Bonds vs. Clemens: Steroid Use

[AstrosFan]

Sorry to start another thread involving Barry Bonds when I just started one not that long ago in the history forum, and we have yet another one going on right now (also in the history forum), but I got to thinking. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were both named on the Mitchell Report, and have been highly suspected by fans of steroid use. I expect most of you believe both used. But my question is: Given the evidence, and knowing we have no indisputable proof, which player do you think is MORE LIKELY to have used steroids knowingly and deliberately. I suspect both probably used, but more likely is tougher, though I'm leaning Bonds.

Edit: I just want to add, I am using Bonds and Clemens because they are the best position player and pitcher to be suspected of steroid use.

[steve rogers]

Both of them used steroids and both of them knew they were using steroids. I don't see one over the other.

Scott

[AstrosFan]

Again, I am not asking if you think they used, I am asking which one the evidence points more strongly to. If you don't have a choice, don't post in this thread, as all it will do is undermine the purpose of it.

[Wade8813]

Actually, if you think they both have equal evidence, that is just as good to know, IMO.

[banda_bou]

The other question should be: Why 's Clemens getting the free pass for his steroid use, while Barry was burned and buried without evidence??

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Clemens is getting a free pass? I don't see that at all.

[sturg1dj]

free pass...no

not nearly getting it as bad as Bonds....heck yeah

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

That's arguable. If you're right, it's because Barry Bonds has been openly spiteful toward the press and the public over the years, whereas Clemens played the media game better. Also, Bonds broke a long-standing MLB record; maybe Clemens would have gotten worse treatment had he somehow challenged Cy Young's 511.

[sturg1dj]

That's arguable. If you're right, it's because Barry Bonds has been openly spiteful toward the press and the public over the years, whereas Clemens played the media game better. Also, Bonds broke a long-standing MLB record; maybe Clemens would have gotten worse treatment had he somehow challenged Cy Young's 511.

that is something I have argued against for years now. Clemens was no better to the press than Bonds. Clemens often would be a jerk with the media. the difference is Clemens wasn't pushed as much as Bonds was. Its like when the media would say something to Clemens that Clemens didn't like he would snap at them and they would drop it. With Bonds they would say something, Bonds would snap back at them and they would take that as meaning they should keep asking the same questions.


Both Bonds and Clemens are known for not taking crap

both Bonds and Clemens came up as phenoms

both Bonds and Clemens won their position's main award more than anyone

both Bonds and Clemens had a point in their 30's where they seemed to be done

both Bonds and Clemens came back from this point bigger and stronger

both Bonds and Clemens dominated at an elevated age

both Bonds and Clemens put up career numbers that seemed unreal (762...and how many thought they'd see someone with as many wins as Roger during this era?)

Bonds has been facing a firestorm of criticism over steroids since 2001...while Roger had no problems until this last off-season. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!

[cardsfanatic]

That's arguable. If you're right, it's because Barry Bonds has been openly spiteful toward the press and the public over the years, whereas Clemens played the media game better. Also, Bonds broke a long-standing MLB record; maybe Clemens would have gotten worse treatment had he somehow challenged Cy Young's 511.

Clemens most definitely has not gotten a free pass. He hasn't been rode as hard as Bonds has, either. Could be a combination of any of the below:

- Clemens was never quite as surly with the media as Bonds (probably a HUGE factor) even if he wasn't the best interview of all-time, either. Bonds would get downright nasty with the media at times.
- Clemens fought the accusations, gave a definitive "no" under oath and is the only guy accused of roid use that has an active legal case for slander. People can say what they wish that he's "foolish" for all of this but his actions are that of an innocent man. Bonds shirked away from legal action when his people wanted him to fight it.
- People love home runs and their home run records. Don't ask me why but it seems to often be the only record that matters to the majority of fans. The fact Bonds was chasing that record meant he was going to get more media attention to begin with. And when you have a steroid scandal floating overhead during a huge media magnet like a HR chase, what kind of coverage do you expect? If he had a wholesome image he would have been painted as the Pope. Scandal + Amplified Media coverage = the treatment he got.

I don't buy into the black/white thing for a moment. Big Mac (a popular white player) deserves to be in the Hall of Fame but isn't right now because of possible steroid use. He has been punished... he didn't receive the media circus because he was out of the game by the time the hammer dropped. He also has done what any respectful man could do for the game... leave and keep your face out of the spotlight. Being in front of a camera nightly is just bad for baseball when steroids are attached to you. Look at how much the steroid talk and coverage has died down since Sosa and Bonds left the MLB. Now I can actually hear about baseball on ESPN... I may start watching it again! If Bonds leaves the game and stays out of the spotlight I'll have immense respect for him. I'd rather the whole steroid issue die.

I think the punishments for steroid use have been pretty uniform. It's not like anyone has been given a free pass. Obviously, as with all things in life, the circumstances determine the intensity of ridicule. Had Bonds been the same person he is right now character and skin color wise but was an absolute scrub of a baseball player, he would have faded into oblivion like Alex Sanchez. When you have the media on you 24/7/365 during a home run chase, it's a bad time to be on their bad side is the only thing I can say.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Clemens most definitely has not gotten a free pass. He hasn't been rode as hard as Bonds has, either. Could be a combination of any of the below:

- Clemens was never quite as surly with the media as Bonds (probably a HUGE factor) even if he wasn't the best interview of all-time, either. Bonds would get downright nasty with the media at times.

Pardon that hugh deletion of a portion of your post but the remaining portion jibes with a post of mine where I used the same reasoning on another thread involving Bonds and Clemens, who is the bigger jerk. It's Barry's foot in mouth over the years and I even included 3 of his best......or is worst comments, dumb comments and then he wonders why he is so disliked.

Fair or not the guy thats been rubbing people the wrong way and then blaming it all on the press, and I should say some of his own teammates comes off the more disliked. It's called human nature, it's just the way one will be viewed by the public, by his words and actions.

I do agree, Roger has not been given a free ride on the steroid issue, Barry was disliked long before this and it carried over.

[Mild Sauce]

Bonds also got a sacred record due to his use of PEDs while Clemens basically got 350 wins or so, but no actual records. That's a huge difference right there.

[slugger33]

Bonds was more likely to use, and I think he used. Roger does not look like he used, and I do not believe he used them.

[sturg1dj]

Bonds was more likely to use, and I think he used. Roger does not look like he used, and I do not believe he used them.

WHAT??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?


ARE YOU JOKING!?!?!?!?!?!?

[slugger33]

WHAT??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?


ARE YOU JOKING!?!?!?!?!?!?

What do you mean? Does Clemens look muscular to you?