Media Sports Washington Post

Tour de Hypocrisy

Posted by Dave McKenna on Aug. 3, 2007, at 2:39 pm

Sally Jenkins goes after Barry Bonds again. A few weeks ago she said if Bonds had any honor he'd lay down his bat rather than break Hank Aaron's home run record. In her latest Washington Post column she said she's "cringing" at the thought the second-most-accused-drug cheat in sports history is on the verge of passing Aaron.

Jenkins never publicly cringed or asked history's most-accused-drug-cheat, Lance Armstrong, to bow out during his record-breaking string of Tour de France wins. No, Jenkins cashed in on Armstrong's amazing feats, co-writing not one but two best-selling autobiographies (It's Not About the Bike; Every Second Counts) with the cyclist.

Forgetting all the doping accusations against Armstrong, whose name was left out of both Jenkins' recent columns on cheating in sports, the recent history of Tour stars sure leads one to believe that her co-author was some kind of juicer. Quick recap: The winner of this year's race, Spain's Alberto Contador, missed last year's event when he and his whole team were kicked out on doping charges. Contador only won because Michael Rasmussen of Denmark was kicked out of this year's tour while leading on the last weekend because of doping. Last year's winner, Floyd Landis, couldn't defend his title because of doping. And before Landis, Armstrong won the previous seven Tours---always under suspicion.

So we're left to believe that either performance-enhancing drugs don't work in cycling, or that Armstrong---as the whole world outside the U.S. thinks---used them, too. Out of fairness to Bonds, Jenkins should either stop cringing, reference Armstrong in all her profiles of alleged P.E.D.-ophiles, or sign up to co-author an autobiography with the future home-run king.

Comments

jake August 3rd, 2007
3:15 pm

#1

regardless, bonds should lay down the bat.
SarahG August 3rd, 2007
3:47 pm

#2

McKenna--you're my hero. This is so right on.
Joe August 3rd, 2007
4:31 pm

#3

Oh come on... Armstrong is one of the MOST tested athletes around... even during ALL 7 of hist TdF victories. Meanwhile MLB only recently started testing... Or did you forget about the Congressional hearings.
MB August 3rd, 2007
4:49 pm

#4

Or, how bout you just bugger off and leave cycling alone? If you want to take on Sally over Bonds, have at it. But get the hell away from a sport that you can only be bother to use as a hammer in going after someone else.
Steve Klein August 3rd, 2007
6:57 pm

#5

I've read some pretty uninformed opinions in blogs as well as in the mainstream media before, but this one sure takes the cake.
Do you do any research before you just shoot your blog off?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
This has nothing to do with my personal opinion about Lance Armstrong.
But you simply mis-state the facts and ignore the science.
Bonds has used performance enhancing products and drugs. He has admitted as much to an extent.
Armstrong has never failed a drug test, and he may be the most tested athlete in the history of sport.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who writes for CNN, recently wrote:
Armstrong's heart can pump nine gallons of blood per minute working at its hardest compared with only five gallons per minute for the average person. The champion's lungs can get almost double the amount of oxygen out of every breath that a healthy 20-year-old would. This cyclist has more red blood cells to deliver oxygen to his body, which is key, when racing through the high altitudes of the Pyrenees Mountains.
Finally, Armstrong's body can recover at an incredible pace. "An average person when going to exhaustion would have to stay stopped or wouldn't be able to move for 10-15 minutes and Armstrong is able to go right back to maximum in 1 to 2 minutes," says Coyle.
All of this begs the question -- is Lance superhuman? Obviously not, but the way his body works is extraordinary.

But go ahead and mis-state the facts for the sake of taking a shot at Sally Jenkins. Those books, by the way, have provided thousands of readers with inspiration in their own battles with cancer and other setbacks.
What have you done for humanity except shoot your misinformed mouth off?
Shame on you. Even blogs have standards for honesty.
Steve Klein August 3rd, 2007
7:04 pm

#6

Let me add, if you can't add (or figure out what Dr. Gupta is saying), that Lance doesn't have to cheat because his body does for him what others have to cheat to do. He's a freak of nature. Most great athletes are, in some phsyiological way, freaks.
I rarely comment on blogs, and when I do, I normally demonstrate greater grace than I have in this response.
But I found your item so outrageous and misinformed that I simply couldn't let it sit there unchallenged.
Even the Washington City Paper has standards. You've certainly set them back with this one.
Mellow Johnny August 3rd, 2007
9:44 pm

