HW #2, Due Tuesday, October 6th!

For Tuesday, read “Clemens must be judged the same way as Bonds.” What is the writer's opinion? Find 3-5 places where you agree or disagree with what he has written. Explain why.

Clemens must be judged same way as Bonds

Wallace Matthews
December 14, 2007

For the past 10 years, one guy has been treated like he's Nicky Barnes, the other like he's John Wayne.

But in fact, they are very much the same guy. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, forever linked by a single word. Cheater.

Their career arcs have been nearly identical since 1998, two men defying Father Time, the one opponent no one can get around on or throw a fastball by. But somehow, both managed to do it at an age when most men have trouble playing catch with their kids.

And somehow, while Bonds was (rightfully) suspected for it, investigated because of it, and ultimately scorned, Clemens was (inexplicably) admired, enriched and celebrated.

Or maybe not so inexplicably. Because there is only one real difference between the two, and that is the color of their skin.

If, in light of allegations in the Mitchell Report regarding use of steroids to revitalize his career, Clemens is not subject to the same kind of treatment Bonds has endured, then we know that for most of the public, this whole steroid mess has not been about cheating or preserving "the integrity of the game" or the sanctity of the records after all.

It has been about race, pure and simple, a witch hunt solely in search of a black witch.

How else to explain why for a decade, Clemens has been held up as a physical marvel, while Bonds has been vilified as a chemically altered freak? In a truly just and color-blind world, they will now pose together, arm in artificially pumped up arm, poster boys for the most shameful era in the history of any sport, their unholy pact signed not with a pen, but with a syringe.

Because you can excuse the difference in the treatment of the two with all the justifications you like -- Clemens is a pitcher, he's been a workout freak his whole career, he didn't suddenly go from throwing 85 to 95 at 40, the rough equivalent of Bonds going from 49 homers to 73 virtually overnight -- and it still comes down to the same thing.

The man who was admired is white. The man who has been vilified is black. There's simply no getting around that.

This is not to say that Bonds has not deserved every bit of the hell he brought upon himself. He wasn't brought down by BALCO or Victor Conte or an investigation. Bonds was brought down by his own character flaws, his own insecurities, his own illegal actions.

So, too, was Clemens.

The problem is that for roughly the same period that Bonds has been under scrutiny, Clemens has been praised. Clemens is two years older than Bonds, and has matched him, year for year, award for award, contract for contract. And yet, despite press-box snickers, there hasn't been a fraction of the suspicion and outrage heaped upon Bonds.

Well, now there'd better be. Every question we ask about Bonds -- How many homers would he have if he played clean? Should his "record" come with an asterisk? Does he deserve the Hall of Fame? -- must now be asked of Clemens, too.

How many wins? How many Cys? How many Ks?

Neither Clemens nor Bonds has ever failed a Major League Baseball drug test, which has a lot more to do with the integrity of the testing than the integrity of the athletes. But suspicion alone has been enough to convict Bonds in the court of public opinion. Why shouldn't it be the same with Clemens? No doubt, today people will be saying we have to wait until all the facts are in before judging Clemens.

The fact is, you don't need a positive drug test to pinpoint when Clemens went over to the dark side, or the testimony of a "personal trainer" turned rat, or a canceled check or a syringe full of his blood, any more than you do with Bonds.

It's all right there on the back of his baseball card. By 1996, when the Red Sox, after two seasons of declining wins and rising ERA, decided he was a punched ticket, Clemens was 192-111 with about 2,500 strikeouts -- about the same as Dwight Gooden, no one's idea of a Hall of Famer.

After that, he took off like, well, a Rocket, putting up better numbers at 41 than he had at 25. Four of his seven Cy Youngs came post steroids, plus another 2,400 strikeouts. If we are inclined to disregard all of Bonds' accomplishments after 1999, when he crossed over, shouldn't we do the same with Clemens?

Of course we should. It shouldn't even be a question. Why, it should be as plain as black and white.

Which, of course, is a big part of the problem.