As most of you know I am not a fan of Barry Bonds — I actually consider him a disgusting person. And I believe he did everything the prosecution accused him of. But I will vote for him for baseball’s Hall of Fame. The jury in his federal case got hung on the three counts of perjury, could not decide beyond the shadow of a doubt he lied to the grand jury about knowingly taking performance enhancing drugs. Based on that no-decision I don’t feel it’s my right to withhold my Hall vote. To read my full column on this sad and tawdry matter click here.

Be Sociable, Share!



  1. Mike

    1. It’s not clear, even now: was taking steroids against the rules of major league baseball when Bonds was accused of it? 2. It sounds like he’s been declared a felon on a technicality. 3. How can you answer clearly if you don’t understand the questions? That’s his defenders’ allegations, that the Feds asked questions so nuanced that it was impossible to respond unequivocally. 4. The Javert-like prosecutors ought to do a gut scan about their chances at check-out time if, indeed, there is such a thing as ultimate justice. 5. Bets already being made with pretty good odds that the lone conviction will be overturned, is my bet. 5. I don’t agree with Lowell, but must say he’s been writing about this case with compelling clarity. The rest of reports have been merely dismal and annoyingly prejudiced.

    April 13th, 2011 10:29 pm

  2. Mike

    I mean nationally, on my (second) point #5. Glenn Dickey and Tim Kawakami have been commenting wisely, too. We’re lucky here to have these three to read, unlike the flamers elsewhere who never have bothered to grow up. (Rick Reilly one fine example of that, when he was slamming Bonds from the safety of his SI column.)

    April 13th, 2011 10:37 pm

  3. Randy

    Nice column, Lowell. Barry was very lucky he walked from the injection perjury count. A lone juror chose to create doubt in her mind claiming Kathy Hoskin was not credible after originally voting for perjury, and then going home and sleeping on it. From every media person in the courtroom, Hoskin was reportedly the most credible person who testified. Was this person’s doubt “reasonable,” it sure does not sound like it. Say what you want, but justice prevailed. No one person is above the law, not even someone who can hit home runs. Somebody has finally said, “Hey, Barry, your BS response is not going to work here.”

    April 14th, 2011 4:06 am

  4. Stan

    And Mike,Stan has spoken up on Bonds and you might have read the kooks on Kawakami’s blog reactions. Of course Bonds should go into the HOF. Even those who say they were clean-like Eric Byrnes comes off as a liar with just a couple of simple follow up questions-outed by Radnich.
    Either Bonds goes into the HOF-or nobody from 1985-now.
    Also,even the count he was found guilty of looks likely to be tossed out. Eight years of harrassing Bonds for nothing.

    April 14th, 2011 6:29 am

  5. Jack Orion

    Will you vote for Gary Plummer?

    April 14th, 2011 6:36 am

  6. Tom

    I watched Bonds throughout his great run in the late 90s until he retired. While I thought he was an obnoxious charachter I thought he was the greatest hitter of his time. Thank you Lowell for putting this in the proper perspective and for overcoming your feelings about Barry. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, period.

    April 14th, 2011 6:39 am

  7. Kenwood Mick

    “Inarticulate”……”the Feds got Bonds for being inarticulate”…are you kidding me ???….they got Bonds for obstructing justice !!!…as for the Hall of Fame,doesn’t being a convicted felon violate the character clause for entry ? By the way,your logic (?) about the validity of the jury’s verdict is absurd…..can you say O.J. ?? although the jury found him guilty on just one count , it found him NOT guilty on none of the counts…he loved being the poster child for baseball when he was the hero….now he is (and always will be )
    the poster child for all the cheaters of the steroid era….

    April 14th, 2011 7:01 am

  8. Tiburon Dave

    If it was allowed to come to a vote, would you vote for Pete Rose?

    April 14th, 2011 8:05 am

  9. Neal

    I would not vote for Bonds, baseball records are the most prestigious of all sports and without the help of ROIDS, he would of probably had maybe 600 home runs max and perhaps 50 homeruns in a season, he made a mockery of sports records and that is why I believe he will not be in the Hall of Fame anytime soon.

