An orange-tainted view of Bonds

The question comes about 10 seconds after they hear I'm a lifelong San Francisco Giants fan. "So what do you think of Barry Bonds?" they ask curiously. For the sake of avoiding the same conversation 100 times, normally I'll tell them I'm indifferent about the whole thing and skirt the whole issue. Well, skirt no more. I'm probably in the minority here, but when I see 756 sail over the fence, chances are I'll feel a certain rush of adrenaline -- maybe because it means the Giants are scoring runs or maybe because Bonds is surpassing the all-time home run record. It doesn't mean I love Bonds and blindly deny that he took steroids. The fact of the matter is he's gotten huge on HGH, steroids, the cream, the clear, horse tranquilizers or maybe all of the above. He was part of the steroid era, so yes, you can say his record is tainted, but how do we know what really went on in the 90s. Just like Bonds morphed from a scrawny Pirate to a huge Giant, Roger Clemens has done the same over his career (I would guess his head size has suspiciously grown a bit during that time). Considering Juan Rincon got busted for steroids, it raises some red flags when you look back on the Twins bullpen at the turn of the century. If Rincon was juicing, then he was probably sharing with his bullpen mates. How do you explain everyday Eddie Guardado going from an all-star closer to perpetually injured now? How do you explain LaTroy Hawkins' transformation from a dominant Twins setup man to a god-awful reliever? If steroids help with muscle recover, it probably makes the most sense that relievers used it so they could pitch on back-to-back days without feeling any arm fatigue. The media focuses on the hitters, but I bet there were a lot of juiced pitchers facing Bonds during that era. The bottom line is, he was better at his craft than others. You don't see Alex Sanchez or Marvin Benard breaking any records, and they got busted for using steroids. Sure steroids help you hit for more power, but they don't make it so you have a batting eye as good as Bonds or the amazing bat speed to wait a 1/2 second longer to identify what pitch it is. Barry Bonds is the best player I've ever seen play the game, but does that mean he's better than Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth? I don't believe so, because it's impossible to compare players from different eras. Herein lies the problem, because the media does it all the time in all sports. I just don't think it can be done. With the advancement of technology, each new generation has an advantage over the previous one. Look at any sport. How can you compare current NBA or NFL players to those from the past when those from the early 20th century didn't have the equipment, weight rooms and facilities that players do now? I'd say Shaq has an unfair advantage over George Mikan if you're comparing them straight up. Or how about comparing Tiger Woods to Arnold Palmer? Palmer didn't hit with the behemoth drivers Tiger gets specially made by Nike. The list goes on and on. Players of the next generation will always have a leg up on the previous generation -- Bonds' advantage happened to be steroids, but that goes for his opponents as well. Regardless of what he does, it doesn't take away from what Aaron or any other players from the past have done. Plus, this will all be a moot point when ARod breaks Bonds' record in less than 10 years anyways. So do what you like, cheer or boo, but know Bonds wasn't the only one juicing and know that regardless of the sport, current players have advantages over past players, so the idea of comparing records is rather silly. I don't love Bonds. He's an awful outfielder, baserunner, teammate and person. But he's still a great player, steroids or no steroids, and it will be exciting to see him hit 756. (I can see the hate-mail already). So to answer your question - that's what I think of Barry Bonds