Bonds Scandal Analysis

Words: 1570
Pages: 7

The MLB did not seem to be around as much during Bonds’ problems. They never publicly did anything to try and repair their reputation from the Bonds scandal. The only moment that was publicized was when Bonds hit his 755th record-tying home run. The MLB commissioner Bud Selig did not applaud him (Kennedy, 101). This may have made the MLB look worse because they seemed to know that Bonds was using performance-enhancing drugs but they did not make a statement on it. In general, the actions of the MLB and the actions took by the USADA are on opposite ends of the scale. The MLB still has a possibility of creating a bad reputation for themselves. More often than not, they do not respond to any allegations of their players using performance-enhancing drugs. As with many scandals, companies often fire the accused no matter what they attest to. During the Bonds scandal, the MLB had a problem that could have escalated into a crisis. They were, and still are, in the warning stage of crisis communication. That means that there are issues lurking, but they have an opportunity to fix these issues and control the situation. On the other hand, the USADA has taken many problems into their own hands and avoided a public reputation problem. They handle these situations before they even become a problem. This is the difference between a positive and a negative …show more content…
As previously discussed, there are many tactics that the public relations team can use to help strengthen the athlete’s reputation. These include the use of social media, or the use of television through denial, bolstering, differentiation, or transcendence strategies. However, using steroids is a problem for the public relations team because they have to use these strategies in the first place. If the athlete never uses steroids in the first place, then the public relations team would not have to worry about what strategy or tactic to