It seems that the media has two agendas when reporting sports. The first and most obvious agenda is to report sports in an accurate and open manner that doesn't lack integrity. The second is to engage its audience.

The media has no problem engaging and entertaining its audience. But often this involves a compromise of integrity and reveals a bias in reporting.

Take the criticism of Barry Bonds. It goes much deeper than race, but at the same time race is a large part of what's going on. Historically, most sports writers and media have never represented the very athletes they cover. It's no wonder most media pundits cannot understand Barry, Terrell, Kobe or any other black athlete that doesn't "get in line". Throughout history the black male has always been scrutinized. The irony is how much we celebrate the Babe Ruth’s and others, given their questionable lifestyles and lack of competition.

Given all of Barry’s so called shortcomings, he is one of the most dedicated athletes in all of sports. I do believe he used performance enhancing drugs. But do you remember that between seasons in 1992-95 Barry complained about the number of players using steroids? The MLB ignored him and continued to market other stars well below Barry's skill level.

Barry’s steroid use has a little to do with ego and a lot to do with MLB’s failure to monitor the game. It has even more to do with how black men see themselves in America and how some people view black men. Quite possibly, Barry refused to get left behind and accept second place when he felt he was a better player. He may have concluded that sometimes the rules, or "game within the game", aren’t a perfect match.

This isn’t about Barry choosing to cheat - it is about him making a decision to play within the rules that the MLB set, which crossed the line of competitive integrity. If we judge Barry, we must put this entire era, which means every player, under the same scrutiny.

If you ask Barry, he never thought he would hit 700 home runs, let alone 60 in a season. But once Mark Maguire hit 70 home runs, that was like saying, "Barry, we know you're good but we think Mark is a little bit better." This has been the history of black men in Major League Baseball. "We know you're good, but he is better."

We've always placed such emphasis on Babe Ruth's 714 home runs, even though those home runs were hit during the time of segregation. But at the same time, sports writers and Major League Baseball refuse to give much credit to Josh Gibson's 800+ home runs in the Negro League. Race and Major League Baseball have been integrated for a very long time - but not in unity.

It seems now that more people are just willing to “play the game,” if you know what I mean.

The bottom line is Barry's criticism is multi-layered. You throw in jealousy, biased sports writing (based on the fact that 90 percent of sportswriters are white), Barry’s complicated personality and race, and the result is serious criticism. And race itself is very complex: based on race we perceive things differently, carry certain stereotypes. (See previous column for statistical evidence, as well as recent article on Yahoo.com for further research on racial bias in baseball.)

Would it go too far to say that our tolerance level could be shorter or longer based on what race the person is? Criticism lesser or harsher? This is an honest question to ask ourselves.

What’s the answer? Say no to drugs of any kind, get a comprehensive testing method and move forward.