In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

From Barry Bonds to USADA Protecting the Interests of “Drug-Free” Athletes Timothy Davis* I. Introduction I n his pursuit of Major League Baseball’s home run record, Barry Bonds became the face of steroid abuse in baseball. As one columnist cynically wrote, Barry Bonds is the “Lord Voldemort of baseball.”1 Other columnists have written that such a depiction of Bonds is odd. “It is ironic that Bonds would emerge as a symbol of baseball’s steroid era, because people familiar with the matter say he turned to performance-enhancing drugs long after they had become common in the game.”2 I have been struck by the severity of the antipathy towards Bonds expressed by much of the mainstream media. I have wondered whether the reaction to Bonds is merely a consequence of the inevitability of a man perceived as a cheater capturing what is commonly characterized as “baseball’s most hallowed record.”3 On the other hand, could the reaction to Bonds be due to widely held beliefs regarding his personal character? He has been described as a “narcissistic yet deeply insecure man, often surly and rude, always self-absorbed.”4 As is so often true, this question leads to another, which is whether Bonds has been any more arrogant than all-time greats Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb or more standoffish than Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio.5 I have also considered whether the virulent criticism of Bonds has been influenced by race. Many have argued that depictions of Bonds and criticism of him are unrelated to either race or personality. Proponents of this position have argued that opposition to Bonds stems singularly from the belief that he used steroids to help in his quest to acquire the record: “The color of his skin has nothing to do with the public perception of Bonds; it’s what he put on or under his skin.”6 Other columnists take issue with the perspective that race is not a relevant consideration in discussions of Barry Bonds. As one columnist wrote in comparing the images of Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds: 148 Timothy Davis One is the black Bonds, whose “bad Negro” defiance inspires a certain kind of basic hatred toward him, especially when combined with his enormous wealth and unwillingness to play the hero game, even for the millions of fans who pay to watch him play . . . . The other is the white McGwire, less confrontational but equally suspect, with one special distinction: Too many fans and members of the press, especially, willfully deluded themselves with the McGwire myth, built by them because of their shared whiteness, their belief in his false purity. To turn on McGwire would be to admit he took steroids in ’98, that the whole thing was a testosteronefueled act.7 As these divergent views illustrate, the question of whether race is relevant in this context lingers as it so often does in sports.8 A 2007 ESPN/ABC News poll9 revealed that the views of fans regarding Barry Bonds often broke down along racial lines.10 Forty-six percent of black fans in contrast to 25 percent of white fans thought Barry Bonds had been treated unfairly.11 Of those who believed Bonds was treated unfairly, 25 percent of blacks attributed his mistreatment to race, while virtually none of the whites blamed the unfair treatment on race.12 The survey also revealed that 85 percent of blacks in contrast to 53 percent of whites believed Bonds should be admitted into baseball’s hall of fame.13 Similarly, 74 percent of blacks versus 28 percent of whites wanted Bonds to break Hank Aaron’s home run record.14 The results of this survey prompt other questions including whether America’s media and public measure black athletes by a different standard. As suggested above, in order to be acceptable to the broad spectrum of sports fans, must the black athlete adhere to a particular model of “acceptable” behavior? If indeed Bonds were treated less favorably than comparable white athletes such as Mark McGwire, might race have been a factor but in a way that one would not necessarily expect? Could any such difference in treatment be attributable less to Bonds’s blackness and more to the white player’s whiteness and the benefits that attach to it?15 And, finally, perhaps the reaction to Bonds is the product of a convergence of all of the above considerations and others unmentioned. Of course, we will never arrive at...

Share