One of the more interesting aspects of the coverage regarding the release of the Mitchell Report is the sudden quest for fairness by several in the sports media.
ESPN personalities are, perhaps rightfully, bringing up the fact that some the sources of information in the Mitchell report may not be entirely accurate. It could be argued that much of the information in the report is based completely on hearsay.
Because of that, one of the main themes in ESPN’s coverage of the Mitchell report has centered on whether or not the evidence meets acceptable standards.
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with refusing to take the report at face value. What makes this interesting, and hypocritical, is when this sudden quest for truth is contrasted with the coverage of Barry Bonds. Long before he was indicted by a grand jury, any and all information surrounding Bonds — no matter what the source — was greeted as fact and quickly believed by those in the media. At one point, disrespectful comments about Hank Aaron attributed to Bonds on a satirical website were reported by Sports Illustrated. No speculation was too extreme in regards to Bonds, and very few questioned any information gathered in Game of Shadows or any other publication accusing Bonds of using performance enhancing drugs.
After allegations were brought against Roger Clemens, some in the media have attempted to find any small way to discount the accusations. On ESPN in particular, much of the conversation surrounding the Mitchell report turned into criticism of the Mitchell report — especially in relation to Clemens.
ESPN does have a cozy relationship with Clemens; in the recent This is SportsCenter special, it was revealed that Clemens was essentially a friend of the show, having appeared in the most SportsCenter commercials. During the past several weeks, an ad for Disney’s ESPN the Weekend featuring Clemens has played repeatedly — in fact, just yesterday morning, hours before the bombshell about Clemens’ steroid use, the commercial played during SportsCenter.
When talking about the accusations brought against Clemens in the report by former Yankees trainer Brian McNamee, several at ESPN have decided to attack the source. John Kruk said flat out that “I don’t know if I want to believe this thing.” According to Kruk, McNamee is not credible, because he is facing a jail sentence and has every motiviaton to lie. Kruk described McNamee as “a guy who is disgrunted … who has an agenda right now. He doesn’t want to go to jail.” Nevermind that George Mitchell himself told CNN that “[witnesses] have overwhelming incentives to tell the truth … because if they didn’t tell the truth, they themselves are subject to criminal prosecution.”
Peter Gammons also questions McNamee’s motivations. “Nobody has challenged him. This is hearsay information. … We have a long way to go, because a guy who’s facing jail time throws [Clemens] under the bus.” Several times, Gammons used the qualifier “this may well be is true”, a sentiment repeated by Buster Olney on Mike and Mike in the Morning today. Analyst Tim Kurkjian went as far as to say that Clemens “would not have come out and vehemently denied [the report] if everything in there were true.”
Nobody seemed to question the motivations of Barry Bonds’ former mistress. Nobody seemed to look at Barry Bonds’ self-defense — which included a failed lawsuit against the writers of Game of Shadows — with anything more than a grain of salt.
Whether or not one believes that the allegations levied against Bonds are true, that does not change the seeming double standard the media has covering Bonds versus other players. If anything, the eagerness to believe everything bad about Bonds and the attempt now to discredit those accusing Roger Clemens is an indication of some sort of agenda within the sports media. Is that agenda taking down Bonds, protecting Clemens, or a mixture of both?
Clearly, it would be incorrect to say that Clemens is getting a free pass. Far from it, in fact. However, he is getting some benefit of the doubt — a luxury Bonds was never afforded.
