I think we've all by now learned that the most prominent name mentioned in the Mitchell Report that was not the subject of prior steroid investigations was Roger Clemens. Barry Bonds' name appears in the report under the BALCO category but his involvement with steroids has been public for a long while now. My question to the group is why do you think the media never scrutinized Clemens at nearly the same level as Bonds? I understand much of the animus towards Bonds emanates from the fact that he is a dick and he was chasing after two of baseball's most cherished records - single season and career homeruns - but Roger Clemens was also eclipsing prominent pitching records while on the juice. Furthermore, the media had just as much reason to question why a late 30's pitcher was experiencing a renaissance, suddenly gaining pinpoint control, and adding 2-4 mph on his fastball. I've wrestled with this issue for a long while now and I don't like to make hasty race-based conclusions but the only explanation I have for why the media shielded Clemens but criticized Bonds is race. Let's face it, the media that covers baseball is predominantly filled with white males and in this situation the baseball writers salivate at every opportunity to put Bonds down but they never throw any punches at Clemens. Why? If criticism naturally flows with who succeeds most than Clemens should have been scrutinized more heavily because he was the best pitcher in the Majors over the last 10 years. His pitching was exposed to a national audience because he's grew up with a big market team (Boston) and won championships with the biggest team of them all (Yankees). When the Red Sox traded Clemens to Toronto, Clemens was old, had no life on his fastball, and contemplated retirement. Then, all of a sudden, he resurrects his career at the same time everyone else was getting bigger. Hmmmm. Also, look at Clemens' career in Houston. He started pitching for the Astros before the MLB instituted its steroid testing policy. After implementation of the test, Clemens would hold out until June. He always cited conditioning reasons - maybe he was conditioning by shooting up roids and avoiding the first round of testing. I also found it interesting that he would retire after every season until I realized that by retiring, he would not be subject to the off-season testing. Suddenly, it all starts to make sense. If those sportswriters who hate Bonds and have suggested an asterisk be placed on his record have any intellectual integrity then they should demand an asterisk on Clemens' pitching records as well. After all, they are convicting Bonds in the court of public opinion based on testimony from trainers and teammates - why should they be any more responsible with convicting Clemens? There is no valid reason why the media turned a blind eye to a growing, fountain-of-youth experiencing Clemens while remaining so critical of Bonds other than the race of the two athletes. If anyone else has any other ideas, I'd love to hear them.