In baseball, villains are as much a part of the game's history as home runs and strikeouts.
Over the years, you've had superstars who also doubled as racists (Ty Cobb, Cap Anson), game-fixers (Hal Chase, the 1919 White Sox), misanthropes (take your pick), drunks and womanizers (again, take your pick). In the modern era, though, two villains tower over all the rest: Barry Bonds, the all-time home run king, and Pete Rose, the all-time hit king.
Bonds, of course, raised hackles early in his career for his bravado and surliness with fans and media. Later, however, he was reviled for his (alleged!) use of performance-enhancing drugs. Now that he's been indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, Bonds angst is at record levels.
As for Rose, he's banned from baseball for life for gambling on the game. For years, Rose lied about his betting practices, and he chose to make a belated and half-hearted apology only when it helped him sell books. Throw in tax evasion and other misdeeds, and you've got an unsavory character for the ages.
So the question at this point becomes this: who's the bigger villain, Bonds or Rose? Needless to say, this merits further exploration ...
Who hurt the game the most?
This, of course, is the heart of the matter. Bonds sullied the game by (allegedly!) using several flavors of steroids, HGH, insulin and even a fertility drug in pursuit of Hank Aaron's record. However, he was part of a larger malaise. Once the Mitchell report comes down the pike, we'll be able to grasp the dimensions of that malaise. What is certain is that Bonds is one of many players — perhaps even part of a majority — to use performance-enhancing drugs in recent years (allegedly!). In some senses, it's shameful that, for instance, Mark McGwire isn't similarly ridiculed. After all, he toppled a record that's just as cherished, and he almost certainly did it by cheating. However, it's Bonds who's subjected to the righteous fury. It's also shameful that Roger Clemens, who was named in the Jason Grimsley indictment and displayed a physical transformation and late-career performance spike to rival those of Bonds, has been subjected to precious little speculation. A race issue? It's hard to argue otherwise.
In any event, what Bonds did damaged baseball and was unethical in the extreme. He's a cheater, plain and simple. Still, how much has baseball really been harmed? MLB is smashing attendance records, and their revenues are approaching NFL levels. Right or wrong, the issue seems to matter more to the media than it does to rank-and-file fans. The game has survived worse (the Black Sox Scandal, The Great Depression, World War II conscription and the 1994 labor stoppage, for instance), and ultimately the "Steroid Era" may be as far from the consciousness of fans as the drug scandals of 1970s.
As for Rose, in baseball terms he committed a capital offense by gambling on games he managed. Even worse, he bet on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds. On another level, what's galling is that Rose lied to the public and to the caretakers of baseball for 15 years. Only when he had a financial stake in the truth — i.e., peddling his book, My Prison Without Bars — did he come clean.
In every team's clubhouse, there's a sign cautioning, in so many words, that betting on baseball is grounds for permanent banishment. In contrast, what Bonds did wasn't against baseball's rules until 2002. Illegal and immoral, yes, but against the rules of the game, no. As well, gambling on the game strikes more at the heart of competitive integrity than steroid use does. It's not a great leap to go from the use of "greenies" in the 60s to the use of cocaine in the 70s to the use of anabolic steroids in the current era. Certainly, steroids confer more of an advantage than its predecessors, but there is a lineage. In contrast, when someone like Rose bets on baseball it's possible that he's more concerned with winning the bet than winning the game. That's the gravest sin of all. Sure, Rose denied ever betting against his own team, but his credibility on that front leaves much to be desired.
The other, and perhaps most important distinction is that Rose was a gambling scandal unto himself, whereas Bonds, as mentioned, was only one of perhaps hundreds. Think of this another way: if there had been a gambling ring that comprised, say, 25 percent of players in the league, then MLB would likely cease to exist, at least in its current, recognizable form. As bad the steroids scourge has been, it's not going to have anything close to that kind of impact. In that sense, what Rose did was much worse.
Who was the better teammate/clubhouse guy?
On the field, Bonds was a better player than Rose by several orders of magnitude, but, laying aside their respective crimes against the game, what about in the dugout and in the clubhouse? Rose has always been lauded as a galvanizing teammate and someone whose drive to win rubbed off on others. Bonds, meanwhile, doesn't have that reputation. He wasn't able to get along with Jeff Kent in San Francisco (then again, who does get along with Jeff Kent?), and he's often been portrayed as having a diva's sense of entitlement in the clubhouse. Just ask the Barcalounger.
In any event, Bonds seems to be the bigger villain on this front.
Non-baseball sins
Rose famously spent time in the pokey for tax evasion, and he also had to cough up more than $350,000 in back taxes. That's pretty serious stuff. He also dressed up as the San Diego Chicken at WrestleMania. That's also pretty serious stuff. He also posed for this picture, which is arguably the most serious of his crimes.
Meanwhile, if the allegations of Kimberly Bell are to be believed, then Bonds was a philanderer. Of course, among professional athletes that's hardly a point of distinction. It's also been reported that the feds were investigating Bonds for tax evasion, but he wasn't indicted for that. Also, Bonds' worst extant photo is substantially less offensive than Rose's. Overall, we'll call Rose the bigger villain on this front.
The verdict
Rose is narrowly more villainous than Bonds when it comes to crimes against the game and off-the-field malfeasances. Bonds, meanwhile, is worse when it comes to relationships with teammates. Overall, we'll give the close nod to Rose over Bonds as the biggest contemporary villain in baseball. Rose will evoke more sympathy with fans because he was the hustlin', dirty-uniformed regular guy who got by on moxie and drive rather than talent. (This, of course, is patent nonsense — anyone who plays a quarter century in the majors has loads upon loads of natural ability.) In the objective sense, however, he's the greater of two evils.