#7

It's unfortunate that you're such a fucking idiot, that you write an article without knowing or obviously researching any facts.
Tina August 3rd, 2007
9:44 pm

#8

GET OVER IT! LANCE WAS THE MOST TESTED ATHLETE OUT THERE WHEN HE WAS WINNING. HE NEVER TESTED POSITIVE ON ANY LEGITIMATE DRUG TEST. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD THE MAN DO EXCEPT FOLLOW THE RULES THE SPORT OF CYCLING HAD OUT THERE. DON'T BLAME LANCH CAUSE THE DANG PEOPLE THAT SANCTION CYCLING CAN'T GET THERE ACT TOGETHER. HE FOLLOWED THEIR RULES AND HE WON AND HE RETIRED A HERO OF THE SPORT. I BELIEVED HE RACED CLEAN, BECAUSE HERO'S STILL DO EXIST EVEN EVERYONE WOULD PREFER THEY DIDN'T. GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO GRIPE ABOUT...GEEEEZZZZ.
Tina August 3rd, 2007
9:47 pm

#9

OOPS THAT WOULD BE LANCE, WHEN I AM PISSED I CAN'T SPELL LOL.
Dave McKenna August 3rd, 2007
9:47 pm

#10

Steve Klein:

Bonds "has admitted" taking PED's "to an extent," eh? i assume you're talking about the amphetamines in his pee pee, which nobody cares about, or, speaking of leaks, the grand jury testimony about "flax seed oil" that was printed in the San Francisco papers. That latter one's damning, for sure. I mean, almost as damning as all those Armstrong hangers on and fellow cyclists who've claimed to have proof of his doping for so long now. And almost as damning as the leaked lab results printed in l'equipe a few years ago that showed EPO use for the 1999 tour. (http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/DOPAGE_ARMSTRONG_2.html)

I'm awed by Lance Armstrong, and awed by Barry Bonds. I find it odd that Sally Jenkins writes so much about alleged drug cheats without mentioning all the charges leveled against her meal ticket. To give Armstrong a pass and rail about Bonds at this point is, to use your parlance, misinformed (or, perhaps, hyper-informed) or dishonest. Again, if you think Lance Armstrong didn't use the same sort of performance enhancing drugs every other successful cyclist has used in recent years, you have to believe these drugs don't work that well in cycling.

Lastly, I'm not sure what facts i mis-stated or what science i ignored, but i gotta say your quoting a CNN talking head ("his body can recover at an incredible pace") to beef up Lance's greatness made me giggle. So thanks for that, and for the rest of the passionate feedback.
MB August 3rd, 2007
10:28 pm

#11

Dave, you're still missing the fucking point. This is not unlike jumping on someone's praise of Sosa by whining that they didn't talk about the recent cheating in NASCAR. What the ()*@# does one have to do with the other?

The only passion you've inspired is from those of us who'd prefer that clueless nits such as yourself stay the hell away from cycling unless you're going to bother with a sincere effort at understanding and covering it. If you can't get that minimal effort, you should just stop wasting everyone's time.
Dave McKenna August 3rd, 2007
10:53 pm

#12

MB:

"What the ()*@# does one have to do with the other?" Good god, man. Have you even read Sally Jenkins' recent articles about the entire concept of cheating with drugs ? Are you at all aware of the books she wrote with, fairly or not, the most accused drug cheat in the history of sports, Lance Armstrong? Have you seen "Lance Armstrong" anywhere in her recent articles about the entire concept of cheating with drugs?

And you see that as a coincidence?

Do you intend to explain what sort of understanding of cycling is necessary to point out how the writer's apparent conflict of interest has impacted her stories?

