 |
| You know how you can tell when he's lying? Yeah, thats right, his lips are moving... |
...
I've been watching ESPN for the last week or so to see what their response would be to the Armstrong case, but a week of watching ESPN is seriously damaging to your mental health and I've had to stop. ESPN is good at producing bloated idiots who can spout jibberish about the Giants running game but that's about it. It is a joke network, the sports equivalent of Fox News and is not the place to turn to for serious journalism. The broadsheet press has been no better. No mea culpa from The New York Times or Sports Illustrated or The Washington Post or any of the so called papers of record. HL Mencken would be spinning in his grave. American sports journalists take themselves very seriously but they shouldn't. They are cowards to a man (and woman). Lazy, complacent cowards at that who are fit only for writing tired copy about ARod's decline in run production. If there were some kind of anti Pulitzer Prize (just as there is an igNobel science prize) I'd give it to the producers of ESPN's Sport Center for their Lance Armstrong coverage over the last decade. As Orwell said "to see what is in front of your nose requires a constant struggle" or, you know, even just some basic old fashioned reporting.
50 comments:
I didn't give much thought to sports journalism until I'd recently read a blog post about how sports journalists were the only journos to tell it like it was. Not sure ESPN was part of this guy's praise . Of course the blogger was talking about referees in American football, and not cycling, which is for .. other people.
For me it started in '88 with Ben Johnson. After he won the gold he tested positive and the medal was stripped. Word got out that all the winners were being tested and in the 4X100 relay the Americans dropped the baton.
ESPN just had a documentary about it, "9.79" and they never mentioned the fact the US sprinters didn't get tested.
Sheiler
Yeah there were a thousand bloggers and talking heads going on about the referees so it was a pretty safe topic. No cojones needed there.
John
I watched that documentary too. They danced around Carl Lewis pretty effectively didnt they?
They sure did, Adrian. Oh well, if Canadian filmmakers had any cojones, as you say, someone would make a movie about it.
Excellent piece, Adrian. I guess there's a reason the sports section is traditionally called the "playpen" of the newspaper business: nothing serious goes on there. It looks like a case of journos allowing Armstrong's "inspiriational" story line to blind them to the fact that the Tour has been dirty since its inception. Another factor would be that cycling just isn't important in the US. The media was really only interested in it as a story about a plucky, gutsy American dominating in a traditional Euro sport.
I'd be really curious to see a study based on continual doses of EPO and testosterone in the long run... and what effects that might have on Armstrong's cancer or lack thereof. But that would require cooperation from Armstrong, which won't happen.
I did a cursory search online for reactions to the release of the report but didn't see anything past page 1 or 2 of google. Does anyone following sports know what fans in france are saying, or fans in Texas, or fans in general?
ESPN equals Disney; Sports Illustrated equals Time Warner. Can't expect much in the way of penetrating criticism there. The best sports magazine, The Sporting News, is pretty much done.
I think one problem is these days people consider reflective pieces on careers the highlight of sports journalism, like John Updike on Ted WIlliams or Gay Telese on DiMaggio. Not much actual investigation.
I did see a good how on Frontline a year or so ago on concussions in high school sports, available online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/football-high/
Adrian,
you may like Dave Zirin and his Edge Of Sports. He is unusually political in his writings which you don't see too often with sports writers unless it is something very safe or something in support of the status quo. I don't always agree with him but he is always worth a read.
http://www.edgeofsports.com/
There isn't a very good excuse for the journalists that I can think of, but I think the public also had a hard time letting go of the Lance Armstrong tale of overcoming adversity to achieve greatness, which is pretty much the only story we like to tell ourselves.
Besides, there aren't a lot of great American cyclist stories. I think I've probably mentioned here before that I knew another big name American, Jacques "Jock" Boyer, because he was close friends with my cousins. He also crashed and burned, but the difference is that he owned it, and the New Yorker did a very good piece on what he got up to after, which I see you can now find in its entirety HERE.
The New Yorker has a nice profile on Hilary Mantel right now too. I'm surprisd to see that you can read this one on line as well.
