Lance stays Armstrong

Embedded image permalinkGood morning. I had a look to the infos and it seems I was right to go to bed early.  
Not only for the obvious reason that it makes no difference for me - like for you - to know last night or now what that man said because there is nothing I - and you - can do, no useful  immediate reaction. 
Not only because it's a shame that a person involved in criminal activities - doping but moreover bullying and abuse - makes audience in a tv show instead that testify in a court.  
But also because... he said nothing special! ok: there is 'part two'... Normally if in a recorded show somebody say something relevant for the justice, police acquire it and can also stop the transmission to protect the investigation. In a live event that isn't possible but in ar ecorded show it is. So let me tell that probably there isn't anything special also in part two.
I find really annoying all that hysteria. I have never liked nor supported Armstrong, I'm of course happy that a liar has been unmasked and sympathetic with the honest people he bullyed. However I'm surprised that so many people 'believed' he was absolutely clean when being in cycling at that time you knew what was going on. You knew that doping was a reality, that some riders were doping and some other weren't. There was plenty of stories by ex riders who couldn't or didn't want to become pros just because of that but who kept training or seeing with mates who had done a different choice. I really don't understand how cycling reporters, commentators and journalists could ignore the reality and diffusion of doping in that era of cycling. Earlier it was even allowed and a champion like Anquetil used to say - more or less -: "We would go nowhere without chemistry". CONI and Italian Public Health considered blood transfusions so good and natural in Conconi's time that treatment was refunded. Till when Operacion Puerto blasted people like Conconi, Ferrari or Fuentes - and many others - were reputated as famous and respectable sport doctors, well payed and well frequented. Francesco Moser during last Tour de France said he didn't agree with Pozzato's bann because "Mr. Ferrari is a good friends of many good people, me included". 
All that hysteria comes maybe from a deep hypocrisy or in the better case from a frustrated moralism. So when I read - via Shane Stokes - that "Cavendish tells journo to 'f** off' repeatedly after asking about Armstrong " and then Cavendish's reply: "Is it possible to comment on an interview that's not seen yet? It's still as hard after the 100th time of asking. What am I supposed to say? " I must agree with Cavendish and -  like I wrote him - avoiding vulgarities is always better but I perfectly understand you - not only 'you' - are FED UP. Races are coming thx god! 
What are riders supposed to say indead? you already asked them many and many times since the begining of the LA case and before at each doping case. You asked them aggresively as if they were also doping and you know. You commented their answers aggressively or sarcastically: they are always wrong. So don't complain now if somebody lost his temper. And remember that riders are not pr, not people used to diplomacy or hypocrisy: they ride a bike as a job. That doesn't make of them a bunch of dopers or liars. In add you insist LA case is actual but when Andy Schleck - not the youngest in the peloton - became a pro LA was retiring. For a racer it's a life ago, not their own life. 
Doping has been convenient for a political and economic mafia at that time so it was allowed in spite it's dangerous for riders' health. But who cares about riders? also now, who? money count. Cycling isn't a separed world. Things changed, doping became improper, sponsors prefer now to be associated to a clean sport than to an amazing performance, money still count - see all the Breaking League saga - but mantality is different, fortunately. Riders now find in the peloton a different mood, have a different mind and ask respect. I think medicalization is still very popular but doping isn't. I have got my infos and you have got yours. 
So what did LA said? I see via Anthony McCrossan: "There we go then. The admission. He doped from the mid 90s.[...] He says bio passport worked and did not dope in his comeback. Last doped in 2005. Theres the explanation for the comeback.[...] Now he admits that the Emma_OReilly story was true. And admits bullying her." That's all. In  Andrew Hood's words "LA's mea culpa made for good TV, but didn't provide anything new, just publicly admitted to the obvious, b/c he had no other choice" and very appropriately Reno van Dael links to Betsy Andreu on CNN "Wow indeed.. goosebumps RT : Betsy Andreu on CNN. Wow.
Can we move on? I'd like all that shit over for Lousiville and TDU thx :)
Embedded image permalink

No comments: