20.1.09
On yer bike
And while we're on sports that aren't all that interesting, Lance Armstrong is in Australia at the moment - you hadn't heard? - and is creating all sorts of warm and fuzzy picture opportunities, like this one in a South Australian hospital.

It seems 37-year-old Lance of Yellow Wristband can do no wrong in this unlikely-looking comeback when it comes to the Aussie media coverage of his tour through the Adelaide hills. Don't put the Herald Sun's Trevor Grant in that category:
WHEN we were children the best way to avoid anything horrible or uncomfortable was to pretend it did not exist.

As far as I know the people who run the South Australian Government are all grown-ups but they seem to have borrowed this tried and true method of avoidance.

From Premier Mike Rann down, they have simply chosen to ignore some inconvenient realities as they go weak at the knees in the presence of cycling's controversial champion, Lance Armstrong.

And it's not just the politicians who prefer to look the other way as they preen themselves over the appearance of Armstrong, secured at an estimated cost of $1 million to the taxpayer.

Ask about drugs as the Tour Down Under cyclists whiz past in the Adelaide Hills this week and you are liable to be flung under wheels.
Grant, being a proud Victorian, slings some gratuitous insults at fawning Croweaters (this is to his credit). But the beatification of St Lance has been a pursuit indulged by all media across the country. Not that I've been watching all that closely, but the 7.30 Report has been the only media outlet I've seen that's really raised the fact that an Armstrong urine sample from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly contained the banned endurance enhancing substance EPO. As Dr Mike Ashenden, an expert in blood doping, told the ABC the other night:
I think that Lance Armstrong's era is unquestionably associated with drug use.
It seems like following the Tour de Phil late at night on SBS gets trendier every year. July is now accompanied not just by freezing cold weather, but boring know-it-alls who drone on and on about how the Aussies go OK on the plains but get eaten alive by the Europeans in the mountains. Even when Cadel came so close last year (accompanied by media coverage normally reserved for future Test openers from NSW who are yet to face a first class delivery) I just can't get excited about a sport that's been based on cheating for at least the last 20 years.

On the other hand, Major League Baseball (greatest. game. ever.) is an entirely different story.

Hypocrite!
5 Comments:
Blogger Tony.T said...
Balls to cycling.

If, in say 10 years, there has only been on average 2 positive tests per year between now and then, I might pay attention.

But there were, what, 5 stage winners in this year's Tour de Gabriel Gaté who tested positive? Does that mean Cadel and Sastre are better riders than the drug cheats, or that they have better chemists on their teams? Either way, it means cycling is tainted.

Blogger Tony.T said...
See, I pay no attention.

Blogger Boof said...
Correct, and irretrievably so. Next!

Blogger David Barry said...
Boof, cycling has been drug-addled for over a century. The 1903 Tour de France had doping scandals. Strychnine was the drug of choice back then.

Tom Simpson died on Mont Ventoux in 1967 and was found with syringes in his back pocket. Cyclists used to be open about it - five-time Tour winner Jacques Anquetil said it was ridiculous to think that you could ride the Tour on lemonade.

That said, there *are* some differences in the culture of the pro peloton today. Whereas a decade ago cyclists protested at police raiding team hotels and finding all manner of doping products, today they protest at dopers who get caught. Before no cyclist could say that doping exists and not be ostracised. Today they would have to say who the suppliers are to be ostracised. Baby steps....

The return of Armstrong (and Basso, and Rasmussen, and Landis) is a terrible step backwards. There is a big risk of undoing the good work of the last couple of years. It is concerning that the AFLD won't be doing the drug-testing this year. They are fantastic - if they see suspicious blood values that don't meet the super-strict requirements for an official positive test, they go and warn the rider in question anyway. Pierre Bordry said it was amazing to see how their blood values would return to normal and how their results suddenly got a lot worse.

Anyway. It's good to see that I'm not the only Australian who dislikes the fawning attention our media is giving to Armstrong.

Blogger Boof said...
Nice one Dave, thanks for the historical perspective.

In a slightly different context, I see the Federal Court handed down a decision yesterday relating to target testing. I'm not all that lawyerly, and I just skimmed the judgement, but it looked like a Victorian sprinter of no real renown has been challenging a doping violation through the courts for some years.

The essence of his case, as far as I could tell, was that when he was notified of his test by the ASADA people, they told him he had been randomly selected.

In fact, he had been target tested (ie. there was a pre-existing suspiscion from somewhere that he was juicing). The athlete argued that ASADA had not complied to the relevent guidelines for target testing (it was loophole-ism at it's best, as as far as I can tell no one disputes the positive). The Federal Court judge disagreed, and I imagine an adverse finding will be reported by ASADA soon.

It can be found at AustLII (look under Federal Court of Australia judgements, January 21) if you're interested.

Post a Comment