Ok, enough questions. thanks for loading up your post with fab insults like "nit," and for your thoughts.
Steve Klein August 4th, 2007
8:12 am

#13

Dave,
I think you're still missing the point of DR. Gupta's quote (and since when did talking on CNN undermine someone's medical credentials?). Lance is a physical freak. Just because you can't understand what the DOCTOR is saying doesn't undermind him; it is totally undermining you. Six-foot-10-inch offensive linemen who weight 350 pounds are physical freaks; 7-foot-6 basketball players are physical freaks. Cyclists whose hearts can convert oxygen as effeciently as Lance Armstrong are physical freaks. There IS a legitimate reason he cycles the way he does. PLEASE try to listen to what DR. Gupta is saying: His body does for him what others have to cheat to do. What do you fail to understand about that.
As for your jealousy of Sally Jenkins, the ONLY woman to be be named APSE columnist of the year (and twice in three years), you further undermind your own credibility. It's disengenous on your part. Again, if you'll read something other than your own columns and do some research, you'll see that Jenkins has written extensively about Armstrong and doping.
I've known a number of sports writers (Jason Whitlock is one of them) who tend to be contrarian in their opinions just to draw attention to themselves. Obviously, defending Barry Bonds and attacking Sally Jenkins qualifies on both accounts. Discrediting a DOCTOR whose credentials get him him on CNN (when was the last time you were on CNN?) is disengenous. We all make mistakes. You might demonstrate some by doing a little more research the next time you write something about a subject you obviously don't know much about.
And by the way, I am not fully convinced that Armstrong has not pushed the boundaries, and perhaps crossed them, of what is legal and what isn't during his career. EPO was part of his cancer treatment (have you even read Jenkins' books?) and Armstrong certainly understands the impact it has. Those books have helped saved people's live with the inspiration and solid advice they provide on getting the best cancer treatment possible.
You generally do a fine job for the City Paper and write with style. But you're off base here and a number of points (and attacking DR. Gupta is really beneath you). Don't dig a hole that undermines your credibility to the extent that you turn off people who read you. We all make mistakes based on misinformation and our unwillingness to listen to other viewpoints. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your readers. You have to earn them.
Steve Klein August 4th, 2007
8:17 am

#14

Sorry about the typos above, by the way (it's undermine). As you can see, I used my name on my post. I'm not afraid to stand behind what I have to say when I do post (some of your other readers might have more credibility if they did the same, but it's easier to swear and call names if you're not using your name, I guess). I hate making typos, and I made several in my note above; I apologize for that.
Jim Urbine August 4th, 2007
12:07 pm

#15

Dave,

I read your “article” and was immediately incensed by your lack of fact checking. I probably would have just chalked it up to another uninformed reporter that was misstating facts and had succumbed to the typical bashing of the cycling world that seems to be so popular these days. Then, I read your indignant responses to comments.

You stated that “I’m not sure what facts i mis-stated or what science i ignored.” Let’s go into this.

In your original article you stated: “Spain’s Alberto Contador, missed last year’s event when he and his whole team were kicked out on doping charges.” This is only partially true. When the information revolving around Operation Puerto was released, anyone whose name appeared on Dr Fuentes’ records was immediately kicked out of the tour. Contador’s name was in those records. The names of four teammates were also there. Because his team had less than 9 people eligible to race, the entire team had to withdraw. Charges were dropped on Jul 26th, 2006. The real story turns out to be much different than what you tried to imply.

Your next misstated fact came when you discussed Michael Rasmussen. “was kicked out of this year’s tour while leading on the last weekend because of doping.” He was NOT kicked out because of doping. He did NOT fail any doping control tests. He was removed from the tour by his own team. Why? Well, the UCI requires that every athlete send a quarterly fax stating where they will be so they can be available for “out of competition” testing. Rasmussen had said that he was planning to be in Mexico, but was spotted training in Italy. He missed 2 random tests due to not being where he said he would be. UCI rules state that if you miss 3 tests in an 18 month period, it is considered a positive. Team Rabobank could have allowed him to continue but they, just like every other team in cycling, were terrified of the potential calamity of him testing positive. I agree that Rasmussen did screw up, but your words imply that Rasmussen had indeed tested positive.

You also brought up leakage of Armstrong’s “positive” test results from 1999. This testing was performed in 2005, 6 years after the samples were originally taken. The lab that found these “positive” results was testing a new method for determining EPO use. The claim from the French lab is that since EPO, which naturally occurs in the blood decreases over time, it is impossible that testing on old samples would show false positives. If that were really the case, don’t you think that Lance would have been stripped of his 1999 title? He wasn’t that shows that even the WADA questions the reliability of the test.

