Let It Bleed, Bud

Good PR move, Bud Selig. And bless the fans in Chicago.

Bud has flung out suspensions for a dozen players who cheated the game, but he leaves Alex Rodriguez on the field to represent the absolute worst in baseball for the rest of the season.

Crisis management 101 — get everything out and get it behind you. Don’t let a wound slowly bleed.

A-Rod deserves to buried up to his nose in a vat of mustard for the rest of the season and the rest of his career — see how long his testosterone lasts treading mustard.

Baseball is busy congratulating itself for being tough on cheaters. Right. Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, who somehow missed that players like Bonds and Clemens and Sosa and McGwire were juicing and ruining the game’s grace and history and spirit, is trying to reclaim his reputation by being tough on the current crop of cheaters. Dozens of players have spoken out saying they’re tired of the cheaters winning pennants and MVP awards and lifetime records while honest players plug along. Fans are sick of it. Every exciting performance by a new home-run hitter or mow-em-down pitcher comes with the question — is he juicing?

Selig could have bounced A-Rod for life. Could have bounced him for the rest of this season and next, not letting him play while he appealed. But, apparently fearing a lawsuit or trouble with the union, Selig took the easiest way out and gave a suspension that allows the arrogant sniveling thief to still play, likely for the rest of the season, while a slow appeals process drips on.

You thought a lawsuit or union troubles would be bad for the game, Bud? How about the spectre of one of the most dishonest disgusting disingenuous hypocritical greedy bastards to ever pull on a jockstrap slouching into stadium after stadium modeling how well cheating works from now until October? How good is that for baseball?

Our only hope is that what the fans in Chicago started Monday, when they riotously booed every step Rodriguez took out of the dugout, will continue for every inning of every game the lying crook plays the rest of the season. Let’s take it upon ourselves to shame this creep under a rock.

Reach in your suit pants and find a pair, bud. Rid the game of this shameful imposter.

Or watch the great American game bleed to death. On your watch.

My brother David and I have watched Class A minor-league games the last two nights in gorgeous little ballparks in Iowa. Baseball remains a beautiful and amazingly difficult game to play. But when cheaters are chemically inflating their performances, there’s nothing on that field of dreams that we can trust. So we’ll turn away.

Unless you stop the bleeding.

— Bruce Benidt
(Image from epicurious.com)

27 thoughts on “Let It Bleed, Bud

  1. I like what they did in Chicago too. The other option is for the fans to stand up, turn their backs and remain silent when he’s at bat.

    In the meantime I want the home run records returned to the real holders, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris. Strip the cheaters of every stat. ZERO wins for Clemons. Remove them permanently from HoF ballots. I hate cheaters! And Bud Selig was a lousy owner before he became a lousy commissioner.

    Did you see any games in Burlington? I have. Nice enough little ballpark, but awfully poor attendance the one night I was there. Few can market like Veeck.

    1. Didn’t get to Burlington. Cedar Rapids and Clinton. Book on Clinton Lumberkings — Class A, by Lucas Mann, is extraordinary view of life in the low minors in a struggling small town. Smallest town that has a team, had it for 80 years. Maybe 500 people there when we were. Lovely baseball.

      1. Dennis Lang says:

        Then again, hard to argue with better living through science, Darwinian survival of the fittest and all that. No one in the over 120-year history of the game ever came close to Barry Bonds. I don’t know what’s more amazing: 73 homeruns and an .863 slugging pct. in 2001; or 232 walks!! and an on-base percentage of .609 in 2004. Some chemist was able to create an other-worldly player out of one already great. There’s the obvious story and litany about the cheaters–those names all too familiar–and another for the unlimited potential of artificial enhancement….

        1. Erik Petersen says:

          Here here. But I think it’s wrong to contemplate Bonds as the freakish result of a lab experiment. He executed a plan to break the single season HR record. In the course of two years he developed an insight into the swing and strike zone that surpassed Ted Williams. He modified his swing and determined per the length of the season it was a necessity to jack the one fat pitch he saw every two days. Yes he needed the juice to stay consistent overall and give him the vigor to square up with more 95+ fastballs. But the process and intellectual endeavor ought to overshadow the steroids.

          Baseball is supposed to be entertaining. I’m not convinced this anti-PED outrage is a real thing. If the PEDs get safer, as they seem to have, I don’t know what the rationale against them would be.

          1. Dennis Lang says:

            Hey Eric–Then it seems to me we’re fostering a culture where every player, aspirng or established, highschool or younger would now be obligated to use PEDs. The more powerful the better. Always on to the next best thing. Maybe we’re all heading in that direction anyway in this and other respects–survival of the fittest, bigger, faster, stronger smarter, better looking, richer, genetic manipulations…. A chapter out of “Brave New World”? Enhanced living through technology.

          2. Dennis Lang says:

            At the grave risk of sacrilege. Now take Adrian Peterson. A miracle of human fortitude, not only to have his greatest season but one of the greatest of all time–within months of a debilitating knee injury? And the team has an atrocious passing game lacking any semblance of threat that could have deflected attention while the opposition ganged up “11 in-the-box” to stop him.

