In the last few days since the Mitchell Report came out, we have been treated to three articles by ESPN’s Jayson Stark; three articles that stretch the boundaries of human logic; three articles that are the very definition of the word “denial”; and three articles that begin an introductory psychology course called "cognitive dissonance theory". It should be noted that Stark is NOT a past Bonds-basher; is not someone with a personal axe to grind; and is generally not considered a “hack” or a “Cosellout”. For the most part he is supposed to be one of the "good journalists". And for those very reasons, the articles are even more distressing.
Stark asks: “C’mon. Was it really worth all that money, all that time, all that trouble? Was it really worth it to relive all those years of ugliness, shred all those reputations, embarrass the sport of baseball all over again?”
Stark, who opposed the investigation from the beginning, is “convinced more than ever” that the answer is an emphatic “no”. While I would have wholeheartedly agreed with him 20 months ago, my position has been completely reversed. The report’s deliverance of the Clemens allegations and 85 other players’ names wasn’t just “a call to action” to baseball, but was one to our sports media. And that call to action is this: there will be ONE standard across the board for judging steroids allegations against MLB players. Period.
Stark writes: “But if there’s anyone out there who still believes in that old-fashioned innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff, you might want to read that Clemens section over one more time.”
Too Late: The legal standard of “innocent-until-proven-guilty” in sports media has been completely obliterated with the past 4 years of Barry Bonds coverage. Either it is a legal standard for EVERYBODY or it is not. If “common sense” or “court of public opinion” is good enough for Barry Bonds, then it is good enough for Roger Clemens.
In this article, Jayson Stark offers a legal analysis of the evidence against Roger Clemens in a level of detail never seen before in the 2,398,653 articles ever written by a mainstream sportswriter on Barry Bonds (not named Roger Cossack). However, D.K. Wilson from Sports On My Mind, HAS successfully defended the Bonds steroids case on legal grounds on many occasions. In that sense, he is also the perfect person to address the seriously-flawed offering of Stark where he questions the source “corroboration” surrounding Clemens. Although Stark even cites Andy Pettitte’s confession (which supports McNamee’s credibility) and “a mountain of circumstantial evidence” (Jason Grimsley? late-career surge? weight gain?) he is still left with “more questions than answers”. In Wilson’s detailed response to Stark, we are reminded that:
– the Clemens allegations are stronger than the Bonds allegations
– the “motivational” narrative for The Game of Shadows was provided by Kimberly Bell — Bonds’ jilted lover who recently sold her story and naked pictures to Playboy.
– This point about Kimberly Bell carries extra weight when considering that an unconvinced Stark needs more information around Clemens’ “motivation” to use steroids. Forget just being a competitive athlete at the highest level, Stark seems unfulfilled without a “he was jealous of Randy Johnson” storyline. Wilson responds:
“Perhaps this is Stark’s way of saying he doesn’t want to believe that Clemens used PEDs, because, relative to his prior treatment of Barry Bonds and how he was so willing to quickly “give him the business,” it sure sounds like it. If he doesn’t want to believe in the “Rocket’s” guilt, he could have just come out and said it.”
Okay, I”LL say it. Starks doesn’t want to believe that “the Rocket” is guilty! And he will become Johnnie Cochran before having his dream shattered. Here, take a look. Stark writes:
“But is there the kind of corroboration that any court in America would ask for? Haven’t seen it. Not yet, at least. But in Bonds’ case, there was enough evidence for a grand jury to hand down an indictment — without Anderson saying a word. Big difference.”
The “big difference” between Bonds and Clemens is the ridiculous benefit-of-the-doubt that the latter receives. Firstly, an indictment is no conviction. Secondly, the media hung Barry out to dry many years before any indictment ever surfaced, and without the aid of the Jayson Stark Legal Defense Fund. Thirdly, an indictment came after a FOUR YEAR INVESITIGATION by the Feds, aided by media vultures and book authors trying to take him down. Let’s give Roger a 4 year federal investigation plus two best-selling books exposes, and THEN compare.
