Do you think Roger Clemens should receive the same treatment as Barry Bonds?

Question

This is not a question of whether Bonds is an asshole and Clemens is a nice guy. I am simply asking that if evidence does point out he used performance-enhancing drugs, should he be treated the same way as Bonds. While Clemens’ name stood hidden from the media for so long, Bonds has had to endure much criticism. Although Roger Clemens has been one of my idols since 1995—I was 14 years old at the time—I do not think the Rocket should be treated any different because he is white. Does anyone agree with the point that I am trying to make?

Answer 1

He should get the same criticism and doubt that Bonds has to deal with. He should have to go in front of Congres or Federal Jury and swear under oath.

Answer 2

Yes, I made this same point to my 24 year old son. I flat ask him why he wasn't down on Clemens the way he was Bonds. He hates Bonds, has for along time, even before Balco. He liked The Rocket though, so when the Mitchell report came out I ask him about his feelings on Clemens...his response "they don't have any proof on Clemens". I argued they don't have any more proof on Bonds either. If Peteit was using with the same trainer that Roger was using then what makes anyone think he didn't use also.

As far as I'm concerned all the users should be banned from baseball, the HOF and thier records/stats should get a big fat *** MAY BE SKEWED BY PEDs ***.

Answer 3

Utterly amazing how people will "find" ways to separate the two. Earlier on this thread, someone used the word "proof"...WOW... Have you seen this proof? Has anyone other than the accusers seen this proof? Has it been proven? Or did I miss the part where Bonds was found guilty. No, Clemens has not been indicted, but has been implicated byt the same guy that implicated and trained him and his best friend, and we know how that turned out.

So tell me, there's a difference right? Switch it around. Clemens indicted/ Bonds implicated. Would you be trying to excuse Bonds base on "proof"


So far, all we have are allegations against BOTH Bonds and Clemens. "But oh, Bonds has been indicted, so he should be scrutinized more than Clemens". Funny how Clemens has not been asked to speak in front of Congress - doubt he will when they have sessions in a few weeks either.

And as far as this "leak" in how we found out about Bonds in the first place - do you really think that was by accident? Amazing how the govt has spent over 30 mil for what will amount to nothing, but they don't care to find out which one of their's comitted a crime along the way, that allowed "Game of Shadows" to become the next most believed book to the Bible.

Edit:

To "another name": Where in that little link of yours is Bonds ADMISSION to taking steroids? The admission was that he took a cream or clear substance. Now, I aint no fool, I can read between the lines, I know (or am pretty sure) what he took but you sound just like Kurt Schilliing did this past summer when he put words into Bonds mouth by saying he himself admitted it. And if that's all the proof you need, that's your right to your opinion. And if you were referring to me when you said innocent until proven guilty - THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE BOTH HE AND CLEMENS STAND RIGHT NOW!
One has been charged, that's the difference. So I guess anyone who has ever been charged should just lay down because a charge ALWAYS means guilt. Well, like it or not, Clemens has been charged- just not legally.
And so you know, Bonds is not "my man". I'm just calling it as I see it.

Answer 4

It's amazing how when there was no positive proof that Bonds took steroids that Bonds fans would say, "innocent until proven guilty". Well now that Bonds admitted to taking the clear (steroids), Bonds fans won't say the same for Clemens. I agree that Clemens looks guilty. So do we keep Clemens out of the HOF based on suspicion?

Bonds also likely lied to a grand jury. If we judge people on "likely", then Bonds is also an obstruction to justice.

In other words, they are NOT in the same boat. Once Clemens is indicted for obstruction and has admitted to steroids (or proven), then I will agree that the two should be treated the same.

It's amazing how Bonds fans will go to any lengths to protect their man. Amazing. By the way, I don't really care what happens to Clemens. If it is decided that there is enough proof to keep him out of the HOF or even go to jail, it's his own fault. The issue here is about fans who think that Bonds should get off the hook, or be treated the same way as one that is only "suspected" is ridiculous. Not to mention the obstruction to justice investigation.

For daddy-o, yes, Bonds admitted taking steroids. That's proof in my book. http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=8686

Answer 5

I'm not sure what you mean by "the same treatment". If you mean "should he be tried for perjury", the answer is obviously no, since he never testified before a grand jury. If you mean the public disdain for him - I think that comes down to how accurate the reports end up being. Remember, Clemens's name in the Mitchell Report is based primarily upon the testimony of one person, while Bonds's use is documented by multiple sources. The evidence of Clemens's use is not as substantial, but Mitchell apparently felt the source was reliable.

Answer 6

Barry has bigger fish to deal with right now cause he may have screwed up by possibly lying in court. Clemens has not been called out on his potential usage as of yet. Its still too early to tell because Clemens hasn't went through the same things Bonds has had to deal with these last several years yet in regards to constant allegations, booing, etc.

Answer 7

He should be treated the same, but he won't

I dont think the major difference is race however or character for that matter because nobody ever mistook Clemens for a nice guy.

The difference is that Bonds sullied the greatest record in American sports, and that's why he's always going to get hammered worse than any of the other cheats.

Answer 8

Barry Bonds is a criminal duty to any group. I truthfully have a tendency to think of he would be taking part in this 2nd a million/2, he's an thrilling participant to observe even although anybody is familiar with he did steroids. although he's singled out no longer because of the fact he's black yet because of the fact he broke a pair of the biggest documents in baseball.

Answer 9

You used the decisive word: IF. If the same proof we now have on Bonds (and Palmeiro) is revealed on Clemens, then asterisk away. If it does not, then he deserves the benefit of the doubt. After all, he didn't go from being a skinny kid to being a Michelin Man like Bonds. Doctors will tell you that it is impossible to put on 40 pounds of lean muscle mass in one year without steroids. Bonds did that, Clemens did not.

Answer 10

i think that clemens should get treatment similar to bonds but not as bad as bonds because bonds has always had a bad relationship with the media

Answer 11

yes clemens should be treated the same-he is a fraud just as much as bonds-the numbers dont lie- his career was over after boston then came the hgh injections and a better fastball and hundreds of millions gee it must be his workouts