Rhoden Wants to Even the Score

The problem is people trying to insist that any difference in how these two are treated must be racially motivated. There are differences between Clemens and Bonds beyond race.

For one thing, there was evidence against Bonds first. We've been through this with him, in a way we had never been through it with a baseball player of his stature. That does change the dynamic.

More importantly, Bonds has not only been active and productive during the time since evidence of his use of steroids and HGH came out, he has been in pursuit of the career home run record. He was chasing, and eventually surpassing, something of great importance in baseball history.

There was never any tangible evidence, weak or otherwise, against Clemens until the Mitchell Report and this comes at a time when his career is pretty much over.

Also, seriously, does anybody really see Clemens getting a break here? It's as if some people want to assume he is going to get off light before things have ever had the chance to play out.

 

I'm saying there's a difference in the consistency and analytic treatment between the two.

Amongst the circle of African Americans I often speak to regarding sports, they've questioned Clemens and steroid abuse for years. I don't think African Americans were the only ones smart enough to say to themselves "Throwing the bat at Piazza= Roid rage". That's not some African American made epiphany.

Only now has Clemens faced his rightful scrutiny after evidence against him became so egregious where it couldn't be denied.

I don't consider those African Americans I'm speaking on to be Nostradamus or anything. They simply applied the same reasoning given to Bonds through the media onto Clemens and came to the same conclusions.

Conclusions "recently" brought to light by the media at large.

There's an obvious difference here.

Don't make African American's out to be delusional or rabble rouser's for noticing the difference.

 

I'm not making any sweeping statements about African Americans. That is a completely unfair conclusion from what I wrote.

I'm talking about people, of any color, who think Clemens is being treated better than Bonds was for racial reasons. That argument, including yours above, completely ignores all the differences between the two cases that have nothing to do with race.

Again, there has been real evidence against Bonds for a long time. Until the relatively recent release of the Mitchell Report, there was no actual evidence at all against Clemens. None. Since then, Clemens has been very much under the microscope, even though his career is all but over.

And really, when did the evidence against Clemens become "so egregious where it couldn't be denied?" Wednesday, maybe late Tuesday night. Before that, it was just the word of McNamee, a proven liar. But he hasn't gotten a break since the Mitchell Report, nor should he.

Truth is, both guys are guilty. But there are plenty of variables in the two situations that have nothing to do with skin color. You just choose to ignore them.

 

Sorry, bud, but I just don't see the validity behind your claims. And it's not like the topic of Roger Clemens and PEDs is new in 2007-08. It's been talked about at least since he came to the Astros, the bat throwing suggestion of roid rage to the contrary.

But prior to the Mitchell report, there'd been nothing BUT rumor that Roger had used. With Barry, there's been plenty of evidence out there for several years. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to understand.

And if African-Americans feel the actual level of scrutiny on Roger vs. Barry has been unbalanced, I think that's more perception than fact. There has been an incredible amount of scrutiny on Roger in a short period of time.

 

Presuming that's true, you can't see reasons other than race why that would be? Because they seem glaringly obvious to me.

Personally, I think the entire steroid thing has crossed over into witch hunt territory and I wish we could move on. But it doesn't surprise me in the least that Bonds would've gotten more attention than Clemens or any of the other Mitchell report names because: 1) he's the one that used steroids to re-write baseball history by crushing the single season and all-time HR records; and 2) the Bonds revelations came out a couple years earlier when there was still some public shock value to this stuff.

I actually see a lot of similarities between Bonds and Clemens. Both are Hall of Famers reputed to be assholes off the field, both allegedly cheated with PEDs, and both have been roundly bashed for it. The Bonds allegations were met with more public attention, but they logically SHOULD HAVE been, given the circumstances and when they came out. Would Clemens have gotten more attention if his use had been revealed years earlier after he'd just crushed one of the 2 most hallowed records in American sports and was about to break the other? Hell yes he would've.

 

Big chee - you have burned up a lot of bandwidth today but you still did not answer my simple question:

Do you feel that the Feds have to bring down Clemens to even the score along racial lines?

 

Not "must," Boom.
"Ought to be."
And he's right.
Of course, lying to Congress and lying to a federal grand-jury are different crimes. But, still, if Clemens walks in the face of whatever evidence may be forthcoming, there's a plain double-standard in play.

 

And if no additional solid evidence is forthcoming? Should the govt bring a case just to keep things 'equal'?

 

Frankly, Rhoden's posture in this case is no better than those who comprised the Simpson criminal jury.

And they were an embarassment to jurisprudence.

 

This is the same problem I keep coming back to. The situations are different. There has more evidence against Bonds for a long time. And that evidence came to light while he was still a very productive player on his way to the home run record.

Clemens is done as a player, or at least should be. It does make a difference in terms of the integrity of the game, and that is one of the things motivating people on this issue.

I'm not saying there is no racial component at all, but to say it is the only difference between the two situations is flat-out wrong.

 

Rhoden chooses not to remember how Bonds got caught up in Fed investigation. It all started when US spint coach Trevor Graham tipped the Feds off that track athletes were obtaining HGH from Balco.

Balco was raided and records were found showing that Bonds was a client along with many other athletes. The difference is that the others told the truth when pressed. Bonds did not nor did Marion Jones.

Jason Giambi and Bill Romanowski were listed in the records. Did they get off because they were white or because they told the truth.

 

And apparently Jason Whitlock agrees with me.