As previously stated: “Three Strikes and You’re Out”! This is by far Stark’s most contrived offering. Firstly, it seems that Starks has offered no skepticism in eating up
Andy Pettitte’s version for using HGH (note: watch attached link video for Tim Kurkijian acceptance of Pettitte story as gospel truth). Aw shucks, I guess that Andy is just a really honest guy. (BTW, Pettitte is one of THIS author’s favorite players in all of baseball). But Starks main point is this:
“Where’s the outrage over Rodney Harrison, huh? We’ve been waiting for it to show up in some form, any form, for weeks now. We’re still waiting. We’ll probably wait a lifetime. Maybe somebody will write an indignant column about this topic to fill space before the Super Bowl or something. But it’ll come. Then it’ll go. And then Rodney Harrison will go ride off on his parade float and soak in the cheers. Meanwhile, there are baseball fans who will never forgive Andy Pettitte. Never. …you have some confessing to do yourself — about the never-ending double standard applied to baseball and football on this issue.”
Okay, first we need to set the record straight. Rodney Harrison was suspended for 25% of the entire football season for his offense and lost over a million dollars as a result. It is quite possible that Pettitte won’t be suspended one game or lose a nickel. I’d say that I’d rather be Pettitte. Also, while Stark is absolutely 100% correct about the baseball-football double-standard, it is a subject that did receive quite a bit of attention last year after Shawn Merriman tested positive. Even ESPN website colleague Chuck Klosterman wrote the interesting piece on “Why We Look the Other Way” when it comes to football players. But the question for Stark is not: “is he correct” (he is), it is “why are you beating this drum right now — in this article?” In fairness, Stark also brought up the baseball-football double standard after Rick Ankiel got busted, but, to my knowledge, has he ever used the Merriman case to address so much of the hate and vitriol so many of his colleagues throw Barry Bonds’ way. In the Ankiel article, he writes:
“We live in a world ablaze in double standards. And we’re never more aware of those double standards than we are when stories like these break. …As Ankiel’s saga in particular so vividly demonstrates, we adjust those standards — and taper our level of outrage — depending on whose name happens to wind up in the headline.”
And now we are left to wonder: in his vigorous legal defense of Clemens and his immediate defense of Pettitte, has Stark adjusted HIS OWN level of outrage according to who wound up in the headline? And just because Stark surprisingly never mentioned “race” as a factor in his Rick Ankiel “dirty double-standard” articles, that does not mean that he is naïve to the subject. In May he addressed:
– Fan perceptions: “Citing polls of racial splits amongst fans about Barry Bonds, he writes: “For nearly all white fans who think Bonds has been treated unfairly to say race has nothing to do with it is stunning. We say to those fans: You’re kidding yourselves if that’s what you truly think.” And then addressed…
– Media perceptions: “[Race] is an element in how people are perceiving the way all of us [media] portray this man [Bonds]. And I don’t think anything we do or say or write can change that.”
And this last sentence is precisely where the disagreement lies. Has racial bias subconsciously played a role in Stark’s own reaction? Or is he simply influenced through a favorable personal relationship with Clemens and Pettitte? Or is another factor at play? In any case, the media DOES have power in how Bonds is perceived: by affording Bonds the very same LEGAL standard of proof afforded to Clemens, the same benefit of the doubt immediately afforded to Pettitte’s story, and the same defensive passion that any other baseball player might receive. To my knowlege, Stark has never been one to "bash" Bonds, but until he will actually FIGHT for fairness in Bonds coverage will he truly distinguish himself from those that do.
Jason Stark is a whore. So is Rob Neyer. So is Peter Gammons - and Brian Kinney and Steve Phillips…and the rest of the entire lot.
