When race and sports go head to head, the resulting collision is frequently violent, the aftermath often messy.

That wasn't the case just eight months ago, when the feel-good story of the moment revolved around the meeting of two black head coaches, Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, both in the Super Bowl for the first time.

Today, that's been replaced by talk of Barry Bonds and steroids, by Michael Vick and dog fighting. And if you think race plays absolutely no factor in the hostility directed toward either athlete, think again. Click here to read what DiversityInc readers have to say about Michael Vick.

Many sports commentators will tell you hostility directed Bonds' way has nothing to do with his race. They offer a laundry list of reasons, which run from his alleged steroid use to the obvious: By many, he's simply been seen as an unlikable, unpleasant figure during the course of a lengthy career.

Bonds' inexorable march toward becoming Major League Baseball's all-time home-run king finally concluded Tuesday night when he hit No. 756, surpassing Hank Aaron in the record books. But the debate over the legitimacy of Bonds' claim on the record continues. Which side of that debate you fall on will largely depend on the color of your skin, according to a recent ESPN/ABC News Poll.

According to the poll, conducted in May when Bonds was still several months removed from breaking the record, black fans were more than twice as likely to want Bonds to break Aaron's record as whites (74 percent to 28 percent), and 37 percent of black fans thought Bonds used steroids, compared to 76 percent of white fans.

Other findings in the poll:

·         Blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to think Bonds has been treated unfairly (46 percent to 25 percent).

·         Forty-one percent of black fans felt the treatment was caused by the steroids issue, 25 percent think it's because of his race, and 21 percent blame Bonds' personality.

·         For whites who felt Bonds has been treated unfairly, 66 percent blamed steroids while almost none blamed race.

The reaction to the federal indictment levied against Vick has played out along similar racial lines. While the allegations in the indictment have been universally condemned, many blacks, including groups such as the NAACP, have urged for Vick to be awarded due process and have the opportunity to respond to the charges in court rather than be prematurely ostracized.

But make no mistake; there are blacks and whites on both sides of the issue. In Vick's case, hip-hop entrepreneur Russell Simmons and other black leaders sent a joint letter to the NFL commissioner condemning the charges levied against Vick soon after the indictment was read. "The recent media spotlight on dog fighting reminds us of society's callous disregard for the suffering of animals and disrespect for sentient beings. We hope that Mr. Vick is not a product of this insensitivity that runs through our society.  Hurting animals for human pleasure or gain is despicable. Cruelty is just plain wrong," they wrote in letters that were also sent to Vick's corporate sponsors.

Vick's sponsors have responded swiftly, almost as one. In a matter of days, Vick was dropped by Rawlings sporting goods, his endorsement deal with Nike was suspended without pay, Upper Deck trading cards removed all memorabilia autographed by Vick from its online store and announced plans to remove his trading card from NFL sets, and Reebok pulled his jersey off the racks. He effectively lost his day job when the NFL commissioner told him to stay away from training camp.

Overnight, one of the NFL's most popular players lost millions and became the invisible man, unless you count his recent court appearance.

Why are Vick and Bonds viewed so very differently by blacks and whites? The answer is complicated. To say that blacks think collectively and see any assault against a successful member of the community as an assault against the collective would oversimplify the issue, but perhaps there's a thread of truth in the idea. Are too many of us somehow preconditioned to assume conspiracy where perhaps none exists? Are we too willing to turn a blind eye and offer shelter to our rich and famous regardless of the alleged offense? R. Kelley, Michael Jackson, O.J Simpson ... the list goes on.

Do black athletes more often than not get a raw deal compared to their white peers? I'd argue yes. But as members of the black community, shouldn't we respect ourselves enough not to ignore flagrant evidence of wrong-doing before our eyes? I think so. I hope so.

More Free Diversity News>>