Then read this, an article by an self-proclaimed ethicist on why no one signed Barry Bonds. He compares Bonds to a murderer, a convict, and a drug abuser; misunderstands the purpose of the Mitchell Report (it was about getting Congress to back off, and perhaps scoring some PR points); and argues that teams also didn’t sign Bonds because he wasn’t a good bet to “duplicate” his previous performances, even though a 20% drop in performance would still make him obscenely valuable.
I thought THT took a great step forward in adding Craig Calcaterra’s Shysterball blog – among my must-reads every day – but content like this “ethics” article is just inexcusable.
UPDATE: The article’s author, Jack Marshall, posted a lengthy rejoinder in the comments below.
I can’t get that portion of my life back.
No me gusta.
Thank you, Keith, for that wonderful little Christmas present — the chance to read a column full of complete and utter drivel. It gives me hope that I too can be a member of a made-up profession.
Heretofore I shall be referred to as Will, King of the Unicorn Wranglers. Hey, if that yahoo can claim a made-up profession, so can I!
I couldn’t believe when I surfed over to THT this morning and saw that crap. I expect so much better from them.
I couldn’t force myself to read past the part where he mentions that the Red Sox almost didn’t draft Clay Buchholz (which is, of course, to say that they absolutely did draft him — no almost there) and that no team in the NFL would bat an eyelash at such character issues.
This, of course, renders his column a work of fantasy literature in the realm of C.S. Lewis (I presume his column to be a religious allegory, Bonds’ immorality will render him as weak as a kitten), because I’d argue the NFL cares loads more about such issues. The Indians have drafted several straight first rounders with checkered pasts, they just aren’t newsworthy, because up until the last two years, no one but Baseball America readers pretended to know anything about the baseball draft. Meanwhile, Mario Manningham falls about 80 picks in the NFL draft because he lied about smoking pot. I’m also not sure where these rapists and sexual assaulters are in the NFL.
I took a class in journalistic ethics once (ok, it was high school journalism, but we watched Absence of Malice for some reason), and I read it was unethical to print lies. Perhaps THT is employing a revisionist ethicist.
I’m also not sure where these rapists and sexual assaulters are in the NFL.
This guy, for one.
You could also argue that Leonard Little, who killed a woman while driving drunk, then was caught driving drunk again a few years later, has been treated with kid gloves by the NFL.
I can’t think of a contemporary baseball parallel to either guy.
Interesting (but likely meaningless) factoid: The Wikipedia category NFL players convicted of crimes has 56 entries; there is no such category for MLB players.
And there is CheddarPlax, and the entire Cincinatti Bengals.
Oh and, the Brewers owner gets no sympathy from me that he spent “only” 220 million for his team, but the Yanks can spend all they want.
This was also pretty silly, from Gammons today…
Boras doesn’t want to be the good guy, and doesn’t care who gets burned as long as his clients get the best deal; didn’t Edward Bennett Williams do the best he could for Joe McCarthy and Sirhan Sirhan?
Comparing (sort of) Sirhan Sirhan to Joe McCarthy? I’ll give Peter Gammons the benefit of the doubt here, but the two shouldn’t be mentioned in the same light.
Also, do you only take e-mail through your ESPN.com feedback thing, or is there another address somewhere that I haven’t found? I’ve got a picture from something the BBRAA/Hall of Fame sent to me that I think you’d enjoy.
I no longer read Shyster. I found the THT version of the blog to be quite ugly, truthfully.
Not reading a blog because of the layout is like not reading a Harry Potter book because you don’t like the mural on the book jacket.
I thought THT took a great step forward in adding Craig Calcaterra’s Shysterball blog – among my must-reads every day – but content like this “ethics” article is just inexcusable.
THT is a forum for people to express their opinions about baseball, and we’re always looking for different viewpoints, particularly when they’re well-thought out (and I think Jack’s is). If you don’t like reading a site that allows different voices, including ones you may disagree with, then you are “excused” from reading it.
There are numerous accounts of baseball players being charged with OUI and spousal abuse, and even one guy who got charged with assaulting an officer (Jason Michaels) who get away scott-free with the league. While no one has quite the record of a Jerramy Stevens or Adam Jones, the idea that baseball is a more “ethical” or “moral” sport is absolute crap
Certainly, Jeremy. Keith and I were merely illustrating that it was not *entirely* the OTHER way as Tim suggested. Any wrong doing, is wrong doing.
For anybody who really thinks that baseball is more moral than football: Carl Mays hit a man in the stands with a baseball during a baseball game, and he was never so much as arrested or fined for the act. Granted, it happened about 90 years ago, but he was on the list of players to be considered for Hall of Fame election by the Veterans’ Committee. If that isn’t evidence of baseball containing immorality, then I don’t know what is.
As distasteful as we all find some people in sports I have always taken the view that the criminal and civil law should deal with people. It is not for sports bodies to be like a 2nd court. You always run the risk of hypocrisy without the scope, experience and ability for nuance of the justice systems we live under.
I do get the impression many sports commentators and fans are exercising something other than an enjoyment of the sport (read some of the comments on Keith’s pieces from Philly fans!).
We all see liars, creeps, bullies, clowns and charlatans at work. The idea people in sports should somehow be different and be denied an income because they are public figues, or is there another reason, is bogus for me.
Jon UK,
Way to paint Philly fans with a broad brush. Maybe you meant to write “… from some Philly fans!” Do you really think that Philly fans think Keith hates the Phillies more than other fans think Keith hates their teams? Have you ever read his chats or comments follwing anything he wrote about Alexi Ramirez? When Keith wrote negative pieces on Kyle Kendrick and Raul Ibanez, of course the “you’re such a hater” crew are going to comment in greater force than those of us who recognize that Keith is just providing his honest opinion.
“A team could employ one of the many mediocre, borderline or journeyman players whose names appeared in the Mitchell Report without making the implied statement that it was endorsing and rewarding a cheat. Signing Brendan Donnelly, Paul Lo Duca or Paul Byrd would not be seen as an enlistment in the Dark Side.”
I find it interesting that the author used three white players in this quote. While it is clear that Bonds was more talented than all three (before and after chemical use), it is also clear that he is black and they are white.
No, not reading a blog because of the layout is like not reading a book because the text isn’t pleasant to look at.
Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone.
Adam, have you tried using Google Reader (or the like) to read Shyster? You only have to click over to THT if you want to read the comments.
And Merry Christmas to all, as well.
I actually went to this guy’s website, as I was curious as to read other “takes” by this “ethicist.” The purpose of his website is as follows:
“The Ethics Scoreboard exists because, to be blunt, national media, academia, law, the arts, government, and the church have been timid, garbled, and worst of all, boring in their efforts (such as they are) to apply our society’s ethical standards and principles to the daily events that bombard us. The results of this failure are apparent: a proliferation of ethics-related incidents, a lack of coherent discussion regarding them, and in too many cases, public apathy.”
Glad that this was clarified for me. Is it not a problem when ethical standards follow those outlined by the society, as he seemingly suggests in this statement? This also stands as an underlining thesis of his article. How can this exist when we live in a capitalist society, which by its nature, inherently stands in opposition to ethics? (This isn’t meant to be read as a socialist rant, but rather that capitalism’s main function is the quest for profit.) The stupidity of this “ethicist,” as well as his website, a website that I assume generates revenue, is downright ridiculous.
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/
In other words, should not ethics transcend social norms?
Studes: It wasn’t well-thought out. It was incredibly ignorant about baseball in general and Bonds in particular, and his ideas on what is and is not ethical behavior are completely arbitrary.
Your comment about not reading sites that have points of view with which I disagree is evidence that you can’t defend the article, since instead of doing so, you’re trying to attack me as closed-minded.
H
Apologies it was just an example. The Ibanez whiners where they missed the big point was not Ibanez v Burell as left fielders, arguably a wash a 16 m approx one year to a 32 yo v a 3×10 to an older player, but the draft pick difference. It was the last good example I could think of.