Now, if you really would like to compare MLB to cycling. You should be screaming that the MLB does not take the same measures for punishing cheaters as cycling does. Regardless of the reason, if a cyclist tests positive for a banned substance OR if they even admit to attempting to dope, they are immediately banned for 2 years. In 2003 Barry Bonds testified that he used a clear substance that “unknowingly” contained steroids. In cycling, that would have given him a 2 year ban.

Several athletes have been banned for the use of Propecia. Yes, the hair loss drug. Why? Well, the WADA has found that finasteride, which is in the hair loss drug can be used to mask steroid use. Zack Lunde, male skeleton racer, was actually banned from the Turino Olympics for it. He had been using it since 1999 and it was not an issue until it was placed on the banned substances list in 2005. He was UNAWARE that it was a banned substance. The arbitration panel decided that he was not a cheat but still decided to let his one year suspension stand. Why won’t the MLB do the same?
Dave McKenna August 4th, 2007
1:15 pm

#16

Jim Urbine:
I appreciate your thoughts and research. But, for conceptual purposes, with Lance Armstrong as my role model, I will counter-attack every critic in this thread with every fiber of my being, or until the beat-down gets too severe.

Your post leaves me thinking you're arguing that the powers that be in cycling have done a good job at policing drug use. I'd totally agree with you here, Jim, if only THE WHOLE WORLD DIDN'T THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS YEAR'S TOUR DE FRANCE USED DRUGS!

And it sure seems to me that your words about why Rasmussen and Contador were banned or what l'equipe's investigative piece found mean the same thing as my words. if i was being paid by the word, i hope i would've gone with something closer to your version of all these bannings and cheating allegations.

But, in the search for common ground, i'm totally with you about major league baseball's shortcomings: If they're not banning folks for using Propecia, by golly, they should be. Let's work together to bring back the toupee!

thanks again for your time.
Jim Urbine August 4th, 2007
1:59 pm

#17

Thank you for the very quick reply and for the laugh. I re-read my posting and yes, it would seem that I am pushing for the MLB to ban Propecia. That was not the intention. I was throwing it out there that Bonds DID admit to using a steriod cream, but his excuse was that he didn't know. At the same time, the WADA is banning people for taking a perscribed medication because it could be used to mask steroids. I personally think the ban on finasteride is a little silly, but it shows that they are at least attempting to remove the cheating.

Why does the whole world think that everybody in this years TDF used drugs? There are two reasons.

People got caught. A few riders got caught doping to some degree or another. It hit the news and was all over the world. WHY? Because the first person was a really big name. Insert Rasmussen, Rabobank pulled him because they did not want the embarrassment of him potentially testing postive. (paranoia) NOW, what do you think the press coverage would be if Bonds was suspended by the Giants for something like that? It would be HUGE. That is exactly what happened.

Second reason??? Go back to the top of the page. Read your article again. Yours is one of the thousands of articles out there written by reporters that "don't get paid by the word." Therefore, they leave things unexplained and ambiguous. The general public comes to you, they listen to what you have to say. The ASSUME you have done your research and so they take what you are saying at face value. Writers like YOU are the reason why everyone thinks that.
Dave McKenna August 4th, 2007
3:29 pm

#18

Steve Klein:

again, i'm only attacking my attackers in this thread because i believe Lance would want me to. so, after another quick glance at my WWLD bracelet, here goes...

help me out here, Steve: in your post, at various points between "War" and "Peace" you say i'm dishonest, disingenuous, consciously contrarian, misinformed and uninformed. Yet you think attacking Dr. Gupta is beneath me? good god, man! this Dr. Gupta of yours must be some sorta bottom-feeder!

i didn't know sally jenkins was the first woman to be named APSE columnist of the year, but, now that i do, i am, as accused, jealous. i wanted to be the first woman to get that award! but you bring up a great point here, Steve, because, as you argue, all award winners should be bulletproof from shots fired by non-award winners!!!! but, hmmm....where does that leave you and Barry Bonds? between the two of you i count seven MLB MVP awards! are any of those seven yours, Steve?...SAY IT AIN'T SO, STEVE!

