« Late Summer rock recommendations or, What I've Been Listening to Incessantly at Work | Main | Dinner and Catchphrase »
July 23, 2004
The difference between Lance and Barry
On the way home from the gym this morning I heard a couple of ESPN radio talkers trying to figure out why the public has, for the most part, decided that Barry Bonds is guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs while giving Lance Armstrong a free pass on the same issue. Consider the similarities between the two titanic sports figures.
| Barry | Lance |
Will go down in history as one of best to ever play the game of baseball. | Arguably the best cyclist in the history of the sport. |
| Suspected of using performance enhancing drugs (steroids). Linked to doctors or institutions known to supply those drugs. | Suspected of using performance enhancing drugs (EPO). Linked to doctors or institutions known to supply those drugs. |
| History of crankiness with the American press. Known to shoot his mouth off and play the race card at inappropriate times. Rumors that he's not very friendly with teammates. | History of crankiness with the European press. Suing people who write bad things about him. Rumors he left his wife for Sheryl Crow (although the evidence suggests he didn't even meet Sheryl Crow until after his divorce). |
So, what is it? Patriotism? Do we give Lance a free pass because he's over there beating the hated French on their home turf? Apparently, Americans don't mind Lance's current dalliance with a known traitor and coddler of evil-doers and freedom-haters. Last time I checked, Barry wasn't associating with treasonous Hollywood liberals.
So if it's not patriotism, it must be the cancer. Armstrong's story is truly inspiring, coming back from near-death to closing in on his 6th straight Tour de France victory. It's easy to understand why people get behind him.
Is this fair to Barry Bonds? Most of Lance's press coverage focuses on his triumphs over cancer and the French, while Bonds' press, even when favorable, usually includes mention of his alleged use of steroids. Often, the focus of the story is whether or not Bonds has used performance-enhancing drugs, and whether or not he is a liar. When Armstrong's alleged doping is mentioned it is usually dismissed as an absurd accusation.
Would Barry Bonds be a more likeable guy if he was a cancer survivor?
Personally, I root for both these guys and consider them both innocent until proven guilty. It'll be exciting in a few days when Lance Armstrong wins his 6th Tour de France, and I'll be even more excited sometime next year when Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's all-time HR record. It's not that I'm rooting harder for Barry. I just like baseball quite a bit more than cycling.
Posted by Half-Cocked at July 23, 2004 06:59 AM
Comments
Nice post. I was/am planning something similar for my blog. Basically, I think Lance has WAY more evidence against him than Barry and the whole thing pisses me off.
Posted by: Soupie at July 26, 2004 10:42 PM
Thanks. I didn't bring up the whole black/white thing, either, although, as much as people want to deny it, there's probably some of that going on as well.
Posted by: Steve at July 26, 2004 10:44 PM