Landis coverage & Tennessee whiskey
The Floyd Landis positive test result has really taken over the sports media. I have been surprised to see that ESPN.com has had the most extensive and comprehensive coverage. The usual bicycle news sites are being left behind at a time when you'd think all resources would be devoted to covering this international story.
It has even received considerable coverage on the television screen and radio airwaves. I have seen only one boneheaded review and commentary earlier today on ESPN2. It was a female host of a daytime show on the sports network where personal opinion is dished out. Essentially she was taking the A sample as a definite cheating result and completely writing off the sport of cycling. She said cycling was a fringe sport that now everyone in the US will ignore and write off, and instead go back to following wrestling. It was said with such smug ignorance that only the least experienced and least skilled host would say it.
On Sunday when Floyd won the Tour I remember checking out ESPN several times throughout the day to see what kind of coverage he'd receive. Well, it was all Tiger Woods all day long after he won the British Open for the second year in a row. All attention was given to Tiger with only a couple of short instances of smaller web space given to Floyd's victory. It was quite disappointing actually, but ESPN is making up for their previous shortcomings now tenfold.
See the main ESPN Floyd Landis article with all other related articles. Now located on this link you can view videos of John Eustice and Greg Lemond with their opinions of what's happened.
Another thought, I must be honest here, and that is I am getting a little tired of hearing any opinions from Greg Lemond. He has never had to face the same scrutiny that riders of today have to face. He has become way too judgmental without concrete evidence, although at the moment he hasn't completely jumped on Floyd negatively. Greg is the Babe Ruth of American cycling, the pioneer, but has there been any due diligence into his history to prove he didn't do any performance enhancing drugs?
You can also listen to Floyd's press conference today. It's a 24 minute press conference that starts with him making a statement before answering questions from reporters. All he asks for is, "that I be given a chance to be proven innocent." He took a lot of questions, and if you're interested in this story then you owe it to yourself to listen to the press conference.
I especially like this one Q & A:
Question to Floyd, "How do you explain this fabulous performance on stage 17?"
Floyd says, "Listen, there are 20 stages in the Tour, and every day you see a fabulous performance. So explain the other 19."
The silence afterwards was priceless.
Reactions from riders and others in the cycling community at Cyclingnews. Too many people are already assuming the worst and writing Floyd off as a cheater.
More reactions on Velonews from people such as Jonathan Vaughters, Oscar Pereiro, Greg Lemond, and even his mom is getting mobbed.
Strangely enough, it's even possible that the great Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey played a role in his positive test result. I know it's strong stuff, but damn!
Of course there's always the WADA chief Dick Pound weighing in on the matter. Surprisingly he's not banging the gavel, but then again it's not Armstrong who tested positive.
In the past I have rambled on and on about testing procedures and the need for all governing bodies to establish credible policies that everyone will follow. Currently there are too many interpretations and too many opportunities for mistakes to be made. We are reaching the point where it's not only the livelihood of riders we are talking about, but also the lifeblood of the sport itself.
Another aspect that doesn't strike me as a sensical way to set standards is all the different ratios out there. There are hematocrit ratios, testosterone ratios, and many others I'm not even aware of. The human body is an incredibly complex structure that is ever changing, and we are determining the fate of an individual over a ratio?
I cannot accept that we are smart enough to develop ratios that are scientifically exact thereby demonstrating with 100% certainty and accuracy that an athlete is cheating. I think you either test positive for that specific banned substance being in your system or you don't. It shouldn't be a ratio of 4 to 1, 6 to 1 or +/- 50%.
As WADA member Dr. Gary Wadler states, "It just doesn't add up."
It has even received considerable coverage on the television screen and radio airwaves. I have seen only one boneheaded review and commentary earlier today on ESPN2. It was a female host of a daytime show on the sports network where personal opinion is dished out. Essentially she was taking the A sample as a definite cheating result and completely writing off the sport of cycling. She said cycling was a fringe sport that now everyone in the US will ignore and write off, and instead go back to following wrestling. It was said with such smug ignorance that only the least experienced and least skilled host would say it.
On Sunday when Floyd won the Tour I remember checking out ESPN several times throughout the day to see what kind of coverage he'd receive. Well, it was all Tiger Woods all day long after he won the British Open for the second year in a row. All attention was given to Tiger with only a couple of short instances of smaller web space given to Floyd's victory. It was quite disappointing actually, but ESPN is making up for their previous shortcomings now tenfold.
See the main ESPN Floyd Landis article with all other related articles. Now located on this link you can view videos of John Eustice and Greg Lemond with their opinions of what's happened.
Another thought, I must be honest here, and that is I am getting a little tired of hearing any opinions from Greg Lemond. He has never had to face the same scrutiny that riders of today have to face. He has become way too judgmental without concrete evidence, although at the moment he hasn't completely jumped on Floyd negatively. Greg is the Babe Ruth of American cycling, the pioneer, but has there been any due diligence into his history to prove he didn't do any performance enhancing drugs?
You can also listen to Floyd's press conference today. It's a 24 minute press conference that starts with him making a statement before answering questions from reporters. All he asks for is, "that I be given a chance to be proven innocent." He took a lot of questions, and if you're interested in this story then you owe it to yourself to listen to the press conference.
I especially like this one Q & A:
Question to Floyd, "How do you explain this fabulous performance on stage 17?"
Floyd says, "Listen, there are 20 stages in the Tour, and every day you see a fabulous performance. So explain the other 19."
The silence afterwards was priceless.
Reactions from riders and others in the cycling community at Cyclingnews. Too many people are already assuming the worst and writing Floyd off as a cheater.
More reactions on Velonews from people such as Jonathan Vaughters, Oscar Pereiro, Greg Lemond, and even his mom is getting mobbed.
Strangely enough, it's even possible that the great Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey played a role in his positive test result. I know it's strong stuff, but damn!
Of course there's always the WADA chief Dick Pound weighing in on the matter. Surprisingly he's not banging the gavel, but then again it's not Armstrong who tested positive.
In the past I have rambled on and on about testing procedures and the need for all governing bodies to establish credible policies that everyone will follow. Currently there are too many interpretations and too many opportunities for mistakes to be made. We are reaching the point where it's not only the livelihood of riders we are talking about, but also the lifeblood of the sport itself.
Another aspect that doesn't strike me as a sensical way to set standards is all the different ratios out there. There are hematocrit ratios, testosterone ratios, and many others I'm not even aware of. The human body is an incredibly complex structure that is ever changing, and we are determining the fate of an individual over a ratio?
I cannot accept that we are smart enough to develop ratios that are scientifically exact thereby demonstrating with 100% certainty and accuracy that an athlete is cheating. I think you either test positive for that specific banned substance being in your system or you don't. It shouldn't be a ratio of 4 to 1, 6 to 1 or +/- 50%.
As WADA member Dr. Gary Wadler states, "It just doesn't add up."
posted by NashvilleCyclist.com at 7/27/2006 10:52:00 PM
2 Comments:
sucks that it takes something like this for ESPN to take a notice to cycling though. I imagine they won't be giving such coverage to the next Tour of California or France or other cycling events.
I agree on the Lemond comments...very tiring to hear the negativity all the time.
A cycling friend of mine is in the "everyone's doping" camp. When the story came out he came over to my office to say in not so many words "I told you so". That to me is what's too bad...I'm sure that Floyd will clear his name. I'm also sure that there are riders that aren't doping, but cyclists assuming that all pro's are doping definately isn't going to help promote cyclings image.
Post a Comment
<< Home