You know the concept of Philly Phan [sic] has always appealed to me. It is much more English soccer than any other – without the violence of course.
I should just have said some fans when Keith does not view their team’s transactions positively – instead of taring a specific fanbase on the backs of some idiots.
I fly into Philly tomorrow as it happens to stay with my step Brother – Lives in Lehigh valley.
H,
I’m a die-hard Phillies fan, and I’ve been taken aback by my fellow fans’ criticisms of Keith. Maybe it’s because the Phillies just won the World Series, but the rancor and idiocy have reached a level rarely exhibited by fans not rooting for a certain Beantown franchise.
A couple of points:
1. Thanks for the kind words, Keith.
2. Adam (and anyone else): Sorry if you’re not a fan of the layout of ShysterBall at THT. If you have some specific complaints and/or suggestions, by all means, I’d like to hear them. In lieu of hijacking Keith’s space here, send me an email and let’s talk about it. I’m always looking to make it better.
3. I won’t go point by point over Marshall’s piece, but I did take particular issue with this passage:
“But the Mitchell Report, released a year ago, was a crystal-clear announcement that the sport was banishing its ethical ambiguity on the matter of performance-enhancing drugs. For this purpose, it was irrelevant that the report was incomplete and limited in scope. The Mitchell Report announced that Major League Baseball believed that steroid and HGH use was wrong, unacceptable, and sullied the game. It would condemn and embarrass any player found to violate this standard. Cheating was not cool, and cheaters were not welcome. The conduct was officially inconsistent with the values and best interests of the game (as it had, in fact, always been), and the owners, players, teams and fans were hereby expected to heed that fact.”
Given that Marshall disagreed with Brattain’s piece in the Annual, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that he read my piece about the Mitchell Report in it as well. If so, he’d no doubt disagreed with me when I said that the MR was a deeply cynical exercise designed to address a PR problem, not a PED problem. It was masterful with respect to the former issue. To the extent the PED problem was actually addressed, it was incidental and secondary.
In that same vein, the decision by teams to not sign Barry Bonds in 2008 came down to a simple calculus: (a) can Barry Bonds help us achieve our competitive goals; and (b) if so, is he worth the PR headache? The majority of teams would probably have answered no to (a) for various reasons (e.g. place on the success cycle or no opening at DH or LF). Almost every team save the Giants and maybe the A’s would have answered no to (b). Maybe that was defensible, maybe not, but it certainly wasn’t wildly irrational. My view is that ethics, as Marshall conceives of them in the piece (I think he’s writing in the voice of a moralist as opposed to an ethicist), had very little to do with it.
Note: I have no editorial authority at THT beyond what appears in ShysterBall, so all of this is just one man’s opinion. That said, despite my disagreement with many of the points in Marshall’s piece, I have no problem with it appearing at THT. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all of that jazz.
Craig, that was really cool of you to come over and post a response, really.
As far as the baseball of Bonds, I think he could have severely changed the fortunes of multiple teams in the AL, to the tune of 4-5 wins plus postseason.
As far az the PR, I think that if the winning came, the PR would have handled itself, but I may be entirely wrong on that front. So I’d say that any team that could sign him financially, and could have used the production (most everyone) in the AL should have.
I may be way off base, as I have obvioulsy never worked PR for a team.
Your comment about not reading sites that have points of view with which I disagree is evidence that you can’t defend the article, since instead of doing so, you’re trying to attack me as closed-minded.
Not really related to my point, Keith. You paint an act that is editorially consistent as “inexcusable.” As I said, THT picks writers we believe in and let’s them write whatever they want. Sometimes, that results in articles that I wish weren’t on the site, but we don’t play a heavy hand with our content. We believe in our writers in the long term. If that is “inexcusable,” then I’m glad I don’t live in your moral universe.
Jon UK,
I hear you and I agree with the point missed by those who bashed Keith’s analysis of the Ibanez signing. Personally, I would have liked to see the Phillies sign Juan Rivera and, if necessary, platoon him in LF with some combination of Jenkins and Dobbs with an occasional start for Stairs if necessary.
