On March 2nd, one of the ditzy San Francisco Chronicle columnists wrote a totally incorrect op-ed about Lance, cycling and drugs. Lance responded in yesterday’s Chronicle. Both columns are below.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/02/SPGOI5C0RH1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/21/SPG6O5ONH21.DTL
“I suppose I could just sit back and say nothing when I’m attacked like this. Life is short, and I know that from my own personal experience. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that I am the most tested athlete on this planet, I have never had a single positive doping test, and I do not take performance-enhancing drugs.”
What will the Lance nay-sayers, say now???..I can hear it…“but, he hasn’t said, I’ve never taken PEDs!!!”
Thanks CLM!
‘What will the Lance nay-sayers, say now???..I can hear it…“but, he hasn’t said, I’ve never taken PEDs!!!”’
They don’t have to, you have said it for them.
"They don’t have to, you have said it for them. "
The thing is, he can’t say that more than likely, because it is/was part of his Chemotherapy…He doesn’t want to fall into that trap either, I’d suspect.
Yeah my wife is a real edurance cheat too. She took some of that banned EPO during chemo. Shame on her.
Wow, that chick is just flat out stupid.
Unfortunately, you will probably never see her apologize, or give another opinion after actually doing a little research on the topic - if she ever bothers to do any research.
Some jounalists only care about getting THEIR names talked about.
-TxDude
What i think is funny is how some of this seems to be a clash between a USA-centric veiwpoint (the original author), and a more worldly view. She said no government investigates doping in cycling, citing the fact that the US really doesnt. Of course she totally ignores all of europe that seems to collects everything that comes out of a cyclists body and test it. I also thought it was funny when she talked about Lance’s recovery and win of the Tdf. For some reason everyone in america seems to think lance never had a career before cancer, when in fact he had a great one, i guess its more heroic if he rose like a phoenix from the flames of cancer.
Art: Your post made me giggle. Ya. It must of been that damned EPO - did they give that to him before, or after they chopped off his testicle?
But in the end…Lance is no Greg Lemond…dont forget, Greg won the TdF with some extra buck shot in his heart. Greg also won more than just the TdF. As far as I am concerned Tyler Hamilton won last years TdF…
(Chip blows on the flames and giggles)
It’s always a somewhat confusing situation.
In my heart of hearts I truley believe what Armstrong says. He seems very earnest and genuine. I am not implicating Armstrong at all here, but in the back of my mind, I also know that many drug takers in sport will deny everything forever - right to their death. And the more high profile they are, the stronger the denials seem to be.
On the other side one would think/hope that a positive test is a positive test - well, no, not exactly as there have been known to be false positives or at least questionable findings or procedures followed.
So in the end, who are we to believe.
I had just commented to a colleague today concerning the state of editorial writing in this country. The impetus for that remark came from a weekend political oped piece. It seems as though all that one requires to become a printed editorialist is a bit of ignorance and access to a google search. I could have written Gwen Knapp’s editorial by simply typing “Lance Armstrong Doping” into Google and then doing a quick bit of cut and paste of the headlines it gave me. Ms. Knapp’s extremely shallow grasp of her subject matter glares through each and every “fact” and “innuendo” of her awfully written drivel. She displays a distinctly parochial view of her golden-gated world. Alas, the error belongs not only to her, but the legion of “newsmakers” parading as reporters.
As noted by a slightly more famous San Franciscan, this phenomenon is nothing new: “Who write the dramatic critiques for the second-rate papers? Why, a parcel of promoted shoemakers and apprentice apothecaries, who know just as much about good acting as I do about good farming and no more. Who review the books? People who never wrote one. Who do up the heavy leaders on finance? Parties who have had the largest opportunities for knowing nothing about it. Who criticise the Indian campaigns? Gentlemen who do not know a war-whoop from a wigwam, and who never have had to run a foot race with a tomahawk, or pluck arrows out of the several members of their families to build the evening camp-fire with. Who write the temperance appeals, and clamor about the flowing bowl? Folks who will never draw another sober breath till they do it in the grave.” wrote Mark Twain in "How I edited an agricultural paper.
Well in Baseball, you can submit to testing voluntarily!
So we got that goin’ for us. Which is nice…
Unfortunately, you will probably never see her apologize, or give another opinion after actually doing a little research on the topic - if she ever bothers to do any research.
