Squared Up: Case Closed
Jed Jacobsohn / Getty
It didn’t take long before I started fast-forwarding through the parts of Baseball Tonight that concerned the Bonds trial. The outcome wasn’t entirely without interest for me, but until I heard an actual outcome, knowing about the ex-mistress’s testimony, which Giambi took the stand today, on and on…by following the story before it ended, I felt complicit in a redundant proceeding that put me in mind of the Kenneth Starr era.
Craig Calcaterra’s columns about the Bonds verdict crystallized the similarity between the two trials for me, particularly when he remarked that “the jury just punted here. They decided to ‘do justice’ rather than follow the evidence. I’m not OK with that. You shouldn’t be either.” I really like Calcaterra’s coverage generally — HBT is definitely worth a follow on Twitter — but he’s also an attorney (although I believe he’s not currently practicing), so he’s got insightful things to say about the case from that perspective as well, and Calcaterra’s comments made me wonder what it’s all about, in the end. What is it for? What are we doing here? It seems to me as though the entire point of bringing suit against Bonds for perjury and obstruction is to “do justice,” and to do it because we don’t have the evidence we want about Bonds and his actions — an admission of guilt; an assessment of exactly how steroids affected his numbers; what the information we do have really means.
A fool’s errand, all of it. It is not possible to wring justice out of the Bonds situation — not the kind of justice I can see as the motivation for fans. Bonds won’t tell what we’ve decided is the truth about his alleged steroid use, won’t explain and apologize and crunch the numbers for us on precisely how many home runs it might have added to his total, so instead, there is the trial process, the ritual, a collective moving-on pageant during which dishonesty and theft is punished, an important lesson is learned, and we all rededicate ourselves to blah blah blah cue “The Stonecutters’ Song.” Again, I can’t speak to the prosecutorial requirements as far as bringing and pursuing a case against Bonds. Citizens should not lie to a grand jury. But this isn’t just a citizen. This is a grouchy superstar who farted in the church of baseball, repeatedly, and he’s simply got to take a punishment! It’s only right! It’s what he deserves! “Who pollutes the Hall of Fame? / Cheapens this, our sacred game? / HE do, HE do!”
Fine. He’s an ass. And? What are we doing here?
Look, I wish as much as any other baseball fan that the Steroid Era had never existed. I feel like I have to add a qualifying phrase about it to every fackin’ sentence I utter on the topic. I don’t particularly think that I would enjoy hanging out with Bonds on an interpersonal level, either; he seems like a twat. If he lied to a grand jury, he should take whatever the punishment is for that. That, not for what eighty-odd other guys did, or for being a nozzle, or for forcing us to confront the fact that the game isn’t played by saints, because Bonds’s punishment needs to be about what it’s actually about. As it is, we’re in stained-dress territory.
It’s likely impossible for Bonds to get a fair trial, in either direction, unless you move said trial to a neutral venue like, say, the Czech Republic — but there is no emotional point in pursuing it any further, because if it’s about an unfairness done to the game or the fans, it’s done, and nothing in the criminal code can undo it. We have to account for it, and just learn to live with it, because continuing to prosecute Bonds, to make this point, to see to it he doesn’t get away with it…I mean, what “it” do we mean? The game is alive. It’s fine. I’ve got it on now; Giambi’s playing first base for the Rockies, and a few feet away from him, Mookie Wilson is manning the coaching box, same as it ever was. And if it weren’t, would convicting Bonds of lying fix it?
I don’t not care; I don’t think anyone else should not care; I don’t feel especially sorry for Bonds. But if it’s about what he stands for and not what he did, Calcaterra’s right — I’m not okay with it, and whatever is genuinely wanted or needed from this process, legally or emotionally, is, I think, not available. Sit down with his legal team, get him to agree to a giant fine and a few hundred hours at the local Boys’ Club, acknowledge that the scales of justice will not line up exactly this time. Sometimes it’s like that. Usually it’s way way worse.
Next. Please.
Tags: Barry Bonds Craig Calcaterra Jason Giambi Moooooookie
I agree. This whole thing feels like a bad breakup, with the participants still locked in a ‘look what he did to me/no I didn’t’ battle and everybody else has long moved on. It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we’re done.
I find the verdict confusing, mostly because I haven’t read the judge’s instructions to the jury. If the jury did, in fact, rely on an instruction that said ‘giving evasive answers during grand jury testimony constitutes obstruction,’ then maybe I get the verdict a little better. But, seriously? Making someone a felon because he rambles, particularly when the examining attorney didn’t make a fuss about the answer at the time it was given? Not my kind of justice.
I agree. But I also disagree. When I was reading what you wrote I had kind of a visceral reaction, because it reminded me of what President Obama said about not going after the Bush administration goons for what they did to bring our country into the gutter, that it was time to let the healing begin, etc., etc. Even though I support President Obama 100%, I believe there are very valid legal and politically strategic reasons not to let the bastards get away with it, and I really wish now that he would have made going after them Job 1.