I guess I’m just a sensitive Philly fan who doesn’t like to get lumped in with the Stepford fans around here who think all moves the home teams make are the right ones. This is especially so at Christmas time when we are continually reminded that we once booed Santa Claus. Of course, when they regurgitate that story, they leave out the parts about Santa being 150 lbs. at most and so drunk that he couldn’t walk straight.
Here’s wishing you and yours safe travels and happy holidays.
“Comparing (sort of) Sirhan Sirhan to Joe McCarthy? I’ll give Peter Gammons the benefit of the doubt here, but the two shouldn’t be mentioned in the same light.”
Joe McCarthy directly ruined the lives of hundreds, probably thousands of people. He indirectly ruined the lives of tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of people with dissenting political views in a country that nominally embraces freedom of political expression. There’s more ways than being a murderer to be a terrible, horrible person
1) That was an incredibly difficult article to read. As with most articles that are about Barry Bonds it is pretty obvious that the person who writes the article is doing it with some sort of agenda (either positive or negative)
2) This quote (as pointed out by a few):
Players who have serious criminal charges, who are accused of rape and spousal abuse, drunk driving and drug arrests just fade out of the game.
…sure doesn’t seem to hold much stock. I can list players from my favorite team (Mariners) that have accused/conviceed of spousal abuse, drunk driving etc.
I mean wasn’t one of the greatest Managers of all time (Tony LaRussa) arrested for being asleep at the wheel in an intersection just last year?
Of course the NFL has had a few shocking stories. There are also two times the players in the “Major” leagues and I would imagine the demographics of the NFL (and the NBA) includes more American players who come from low income/higher violence areas then baseball.
3) I also found the quote that Craig pointed out very interesting when it says that with the Mitchell Report the MLB has made a:
“crystal-clear announcement that the sport was banishing its ethical ambiguity on the matter of performance-enhancing drugs”
Maybe I am little confused but if you are going to be “banishing your ethical ambiguity” on this matter you would immediately ban any user for life. Only banning the player for 30 games sure doesn’t seem to say (from an ethics POV) that you feel steroids are as bad as the author tries to make them out.
Of course, to ban a player for life you would have to collectively bargain this clause so the one argument the author could make is that the suspension system is only in place because that is the best that the MLB could do in conjunction with the MLBPA.
Even if you give the author this point…it then just leads to prove Barry Bonds’ complaint that the MLB Owners were in collusion last year to not sign him…to prove that the MLB thinks steroids are bad, bad, bad.
4) As many have pointed out…the story is just poorly formulated and the idea that this guy somehow makes a living doing stuff like this makes me very sad. The guy went to Harvard for god’s sake. Where can I get a job that rewards this type of performance?
studes: Then anything you post is “editorially consistent,” because you exercise no editorial discretion over your content. That piece of drivel should have been killed by whoever reads pieces before posting them. It was mostly incoherent, and when it was coherent, it made clear that the author intended to paint Barry Bonds as some root-of-all-evil, no matter what verbal gymnastics were required to do so.
I have to say, I find the response here to be a little problematic.
Now let me say that I agree that there were some flaws in the article. We should always be wary of people who try to attach concrete numbers to things like “ethics”. Further, his methodology seemed to make no room for the notion that, say, one can remain just as strong an environmentalist no matter what one learns about Stephen King.
However, that said, it seemed to me that he made one fairly acceptable larger point. That point was that a team risked long-term damage to its reputation by signing Bonds. That, for a short-term possible gain, they could permanently drive away some fans, and damage the enthusiasm of others. Whether you call this a question of ethics or PR or whatever, I think it’s valid. I know that if my team–the Angels–signed Bonds, my feelings about the team would be affected for a long time.
One other thing. Keith, you are certainly open-minded about some things, but to me you seem to be pretty close-minded about others. In particular, it seems to me you have some pretty clear ideas about Bonds and why he wasn’t signed. I am assuming, and I may be wrong, that you buy into some sort of collusion argument. Whatever you think, I don’t think you’re open to the idea that the choice not to sign Bonds might have been entirely rational, and might not have required any nefarious backroom dealings or whatever. Just my two cents.
