Can anyone figure out why the media (actually, it would be more accurate to say ESPN, as I haven't read much of any other media outlet's coverage of this stuff) is just completely going out of their way to tell people why it's OK to assume that Barry Bonds was/is on steroids, but not with Roger Clemens?

I've never understood why the media loves Clemens--arguably the biggest egomaniac in all of sport. He's a traitor and a drama-queen, not to mention he got better and bigger as he got older. When Barry Bonds got bigger and better as he got older, people started screaming "steroids!" With Clemens, it was like the media always went out of their way to protect him from any sort of suspicion, such as the seemingly endless breathless reporting of his "legendary workouts."

Now this is not to defend Barry Bonds. Bonds is a liar, cheater, and thief. By so many accounts, he is really a bad person.

But when it appears to *finally* be the time that Clemens is outed for the douche bag he is (who wears giant patches of themselves commemorating their 300th win EVERY GAME on their glove? Years after it happened, no less?), and ESPN is running as fast as humanly possible to cover his ass (pun intended). The tired argument of "well, this report would never hold up in court!" is pretty sad to watch.

The guy was--as Boston's then G.M. said when they let him go to Toronto--"at the twilight of his career" 10 years ago. He's won 4 Cy Young Awards since then.

Yeah...I'm sure that the specifically detailed (with dates!) Mitchell Report should be looked at skeptically. After all, the guy is white!

Labels: ESPN, Jayson Stark, Mitchell Report, Roger Clemens, Sucky Journalism