Schilling's Challenge to Clemens Won't Erase the Bonds Double Standard

Boston Red Sox star pitcher Curt Schilling put it bluntly to Roger Clemens: Prove your innocence or cough up four Cy Young awards. It was a big, brash, and bold challenge to the icon pitcher. But so far Schilling has been one of the few within or without baseball to make that challenge.

When the Mitchell Report fingered Clemens as the biggest name suspected chemical performance juicer, outside of Barry Bonds, and shoved him to the top of its A-list of offenders, the by now all-too-familiar double standard quickly kicked in with a vengeance. That is that a venerated white superstar gets a free pass from the bash and blame from the media, the public and the sportswriters when accused of bad or criminal behavior, while a scorned and shunned black superstar gets pounded for the same dubious behavior. The Clemens and Barry Bonds treatment proved that.

The legion of talking head analysts, sportswriters and commentators, and packs of fans did their patented twists and vaults to nitpick, niggle at, downplay, or flat out apologize for Clemens. The hard core Clemens apologists branded the report a tissue of gossip, hearsay, unsubstantiated testimony, and a cheap ploy to grab headlines. The few fans and writers that had the temerity to pound Clemens for cheating drew an equally predictable torrent of angry rebuttals, dodges and apologies.

Clemens quickly sniffed that the how-dare-you-speak-ill-of-our-hero wind was blowing at gale force and played the persecuted wronged babe in the woods victim. The equally predictable one day in and then out rule came into play with Clemens. The rule put simply is that allegations of or real misdeeds by or about white superstars draw a CNN headline, gets the tongues wagging, and a bit of press ink for one day. Then they quickly disappear from the news and just as quickly from the public's radar scope. The offender is not rehabilitated he's just forgotten. If not for Schilling's demand that Clemens come clean, that almost certainly would have been the case with Clemens too.

That brings me to Bonds. The Clemens apologists frothed at the mere hint that there is a double standard in the kid glove treatment of Clemens and the relentless flogging of Bonds. They turn twists and vaults to prove the difference. Clemens didn't lie to a grand jury. The allegations against him are unproven. He was a good role model for the game. All are patent nonsense. He didn't lie to a grand jury because he wasn't hauled in front of one and compelled to testify. That's even not a valid rationale to let anyone off the culpability hook. If someone participates in a crime and they keep their trap shut about it they are just as guilty. The allegations against Bonds until he's convicted of the charges of lying about steroid use or makes a public admission that he used them are just that, allegations. As for the clean Roger image, and the bad guy Bonds image, Mike Piazza can best answer that one. Clemens in a pique threw a shattered bat at him. Bonds has never physically attacked another player.

Even after the Mitchell Report named names, lots of them, that didn't take the focus or the heat off of Bonds. The other names were dismissed as a motley collection of washed up has beens, no-names, and bit players who added little to the game. The names that anyone really paid any attention to were Clemens and, of course, Bonds. But even with the finger of suspicion momentarily pointed at Clemens there was never any real danger that he would topple Bonds from his rarified perch as MLB's and the fan's public enemy number.

Schillings in his challenge to Clemens to prove his innocence also gave him a way out. He advised him to assemble a legal team and demand that Mitchell proof the allegations. If he can't then he suggested that he demand an apology and a retraction. That was a charitable way of giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt. There is no record that Schilling extended the same charity to Bonds. There was no talk of Bonds assembling a legal team to demand hard proof of steroid use, and if none were found demanding an apology and retraction of the charges against him. Neither Schilling nor any MLB player has given any public hint that they'll be in court to give support to Bonds when his day in the docket eventually comes because they believe that as Clemens he is also innocent until proven guilty.

No matter how many reports and articles alleging junk use in the MLB are written. No matter how many timid and weak fingers of suspicion are pointed at Clemens, and the other suspected chemically juiced up players, the fact remains, and will remain, that Bonds is the only ball player that has taken the full fall for the sins of MLB. That's no real challenge to Clemens or baseball, let alone disproves there's a harsh double-standard treatment of Bonds.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press) hutchinsonreport@aol

Comments

[larry278]

Blacks are now accepted in sports. Bigoted people still don't acknowledge that blacks are human. The bigots talk loud but they don't buy tickets. The majority of people who are sports fans ignore the ravings of bigots, cheer star players [regardless of race], avidly watch games & are rabid supporters of their favorite team. The people who put down Mr Bonds but ignore the antics of white users of 'roids & other performance enhancing drugs are racist, bigots & cry babies. These racists are barely tolerated, have little [if any] influence & are ignored by most American fans. They speak to & for America's marginal bigots only. They find excuses for their but bigotry but their excuses don't hold water. Even bigots must acknowledge that regardless of Mr Bonds's allegedly uncouth words Mr Bonds spoke with his bat & that is all that counts. Asterisk or not Barry Bonds is MLB's batting champ. Even the bigots will grudgingly admit that now.
The lawyer's representing Mr Bonds will dispose of the trumped up charge of perjury as being as absurd as charges of conspiracy to committ mopery. The lawyers will bring up disparity of treatment of Mr Bonds when compared to white players also who fudged on statements to a court. The opponents of Mr Bonds have no case & may not have the standing to bring it to a court. This case will end up being considered in a moot questions court & nothing else.

