MuthaFunka said:

Exactly. Due to racial stereotypcial viewpoints of the Black Race Worldwide in some instances, the minstrel show perceptions are still fresh.

MsLegs said:

...the key phrase being "in some instances". This just ain't one of them.

MsLegs said:

Well the media pisses on anyone that doesnt give them what they want. Come to NYC and see everyday how it pisses on Alex Rodriguez, or a few years back pissed on Mike Piazza and started rumours that he was gay. The thing is that the media are just like the fans of the game, if you are getting paid and not delivering they are gonna shit on you, and the more visible and the more you antagonize it the more they will give it back. Randy Johnson when he first came to the Yankees refused to do interviews with media, he was fined by his own team for suggested that kind of "no talk" policy. To me this report isnt valid on anyone till the proof "documentation, tests etc" all come forward and to me who ever they have factual stuff on needs to go down for it, black, white, latin, japanese, etc.. by the way the first player thats getting hauled into court is Paul Loduca, hmmm how come he didnt get a pass, like Roger Clemens is supposedly getting?

MuthaFunka said:

violator said:[quote]

MuthaFunka said:

Which is exactly why I said you and I will get nowhere because you don't feel racism exists in this case at all, which I find very foolish and naive to even consider that it doesn't.

MsLegs said:

Preach it - especially to those that don't think racism reaches sports.

violator said:

Wow. Unbelievable. So there is no racism involved in the Bonds situation. Truly unbelievable.

MsLegs said:

Hate to shake everyone up but "the rocket" is not well respected by many people, at least not for the last decade. From his bullshit issues like going home on days he doesnt play to not traveling with the team, or joining on in August when it counts, i have heard everyone from Harold Reynolds to Tim Mccarver blast this guy for it. Clemens hasnt been a hero to anyone since his days in Boston, since then he looks like the typical money hungry, I'll play if you pay and we have a good team SHIT HEAD logic. Clemens also isnt a hero to anyone in NY after he threw a bat at Mike Piazza, guess everyone has a short memory. Clemens is one guy on this list, they say there are 80, but its more like 200 that are under suspicion, and proof varies on each guy. Some they have "tests" for, some they have "testimony" some they have other peoples words on. and i have news for everyone, no one on this list deserves to get in to HOF at least not before PETE ROSE is let in, since he didnt CHEAT!

MuthaFunka said:

I really wish you and I could have this conversation face to face, because for some reason, you are having great difficulty interpretating what I'm saying. I specifically said, "I can't say for certain." And then I allowed for the possibility of it playing at least a cursory role. Did you really miss that? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

lastdecember said:

He's still revered as the greatest modern-day pitcher ever, and in some circles, of all time - the thing is, will they continue to look at him in that same light after this discovery. And everyone juiced should get in because it wasn't a banned substance at the time and baseball looked the other way. Simple as that.

violator said:

I see your point but I have 2 tell u, if black players don't play the game, they get labelled. It's either grin and cheese or u get dissed.

violator said:

Ok, so you're wavering, correct? I'm not. I know the history of racism in America and I especially know the history of racism in sports. If you honestly feel there is NO RACISM involved in the Bonds issue then - for the last time - this discussion is over.

lastdecember said:

The media has been on this guys NUTS 4 years. He is the Brett Farve of Baseball.

MuthaFunka said:

I disagree they shouldnt get in mainly because its all tainted just like Henry Aaron should get his record back, sorry Barry, but its not yours. I also disagree cause ive heard some people already saying that clemens last 200 wins which came after he was 35 are all tainted and that he only should have 140 or so if this plays out, and im right there with that belief, i think all these guys should get a fucking big ass * next to their name and it should just say CHEATER or FAKE just like Roger Maris had to live with, but of course even more cruel to that man was the fact that it was removed after he died, kind of a going away present.

MuthaFunka said:

I'm actually starting to come around to your viewpoint that we won't get anywhere on this. But largely because you insist on misinterpreting what's being said. Ms. Legs talked about "minstrel show perceptions" which was a direct response to the idea of Bonds not "stepin and fetching".

No. I wholeheartedly reject the idea that Bonds is disliked because he didn't step and fetch for the media. Bonds' poor relationship with the media was established largely out of the fact that he's an asshole.

And, that, was focal point of Graycap23's statement, which I'll post again for you so as to avoid any further misinterpretation:



Which takes us back to my original statement. Posted for your convenience:

Graycap23 said:

Really check all media not just where he plays and wins, those places will like anyone, even if you shoot someone, as long as you win the game they dont care.

