Lance Armstrong vs. Barry Bonds

R

RoyalTennenhorn

25+ Posts
Not sure if this is the right forum but I'm not entirely sure where else it could go either. Anyway...

Two men who dominated their respective sports at virtually the same time in eras when a number of their peers were accused of and/or caught using performance enhancing drugs. Both have been the subject of numerous allegations by former friends, employees, and journalists that they too were involved in the systematic use of these PED's; however, neither has ever tested positive.

One man is considered by many to be a hero and is returning to this year and being hailed as a savior of his sport--at least by the American media, but that's a completely different issue--while the other is widely considered to be a "cheater" and was unable to find a team willing to sign him for anything this season.

What's the difference?

Is it Lance's incredible story of surviving cancer? Is it that Lance dominated a European-dominated sport with only one prior American victor while Barry was breaking records set by heroes of an all-American sport? Is it that Barry has often been aloof and extremely unfriendly toward the media while Lance has generally been all smiles and good cheer in front of the cameras? Is it, dare I say, the color of their skin? Is it some combination of these factors or something else entirely?

I'm still trying to formulate my opinion on the matter but it's a lot harder than I thought it would be. I someone were to ask I would say with equal conviction, both, that I like Lance infinitely more than I like Barry and that I'm of the opinion that both cheated during their years of dominance. Also, having spent my early years in Europe with a cycling obsessed father, meaning I saw Tour stages long before my first trip to the Astrodome, I've always accepted that doping was rife in cycling, so much so that it was still a "level playing field", while I had a more pure impression of baseball. Finally, Lance is an Austinite and Barry, well, he ain't.

I'm still not entirely sure that I understand why I feel the way I do but I I'll let y'all know if I come up with anything...guess that's why I'm posting this on Quack's.
confused.gif
 
Bonds looks like he doped. Normally, people's bodies do not change like Barry's did without steroids. His head became larger even. Race didn't play a role. People loved him when he broke McGwire's record, just like they love McGwire when he broke Maris'. The whole sport became a joke when the steroid scandal was uncovered. McGwire went from hero to pariah. Yeah, Bonds didn't get caught, but the whole sport did. And visually, it appears that Bonds used, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. You don't hear about Griffey or A-Rod because they don't look like Triple H wearing a baseball uniform.
 
If baseball had the performance enhancing drug testing program that the TDF had, then your comparison would be valid, but baseball turned away from drug testing, while cycling has aggressively fought it.
Could Lance Armstrong have evaded every test with masking agents? It is possible, but they caught a lot of users in cycling, and they keep the samples which can be tested later as technology improves.
On the other hand, is it possible Barry Bonds did not use performance enhancing drugs? It would be a real stretch of the evidence-the guy's head ballooned up, the court testimony in the Balco case, on and on. He physically changed, and went from an average home run hitter (great in other areas, of course) to a monster power hitter overnight. Pretty hard to believe.
The only argument those accusing LA can make is this-"nobody could win against all those cheaters unless they were cheating themselves." I don't find that compelling enough to include him in the list of known dopers.
 
The visual changes to Barry aren't really relevant to my question because the PED's Lance has often been accused of using weren't steroids that would alter his muscle size, head size, etc. It seems that some of you are acknowledging that Lance might have cheated but that he gets a free pass because of all the other factors (cancer, Austin, etc.), which seems to be more where I stand. I guess, to further the question, why would we doubt the veracity of his teammates, trainers, and reporters allegations but basically accept Barry's allegations as fact. I believe if you actually look in to them a little further, you'll find that there are more allegations against Lance than there are against Barry.

And before this gets heated, let's not forget that I think we're all generally in agreement here, I'm just wondering why. Just because Barry is an ******* and Lance (apparently) isn't doesn't mean that we should only believe one set of allegations, right? Giving him a free pass because he isn't an ******* seems a lot more reasonable.
 
RT: In terms of physical changes and such regarding Bonds, the visible evidence, combined with the increase in HRs and slugging at a time when most players are declining provide some understandable evidence to the American public, which thoroughly understands baseball.

Armstrong's performances, other than winning, can't really be dissected by the American public like Bonds's performance in baseball. They can't really look at what he has done and say, yeah, he looks like he was doping.

Plus, at the end of the day, most people don't care -- I know I really don't.... If Lance was doping, it's just cycling.
 
I think the beating cancer thing definitely does have something to do with my OP, which was why we feel one way about Barry and the other way about Lance. It definitely doesn't have anything to do with whether Lance doped or any of the other issues you mentioned.
 
I better stop using steriods, my hat size has gone up two sizes since my early twenties to my late thirties. Wow I have gained about 30 pounds as well.

By the way, Griffey's hat size is larger than when he first came in the league and he is about 30 pounds heavier too.
 
Ego is usually a common denominator with these top tier athletes - we could just as easily create a new thread called "Lance Armstrong vs. Roger Clemens".
 
Lance is an ******* who beat cancer, and raises millions of dollars so that others can also beat cancer. Bonds is just an *******.
 
My understanding is that Bonds used the phrase, "I never knowlingly used steroids." In other words, he was given whatever he was given by Greg Anderson and did a no ask no tell. I am pretty sure that Conte told prosecuters exactly what the clear and the cream were and that they were steroids.

It also took me about 2 seconds to find an article that shows that Bonds HAD TESTED POSITIVE.

The Link

Do you want to dispute this? Sure, you can take the word of Greg Anderson and Conte if you want. I just don't think the feds would lie to bring a case against him.

Lance Armstrong has been around people who have been shown to have used or distributed steroids. I don't know how you can cycle and not. I am not going to say that Lance has never used steroids or doped, but he never had tested positive for them. So if he has he is reallygood at hiding it.
 
Lance also seems to attack the people who accuse him with verocity and disputes them immediately. I believe he follows that up with some sort of court action.

Bonds on the other hand seems to do nothing. But I must come clean. I was a Pirates fan as a kid and still have not forgiven Bonds and Bonilla for choking 3 straight years against the Braves.
 
it wouldn't surprise me if lance did some things in the off season, but it is really difficult to get away with doping in cycling. of course guys do it. they still wouldn't be trying it, if there weren't folks getting away with it. then, you think about the length of his career and the amount of tests he has taken. i think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. and a lot of this accusations may have been sour grapes.

there are lots of steroids that help cyclists, but all are easily detectable by the anti doping agency. that have some VERY sophisticated tests. i think it is a bit harder for some of the other things i think (like blood doping), but testing for anabolic steroids is a difficult test, but one the they are good at. see floyd landis. that is a whole nother post though.

bonds is a totally different animal. there is a lot of documentation on bonds stuff from some pretty credible sources. not to mention the physical differences. he may not have failed any tests (not sure if that is true), but do we even know tested by a credible test? plus is seems he was doing HGH, which could not even be tested for at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top