What about the same sort of situation for television/movie actors and actresses?

I don't know who Pacman Jones and Ray Lewis are.  Michael Vick and Barry Bonds I had heard of even before the scandals....  Does that matter?

Was Lewis convicted?  Was Jones?  (I honestly don't know)

Rose and Sosa were punished.  Bonds hasn't been yet, has he?  Did Sosa use a corked bat all the time, or was it a one time deal?  (the latter seems likely).  Bonds' use of steroids seems likely to have been longstanding and continuous.  But I only very casually follow sports other than Basketball (and even then mainly I just follow the Spurs).  So you probably know this stuff a lot more than me.

I don't know who Pacman Jones and Ray Lewis are.  Michael Vick and Barry Bonds I had heard of even before the scandals....  Does that matter?

Perhaps, does the more well-known a person is make them more disliked?  Less forgivable?

No, but perhaps more newsworthy.

True, but one could make the argument that Bonds technically never broke the rules of baseball.

Oh boy!

Did Sosa use a corked bat all the time, or was it a one time deal?  (the latter seems likely).  Bonds' use of steroids seems likely to have been longstanding and continuous.

Perhaps, but this is mostly speculation.

About Sosa or Bonds?  It may be that Sosa has more corked bat incidents, but we don't know that he does, right.  That innocent until proven guilty thing.  On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that Bonds gets his athleticism from just one shot of steroids.  And I remember reading one article that tracks Bonds history and makes a case for significant jump in performance indicating probable steroid use.   To be fair, I seem to remember an article (perhaps the same one) suggesting that Bonds would have been a top 10 player of all time even without steroids.

Ugh, a Spurs fan.   
 

I'm not aware of any scandals, unless you count Eva Longoria
 
 

Perhaps, does the more well-known a person is make them more disliked?  Less forgivable?
No, but perhaps more newsworthy.

A good point.  But Pete Rose messes up this theory.  He was plenty newsworthy, and people want to exonerate him.

But after he has already been punished and quite a bit of time has passed.  The same may well happen to Vick later on.

That is a pretty big jump to make in my mind.  If Sosa is innocent until proven guilty, why isn't Bonds?  The jump in performance is interesting sure, but I could reel off a list of players to you who had significant jumps in performance and nobody is on their case.

I guess that just depends on the evidence.  I'll admit my ignorance on that score.

Ugh, a Spurs fan.   
I'm not aware of any scandals, unless you count Eva Longoria

*rimshot*

Would this be a bad time to bring up Robert Horry clotheslining Steve Nash in the playoffs?

OK, I guess you could call that a scandal, although I would say it is more of a self-inflicted wound.  :)  This is not really on par with what we've been discussing, and the controversial aspect of the situation is not the fault of Horry or the Spurs.

I don't think clothesline is an accurate description of what happened, but Horry's foul was bad enough to warrant ejection from that game (almost over) and suspension for the next game.  And that's all that should have happened.  It was not an attempt to cheat and it was not an attempt to injure an opposing player, although it could have done so, which is why suspension was warranted.  It was a frustration foul that had no impact on the outcome of the game.

But what happened next (suspension of two Phoenix Suns players for the next game) was the fault of the NBA for having an inflexible penalty for violating the "don't leave the bench during an altercation" rule, to Raja Bell (Phoenix), for escalating the situation and turning it into an "altercation", and to the two Phoenix players who violated the rule who probably should have realized that the NBA would take a hard line on this. 

As it was, Horry got suspended for two games, which was probably more than would have occurred if the two Phoenix players hadn't been suspended. The whole situation stunk.  Would have been better for the NBA to levy heavy fines for violating the leave the bench rule and let the Phoenix players play.  Or delay the suspension until after this series is over (i.e. for the next series if Phoenix advanced, or the beginning of the season if they don't).  But because they already had the inflexible penalty in place, the NBA had painted themselves in a corner (or at least thought so), and so they enforced the rule to avoid the appearance of favoritism.     

So, chalk that up to good intentions on the part of the NBA that backfired, the lack of foresight of some Phoenix players, and a frustration foul that redounded unexpectedly to the benefit of the Spurs.  Sad, but not on the level with what we have been discussing.

Although the NBA now has the gambling ref scandal . . . .