It's Not about the Bike
So, it's been a month. I'm still around, I just haven't gotten inspired to post anything. This is probably more of a links round-up than anything else, but whatever.
Lance is in Sports Illustrated (don't know if that's a permalink, so sorry if it stops working). As usual, SI takes no interest in cycling, and in fact completely fails to try to understand it, unless there's a doping scandal involved. (When Lance won his--I think it was his fifth Tour--some SI columnist got all pissy that when he crossed the finish line on the Champs-Élysées it wasn't a huge giant deal and he didn't get it, wah, etc. etc. Anyone who actually pays attention to the Tour knows that he'd won it the day before and that the overall win is traditionally not contested in the last stage--it's like a ceremonial victory lap for the guy who's already won. It's therefore typical not to pay a lot of attention to the race leader crossing the finish line, because it's anticlimactic and not very good TV.) Anyway, SI contends that Lance used an experimental blood-replacement drug called HemAssist at some point is his career, with quotes from the usual suspects (Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy, and of course oblique references to Greg LeMond's asshole opinions).
John Leicester, in a column for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer titled "Lance Armstrong on wonder drug? Mmmmmm", is skeptical of the claims about HemAssist, since it's apparently not very effective. Tests on that category of drug have not shown an improvement in sports performance, so if nothing else, why would he have taken it if it didn't help? (This, of course, doesn't rule out him having taken other drugs, such as EPO.)
I've given my opinion on this before. I think Lance probably took PEDs, probably throughout most of his career. I think, so long as he never admits to it, no one will be able to prove it. And, in the end, I don't care. I think the quest to prove he took PEDs is pointless and will ultimately harm the sport, possibly irreparably.
And I think his legacy isn't seven Tour wins, tainted or not.
His legacy is overcoming cancer, and then going on to inspire others to overcome cancer too. Lots of others. His legacy is the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which uses 85% of its proceeds to directly fight cancer and support people living with cancer.
Two columns I read today really seemed to see this and make sense of it. Kevin Blackistone writes "Lance Armstrong's Big Win Not on Bike":When I finally reached Geoff Thomas by phone in the summer of 2005, he'd just come off Col du Galibier, the highest peak in that year's Tour de France, where he'd pedaled most of the day over 100 miles through rain, sleet, snow, plummeting temperature and gusting wind on his campaign to duplicate the feat of his hero, bicyclist Lance Armstrong.
But Thomas wasn't inspired by Armstrong's athleticism. Thomas was an athlete himself. Just a few years earlier, he'd retired from a 20-year soccer career in England where he captained Crystal Palace to the FA Cup final in 1990 and made nine appearances for the national team.
Instead, Thomas was inspired by Armstrong's best-selling testimonial, "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," written by Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins. It recounted what Armstrong went through as he was shoved to death's door by testicular cancer and then fended off the disease to not only return to the Tour de France but also to dominate it.
Thomas read the book in 2003, as he lay gravely ill with a particularly virulent strain of leukemia. Only a bone marrow donation could save him, and Thomas vowed then that if he beat cancer he'd ride the Tour route, as Armstrong had, to raise awareness about leukemia and money to fight it.
Who knows how many Thomases Armstrong has and continues to inspire? But since Armstrong started the Lance Armstrong Foundation in 1998, he's sold 70 million of what seem to be those ubiquitous yellow rubber wristbands in support of cancer awareness and research.
The millions of Thomases are Armstrong's ultimate legacy. Armstrong's seven victories on the Tour de France are, as the title of his first book suggested, footnotes by comparison.
And at CBS Sports Gregg Doyel writes "Lance's good works matter above all else, even steroids":For the sake of argument, let's say Sports Illustrated is right, and Armstrong is guilty. He did it. He swallowed steroids, he shot them, he might even have snorted them. Let's accept that as truth, but let's also acknowledge this:
It was worth it.
The world is a better place because of it.
Since 1997 the Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised $325 million for the fight against cancer. Swish that around your brain for a few seconds. Savor it like a satiated man would savor a sip of fine wine, or like a thirsty man would savor a gulp of water.
Lance Armstrong has helped save lives. And steroids made that possible.
No, the end doesn't always justify the means, but this isn't a philosophical debate on that topic. In this very specific case, if we assume the worst of Armstrong and assume that steroids fueled his rise to cycling greatness, the ends do justify the means. Even if the means were steroids.
Because the ends are not those seven consecutive Tour de France races he won.
The ends are the $325 million he has raised and the lives he has helped save.
And that's pretty much my opinion too. So what if he did it? It's only a small part of what he's done with his life. The fight against cancer is the most important part.