So, I see a parallel here: there are reasons to let it go about Bonds and there are valid reasons not to let it go, one of which is the general deterrence question. Although it’s too late to fix what Bonds did, it may not be too late to wake somebody up to what would happen if he did the same thing as Bonds. I don’t know how much a factor that is right now, but general deterrence is one of the reasons for punishment.
general deterrence is one of the reasons for punishment
Right — but then you have two more questions to answer. The first is whether punishment is an effective deterrent. I believe studies show that capital punishment is NOT an effective deterrent, so if the threat of dying is not enough to keep people from committing felony murders, I don’t think the threat of doing a year in medium security would deter anyone from either lying under oath or doing steroids — particularly since it’s very likely that Bonds is being made an example of here, and follow-up prosecutions in the same vein are unlikely to proliferate. (In my opinion, anyway.) The testing is the deterrent now, and I think it’s working fairly well.
The second is what exactly we’re punishing, as mentioned above. Under the law, he’s being punished for lying, which I have no problem with, but I don’t think it’s about that really, and in any case it wasn’t proven to the jury’s satisfaction, so…what good does this do? If baseball wants to ban him, that version of punishment theater is probably more pertinent to what people want here. But to continue hammering on him because he lied to the grand jury…again, I think he did lie and I think he should take a smack for that. But what people actually care about? Is that he lied about steroids, and there’s really nothing to be done about the steroids part.
I see what you’re saying and I don’t entirely disagree. But the transposition of the issues isn’t going to clarify, or provide closure on, either of them. (Not that YOU are doing that, but I think the prosecution is.)
This whole trial does make me think more and more of the Kenneth Starr witchhunt against the Clintons. Yes, we all know that when Bill said he “did not have sex with that woman” he was lying, and yes, he looked like an idiot when he answered that it depended on what the definition of “is is.” Clinton wasn’t charged with adultery, he was tried for perjury/lying under oath.
Do I think Bonds took steroids? Yes. Was he tried for that? No. He was tried for perjury and obstruction, and the jury didn’t buy it. I think that the trial was really being driven by the steriods question, not by the issue of perjury. (I hope that they don’t retry him – we’ve already wasted millions of dollars to come up with a single guilty verdict, and I expect that one conviction isn’t going to stand up on appeal.)
Also, the really awkward thing about the steroids issue and Bonds is that in the SF Bay Area, he was lionized as a player. It was thrilling to watch him come to the plate, and he was an incredibly talented player. The fans got what they wanted – home runs! – and we don’t like being reminded that there was almost certainly some chemical support to Bonds’ stats. I have a hard time punishing him for activity that we know was widespread in the league at that time.
Last, I don’t think baseball should ban him, and I don’t think he should be barred from the Hall of Fame. Put an asterisk next to his name, but put him in there, as his professional accomplishments were amazing, and I don’t think that banning him for using drugs that a substantial number of other players were also using at the same time is fair. And if we’re going to ban players from the HOF for being jerks, the Hall is going to get a lot smaller.
There’s several difficult things going on with the Bonds trial that are issues for me.
1. Why are we doing this? This question keeps coming up, and various people keep coming back to “it’s not worth it, move on” vs. the people who are all “there’s a principle involved and you can’t lie to a grand jury!”…but to me I’m not sure that’s really it at all. At the end, I think it’s about Greg Anderson covering Bonds’ ass. I think the prosecutors are convinced that if Anderson testifies truthfully against Bonds, they win this easily…and so they can’t let it go. They know he lied, but the only reason they can’t prove it is a crook is covering for his boss & friend. It’s the sort of thing that drives a prosecutor wild, because this is what wipes out cases against the mob, you know? So maybe they need to do this. Because they can’t allow people to lie for each other and cover it all up and try to sweep it all under the rug. Especially when it involves wealth & power.
2. Going after the cover up when you couldn’t prove the crime. Yeah, this one is hard for me too. Because if there wasn’t criminal activity why are we here in the first place? But I think it’s different than Ken Starr v/ Bill Clinton. Going after Clinton for lying about something that wasn’t criminal (regardless of how unsavory it may have been) is different than going after Bonds for lying about something that was criminal. And with Bonds there was underlying criminal activity with controlled substances. Couldn’t prove Bonds broke the law…but there was a law to break.
3. How much of this is because of Bonds holding baseball records and disgracing the game of baseball? This is the “would we be doing this if it was Joe Schmoe from Springfield?” question. And the real answer I think is that Joe Schmoe would have already been convicted or would have taken a plea, and the only reason this has dragged on so long is because Barry Bonds is rich and famous and can afford the best legal team who can try every tactic and take as long as possible to try and win. And there’s a small part of me that has to wonder if the only reason Greg Anderson has testified against Barry is because he knows Barry will take care of him, even if there’s no signed quid pro quo. Because Joe Schmoe’s friends would testify against him if it meant they go to jail if they don’t.
Calcaterra may be a lawyer, but technically I am too, and what it comes down to in this case is whether or not the jury believed certain witnesses and certain testimony was considered credible. For at least one charge, they did.
Barry Bonds’ achievements are undeniable. My distaste for his attitude and his cheating are also profound. Yet, to deny him his hall of fame status calls into question many, many other players’ performances that are at least tainted, if not completely ludicrous. Let’s let Barry into the hall, and let’s let Pete Rose in as well – a player who deserves it at least a much as Barry, and whose infraction seems somehow less severe in the light of recent events . . .