There are very few things sports columnists seem to enjoy than the misfortunes of others. More specifically, there are few things New York/New Jersey area sports columnists enjoy more than the misfortune of Alex Rodriguez. Now that Alex Rodriguez has been linked to Biogenesis of America, which apparently is a "steroid lab," the New York/New Jersey area columnists are having a field day talking about A-Fraud (it's funny, true AND a play on words!). Bob Klapisch and Mike Lupica seem to be the two that had the most fun immediately after it was found that A-Rod was a client of Biogenesis. There's nothing these guys like better than to kick someone while they are down and they get joy out of doing so.
Let's start with Bob Klapisch, who as a person with access to a computer and forum with Newjersey.com, is fully qualified to sum up A-Rod's legacy.
I'm not going to defend A-Rod, but anything that happens negative to him is
like chum in the water for sportswriters to start doing some moral
grandstanding...though due to his height Mike Lupica may have to do his moral grandstanding on a chair so we can all see him.
A-Rod has been linked (again) to performance-enhancing drugs, as recently
as last season, putting the finishing touches on his now-utterly trashed legacy
— baseball’s all-time fraud.
If A-Rod has been using PED's recently then it seems he isn't doing them
right. The least he could do if he planned on using PED's is to put up some
great statistics and stay healthy. Unless...A-Rod thought that would tip
everyone off so he used Wal-Mart-brand PED's that would improve his
performance, but not to the point it would tip anyone off to what he was doing to improve his
performance due to the poor quality of the product. Either way, the moral of this story is that you shouldn't shop at
Wal-Mart.
That would be reason enough to send A-Rod into hiding, but there’s an
even more compelling reason to write him off now. It’s the psychological
dependency on PEDs — he’s been hooked all along and was too weak to ever stop.
Murray Chass heard a rumor A-Rod had a pimple on his back two years ago, so
Murray uses that as evidence it is clear A-Rod was juicing again.
Bacne=steroids.
So now Bob Klapisch is using his medical license and psychiatry degree to
diagnose A-Rod as a drug addict. He's a fraud, cheat, liar, self-obsessed and
now a drug addict. If A-Rod were an actor, he would be revered, but he's an athlete so he is hated.
Rodriguez may look like a bruiser, but don’t be fooled. He’s nothing without
his syringes and pills and creams. He can’t compete without them.
Stomp that body Klapisch! It's still got some life in it! Kick it harder,
make sure your moral grandstanding really sticks in the mind of your readers
this time!
Just wait and see, A-Rod will find a doctor to say he’s medically unable
to keep playing, like Albert Belle, whose own career ended in 2000 because of
hip problems. This convenient detour will allow A-Rod to pocket the rest of his
money and give the Yankees 85 percent reimbursement from their insurers.
So after calling A-Rod a drug addict based on no evidence this statement
is true, Bob Klapisch states A-Rod will probably now commit medical fraud. You
would think A-Rod was a master criminal and not just a baseball player who keeps
getting linked to steroid use. I'm guessing the next part of Klapisch's
argument will be that if A-Rod can't pocket the rest of his money from his
contract, he will rob a bank or defraud a little old lady out of her Social
Security. Because that's just like something A-Rod would do.
Dishonest or not, it would be the ultimate face-saver, and don’t think
for a minute Yankee elders aren’t praying for this very road map.
So the solution to this problem in Bob Klapisch's mind is to commit medical
fraud. Of course that's the answer. I personally see no reason why Rodriguez
shouldn't just commit medical fraud. In fact, let's encourage him to do this so
we can all move on with our lives. Medical fraud is the only obvious solution to this problem.
A-Rod was listed among its clientele. The government will eventually
learn if the published claims are verifiable, whether A-Rod was
trafficking in controlled or illegal substances.
Wait, so we don't know A-Rod is guilty of using PED's again? It certainly seems like Bob Klapisch knows since he has called A-Rod a drug addict and stated he should consider medical fraud. Rodriguez probably did use PED's again, but Bob Klapisch won't allow any unverified proof to move him away from this conclusion.
There’s no hard proof — yet. But we all see the scaffolding of A-Rod’s cheating heart.
Proof is for people who don't have a deadline. Proof is something that isn't required when doing a hit-job on Alex Rodriguez. He sucks, so let's just keep piling on.
Somehow, A-Rod’s insecurity managed to overwhelm him — a need to be
loved, to be hailed, which required a shot of steroids, a dab of HGH,
something, anything to compensate for his neurotic fear of being
ignored.
Bob Klapisch: Psychiatrist, medical doctor, sportswriter, and now psychologist. His talents know no human bounds.
But here’s the more compelling question: What happened to Rodriguez’s
talent if he was indeed juicing and cheating his way through the 2012
season? He finished with his lowest slugging percentage since 1995 and,
with only 18 home runs, turned a pursuit of Barry Bonds’ all-time home
run record into a dead crawl.
What happened to A-Rod's talent is that he was injured and getting old. It's an easy answer. A-Rod isn't exactly young and he wasn't very good even when he was using PED's at the age of 37.
Only he understands the depth of his desperation — to keep cheating
after having been caught once already. To keep cheating after knowing
the game’s culture had so radically turned against the juicers. To keep
cheating when there was so much to lose: money, health, legacy.
Right, like anyone in the media has forgotten about him having admitted to using PED's during his time with the Texas Rangers. A-Rod had nothing to lose because he has all the money he will need, he obviously doesn't care about his health in the first place and his legacy was shot the first time he admitted to using PED's. Writers like Bob Klapisch or Mike Lupica were never going to forgive and forget Rodriguez's PED use when it came time for A-Rod to be up for Hall of Fame induction. A-Rod's legacy was already shot.
It’s a sad tale of greed and fear, one that cannot end well. Our guess?
The arc of Rodriguez’s career is already crashed and burned.
Yes, but this arc was already crashed and burned because he had admitted to prior PED use. The media has him as a cheating PED user who is overpaid and chokes in clutch situations. Much of that is true, but it also explains why he would do what he can to get some sense of a legacy together in the later stages of his career. Bob Klapisch is adding in to A-Rod's legacy that he is a drug addict and suggests he commit medical fraud.
If so, he’ll be remembered by a damning footnote: king of the cheaters.
He was already considered king of the cheaters before he was busted for PED use the second time. Bob Klapisch shouldn't pretend A-Rod's legacy has been forever tainted now. He was already the king of the cheaters in the minds of many.
Now Mike Lupica is going to lean forward in his chair and angrily stomp on Rodriguez while he is down. Hey, it beats having to think of a column idea. Mike Lupica wants us to know that the Yankees are very, very happy to get rid of A-Rod, though I would bet Mike Lupica is sad. It's going to be hard for him to get on his moral high horse when talking about how great Robinson Cano is playing or when discussing Mariano Rivera's career.
Nearly nine years after the Yankees made a trade for Alex Rodriguez
that was going to start winning them World Series the way they won them
after Joe Torre got to town, the Yankees want Rodriguez to disappear
the way the old Stadium has.
Showing posts with label lance armstrong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lance armstrong. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2013
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
9 comments MMQB Review: Nobody Knows Anything about the NFL, but Here's What Peter Knows Edition
Last week in Peter King's MMQB we learned that God helped the Colts beat the Packers and the Jaguars new owner is very interested in starting a massive Jaguars fan base overseas in London, probably at the expense of the Jaguars fans in Jacksonville. It's fine to cultivate overseas markets, but I can't help but wonder the effect this will have on the Jaguars Jacksonville-based fan base. Not that the Jacksonville fans should matter of course. This week Peter marvels at how quickly Russell Wilson is maturing, still considers Derek Jeter the best player he has ever seen play over a full career, and gives out shampoo traveling tips to readers of another writer's column.
The longer you follow pro football, the more you realize why the game's so much fun and so maddening. I mean, we're six weeks into the season and who really knows anything?
Nobody really knows anything about this NFL season, unless your name is Peter King. Peter knows enough to state in this very column we shouldn't call rookies "rookies" anymore and he knows the Falcons are the best team in the NFL right now. Other than the things in this column Peter thinks he knows, nobody knows anything.
Former Niners owner Eddie DeBartolo to Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times, on the 49ers, after their 79-3 dismantling of the Jets and Bills in Weeks 4 and 5: "They're better than anybody they're going to play ... I don't see a weakness."
Sunday at Candlestick: New York Giants 26, San Francisco 3.
That is so crazy how Eddie DeBartolo's opinion could be wrong. He's so knowledgeable about the NFL and certainly isn't biased at all to think that the team he used to own is the best team in the NFL and has no weaknesses.
The AFC East: New York 3-3, New England 3-3, Buffalo 3-3, Miami 3-3.
"The league's really wacky this year,'' Bills safety Jairus Byrd said from Arizona Sunday evening. "Anything can happen. Just look at us."
Look at anybody.
Nobody knows anything about how good each NFL team is right now. It's almost like it would be a waste of time for Peter to do a "Fine Fifteen" this week since he admittedly knows nothing. Yet, he manages to get past his admitted lack of knowledge to post his "Fine Fifteen."
We have to stop calling rookies rookies
Since they are by definition NFL players who haven't played in the NFL prior to that year I am interested to see what word Peter suggests we use. Maybe call them "first year players" though that is a longer term to use and I personally would just resort back to calling them "rookies." Calling a player a "rookie" doesn't mean that player isn't very good at football or can't do his job well. It just means he hasn't played in the NFL prior to this current year.
Rookie quarterbacks were 4-1 Sunday, first-pick Luck the only loser, and Cleveland's Brandon Weeden getting his first pro victory. What should amaze us all is the quick maturation of them all. Robert Griffin III runs the Redskins like it's Baylor. Tannehill picked up where he left off at Texas A&M. And Russell Wilson -- more about him later -- has overcome the height and rookie thing to beat Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton and Tom Brady in the first six weeks of his pro career.
And remember, Russell Wilson's TEAM didn't beat Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton and Tom Brady, it was Russell Wilson personally and by himself who beat these quarterbacks. Sorry, Seattle defense you don't get any credit because the narrative about Wilson's height is much more interesting to the media than the achievements of a tough defense.
The maturation of Russell Wilson. After his sixth NFL game Sunday, a 24-23 win over the Patriots at home, Wilson told Tom Brady on the field, "I have so much respect for you as a player and a person. It's great to play against you." He walked through the Seattle locker room, shaking hands with every player. He stopped to share a few moments with owner Paul Allen. In his post-game press conference, during which he deflected any praise about himself toward the team, he finished the way he finishes interviews broadcast live to Seattle fans: "Go Hawks!''