Then anything you post is “editorially consistent,” because you exercise no editorial discretion over your content.
Yes, exactly. We support people we think are good writers; we don’t filter their specific pieces. That may not be the way you would choose to run our site. Oh well.
Keith: For the record: I am not a “self-declared” ethicist; I am a full-time professional ethicist. American University, for example, where I am an adjunct professor of legal ethics, has declared me an ethicist. As has The Ethics Resource Center in Washington DC, and USAID. And the Government of Mongolia, for that matter.
The article correctly pointed out why what you and other self-declared baseball experts kept predicting—that Barry Bonds was going to be signed in 2008—didn’t happen. To blather on about why this team might sign Barry or why that team might sign Barry when it should have been clear from the start that NO team would sign Barry, for the reasons I enumerated in the article, is a true waste of everyone’s time, and an abuse of the fans who expect actual perspective in their analysis.
My argument, by the way, in no way depends upon whether or not Bonds actually was a PED cheat, though I think it is completely obvious that he was. Baseball’s conduct here was based on Bonds’ image and perception in the public. Maintaining values is as much about appearances as fact.
My “agenda” was to try to remind the stats-are-everything crowd that organizations do factor values and image into their calculations. The Brattain article baseically said that Barry wasn’t signed because several teams were negligent or dumb, as if little things like indictements didn’t matter. That, with all due respect, is mistaken.
I accept that your dismissive paragraph about the article was not intended to be precise, but if you really believe, for example, that I was comparing Bonds to “a murderer,” when I was making a legitimate analogy about the clear absurdity of other similar theoretical destructive hiring plans, then you need a brush-up in basic logic. By your interpretation, I was also comparing Bonds to Lindsay Lohan. But I was comparing the decision of an MLB team not to sign Bonds to a playing contract with the decision of Disney not to sign Lohan to a family picture.
Get it?
I do not regard you as the definitive last word on the Mitchell Report. Yes, it was politically motivated, but a document like that, whether it is designed to or not, always will have major cultural adjustment power. Values matter. Percieved values of cultural institutions matter. This is hardly rocket science.
Finally, citing Carl Mays, for heeaven sake, or quibbling over specific players does not change the fact that baseball DOES have a unique place in the nation’s ethical culture, that this is reflected in its lore, fiction and popular image, as well as its Hall of Fame standards, its player choices, and the way its stars are handled in the media. If your cynicism prevents you from recognizing that, then that cripples your ability as a baseball analyst.
I do agree that the Clay Buchholtz example was inapt and botched. I’m sorry.
Oh: Craig…I DID read your article, and agreed with many of its conclusions, if not its super-cynical tone. “PR” is often inseparable from “doing the right thing” or “appearing to do the right thing” or “appearing to try to do the right thing.” One big reason the Report “worked” is that it served as a values statement, one that baseball teams could not easily reject agin by hiring Bonds.
from the author of the article in question:
I hadn’t been aware that Law had weighed in. But since he weighed in with nothing but insults and intentional (or accidental) misrepresentations of what I wrote, and the general dismissive attitude symptomatic of narrow, closed, or limited minds, no, I’m afraid I wasn’t “humbled.” But I’ve read a lot of his commentary, and have not been dazzled by his reasoning faculties.
this guy is just full of himself.
just loves to hear himself talk.
Open memo to all: If you are going to take the time to write a 9-paragraph defense of your “published” article, please take the time to proofread it. . .or at least run it through spellcheck. Typos do not translate well to Mongolian.
What kind of professional ethicist uses “tit-for-tat” tactics calling Keith a “self-declared” baseball expert in response to Keith calling him a self-proclaimed ethicist?
Professional Ethicist = Salesman. He’s sold a few people on the idea that someone who does whatever it is he does adds value to their organization. Which really makes the whole ‘perception is reality’ bit amusing to me,
i’ll teach my dog to whistle. i’ll call it a “professional whistling dog”. if someone will pay that nut to be a professional ethicist then someone will pay to see my whistling dog.
