MITCH BLATT

When Mark McGwire got around to talking about the past, he finally admitted to using steroids.

The news was greeted with a collective yawn.

Now some days later, I’m thinking, would Barry Bonds get elicit the same reaction if he admitted to taking steroids?

I know there’s a lot of differences between the two, and I will point those out in the rest of the article. The similarity is that both of them took steroids to set home-run records, and both of them, basically already admitted to it: McGwire, in front of Congress, and Bonds, in front of a grand jury.

Bonds has received by far a lot more media coverage and fan hate.

Well, for one thing, he was already enough of a “bad guy” before taking steroids, so that’s one thing driving it.

And he does actually hold the single-season records and all-time records for home runs. It just so happens that he had the misfortune of breaking the record when steroids was a big news story, and Big Mac’s run came before that.

With that comment, there is a question of what drives the media: Obviously Bonds’ home run spree helped drive the media conversation on steroids, and McGwire’s did too, but not to the same degree.

In 1998, McGwire was found with andro in his locker, and he admitted to taking it. The media narrative turned to steroids for a short time after that, but the most people in the media seemed to push away the steroid aspect. Andro isn’t steroids, and they didn’t seem to want to entertain the idea that McGwire could be taking steroids, or that andro was in a similar sphere to steroids. People seemed to want McGwire to break the record and didn’t want their fun dampened.

Then when 2008 rolled around, certainly we knew more about how rampant steroid-use was, and Jose Canseco had published his book, so of course there’s gonna be more scrutiny.

Furthermore, Bonds’ story also involves America’s justice system, and Americans like a good law and order case. The back-and-forth between Bonds and the prosecution made for a good story, but the case has been indefinitely postponed since last February, presumably because the feds can’t get enough evidence, what with Bonds’ trainer refusing to speak.

Then there’s that last small difference between Bonds and McGwire, the one I haven’t mentioned yet, but I know most of you were thinking about it when I wrote the headline. I don’t know if race has anything to do with it, and I don’t think there’s any reliable way to tell. I’ve already noted a lot of reasons why Bonds legitimately gets more negative coverage than McGwire. I hope race isn’t another factor, and I’m certainly not going to say that it is, having already said that “I don’t know if it is,” but when you think about the two narratives, that’s obviously something to think about.

(And if anyone wants to misquote me, they can go back and read that last paragraph.)

Photo: Reuters

Popularity: 5% [?]