1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bonds, the HR chase & the race issue

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by EStreetJoe, May 7, 2007.

  1. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Hey! There is no proof that Seabiscuit ever took steroids ...
     
  2. Have we all forgotten how Curt choked in front of Congress? Oaths do funny things to people.
    Second-funniest moment of the whole silly circus.
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I was thinking this yesterday. Before the Congressional hearing he was just as outspoken as he was on the radio yesterday. Then he gets his big chance to show some balls with the whole country watching, and he backtracks. It's all double-talk, minimizing the issue and making Jose Canseco the issue instead of the current players who were using. He lost any respect I might have had for him at that moment.
     
  4. keef spoon

    keef spoon Member

    Anyone who says that race has nothing to do with the animosity heaped on Bonds is either a moron or simply a wide-eyed optimist. I think the latter is true in most cases. It seems a lot of white people (and yes, I am white) are uncomfortable whenever African-Americans bring up the fact that there is still discrimination in this country. "Come on, that has NOTHING to do with it," they'll yell. But it does.

    It's as if some believe that racism somehow died in, say, 1974, when Hank Aaron broke Babe's record, or 1984, when Jesse Jackson ran for president, or 1997, when Tiger Woods won the Masters. Fact is, it didn't. Is it as overt and disgusting as it was 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago? Absolutely not. But it's out there.

    Barry Bonds is a boorish, selfish lout who despises the media and almost without question used steroids and/or HGH. How does that make him different from Mark McGwire, other than the fact that one's black and one's white? And McGwire's run to Maris's record was wildly celebrated.
     
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Race is a factor...but absolutely not THE factor, which is what Bonds would have us all believe.

    There are plenty of differences between McGwire then and Bonds now. Once is the level of evidence built up over time of Bonds' use of PED's. Another is the fact that baseball was still recovering from the strike and there was a widespread perception that the game needed something like that to help.

    Another factor is that Bonds and McGwire are not alike in personality. Bonds has always behaved like a prick, a loud, arrogant prick. McGwire was quieter, avoiding the spotlight rather than verbally abusing those who turned it on him. He was never nearly as abrasive as Bonds.

    McGwire also had competition most of that season from Sammy Sosa. That was part of the excitement. They were not only chasing the record, they were racing each other to get there.

    The environment is also different. And it isn't just the attacks on Bonds. It is Canseco's book, the congressional hearings and Palmeiro's positive test after those hearings. I still wish Bonds had been called for those hearings. Just because he was under investigation elsewhere doesn't mean he shouldn't have been called to testify.

    So please...stick that race card back in your pocket. It's blinding you to a lot of other factors at play here.
     
  6. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    For some people, sure, race may be a factor in how Bonds is viewed. But his behavior is vile enough on its own that stereotypes aren't needed if you want to look at him negatively.
     
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Curt had nothing to say at the Congressional hearing because there's a difference between opinions, of which he had plenty, and facts, of which he had few, if any.
     
  8. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    Yep. The only fact he knew was that if he could figure out a way to appear at the congressional hearings, he would get a lot of free TV time. But as cranberry said, he didn't have any facts - or any he chose to share - so he had to neg off of appearing.
     
  9. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Schilling is a self-promoting asshole. If he were a black minister he'd give Al Sharpton a run for his money.
     
  10. I've asked this a number of times in a number of contexts.
    What would have to happen before everyone would look at an event and say, simply, "Yes, that's about race."
     
  11. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I'll flip that back on you, Fenian.

    What percentage of Americans do you think would be rooting for Griffey Jr? 85? 90? 95?

    If you want to argue that white America is less tolerant of black assholes than white assholes, I might agree.

    But if you want to argue that this is about being black more than being an asshole, well, I simply don't think the facts fit that case.
     
  12. Big Chee

    Big Chee Active Member

    So even when race does play a factor to some degree, its still minimized and comes in the form of some card and packaged as irrelevant?

    I'm no longer amazed at (some) white folks penchant to dismiss obvious biases by reverting to say one is pulling the race card. Is just a euphemism routinely pulled by whites to quell legitimate dialogue on race. Look at the lengths you went to bypass race as a factor, burying it under the familiar company line that's been said and repeated for years.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page