|
|
|
…this is incredible…truly, truly impressive…
According to PR Newswire, entrepreneur and philanthropist Marc Ecko announced today his acquisition of Barry Bonds’ 756th home run ball and plans to allow the public to determine its fate.
The ball was purchased for $752,467 at Sotheby’s/SCP Auctions this past Saturday.
The public can now go to vote756.com and choose to either a) give the ball to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown; b) permanently brand the ball with an asterisk before sending it to Cooperstown; or c) put the ball on a rocket ship and launch it into space.
To watch Ecko’s appearance on NBC’s Today Show, click here.
…hat tip to jason for the information…
 |
 |
 |
RSS 2.0 You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
That is an outstanding use of resources! Thanks Marc!
Philanthropist???? LMAO… and I’m the Queen of England…
He should just go back to making crappy ‘urban’ clothing….
Marc Ecko developed an enormously successful franchise from the ground up and has contributed countless hours and dollars to his community.
mets227 is an anonymous poster on Metsblog who likes to talk sh*t about people more successful then he is.
Hmm, I wonder who I should take more seriously…
Never said he wasn’t a successful entrepreneur, but in my book, donating lots of money, when you have lots of money, doesn’t make you a philanthropist. It makes you a smart businessman. (Tax write-offs and good public relations.)
If you think all Ecko did was donate his money, then you don’t know enough to even have this discussion in the first place.
That’s not the point.
Great, he donates his time and money. Good for him, but not a philanthropist in my book. To me, that is a term that WAY overused.
Additionally, helping to eradicate the, “plight of the rhino,” does not qualify someone to be a philanthropist.
Doctors without Borders are philanthropists.
Average people who join the United Way and live in squalid conditions for 2+ years… those are philanthropists.
That is awesome! I vote B!
Very funny. I voted B.
Hope he follows through with the results.
This is the best thing to come out of what has been an utter disaster for baseball…
I LOVE IT!
I’m voting for B because it’d be a longer lasting embarassment for Bonds. Voting C sure is tempting, though, just for the pure enjoyment of seeing it launched into outer space.
Mets227-
As far as a tax write-off he is not going to be dropped into a lower bracket because of his philanthropy so as a write off to someone at his worth doesn’t mean anything. Yes he is getting good publicity but what happens if he doesn’t do anything? He gets no publicity and then no one cares. The common people complain that the wealthy do not do their part in helping out in the problems in the world but when someone does something good we say “oh it is just a tax write-off or for good publicity” what gives? When do you give credit where credit is due?
He also does a lot of work to clean up the cities of America. He buys out abandoned warehouses and provides a space for the graffiti artist to express themselves instead of having the graffiti all over the city.
Moral of the story is there is no reason to get on this guy. Maybe read something and think before you rip people who actually try to do good in this world.
Look, I’m fully and personally aware of the benefits of tax write-offs. They are extremely beneficial to the wealthy, which is why they exist: to provide an impetus to the elite to donate and help others.
And again, my problem is not so much with Ecko being called a philanthropist, it is the general overuse (like ‘hero’) of the term. It touches a nerve.
Ha. The title of this post could have easily been: “Fun things to do when you’ve got an extra 3/4 of a mill hanging around.”
Nothing bad to say about the guy. Not really into his clothes, but I love Ecko watches….lol
I think everyone should leave Bonds alone to be honest.
He is an incredible hitter and while he may have used PEDs, that alone does not bring someone up the level of performance Bonds has exhibited. Not to mention that there is no conclusive test as to the impact steroids has on athletic performance.
I voted 1.
I agree, almost totally. But it has been proven quite conclusively that steroids dramatically improve many facets of athletic performance. However, it is unclear as to what the effect is when you have two competitors going head-to-head. a la a pitcher-batter stand-off. (i.e. who benefits more?)
My main point is that people lose their heads a bit over these things, similar to how everyone was falling all over themselves to make statements like “the Patriots 3 Super Bowl wins are tainted” last week.
Are these two incidents technically “cheating?” Yes, but you still need to execute and what Bonds has been doing is pretty freaking incredible. The guy is hardly even pitched to and he just crushes anything that he can hit.
Steroids can’t make you square up a fastball the way Bonds does. And steroids do not confer the incredible plate discipline that Bonds has.
Look, I am not condoning steroid use, just trying to bring everyone back down to earth a bit.
Agreed. Sorry if my previous post came off too negatively. I actually consider myself a fan of Bonds.
I got ya… I just wanted to clarify my point some.
I voted 1 too, mainly because I believe an asterisk is redundant. It’s impossible to quantify the benefits of drugs (and that particular home run wasn’t drug induced since he passed a drug test.) It’s also impossible to compare baseball eras. No one will ever know without a doubt who was ‘better’, or how much effect steroids had or how long he took them. It’s not like letting the ball go in untainted will suddenly make people forget he took steroids.
As far as the use of the asterisk, I would rather see Commissioner* Bud Selig, or Major League Baseball’s Drug Policy*, than Barry Bonds’ 756*, but as a symbol of the hypocrisy infiltrating every facet of the issue, I would LOVE to see that ball branded and sent to Cooperstown**
(**the place where baseball WASN’T invented)
You would prefer, perhaps, the NFL’s hypocrisy, wherein Shawne Merriman’s steroid usage makes him a fan favorite and gets him into the Pro Bowl?
Baseball has made and continues to make a lot of mistakes, but the one thing you can say is that it has the toughest PED testing policy in US professional sports.