Well THOSE were certainly edifying and blistering retorts!
First: thank you Floyd for a calm and rational response. Yes: one cannot put numbers on ethical values. Stats don’t explain everything. And yes, there were flaws in the article: the big one: I actually beieved that the contention that baseball, as the National Pastime, has a special ethical obligation was generally accepted by fans other than me, Bill James, Ray Kinsella and Bob Costas. Boy was I wrong about THAT.
Thanks to Keith for removing “self-declared.” And I have apologized to Keith for the post Cory sent in, which I also took down. As I said, I am not used to being called a phony and accused of making one “dumber.” But my insults were juvenile and unprofessional.
It is quite a good trap, I must say, accusing someone of having no credentials for an opinion, and then accusing him of being “full of himself” when he is forced to produce the credentials! As is complaining about typos when I am making an effort to respond to a large number of attacks, on various fronts, of varying legitimacy, in limited time. I’m a lousy typist. I’m sorry.
Also a nice trick: bombarding me with every argument but the kitchen sink, most of them wrong, and complaining that a response takes 9 paragraphs.
Keith Law is not a “self-declared” baseball expert. I did not intend to include him in “other self-declared baseball experts,” but I see that’s how it can be read. Not my intent: I am aware of Keith’s credentials. Again, apologies, Keith.
Paul, who does not know me or my work, presumes to call me a fraud. As it happens, I agree that many compliance consultants are, in fact salesmen with nothing to teach. I have made my reputation and business by NOT being one of these guys.
The fascinating part for me is the invective and violent reaction to a not-very-radical analysis. Roger Clemens, perhaps you noticed, had his name taken off of a charity golf tournament and a hospital yesterday. Why? Conspiracy? No—a non-profit and a for profit organization decided that association with Clemens’ name alone would diminish the image of integrity for the two entities. And they weren’t paying him–he was giving money (I believe) to both. I’d bet most or all patients at the hospital don’t care whose name is on it as long as the doctors are good–so why remove Clemens…whose PED connection, I’d say, is much less certain than Barry Bonds? And yet you all deny that a baseball franchise, which would have a far greater connection to perceived misconduct of a baseball player actually on its team, would never hesitate to make such a connection as long as it could still make money and win more games by doing so.
In his landmark work, “The New Industrial State,” Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith explained how modern corporations are not just governed by the profit motive—that their management and employees seek psychic income and pride by being associated with a company that is admired and respected for its way of doing business and its values. as well as success.
I guess he made people dumber too–wait—I had him for economics! That explains it!
Hey Dan: I left in one typo just for you.
“But I was comparing the decision of an MLB team not to sign Bonds to a playing contract with the decision of Disney not to sign Lohan to a family picture.
Get it?”
I don’t get it. How is this not comparing Bonds’ actions to those of Simpson/Lohan/Rose?
It is an article like this that makes me long for the good old days of FJM.
The back and forth finally got me interested enough to actually read the article, so I might as well put my two cents in.
First of all, Dr. Marshall, while I don’t dispute that you have earned the title of ‘ethicist’ from various bodies, it still sounds like the title a self-righteous windbag would give himself; personally, I’d go by ‘Professor of Ethics’ or the like. I’m not saying you are either self-righteous or a windbag, but when I just read that title on the top of a page, my mind (like Keith’s and many other commenters here, clearly) tends to jump to those conclusions. And, as you point out, perceptions matter; I suspect that many people here were predisposed to dislike your article based on your title – that seems a bit counterproductive.
As far as the article itself goes, I thought it a bit preachy at times, particularly in its dismissiveness of fans who would want Bonds on their team (personally, I don’t think Bonds is worse than any other player who took PEDs, and I’m sure every team in baseball is happily employing at least one, if not several, of those). With that said, I think the analysis of why no team did sign him makes a lot of sense – once the unique situation in SF was eliminated, the vast majority of fans for any given team were very anti-Bonds, and the short and long term effects of signing him on the team’s popularity were unsure, at best.
