hogstuff wrote:
Jordan, I don't understand all the concerns with LA fever. ANY attention directed positively towards the sport is good. I do remember back in the late 90's a young black golfer having all the attention thrown at him too, and the other pro golfers complained about it left and right. The networks were only concerned with showing Tiger, whether he was in contention or not (which he fortunately was most of the time). What was the end result? More exposure for ALL the golfers, which meant more sponsorship opportunities, more TV revenue money and ultimately, larger payouts for the participants. So in the end, everyone won. As long as LA continues to show results, which by all indications he will, everyone wins. People will follow the sport more and good things will follow (more participation by kids, better support, (hopefully) better pay days for the pros) If as you say there are permanent effects of using PED's, then I would be curious to see just how many triathletes (both pro and AG) would be excluded from being considered 'clean'. As you said, LA never was never suspended for using PED's. And even though I am a fan of his, even I find it hard to believe he NEVER used them, ever.
But let's all hope that by having LA involved in the sport, positive things result. Perhaps it can begin at the top of our sport, with our pros.
I suppose because, fundamentally, I'm not sure I agree that "ANY attention directed positively towards the sport is good." Do the ends ALWAYS justify the means? I don't think so. But, I recognize that is a personal decision.
My sister is a doctor. She has said to me (paraphrasing), "I don't care if Lance did drugs or not. He's done great stuff for cancer." And I understand that people share that opinion. And I certainly don't want to get into a debate about whether or not LIVESTRONG has been good for cancer. My *opinion* is that, as with most large organizations, there is probably some creative accounting, but I also think it has also been an inspiration and source of good and information for many, many people. I'll leave that debate to other folks who have the time and expertise to truly dissect non-profit tax-returns. But to the larger question, I disagree with my sister. I think that if Lance's fame and success came while breaking the rules, I think that does matter. But I respect that my sister doesn't really care about niche rules applied to a bunch of guys doing a relatively niche sport that she doesn't care about. She doesn't really understand why anyone would want to race their bike around France in the first place... I do, and I suppose that's why I care.
Generally, I think that the investigation by the AUSA was unnecessary. I think the AUSA has greater obligations to society than worrying about sport. That is, in my opinion, what USADA/WADA is for. And I think that's where the investigation should stay. I'm certainly all for giving USADA/WADA more power if they need it, but I think that the CAS/WADA system is where these cases should be dealt with.
Now, I do think that positives can and will result from Lance's involvement. But I also think that there will be some downsides, just as there is with any major change, and I think Lance racing represents a major change. I just don't think change is EVER all good or all bad. There's pretty much always pluses and minuses. And I don't think that will be any different in this case. And, at least in my case, I think my OPINION is that IF (IF, IF, IF) Lance took drugs as a cyclist, I do think that should matter to people. Other folks don't. And I appreciate that it's simply opinion. I just hope we can all recognize that both opinions are valid.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