Branding this ball wouldn’t be an affront to Selig (who did that ridiculous stand-but-not-clap thing when Bonds hit 755). It would be an affront to fans who want to form their own opinions rather than accept Marc Ecko’s.
So I should be greatful, for MLB’s policy, because it is not as hypocritical as the NFL’s?
Look, I’d be fine with allowing players to put whatever they want into their bodies. But that is not what the rules are. Personally, I think everybody involved, MLB and the player’s union does not wan’t to see performance enhancing drugs removed from the sport.
To use the fact that there is no test available for HGH is bunk.
Simply take blood and urine samples from every player, freeze them, and give MLB the rights to test the samples whenever a procedure is developed that can accurately detect the presence of any banned substance..This isn’t perfect, but it would go a long way towards making some players stop and think before they use a substance. A lot of these guys care a lot about their legacies, not all but a lot.
As far as your last point, whether the ball is branded or not, it will be shrouded in controversy. What would be an affront to me would be a ball on display for a record so hotly contested with NO mention of the controversy. The ball exists, the controversy exists, largely due to the inactivity of MLB (and ALL sports in the US). Let it all be on display…
Yeah, I certainly agree that you can’t gloss over the controversy. And I think doing so would also be a disservice. My point is merely that there is controversy, and to display a ball with a giant asterisk seared into it disregards the discussion from the other end.
I think it is equally incorrect to say “Bonds absolutely won the record cleanly” as it is to say “Bonds absolutely cheated and does not hold the record.” There is controversy, discussion, and disagreement. But branding the ball doesn’t contribute anything to it, it’s just a giant sensationalist empty gesture.
We’re pretty sure that Bonds used PED’s, but again, unless anyone here has actually used them, I don’t think any of us can say for sure what the impact of that is. Moreover, we do know for certain that pitchers use PED’s, and although that doesn’t exonerate Bonds, it certainly muddies the waters.
It’s also worth noting that for all the attention HGH has gotten, the indication is that it really doesn’t help much with performance enhancement, unless you define enhancement as “enlarged testicles and increased health risks.”
That said, to respond to your assertion that MLB should just keep blood and urine from the players, well, they already do keep the urine tests, and it’s not so easy to just draw blood from someone. For one, I’m fairly certain it requires legal consent (though I’m not positive on that). I do know that in MLB’s case, it needs to be collectively bargained, and you’re going to have a hard time getting players to submit to getting blood drawn a couple times a year.
It’s really not as easy as just doing it. There are all kinds of legal complications involved, and baseball has, perhaps in spite of itself, done a better job of moving forward than any other sport in this country.
Agreed, my use of the term simple was ill-advised. And yes, I believe the players union would never go for it. Primarily because it comes to close to a real solution. I understand their are privacy issues as well, but I am not what you would call an optimist, when it comes to the human motive, especially among the wealthy.
And while yes, MLB does take urine samples, they don’t don’t keep them for further testing as far as I understand. I don’t think under the current agreement that they are allowed to.
I’ve heard people who sound very well educated both dismiss and confirm the benefits of steroids and HGH, I’m not qualified to comment and I do not have specific reports to cite here. But keep in mind, it would only take the slightest increase in muscle responsiveness to aid a hitter to get around on a fastball to drastically increase the power numbers of many hitters.
Not to mention, that I know what I see, namely players bulk , hat size and power increasing drastically as a result of these incredible “workout regimens”, a period in which records were rewritten like never before, and then, POOF! the numbers dropping, the players shrinking, coincidentally at the same time of a crackdown on PED’s… Bonds takes a year off when they start testing… he used the cream but didn’t know what it was… sheesh…
This strikes me as a pretty transparent publicity stunt. Moreover, speaking as a fan of baseball, this is downright offensive.
While I suspect that Bonds probably did use PED’s, we have no idea what the impact of that actually is, nor whether his competitors also used (as I suspect many did). Bonds, PED’s, and the entire debate are part of the history of the game, and I strongly disagree with the idea of sensationalizing that. Displaying a ball with an asterisk branded on it is akin to placing a plaque of Pete Rose or Joe Jackson in the hall, and spraypainting a big red “X” over it. The institution of baseball is bigger than Barry Bonds, bigger than steroids, and far bigger than Marc Ecko, and leaving its history in the hands of an internet poll is callous, ignorant, and grossly disrespectful.
If the end result is anything other than option “A”, it is really very unfortunate.
i dont get how theres a debate here or even with the patriots thing, cheating is cheating its black and white, theres no “yea he cheated but” defense. no matter how good you are if you cheat you are punished, if im an A student and get caught cheating on a test i fail that test, simple as that it doesnt matter if i was succeeding before that or if ill succeed after that, i broke the rules bottom line, I voted B. I dont think bonds always used PEDs, but somewhere along the line he did and therefore since this is a CAREER stat not a single season one there should be an asterisk bc whether the roids gave him 100 extra HRs or 1 extra HR its cheating and it should be labeled appropriately.
But if you’re an A student your entire life and you cheat on a test, should that taint everything you’ve ever accomplished?
Not to mention that Bonds has never tested positive.
the cheating on a test was more for the patriots then bonds since someone brought that up above and i didnt get the whole not punishing them harshly bc theyre good anyway defense. As for bonds he hasnt tested positive youre absolutely correct but as they say if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat than by golly its a rat.
actually if you fail a test it tends to effect your avg, but regardless, im not saying put an asterisk on every ball he hit or every record he has, and we dont know how much roids help with baseball but we do know one thing, they make you stronger, and