Most of you probably heard the news about Lance Armstrong. The French sports newspaper L’Equipe says they have proof that he used epo in 1999.
Former Tour champion Miguel Indurain had to say this about the affair:
“They have been out to get him in France for a number of years”
It makes sense, but i’m not sure. What you must understand is that L’Equipe is just not another magazine. L’Equipe has been organizing the Tour de France for ages and maybe they still play a big role in the event.
Remember my last post about Armstrong last tour win, where i whined that he should go on untill he finally was beaten? I think that if Armstrong would have lost, this affair wouldn’t have surfaced. No one is bigger than the Tour.
Cycling is a sport for schmucks, for losers. Every cyclist loses in the end. It is what makes this game so interesting and muse for prose. Armstrong broke that cardinal rule. He stepped off his bike victorious. Good for him, but it takes away some of the magic of the sport and especially the main event of that sport. My guess is they trying to undo the damage by discrediting his winnings. And i think the fact that he is American is also playing a role.
Personally, i don’t care if Armstrong did or didn’t do dope. Cycling is an insane sport and the Tour is the pinnacle of insanity. That is why we all love to watch it. Imagine if there weren’t so many mountains in the tour or the average speed wasn’t so insanely high, would you be interested to watch it?
In an insane sport, athletes will use insane measures to be able to compete. And if it is true that Armstrong was not different in that, maybe we should question the sport itself and ourselves for watching it.
But someone who barely survived cancer, is willing to poison himself? I find it hard to believe.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: None
Related Posts
- 28.07.08: Cemetery pictures (1)
- 03.11.08: Tomahawk - Song of Victory (2)
- 04.08.08: cars-planes-gardens (0)
- 17.07.08: Hey Conny, (3)
- 14.01.08: FeedDemon 2.6.0.20 is gratis! (0)
Comments
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005 at 9:47 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
These are some of the most measured and sensible comments I’ve read/heard on the issue. Some comments:
1) Indurain’s words are irrelevant; he’s out to discredit retrospective testing to protect his own legacy, and that of friends and colleagues, from the taint of drugs.
2) Professional cycling is indeed crazy, and it’s impossible to succeed to any degree in a grand tour without doping. I’d suggest that Armstrong was using something more than EPO however, and thus was different from the broader mass of pro riders.
3) The cancer question is interesting. Doctors have suggested that Armstrong is no more likely to develop cancer than the average person, so that argues against the notion that Lance doesn’t want to hurt his body. So does the oft-documented fact that Armstrong’s desire to live in the present, to take chances today and “do it to the max” has increased since his recovery. Maybe he thought: “Hey, I could die tomorrow, why not take a risk and see if I can get away with it.” Of course, that’s just petty psychological speculation, but so is the opposing view.
Thank you for your insightful comments. I think that you are right about Armstrong’s perception regarding his health and life. It really could go either way.
i’m starting to question the anger towards sports doping in general. does it really matter? who is it hurting? are kids really going to jump in and do it? isn’t it simply the price athletes pay for being rich? couldn’t any of us do it who had a modicum of talent, thus insuring riches and fame? it certainly doesn’t hurt the games themselves, not the watching of them anyway.