Still, take heart baseball fans: at least they're not O.J.
Over the years, you've had superstars who also doubled as racists (Ty Cobb, Cap Anson), game-fixers (Hal Chase, the 1919 White Sox), misanthropes (take your pick), drunks and womanizers (again, take your pick). In the modern era, though, two villains tower over all the rest: Barry Bonds, the all-time home run king, and Pete Rose, the all-time hit king.
Bonds, of course, raised hackles early in his career for his bravado and surliness with fans and media. Later, however, he was reviled for his (alleged!) use of performance-enhancing drugs. Now that he's been indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, Bonds angst is at record levels.
As for Rose, he's banned from baseball for life for gambling on the game. For years, Rose lied about his betting practices, and he chose to make a belated and half-hearted apology only when it helped him sell books. Throw in tax evasion and other misdeeds, and you've got an unsavory character for the ages.
So the question at this point becomes this: who's the bigger villain, Bonds or Rose? Needless to say, this merits further exploration ...
Who hurt the game the most?
This, of course, is the heart of the matter. Bonds sullied the game by (allegedly!) using several flavors of steroids, HGH, insulin and even a fertility drug in pursuit of Hank Aaron's record. However, he was part of a larger malaise. Once the Mitchell report comes down the pike, we'll be able to grasp the dimensions of that malaise. What is certain is that Bonds is one of many players — perhaps even part of a majority — to use performance-enhancing drugs in recent years (allegedly!). In some senses, it's shameful that, for instance, Mark McGwire isn't similarly ridiculed. After all, he toppled a record that's just as cherished, and he almost certainly did it by cheating. However, it's Bonds who's subjected to the righteous fury. It's also shameful that Roger Clemens, who was named in the Jason Grimsley indictment and displayed a physical transformation and late-career performance spike to rival those of Bonds, has been subjected to precious little speculation. A race issue? It's hard to argue otherwise.
In any event, what Bonds did damaged baseball and was unethical in the extreme. He's a cheater, plain and simple. Still, how much has baseball really been harmed? MLB is smashing attendance records, and their revenues are approaching NFL levels. Right or wrong, the issue seems to matter more to the media than it does to rank-and-file fans. The game has survived worse (the Black Sox Scandal, The Great Depression, World War II conscription and the 1994 labor stoppage, for instance), and ultimately the "Steroid Era" may be as far from the consciousness of fans as the drug scandals of 1970s.
As for Rose, in baseball terms he committed a capital offense by gambling on games he managed. Even worse, he bet on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds. On another level, what's galling is that Rose lied to the public and to the caretakers of baseball for 15 years. Only when he had a financial stake in the truth — i.e., peddling his book, My Prison Without Bars — did he come clean.
In every team's clubhouse, there's a sign cautioning, in so many words, that betting on baseball is grounds for permanent banishment. In contrast, what Bonds did wasn't against baseball's rules until 2002. Illegal and immoral, yes, but against the rules of the game, no. As well, gambling on the game strikes more at the heart of competitive integrity than steroid use does. It's not a great leap to go from the use of "greenies" in the 60s to the use of cocaine in the 70s to the use of anabolic steroids in the current era. Certainly, steroids confer more of an advantage than its predecessors, but there is a lineage. In contrast, when someone like Rose bets on baseball it's possible that he's more concerned with winning the bet than winning the game. That's the gravest sin of all. Sure, Rose denied ever betting against his own team, but his credibility on that front leaves much to be desired.
The other, and perhaps most important distinction is that Rose was a gambling scandal unto himself, whereas Bonds, as mentioned, was only one of perhaps hundreds. Think of this another way: if there had been a gambling ring that comprised, say, 25 percent of players in the league, then MLB would likely cease to exist, at least in its current, recognizable form. As bad the steroids scourge has been, it's not going to have anything close to that kind of impact. In that sense, what Rose did was much worse.
Who was the better teammate/clubhouse guy?
On the field, Bonds was a better player than Rose by several orders of magnitude, but, laying aside their respective crimes against the game, what about in the dugout and in the clubhouse? Rose has always been lauded as a galvanizing teammate and someone whose drive to win rubbed off on others. Bonds, meanwhile, doesn't have that reputation. He wasn't able to get along with Jeff Kent in San Francisco (then again, who does get along with Jeff Kent?), and he's often been portrayed as having a diva's sense of entitlement in the clubhouse. Just ask the Barcalounger.
In any event, Bonds seems to be the bigger villain on this front.
Non-baseball sins
Rose famously spent time in the pokey for tax evasion, and he also had to cough up more than $350,000 in back taxes. That's pretty serious stuff. He also dressed up as the San Diego Chicken at WrestleMania. That's also pretty serious stuff. He also posed for this picture, which is arguably the most serious of his crimes.
Meanwhile, if the allegations of Kimberly Bell are to be believed, then Bonds was a philanderer. Of course, among professional athletes that's hardly a point of distinction. It's also been reported that the feds were investigating Bonds for tax evasion, but he wasn't indicted for that. Also, Bonds' worst extant photo is substantially less offensive than Rose's. Overall, we'll call Rose the bigger villain on this front.
The verdict
Rose is narrowly more villainous than Bonds when it comes to crimes against the game and off-the-field malfeasances. Bonds, meanwhile, is worse when it comes to relationships with teammates. Overall, we'll give the close nod to Rose over Bonds as the biggest contemporary villain in baseball. Rose will evoke more sympathy with fans because he was the hustlin', dirty-uniformed regular guy who got by on moxie and drive rather than talent. (This, of course, is patent nonsense — anyone who plays a quarter century in the majors has loads upon loads of natural ability.) In the objective sense, however, he's the greater of two evils.
Still, take heart baseball fans: at least they're not O.J.
