The Difference Between Armstrong and Bonds

Philip Hersh, the Chicago Tribune’s figure skating and cycling expert, offers this cogent analysis about the doping allegations surrounding two of America’s most famous athletes:

That Armstrong beat cancer and is helping others try to do the same is admirable. Yet it should be no better defense against wide-ranging accusations that he used performance-enhancing drugs than the fact he had only one confirmed positive drug test, for a banned corticosteroid (his use of the substance, a pain reliever, was allowed by a medical exemption allegedly written after the doping control).

It is too easy to beat doping controls with undetectable drugs or masking agents. That makes it unfortunately impossible for clean athletes to prove they are clean and allows cheaters to do so with relative impunity.

How much different is Armstrong's case from that of Barry Bonds? There is no smoking gun in either, yet enough smoke in both to suggest there is a fire. But the U.S. public clearly does not see them the same way, because of the cancer and an irrational feeling that the French hate Americans, especially Armstrong.

Three weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times did an exhaustive story based on testimony under oath from arbitration hearings involving Armstrong and a company that did not want to pay him a contractual bonus because of suspicions he had doped. The case was settled in Armstrong's favor before a ruling was issued.

Some of the testimony, from an Australian researcher, supported the likelihood, as a French paper reported last year, that Armstrong had used the banned oxygen-booster EPO in the 1999 Tour. Former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, gave testimony that Armstrong admitted in 1996 to use of a number of banned drugs. Armstrong denied it all, also under oath. Neither his denials nor any of the evidence against him is conclusive.

Yet readers of the Los Angeles Times plainly have drawn their own conclusions, as reflected in angry letters to the editor, such as one that began, "The front-page story about doping allegations against Armstrong is a disgrace."

Consider also Sports Illustrated. One week in May, the magazine's cover subject was Armstrong, lauding his fight against cancer with no mention of the suspicions trailing his career. The next week, the cover was Bonds and "The Long, Strange Trip to 715*," the asterisk emphasizing suspicions surrounding him that were fully spelled out in the story.

The difference between Armstrong and Bonds? One is seen as a selfless saint and the other a surly sinner.

So the public will buy without reservations Armstrong's statement that he has been cleared by the results of a recent investigation by an allegedly independent investigator, even if the truth is the investigator was far from independent and his investigation far from complete.

But the public thankfully is skeptical over Bonds' assertion that he thought his trainer was giving him flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm rather than what other evidence suggests were steroids and other strength enhancers.

One thing Hersh doesn’t mention is the media’s role in why one guy is a “selfless saint” and the other a “surly sinner.” Journamalists approve of Armstrong, and treat him like the saint they’ve made him. They certainly don’t approve of Bonds, and take every opportunity to paint him in a negative light.

For a fine example, note Hersh’s use of the word “thankfully.” Why is he “thankful” that Bonds is the Professor Moriarty of MLB’s steroid program? Does he want Bonds to be exposed as a cheat, to face jail time?

If Armstrong is spewing “enough smoke to suggest a fire, why isn’t Hersh just as outraged about Armstrong’s alleged doping? Are cycling’s records not as “hallowed” as MLB’s home run marks? Or is it just easier to stick to the accepted script?

Just asking…