Barry Bonds & Lance Armstrong

volinasheville · 06-24-2006, 01:22 PM

I need help from the VolNation on this. Neither Bonds nor Armstrong have ever (that we know about) tested positive for any drugs that would DQ them from their respective sports yet both have been dogged relentlessly by rumor and innuendo concerning their use of these drugs. Why is it that public sentiment tends to defend Armstrong and yet assume Bonds is guilty?

**hatvol96** · 06-24-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (volinasheville @ Jun 24, 2006 1:22 PM)

I need help from the VolNation on this. Neither Bonds nor Armstrong have ever (that we know about) tested positive for any drugs that would DQ them from their respective sports yet both have been dogged relentlessly by rumor and innuendo concerning their use of these drugs. Why is it that public sentiment tends to defend Armstrong and yet assume Bonds is guilty?

It's as obvious as the skin on their bones.

therealUT · 06-24-2006, 01:46 PM

I would say it is because Armstrong makes the effort towards the public to be amicable. If you use the race card concerning this issue, then you would have to find an extraordinary reason why the public got behind Sosa prior to the corked bat incident (in which the public could no longer deny it that Sosa was most likely a cheater.)

If I may, I would like to expound on the absurdity of the race card argument.

Take basketball, for example. America, as a whole, embraced and fell in love with Michael Jordan. Yet, that love has never been there for Kobe Bryant. Also, Jordan began his career in a time in which there was probably more rascist sentiment in America (as the further we get away from 1964, the more people we lose from an Era in which racism was not only acceptable but legally enforced.) The reason for the admiration of Jordan and the nastiness towards Kobe (and this sentiment existed long before the rape allegations and the Shaq falling out,) is that Jordan was a more charasmatic figure.

**hatvol96** · 06-24-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (therealUT @ Jun 24, 2006 1:46 PM)

I would say it is because Armstrong makes the effort towards the public to be amicable. If you use the race card concerning this issue, then you would have to find an extraordinary reason why the public got behind Sosa prior to the corked bat incident (in which the public could no longer deny it that Sosa was most likely a cheater.)

Other than Cub fans, I don't remember any great outpouring of support. I was at a Reds-Cubs game at GAB shortly after Sosa returned from his suspension and he was booed incessantly. I will agree that their respective personalities do play a role in how Armstrong and Bods are viewed. However, I stand by my earlier post as to what is the main variable.

volinasheville · 06-24-2006, 01:53 PM

I tend to agree with Hat that race has to be a part of it but I do believe Barry is not a sympathetic character either.

I don't know that McGwire would get much love now either though and there was a time when he was king for many people.

therealUT · 06-24-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (hatvol96 @ Jun 24, 2006 1:50 PM)

Other than Cub fans, I don't remember any great outpouring of support. I was at a Reds-Cubs game at GAB shortly after Sosa returned from his suspension and he was booed incessantly. I will agree that their respective personalities do play a role in how Armstrong and Bods are viewed. However, I stand by my earlier post as to what is the main variable.

In my defense, I did make it clear that sentiments changed post corked bat incident.

**hatvol96** · 06-24-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (therealUT @ Jun 24, 2006 1:53 PM)

In my defense, I did make it clear that sentiments changed post corked bat incident.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Sosa and McGwire both got a free ride because nobody wanted to talk about the elephant in the corner in '98. Once people removed their heads from the sand, the popularity of both guys began to wane.

**volinbham** · 06-24-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (hatvol96 @ Jun 24, 2006 12:43 PM)

It's as obvious as the skin on their bones.

Speak for yourself. Race is an easy scapegoat but the reasons are likely much more deep and complex.

Possible explanations:

1) Cycling is a relatively more obscure sport - other than Lance Armstrong many no very little about cycling or what's invovled.

2) Bonds changed dramatically in size and power while Lance Armstrong has not.

3) Cycling has much more rigorous testing procedures which LA has passed consistently. Baseball has been very lax.

4) Etc.........

**jakez4ut** · 06-24-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (volinbham @ Jun 24, 2006 4:27 PM)

Speak for yourself. Race is an easy scapegoat but the reasons are likely much more deep and complex.

Possible explanations:

1) Cycling is a relatively more obscure sport - other than Lance Armstrong many no very little about cycling or what's invovled.

