Lance Armstrong is having a bad tour. It happens. He's old. His team isn't as strong as it used to be. But mostly he's past it. "Athletes die twice" is a cliche but it's also brutal truth.
What is fascinating to me at this point is that the cheating allegations, many from questionable sources, are getting worse. For a long time I thought Armstrong might not be doping. My friend that did some competitive lower-division cycling in France scoffed at my naivete. He told me flat out that his friends that were moving up to the elite-level ranks were all doping, and that even the winning riders at the lower level were doing the minor-league equivalent of whatever doping drugs were available. It was impossible to compete without it. I had no firsthand knowledge so I gave Armstrong the benefit of the doubt. Now? Not so much.
Steven Leavitt weighs in and asks, how is it possible that all these teams were cheating and Armstrong managed to beat them all? Because there is a direct correlation between doping and improved performance in cycling. If you take the drugs, you go faster, recover better, etc. Somehow Armstrong managed to crush all these guys for SEVEN YEARS and he did it without doping? Does he know something they don't? I doubt that.
More likely: Armstrong dominated by combining his iron will and discipline with the latest doping programs. Sort of like Barry Bonds did when he was on the juice. Both athletes were already world-class, but the added benefit of the drugs pushed them to new heights of performance. Barry Bonds with his 1.438 OPS (!!!!!!), and Armstrong with his 7 tour wins.
I don't much care if Armstrong took drugs or not. The point of a race is to go as fast as you can. If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. He put himself at great physical risk, and maybe some kid somewhere will be surprised when the evidence for Armstrong's doping becomes irrefutable. (The same kid was probably bummed when he found out about Santa Claus.) On the other hand, winning all those tours made him one of the most famous people in the country, and one of the world's most famous cyclists. People have done far worse for quite a lot less.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
1) Its not cheating if you get away with it. I took this attitude while teaching, if you are clever enough to get away with cheating well then you are at least a smart as those who studied, so in the end well who cares? People who cheat on one test or a few things are idiots. The risk is not worth the reward and they will fail eventually. But if they are dedicated passionate cheaters that are not caught well that is talent, and should be rewarded.
2) have you read "It's Not About the Bike"? Granted its from his perspective but it make a compelling case that he did it without doping.
Post a Comment