If you're so inspired, you can donate to the Lance Armstrong Foundation here.
Lance is in Sports Illustrated (don't know if that's a permalink, so sorry if it stops working). As usual, SI takes no interest in cycling, and in fact completely fails to try to understand it, unless there's a doping scandal involved. (When Lance won his--I think it was his fifth Tour--some SI columnist got all pissy that when he crossed the finish line on the Champs-Élysées it wasn't a huge giant deal and he didn't get it, wah, etc. etc. Anyone who actually pays attention to the Tour knows that he'd won it the day before and that the overall win is traditionally not contested in the last stage--it's like a ceremonial victory lap for the guy who's already won. It's therefore typical not to pay a lot of attention to the race leader crossing the finish line, because it's anticlimactic and not very good TV.) Anyway, SI contends that Lance used an experimental blood-replacement drug called HemAssist at some point is his career, with quotes from the usual suspects (Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy, and of course oblique references to Greg LeMond's asshole opinions).
John Leicester, in a column for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer titled "Lance Armstrong on wonder drug? Mmmmmm", is skeptical of the claims about HemAssist, since it's apparently not very effective. Tests on that category of drug have not shown an improvement in sports performance, so if nothing else, why would he have taken it if it didn't help? (This, of course, doesn't rule out him having taken other drugs, such as EPO.)
I've given my opinion on this before. I think Lance probably took PEDs, probably throughout most of his career. I think, so long as he never admits to it, no one will be able to prove it. And, in the end, I don't care. I think the quest to prove he took PEDs is pointless and will ultimately harm the sport, possibly irreparably.
And I think his legacy isn't seven Tour wins, tainted or not.
His legacy is overcoming cancer, and then going on to inspire others to overcome cancer too. Lots of others. His legacy is the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which uses 85% of its proceeds to directly fight cancer and support people living with cancer.
Two columns I read today really seemed to see this and make sense of it. Kevin Blackistone writes "Lance Armstrong's Big Win Not on Bike":When I finally reached Geoff Thomas by phone in the summer of 2005, he'd just come off Col du Galibier, the highest peak in that year's Tour de France, where he'd pedaled most of the day over 100 miles through rain, sleet, snow, plummeting temperature and gusting wind on his campaign to duplicate the feat of his hero, bicyclist Lance Armstrong.
But Thomas wasn't inspired by Armstrong's athleticism. Thomas was an athlete himself. Just a few years earlier, he'd retired from a 20-year soccer career in England where he captained Crystal Palace to the FA Cup final in 1990 and made nine appearances for the national team.
Instead, Thomas was inspired by Armstrong's best-selling testimonial, "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," written by Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins. It recounted what Armstrong went through as he was shoved to death's door by testicular cancer and then fended off the disease to not only return to the Tour de France but also to dominate it.
Thomas read the book in 2003, as he lay gravely ill with a particularly virulent strain of leukemia. Only a bone marrow donation could save him, and Thomas vowed then that if he beat cancer he'd ride the Tour route, as Armstrong had, to raise awareness about leukemia and money to fight it.
Who knows how many Thomases Armstrong has and continues to inspire? But since Armstrong started the Lance Armstrong Foundation in 1998, he's sold 70 million of what seem to be those ubiquitous yellow rubber wristbands in support of cancer awareness and research.
The millions of Thomases are Armstrong's ultimate legacy. Armstrong's seven victories on the Tour de France are, as the title of his first book suggested, footnotes by comparison.
And at CBS Sports Gregg Doyel writes "Lance's good works matter above all else, even steroids":For the sake of argument, let's say Sports Illustrated is right, and Armstrong is guilty. He did it. He swallowed steroids, he shot them, he might even have snorted them. Let's accept that as truth, but let's also acknowledge this:
It was worth it.
The world is a better place because of it.
Since 1997 the Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised $325 million for the fight against cancer. Swish that around your brain for a few seconds. Savor it like a satiated man would savor a sip of fine wine, or like a thirsty man would savor a gulp of water.
Lance Armstrong has helped save lives. And steroids made that possible.
No, the end doesn't always justify the means, but this isn't a philosophical debate on that topic. In this very specific case, if we assume the worst of Armstrong and assume that steroids fueled his rise to cycling greatness, the ends do justify the means. Even if the means were steroids.
Because the ends are not those seven consecutive Tour de France races he won.
The ends are the $325 million he has raised and the lives he has helped save.
And that's pretty much my opinion too. So what if he did it? It's only a small part of what he's done with his life. The fight against cancer is the most important part.
If you're so inspired, you can donate to the Lance Armstrong Foundation here.