Good teammate. Good politician. Good guy. And a very quick study as a quarterback.
But more importantly, he returns Peter's phone calls, which means Peter is prone to give Wilson more favorable coverage. If Wilson gets too down about a loss, well that doesn't mean much he's just a competitor. Wilson threw three interceptions (not that Wilson would ever do this)? He's just a rookie quarterback after all. Maybe the Seattle defense should return Peter's phone calls and start shaking everyone's hand rather than getting in Tom Brady's face for talking shit during a game and then they could possibly get credit for Seattle being 4-2.
Thirteen points down to Brady, in a heavy Seattle mist with nine minutes to go, Wilson led an 83-yard drive ending in his red-zone touchdown pass to Braylon Edwards.
I'm more impressed with the fact he got Braylon Edwards to catch the football. That's the sign of a great quarterback right there.
When Seattle GM John Schneider picked Wilson 75th overall, he was privately chided by his peers for picking Wilson too high. He's too small (5-foot-11), football people said; he won't be able to take the punishment of the pro game, and his arm's just okay. It's only six games, of course, and anything can happen,
It's the old "I've reached a conclusion that may or may not hold up in the long-term, but for the sake of finishing this column let's assume my conclusion holds up in the long-term, and if it doesn't remember I said anything can happen" way of ensuring you are correct.
and he's had a couple of games of shaky decision-making.
Ignore the bad and focus on how Wilson has played well over the last two weeks against below average defenses.
I asked Wilson if he was stunned to have beaten Tom Brady and the Patriots, with the Belichick-designed defense.
What the hell kind of question is this? Does Peter really think Russell Wilson is going to say, "Hell yeah, I'm surprised we won the game. I went into this game just assuming we would lose."? This is just not a question that tells the reader anything. Of course a pro athlete is going to say he is never stunned when he wins a game. If he said otherwise he would criticizing not only his own skill level, but his teammates as well. What kind of answer did Peter expect?
"No,'' he said. "Not at all. This is what I've been waiting for my whole life. God's given me a blessing and an opportunity. I've always looked up to Tom, even though he's 6-4, 6-5 and a different kind of player. He's so smart, got so much competitive fire and tenacity. He didn't get drafted high, and he had to work for everything he ever got. I really identify with him. I try to prepare the same way I know he prepares.''
What a shocking and insightful quote. Russell Wilson respects Tom Brady (which we wouldn't know except for the fact Peter mentioned this earlier in MMQB), Wilson models himself after Brady, identifies with Brady because he was drafted later in the NFL Draft (though Wilson was taken in the 3rd round and Brady in the 6th round...there's a big difference in those draft spots) and he expected to win the game. Was there any doubt Wilson would say he expected to win this game? Doesn't nearly every quarterback look up to a quarterback like Tom Brady?
Last week, Eli Manning's backup for three years at Ole Miss, Seth Smith, had a game-tying double in game four of the American League Division Series for Oakland against Detroit. "You call me a quarterback, and you should use that word loosely,'' Smith said Saturday. "I was never a threat to win the job from Eli. I was never close to playing. He was in another league.'' Smith, it seemed, had much in common with Manning, though -- the ability to treat a ninth-inning playoff at-bat with 50,000 screaming fans watching the same as a March at-bat in Arizona.
Clearly Eli Manning taught Seth Smith how to handle playing in a pressure situation. Maybe Peter should ask Eli Manning if he expects to come through for the Giants in a pressure situation this year. Who knows what his answer will be?
Adam Teicher of the Kansas City Star countered the report out Sunday that Scott Pioli has been in discussions with the team on a two-year contract extension. As I said on NBC Sunday night, I can confirm the debunking -- I'm told Pioli and Chiefs owner Clark Hunt haven't been talking contract
Some Chiefs fans breathe a sight of relief upon hearing this.
If Alex Karras had been born half a century later, he'd have been a star on Warren Sapp's level -- even brighter.
So Alex Karras would have also been a loud mouth jerk who really has no redeeming qualities other than having played the game of football at a high level once upon a time?
2. He was so angry at Lions quarterback Milt Plum for throwing a game-turning interception that allowed the Packers to come back to beat the Lions in 1962 that, in the locker room, he took his helmet off and flung it at Plum's head, missing him by inches. And admitted doing it.
Well, as long as he admits to doing it then no-harm, no-foul. Imagine if an NFL player today threw his helmet at a teammate and the media got a hold of this information? Jay Cutler pushed a teammate and the media acted as if he had committed the greatest crime against his team that was possible. Peter suggested Cam Newton get a hearty lecture from Bernie Kosar about leadership because he was pouting after a bad performance. What if Newton had thrown a helmet at a defensive player? I'm not knocking Karras, but simply saying these wouldn't be fond "that guy was a competitor and character" memories if he played in today's NFL. These would be "this guy is a jerk who attacked his own teammates and gambled while playing in the NFL" memories.
3. He was suspended for the 1963 season for gambling on football games, and was eternally bitter at commissioner Pete Rozelle for what he thought was overreacting to a penny-ante hobby.
Gambling on football games when you are playing in the NFL...what's the big deal?
Fine Fifteen
1. Atlanta (6-0).
They have beaten the #10, #11, and #14 teams in Peter's "Fine Fifteen." I guess that's impressive enough for Peter. There are other teams with better resumes, but it seems Peter just stuck the only undefeated team in this #1 spot.
2. New York Giants (4-2). Most impressive win by any team this season,
But not impressive enough for the #1 spot.
the 26-3 rout of the Niners that no one -- not even Abby Manning -- saw coming in its decisiveness. (Well, I'm sure Ms. Eli thought her husband would pull out a win, but a rout?)
More importantly, does it really matter what Abby Manning thinks? Peter is the type of guy who name-drops people that he knows whenever given the opportunity in MMQB. It's just Peter name-drops bizarre names like random people he knows in his personal life and the wife of an NFL quarterback. These are people I'm not sure are incredibly interesting to Peter's readers.
4. Chicago (4-1). After two straight weeks of scoring defensive touchdowns, Lance Briggs and Charles Tillman were held scoreless Sunday.
My God, tell me more about this story. I didn't even know the Bears pla---
That could be because the Bears had a bye in advance of a Week 7 Monday nighter against Detroit.
You got me, Peter! I done got fooled by your misdirectionative comments.
5. Baltimore (5-1). John Harbaugh is now 31-5 at home. The Ravens are on a 14-game winning streak at The Big Crabcake. But it's not at home where Baltimore's about to be tested. Next six weeks: at Houston, bye, at Cleveland, vs. Oakland, at Pittsburgh, at San Diego. Yikes.
Especially "yikes" without Ray Lewis and Lardarius Webb.
6. San Francisco (4-2). I guarantee you Jim Harbaugh hasn't slept yet, and is in his office as you read this, saying to the Bill Walsh photo on his laptop, "Coach, don't ask me. I have no idea what just happened.
You guarantee Jim Harbaugh is talking to his laptop photo as if it were really Bill Walsh? I'll take that guarantee and say Jim Harbaugh did not do this. I have an idea of what just happened. The Giants got out to a lead in the game and Alex Smith wasn't able to lead the 49ers back.
8. Seattle (4-2). Amazing thing is, I was convinced the Seahawks had to beat the tar out of Tom Brady to win this game, and Brady, with 59 pass drops, was sacked only once and hit while throwing five times. Not a lot, getting hit once every 12 attempts. But this game was won with big plays from Russell Wilson when the Seahawks had to have them.
This game was also won by the Seahawks porous defense (at least on this day) which clamped down on the Patriots in their last two possessions giving Russell Wilson (and Russell Wilson alone with help from no one else) a chance to come back in this game. I know the Seattle defense didn't play well throughout the game, but somebody somewhere needs to give them credit for playing well when they had to play well and stopping the Patriots offense.
15. Philadelphia (3-3). The story about Michael Vick carrying the ball around the Eagles' practice facility all week, reminding himself to not drop it so much, didn't work so well in the loss to Detroit. He fumbled for the 30th time in his last 30 games, and threw two more picks.
Was there someone chasing Vick around the practice facility and did Mike Vick have to pass the football to another Eagles player while he was being chased and the Eagles player was being defended by another Eagles player? If not, then I can see how this didn't work.
Offensive Players of the Week
Russell Wilson, QB, Seattle. Imagine what must be going through this kid's mind, after out-dueling Rodgers and Brady in the first six weeks of his NFL career. "It's the team, not me,'' he said from the Seattle locker room after the 24-23 win over the Patriots. Modesty will get you everywhere.
Yeah, Wilson isn't being modest. He is being accurate in making this statement. The Seahawks defense held the Patriots to field goals instead of touchdowns and played well so that Wilson could lead a comeback. There is a difference in being modest and simply telling the truth.
Coaches of the Week
Pat Shurmur, head coach, Cleveland. He's been unfailingly optimistic around his team, which, after losing 11 in a row, had to be hard. "It wasn't really,'' he said over the phone afterward. "They're so young.
Well, except for the Browns' quarterback. He is two years younger than Eli Manning and two years older than Matt Ryan. Think about that for a minute. I couldn't have hated the Weeden pick by the Browns more. Even if he ends up playing well and being the quarterback that can lead the Browns to the playoffs in multiple years he is going to be 30 years old before he will do this. I feel like Weeden is a short-term quarterback, that's my biggest problem with him, and a rebuilding team spent a first round pick on him.
"Do not carry me."
-- Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter, three minutes after breaking his left ankle early Sunday morning in Game 1 of the American League Championship Series, to manager Joe Girardi, who was preparing with trainer Steve Donahue to remove Jeter from the field. Jeter put his left arm over Girardi's left shoulder and his right arm over Donahue's, and he left the field putting no weight on his left foot.
What a player. What a competitor.
This is why many stat geeks say that Jeter's defense was continually overrated 2-3 seasons ago. You want him to move laterally and he ends up breaking his ankle.
I'm just kidding Yankees fans. It's too soon, I know.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
A great question in Chuck Klosterman's "The Ethicist'' column in Sunday's New York Times Sunday Magazine, and if you travel, the question's for you. The question, from a reader identified as "S.B.'' from New York:
A combination of Peter King and Chuck Klosterman? Along with Peter including a haiku in every MMQB there have been quite a few unwelcome new developments in MMQB this past year.
"My boyfriend often travels for business. I always ask him to bring back the shampoo and conditioner from the hotel room, and if he is staying multiple nights, to put the shampoo in his suitcase so that the maid will replace it and he can bring home an additional bottle. He says this is stealing. I say the shampoo is included in the price of the room, and the room is not discounted the second night, so therefore the second bottle of shampoo is included the second night. Incidentally, I haven't purchased shampoo or conditioner in over four years, a point of pride for me. Your thoughts?"
