Europeans consider drug use in cycling the way Americans do drug use in football—as an essential, if unseemly, part of what makes the game possible. Just as no one cares what boost some middle linebacker needs to get through 16 Sundays of demolition derby, cycling devotees across the pond acknowledge that riding thousands of kilometers, over mountain ranges, at top speed over three weeks simply isn’t humanly possible without some artificial help. Yet Armstrong’s dominance, combined with his “Go ahead, test me all you want!” cockiness, drove the French crazy. The fact that at least an element of Armstrong’s popularity in the US was tinged with the glee of sticking it to those hated cheese-eating surrender monkeys didn’t help their mindset.
So while the hordes at Le E’quipe and Le Monde, and Pierre Ballester and David Walsh, the authors of L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong, an accusatory book published in 2004 about Armstrong’s alleged drug use, were spot on, they nevertheless look a little silly for devoting so much energy to shaming Armstrong while shrugging off the drug use of the rest of the field.
The takeaway from the entire sordid episode? There are few winners to be found.
Fast breaks
As college football season continues apace, take a moment to pick up that rarity: a solid novel about the sport. Inman Majors has written a comic takedown of the sports circus atmosphere in Love’s Winning Plays, which tracks the over-the-top boosterism that surrounds campus pigskin. Majors knows whereof he writes—his uncle is former Pitt and Tennessee coach Johnny Majors, one of the more successful college coaches of recent vintage. Readers will notice similarities to other characters that populate the collegiate landscape, in particular those who hang out in the Southeastern Conference, the Alpha and Omega of big-time college football, for better and for worse. Majors’ book gives fans a reason to smile, even after their school has just been accused of NCAA violations.
- 1
- 2
I think that the UCI is making Lance Armstrong a scapegoat for their problems. They could have contested the USADA findings because there was no concrete evidence that he cheated. In addition, the USADA violated their own 8-year statue of limitations policy since they didn't have the power to remove his Tour De France titles up to 2004. The USADA job is to enforce their policies based on the here and now. Not go back in time to enforce a ban on a person who has not tested positive for illegal drugs. And especially at a time when the USADA was establish one year after Armstrong's first title. I don't recall them having a say on what goes on with the Tour De France. Sooner or later, the USADA and it's CEO will be investigated for their handling on this matter as it violated their own guidelines. One agency doesn't have to power to convict someone based on hearsay without physical evidence..
#1 Posted by Dan Legue, CJR on Fri 26 Oct 2012 at 03:04 PM
I agree with Mr Weintraub's point about Outside's hagiographic treatment of Armstrong. In fact, Outside has compiled its coverage on Armstrong over the years. (Outside cites 24 pieces, most of which make the point.)
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/In-Our-Own-Words-A-History-of-Outsides-Lance-Armstrong-Coverage.html#gallery-photo-25
Disregarding any biases it might have had for doing so, Outside did run a comprehensive piece on USADA's investigation of Armstrong that looked at the points Mr Legue raises
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/politics/Big-Fish.html
Both sides were involved in a high-stakes battle in which they both felt justified pushing the boundaries. All the more reason journalists need to bring a neutral perspective to the keyboard.
#2 Posted by Mark, CJR on Fri 26 Oct 2012 at 09:09 PM
As an American who has lived in France and followed bicycle racing for three decades, I am dismayed to read this glib and uninformed commentary. (Anybody who calls Lance Armstrong the greatest rider ever --- other than the Tour de France, he won one world championship, one Tour of Switzerland, one classic, in San Sebastian, Spain, and a handful of other races --- knows nothing about the sport and a rider like Eddy Merckx, who won more than 450 races, including all the grand Tours, and is always reckoned as the greatest ever. So I suspect the writer's credentials. But more so I quarrel with his point that the doping allegations were ignored in Europe. No. They were pursued for years, but never substantiated. Until the USADA investigation, other riders would not talk. Without evidence, reporters did the best they could. Some did this better than others, true, but to imply that there was a coverup --- that word "ignore" --- is a vile slander. It was not laziness or dishonesty in play here, but the laws of evidence. Insinuation, as in the writer's criticism of Sally Jenkins, is a weak substitute for fact.
#3 Posted by honest abe, CJR on Sat 27 Oct 2012 at 12:55 PM
I am a frenchman and I think that M. Armstrong is passing a moment of his life very very bad. Whatever happened, the man must to be supported and by the way leaved alone for a while. He cheats ? So what how many before him who provocated deaths and live happy in they ranch ?
#4 Posted by Paul Henri, CJR on Sat 27 Oct 2012 at 08:10 PM