What's the Big Deal?

The perjury case, being tried by the Federal Government against former Major Leaguer Barry Bonds, is finally picking up steam as a judge unsealed hundreds of documents that could very well lead to a conviction against the 7 time MVP. But what has not already been said about Barry Bonds? OK, I took a minute to think about that one too and couldn't come up with anything either. So why continue to beat that tired old drum? No point in doing so, instead let's talk about why everyone is so up in arms about the entire steroids use situation, the presumption that the user is cheating.

Let us put this into context and understand what exactly we are debating, this is the sporting world, meant as an escape from the daily grind of life. This is entertainment, just as going to a concert or movie are. Just as the music and movie industries, the sport industry is merely a money making machine, making millionaires out of its stars and mega-millionaires out of its owners. I believe the cliche goes, 'It's just business'

Coming back to Barry Bonds and steroids, I ask who is cheated when a Major Leaguer (or any other athlete) decides his body is need of enhancement? Is it his team? Tough to argue his team is really hurt by the players use, seeing as Barry Bonds won 4 MVPs after 2000 (when his alleged steroid use began). Meaning his team had the most elite player in the National League for 4 of the 8 years Bonds played in after 2000, and what that equates to is revenue for the team when fans come not only to the park in San Francisco but all across the nation to either cheer or jeer Bonds (either way the owners benefit through shared revenue).

Speaking in terms on actual team performance, MVPs rarely go to a player who is on a team that finishes either near or at the bottom. Barry Bonds led teams made the playoffs 4 times from 2000 through the end of Bonds' contract with the Giants, in fact they also made it to the World Series in 2002 (a MVP year). Sounds like the team was making money and winning, so was the team hurt? No.

How about his teammates or himself? Again it is very hard to find a way the user is hurting himself or his team, when sports is put into context. You can argue that the user is hurting their body, to which I will not argue. Steroids although beneficial in the short term, do have long lasting negative effects on the body, but the user is willingly using. And since the user is often an adult in the industry who knows the consequences and does not care enough to take them into account, why should anyone else? The team often benefits from one players stronger than normal performance, take Shawne Merriman for example. The linebacker for the San Diego Chargers tested positive to using steroids during the 2006-2007 season, was suspended for 4 games, came back and completed a season in which he had 17 sacks. Meaning coaches had to game plan against him with double teams and schemes to slow him down, indirectly positively effecting the stats for the lineman or linebacker not being blocked rise due to Merriman's dominance. And when statistics rise for players, so too does their stock, meaning they're now in line to make more money. How are those teammates hurt?

How about the game? Are fans not attending baseball games in record numbers since 1998 when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire flexed their muscles and sent balls flying out of stadiums across the country? Yes they are. The game was desperate after a strike ruined the 1994 season, depriving fans of a postseason that had a lot of potential to entertain and leave fans telling stories for years. Fans were slow to come back and if not for those 2 sluggers having a magical season, each chasing the record of 61 home runs set by Roger Maris in 1961, baseball might not have recovered and got back to the level it is on today, setting attendance records in the last 2 years. Sounds like the alleged steroid use by McGwire and Sosa helped to save the game, rather than hurt it.

How about the fans? Here the issue is not so black and white, because one's level of dedication to and involvement with the game varies drastically from fan to fan. But when putting things back into context, were you really cheated? Ask yourself and answer honestly. As a die hard fan of baseball I can and will say no I was not cheated. Starting in 1998 the show put on by Sammy Sosa during the month of June was something that had me slapping my knee and cheering at the top of my lungs. Then again when Barry Bonds passed Hank Aaron, hitting an opposite field home run in the very spacious Petco, my friends and I stopped our game of pool to high five each other and watch in awe as Bonds circled the bases. Were the emotions evoked by those performances fake? No, because ultimately those players were doing things that I could not do, making it very compelling television (or a great show if you were lucky enough to see any of it live). Was I cheated by Sosa or Bonds? Not at all.

All these players did was try to put a better product on their playing field. If you want to get historical and say these players cheated the record books, then a bigger deal has to be made of the actual record books. Meaning Babe Ruth's accomplishments need to be taken with a grain of salt seeing as he did not play against the best talent in the world, but merely the best white players in America. So how can he truly be the greatest of all time?

So start there and work your way down the record books before coming down so hard on the players of today, who merely provided a better product. Which is the model for the 3 major entertainment industries. At the super bowl, for instance, the music and sports industry combined this past Sunday. Faith Hill and Jennifer Hudson sang beautifully prior to the game, or so we thought. Ultimately it was their beautiful voices we heard but the performance was enhanced due to their vocals being prerecorded and used while they sang. Now would you say you were cheated of hearing their voices?