Congratulations to Barry Bonds

I don't understand the hatred toward Barry Bonds. I'm not sure why the media hates Barry Bonds. They always have hated Barry Bonds, even before these steroid accusations. I mean, they don't have the same hatred toward Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa, and they seem to have the same increased home run production and increased in bulk. And the media can't just claim they didn't realize the steroid use in 1998 so that's why McGwire and Sosa got a pass, since Sosa didn't get the boos and negative media on the road this season when playing with the Rangers.

Barry Bonds led the major leagues in home runs in 1993, long before anyone thinks the bulking up (allegedly from steroids) of 1999 happened. Even if he did take steroids in 1999, do the media think he continuously takes steroids to keep up his massive bulk, even with the excessive media scrutiny and increased testing by MLB? Even if he once took steroids, wouldn't he have lost a lot of that bulk during the past several years? Sure, it does seem unlikely that someone could bulk up as much as he did over just one off season, but there is plenty about Barry Bonds that is extraordinary, so perhaps it just is natural.

Again, the media focus on Barry Bonds and steroids is what is unnatural. If Shawn Merriman of the San Diego Chargers, an immensely talented linebacker, sets the all-time sack record this year, will the media say the sack record need an asterisk, as Merriman was actually shown to have used steroids in the past? Had he not been suspended for violation of the drug policy last year, he was on pace to do exactly that, and despite the suspension he went on to play in the NFL Pro Bowl. Why love Merriman and hate Bonds, someone that has never been shown to be in violation of the drug policy? There is no sports-related reason. So let's celebrate Barry Bonds. My only disappointment was that he hit the record-setting home run 9 days after I was in attendance at AT&T Park to watch him play.