Today, Sox Blog's esteemed
Phoenix colleague, David S. Bernstein, posed an intriguing question. I've got an idea or two about how to answer, but I figured I'd throw up here to see what others have think. Here it is.
In 1999, Tiger Woods had LASIK laser surgery on his eyes, bringing them from legally blind (without contacts) to 20-20. He freely discusses how much it has improved his physical ability to play golf, and how he considered and weighed the potential serious risks associated with the surgery.
Bonds (assuming the worst of what he has been accused of) took steroids to improve his physical ability to play baseball, knowing the potential risks associated with the use of steroids, during a time when baseball had no policy banning the use of steroids.
What is the difference?
Why is Bonds's action so bad that people are discussing placing asterisks on his records and banning him from the Hall of Fame, while Woods is perhaps the most popular figure in sports, with people rooting for him to break Nicklaus's records, while he acts as spokesperson [see his testimonial here] for his enhancement?
We await your response.