If there is a better place to discuss this issue than an NFL column then I am not aware of that better place. Do you know what I think? I think if you have to write into a column and get advice on whether this is stealing shampoo or not, then you may have a few issues that are bigger than theft of shampoo. Of course, I guess asking pointless questions to Chuck Klosterman is the entire point of "The Ethicist" column. It shocks me how many people will email Bill Simmons and ask for his opinion on trivial matters and it probably shouldn't. After all "Dear Abby" was a very popular column for a long time.
The way I see it, there are three possible answers here -- and I'd love to hear your thoughts on which one you think is just.
So basically Peter wants to hear our thoughts on his thoughts concerning Chuck Klosterman's thoughts about the writer of this question's thoughts related to stealing hotel shampoo?
a. You're entitled to take as much shampoo and conditioner and soap as the housekeeper puts in your room for the length of your stay.
b. You're entitled to one bottle of shampoo and conditioner and one bar of soap per stay.
c. You should never take any toiletries from a hotel room.
Here is the answer. Would you feel comfortable going to the front desk and telling them you are taking the soap and shampoo? If so, ask them if they consider this to be stealing. If not, then it isn't stealing. After all, you can't steal something the hotel doesn't care if you take.
You know what I do with these little bottles?
Keep them to help store your special "Matt Ryan/Russell Wilson lotion" when on the road?
Nothing -- unless I find one that has a screw-on top and is easily able to be filled with the shampoo I use. Then, a couple times a year, I empty one of them per trip, clean it out, then put it in my bag, take it home, and fill it with my shampoo to take on a future trip. I do this so I don't have to take a large bottle of shampoo, which would necessitate checking a bag, which I am loathe to do. The small shampoo bottles mean I can walk on with my bag.
I say take the shampoo. I'm guessing the hotel really doesn't care. After all, I'm pretty sure they replace the shampoo and soap once they have been used...or I hope they replace them.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 6:
f. No interceptions by the Raiders through five games. Three interceptions by the Raiders in the first half at Atlanta.
This happened against the #1 team in Peter's power rankings and (who I would guess to be) his favorite right now for MVP. Just food for thought. A kernel of a thought, really. More like a morsel of a nugget of a thought.
m. Legatron. It's a matter of time before St. Louis' Greg Zuerlein breaks the record for the longest field goal (63 yards) in NFL history. He missed a 66-yarder wide left at Miami that had plenty of leg. Of course, he missed 52- and 37-yarders too, and making any of the three would have forced overtime in a three-point loss.
I hope this "Legatron" nickname doesn't catch on. It's a good thing this happened in the second quarter of the season or else Peter would have to take back his "Offensive Rookie of the Quarter-Part of the Year" award that he gave Zuerlein. Even if Zuerlein is just so damn precocious. I'm not sure Zuerlein even knows he is playing NFL football. He probably thinks he is kicking a football in the backyard of his mom's house. His precociousness is unparalleled.
n. Ronde Barber, he of the 78-yard interception return for touchdown, still making winning plays at 37.
In a 38-10 game this was definitely the deciding play in this game. What a winning winner. Ronde Barber is the greatest player that Peter has ever seen play the game of football during Barber's entire lifetime if you only count players whose last name is "Barber."
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 6:
e. Hold off on the Cantonization of Andrew Luck, after his overthrow of an easy touchdown to Coby Fleener at the Meadowlands.
There are a couple of gems in this comment. The ones who are Cantonizing Andrew Luck at this point is the sports media, of which Peter King has gladly helped the hype of Luck, and I would count him as part of those starting to Cantonize Luck. On the other hand, simply because Luck overthrew his receiver in the end zone doesn't mean he isn't going to be a great quarterback either. He is a rookie and missed a throw. This will not only have no effect on his Hall of Fame candidacy, but the mere mention of this as a reason to not Cantonize Luck yet makes my head hurt.
3. I think I am sick of those in and out of the football business telling me Ben Roethlisberger gets no respect. Stop. Just stop. Just because someone doesn't think Roethlisberger is as good as Tom Brady or Eli Manning or Aaron Rodgers doesn't mean that person doesn't respect him. We're in the golden age of quarterbacks -- the best time for quarterbacks, with the deepest roster of very good ones, in the history of the league -- and I consider Roethlisberger highly respected in the hierarchy. If it's bashing a guy to consider him the third- or fifth- or seventh-best at a time of such greatness ... I mean, Lord help us.
But Peter, Roethlisberger missed an open receiver in the end zone one time. Before we start calling him a quarterback in a time of such greatness let's remember this one pass that Roethlisberger missed on six years ago. Let's not be so quick to make Roethlisberger a great quarterback due to this missed pass.
9. I think I like Mike Vick owning a dog. As he said, he needs to break the cycle of animal abuse in his family. How will you do that for the next generations without showing them dogs can be beloved pets and not killer competitors?
I think Mike Vick owning a dog is a non-story, but is a story that too many people will try to read way too many things into. He used to fight dogs, now he owns one that he doesn't fight. He appears to be rehabilitated, so there isn't much to see here.
a. I'm having a hard time understanding why the people I see running through Manhattan with LIVESTRONG gear still wear the stuff, in the wake of what we heard last week from members of Lance Armstrong's bicycle racing team that he was doping while competing for years in the Tour de France. "To be on Lance Armstrong's team, doping was a necessity,'' one teammate, Ty Hamilton, told ESPN Radio. How much more evidence do you have to see and hear to be convinced Armstrong wasn't clean when he won all those races?
These people still wear this stuff because they enjoy wearing it and Lance Armstrong's fight against cancer and improving funding for cancer research still made a positive impact. I would wear LIVESTRONG gear mostly because it is good running gear to wear. I wouldn't throw my LIVESTRONG gear away simply because Lance Armstrong doped when he won the Tour de France races.
c. There can't be more valiant losers in sports, not just baseball, than the A's and O's.
Blah, hyperbole/cliche.
e. I really feel for Derek Jeter, the best baseball player whose full career I've had the pleasure to see.
A few years ago Peter King said Derek Jeter was the best player of the last 25 years and understandably many people wrote in to him asking what he was smoking. Peter clarified to say Jeter was the best baseball player whose full career he had ever seen. I still don't know what he is smoking, but I've given up the fight at this point. There's no talking or convincing him away from this point. I wouldn't put Jeter in the Top 5 of players whose full career I have had the pleasure to see. Maybe I'm underestimating The Jeter too much.
h. The Nationals might want to sign that Phil Coke guy. His first 13 pitches in the American League Championship Series were strikes. A foreign concept to the Nats hurlers.
Throwing strikes isn't always the best way to get a hitter out, which I know I don't have to tell Peter this since he is such a huge fan of baseball. Also, Drew Storen did throw three strikes to a Cardinals hitter, but the umpire just didn't call the third strike.
The Adieu Haiku
Hey Aaron Rodgers!
Loved what you told Tafoya.
"Shhhhhhh.'' Critics silenced.
Hello Peter King!
Do not be an Easterbrook
Haikus have to go.
The longer you follow pro football, the more you realize why the game's so much fun and so maddening. I mean, we're six weeks into the season and who really knows anything?
Nobody really knows anything about this NFL season, unless your name is Peter King. Peter knows enough to state in this very column we shouldn't call rookies "rookies" anymore and he knows the Falcons are the best team in the NFL right now. Other than the things in this column Peter thinks he knows, nobody knows anything.
Former Niners owner Eddie DeBartolo to Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times, on the 49ers, after their 79-3 dismantling of the Jets and Bills in Weeks 4 and 5: "They're better than anybody they're going to play ... I don't see a weakness."
Sunday at Candlestick: New York Giants 26, San Francisco 3.
That is so crazy how Eddie DeBartolo's opinion could be wrong. He's so knowledgeable about the NFL and certainly isn't biased at all to think that the team he used to own is the best team in the NFL and has no weaknesses.
The AFC East: New York 3-3, New England 3-3, Buffalo 3-3, Miami 3-3.
"The league's really wacky this year,'' Bills safety Jairus Byrd said from Arizona Sunday evening. "Anything can happen. Just look at us."
Look at anybody.
Nobody knows anything about how good each NFL team is right now. It's almost like it would be a waste of time for Peter to do a "Fine Fifteen" this week since he admittedly knows nothing. Yet, he manages to get past his admitted lack of knowledge to post his "Fine Fifteen."
We have to stop calling rookies rookies
Since they are by definition NFL players who haven't played in the NFL prior to that year I am interested to see what word Peter suggests we use. Maybe call them "first year players" though that is a longer term to use and I personally would just resort back to calling them "rookies." Calling a player a "rookie" doesn't mean that player isn't very good at football or can't do his job well. It just means he hasn't played in the NFL prior to this current year.
Rookie quarterbacks were 4-1 Sunday, first-pick Luck the only loser, and Cleveland's Brandon Weeden getting his first pro victory. What should amaze us all is the quick maturation of them all. Robert Griffin III runs the Redskins like it's Baylor. Tannehill picked up where he left off at Texas A&M. And Russell Wilson -- more about him later -- has overcome the height and rookie thing to beat Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton and Tom Brady in the first six weeks of his pro career.
And remember, Russell Wilson's TEAM didn't beat Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton and Tom Brady, it was Russell Wilson personally and by himself who beat these quarterbacks. Sorry, Seattle defense you don't get any credit because the narrative about Wilson's height is much more interesting to the media than the achievements of a tough defense.
The maturation of Russell Wilson. After his sixth NFL game Sunday, a 24-23 win over the Patriots at home, Wilson told Tom Brady on the field, "I have so much respect for you as a player and a person. It's great to play against you." He walked through the Seattle locker room, shaking hands with every player. He stopped to share a few moments with owner Paul Allen. In his post-game press conference, during which he deflected any praise about himself toward the team, he finished the way he finishes interviews broadcast live to Seattle fans: "Go Hawks!''
Good teammate. Good politician. Good guy. And a very quick study as a quarterback.
But more importantly, he returns Peter's phone calls, which means Peter is prone to give Wilson more favorable coverage. If Wilson gets too down about a loss, well that doesn't mean much he's just a competitor. Wilson threw three interceptions (not that Wilson would ever do this)? He's just a rookie quarterback after all. Maybe the Seattle defense should return Peter's phone calls and start shaking everyone's hand rather than getting in Tom Brady's face for talking shit during a game and then they could possibly get credit for Seattle being 4-2.
Thirteen points down to Brady, in a heavy Seattle mist with nine minutes to go, Wilson led an 83-yard drive ending in his red-zone touchdown pass to Braylon Edwards.