2) Bonds changed dramatically in size and power while Lance Armstrong has not.

3) Cycling has much more rigorous testing procedures which LA has passed consistently. Baseball has been very lax.

4) Etc.........

All true...

but after reading this thread, it is clear that the general public is probably as divided on why as these opinions...the truth is that there are people out there, still, that will accuse Bonds simply because he's black. they are the same people that hoped he'd never catch Babe Ruth's HR mark.

There is also a big segment of people, like me, that just think he's an a$$, and when you do look at his production as he's gotten much, much older, and the difference in body type as he's gotten older, that lends me to believe that he took, is taking, something.

Lance gets more of pass, probably because of reasons 1 & 3 above....plus, not that many people care...at least as long as it's proven untrue or you don't live in France, that is.

McGwire has taken a big time PR hit since his time on the Hill...i was in St. Louis not too long ago, and i was talking about that very thing with a guy i work with there, and he said that basically, the community had no further use for him. Not that he was ostrisized or anything, but that his popularity was at an all time low.

as a Cubs fan, i was a big Sosa fan....and as time has gone on, the corked bat, possible use of steroids etc...he's taken a hit as well, but not as much as MacGwire and Bonds..probably because he got of of CHI and retired...and wasn't a factor his last year in CHI....which was 04 right? played in Baltimore last year, and is now retired if memory serves.

**hatvol96** · 06-24-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (jakez4ut @ Jun 24, 2006 8:44 PM)

All true...

but after reading this thread, it is clear that the general public is probably as divided on why as these opinions...the truth is that there are people out there, still, that will accuse Bonds simply because he's black. they are the same people that hoped he'd never catch Babe Ruth's HR mark.

There is also a big segment of people, like me, that just think he's an a$$, and when you do look at his production as he's gotten much, much older, and the difference in body type as he's gotten older, that lends me to believe that he took, is taking, something.

Lance gets more of pass, probably because of reasons 1 & 3 above....plus, not that many people care...at least as long as it's proven untrue or you don't live in France, that is.

McGwire has taken a big time PR hit since his time on the Hill...i was in St. Louis not too long ago, and i was talking about that very thing with a guy i work with there, and he said that basically, the community had no further use for him. Not that he was ostrisized or anything, but that his popularity was at an all time low.

as a Cubs fan, i was a big Sosa fan....and as time has gone on, the corked bat, possible use of steroids etc...he's taken a hit as well, but not as much as MacGwire and Bonds..probably because he got of of CHI and retired...and wasn't a factor his last year in CHI....which was 04 right? played in Baltimore last year, and is now retired if memory serves.

Didn't Armstrong get better with age, even after cancer?

**jakez4ut** · 06-24-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (hatvol96 @ Jun 24, 2006 8:48 PM)

Didn't Armstrong get better with age, even after cancer?

yes he did....and for that he's a "hero" and "inspiration" to us all....good PR vs. bad PR....doesn't mean he didn't dope, but his story and personality, still much better accepted to most people, unless you live in France, again....

**volinbham** · 06-24-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (hatvol96 @ Jun 24, 2006 7:48 PM)

Didn't Armstrong get better with age, even after cancer?

This is true for most cyclists. Younger cyclists are typically the workhorses on a team rather than contenders. Nothing in the timing of Armstrong's career suggests an unusual change in physical condition.

therealUT · 06-24-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by (hatvol96 @ Jun 24, 2006 8:48 PM)

Didn't Armstrong get better with age, even after cancer?

Lance Armstong, born 1971.

Barry Bonds, born 1964.

Lance won his last Tour when he was 33 and is retired. Bonds hit over 70 homeruns when he was 37.

Your argument completely fails there, Hat.

**hatvol96** · 06-24-2006, 08:56 PM

Even Armstrong himself has stated on many occasions that the sophistication of the drug testing in cycling is woefully inadequate. Acting like they had some foolproof system is just another way the Livestrong crowd shills for their icon. He and Barry Bonds have failed exactly the same number of drug tests. Armstrong gets a pass because he has some sob story to tell and the Oprah culture eats that dreck up.

therealUT · 06-24-2006, 09:03 PM

Armstrong gets a pass because he is friendly to the media.

Not everything is about race. Bonds is a jerk, so the public lets him have it. You gonna tell us that Albert Belle got a bad rap because he was black, too?