MuthaFunka said:

Wavering? No. And I realize you're not. I still see the same baseless claims in your posts so I realize you're not wavering. My intent was not to get you to waver at all. I have nothing invested in your viewpoint on this issue.

MuthaFunka said:

The sea of denile runs deep.

all i can tell you is that neither one of these cats is going to see the HOF unless they buy a ticket to visit it, regardless of how the media does its stories, i can guarantee it. Every writer here in NYC (which vote) have already said that they wouldnt vote Roger Clemens mainly because there is just that speculation, which is why Mcgwire is not going in, which is why Sosa isnt going in, and yes why Barry isnt going in either. Lets face it all these guys did something, you dont get better after 35, unless your in music, but for atheletes thats the end of the road that when the skills taper off, some more than others, its just a proven fact all through time, regardless of how good "training" is today, but all these guys mentioned did the opposite, they became HULKS after 35, they claim its because of "conditioning and lifting weights" wow thats funny, look at Mike Piazza that is one guy that "did the right thing" from day one with REAL excercise and training, and it paid off, from day one he was great and in shape but guess what, the NORMAL thing happend to him, as he got into his 30's his skills started to wear off, and thats why now at 37-38 he can hit about 10-15 homeruns barely and bat about 250, this from a guy that hit 300 every year with 30-40 Homeruns, so im sorry, these other cats are guilty.

MsLegs said:

Don't it?

MuthaFunka said:

No doubt.

http://sports.espn.go.com...id=3156189

This is a tale of four men. You know their names.


Two are baseball's biggest names of this millennium. The other two are men who stepped out of the shadows to become strength coaches to the stars, only to help lead both of them on a journey from fame to infamy.

On one side of the aisle, we find Barry Bonds and Greg Anderson. On the other side of the aisle, we find Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee.

In so many ways, the stories of these two high-profile tag teams are the same story. In other ways -- very significant ways -- their stories sprint in dramatically opposite directions.

[+] EnlargeJim McIsaac/Getty Images

Roger Clemens won seven Cy Young Awards, including one with the Yankees in 2001.
But at times like this, we need to ask ourselves: Have we done enough to point out those similarities? Have we done enough to clarify those differences? And if not, how do we explain the divergence in how we've portrayed them and how we perceive them?

These are complicated questions because these are complicated issues. So let's think them through as best we can.

Let's start with a premise not everyone will accept. Let's assume we should believe the accounts of Bonds/Anderson in "Game of Shadows." Let's also assume we should believe the allegations about Clemens/McNamee in the Mitchell report.

Granted, neither represents the legal system's version of The Truth. But let's assume both for now, if only for the sake of storytelling.

If we do that, don't these stories seem almost interchangeable, at least in their basic outline?

Both Anderson and McNamee came to be more than mere trainers, more than mere employees. Anderson became such an intrinsic part of Bonds' entourage that he accompanied Bonds to places beyond the gym and the ballpark -- even on the 2002 Japan tour by a team of baseball all-stars.

McNamee became such an important presence in Clemens' universe that he followed Clemens from the Blue Jays to the Yankees and later worked with him again during the Rocket's years as an Astro.

Both trainers were allowed comfortable, regular access to big league clubhouses. Both later made connections with other big-name players, in large part through their personal connection with arguably the two biggest stars in the sport. Both were ousted by the teams they worked for over concerns about their behavior.

And both, of course, are alleged to have been the purchaser and supplier of performance-enhancing drugs for the stars who employed them.

Not all the details are identical, obviously. Can't be. But the general outlines of their stories are stunningly similar.

Yet the perceptions of those stories hasn't been similar. And we can't escape the notion that that might be due in part to how those tales have been reported and told.

There is almost universal acceptance of the guilt of Bonds and Anderson. There is almost unanimous agreement in the court of public opinion, in fact, that those two did everything they're alleged to have done.

But there is clearly more skepticism about the accuracy, or at least the provability, of the allegations about Clemens and McNamee. Full disclosure: There is certainly more skepticism on the part of this reporter, anyway. And there are plenty of others out there like me.

So the fundamental question is: Why is that?

Some will say there's a racial component to those perceptions. It's tempting to say that's a bunch of baloney, but for a long time now, surveys have shown that race is a major factor in how Bonds is perceived. So there's no reason not to think race shows up in the perceptions of Clemens, as well. We'd be naive to think otherwise.