I'm more impressed with the fact he got Braylon Edwards to catch the football. That's the sign of a great quarterback right there.
When Seattle GM John Schneider picked Wilson 75th overall, he was privately chided by his peers for picking Wilson too high. He's too small (5-foot-11), football people said; he won't be able to take the punishment of the pro game, and his arm's just okay. It's only six games, of course, and anything can happen,
It's the old "I've reached a conclusion that may or may not hold up in the long-term, but for the sake of finishing this column let's assume my conclusion holds up in the long-term, and if it doesn't remember I said anything can happen" way of ensuring you are correct.
and he's had a couple of games of shaky decision-making.
Ignore the bad and focus on how Wilson has played well over the last two weeks against below average defenses.
I asked Wilson if he was stunned to have beaten Tom Brady and the Patriots, with the Belichick-designed defense.
What the hell kind of question is this? Does Peter really think Russell Wilson is going to say, "Hell yeah, I'm surprised we won the game. I went into this game just assuming we would lose."? This is just not a question that tells the reader anything. Of course a pro athlete is going to say he is never stunned when he wins a game. If he said otherwise he would criticizing not only his own skill level, but his teammates as well. What kind of answer did Peter expect?
"No,'' he said. "Not at all. This is what I've been waiting for my whole life. God's given me a blessing and an opportunity. I've always looked up to Tom, even though he's 6-4, 6-5 and a different kind of player. He's so smart, got so much competitive fire and tenacity. He didn't get drafted high, and he had to work for everything he ever got. I really identify with him. I try to prepare the same way I know he prepares.''
What a shocking and insightful quote. Russell Wilson respects Tom Brady (which we wouldn't know except for the fact Peter mentioned this earlier in MMQB), Wilson models himself after Brady, identifies with Brady because he was drafted later in the NFL Draft (though Wilson was taken in the 3rd round and Brady in the 6th round...there's a big difference in those draft spots) and he expected to win the game. Was there any doubt Wilson would say he expected to win this game? Doesn't nearly every quarterback look up to a quarterback like Tom Brady?
Last week, Eli Manning's backup for three years at Ole Miss, Seth Smith, had a game-tying double in game four of the American League Division Series for Oakland against Detroit. "You call me a quarterback, and you should use that word loosely,'' Smith said Saturday. "I was never a threat to win the job from Eli. I was never close to playing. He was in another league.'' Smith, it seemed, had much in common with Manning, though -- the ability to treat a ninth-inning playoff at-bat with 50,000 screaming fans watching the same as a March at-bat in Arizona.
Clearly Eli Manning taught Seth Smith how to handle playing in a pressure situation. Maybe Peter should ask Eli Manning if he expects to come through for the Giants in a pressure situation this year. Who knows what his answer will be?
Adam Teicher of the Kansas City Star countered the report out Sunday that Scott Pioli has been in discussions with the team on a two-year contract extension. As I said on NBC Sunday night, I can confirm the debunking -- I'm told Pioli and Chiefs owner Clark Hunt haven't been talking contract
Some Chiefs fans breathe a sight of relief upon hearing this.
If Alex Karras had been born half a century later, he'd have been a star on Warren Sapp's level -- even brighter.
So Alex Karras would have also been a loud mouth jerk who really has no redeeming qualities other than having played the game of football at a high level once upon a time?
2. He was so angry at Lions quarterback Milt Plum for throwing a game-turning interception that allowed the Packers to come back to beat the Lions in 1962 that, in the locker room, he took his helmet off and flung it at Plum's head, missing him by inches. And admitted doing it.
Well, as long as he admits to doing it then no-harm, no-foul. Imagine if an NFL player today threw his helmet at a teammate and the media got a hold of this information? Jay Cutler pushed a teammate and the media acted as if he had committed the greatest crime against his team that was possible. Peter suggested Cam Newton get a hearty lecture from Bernie Kosar about leadership because he was pouting after a bad performance. What if Newton had thrown a helmet at a defensive player? I'm not knocking Karras, but simply saying these wouldn't be fond "that guy was a competitor and character" memories if he played in today's NFL. These would be "this guy is a jerk who attacked his own teammates and gambled while playing in the NFL" memories.
3. He was suspended for the 1963 season for gambling on football games, and was eternally bitter at commissioner Pete Rozelle for what he thought was overreacting to a penny-ante hobby.
Gambling on football games when you are playing in the NFL...what's the big deal?
Fine Fifteen
1. Atlanta (6-0).
They have beaten the #10, #11, and #14 teams in Peter's "Fine Fifteen." I guess that's impressive enough for Peter. There are other teams with better resumes, but it seems Peter just stuck the only undefeated team in this #1 spot.
2. New York Giants (4-2). Most impressive win by any team this season,
But not impressive enough for the #1 spot.
the 26-3 rout of the Niners that no one -- not even Abby Manning -- saw coming in its decisiveness. (Well, I'm sure Ms. Eli thought her husband would pull out a win, but a rout?)
More importantly, does it really matter what Abby Manning thinks? Peter is the type of guy who name-drops people that he knows whenever given the opportunity in MMQB. It's just Peter name-drops bizarre names like random people he knows in his personal life and the wife of an NFL quarterback. These are people I'm not sure are incredibly interesting to Peter's readers.
4. Chicago (4-1). After two straight weeks of scoring defensive touchdowns, Lance Briggs and Charles Tillman were held scoreless Sunday.
My God, tell me more about this story. I didn't even know the Bears pla---
That could be because the Bears had a bye in advance of a Week 7 Monday nighter against Detroit.
You got me, Peter! I done got fooled by your misdirectionative comments.
5. Baltimore (5-1). John Harbaugh is now 31-5 at home. The Ravens are on a 14-game winning streak at The Big Crabcake. But it's not at home where Baltimore's about to be tested. Next six weeks: at Houston, bye, at Cleveland, vs. Oakland, at Pittsburgh, at San Diego. Yikes.
Especially "yikes" without Ray Lewis and Lardarius Webb.
6. San Francisco (4-2). I guarantee you Jim Harbaugh hasn't slept yet, and is in his office as you read this, saying to the Bill Walsh photo on his laptop, "Coach, don't ask me. I have no idea what just happened.
You guarantee Jim Harbaugh is talking to his laptop photo as if it were really Bill Walsh? I'll take that guarantee and say Jim Harbaugh did not do this. I have an idea of what just happened. The Giants got out to a lead in the game and Alex Smith wasn't able to lead the 49ers back.
8. Seattle (4-2). Amazing thing is, I was convinced the Seahawks had to beat the tar out of Tom Brady to win this game, and Brady, with 59 pass drops, was sacked only once and hit while throwing five times. Not a lot, getting hit once every 12 attempts. But this game was won with big plays from Russell Wilson when the Seahawks had to have them.
This game was also won by the Seahawks porous defense (at least on this day) which clamped down on the Patriots in their last two possessions giving Russell Wilson (and Russell Wilson alone with help from no one else) a chance to come back in this game. I know the Seattle defense didn't play well throughout the game, but somebody somewhere needs to give them credit for playing well when they had to play well and stopping the Patriots offense.
15. Philadelphia (3-3). The story about Michael Vick carrying the ball around the Eagles' practice facility all week, reminding himself to not drop it so much, didn't work so well in the loss to Detroit. He fumbled for the 30th time in his last 30 games, and threw two more picks.
Was there someone chasing Vick around the practice facility and did Mike Vick have to pass the football to another Eagles player while he was being chased and the Eagles player was being defended by another Eagles player? If not, then I can see how this didn't work.
Offensive Players of the Week
Russell Wilson, QB, Seattle. Imagine what must be going through this kid's mind, after out-dueling Rodgers and Brady in the first six weeks of his NFL career. "It's the team, not me,'' he said from the Seattle locker room after the 24-23 win over the Patriots. Modesty will get you everywhere.
Yeah, Wilson isn't being modest. He is being accurate in making this statement. The Seahawks defense held the Patriots to field goals instead of touchdowns and played well so that Wilson could lead a comeback. There is a difference in being modest and simply telling the truth.
Coaches of the Week
Pat Shurmur, head coach, Cleveland. He's been unfailingly optimistic around his team, which, after losing 11 in a row, had to be hard. "It wasn't really,'' he said over the phone afterward. "They're so young.
Well, except for the Browns' quarterback. He is two years younger than Eli Manning and two years older than Matt Ryan. Think about that for a minute. I couldn't have hated the Weeden pick by the Browns more. Even if he ends up playing well and being the quarterback that can lead the Browns to the playoffs in multiple years he is going to be 30 years old before he will do this. I feel like Weeden is a short-term quarterback, that's my biggest problem with him, and a rebuilding team spent a first round pick on him.
"Do not carry me."
-- Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter, three minutes after breaking his left ankle early Sunday morning in Game 1 of the American League Championship Series, to manager Joe Girardi, who was preparing with trainer Steve Donahue to remove Jeter from the field. Jeter put his left arm over Girardi's left shoulder and his right arm over Donahue's, and he left the field putting no weight on his left foot.
What a player. What a competitor.
This is why many stat geeks say that Jeter's defense was continually overrated 2-3 seasons ago. You want him to move laterally and he ends up breaking his ankle.
I'm just kidding Yankees fans. It's too soon, I know.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
A great question in Chuck Klosterman's "The Ethicist'' column in Sunday's New York Times Sunday Magazine, and if you travel, the question's for you. The question, from a reader identified as "S.B.'' from New York:
A combination of Peter King and Chuck Klosterman? Along with Peter including a haiku in every MMQB there have been quite a few unwelcome new developments in MMQB this past year.
"My boyfriend often travels for business. I always ask him to bring back the shampoo and conditioner from the hotel room, and if he is staying multiple nights, to put the shampoo in his suitcase so that the maid will replace it and he can bring home an additional bottle. He says this is stealing. I say the shampoo is included in the price of the room, and the room is not discounted the second night, so therefore the second bottle of shampoo is included the second night. Incidentally, I haven't purchased shampoo or conditioner in over four years, a point of pride for me. Your thoughts?"
If there is a better place to discuss this issue than an NFL column then I am not aware of that better place. Do you know what I think? I think if you have to write into a column and get advice on whether this is stealing shampoo or not, then you may have a few issues that are bigger than theft of shampoo. Of course, I guess asking pointless questions to Chuck Klosterman is the entire point of "The Ethicist" column. It shocks me how many people will email Bill Simmons and ask for his opinion on trivial matters and it probably shouldn't. After all "Dear Abby" was a very popular column for a long time.
