Many people think the hypocrisy is Barry Bonds suspecting McGwire and Sosa were doping it, and then he dopes it himself. Of course, that’s pure rumor and speculation, fueled by the press. I am curious to know why the press keeps comparing Barry Bonds with athletes who *did* test positive for steroid use, rather than comparing him to those who didn’t.
Take Lance Armstrong for example:
Barry is a remarkable athlete.
Lance is a remarkable athlete.
Barry set an amazing record.
Lance set an amazing record.
Barry is accused of using steroids.
Lance is accused of using steroids.
Barry did not test positive for steroids.
Lance did not test positive for steroids.
…
Barry is the nation’s whipping boy.
Lance is the nation’s hero.
Why the difference? Why defend one and roast the other? I can’t believe it’s just because of race… Is it because Barry only represents one city, and Lance represents the country? Are we really so wrapped up in “us vs. them” that “our guy” can do no wrong but “their guy” is a dirty stinking cheat? What happened to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”?
Comments
Well, since you asked…
I have no clue if Lance Armstrong doped.
I have seen Barry Bonds head grow to three times its normal size over the last 10 years.
Is that concrete evidence that Bonds was on the ‘roids?
No. But it ain’t helping his case on Main Street.
Nah… That’s just his ego getting bigger. And I realize that there’s all sorts of “suspicious” stuff about Bonds, but the French are just as adamant that Armstrong’s suspicious as hell too. I want to know why there’s a dichotomy in the way we respond to these two great athletes.
Bonus question:
If we’re paying to be entertained by baseball, does it really matter if it’s “natural” talent or drugs?