But I believe that, contrary to what he claims in his letter, Armstrong is not the youngest world road racing champion ever, nor is/was he the youngest TdF stage winner. Which he would realise had he done some research:
Karel Kaers became world champion at 20, and at the age Armstrong won his first TdF stage, René Vietto had already won six of them and Henri Cornet won his first and only stage at 19.
Sorta makes his credibility a little shoddy…
Ken Lehner
Big hitter the Lama.
Cathy-
Was it you who wrote some time ago that your dad is a retired US Postal Service worker? I think you also wrote a bit on the USPS’ receipt of federal money (or lack thereof.) Or am I totally confused?
If it was you, would you mind reminding me of how little money the USPS gets from the US government? I like silencing critics’ arguments that the US government subsidizes a bike team…
Thanks!
Cathy,
Thanks for bringing this op-ed piece and Lance’s response to our attention. You do a GREAT JOB helping to keep us better informed.
Apolack1,
In Lance’s books, he mentions that whenever he is in the US he frequently is tested by the US Doping Agency. I think it is an arm of the USOC. He tells mostly of instances where he is requested to provide a sample, at the most inopportune times, like when he and his ex-wife were going out the door on the way to the hospital when she was in labor. He also pointed out that failure to provide a sample within the time limit, I think the time limit mentioned was 30 minutes, resulted in an automatic suspension. So I think you were too forgiving of this editorial writer. Had she done any research on drug testing in the US, she would have realized just how ignorant her statement indicates she is.
Art,
Sorry to hear you and your wife went through the ordeal with cancer. I hope she is doing well now.
My wife also went through chemotherapy. She managed to get through the treatments without EPO, though she had to have two treatments postponed because her blood count was too low. We joke now that she was preserving her athletic integrity by not using this drug. She has yet to ride more than 500 miles in a season so you can tell how “important” it was to protect her athletic integrity by not using EPO. She’s been cancer free for more than 4 years now.
Lastly, I think we all would probably agree that Lance is a master tactician besides being a great athlete. This means he studies and tries to understand his adversaries and the obstacles(race courses) to discover the critical sections and times when to take advantage of his athletic ability. He has accumulated a lifetime of cycling achievements and he is still not finished. This also carries with it the burden and likelihood that he will come under more scrutiny than others who don’t accomplish as much or do so well. After being such a great tactician, does anyone think he is really so “stupid” to risk it all by using performance enhancing drugs and risk getting caught by testing or someone else “confessing” that Lance used these substances with them or their assistance?
If you have followed track and field this last year, you are aware of all the athletes who have tested positive for a new designer steroid that was engineered in California (Cathy). It was supposed to be ahead of the testing curve and "couldn’t be detected. Well, someone tattled on this steroid and its components? and the testing agency went back and re-tested everyone’s multiple sample and lo and behold, there were a lot of athletes who appeared to be cheating. Now records are being rescinded, medals are being stripped from competitors and suspensions are being imposed during an Olympic year. Now granted, many of these athletes were in strength events and the TDF is more of an endurance event. Aside, is there an inverse relationship between muscle mass and intelligence? Just one instance of testing positive would poison the legacy of any supposed “great” athlete. Look at Barry Bonds and baseball. Many believe he had to be on steroids to hit so many home runs when other equally great baseball players never came close before. Now with the advent of testing in baseball, he is not having such great seasons (home run production) as before. Is there a connection? Who can say unequivically, but the question is raised none the less and his recent “slump” leads to speculation. Or is he just baseball’s version of Lance. A clean athlete who is suspected of drug use because his accomplishments are so great that others can’t admit or believe they could be achieved without drugs? Here is the paradox.
I have to believe Lance is too intelligent to try to play the game of using performance enhancing drugs and not get caught. He has far too much to lose and, really, nothing to gain. For, I believe, he has accomplished all that he has achieved without drugs. He has been a “standout” athlete ever since he was a child. Why would he need performance enhancing drugs? His character flaw seems to be proving, through competition, to everyone that he is the better athlete. Its almost as if his challenge is, “Go ahead, take whatever performance enhancing drug you choose, and if you manage not to get caught by testing, I’ll still beat you!”
In my book, Lance is clean until proven otherwise and it doesn’t even have anything to do with the presumption of innocence. Its the presumption of intelligence and his will to overcome any and all obstacles that stand in the way of what he wants to accomplish. You might say Lance is driven. I think it has a lot to do with his formative years and his genes The combination of the two create an unusually gifted competitor.