Ding, Ding, Ding.......
You nailed it. I've been watching ESPN and they 're not even close to bashing Clemens like they were crushing Bonds. It has almost everything to do with race. Bonds is a jerk, so that plays about a 6% part of it. The other 94% is race. The ironic thing is that Bonds is (WHITER) in attitude and lifestyle than most of these racists who act as if race isn't a factor in this whole "steroid era" mess.
YOUR ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! NONE WILL PROVE YOU WRONG!!!!
*******Bonds, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson & Mariah Carey are living proof that no matter how 'mainstream'....(white) .... one looks or acts, this society will inform you of your Blackness in due time.*********
2007-12-14 07:08:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by A.Sharrieff 2
·
2⤊
8⤋
The fact that Roger Clemens is the second biggest jerk to ever wear a baseball uniform has nothing to do with him being white, it is because Barry Bonds set such a high standard. Put the race card back, you may need it later.
Can't help but think, somewhere, Barry Bonds is sitting back. having a cold one and really enjoying this.
Even if it is only for the sake of appearance, whatever applies to Bonds, will apply to Clemens as well. If that's an asterik or banned from the HOF, it will be applied to both equally. Bet on it. The last thing baseball wants is more scandal which is what would happen if they didn't apply the rules equally.
2007-12-14 07:15:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by cme 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think the point that made Barry Bonds a target was that, by nature, he was very confrontational and had an overblown ego reported for years now. Those factors couple together to make someone a media villain, which when a grand jury purgery charge comes after rampant speculation of steroid use, only intensifies his portrayal in the media.
The main difference between Bonds and Clemons before yesterday was that, while there was no widespread evidence to consider Clemons a user, Bonds was implicated in the BALCO scandal. He then turned around and said he had never used steroids, then quickly turned his story into that he never knowingly used steroids. The Bonds story changed so many times that he left himself wide over for the disdain he received. Clemons is now in that position and should get the same treatment.
2007-12-14 07:22:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by SMH Corp 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
He did get piled on for numerous motives. he's not the nicest guy interior the international, and he did no longer play interior the East so there are 2 strikes against him. I continuously thought that Clemens grew to become right into a jerk, yet a great pitcher. as a techniques by using fact the media is going, I bear in mind many, no longer a majority, yet many that felt that Barry grew to become into being singled out. it variety of feels they have been greater maximum appropriate than incorrect.
2016-11-26 23:47:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thats so true .Bonds was definitely the target of all the steroid issues and comments ,but now its nice to see that the truth is coming out . I think Clemens is every bit as guilty as Barry Bonds. But i think Clemens just has alot more to hide.
2007-12-14 07:11:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Luciana 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
I remember sitting at a bar one afternoon having a few beers and conversing about who had the best swing in baseball with my brother and a couple of old family friends. Ken Griffey was their choice and I liked Barry's swing, mind you this was back in 1992, and stated that I thought it was the best ever in baseball. Now that brings us to the question about Barry and Roger and whether or not it merits the same amount of scrutiny. The home run record is certainly the most cherished and hallowed record in baseball and to be frank it does become unfair to Aaron, Ruth and even his own godfather Mays that someone choose to use steroids and broke records these men worked long and hard for not to be outdone by an individual who chooses to cheat. I do not believe that this is the type of society one wishes to raise his children in and believe at some point and time the guilty need to be held accountable so we do not send the wrong message.
2007-12-14 06:52:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by sfdiego 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
quit with the racially motivated question, the racism exists alright, in you, because you believe that white people will crucify a black guy but not a white one
now, in response to your "views"
the united states governement has not one, but two positive tests for a B. Bonds, from balco, thats pretty good evidence right there, im sure youll say it could have been a bob bonds, or brett bonds, or even a betty bonds, and it could have been, but everyone knows that a barry bonds was a customer of blaco, and that is pretty incrimnating evidence
as far as clemens is concerened, yes he should be crucified, and exctly for the same reasons bonds has been (i mean the real reasons, not the racist bs so many black people on here seem to be spouting off) bonds is a truly bad human being, arrogant, egotistical, willing to put some else into blames light before himself (im talking about his blaming his use of the "clear" on the fact that it was actually a teammates, but he stole it from the teammates locker, the teammate happened to be a backup, what teammate bonds is!!!!) roger clemens is also a bad human being, egotisitcal, arrogant, but at least he didnt try to blame a teammate for his use
both bonds an clemens were great before steroids, but they got greedy, i feel bonds betrayal is worse based simply on the fact of who his dad and his uncle were, such wonderful ambassadors of the game (yes they were both black, you still think im a racist you a**?) but i truly hope neither clemens or bonds gets into the hall
i know their records wont be asterisked or banned or anything, though i wish they would
but yes clemens should be crucified, but by the same token, so should you, for having such close minded racist views of white people to think that we will crucify a black man for something but not "one of our own" i dont know aything about you or where you live or what youve experienced, but at least im enough of a man to not make assumptions about who you are or what you think
2007-12-15 03:31:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by denisgack 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
For the hundredth time... they went after Bonds because he was linked to Balco... Clemens hasn't been linked to a high profile Federal Court case or else he would be under a lot more heat. People speculated about Clemens, but he hasn't been linked to anything until now.
What does that have to do with race?
And turn on the tv or radio... he is getting bashed on every station by everyone. Who exactly is defending him?
2007-12-14 06:47:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Carnac 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Why does everyone always go to the race card first? With Vick, it was race, race, race, not that he killed dogs, and illegaly gambled, but because of his race. Well, Vick admitted it, so get off the soapbox. As for Bonds, at the end of whatever trial they are doing, if he admits to it, or indeed has tested positive, then once again the race card doesn't have a leg to stand on.
As for Clemens and the guys named in the report, I sure hope there is more proof than some voided checks, that can easily be explained away. If he is guilty, remove him completely from the record books as though he never played. Same with the rest of them, and test randomly and often without telling the players, hey you are getting tested next week.
2007-12-14 06:41:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by the doggfather 2
·
3⤊
3⤋
Well, Canseco seemed to gain a lot of credibility with Mitchell Report & he did say that race played a part in ppl's dislike of Bonds. I seriously doubt NO ONE is taking race into consideration. But I will say that I'm surprised Clemens is getting similar treatment-at least here on Y!A with the exception of some.
2007-12-14 07:41:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by NativeAtlantean 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Who's defending Clemens? ...except for the flunkies on ESPN.
...and the Yankees only won one world series with Clemens and I'd gladly give that back. Their great teams were built without the steroid takers that came later.
Oh, ......Since when is eyewitness evidence not evidence?
2007-12-14 06:54:24
·
answer #11
·
answered by the_meadowlander 4
·
4⤊
0⤋