Le Grande Tour
Back in the less-inhibited 1960s and 1970s, my town was the terminus of an event called The Great Race. It originated in a bar bet, considering whether one could go from Watertown to Marblehead, solely under human power, faster by land or by water. Sobriety was a secondary consideration. In a remarkably short time for those benighted, pre-Interwebz days, the bet morphed into a full-scale event with thousands of participants and spectators. Modes of transport were freestyle, ranging from racing bikes and kayaks to three-decker bikes and four-abreast paddleboats...and not a liability lawyer in sight.
The Great Race had one fundamental rule. Whoever came in first was assumed to have cheated and was forthwith disqualified. The next finisher, in turn, was disqualified for the same reason, and the next, and the next. When all was over, nobody had won first place, but everyone had a place at the taps: and, presumably, such other elevating substances as the times provided. After several years, liability lawyers had been invented and the anal retentives shut the party down.
Today on CBS This Morning, I was listening to Charlie Rose interview Peter Flax, editor in chief of Bicycling magazine, about Lance Armstrong's de facto plea of nolo contendere to the USADA's doping charges. Of course, it remains to be seen how the French organisers of the Tour de France respond to the decision of an American anti-doping agency to strip Armstrong of his several French yellow jerseys. (Logic goes under the bus at such moments, but I hope the jerseys have stood up in the wash.) However, Flax pointed out another problem: just who gets the recycled jerseys? In the years since Armstrong won his Tours, each of the second-place finishers has been found liable for doping. Each of the third place finishers have also, and so on.
Inevitably, I was reminded of The Great Race, and I concluded at once that its organisers had a much better idea than the stuffed shirts who hand out yellow jerseys. Infamous, indeed! If nobody wins, we're all losers, so, let's party!
The idea behind banning doping was not moral, beyond the universal principle behind sports rules, that no one should have an unfair advantage. But if everyone was (or is) doping, and everyone doping is, in theory, going to be caught and punished, doesn't that mean the people with the unfair advantage are the ones who aren't doping? They may win the yellow jersey, but they won't get a shot at the kegs.
...............................................................................
Most of the local media coverage of the Armstrong announcement was fatuous in the extreme. It seemed to be based on the assumption that no American was riding a bicycle except under the inspiration of Lance Armstrong, and thus all of them would go away if Lance is banned. Look, I own two road bikes that were built before Armstrong could drive. One was built before he entered kindergarten. I ride because I love to ride, not because I'm under the influence of celebrity culture. So stuff that angle away and go find some news.
The Great Race had one fundamental rule. Whoever came in first was assumed to have cheated and was forthwith disqualified. The next finisher, in turn, was disqualified for the same reason, and the next, and the next. When all was over, nobody had won first place, but everyone had a place at the taps: and, presumably, such other elevating substances as the times provided. After several years, liability lawyers had been invented and the anal retentives shut the party down.
Today on CBS This Morning, I was listening to Charlie Rose interview Peter Flax, editor in chief of Bicycling magazine, about Lance Armstrong's de facto plea of nolo contendere to the USADA's doping charges. Of course, it remains to be seen how the French organisers of the Tour de France respond to the decision of an American anti-doping agency to strip Armstrong of his several French yellow jerseys. (Logic goes under the bus at such moments, but I hope the jerseys have stood up in the wash.) However, Flax pointed out another problem: just who gets the recycled jerseys? In the years since Armstrong won his Tours, each of the second-place finishers has been found liable for doping. Each of the third place finishers have also, and so on.
Inevitably, I was reminded of The Great Race, and I concluded at once that its organisers had a much better idea than the stuffed shirts who hand out yellow jerseys. Infamous, indeed! If nobody wins, we're all losers, so, let's party!
The idea behind banning doping was not moral, beyond the universal principle behind sports rules, that no one should have an unfair advantage. But if everyone was (or is) doping, and everyone doping is, in theory, going to be caught and punished, doesn't that mean the people with the unfair advantage are the ones who aren't doping? They may win the yellow jersey, but they won't get a shot at the kegs.
...............................................................................
Most of the local media coverage of the Armstrong announcement was fatuous in the extreme. It seemed to be based on the assumption that no American was riding a bicycle except under the inspiration of Lance Armstrong, and thus all of them would go away if Lance is banned. Look, I own two road bikes that were built before Armstrong could drive. One was built before he entered kindergarten. I ride because I love to ride, not because I'm under the influence of celebrity culture. So stuff that angle away and go find some news.
Labels: bicycling, doping, Lance Armstrong, media criticism
posted by Uncle | 23:30
2 Comments:
Does ale count as drugged cycling?
Ale no! But I guess we have to clear that with the USADA. Vin ordinaire has never been banned, as far as I can see.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home