lastly, as for when i was last on CNN, well, i believe it was about 11 years ago, when i was brought on some horribly produced show hosted by Greta Van Susteren to talk about automotive repair. i clearly remember that i didn't know what the hell i was talking about.

dammit, Steve, i think you got me there. I think you got me.

thanks for playing the game.
Tina August 4th, 2007
6:03 pm

#19

THE MAN IS A 7 TIME CHAMPION AND PASSED ALL REQUIRED DRUG TESTS ORDERED BY THE SPORT OF CYCLING. HE IS NOW A RETIRED CHAMPION AND WILL FOREVER BE. SO GET OVER IT, WHAT JEALOUSY , WHAT JEALOUSY. DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO SPEND YOUR TIME WRITING ABOUT. IS THE ONLY REASON YOU WRITE ALL THIS CRAP BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WILL EVER COMMENT ON YOUR STORIES?
Dave McKenna August 4th, 2007
6:34 pm

#20

Tina:

Amid all those caps, you, like Steve Klein before you, bring up a great point! Seven-time Tour champion. Seven-time NL MVP...cue the scary music! i resolve to leave all seven-timers alone, just as soon as this thread closes.

thanks for feeding the beast.
Steven Hildreth August 4th, 2007
7:58 pm

#21

Wow! I'm glad that so many people have called you out on your piece. They helped me to shorten what I have to type. Please forgive in advance a) typos, and b) mixed-case notes. I broke a finger and have to type with one finger for the time-being. fINAL EXCUSE IS THAT THE ANEMIC WORD PROCESSOR ON THIS COMPUTER WON'T CHANGE THE CASE FOR ME. Well, let's get to it!
First the snippets:

"history’s most-accused-drug-cheat, Lance Armstrong"
your allegation/opinion that he is the most accused; or do you have a source, pray tell?

"if only THE WHOLE WORLD DIDN’T THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS YEAR’S TOUR DE FRANCE USED DRUGS"
HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?

"And before Landis, Armstrong won the previous seven Tours—always under suspicion"
YES, SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS BE SUSPICIOUS, SO YOU ARE NOT WRONG TO SAY THAT, BUT I SUSPECT YOU ARE USING DRUGS. YOU HAVE TAKEN MONEY FOR WRITING FOR MONEY—ALWAYS UNDER SUSPICION

"So we’re left to believe that either performance-enhancing drugs don’t work in cycling, or that Armstrong—as the whole world outside the U.S. thinks—used them, too."
THE WHOLE WORLD? REALLY?? YOU MUST BE USING STEROIDS BECAUSE THAT’S GOTTA BE A WORLD RECORD JUMP TO A CONCLUSION. YOUR REASONING REMINDS ME OF SOME “LITERATURE” I ENCOUNTERED MANY YEARS AGO. IT WAS THINLY VEILED ANTIRELIGIOUS MATERIAL TRYING TO BE PASSED OFF AS INFORMATIVE. IF THE UNFORTUNATE READER WASN’T FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER THE “AUTHOR” MIGHT PREVAIL. BUT EVEN A SMATTERING OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER WOULD CAUSE A READER TO QUESTION BOTH THE CONCLUSIONS AND THE “AUTHORS” MOTIVES. I HAVE A BROAD UNDERSTANDING OF CYCLING AND ITS HISTORY. I DON’T QUESTION YOUR CONCLUSIONS—I DECLARE THEM GROSSLY ERRONEOUS. AND I MUST CALL INTO QUESTION YOUR MOTIVATION.

"Do you intend to explain what sort of understanding of cycling is necessary to point out how the writer’s apparent conflict of interest has impacted her stories"
YOU SEE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. DO YOU SEE PINK ELEPHANTS, TOO? WHAT WOULD SATISFY YOU OF ARMSTRONG’S INNONENCE? WHAT BEYOND DRUG TESTING DO YOU SEE AS NECESSARY? MUST THERE BE UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT THAT HE NEVER CHEATED? THAT WOULD BE NAÏVE. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS WHAT WE’VE GOT, AND AS FAR AS ARMSTRONG CHEATING THERE IS ZIP! THE VERDICT: NOT GUILTY. YOU DON’T LIKE IT? FIND SOME EVIDENCE. JUST DON’T CONCOCT IT TO SATISFY YOU NEEDS. LEAVE THAT TO THE FRENCH. SEE THE NEXT SNIPPET FOR THAT.