There is so much more to it, though. Above all, there is the single most significant fork in the road where these two stories divide.

The similarity is that both Anderson and McNamee were confronted by the feds and offered comparable arrangements. We can describe those offers in three words:

Talk or else.

But this is where those stories disconnect so sharply.

Against all odds, Anderson actually chose "or else." He actually chose going to jail over "confessing" what he knew about Bonds.

Did he make that choice out of friendship? Loyalty? Business? An oath he'd pledged long ago? All of the above? None of the above? We'll never know unless Anderson opts to tell us why someday. But the whole continent knows the guy served more than a year of jail time rather than talk. Astounding.

[+] EnlargeStephen Dunn/Getty Images

Barry Bonds won seven MVP awards, including four in a row 2001 to '04.
McNamee, on the other hand, took the more common road. His choice was to talk or face an indictment. So he sang. To the feds. Then to George Mitchell. And on Thursday, Mitchell uploaded that song to the world via the Mitchell report.

What the skeptics wonder now, however, is the basic question that is asked about all witnesses who talk to avoid those slamming jail-cell doors:

Can we believe a guy who talks under those conditions?

Was he telling the truth this time? Or was he telling the truth before, a bunch of times, when he told reporters repeatedly that Clemens never used performance-enhancing drugs?

And if we decide to maintain some doubts about McNamee's story -- and, therefore, about Clemens' guilt or innocence -- then don't we have to turn around and question our perceptions of their alter egos, Anderson and Bonds?

Don't we have to ask ourselves why we assume that if a guy like Anderson is more willing to go to jail than talk, he must have something to hide? Don't we have to remind ourselves that that's not enough reason to conclude that all the accusations against Bonds must be true?

Well, if we think that way and we haven't thought about those questions, we're wrong. Dead wrong. Logical, maybe -- but still wrong.

So I've asked myself those questions. I've been asking them since Thursday, since I read the Mitchell report from start to finish. I want to make sure I understand exactly why I feel the way I feel, at this moment, about these men and their stories.

Here's how I've answered those questions, now that I've had time to reflect:

I believe there are two basic reasons to look at these two situations differently. The first revolves around a critical concept -- corroboration.

To draw conclusions on matters this serious, we should never rely merely on the tales of any one source. They taught that lesson in Journalism 101. It might be the only lesson I remember from Journalism 101, but I never forgot it.

So where's the outside corroboration of McNamee's story? Is there any other witness? Any other proof? Any receipt, any mailing label, any tape that directly corroborates the allegation that Clemens did all the stuff McNamee told the Mitchell staff he did? Nope. Can't find it.

Is there a mountain of circumstantial evidence, not to mention staggering detail in the testimony of McNamee himself? Absolutely. But is there the kind of corroboration that any court in America would ask for? Haven't seen it. Not yet, at least.

But in Bonds' case, there was enough evidence for a grand jury to hand down an indictment -- without Anderson saying a word. Big difference.

Now it's important to remember that there hasn't been a conviction yet -- if ever. So the courts eventually might reject the credibility of that evidence. And we'd better all be wary of our judgments on Bonds until there's a verdict.

But if we're looking for corroboration beyond the word of the two trainers who are the stars of this particular story, there is clearly much, much more of that corroboration about Bonds than there is about Clemens.

Which brings us to the second reason I find myself feeling differently about Bonds than I do about Clemens at this complicated moment in time. And that brings us back to where we started -- with how these two stories have been reported and told.

When I'd finished reading "Game of Shadows," I felt as if Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams had connected every significant dot about Bonds' saga. I felt as if they'd answered every significant question I personally would want answered. They told me when. They told me how. They told me why.

When I'd finished reading the Mitchell report's assessment of Clemens, on the other hand, I felt like I had more questions than answers. Even if I was going to accept the account of everything he did, I wanted more context. I wanted more explanations.

I wanted to know what Clemens' motivations were to use the substances this report accused him of using. Was he in it for money? Was he in it to chase 400 wins? Was he in it so folks would say, "There goes Roger Clemens -- the greatest pitcher who ever lived?"

Or was he trying to keep from breaking down in the second half of all those long seasons? Looking for help to try to maintain the standards he'd set for himself?

I ask these questions because I want to know more about what went on in that era -- and why it went on. After 400 pages of Mitchell report findings, does anybody understand any of that any better? Not me.

It's so easy to jump to quick, simple, convenient conclusions. About Barry Bonds and Greg Anderson. About Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. About everything that went on around them in those unsavory times.

