Saturday, September 15, 2012

Doping Conspiracy on La Vie Claire?

The Lance Armstrong doping saga appears as old as an worn out shoe.  There was a virtual avalanche of media outrage over the USADA revocation of Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles for a whole week.  Today? A mausoleum like silence.  Even the startling revelations of Tyler Hamilton in the blockbuster book The Secret Race could not excite the imaginations of the jaded bored public.

Why?  Because people are burned out with dopers and their confederates.  People are burned out with the unending Lance Armstrong saga and the unending vendetta to strip him of his titles and destroy his reputation and career.  Even though most Americans are natural born sadists and love nothing more than to see a person ruined; with the twenty four hour sports news cycle even the destruction of a legend grows stale.  People are impatient, like bloated flies they want fresh scandals, they want unending supplies of maggoty meat.

USADA understands this boredom concept where even the most egregious crimes and infamous conclusion are filed away and forgotten.  Most people could not tell you of what the "overwhelming evidence" against Lance Armstrong consists of; even though a few might babble some nonsense about omerta, or the code of silence employed by cycling teams with regards to doping. But, most of the public would also insist that if someone were daring enough to blow the whistle, then the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.  There is the assumption that a deviation from the established status quo conveys virtues of honesty and integrity to witness testimony of the person blowing the whistle; no matter how well documented the past history of doping, denial, dishonesty, and pretensions of this person happens to be.

But, hey, it doesn't take much imagination to spin a credible yarn does it?  Greg LeMond said he could have dropped Bernard Hinault by five minutes on L' Alpe D' Huez during the 1986 Tour de France and Urs Zimmermann, who was second on the general classification, by seventeen minutes.  Why should I not conclude that there was a doping conspiracy on La Vie Claire?  If Lance Armstrong would have made a statement that he could have dropped Jan Ullrich by five minutes up L' Alpe D' Huez the media would have screamed dope.  In addition, using the impeccable logic of the anti-doping crusaders, there is certainly additional anecdotal circumstantial evidence to support such a conclusion that there was a doping conspiracy on La Vie Claire. Bernard Hinault and Greg LeMond one, two, in the general classification for two consecutive Tours de France?  Very unusual.  Bernard Hinault asked to comment on the Lance Armstrong case said that he didn't care, "It's his problem."  But Bernard don't you realize that now that the statute of limitations no longer applies in doping arbitration that it could become your problem.  Listen, if accusations are repeated long enough, even though they have no factual bases, they soon evolve into truths. You don't expect us to buy the nonsense that cycling had a great hiatus from doping when you and Greg LeMond raced merely because there were no positive tests, do you?  Doping doctors knew that autologous blood transfusions of red blood cells increased oxygen transport and utilization even in 1985: added bonus; use of autologous blood transfusions cannot be detected.  A dopers dream!  Not only did the doping doctors know it, but the riders knew it, the teams knew it, and there is a great probability that every rider in the peloton was using autologous blood transfusions during the 1985 and 1986 Tours de France.  Nevertheless, there is Greg LeMond and Bernard Hinault finishing ahead of Urs Zimmermann hand in hand like the best of teammates on L' Alpe D' Huez by twelve minutes! Using this circumstantial summary of events and one witness could cost Greg LeMond his three Tour de France titles and Bernard Hinault his five Tour de France titles.  The titles could be distributed to other riders with conclusive links to dope.

For a more detailed argument pro and con of the possible doping on La Vie Claire read Velo Vortmax:  Slayng the Badger: A Book Review.

Yarn spinning is fun and easy.  You merely have to mix in a little truth with a lot of jive, find the right audience, and then lay on the screws.  Some people are stupid enough to believe anything.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

There was a "a virtual avalanche of media outrage over the USADA" sanctions? I don't think so. Just a few fact-free screeches from the uninformed.

Incidentally, did LeMond have more than a dozen teammates and team personnel give direct eyewitness testimony and specifics of a team doping operation on Le Vie Claire? Did LeMond test positive for cortical steroids and EPO but get off on technicalities? Did LeMond pay the UCI some 200K in "gift" money? Did LeMond pay spend 15 years working with the most notorious doping doctor in his sport? Did LeMond abuse other cyclists were were publicly anti-doping?

Just out of curiosity.

velovortmax said...

Number 27

1) If you want your comments published on my blog, you must remain objective and refrain from making personal attacks.
2) To quote the prisoner, "I am not a number, I am a free man!" If you want to comment, put your name on it! Otherwise don't bother pestering me anymore.

Millard Baker said...

I have been troubled by the scapegoating of Lance Armstrong - as if doping in the peloton began and ended with him. A more objective perspective would suggest that doping was just as pervasive during the 80s as it was during the subsequent 20 years.

The only difference is the drugs. Amphetamines and steroids may have been the drugs du jour of the peloton in the 80s whereas EPO and "oxygen" drugs became commonplace in the 90s.

Notice how famous cyclists from the 80s don't really attack the "culture of doping". They don't readily admit that doping was just as big a problem during their time.

According to their narrative, drugs only became a problem in cycling when EPO emerged.

So, instead of attacking the "culture of doping", they attack the "culture of EPO".

Hypocrisy.