Barry Bonds, Perjury, and Asterisks

Much these days is being made about the scandal in professional sports concerning athletes' improper drug use, in particular the baseball-steroids connection, and how much San Francisco Giants slugging star Barry Bonds is involved. There are different levels that this issue is being discussed on. One involves the question of whether Bonds lied to a grand jury about his use or non-use of illegal steroids to enhance his performance. One of his trainers has already been held in contempt of court for refusing to testify about this.

There is a tendency in our society lately to take successful people, subpoena them to grand juries or congressional hearings, put them under oath, pose very pointed, sometimes personal questions to them about their conduct, and then prosecute them for perjury when they refuse to admit guilt without openly invoking the Fifth Amendment (a move that in itself could wreck a career since many see in that an implicit admission of guilt). This affliction of "gotcha!" prosecutions cuts across culture and politics and needs to end! If Bonds violated the controlled substances act as it pertained to steroids, then prosecute him on that, not perjury. I believe that the spirit of the questioning that people like Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, and Barry Bonds have had to endure violated their Fifth Amendment rights.

Another level of discussion about Bonds and steroids involves the idea that the integrity of baseball would be debased if Bonds surpasses Henry Aaron's all-time Major League record of 755 career home runs. We've already heard talk of denying Mark McGuire entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his alleged steroid use (see, he refused to answer some questions to avoid self-incrimination and has suffered a terrible blow to his image and career because of it). Talk is going around of putting asterisks on suspected players' records to distinguish them from the "pure" records of others. Well, if lack of purity in competition is grounds for an asterisk, then every white player who played before the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Public Education U.S. Supreme Court ruling (overturning an 1895 ruling that allowed exclusion of African-Americans from institutions across American society, including Major League Baseball) should receive asterisks next to their own records as well. Does anyone seriously think that Babe Ruth would have hit 714 home runs if he had to face the likes of Satchel Paige and other superbly talented pitchers whose skin color barred them from competing in the majors? How phony and impure the records of all of these so-called greats of the past are when seen in this light, and how hypocritical those are who want to protect "their" legacies against someone like Barry Bonds, who if he played in Babe Ruth's day would have had to play in the unofficial but so-called "separate but equal" Negro Leagues! Much is made of Jackie Robinson's important entry into the Major Leagues in 1947, but African Americans still would not have the legal backing of our highest court for another seven years for them to be able to pursue their dreams in baseball freely without institutionalized racial discrimination.

That being said, I believe today's players are adult members of our society who should take responsibility for their actions and be held appropriately accountable when they violate the law. If Barry Bonds is thus shown to be guilty through a legitimate procedure that recognizes his due processes under the law, then he should pay the appropriate price prescribed by law. But not through provoking him to lie. And baseball cannot selectively revise its history (regarding players' records) without placing its own integrity in doubt because of its deliberate exclusion in the past of a segment of the population due to race.