[clr2]

Has Roger's head tripled in size? Because I know Bond's has.

[Janco54]

Oh, and Roger hasn't treated his fans, teammates, management, and the press like crap over the course of his long career.
Maybe that has something to do with it.

[chamberslee]

I give up. Whites have never had to use logic to dismiss blacks on any issue so why start now.

The majority of whites who post on this site will not address the article. They use the approach: When you do not have any thing logical to say in reponse to the premise, ignore the argument and attack the messenger.

Premise: The media, sports writers and the fans, many of whom are white, treat Clemens differently than they do Bonds. Why is the media going out of its way to defend Clemens? Years before a grand jury indictment was handed down, the media to convicted Bonds in the court of Public opinion using circumstantial evidence that was much weaker than the Mitchell Report. No pundits refrained from calling Bonds a cheat. The same pundits will lose their minds if someone says Clemens is a cheater. Why the treatment is different? If it is not race, then, what is it?

Keep in mind, for nearly 10 years, the media has being accusing Bonds of using drugs so the indictment argument does not hold up.

Logical argument needed, please.

[PadrePio]

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

Your contention that "Clemens, and the other suspected chemically juiced up players, the fact remains, and will remain, that Bonds is the only ball player that has taken the full fall for the sins of MLB" is flat out WRONG. Do the names Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palermo mean anything to you? Poor Barry Bonds everyone is so mean to the little punk it's just not fair.

[iswearington]

just wait until all those fake russian men...that marion jones competed against in the olympics and other track and field events are exposed.everyone cheats...some get caught and some don't.

[strangelet]

1. I interpret the main thread of your article as: the media are not being as hard on Roger Clemons as on Barry Bonds, and this discrepancy is race-based.

2. An obvious flaw in this argument: Bonds has been the focus of steroid speculation for several years; Clemons has only recently joined the crowd.

3. A personal observation: I live in San Jose. I follow the Giants a bit. Between 1998 and 2000, Barry Bonds turned into an entirely different human being. If you are cannot admit that Bonds used steroids extensively in 1998 and 1999, find somebody more stupid to argue with.

4. An opinion: much of the trouble that "the media" and ordinary people have with Bonds is his insistence that he never knowingly took performance enhancing drugs. We all see that he must have been taking them for at least two years. "Not knowing" would imply that he is some kind of "dumb jock", which we know he is not.

5. Another opinion: if Rocket Roger maintains his "I never did it" stance in the face of evidence to the contrary, the sports media will become just as negative to him as they are to Bonds.

6. There is an additional factor in the treatment of Bonds. It is not race-based; it is history based. Despite Clemons's pitching success, he has not claimed any major career records. Bonds has.

I am a Hank Aaron fan. A lot of sportswriters are Aaron fans, because he is such a good guy. I think that a lot of the bad feelings about Bonds are because he persisted to pass Hank's record (even though he used to say he wouldn't), and cheated to do it. I'm white, but I don't think my irritation with Bonds is racist.

7. Incidentally, I believe that Bonds should be inducted into the Hall of Fame five years after whenever he stops playing. 400/400 has got to be good enough.

SUMMARY: You are wrong to attribute differences in media coverage (Bonds v. Clemons) to racism. It is mostly due to traditionalism.

Cheers

[opines]

That the use of steroids, HGH, and amphetamines has been widespread throughout Major League Baseball for the past 2 decades can no longer be doubted.

Singling out individuals for asterisks to be affixed to their stats and records makes little sense. The Mitchell Report does not claim to be comprehensive and is probably little more than the tip of the iceberg.

To spare fans an ongoing media debate on degrees of culpability, Commissioner Selig should determine that the period from 2007 back to some start date, say, 1980, shall henceforth be known as the Illegal Substance Era.

He should further state that baseball lacks the investigative capability to name with any certainty all of the abusers. He should acknowledge the near blind eye that characterized the owners response to the abuses.

Yes, it would be unfair to the players who didn't abuse, but it's better than unfairly piling on a few.

All records compiled on the field should stand with the ISE (Illegal Substance Era) notation.

[Centaur]

I "apologize"for misspelling the word..I hit the wrong key.

[jackbauer0396]

I think you're missing an important point--the fact that the media has HATED Bonds, not because he's black, but because he's an asshole. He does not have good relations with the media. Pete Rose doesn't get any breaks, and neither did Bill Bellichick. But it's not due to race. I want to see Mike Vick rot in prison until he learns dogfighting is bad... does that make me a racist? I think it makes me an animal lover.

[Centaur]

Why should anyone listen to this idiot when he asked America to "vote for Bush" on the Today Show before the last presidential election. He should be apoligizing for that obvious blunder.

[TXfemmom]

You are way off the spot.

Bonds was granted immunity to appear before a Grand Jury. He chose to lie to the Grand Jury instead of tell the truth. Had he told the truth, then he would never, ever have been indicted. That takes the double standard part out of this.

The other guy who swore before Congress did not test positive until after the hearings and legally it could not be proven that he had taken them before he appeared before Congress.

This is just a veiled attempt to cry race, when race had absolutely nothing to do with it.