deeper than the modern corporate parks (except of course for Yankee Stadium which has always had short porches).

Even Aaron didn't have the benefits of modern athletic technology like Bonds; hell, even his bat mechanics were different. Aaron hands were crossed when he swung, instead of on top of each other (i.e. if you are right handed - like me, switch if you're a lefty- you hold the bat with your right hand on top, your arms are fully extended and straight when you swing; Aaron's mechanics would place his left hand on top, meaning his arms crossed during the swing, severely effecting the power generated). Simple mechanics of a swing can make it that much easier to hit home runs, let alone the effects and benefits of weight training and dietary regiments.

In the end, it's hard to compare eras and career statistics, even if numbers are numbers. Ruth, Aaron, and Bonds are clearly three of the greatest hitters in baseball history. Bonds is 80 hits away from 3,000 career hits, a remarkable number in itself. I will reserve my judgment of his home run record until the allegations of steroids are admissions or findings of guilt. I may not like the man because of the way he presents himself in the media, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge his grand and historical accomplishment.

Congratulations to Barry Bonds.

A-Rod, you've got next. Go get 'em.