the Bonds "double standard"
JMHO, of course, but by and large I don't think Bonds has been held to a double standard.
Start by separating dopers and suspected dopers into categories of "certainty", based on the amount and reliability of evidence. Naturally, those against whom there is relatively limited circumstantial evidence, will (and should) have been treated differently than those against whom there are mountains of specific, concrete, unrebutted evidence, over a long period of time.
In that regard, Bonds may well be in a category entirely by himself. There is no one in baseball for whom there is as much proof, over as long a period of time, as clear, certain and unrebutted (by unrebutted, I don't mean generally denied, but rather, the individual pieces of evidence have been rebutted with objectively verifiable facts) as Bonds. To the extent he's in his own off-the-charts category, it would be consistent and reasonable for him to be treated to a standard fitting that category.
Then add to that, the fact that certain of the treatment Bonds has gotten is directly related to the accomplishments and impact on the game. It is not inconsistent to say different statistical records are of different importance to the game in the global sense, and therefore the reactions to violation of their sanctity, different as well.
Then, there's the matter of Bonds' response. Guys who say "no comment" will be treated differently than guys who say "I dare you, I challenge you to try and bust me, I can't be touched, I've never failed a test and I never will." Different standards of treatment, true. But athletes who take the Bonds approach, are consistently responded to the way Bonds was. Lance Armstrong is a perfect example. He too whined about double standards, played the race/nationality card, etc.
On all three counts, I believe Bonds was treated no differently than anyone else similarly situated. The key is ... similarly situated.
Take Giambi. Had Bonds done as Giambi and told the truth to the Grand Jury, he would not have been chased by the US Attorney, and would not be facing charges right now. Was there different treatment? Yes. Was there a double standard? No. If you lie to the Grand Jury, they pursue you, if you tell the truth, they don't. Then came how Giambi responded to MLB. Giambi defied the union (and his agent) and met with the Commissioner's office. Bonds flipped them the middle finger. Were they treated differently in response? Yes, as they rightly should have been. No double standard there. Then with respect to their teammates. Giambi privately apologized to his manager and his teammates. Bonds refused. And the media. Giambi made a public apology (veiled and non-specific, though it was, there isn't anyone who didn't understand what that was). Giambi didn't belligerently lie to the media, then challenge them to prove the lie wrong. Bonds did. The media response was different. Inconsistent or double standard? No. Had Giambi responded the way Bonds did, they'd have chased him just as hard, if not harder (Bonds had a couple SF Chronicle guys on his case, imagine the NY Daily News and the rest of the northeaster press chasing Giambi!)
I would never argue that there aren't some racists out there. Even some who don't believe they are, or don't know they are. But on the whole, because there are a few who wanted to go after Bonds with extra vigor b/c of the color of his skin, that doesn't mean the general response had anything to do with that. Maybe I see this with less than complete clarity, but it appeared to me all along that the color of Bonds' skin didn't have anything to do with the general response.
I do believe that Bonds' personality did enter into it. Was some of the vim and vigor related to Bonds' personality? Almost certainly. But that is within his control, and how it was reflected in his actions, is his doing. Again, I don't think anyone was inconsistent or employed a double standard. If Sosa or McGwire had acted the way Bonds did, displayed that personality (and had there been an equivalent mountain of proof against them), I believe they'd have come in for just as much spite in the public and rough treatment by the media.
If anything, I believe the color of Bonds' skin actually got him lighter treatment b/c so many white reporters are so cognizant and fearful of being called racist in this PC society.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