"almost as damning as the leaked lab results printed in l’equipe a few years ago that showed EPO use for the 1999 touR"
The lab was in the process of TRYING to improve a test to detect EPO. Armstrong gave them permission to use his samples from the 99 Tour. The samples were not reliably accounted for, nor were the records. The fact that the anonymity of the samples was not protected, even though it was assured by protocol, only serves to cast doubt onto the integrity of the samples. Were they indeed the original samples from the 99 Tour or had the custody also been compromised? WADA, certain French laboratories, and even the French government have at times conducted their affairs without regard to protocol. It seems as though they hoped and wished to find some damning evidence against the boastful arrogant American who, while admired and respected by many Europeans, they so strongly deplored. THEY ARE NOT BEYOND REPROACH. ARMSTRONG WAS NOT BEYOND CHEATING SO HE WAS TESTED AD NAUSEUM.

"almost as damning as all those Armstrong hangers on and fellow cyclists who’ve claimed to have proof of his doping for so long now."
Let’s see who they are…a personal assistant trying to extort money, a maid who was fired, a bitter cyclist who had never been on any team of Armstrong’s, and ONE former teammate so…let me get a tally…just a sec…ONE. That’s one person of credibility who alleges something. He alleges that he heard Armstrong say that he had taken steroids, growth hormone and EPO. Armstrong did take all of these as part of his cancer therapy, which he readily admits contributed to his SURVIVAL. That same one person of credibility admits that he NEVER SAW ARMSTRONG USE performance enhancing drugs.

"Again, if you think Lance Armstrong didn’t use the same sort of performance enhancing drugs every other successful cyclist has used in recent years, you have to believe these drugs don’t work that well in cycling"
Thinking about this argument only in terms of athletic achievement is narrow-minded. There have been too many cheaters in cycling, but to say that all who are successful ARE cheatS is ridiculous. People cheat in college to pass. Researchers suggest it is getting more and more common. Using the logic of your arguments would cause us all to believe that nobody is capable of being smart enough to beat the cheaters without cheating themselves. But there are geniuses. They are statistical outliers. They are the rare ones. But they exist as sure as the mass stuck in the middle of the bell curve. Armstrong is no different than the geniuses. He is rare, an outlier, probably falling even beyond a third standard deviation fron the norm. His physiology has been studied at length and proves this true. Still, he could cheat and perhaps be even better. But more than SEVEN YEARS of drug tests have shown exactly ZERO incidents of cheating. ENOUGH!

AS FAR AS BASEBALL, I WOULD EITHER HIT BONDS WITH A PITCH EVERYTIME HE CAME TO BAT OR WALK HIM FOR THE REST OF HIS CAREER. HE DOESN’T HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO LAY DOWN THE BAT.
Dave McKenna August 4th, 2007
11:25 pm

#22

Stephen Hildreth :

you'd hit bonds "EVERYTIME HE CAME TO BAT," eh? that's tuff talk, stephen! lemme guess how you broke that pinkie: showing some biker gang who's the boss? yet you still found the will to pound out this opus on just nine fingers?

ok, now where were we? oh, right: the centerpiece of your really... really...really... long rant about how lance is beyond reproach is a massive, yet far from complete, catalog of accusations against the cyclist. i'm sure all the Lance haters appreciate your making them look good, stephen, and are only wondering what stopped you from citing that wall street journal article that claimed doctors "are unanimous" in the belief that steroid use "increases the risk of...testicular cancer."
(http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001753)

good god, man! remind me not to hire you as a defense attorney.

butt seriously, stephen: fab of you to play along, being a digit down and all. i'll let you get back to your beanball practice now.
Tina August 4th, 2007
11:33 pm

#23

DAVE, LAUGHING HERE...AMAZING HOW SO MANY THINGS SEEM TO OFFEND YOU, EVEN MY CAPS DO! LET IT GO BUDDY , LET IT GO!!!
Steven Hildreth August 5th, 2007
1:23 am

