City Desk

Post’s Sally Jenkins Mum on Lance Armstrong

Now that  Lance Armstrong has been stripped off his seven Tour de France titles, several people have been wondering what Washington Post sports writer Sally Jenkins, who has written two books with Armstrong, thinks about the revelations. And now we know: Apparently, she's not thinking about it much.

In an email to blogger Jim Romenesko, Jenkins claims that she has been too busy writing another book to read the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's report. As for whether she'll revisit Armstrong, whose character she energetically defended in an August column for the paper, Jenkins is equally noncommittal.

"If my editors ask me to write when I come back from the book project, I will discuss it with them," Jenkins writes to Romenesko. "Until then my thoughts remain my own."

Lance Armstrong photo by Shutterstock.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
  • Amy

    I've been waiting to hear if she still thinks he's a "good" man. Did he hide the bullying and intimidation from her or did she choose not to see it?

  • http://none Rafael

    Sally !! I've read both of your books. Excellent work. It is ok - we all get duped, fooled - Lance the drug pusher will forever be a fraud, you on the other hand will not

  • TriDamian

    "Lance Armstong Doping Campaign Eposes Sally Jenkin's Journalistic Incompetence"

  • ron525i

    Wow. She can still write a football column yet cannot write about Armstrong. Perhaps she could concentrate if she stuffed some of the money she made off him in her ears. Shameful.

  • mike

    I feel victimized that I paid money for this book and told others it was worth reading.

  • mike

    What did Sheryl Crow know and when did she know it? Robyn Williams?

  • Putney Swope

    She hasn't read the report? The one about the guy she invested so much time in, and reaped so much money from? Bullshit! Jenkins has been almost as vicious as Armstrong when it comes to attacking anyone who would dare to criticize Saint Lance. But now when it comes to answering hard questions about the possibility that she was starstruck and naive and wrote two books of mostly fiction, she's suddenly "too busy" to comment. Sad she's lost her backbone.

  • Tommasini92

    Here’s the deal Sally: Those of us who have been paying attention for the last 15 years have seen this coming, and you’ve long since squandered any shred of credibility when it comes to Lance Armstrong. It is one thing to get taken – even the most cynical of us got snookered on this one – but it is quite another to fail utterly to recognize when you’ve been snookered. At this point, you’re either a cycling fan, or you’re a Lance fan, but you can’t be both, not any longer. Your amateurish rants against the USADA’s decision make for painful reading, as it remains obvious that even now, you remain willfully oblivious of even the most basic facts.

    As for your hope to be remembered as an “independent thinker,” sorry, no sale. Your abjectly delusional reading of the record makes it painfully obvious that you’re in love with your subject. I guess that’s what happens after too many rides on the private jet, too many meals drinking the Kool-Aid on the team bus, too much time spent listening to him lie with an ease that would astonish even Richard Nixon.

    Clearly, in your world, the truth is never objective, it’s merely what you wish it to be. Put another way, as Barney Fife once muttered: “A wink is as good as nod to a blind mule.” Most of us jettisoned that sort of reasoning at the conclusion of George W. Bush’s eight year keg party, but in your case, apparently not. In this you are not alone, as your girlish swooning is being aped - among others - by Armstrong fanboy Alejandro Valverde, a fellow doper who continues to genuflect reflexively at the mere mention of Cancer Christ’s name.

    If you want to believe that Armstrong is “a good man” (insert howling laughter here), and if you want to be his “good friend,” then knock yourself out. But while you’re swooning with a case of adolescent vapors every time he opens his mouth and whines about how complicated his life has become, just remember that this heffalump deftly lied to children with a terminal disease, and then he spent years deftly conning their families out of hundreds of millions of dollars. If this isn’t the very definition of being a sociopath, then it is something very much like it. But on the other hand, why should we care what you do? You’re just an entertainment writer, so it’s not as if you’re doing anything important - like, say - curing cancer, eh?