They don’t have a leg to stand on. Lame ass pathetic posers. I’ve already had to ask Neyer when he was going to resign. I think he’s going to hang on because his drunken stupor-visors have as little cred as he does.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pmMODI:
I said back then that Stark’s Ankiel article was bullshit. Do you feel me now? He’s a buster.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pmTemple3 was right. I brought into the Ankiel article, too. I admit I was fooled by Starks, and that’s why I’m glad D-Wil and Modi are putting Starks on blast!
This whole thing illustrates the problem with race in America; blacks will never get the benefit of the doubt from white America, and will always be treated as a “group” situation, not on an individual case by case basis.
For example, here you have in today’s paper one random person quoted as saying, about Pettite: “He knows why he did it, and I’m sure his reasons are good.”
That sums up the real difference between Bonds and guys like Pettite and Clemens right there. The average white fan (including those in the media) assumes the best with guys like Pettite, or Jeter (if he was named), or Schilling (who should have been named!), or Nolan Ryan (come on… who taught Clemens to use steroids?). But those very same fans assume the worst allegations against Bonds are “fact”, and give him no benefit of the doubt….
December 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pmMODI,
Keep exposing the truth! There trying to
December 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pm“White Wash” the White Heros!
First off, I’m so tired of the term, ” race card “. It was a media created term used when the late Johnnie Cochran kept O.J. out of prison, and it has been used every time a minority points out obvious forms of racism, such as the current cases. The term is used to cover up the biases some members of the MSWSM have toward black players who don’t do the grateful knee-grow shuffle.
But what really bothers me about Jayson Stark, Tim Kurkjian, Ken Rosenthal, etc., is the fact they all knew what was going on in baseball from the time they began their careers to the present. And for them to pick and choose whom they dole out mercy (Clemens and Pettite) or condemnation (you-know-who and soon, Miguel Tejada)is the most obscene part of this whole thing.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTemple, yes, I feel you. I generally err on benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it is a strength, other times it is a character flaw.
The length that Starks will go to at least pertially absolve these other guys is crazy. A laboratory in “cognitive dissonance theory”. Kurkijian’s video was particulary mindboggling. A grown ass man is like wellAndy said it, so it must be true.
Yes, SML, this Mitchell report is a media study of white privilege.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pmI had a conversation about this with some co-workers of mine. I said I hope the go after Clemens and the rest with the same vigor as Bonds. But the almost complete consensus was ‘But Bonds is a prick’. I kinda just chuckled and responded ‘and? that has nothing to do with anything’. I find it so obviously hilarious that so many have bought into this idea that Bonds is a bad guy, while people completely give a pass to another star athlete who is in actually a bit of a worse predicament, but he’s viewed as ok.. oh and he just happens to be a white dude. I think I’m going to start grouping white players together so people can hear how ridiculous sounds.. ‘See, Clemens is yet ANOTHER example of how caucasians are destroying the game!’. I think that would be a bit of a conversation starter…
December 17th, 2007 at 6:06 pmModi,
The Black Athlete is attacked as an individual,and treated as
guilty in the press based on speculation and/or extrapolation
by the media. The articles generally implies that this individual is prone to cheat due to his nature. It is the equivalent of “Racial Profiling”. While the “White Athlete”, is defended or covered in a manner as if unbeknownst to him he was given the PED, because he is honorable.
I am still waiting for Bob Costas to attack Roger Clemens and insist that the HOF put an asterik next to his achievements.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pmHe will mock Clemens’ achievements after Boston, and ridicule Roger’s response
Ro, while you are correct, you can also tell your colleagues how much Clemens is a prick. When he wasn’t throwing balls and splintered bats at people he was requesting special team privileges and faking retirement every year until he reached a higher bidder.
statesman, I too am eagerly awaiting Bob Costas…
December 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pmModi and Statesman
don’t hold your breath
December 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pmFINALLY!! A message board where people call it like it is! and after reading all the comments all I can say is couldn’t have said it better!
April 7th, 2009 at 3:11 pm