#24

daiv,
get your clutch checked, man. you're slipping pretty bad. i will waste just two more minutes of my life, typing with ..|.. finger, for the sake of anybody else who reads this--you I have written off.
note how daiv so accurately countered each point...OMG, I just can't do this. I am astounded you have a job, daiv. maybe your next piece should be how every single person afflicted with testicular cancer is guilty of steroid use. nothing else causes it, right?
Donna Frey August 5th, 2007
3:24 am

#25

Mr. McKenna, I'm another cycling fan who is just so tired of reading half-informed rants disguised as journalism. If you bother to really read up on cycling and Lance Armstrong.....oh, what's the use. Several people have explained the facts carefully and logically, and you manage to evade understanding. I suspect it is because you are one of those people who can't acknowledge a mistake, and will go to any length to deny you are wrong. Lance Armstrong has too many fans for you to get away with bashing him just to sell your column. Pick on someone else. Or, this would be a first for you, admit you're wrong and apologize to Lance and your readers. Nah, never happen.
Steve Klein August 5th, 2007
7:49 am

#26

Dave,
The tone of your response, as well as your continued half-truths are disappointing, as others have stated here. A column is not an excuse to write irresponsibly.
Your original column needed a good editor. The City Paper is as much at fault for that as you. But I understand the realities of media and staffing these days, and from what I read about your new owners, it isn't likely that they're going to be adding copy editors to clean up your mess. I'm sure they're pleased with the response the item is receiving in your blog.
As for the blog item's inaccuracies, well, that can be (but doesn't have to be) the nature of blogs. It's more a matter of personal integrity and probably comes closest to defining a writer (and in this case, I assume, a reporter).
Your lack of respect for your readers is pretty obvious.
Your lack of respect for Sally Jenkins is pretty obvious.
Bottom line for me is that I've tried, as have some other readers, to add something to your discussion of doping, drugs and whether Lance Armstrong deserves to be painted with the same broad brush. A number of readers are listening. You aren't.
So I won't continue to waste my time here with you.
Thanks to Steven Hildreth for his post and for doing the research that allowed him to provide some facts to his argument. You can learn from him.
Maybe we should be reading Steven Hildreth in the City Paper (in a blogging sense, we are). Got a blog, Steve? I could better use my time reading it than Dave McKenna.
Dave McKenna August 5th, 2007
11:19 am

#27

Steve Klein et al:
you're still testing positive for negativity, but the attacks have grown as tired as Floyd Landis in the Alps. you know, just before he had that testosterone windfall. again, as lance would want me to, i'm obligated to go after all doubters in this thread, but it's getting very un-fun. Stephen Hildreth, just hours after you're boasting how, bum finger and all, you'd whup up on barry bonds, you come at me with "OMG - I just can't do this!"? i recommend you take a couple doses of whatever all the big-name Tour de France riders of late have been ingesting or injecting, and get back to the insults. it'll be just like riding a bike...
Chimpanzee Rage August 6th, 2007
3:12 am

#28

Wow...this is one awesome thread. I, for one, agree with Dave, but then again, I really dont like Sally's work despite her acclaim. This is a fantastic argument though, the blind passion from Lance's fan base is amazing. I only wish I saw read Jenkins' column earlier and wrote the same thing. Kudos!

-Chimp
Matt Wood August 7th, 2007
12:20 pm

#29

American cycling fans can basically be divided into Lance believers and Lance haters. From my perspective the most damming evidence against Lance was his secret 5 year association with known doping doctor, Michele Ferrari. Anyone working with such a "doctor" is a cheat in my mind. You don't work with this guy to improve your interval training. Sophisticated blood doping is best done through the use of "doping doctor" and those that are willing to pay (i.e. Lance and Tyler Hamilton) get results. Vinokourov worked with this guy and look what happened to him.

Some other data I found interesting is a list of the podium finishers from 1995 forward. I think it speaks for itself.