Dr. Marshall, I retract my comment about you using “tit-for-tat” tactics. However, I would like to know why you feel it took the Mitchell Report to be the difference between Bonds being a Giant in 2007 and out of baseball in 2008. Did MLB just discover ethics and PR? He was a suspected PED user and a bad guy well before the Report was released in December 2007.
“The fascinating part for me is the invective and violent reaction to a not-very-radical analysis. Roger Clemens, perhaps you noticed, had his name taken off of a charity golf tournament and a hospital yesterday. Why? Conspiracy? No—a non-profit and a for profit organization decided that association with Clemens’ name alone would diminish the image of integrity for the two entities. And they weren’t paying him–he was giving money (I believe) to both. I’d bet most or all patients at the hospital don’t care whose name is on it as long as the doctors are good–so why remove Clemens…whose PED connection, I’d say, is much less certain than Barry Bonds? And yet you all deny that a baseball franchise, which would have a far greater connection to perceived misconduct of a baseball player actually on its team, would never hesitate to make such a connection as long as it could still make money and win more games by doing so.”
– I think the argument that most people are failing to recgonize or agree to is that not signing Bonds would somehow do irrepairable damage to the MLB/Franchise.
While there might be some moment-in-time harms to the league or a franchise’s reputation as many have pointed out it is EXTREMELY likely that all of those (for the vast majority) would shift as soon as Bonds hit his first walk off HR.
At this point…after seeing one president (allegedly) get caught for cheating on his wife and another president (allegedly) consistently lie to the public I think it is pretty fair to say that most of America’s popular opinion is rarely swayed by any specific action.
For example, you listed all of the “bad” things that NFL players have done and yet the NFL is CLEARLY the most popular league in America. Therefore, it is pretty clear that most teams that did not sign Barry Bonds due to “PR reasons” were really just taking the coward’s way out…or most likely…were told not to by the MLB.
“And yes, there were flaws in the article: the big one: I actually beieved that the contention that baseball, as the National Pastime, has a special ethical obligation was generally accepted by fans other than me, Bill James, Ray Kinsella and Bob Costas. Boy was I wrong about THAT.”
– So when you say this…which is absolutely true (and amazingly surprising that you’d even come to this conclusion in the first place)…are you implying that Baseball really doesn’t have a higher moral standard in America or that we are all just stupid for not knowing what Bill James, Ray Kinsella, Bob Costas and you already seem to agree as stated fact?
The key to the article was:
When Bonds rises on the scale, so do drugs and cheating: fans of the team signing him will become more likely to start mouthing the familiar, lame rationalizations Bonds defenders, sycophants and enablers have been using for years. (This was seen in the attitudes of Giant fans, who continued to support Bonds while the rest of baseball fans were substantially critical.)
And I agree with it. I’ve seen it happen in tons of other sports-related situations.
“When Bonds rises on the scale, so do drugs and cheating: fans of the team signing him will become more likely to start mouthing the familiar, lame rationalizations Bonds defenders, sycophants and enablers have been using for years. (This was seen in the attitudes of Giant fans, who continued to support Bonds while the rest of baseball fans were substantially critical.)”
– This is still a silly argument. Basically aruging that signing Bonds would some how make steroids ok for the team that signed them would imply that the Giants were willing to turn a blind eye on all steroid users and sign other players that took PEDs…which didn’t happen.
My Mariners have always tried to be “fan and family friendly” when signing their players (much to the dismay of some people) and yet our minor league and major league system has had more than a few players suspended for PEDs.
This argument just doesn’t hold water…
The difference for the Clemens/charity golf thing is that the only value the golf tournament gets from Clemens is his reputation – that his name is on the tournament. So if his reputation provides any negative value at all, it makes sense to drop him. Bonds would be providing much, much more to a baseball team besides his reputation – namely, the .400-.450 OBP and such. (Plus, I disagree that there is less proof that Clemens cheated than Bonds, but that’s really neither here nor there.)
A rebuttal
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-baseball-ethicista-reply/