EDITORíS NOTE: The following editorial appeared in last Thursdayís edition of The New York Times:
ï
The natural curve of a baseball sluggerís performance resembles the arc of a high, looping home run ó up and up and up and then, inevitably, down and down. The ball can do nothing about gravity and, ideally, the athlete can do nothing about growing older except to learn, if he hasnít already, a certain patience and grace.
Tuesday (Aug. 7) night, Barry Bonds hit a fastball over the
right-center field fence in AT&T Park that broke Hank Aaronís
career home-run record. Bonds is unquestionably one of the greatest
hitters in the history of baseball. This should have been one of those
stories of perseverance, achievement and comeback that baseball fans
love to retell on drowsy August days, like Alex Rodriguez recovering
from a frustrating 2006 season to become the youngest player to hit 500
career home runs.
But Bonds did not just break Aaronís record, he defied the law of
baseball gravity, and for that there will always be a question about
his achievement. The career arc that Bonds has followed, at least since
the end of the ë90s, is no arc at all. Itís a gravity-defying line
drive, still rising as it vanishes from sight.
There is no conclusive proof that Bondsí superhuman crescendo from the
age of 35 on, when most players ó and especially home-run hitters ó are
falling back from their peak, was chemically induced. There is no
shortage, either, of allegations that he took steroids obtained from
the notorious Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, known as Balco. Fueled
by the spectacle, and deceit, of Mark McGwireís steroid-aided 70 home
runs in 1998, the fear of baseball fans was that Bonds, a man of
supreme natural gifts, one of the gameís great all-arounders, had
retooled himself physically for the home run, and the home run alone,
the least interesting play in baseball.
Well, that home run has now been hit, the one that breaks Aaronís record with an asterisk.
Bonds, who has been the least affable of players, has been affability
itself for the past few days. He is protected ó or covered up ó by the
playersí union and organized baseball, which loves the attention as
much as Bonds does.
You can hear the logic of the game as it is played now in Bondsí
argument that he is fundamentally an entertainer, a claim that is
echoed roundly by his fans.
To our minds, though, there was nothing wrong with the original Bonds, except perhaps his character.
Back then, at least he displayed ó without those nagging doubts ó the grace of his own gifts, the patience of his own strength.
|
