Bonds represents a cancer in the industry. He is not the only player alleged to have used performance-enhancing drugs during baseball's steroid epidemic. But he is not just another name in the Mitchell report, either . . . Any owner who would prostitute himself by signing Bonds would face a storm of negative publicity boiling down to three words: Shame on you.Hey, while I prefer Ken Rosenthal the reporter to Rosenthal the editorial writer, he's entitled to his opinion. But Ken, are you really serious with this one?:
Then again, this is not a sabermetric exercise in which you calculate how many runs Bonds would add to a given lineup and proclaim his addition to be a masterstroke. Nor is this a situation analogous to the Kobe Bryant sexual-assault case, in which Bryant continued playing for the Lakers during pre-trail hearings in 2003-04.
Bryant, like Bonds, was legally entitled to play, and the case against him eventually was dismissed. But Bryant's alleged offense was an act of personal indiscretion, not a reflection of his entire sport.
Just so we're clear: to Ken Rosenthal, rape is a matter of "personal indiscretion," that in no event is as serious as taking steroids. And one of the biggest stars in the NBA being (a) arrested for rape; and (b) selling out a teammate when interrogated isn't a reflection on the sport.
Wow. Better yet, NOW. As in, I wonder what women's groups think about rape being equated with rudeness, littering, and other "personal indiscretions."
UPDATE: The article has been edited. The paragraph with which I took umbrage now reads as follows:
Bryant, like Bonds, was legally entitled to play, and the case against him eventually was dismissed. But Bryant's alleged offense was an isolated incident, not a reflection of a league-wide problem.
I applaud Rosenthal and/or his editor for making the change. It was my hope that he didn't truly mean what he said, and I take the change as evidence that this was more a matter of poor wording than poor judgment.