Comparing Bonds and Vick???

You cannot compare the two.

Bonds may be an obnoxious human being and cheater, but what he is accused of pales in comparison to Vick.

Bonds may have broken the law, but he only hurt himself in the process. Steroids and HGH have proven negative affects on the human body, and he will have to live with that.

Vick is an animal abuser. He took innocent animals, starved them and turned them into vicious killers, then assinated the ones who didn't perform.

That is absolutely barbaric, and the victims are the poor dogs that had no say in the matter.

"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it. The legal system isn't relevant to the argument except to the extent it reveals facts that definitively clear or indict one of the two.

Bonds and Vick are two completely different situations where the only similarities are the fact that they are pro athletes, and that they have been perhaps unfairly proclaimed guilty by the court of public opinion.

Michael Vick may be a criminal. He may see some prison time. His alleged crimes have nothing to do with his sport.

Barry Bonds may also be a criminal but perhaps even worse a cheater who has watered down the accomplishments of others by using performance enhancing drugs. Bonds' is a sports related issue. I don't care if I never see another report about Vick on ESPN. Talk about that sh** on CNN I want to know the score of the Tiger's game.

So, I agree with you, they are very different with the exception of the supporters invoking the "innocent until proven guilty" line. Personally I think they both did that sh**.

the comparo, I believe was to make the point that both have already long been convicted by we, the "well-informed" and "un-biased" public, when neither has been found guilty by the judicial system (yet).

It does seem as the case moves along though that htere is much more evidence coming to light against Vick, than against Bonds, whom the Grand Jury has been stagnating over for quite awhile, a sure sign that they don't have the evidence to convict. It is also true that if found guilty, Vick will have commited a far more hideous crime, as in the end the only harm done by Bonds is to baseball's reputation(which has been steadily loosing it's luster for awhile now, and really only regained popularity again after the the Steroid Twins had their home-run derby), and to himself, and if he is stupid enough to use something that is known to have long term side effects on his liver, kidney, brains(no loss there), and genitalia, hey, thats his tough crap.

so just take the comparo in the context it was meant.

Yes they are 2 different subjects. I find it amazing that so many people use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" to support someone they like, but ignore it when it is someone they don't like. Case in point - the Duke lacrosse team. People were all over those young men, and while they perhaps their behavior was crass, immoral, and just plain stupid, they were cleared of all charges because of a lack of evidence. But yet, all of the groups that publicly humiliated them, who were ready to send them to prison immediately, have done nothing to apologize to them. Yes, I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but I also believe in a person's right to draw their own conclusions. I also think it will be funny to see what happens in the Michael Vick case. I wonder how many of the people who are screaming "innocent until proven guilty" will accept him as guilty if he is found guilty in a court of law. Or will they simply find another phrase to use?

no, First of all barry was NEVER FOUND GUILTY OF STEROIDS!! He is tested every season just like every other player. Roger clemens is on steroids, he was found positive for a growth hormone and he is still playing besides his rescent suspension for hitting a batter with the ball. Police had strong evidence against vick unlike barry

You can compare anyone to anyone else. The circumstances may be different but right is right and wrong is wrong.

Ever since O.J. Simpson got away with murdering two people every pro athlete thinks they can do anything and get away with it.

Baseball, like the courts, haven't cleaned up their acts.

all that matters is their impact on the sport. Bonds cheated and made a mockery of a grand establishment which we all covet. Vick made a mockery of himself, but hasnt nearly offended the game as much.

There is something to say of character. Vick's actions may incrase an already questionable nature of NFL character which has been in a nosedive of late. However, he didnt cheat, he didnt cause a conspiracy theory, and his actions dont impact the game.

No comparison except character.

2 different situations all together. But both are still guilty.

they are completely different in their crimes but both exceptionally stupid.

Bonds tried to deceive people by changing his body- if innocent he was working on his body

Vick killed dogs and had them kill themselves in a rage and a complete disrespect for God's earth.- if innocent he still knew this was happening and never stopped it.

i agree