The way I see it, there are three possible answers here -- and I'd love to hear your thoughts on which one you think is just.
So basically Peter wants to hear our thoughts on his thoughts concerning Chuck Klosterman's thoughts about the writer of this question's thoughts related to stealing hotel shampoo?
a. You're entitled to take as much shampoo and conditioner and soap as the housekeeper puts in your room for the length of your stay.
b. You're entitled to one bottle of shampoo and conditioner and one bar of soap per stay.
c. You should never take any toiletries from a hotel room.
Here is the answer. Would you feel comfortable going to the front desk and telling them you are taking the soap and shampoo? If so, ask them if they consider this to be stealing. If not, then it isn't stealing. After all, you can't steal something the hotel doesn't care if you take.
You know what I do with these little bottles?
Keep them to help store your special "Matt Ryan/Russell Wilson lotion" when on the road?
Nothing -- unless I find one that has a screw-on top and is easily able to be filled with the shampoo I use. Then, a couple times a year, I empty one of them per trip, clean it out, then put it in my bag, take it home, and fill it with my shampoo to take on a future trip. I do this so I don't have to take a large bottle of shampoo, which would necessitate checking a bag, which I am loathe to do. The small shampoo bottles mean I can walk on with my bag.
I say take the shampoo. I'm guessing the hotel really doesn't care. After all, I'm pretty sure they replace the shampoo and soap once they have been used...or I hope they replace them.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 6:
f. No interceptions by the Raiders through five games. Three interceptions by the Raiders in the first half at Atlanta.
This happened against the #1 team in Peter's power rankings and (who I would guess to be) his favorite right now for MVP. Just food for thought. A kernel of a thought, really. More like a morsel of a nugget of a thought.
m. Legatron. It's a matter of time before St. Louis' Greg Zuerlein breaks the record for the longest field goal (63 yards) in NFL history. He missed a 66-yarder wide left at Miami that had plenty of leg. Of course, he missed 52- and 37-yarders too, and making any of the three would have forced overtime in a three-point loss.
I hope this "Legatron" nickname doesn't catch on. It's a good thing this happened in the second quarter of the season or else Peter would have to take back his "Offensive Rookie of the Quarter-Part of the Year" award that he gave Zuerlein. Even if Zuerlein is just so damn precocious. I'm not sure Zuerlein even knows he is playing NFL football. He probably thinks he is kicking a football in the backyard of his mom's house. His precociousness is unparalleled.
n. Ronde Barber, he of the 78-yard interception return for touchdown, still making winning plays at 37.
In a 38-10 game this was definitely the deciding play in this game. What a winning winner. Ronde Barber is the greatest player that Peter has ever seen play the game of football during Barber's entire lifetime if you only count players whose last name is "Barber."
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 6:
e. Hold off on the Cantonization of Andrew Luck, after his overthrow of an easy touchdown to Coby Fleener at the Meadowlands.
There are a couple of gems in this comment. The ones who are Cantonizing Andrew Luck at this point is the sports media, of which Peter King has gladly helped the hype of Luck, and I would count him as part of those starting to Cantonize Luck. On the other hand, simply because Luck overthrew his receiver in the end zone doesn't mean he isn't going to be a great quarterback either. He is a rookie and missed a throw. This will not only have no effect on his Hall of Fame candidacy, but the mere mention of this as a reason to not Cantonize Luck yet makes my head hurt.
3. I think I am sick of those in and out of the football business telling me Ben Roethlisberger gets no respect. Stop. Just stop. Just because someone doesn't think Roethlisberger is as good as Tom Brady or Eli Manning or Aaron Rodgers doesn't mean that person doesn't respect him. We're in the golden age of quarterbacks -- the best time for quarterbacks, with the deepest roster of very good ones, in the history of the league -- and I consider Roethlisberger highly respected in the hierarchy. If it's bashing a guy to consider him the third- or fifth- or seventh-best at a time of such greatness ... I mean, Lord help us.
But Peter, Roethlisberger missed an open receiver in the end zone one time. Before we start calling him a quarterback in a time of such greatness let's remember this one pass that Roethlisberger missed on six years ago. Let's not be so quick to make Roethlisberger a great quarterback due to this missed pass.
9. I think I like Mike Vick owning a dog. As he said, he needs to break the cycle of animal abuse in his family. How will you do that for the next generations without showing them dogs can be beloved pets and not killer competitors?
I think Mike Vick owning a dog is a non-story, but is a story that too many people will try to read way too many things into. He used to fight dogs, now he owns one that he doesn't fight. He appears to be rehabilitated, so there isn't much to see here.
a. I'm having a hard time understanding why the people I see running through Manhattan with LIVESTRONG gear still wear the stuff, in the wake of what we heard last week from members of Lance Armstrong's bicycle racing team that he was doping while competing for years in the Tour de France. "To be on Lance Armstrong's team, doping was a necessity,'' one teammate, Ty Hamilton, told ESPN Radio. How much more evidence do you have to see and hear to be convinced Armstrong wasn't clean when he won all those races?
These people still wear this stuff because they enjoy wearing it and Lance Armstrong's fight against cancer and improving funding for cancer research still made a positive impact. I would wear LIVESTRONG gear mostly because it is good running gear to wear. I wouldn't throw my LIVESTRONG gear away simply because Lance Armstrong doped when he won the Tour de France races.
c. There can't be more valiant losers in sports, not just baseball, than the A's and O's.
Blah, hyperbole/cliche.
e. I really feel for Derek Jeter, the best baseball player whose full career I've had the pleasure to see.
A few years ago Peter King said Derek Jeter was the best player of the last 25 years and understandably many people wrote in to him asking what he was smoking. Peter clarified to say Jeter was the best baseball player whose full career he had ever seen. I still don't know what he is smoking, but I've given up the fight at this point. There's no talking or convincing him away from this point. I wouldn't put Jeter in the Top 5 of players whose full career I have had the pleasure to see. Maybe I'm underestimating The Jeter too much.
h. The Nationals might want to sign that Phil Coke guy. His first 13 pitches in the American League Championship Series were strikes. A foreign concept to the Nats hurlers.
Throwing strikes isn't always the best way to get a hitter out, which I know I don't have to tell Peter this since he is such a huge fan of baseball. Also, Drew Storen did throw three strikes to a Cardinals hitter, but the umpire just didn't call the third strike.
The Adieu Haiku
Hey Aaron Rodgers!
Loved what you told Tafoya.
"Shhhhhhh.'' Critics silenced.
Hello Peter King!
Do not be an Easterbrook
Haikus have to go.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
0 comments David Whitley Does Not Believe in the Greater Good
We all know by now that Lance Armstrong decided to stop fighting the government's lawsuit against him and has accepted the United States Anti-Doping Agency's lifetime ban. I'm sure some people (ahem, Rick Reilly) will think Armstrong just stopped fighting the ban to move on with his life, while there are others who (rightly in my opinion) believe Armstrong accepted the lifetime ban because he is truly guilty of doping to win his seven Tour de France titles. This inevitably brings to the public discussion whether the money he raised for cancer research is tainted like his Tour de France titles are tainted. I don't think this is true. We have writers who are acting as if Lance Armstrong helped to fund cancer research with blood money or money gotten from robbing banks. David Whitley is one of those asking if the end justifies the means.
I see two Lance Armstrongs. There is the racer who I personally don't like because I find him to be sort of smug, fake and...I can't really put my finger on it exactly, but I just don't really like him as a racer. Then there is the Lance Armstrong who has done a ton for cancer research and that Armstrong I really like. I've heard the arguments about how you can't separate the two. I realize Armstrong achieved his fame from beating cancer, but I don't think this is a case of him committing a severe crime to help fund cancer research. He cheated, got fame, and used his fame for a positive. That's how I see one part of Lance Armstrong. I'm not downplaying Armstrong's doping, but in the grand scheme of things cheating to win a few Tour de France titles isn't overshadowed by what Armstrong has done for cancer research. It doesn't make his doping right, of course. Cheating in sports is very serious and we are all very disappointed in Armstrong, but his record in cancer funding stands alone, away from this disappointment. I am able to separate these two Lance Armstrongs from each other.
After seven Tour de France wins, hundreds of drug tests and thousands of accusations, you knew this day was coming.
The day Lance Armstrong finally, sort-of admitted he was doping. Well, everyone but Rick Reilly was prepared for this day to eventually come.
It’s time to decide if the ends justify the means with Lance Armstrong.
What a dramatic statement. It's more simple than asking this question though. This isn't like a dictator who steals from his other countries to give food to his starving people. Yes, that is wrong, but there is a clear loser in that situation. This isn't a case where there is a tangible loser and winner. Lance Armstrong really only hurt himself with his doping. Cycling lost its integrity a long time ago. Yes, we are disappointed at what a fraud Lance Armstrong turned out to be, but he certainly did something positive with his fraudulent actions. For me, this isn't a case of the end necessarily justifying the means and I won't excuse his doping. I always thought Lance Armstrong was doping since I began to read about the smoke surrounding him on this issue. There is a history of cyclists doping, so a person had to be somewhat suspicious when Armstrong won seven Tour de France titles. I knew how Armstrong got his fame, how he won the Tour de France, and I didn't really like him for that. What he did with his ill-begotten fame caused me to separate the Lance Armstrong that won the races and the Lance Armstrong that raised money for cancer research.
The ends are the $470 million he’s raised for cancer research. The means are Armstrong did it by cheating.
I disagree in a way. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but he raised $470 million for cancer research through hard work and dedication to the cause. Armstrong helped raise the awareness through his high profile as a cyclist, but he could have raised money for cancer research even if he had never won a Tour de France. Granted, winning seven Tour de France races helped $47 million become $470 million.
Armstrong will forever claim he was getting railroaded. But this is a man who never met a fight he didn’t like. Now he’s given up.
I consider him to have doped, just like I considered him to have doped since I heard it was a possibility. I don't think Armstrong was being railroaded. I think the US Anti-Doping Agency knew they had sufficient proof he had doped to win the Tour de France. He cheated to win the Tour de France, but he also did something good with his fame. That's more than a lot of other guys who doped can say.
“I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours,” Armstrong said in a statement, “and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours.”
This is what I am talking about when I say he is smug. He is essentially saying he cheated by accepting the lifetime ban, but then he has to be a dick and remind everyone he won seven Tour de France races as if he was on an equal playing field with the other racers. It's like if Melky Cabrera released a statement saying, "I was the All-Star Game MVP and won the batting title and everyone I competed against knows this is true." I'm not sure Armstrong understands the irony of accepting the ban and then reminding everyone he really did win those seven Tours.