But wouldn't all of us be better off if we avoided making those instant, easy, knee-jerk judgments? And I mean all of us. Reporters. Talk-show hosts. Fans. Bloggers. Members of Congress. And baseball men.

Let's ask the right questions. Let's try to understand what happened and why. Let's think about the reasons we feel the way we feel about the most confusing era in baseball history.

That's what I got out of the Mitchell report, anyway -- and from the fascinating, parallel tales of two transcendent baseball stars and the men who trained them.

Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com. His new book, "The Stark Truth: The Most Overrated and Underrated Players in Baseball History," has been published by Triumph Books and is available in bookstores. Click here to order a copy.

violator said:[quote]

MuthaFunka said:

Unfortunately, this is his ONLY argument. He is of the opinion that everything happens because of racism. He never offers any substantial proof to back his claims, however.

gemini13 said:

And unfortunately, you have STILL YET to post in a thread where it's OBVIOUS racism and condemn it.

MuthaFunka said:

The point is more than black and white, is the fact that two of the greatest players CHEATED, plain and simple and they both cheated fans, cheated other players on their teams,and continued to cheat, they took places away from guys who didnt cheat and yet no one speaks of those people black or white or latino or whatever, these guys and others played knowingly that they were on something, and they just went on, cheaters plain and simple, to me their stats go down to zero, i say No fines, no jail, no trials, just wipe the slate clean. If there is proof on a guy his stats go to zero and its like he never existed, that simple. Im tired of hearing race, and hearing it wasnt banned yet or things like that, the thing is these guys and many others, STOLE from others that played the game the right way, so they need to pay, but i say dont waste tax payer money on trials and hearings, these guys have stolen enough money from the public, wipe their stats to zero, they never played the game, later, no hall of fame no nothing., As a matter of fact they should get the same banning that PETE ROSE got, that guy cant even go into a MLB stadium, bet you all didnt know that, thats right he's not allowed in a stadium, so if one day soon his son makes the BIG TEAM he cant even see him play, thats what needs to happen to the ROIDS crew.

lastdecember said:

Ok, so, the problem with "wiping the slate clean" is you need definitive proof that they used performance enhancing drugs other than hearsay, correct? So you can't wipe the slate clean on guys that have just been rumored to use it and they have no proof.

Also, since you want to wipe out records for players that had advantages over others, you then have to wipe out EVERY SINGLE RECORD BEFORE BLACKS WERE ALLOWED TO PLAY since it was obvious that those players then weren't playing against the best available talent. So Babe Ruth's records would be wiped from the books. Are you cool with that?

MuthaFunka said:

This is the most salient point you've made in this entire thread. You should try making more arguments using this connect the dots type approach. It's much more persuasive than the way you've presented your case thus far.

violator said:

And I feel the exact same way about you not thinking racism exists in the witch hunt of Barry. If you don't think racism has played a role in how Barry's been treated by media & fans, then I can only hope one day you will understand racism. Then again, I've hoped that for many and some just refuse to see.

MuthaFunka said:

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that racism has played some role in the way Barry Bonds has been portrayed in the steroids debate. And I stated such. You seem to believe it is the only or driving factor. And the only evidence you've presented to support that belief is that Bonds is black and the media is white.

That's not evidence, I'm afraid.
[Edited 12/15/07 19:46pm]

MuthaFunka said:

Fine with me i could care less about that era of baseball anyway. Which is another reason why i would discount Homerun records because guys today not only are juiced but they are playing in smaller parks with a smaller strike zone, plus guys dont pitch inside, the list goes on and on. My problem is mainly with anyone getting past someone who acheived something LEGIT, sorry but bonds and tons of others on the list SOSA,MCgwire,Canseco,Rafael passed guys that had to OVERCOME barriers like Aaron or Frank Robinson had too. The truest talent in the game existed in the 60's-80's everything else for the most part is jaded, small parks no strike zone, relief pitching, you name it. Sorry but if i was on any of these all time lists and someone like clemens or bonds or someone else passes me and they are proven a cheat, i want them off the list and my spot back, and thats what i hope all the veteran players start doing, black and white and latino who played in that time.

To me definitve proof to me is "names" on invoices which they have already on 6 guys (one being Paul Loduca), iternet purchases, which they have on one guy(Scott Schowenweiss) who already is in court, but no one speaks of him because hes not a "star" lets also not forget how Mike Cameron admitted doing roids and being drunk and high during games with the Mets, got a free pass, and actually got a bonus this year.