A few month back the BALCO scandal broke. Barry Bonds testified that he may have taken a substance that was likely a steroid. Victor Conte, founder of BALCO, said that he supplied many players with steroids, including bonds. Conte’s allegation were believed readily and Bonds was vilified (again) by the press.
Jose Canseco has published a book entitled Juiced, in which he claims he personally injected Mark McGwire with steroids. Jose Canseco has been criticized as a liar out to get money and peddle his book. However, Conte, a steroid peddler, was readily believed when he accused Bonds.
I think that it is apparent that both McGwire and Bonds used performance enhancing drugs. So these revelations come as no surprised here and, it seems, that most people suspected it anyway. But what is troubling is the dichotomy in which these men are treated by the press. McGwire is being defended. Bonds is being derided. Why were the accusations about Bonds so readily believed and those against McGwire not? True, Bonds has been a hard player to like because of his arrogance and aloofness. McGwire was the darling of the media a few years back when he broke Roger Maris’ home run record. It seems the only season in which Bonds was celebrated is when he shattered McGwire’s record a few years later.
Why these men were treated differently may, to some extent, rest with race. America is reluctant to see the failure of one of its “golden boy” heroes but quick to denounce an Africa-American. It has not been affirmatively proven that either men used steroids, but when the truth comes out, is there any doubt that one man will get the brunt of the criticism?
Filed under: Uncategorized