  2. I would like to have seen what Bonds, Clemons, etc could have done without cheating. Of course we never will. In addition, what kinds of records might Babe Ruth (800 HRs? 100/season) have set on PEDs? Or Joe DiMaggio (100 game hitting streak?), or Ted Williams? (.500 BA?)

    You see, that’s the biggest problem I have with the cheaters. They’ve obliterated records by using an unfair and illegal drug. Our present athletes already have big advantages inherent in decades more knowledge about the body. They have the benefit of technology that wasn’t even imagined in their day. And still, even in a new century, the old records continue to stand, except for the cheaters.

    In that light, how greatly do the numbers of Bonds and others stack up? In my eyes, the cheaters have greatly diminished the sport of baseball by dishonoring its history. History matters more in baseball than football or basketball because baseball is at least half a century older. That history has always been part of baseball’s mystique.

    Sigh. I’ve always been very old school about baseball. If cheating is allowed by legalizing PEDs, I’ll probably watch less, and the records won’t mean anything. I imagine attendance might increase because home runs are popular. My loss, for sure.

    1. I notice that as Chris Davis of the Orioles continues his remarkable season writers and fans are making comparisons to Roger Maris, not McGwire, Sosa or Bonds. The court of public opinion seems to have begun erasing those guys from the books, even if MLB may never figure out a legal standing to do so.

  3. Erik Petersen says:

    Having given an accurate name, an accurate email, and having participated with civility, I have a proper expectation that my posts will be approved. I’ll also be audacious enough to say also that PM, Jim Leinfelder, Mike Kennedy, Dennis Lang, Bertram, et al, can stand my participation. It is my request that you disable moderation.

    1. Dennis Lang says:

      Well, Happy Labor Day All!! Really, have no idea what’s happening backstage on issues between Erik and “moderation”. Haven’t been following (although seems like a cool inside drama–freedom of audience to express/freedom of the author to control that expression–or something.)

      However, Erik your obvious passion to continue participating on this blog despite what I gather may be some resistance from time to time is what’s most noteworthy. More viewpoints the merrier, generally speaking anyway.

  4. Erik Petersen says:

    With this blog, you now have a couple basic problems. And the comment moderation policy causes these problems rather than alleviates any.

    First, this blog is moribund. It could benefit from the interaction between the commenters, who are in some ways more important than the authors.

    Second, the comment moderation policy is selective and unfair in practice, if only one post author is to be active in writing.

    It is my request that the comment moderation policy be turned off. You don’t have the ‘bad commenter policy’ that you may have thought you had.

  5. PM says:

    Erik:
    First, I have to say you have been much better since the new moderation process has been put in place. Of course, your prior behavior was one of the main reasons that the moderation policy was changed.
    Obviously, I am not speaking for the powers that be, nor am i in charge of the moderation policy, but I am pretty certain that the specific aspect of your behavior that was causing problems here were the ad hominem attacks that you were making constantly on Brian Lambert. It was not your policy disagreements, which you sometimes stated cogently and in interesting ways–it was the personal vituperation and animus that you displayed.
    Yes, I think that you often have interesting and knowledgeable things to say, but far too often they have been overshadowed by petty, mean and nasty personal attacks–which have contributed nothing to the debate. In short, you were behaving like a troll.
    The problem you have is how to convince the powers that be that you will no longer behave like a troll. Sure, you haven’t behaved like one recently, but that is because your comments (and mine, and others) have been subjected to moderation. If there is no more moderation, how will you behave?
    What can you do to convince the powers that be (including Brian Lambert) that you will not behave like a troll in the future? It isn’t that the powers that be (including Brian Lambert) just want to silence opposing voices (Bertram gets through, after all). It is just that no one likes a troll.

  6. Erik Petersen says:

    Re Joe’s last post… we can’t discuss it, they have a site that’s performing perfectly well here. It would be wrong, cause too much consternation. Sheesh.

    You other readers are going to have to be assertive and step up here, and demand a higher level of quality and effort. I have my personal interest here at stake, and that’s obvious, because I like to comment and be in there with PM, Jim, Dennis, etc. But me not being accommodated means what you’re left with now is 52 posts a year by Brian, and maybe 5 posts a year by other people. And the practical effect is all conversation is then filtered through Brian’s worldview. I’m neither inaccurate nor pejorative to say that’s pretty narrow. The blog is moribund, it’s a corpse.

    My word is good re my vow of good conduct, and it’s good because there’s a stick of always being able to turn comment moderation back on.

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      I’m unbelievably sick of this conversation, but I will say this before I drop it.

      I’ve written 570 posts here. Sorry that wasn’t enough. Some of the commenting has sucked the fun out of it for me and led me and others to spend our time elsewhere. Moderation is being done to try to mitigate fun-sucking.

      Thankfully for people hungering fresh meat, Brian has stepped up in a huge way, both in quantity and quality. He deserves your thanks for that.