Until Nike finally and begrudgingly split from Lance this week, it looked like the American fan response (broadly speaking) was to play the backs-against-the-wall, cancer hero, American underdog against the out-to-get-him Europeans, with Lance fighting bravely against Europeans (French) who had to bring him down because they couldn't stick his Tour success.
Nike came out and said we believe Lance, Lance never tested positive etc, and when they just couldn't ignore the now popular consensus (which is the crucial bit, nothing to do with a Nike anti-cheating moral code or anything) they came out and said Lance had misled them for ten years. Hmmmm. This is in the same breath as a story breaking in L'Equipe which states that Nike gave a $500,000 donation to UCI (the cycling federation) at the same time as we now know Lance tested positive. Anything to protect the brand.
It is interesting that the two best journalists in the past ten years when it comes to cycling have been Irishmen: David Walsh (sued by Lance for $1,000,000 after stories in The Sunday Times) and Paul Kimmage, currently being sued by the UCI for stating that not only must they have known about Lance, but that they took his money and have relentlessly covered up for him. Anything to protect the brand. Ironically, the UCI is currently run by another Irishman, Pat McQuaid. I would say that's 2-1, but this week has seen Irish cyclists Stephen and Nicolas Roche come out with mealy-mouthed semi condemnation, and my all-time hero Sean Kelly also less than convincing. Cycling breeds cynicism.
My newspaper is not a paper of record, of course, but it published its share of inspirational Armstrong pieces. I have yet to see a mea culpa from the leading purveryor of same, now retired but still writing the occasional piece. I will let you know if he weighs in with anything other than "Oh, Lance, how sorely you let us down when we needed a hero most."
And please -- do not mention sports and journalism in the same sentence if you're talking about the U.S.
One of my cyclist fanatic friends has a different take on Armstrong. I was reminded of it while watching Lewis Black tonight.
Black and my friend said that Armstrong has been turned into some equivalent of the six million dollar man, but both of them effectively say, why do we want to stop these sort of superhuman capacities in athletes. Black was talking about Armstrong's double than normal lung capacity, but there is a lot more.
Of course, lying about any of this stuff is the heart of the matter, but it is interesting to think about why athletes are tempted by high performance drugs in the first place. I mean, we've all been seduced by the idea of something superhuman our whole lives, haven't we?
Though I still wouldn't vote for one as governor of my state.
Seana, there is a minority current of opinion in commentary on American sports (not one, needless to say, found in majoy newspapers) that athletes should be left to take whatever chemical means necessary to enhance their performaces. But the alternate view, the one that was prepared to believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, Lyle Alzado's claims that steroids had caused his brain cancer, prevails. Drugs are evil.
And because of that, because Armstrong actually overcame his cancer, which is also evil, through drugs, he confuses the issue for people.
I don't think Americans much like liars and bullies, so American sports fans will watch this tale with interest, or else will decide that they don't care about cycling after all.
Cary
I understand that cycling is unimportant in the American sports pantheon but Armstrong became a huge story. Maybe more recognizable than any other sports figure in the early 2000's. A story about him would have been huge, but no journalist ever dug into it.
Sheiler
I dont know about EPO but massive doses of steroids and testosterone have been shown to be very damaging to the body. Armstrong and the people he forced into the programme will have dangerous long term consequences.
Matt
Yeah that highlight thing is all they do, that or tell us the bleedin obvious: ARod cant hit in the clutch etc. etc. Its lazy journalism. And its not even populist lazy journalism, people want more than what they are being given.
Very
Just checked that out. I like his take. We definitely need more stuff like that!
Conor
The thing is, American libel laws are much weaker than in the UK especially if you are dealing with a public figure like Armstrong. Journalists could have reported on this story in the US and would not have been in danger of being sued. They just didnt want to do it!
Yes the Irish connection is very depressing. And you're right, weasel words are weasel words there's no getting around it....
Peter
I dont subscribe to the "oh they just should take whatever they want" approach. Some of these substances are incredibly dangerous and if the athletes take it then college athletes will take it as will high school kids.
No there wont be a mea culpa from the reporters. Its hard to prove a sin of omission isnt it? But its there all right...