TDF PODIUM FINISHERS

1995
1. Miguel Indurain
2. Alex Zulle (Festina – EPO)
3. Bjarne Ris (EPO admitted)

1996
1. Bjarne Ris – (EPO admitted)
2. Jan Ullrich – (Blood Doping, caught)
3. Richard Vrenque (EPO, Festina caught)

1997
1. Jan Ullrich (Blood doping, caught)
2. Richard Virenque (EPO, caught)
3. Marco Pantani (60% hematocrit - suspected drug cheat)

1998
1. Marco Pantani (60% hematocrit - suspected drug cheat)
2. Jan Ullrich (Blood Doping, caught)
3. Bobby Julich

1999
1. Lance Armstrong (EPO, 6 positive blind samples later ID’ed as LA’s)
2. Alex Zulle (Festina, EPO caught)
3. Fernando Escartin

- Test for recombinant EPO developed -

2000
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (Blood Doping, caught)
3. Joseba Beloki (Operation Puerto, blood doping)

2001
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (Blood Doping, caught)
3. Joseba Beloki (Operation Puerto, blood doping)

2002
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Joseba Beloki (Operation Puerto, blood doping)
3. Rainondas Rumsas (HGH, caught)

2003
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (Blood Doping, caught)
3. Alexander Vinokourov (Blood doping caught)

2004
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Andreas Kloden
3. Ivan Basso (Blood Doping, caught)

2005
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ivan Basso (Blood Doping, caught)
3. Jan Ullrich (Blood Doping, caught)

2006
1. Floyd Landis (Testosterone, caught)
2. Oscar Pereiro
3. Andreas Kloden

Results
36 finishers

23 known dopers (excluding LA)
64% of the podium finishers were known dopers

30 known dopers (including LA)
83% of podium finishers were known dopers
Dave McKenna August 7th, 2007
1:19 pm

#30

Matt Wood:
Thanks for those stats, and for bringing up Tyler Hamilton. of all the dopers in cycling, tyler hamilton, lance armstrong's trusted teammate, was my all time favorite.

a few years ago, hamilton failed the Homologous Blood Transfusion Test (HBTT), used to detect the presence of somebody else's blood in your system. forget testing positive for EPO or steroids or HGH. this guy, in effect, TESTED POSITIVE FOR LANCE ARMSTRONG!

how grotesque is that?

like most folks, i believe that no matter how clean his pee pee was, what armstrong did is amazing. i just hope he pays his street team well for all the attack work they still do on his behalf, given how little they have to work with. heck, when this all started, i thought i was writing about sally jenkins...
Matt Wood August 7th, 2007
4:10 pm

#31

I wanted to post the same comment you originally regarding the Jenkins piece on the Post website. I thought it was unfair of her to mention Bonds and not Armstrong as examples of American Sports cheaters. Since she is a sports reporter that wrote two books for him and has been completely silent on the doping in cycling story. Now you surely realize that any mention of LA as a cheater brings out a testy debate between the believer/hater crowd.

Tyler's name resurfaced in the Operation Puerto doping scandel as well so basically he has been caught twice. The way it worked on the USPS/Discovery Cycling Team was that Dr. Ferrari was not allowed to work with any of LA's competitors but could work with team members like Hamilton. Once Hamilton went to another team he had to find a new doping doctor. Thus his name turns up in the Operation Puerto docs, which is run by Dr. Fuentes.
fornetti August 31st, 2008
5:25 am

#32

I do not believe this

You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.

Blogs Linking to this Article

Linked From: May 29th, 2008
5:52 pm
poker craps

euro barre casino on net

Yet download roulette roulette 36 blackjack free risposte questionario casino on net giochi casino pc
Linked From: June 5th, 2008
1:55 am
apprendre le poker gratuites

jeu geant casino

Tout juegos azar portales internet online poker jeux de planche a roulette jeu de la roulette beste online kasino
Linked From: June 10th, 2008
3:56 am
casino pc

casino pc

Tu juegos instantaneos portales casino on line juegos poker texas holdem poker reglas gioco roulette gratis
Linked From: June 29th, 2008
10:58 am
gioco poker online

slot machine

Du internet spiele eigenes casino online giochi on line casino play texas holdem poker zum spielen

Tour de Hypocrisy

Comments

Leave a Reply

Blogs Linking to this Article

Search City Desk

City Paper Blogs

Loose Lips Daily Email

Contact

Recent Comments

City

CP Folks

Hoods

Media

Misc

Archives