      If you don’t like what you’re getting here or have a hunger to amplify your own voice, feel free to start your own blog. I don’t intend a snotty tone here, just a matter-of-fact tone. The experience will give you a sense of why an endlessly steady stream of high quality content is difficult to produce.

      That’s all from me on this. I’m done talking about the comments policy. It’s been debated and decided. It is what it is.

      1. I like SRC as is. I don’t come to this blog for right wing opinions. I have plenty of options for that.

        I think Joe is correct. It’s their blog, they can do what they want. If you don’t like it, find another blog you like or start your own. SRC doesn’t owe any of us anything. They choose to offer comments and I’m glad they moderate. I have no time for trolls.

        I have a blog and it’s my little kingdom and I like it that way.

  7. Erik Petersen says:

    Alternately, I want to apply to be a blogger here at Same ‘Rowdy’ Crowd. How do I go about that? Give me a probationary period, I’ll do 10 posts over 5 weeks.

  8. Erik Petersen says:

    I’d settle for Leinfelder or PM being added as bloggers though. Seriously, y’all don’t think theres a lack for diversity here? And that this isn’t a problem? Dudes, it’s the commenters that are special here. They need to be nourished and cultivated with fresh topics.

    1. Dennis Lang says:

      Hey Erik–Just following along this thread a little. Looks like the subject of this conversation popping up of late on different unrelated posts has only one participant though–you. While I must admit not quite understanding your great passion–in the big picture it’s only another blog (as though the Crowd could ever be just “another blog”) of millions for heaven’s sake–I rather admire your dedication to the idea.

    2. Jim Leinfelder says:

      Pretty sure these rowdies started this thing to kick around ideas and issues related to the p.r. and “communications” biz. Lambo needed a new venue for “Lambert To The Slaughter” and was folded into the omelet as something of a stand alone from other side of the blurred line between p.r. and journalism, it seems. The last thing they need is the likes of me popping off about all the things that annoy, disappoint and, on rare occasions, happily surprise me in the reeling and staggering world of media. We’re the Greek chorus, or, often as not, the geek chorus.

    3. PM says:

      As much as i have enjoyed my time here, I am not at all certain I am made out for the authorship role. Maybe simply because I am a technical dinosaur, but possibly also because once I have a schedule to meet it starts to seem like work (and that is never as much fun).

      I do have to admit, however, that I miss SRC during those dry spells when no one is posting….

      1. Dennis Lang says:

        Hey PM–Not quite sure what happened to the subject of this post, namely PEDs in sport, but you have of course been the most consistently thoughtful contributor here since I’ve been following.

        I suppose it’s in the nature of things that the conversation thrives on political matters, especially in election years, but the Crowd has in my view, despite the always wonderful writing of Brian Lambert, missed the diversity of content and luster of its founders. Benidt, Austen, Kelliher, Mrja were frequent provocative authors. Joe Loveland for quite a while was the “franchise, invariably stirring the imagination.

        I guess for them it was time to move on. But still breathing…..

  9. Erik Petersen says:

    Re diversity, I don’t think its necessary even that a ‘conservative’ perspective be added be added to S “R” C. Topically, you just maybe add some discussions about say communications once in a while.

  10. Erik Petersen says:

    Shorter SRC comment policy: we filter for spam and incivility, which can include comments that aren’t spam and comments that aren’t uncivil. We encourage real names but let it slide with our social acquaintances and other people who we sense agreement with.

  11. Erik Petersen says:

    My first blog post here is going to be about misanthropy in the 21st century. In it I’ll relate how I gave Bradlee Dean a dirty look one time when I walked past his fund raising stand in front of Walmart.

    That’s how I roll.

  12. Erik Petersen says:

    A message from the moderator: don’t mind those civil, non-spam, signed comments I approved. I wasn’t paying attention. I promise to pay more attention, so that I can be sure to reject civil, non-spam signed comments. Further, everyone’s complaints about comment moderation are not valid and I’m going to reject them.

  13. Dennis Lang says:

    This weeks “New Yorker” Malcolm Gladwell asks why we condemn athletes who dope. From the intro to the podcast available online at New Yorker/Out Loud:

    Here, Nicholas Thompson talks with Gladwell and Ben McGrath about our inconsistent ideas about fairness in sports and whether doping should or shouldn’t be allowed. Gladwell asks, if we allow laser surgery to improve eyesight or Tommy John surgery to replace ligaments, why don’t we allow athletes to take F.D.A. approved testosterone, in doses that are not harmful, in order to accelerate their recovery time after workouts and competition? He argues that we should legalize performance-enhancing drugs and then regulate them, and imagines a world where athletes make their biological passports public: “What I really would like is to have complete liberalization and complete transparency. I would like to know about every single baseball player, track-and-field athlete, basketball player, precisely what they are on. And then I’d like to reach my own conclusions as a fan about how to evaluate their performance.”
    Thompson presses Gladwell on his own feelings as a fan of track-and-field athletes, and argues that the sport of running would be diminished by allowing P.E.D.s. Gladwell counters that “those days of running innocence” are already long gone, and that we need to accept that, for better or worse, doping is a part of athletic competition in the modern world.

Comments are closed.