Armstrong sued to block the case, but his suit was rejected Monday. Instead of having the world listen to all the testimony, he’s decided to wrap himself in victim-hood and let his legacy fall where it may.
I don't believe Armstrong is wrapping himself in victim-hood. He's trying to keep his legacy intact by being the Lance Armstrong I find distasteful. I don't like how Armstrong just can't admit he was doping. If his acceptance of the lifetime ban isn't an indication enough Armstrong was doping, I don't know of a stronger indication other than outright admitting it. This is the Lance Armstrong I don't like, sanctimonious and smug until the very end, insisting on his innocence while his actions speak otherwise.
But on top of all the circumstantial evidence, I just can’t believe that all those ex-teammates and drug bureaucrats are simply conspiring to bring Lance down.
Very true. At a certain point it becomes such a vast conspiracy where the conspirators seem to lack the motivation required to continue the conspiracy.
So we’re back to the question. Ends vs. Means.
It's a fun argument and gets pageviews, but I still see them as two separate issues. Armstrong the racer is a cheater and doper. Armstrong the cancer activist used his fame to bring millions into the fold for cancer research. His gains on the track may be ill-begotten, but what he did with his fame and story is nothing short of making him a hero in the realm of cancer research. I don't think his crime of doping is so strong that it overshadows his accomplishments when not riding a bicycle.
You still can’t go a day without seeing at least one person wearing a yellow Livestrong wristband. We all have friends or relatives who’ve been affected by cancer and by Lance.
Right, and the fact he has raised so much money for cancer research doesn't mean his doping is justified, but it also doesn't mean his doping overshadows what he has done for cancer research.
Is he still a hero, regardless of how it was accomplished?
In terms of what he has done for cancer research and awareness, yes, he is still somewhat of a hero.
All that good was by-product of Armstrong’s original goal of being the best cyclist in the world.
Oh absolutely it was and that's why I understand when others have trouble distinguishing between Armstrong the racer and Armstrong the cancer money raiser person. I get it. His fame from being such a great cyclist helped him raise money for cancer. Armstrong could have raised money for cancer research and awareness even if he never returned to cycling. Granted, he probably wouldn't have raised so much money, but the public received a benefit of Armstrong's cheating. I'm not justifying his actions, but there was good that came from his doping.
None of that would have happened if he hadn’t zipped through the Alps faster than anyone else. So when Armstrong plays the selfless martyr, remember the gig pays pretty well.
Absolutely it paid well. This issue about Lance Armstrong has become a completely black and white issue. The media and the general public are at fault for this. The reaction to criticism of Armstrong tends to be strongly favorable or unfavorable. He's a cheater who used his fame to raise cancer research and this makes him a bad person or he is a hero who never cheated and his being persecuted by the United States government. I see the shades of gray. He's a cheater who used his winnings to enrich his bank account as well as help others. I can't call him a hero and I can't call him a complete fraud.
I don’t know who finished second in all those Tours. But you can be sure they got up today, read the news and feel Armstrong did them wrong.
He did do these people wrong, but this has nothing to do with the ends justifying the means to me. If Armstrong had finished second or third in those races and never doped, he still would have had a chance to raise money for cancer research. His profile absolutely was increased by constantly winning the Tour de France, but he still could have accomplished increasing cancer awareness by not doping. Coming back from cancer and almost winning the Tour de France a few times is still an inspirational story that would have caused money for cancer research to be contributed. Armstrong wanted to win, so he cheated.
Part of the reason I can separate the racer from everything else about Armstrong is because he could have made a difference in the realm of cancer research by not winning the Tour de France. I see his bank account as increasing because of winning the Tour de France, but I see his increasing cancer awareness as a product of his fight against the disease.
If that bad is justified by the overall good, somebody needs to call Barry Bonds, Melky Cabrera, Mark McGwire, Ben Johnson and Marion Jones. Tell them that if they start doing tons of charitable good, all is forgiven.
All is not forgiven. This is where the shades of gray are being ignored. Nothing is forgiven in terms of Armstrong's doping, but his contributions to cancer awareness aren't overshadowed by his cheating in cycling. Armstrong did good with his fame. It doesn't mean he is forgiven, it means we can't simply erase all the good he has done.
“We have a lot of work to do, and I’m looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction,” Armstrong said.
Again, he is smug and sort of annoys me. Just admit it.
They can take away his Tour de France wins, but the good Armstrong has done is undeniable.
Now we just have to accept it was all built on a lie.
The good Armstrong did is not built on a lie. It was built on his good intentions. We can all win on this issue. Armstrong loses his Tour de France titles for being a cheater, but everyone wins because he contributed so much to cancer research and awareness.
I see two Lance Armstrongs. There is the racer who I personally don't like because I find him to be sort of smug, fake and...I can't really put my finger on it exactly, but I just don't really like him as a racer. Then there is the Lance Armstrong who has done a ton for cancer research and that Armstrong I really like. I've heard the arguments about how you can't separate the two. I realize Armstrong achieved his fame from beating cancer, but I don't think this is a case of him committing a severe crime to help fund cancer research. He cheated, got fame, and used his fame for a positive. That's how I see one part of Lance Armstrong. I'm not downplaying Armstrong's doping, but in the grand scheme of things cheating to win a few Tour de France titles isn't overshadowed by what Armstrong has done for cancer research. It doesn't make his doping right, of course. Cheating in sports is very serious and we are all very disappointed in Armstrong, but his record in cancer funding stands alone, away from this disappointment. I am able to separate these two Lance Armstrongs from each other.
After seven Tour de France wins, hundreds of drug tests and thousands of accusations, you knew this day was coming.
The day Lance Armstrong finally, sort-of admitted he was doping. Well, everyone but Rick Reilly was prepared for this day to eventually come.
It’s time to decide if the ends justify the means with Lance Armstrong.
What a dramatic statement. It's more simple than asking this question though. This isn't like a dictator who steals from his other countries to give food to his starving people. Yes, that is wrong, but there is a clear loser in that situation. This isn't a case where there is a tangible loser and winner. Lance Armstrong really only hurt himself with his doping. Cycling lost its integrity a long time ago. Yes, we are disappointed at what a fraud Lance Armstrong turned out to be, but he certainly did something positive with his fraudulent actions. For me, this isn't a case of the end necessarily justifying the means and I won't excuse his doping. I always thought Lance Armstrong was doping since I began to read about the smoke surrounding him on this issue. There is a history of cyclists doping, so a person had to be somewhat suspicious when Armstrong won seven Tour de France titles. I knew how Armstrong got his fame, how he won the Tour de France, and I didn't really like him for that. What he did with his ill-begotten fame caused me to separate the Lance Armstrong that won the races and the Lance Armstrong that raised money for cancer research.
The ends are the $470 million he’s raised for cancer research. The means are Armstrong did it by cheating.
I disagree in a way. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but he raised $470 million for cancer research through hard work and dedication to the cause. Armstrong helped raise the awareness through his high profile as a cyclist, but he could have raised money for cancer research even if he had never won a Tour de France. Granted, winning seven Tour de France races helped $47 million become $470 million.
Armstrong will forever claim he was getting railroaded. But this is a man who never met a fight he didn’t like. Now he’s given up.
I consider him to have doped, just like I considered him to have doped since I heard it was a possibility. I don't think Armstrong was being railroaded. I think the US Anti-Doping Agency knew they had sufficient proof he had doped to win the Tour de France. He cheated to win the Tour de France, but he also did something good with his fame. That's more than a lot of other guys who doped can say.
“I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours,” Armstrong said in a statement, “and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours.”
This is what I am talking about when I say he is smug. He is essentially saying he cheated by accepting the lifetime ban, but then he has to be a dick and remind everyone he won seven Tour de France races as if he was on an equal playing field with the other racers. It's like if Melky Cabrera released a statement saying, "I was the All-Star Game MVP and won the batting title and everyone I competed against knows this is true." I'm not sure Armstrong understands the irony of accepting the ban and then reminding everyone he really did win those seven Tours.
Armstrong sued to block the case, but his suit was rejected Monday. Instead of having the world listen to all the testimony, he’s decided to wrap himself in victim-hood and let his legacy fall where it may.
I don't believe Armstrong is wrapping himself in victim-hood. He's trying to keep his legacy intact by being the Lance Armstrong I find distasteful. I don't like how Armstrong just can't admit he was doping. If his acceptance of the lifetime ban isn't an indication enough Armstrong was doping, I don't know of a stronger indication other than outright admitting it. This is the Lance Armstrong I don't like, sanctimonious and smug until the very end, insisting on his innocence while his actions speak otherwise.
But on top of all the circumstantial evidence, I just can’t believe that all those ex-teammates and drug bureaucrats are simply conspiring to bring Lance down.
Very true. At a certain point it becomes such a vast conspiracy where the conspirators seem to lack the motivation required to continue the conspiracy.
So we’re back to the question. Ends vs. Means.
It's a fun argument and gets pageviews, but I still see them as two separate issues. Armstrong the racer is a cheater and doper. Armstrong the cancer activist used his fame to bring millions into the fold for cancer research. His gains on the track may be ill-begotten, but what he did with his fame and story is nothing short of making him a hero in the realm of cancer research. I don't think his crime of doping is so strong that it overshadows his accomplishments when not riding a bicycle.
You still can’t go a day without seeing at least one person wearing a yellow Livestrong wristband. We all have friends or relatives who’ve been affected by cancer and by Lance.
Right, and the fact he has raised so much money for cancer research doesn't mean his doping is justified, but it also doesn't mean his doping overshadows what he has done for cancer research.
Is he still a hero, regardless of how it was accomplished?
In terms of what he has done for cancer research and awareness, yes, he is still somewhat of a hero.
All that good was by-product of Armstrong’s original goal of being the best cyclist in the world.
Oh absolutely it was and that's why I understand when others have trouble distinguishing between Armstrong the racer and Armstrong the cancer money raiser person. I get it. His fame from being such a great cyclist helped him raise money for cancer. Armstrong could have raised money for cancer research and awareness even if he never returned to cycling. Granted, he probably wouldn't have raised so much money, but the public received a benefit of Armstrong's cheating. I'm not justifying his actions, but there was good that came from his doping.
None of that would have happened if he hadn’t zipped through the Alps faster than anyone else. So when Armstrong plays the selfless martyr, remember the gig pays pretty well.
Absolutely it paid well. This issue about Lance Armstrong has become a completely black and white issue. The media and the general public are at fault for this. The reaction to criticism of Armstrong tends to be strongly favorable or unfavorable. He's a cheater who used his fame to raise cancer research and this makes him a bad person or he is a hero who never cheated and his being persecuted by the United States government. I see the shades of gray. He's a cheater who used his winnings to enrich his bank account as well as help others. I can't call him a hero and I can't call him a complete fraud.