    April 14th, 2011 8:10 am

  10. CohnZohn


    April 14th, 2011 8:17 am

  11. Dave


    Well stated and I agree with your arguement. We can all believe that did take them. And the defense opening statements said as much. But since there is no way to quantify how many he would have hit without anything or how many pitchers were taking anything that pitched to him you either put players from this era in the HOF, or you do not. Further, since eve “greenies” would be banned under the current drug agreement, unless the HOF is willing to go back and remove any players that have admitted to taking those in their career, then we are back to square one. The writers and voters are going to have to do their best job at sifting through the noise of this era, and sort out who is/was HOF worthy and who is not. And I agree with you Lowell, in the end, for his entire body of work, Bonds is a HOF player.
    On another note, I completely left a film off my list and am surprised I did. I somehow overlooked the film Stripes. A true comedic classic in my humble opinion and one that has to be in my top films. Thanks Lowell for all of your takes on this, the Bonds trial, and so many more.

    April 14th, 2011 9:08 am

  12. Doug A

    As an attorney, I get rambling off-topic answers all of the time to my direct straight forward questions. The reasons for such answers are multiple: evasiveness; forgetfulness or spacing out (what was the question again?); inattention; loving to hear your own voice; etc. If I don’t get an answer, I’ll ask: “Did you X, yes or no?” or “you, didn’t answer my question, did you X.” What is missing is the followup question to clear up the off-topic chatter. Sometimes even the judge will ask the direct follow up question to get to the answer. I can’t imagine that Barry’s rambling response is an evasive felony beyond a reasonable doubt.

    April 14th, 2011 9:28 am

  13. Randy

    After reading your column once again, I don’t understand the logic behind your HOF vote. You seem to imply that you can’t vote no, because it would be “presumptuous . . . to reach a verdict the jury could not reach and then to bar Bonds from the Hall of Fame — presumptuous and unfair.” Are you saying that if the jury convicted him of perjury on the PED issue, then you would not vote for him for the Hall of Fame? You freely admit that you “believe he did everything the prosecution accused him of,” but then seem to tie your HOF vote to the collective will of 12 random people off the street. Who better to draw a conclusion on his guilt then you, someone who sat through the entire trial; you might as well been one of the alternate “jurors”. I could see you saying “Bonds had the talent and numbers before steroids to make the HOF,” so by that reasoning he deserves to be in — but to say that your vote hinges on what the jury found, when in your heart of heart we know you believe otherwise, seems rather weak. Where is Iggy, when we need him?

    April 14th, 2011 10:04 am

  14. KauaiRobert

    Aside from whether Lowell attended the entire trial (did he?), I agree with you 100%!
    Why is a hung jury your determining factor Lowell?
    Personally, I feel bad for all of the HOFers who did it clean and honest.
    I mean…what’s Hammerin’ Hank thinking right now…?

    April 14th, 2011 11:22 am

  15. Stan

    Hammerin Hank never denied taking amphetamines. That could be why he isn’t throwing stones at glasshouses.

    April 14th, 2011 1:04 pm

  16. StevenG

    Booooooooo. No McGwire, but Bonds? Because he’s “innocent” of perjury? I just don’t see consistency.

    April 14th, 2011 1:14 pm

  17. KauaiRobert

    I know that Hank did greenies–at least once that we know of.
    He actually admitted it.
    “Actually the 1968 season wasn’t the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didn’t drive in or score 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a greenie that one of my teamates gave me.” – Henry Aaron
    In my opinion, admitting is something our friend Barry has not really done yet.
    Once he cops to it, I’ll start to think of better of him…and Mark…and Sammy…and Roger…etc…

    April 14th, 2011 2:25 pm

  18. Kay

    Your vote is your personal opinion, and you do not need to go by the opinion of 12 people. If you know he is guilty and is a cheater then use your own judgement for your own vote and don’t vote for him.

    April 14th, 2011 2:57 pm

  19. Stan

    Speaking of people you find disgusting-or mildly disgusting,what do think Lowell of JaMarcus Russell’s life coach FIREING RUSSELL for falling back into bad habits,being overweight?
    As John Lucas the coach said “It’s only been four years since he was the no.1 draft pick in the NFL,and now,nobody has shown any interest in him in almost a year”.
    The trajedy continues to some type of end…

    April 14th, 2011 3:33 pm

  20. Dennis


    The most important aspect of a hitters ability to hit is his vision. Today, there are procedures to enhance ones vision that did not exist say 40 years ago. Is that fair when it comes to the records. Whould you treat anyone who has had there vision enhanced the same as someone who took roids?

    April 14th, 2011 3:41 pm

  21. Robert

    In my opinion there is no question that Barry Bonds used steroids. I would not vote any player into the Hall of Fame who used steroids or other performance enchaning drugs. No to Manny Ramirez, Mark McQuire, Roger Clemmons, Barry Bonds, and others. They all cheated. No integrity. They were paid millions of dollars and that will have to suffice as their personal reward.

    April 14th, 2011 4:10 pm

Submit Your Comments


Required, will not be published