Major League Baseball did not approve Barry Bonds' new contract with the Giants. The sticking point may have to do with an unusual clause in his deal 1-year, $15.8 million deal (an absurd amount considering what Bonds is no longer capable of doing, like running). The clause states San Francisco can void the deal if Bonds is indicted as part of the federal steroids investigation.Here's my question, and it's a lengthy one. If I am Barry Bonds, and I know am closing in on the most sought-after record in the sport, and if I know I have been under the proverbial "cloud of suspicion" for years, and if I know I am at the epicenter of the game's probe into illegal performance-enhancing drugs, and if I know my goon-childhood-friend-trainer Greg Anderson is still locked up because he's refusing to testify against me, and if I know there's already stuff out there about me that I failed an amphetamines test last year, and if I know I went from looking like a human being to a cartoon character a few years into my career in San Francisco, and if I know there's already a damning book out there about me written by some of the most respected investigative journalists around, BUT if I know I really didn't do anything wrong or illegal back when I went from a good player to one of the best who ever lived, WHY ON EARTH would I agree to this clause?
Barry, if you're innocent, this provision is completely unnecessary insurance for the Giants.
But if you're not, please come forward so when you hit #756 this year, nobody will care.
10 comments:
well, in defense of Bonds, (as i understand it) the clause is intended to protect the Giants, not Barry.
I dont know the details, but I would assume it is something that they wanted, not him. Unless I misunderstood the purpose of the clause...
Right... but if he is innocent then he should have objected to the clause in the first place... but he was also desperate for a contract and it was probably only one he was getting.
Now I hope the Giants and every other team won't sign him.
yeah, i understand, but if he thinks he is innocent, then the clause wouldnt bother him. if he were thought he were guilty then he would object.
FYI this post is not intended to reflect my opinion on bonds' actions in the past.
just thinking that if i got a new job, and they were willing to pay me tons of money, i wouldnt object to a clause that says if i am found guilty of a crime they can void the contract. that seems fair, and having nothing to hide I would agree to it. its business.
it would be different if bonds
Yeah, ok, I see what you are saying. Bottom line: I hope something, anything, happens so that he doesn't break the record.
I guess my point is, the Giants aren't exactly giving Bonds a ringing endorsement of innocence by demanding a clause that voids the contract if he's indicted.
And if it was me, and I was innocent, but suspected of doing it, I wouldn't sign a contract with that kind of clause.
i know this has nothing to do with bonds, but i am fairly certain that kenny will be even better at fantasy baseball this year, now that he has this blog...unless i can pawn of dustin hermanson on him again in genius league!
i understand your point baseblogger, i was just playing the role of that guy...
i might continue to read your blog.
"if he thinks he is innocent, then the clause wouldn't bother him."
Actually it would bother him, just like the steriod accusations supposedly bother him. He made an entire TV show essentially devoted to showing how upset he is that people think he took steroids. So if he's that upset he would certainly not want a clause in the contract practically admitting he took 'roids.
i guess eric, although he already agreed to it.
also the clause doesnt admit he took steroids. the clause says he doesnt get paid in that case, which to me is the opposite.
The key point here is that it's not a conviction that allows them to void the contract. It's just an indictment. Because of that, Bonds doesn't have the protection of knowing he did nothing wrong. If there's the appearance that he committed this crime, he can be indicted. His contract isn't protected by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" like his guilt or innocence is.
Post a Comment