I don’t know who finished second in all those Tours. But you can be sure they got up today, read the news and feel Armstrong did them wrong.
He did do these people wrong, but this has nothing to do with the ends justifying the means to me. If Armstrong had finished second or third in those races and never doped, he still would have had a chance to raise money for cancer research. His profile absolutely was increased by constantly winning the Tour de France, but he still could have accomplished increasing cancer awareness by not doping. Coming back from cancer and almost winning the Tour de France a few times is still an inspirational story that would have caused money for cancer research to be contributed. Armstrong wanted to win, so he cheated.
Part of the reason I can separate the racer from everything else about Armstrong is because he could have made a difference in the realm of cancer research by not winning the Tour de France. I see his bank account as increasing because of winning the Tour de France, but I see his increasing cancer awareness as a product of his fight against the disease.
If that bad is justified by the overall good, somebody needs to call Barry Bonds, Melky Cabrera, Mark McGwire, Ben Johnson and Marion Jones. Tell them that if they start doing tons of charitable good, all is forgiven.
All is not forgiven. This is where the shades of gray are being ignored. Nothing is forgiven in terms of Armstrong's doping, but his contributions to cancer awareness aren't overshadowed by his cheating in cycling. Armstrong did good with his fame. It doesn't mean he is forgiven, it means we can't simply erase all the good he has done.
“We have a lot of work to do, and I’m looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction,” Armstrong said.
Again, he is smug and sort of annoys me. Just admit it.
They can take away his Tour de France wins, but the good Armstrong has done is undeniable.
Now we just have to accept it was all built on a lie.
The good Armstrong did is not built on a lie. It was built on his good intentions. We can all win on this issue. Armstrong loses his Tour de France titles for being a cheater, but everyone wins because he contributed so much to cancer research and awareness.
Friday, May 20, 2011
3 comments BotB Podcast #16
Does Kareem deserve a statue? Do you want to keep talking about steroids? Should NCAA athletes get paid? Will the world finally end? These questions and more are all answered in this week's episode of the BotB Podcast.And don't worry. We correctly predicted Game 2 of the Mavs/Thunder series.
Monday, July 12, 2010
5 comments Rick Reilly Continues His Non-Stop Adoration of Lance Armstrong
Rick Reilly loves himself some Lance Armstrong. Reilly's wikipedia page mentions how Reilly thinks Armstrong is the greatest athlete ever and I believe the love Reilly has for Armstrong could be on par with Peter King's love for Brett Favre. It's an underrated adulation Reilly has for Armstrong. Armstrong even wrote the foreword for one of Reilly's books. Last year during the Tour de France, Reilly got to achieve a lifetime goal of seeing Lance Armstrong naked. This year Reilly writes a puff piece about how Armstrong would never use PEDs, despite the fact he has been accused of doing so, and in this day and age we can't really make any substantive statements about an athlete and steroids. Reilly also wrote the famous puff piece on McGwire and Sammy Sosa in 1998 for Sports Illustrated, so he has a history of being wrong about these type things.
I'm not saying Armstrong actually did use steroids, but many of his teammates have been banned or tested positive, so where there's smoke there could be fire.
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, for one last look at the god, the cheater, the hero, the fraud, the miracle, the doper, the inspiration to millions, the brains behind the con, the greatest comeback kid ever minted.
That's him -- on the little sofa in his hotel room, wearing just a hand towel, eating tuna out of Tupperware and checking his cell phone with a sigh.
It's just a little creepy that Rick Reilly not only interviews Lance Armstrong when he is naked, but insists on telling everyone that Armstrong is naked when Reilly is interviewing him. Some details need to be left out...unless Rick Reilly is really proud of being able to see Armstrong naked, which is what this sounds like.
And now it's July 4, and he misses his four kids. Yeah, it's not always so easy to Livestrong -- bracelet or no bracelet.
Oh poor, rich Lance Armstrong. What about the other racers in the Tour de France who haven't won the event multiple times and need to race to feed their families? They are away from their families too, but fuck them, they aren't Lance Armstrong so they don't count.
"I chose this, but I want to be home," says Lance Armstrong, who stood in fourth place after only two days of the Tour de France. "It's time for me not to ever miss these days again -- a football game, a lacrosse game. Man, I'm never doing this again."
I'm pretty sure we have heard this previously and previously before that.
Armstrong needed this the way he needed a barbed-wire bicycle seat. He was retired and loving life. Four kids. Great girlfriend. Aspen. Austin. Anywhere.
Yet Rick Reilly wants us to feel sympathy for a guy who whines about being away from his family, yet has the financial security to not be away from his family, but chooses to be away from them anyway.
So why does Armstrong sound so beaten?
Knives fly at Armstrong from everywhere, most recently from ex-teammate Floyd Landis, whose 2006 Tour de France win was stripped for doping. Landis insisted he was innocent then, but he's insisting he's guilty now.
Every athlete denies doping when they are initially accused of it. Landis isn't wrong about other riders simply because he lied initially. Many of the riders on Armstrong's USPS team were accused and found to use steroids. Is it really that far of a leap to say that Armstrong, who is easily the most accomplished rider on the team, should be reasonably suspected also?
Not only is he guilty, but Landis says that Armstrong, three of Armstrong's teammates and their coach, Johan Bruyneel, are guilty, too. His sensational accusations have caught the attention of relentless federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who is already snooping.
I like how Reilly calls Landis' allegations "sensational" like they are out of a tabloid or something. We all thought Jose Canseco was a rat and making shit up didn't we? It turned out that he may be a rat, but he was also right about a lot of players.
"I'm used to it," says Armstrong, who denies every charge Landis makes.
Obviously that means he is innocent. Just like Floyd Landis was innocent because he initially denied using steroids.
"This is the 11th straight year somebody has tried something at the start of the race. I'm trained not to care. I'm doing this for the foundation, a foundation that touches millions of people's lives. They don't care about all this. Those people? Those people that understand and volunteer and donate and care about Livestrong? Those people who are in the fights of their lives? They don't care."
I'm pretty jaded when it comes to PEDs and other steroids. If you read this blog regularly, you probably know that. Doesn't it sound like Armstrong is diverting the talk about his steroid use and trying to get everyone to focus on the charity that he created and does an incredible amount of work for?
Yes, those people who are fighting for their life don't care about whether Armstrong used steroids or not, but that wasn't the question or even what was being discussed. Saying no one in your charity cares about whether you doped or not isn't really a denial.
That record plays like this: 14 tumors, 40 percent chance to live, survive, make it back, win seven straight Tours, retire, unretire, finish third and now compete at a shocking fifth-place pace after Monday's stage.
Lance Armstrong has an incredible story and he is a hero to many with cancer. He's a hero to people regardless of whether they have cancer or not. Unfortunately, in the discussion of whether he doped or not, this isn't really relevant. There may be personal reasons Landis keeps saying Armstrong doped, but the company Armstrong was keeping on his USPS team also makes him guilty by association. Rick Reilly wants to talk about a sensational scene, some of the ways those USPS riders allegedly doped is pretty scandalous.
The picture painted by Mr. Landis in the interviews, and in a series of emails he wrote to cycling sponsors in May, provides the most detailed view yet of what may be one of the biggest and most intricately coordinated cheating conspiracies in sports history. It involves blood transfusions taken in a bus on a remote alpine road, riders wearing testosterone patches to bed, and an operative posing as an autograph-seeking fan to deliver a bag of blood to a rider after a race.
The article I linked earlier says that and Landis isn't the only one who suspects widespread doping in cycling:
Chad Gerlach, who rode with the U.S. Postal team before Messrs. Armstrong and Landis were on it, said he's inclined to believe Mr. Landis's account of widespread doping based on what he saw during his own career. "I believe it because I have seen it personally," he said. "I am not ready to out my friends or provide names. I just saw it. It's just a systematic thing."
Professional cycling has been tore apart by doping scandals and much like in MLB the best cyclists were also offenders.
You start to believe him. His body looks sharper, harder than it has in five years.
Rick Reilly really likes Lance Armstrong's body.
His masseur, Richard, looks up from tenderizing Armstrong's right thigh and flashes a huge grin. "Oh, ya! Absoloootely, ya!"
I feel like I am reading an erotic novel. Cyclists have to be in good shape to do well in the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong is in great shape we get it. Let's move on away from descriptions of Lance Armstrong's body.
Then again, maybe it's Novitzky. You talk about a far better rival. You don't want to hear your name in the same sentence as his. He's a Wild West sheriff who has been accused of going outside legal bounds to get his man.
So now Rick Reilly is preparing the defense of Armstrong if Novitzky does find something that incriminates Armstrong. Novitzky went beyond the legal bounds of what he could do legally in the past, so that would make Lance a victim and what Novitzky may find shouldn't count as being the truth. It must be nice to have your own PR firm that is also a sportswriter.
And he has gotten many -- Victor Conte of BALCO and trackster Marion Jones, among them.
He whiffed on Bonds, but that doesn't mean his allegations that Bonds lied under oath or used steroids was wrong. I have read some stuff on Novitzky and I think if he clears Armstrong then we can safely assume Lance Armstrong is telling the truth. That's the nice thing about "rule-breakers." They may have unusual methods, but those methods can sometimes can get to the truth, if there is a truth to find.
"I don't want to talk about any of that," he says. "I got three more weeks, and I can stand anything for three more weeks. Then it's me and Anna [his girlfriend] and four kids who love me."
Armstrong "can stand anything for three more weeks?" Let's not forget he subjected himself to the questions by entering the Tour de France this year. It is not like he never expected to get these questions about Floyd Landis and doping in cycling. Armstrong can get sympathy from me for many things, but I don't feel bad when he puts himself in situations like this and doesn't have to do so.
Still, I do know he is the most tested athlete in American history. A man who's had people watch him pee more than 1,000 times, by his own count, and yet he's never failed one of them. The man is a test passer. He's had tests of scalpels and IVs, lungs and muscle, and now age and will. For 23 days, he will be trying to pass this 2,262-mile test against riders whose fathers he raced.
Armstrong has never failed a drug test. That is a huge check mark in his favor on whether he doped or not.
He'll be trying to pass it every day, and it mesmerizes and astonishes me. But because of Landis, nobody's noticing.
Nobody's noticing mostly because Armstrong is a cyclist taking part in a competition in France during the World Cup. Cycling isn't popular in the first place. Throw in the fact the Tour de France usually doesn't grip the attention of the United States, and this year the world is distracted away from it more than usual because of the World Cup, and the lack of attention Armstrong has to do with things other than allegations from Floyd Landis.
