This article is part of a series in celebration of a new, dynamic voice in Black America: the NUBIANO Exchange. Brace yourself for the NUBIANO experience. 

  by Clayton Perry

There is a certain joy and anguish that sports fans feel whenever a sacred record is broken. Without a doubt, certain records have been untouched so long that they are considered "holy grail" — an accomplishment to be made only by hard-working, dedicated players, as a tribute to the fans, after years of personal struggle and tremendous performance.

As with all things, the stability of such records are completely unpredictable and it is hoped (and expected) that, whenever a "great" of the past is out-shined by a newer talent, the achievement of the new record-holder will serve as a tribute to their predecessor's memory and legacy, have an air of "purity" and also garner widespread, positive attention — all while bringing new fans to the sport.

That was the hope that many expressed, as Barry Bonds hit his 756th home run — a historic feat that smashed a 33-year record by Hank Aaron. Instead of receiving widespread adoration and adulation, sports fans saw, for the first time in modern sports history, a player's legacy bought, slandered, and put on public display, for the ages, at the price of $752,467 — a mere fraction of the $150 million that Bonds made over the course of his career.

While Bonds run to the top may be far from pristine, the fact of the matter is this: he reached the summit and, despite widespread criticism, the league has honored this achievement and has not found it right (or necessary) to publicly condemn him. With that being said, Bonds will always maintain his spot in sports history, as the league's all-time home run hitter, until another, fresher face "takes the cake" and replaces his name.

Understanding that fact, Marc Ecko, a fashion designer with no real love or ties to major league baseball, found it necessary to take Barry Bonds' moment in the sun and reprimand him — using his own personal politics and financial reserves to tinker with historical record underneath the guise of a "public debate" in an online forum. And ultimately, since Barry Bonds left an historic mark that can not be erased, it was determined by Marc Ecko, at all costs, to taint Bonds' record, since steroid tests and the BALCO case could not do the job. (Side note: For the record, Bonds has never failed a steroid test and has never been charged with perjury or indicted for his testimony in the BALCO case.)

As time passed along, after the BALCO case, it was obvious to Bonds, the league, and sports fans, that Bonds' legacy was "safe" and "secure," as his innocence, as determined in a court of law, was maintained and never called back into question. Marc Ecko, however, being the ultimate opportunist in his determination to rewrite Bonds' sports legacy, purchased Bonds' record-breaking ball at auction, for a price of $752,467, and chose to put Bonds' legacy in the hands (and court) of public opinion. Following the ball's purchase, Marc Ecko set-up www.vote756.com, a website that would allow the "public" to vote on one of the following fates: to "bestow it" and give the ball to Cooperstown; to "brand it," by placing an asterisk on the ball — making a permanent footnote — and, then, send it to Cooperstown; or to "banish it," by launching it into orbit, so that it will be out of sight, out of mind.

While it must be noted that 10 million votes were logged on the Vote756 website, over an eight-day period, that number is hardly a fraction of baseball's enormous fan base or representative of the vast American public. Even so, when did online voting ever become a fair or accurate portrayal of public opinion? Had the votes been compiled in a more professional manner, it would have been very interesting to see a breakdown of the results by age, race, class, gender and actual ties to major league baseball.

Is this the future of sports history and "public debate?" I certainly hope not.

It is a dangerous precedent to set, in sporting (or any capacity, for that matter), to allow any individual's personal wealth or perspective to dictate the legacy of any person, especially over a disagreement over some aspect of their character, whether personal or professional. And, in this particular scenario, if a decision of this regard was necessary to be made, it should be made by the league, its players and the fans, in an easily accessible forum, not some website set up for personal gain and corporate publicity. The ultimate loser in this whole process is the public. We have finally met the real enemy: an individual whose money can truly buy anything, including the pen to write, influence, and alter another man's legacy.

Marc Ecko's tomfoolery, lo and behold, set a precedent. It now isn't far-fetched to imagine that anyone with enough money and/or a zany sense of humor can purchase the memorabilia and/or historical artifacts of ANY public figure and tag them with their own brand of personal politics. Whether or not one thinks poorly on Bonds or his legacy, it is unwise (and unfair) to allow such irreparable decisions to be made in the midst of one's career.

Just think if, in 1997, Tiger Woods' golf clubs were branded with "chicken wings," because Fuzzy Zoeller was upset that a black man won the Masters and donned the green jacket. Or, imagine if, in 1997, Mike Tyson's boxing gloves were branded with severed "ear pieces," for his controversial biting tactic during his fight with Evander Holyfield. Or, image the horror if, in 1993, Michael Jordan's tennis shoes were emboldened with hearts, spades, clubs and diamonds, for his documented gambling habit.

While no two events are ever exactly alike (or without their differences), people should find it appalling that any individual, with enough financial reserves, has the capability to purchase the past and control its future, by marring a historical piece of sports history. Nevertheless, with online marketing and multimedia propaganda, the "public" allowed Marc Ecko to taint history before it had the chance to evolve over time and take its rightful course.

Quite simply, it goes without saying that there are several sects of baseball fans that feel that if they can destroy Bonds' legacy before it is canonized, then perhaps he will not have a legacy at all. While that's quite an impossible feat, until his record is actually broken, branding his record-breaking ball with an asterisk, for them, will be a consolation prize.

THE FINAL WORD: It is quite ironic that, even in 2007, the legacy and livelihood of a black man can still be sold-- at auction-- to the highest bidder, despite the fact that he may be world-famous and have millions of dollars in his bank account. What happened to our sense of justice and fair play? If the sports "system" called the "league" has not found him guilty of any wrong doing, how can one outspoken "juror" overrule their judgment? Cooperstown should not accept the "branded" ball, if for no other reason, because they too would be an implicit accompanist to a grand scheme that allowed one person to derail its process for determining greatness. Simply put, Marc Ecko does not respect the league's stance on Bonds' legacy and has decided that he, through his wealth, is going to change the result.

"uhuru ni upinduzi" — "Freedom through Revolution!"