So let Novitzky come. Let him dig. Let him interview and deal and raid, maybe even with subpoenas. And if he can find proof that Armstrong doped -- proof, not stories -- then Armstrong would become the nail, not the hammer. Hang him off the Eiffel Tower.
Until then, doesn't Armstrong deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Armstrong does deserve the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately we are living in an age when giving athletes the benefit of the doubt only leads to hurt feelings and the realization giving an athlete who puts up extraordinary numbers the benefit of the doubt is sometimes turning a blind eye to the obvious.
What Armstrong doesn't deserve is a yearly puff piece by Lance Armstrong and the constant discussion of Armstrong's body by Reilly.
A man who's worked tirelessly for and inspired people you know, people in your life, people who don't even know yet that they will need him for inspiration? A man who, right in front of your eyes, is trying to make calendars stop turning?
Armstrong is a great guy, there's no doubt about that. The fact he has inspired many and will inspire many in the future doesn't preclude him from being among those on the USPS team who doped.
Doesn't he deserve at least that?
It's easier to give him the benefit when there aren't allegations he was doing from ex-teammates and he made a super-human comeback from cancer. I don't think Lance Armstrong doped and people I think generally give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no point in being naive either.
I hate puff pieces.
I'm not saying Armstrong actually did use steroids, but many of his teammates have been banned or tested positive, so where there's smoke there could be fire.
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, for one last look at the god, the cheater, the hero, the fraud, the miracle, the doper, the inspiration to millions, the brains behind the con, the greatest comeback kid ever minted.
That's him -- on the little sofa in his hotel room, wearing just a hand towel, eating tuna out of Tupperware and checking his cell phone with a sigh.
It's just a little creepy that Rick Reilly not only interviews Lance Armstrong when he is naked, but insists on telling everyone that Armstrong is naked when Reilly is interviewing him. Some details need to be left out...unless Rick Reilly is really proud of being able to see Armstrong naked, which is what this sounds like.
And now it's July 4, and he misses his four kids. Yeah, it's not always so easy to Livestrong -- bracelet or no bracelet.
Oh poor, rich Lance Armstrong. What about the other racers in the Tour de France who haven't won the event multiple times and need to race to feed their families? They are away from their families too, but fuck them, they aren't Lance Armstrong so they don't count.
"I chose this, but I want to be home," says Lance Armstrong, who stood in fourth place after only two days of the Tour de France. "It's time for me not to ever miss these days again -- a football game, a lacrosse game. Man, I'm never doing this again."
I'm pretty sure we have heard this previously and previously before that.
Armstrong needed this the way he needed a barbed-wire bicycle seat. He was retired and loving life. Four kids. Great girlfriend. Aspen. Austin. Anywhere.
Yet Rick Reilly wants us to feel sympathy for a guy who whines about being away from his family, yet has the financial security to not be away from his family, but chooses to be away from them anyway.
So why does Armstrong sound so beaten?
"Look at me," he says, touching his graying sides. "I don't look a day over 50, do I?"
Considering Armstrong is currently only wearing a hand towel, I hate to ask, but what part of his body has graying sides? I don't want to know, but Armstrong is naked so Reilly either should not mention Armstrong is naked or don't use any quotes where he talks about his body. Please.Knives fly at Armstrong from everywhere, most recently from ex-teammate Floyd Landis, whose 2006 Tour de France win was stripped for doping. Landis insisted he was innocent then, but he's insisting he's guilty now.
Every athlete denies doping when they are initially accused of it. Landis isn't wrong about other riders simply because he lied initially. Many of the riders on Armstrong's USPS team were accused and found to use steroids. Is it really that far of a leap to say that Armstrong, who is easily the most accomplished rider on the team, should be reasonably suspected also?
Not only is he guilty, but Landis says that Armstrong, three of Armstrong's teammates and their coach, Johan Bruyneel, are guilty, too. His sensational accusations have caught the attention of relentless federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who is already snooping.
I like how Reilly calls Landis' allegations "sensational" like they are out of a tabloid or something. We all thought Jose Canseco was a rat and making shit up didn't we? It turned out that he may be a rat, but he was also right about a lot of players.
"I'm used to it," says Armstrong, who denies every charge Landis makes.
Obviously that means he is innocent. Just like Floyd Landis was innocent because he initially denied using steroids.
"This is the 11th straight year somebody has tried something at the start of the race. I'm trained not to care. I'm doing this for the foundation, a foundation that touches millions of people's lives. They don't care about all this. Those people? Those people that understand and volunteer and donate and care about Livestrong? Those people who are in the fights of their lives? They don't care."
I'm pretty jaded when it comes to PEDs and other steroids. If you read this blog regularly, you probably know that. Doesn't it sound like Armstrong is diverting the talk about his steroid use and trying to get everyone to focus on the charity that he created and does an incredible amount of work for?
Yes, those people who are fighting for their life don't care about whether Armstrong used steroids or not, but that wasn't the question or even what was being discussed. Saying no one in your charity cares about whether you doped or not isn't really a denial.
That record plays like this: 14 tumors, 40 percent chance to live, survive, make it back, win seven straight Tours, retire, unretire, finish third and now compete at a shocking fifth-place pace after Monday's stage.
Lance Armstrong has an incredible story and he is a hero to many with cancer. He's a hero to people regardless of whether they have cancer or not. Unfortunately, in the discussion of whether he doped or not, this isn't really relevant. There may be personal reasons Landis keeps saying Armstrong doped, but the company Armstrong was keeping on his USPS team also makes him guilty by association. Rick Reilly wants to talk about a sensational scene, some of the ways those USPS riders allegedly doped is pretty scandalous.
The picture painted by Mr. Landis in the interviews, and in a series of emails he wrote to cycling sponsors in May, provides the most detailed view yet of what may be one of the biggest and most intricately coordinated cheating conspiracies in sports history. It involves blood transfusions taken in a bus on a remote alpine road, riders wearing testosterone patches to bed, and an operative posing as an autograph-seeking fan to deliver a bag of blood to a rider after a race.
The article I linked earlier says that and Landis isn't the only one who suspects widespread doping in cycling:
Chad Gerlach, who rode with the U.S. Postal team before Messrs. Armstrong and Landis were on it, said he's inclined to believe Mr. Landis's account of widespread doping based on what he saw during his own career. "I believe it because I have seen it personally," he said. "I am not ready to out my friends or provide names. I just saw it. It's just a systematic thing."
Professional cycling has been tore apart by doping scandals and much like in MLB the best cyclists were also offenders.
You start to believe him. His body looks sharper, harder than it has in five years.
Rick Reilly really likes Lance Armstrong's body.
His masseur, Richard, looks up from tenderizing Armstrong's right thigh and flashes a huge grin. "Oh, ya! Absoloootely, ya!"
I feel like I am reading an erotic novel. Cyclists have to be in good shape to do well in the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong is in great shape we get it. Let's move on away from descriptions of Lance Armstrong's body.
Then again, maybe it's Novitzky. You talk about a far better rival. You don't want to hear your name in the same sentence as his. He's a Wild West sheriff who has been accused of going outside legal bounds to get his man.
So now Rick Reilly is preparing the defense of Armstrong if Novitzky does find something that incriminates Armstrong. Novitzky went beyond the legal bounds of what he could do legally in the past, so that would make Lance a victim and what Novitzky may find shouldn't count as being the truth. It must be nice to have your own PR firm that is also a sportswriter.
And he has gotten many -- Victor Conte of BALCO and trackster Marion Jones, among them.
But he whiffed on Barry Bonds, partly because of his methods, which seemed to be inspired by Michael Chiklis in "The Shield."
He whiffed on Bonds, but that doesn't mean his allegations that Bonds lied under oath or used steroids was wrong. I have read some stuff on Novitzky and I think if he clears Armstrong then we can safely assume Lance Armstrong is telling the truth. That's the nice thing about "rule-breakers." They may have unusual methods, but those methods can sometimes can get to the truth, if there is a truth to find.
"I don't want to talk about any of that," he says. "I got three more weeks, and I can stand anything for three more weeks. Then it's me and Anna [his girlfriend] and four kids who love me."
Armstrong "can stand anything for three more weeks?" Let's not forget he subjected himself to the questions by entering the Tour de France this year. It is not like he never expected to get these questions about Floyd Landis and doping in cycling. Armstrong can get sympathy from me for many things, but I don't feel bad when he puts himself in situations like this and doesn't have to do so.
Still, I do know he is the most tested athlete in American history. A man who's had people watch him pee more than 1,000 times, by his own count, and yet he's never failed one of them. The man is a test passer. He's had tests of scalpels and IVs, lungs and muscle, and now age and will. For 23 days, he will be trying to pass this 2,262-mile test against riders whose fathers he raced.
Armstrong has never failed a drug test. That is a huge check mark in his favor on whether he doped or not.
He'll be trying to pass it every day, and it mesmerizes and astonishes me. But because of Landis, nobody's noticing.
Nobody's noticing mostly because Armstrong is a cyclist taking part in a competition in France during the World Cup. Cycling isn't popular in the first place. Throw in the fact the Tour de France usually doesn't grip the attention of the United States, and this year the world is distracted away from it more than usual because of the World Cup, and the lack of attention Armstrong has to do with things other than allegations from Floyd Landis.
So let Novitzky come. Let him dig. Let him interview and deal and raid, maybe even with subpoenas. And if he can find proof that Armstrong doped -- proof, not stories -- then Armstrong would become the nail, not the hammer. Hang him off the Eiffel Tower.
Until then, doesn't Armstrong deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Armstrong does deserve the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately we are living in an age when giving athletes the benefit of the doubt only leads to hurt feelings and the realization giving an athlete who puts up extraordinary numbers the benefit of the doubt is sometimes turning a blind eye to the obvious.
What Armstrong doesn't deserve is a yearly puff piece by Lance Armstrong and the constant discussion of Armstrong's body by Reilly.
A man who's worked tirelessly for and inspired people you know, people in your life, people who don't even know yet that they will need him for inspiration? A man who, right in front of your eyes, is trying to make calendars stop turning?
Armstrong is a great guy, there's no doubt about that. The fact he has inspired many and will inspire many in the future doesn't preclude him from being among those on the USPS team who doped.
Doesn't he deserve at least that?
It's easier to give him the benefit when there aren't allegations he was doing from ex-teammates and he made a super-human comeback from cancer. I don't think Lance Armstrong doped and people I think generally give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no point in being naive either.
I hate puff pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)