Seana
You're right people are confused. You should read the comment threads under the Lance Armstrong articles in The New York Times. About 40% of the commenters are utterly baffled and confused by this story and the majority of those still believe Armstrong did nothing wrong or that it doesnt matter because his "charity work" trumps everything else.
I find this one of the most depressing aspects of this story.
A Canadian sports journalist, Stepehen Brunt, (one of the best we have) has written that the prohibition on these drugs is, like most prohibitions, probably doing a lot more harm than good.
I don't think many people like the idea of, "take as much of anything you want," but a little more open discussion would be a good thing.
I just checked the comments on one Times article. Just as potential immigrants can buy their way into Canada with a $500,000 investment, maybe someone could develop a sliding scale to determine how many championships an athlete must win, how many high-profile charitable donations he must make, and what diseases he must have -- excuse me, what diseases he must wage a brave fight against -- in order to accrue varying degrees of hero worship from writers and other sports fans.
Interesting that some of the recent Times articles don't permit comments. As for sports "reporters," I remember my paper's coverage of a labot dispute in baseball some years ago. Opinions and predictions were cheap and plentiful, but when it came time for an article analyzing the issues in the dispute, the paper turned not to its multitude of sports writers (yes, we had multitudes then) but to our labor reporter (yes, we had a labor reporter then), who wrote a brilliant piece.
=====================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com
John
I couldnt agree less with that. Its like that film Looper, it will encourage short term thinking among athletes who just want to win now and to hell with the long term consequences.
Peter
The comment threads in the Times also show how fascinated the public is by this story. I've never seen this number of comments on anything. This goes way beyond cycling as a minor sport. Armstrong was and is big news but he was "untouchable" just like Jimmy Saville in the UK and Jerry Sandusky in Pennsylvania.
and on the concussion issue in the NFL...can anyone explain to me why they just cant drop the padding and play without helmets like in rugby or rugby league? Get rid of the helments and then you ban neck high tackles and head first tackles and you get almost zero concussions like rugby.
Surely helmetless football would play better on TV too since American networks love the close up...
Adrian, I have a feeling that if newspapers started syndicating the "Edge of Sports" guy, for every reader who appreciated, say, speculation about collusion among the major sport leagues, fifty would rebel against the intrusion of real life into the sports pages.
Peter, I think you're right about the rebellion against the intrusion of real life.
And Adrian, the thing is, athletes are already victims of short term thinking and the hell with the consequences - that's why doping is such a problem.
But it is a matter of controlled risk - athletes push themselves in all kinds of dangerous ways. College football coaches now get in a little bit of trouble if they have three hundred pound guys running in hundred degree weather until they pass out, but all practise hasn't been eliminated.
I just read an older NYT article on LA, and the comments, and I think I probably would have felt the same way as the stubborn American horse's arses too. Or I wouldn't have cared to form an opinion other than shrugging my shoulders.
But now having read the official report, with its point by point take down of LA's claim of never having failed a test other than the cortisoid test with the backdated prescription, and just the whole scope of what people testifying said, well, I'm a convert to Adrian's thesis. I mean, come on, what a fantastic story that would have sold so many newspapers, free market! - but for that hero worshipping that we do ... argh!
seana, thanks for the link to the Jock story at the New Yorker. So much good reading with this post, I must say.
I saw Lance Armstrong whip by on a bicycle outside the back door of the bookstore a few years ago. At least, that's what people told me I was seeing.
Sheiler, a nice benefit of that New Yorker article was that I contacted my cousin after I read it, and she got in touch with Jock and there was a bit of virtual reunion. She told me a funny (?) story about how she as the youngest sister of three brothers tried to keep up with them and the Boyers on bikes, until she took a tumble and realized she was being a bit stupid. She got a kind of 'only a girl' complex out of that, so I had to point out to her that until that fall, she had been keeping up pretty well with a future five time Tour de France contender.
Seana, if she'd doped herself up, she might not have fallen off the bike.
Right, but she still would have been stuck with the only a woman thing. It probably isn't an easy thing to be the only and youngest girl among brothers.
Oldest girl among sisters isn't so bad--until, that is, you get old.
If she doped herself up she also wouldn't have had that only a girl complex.
Then again she'd have a new one, being a bearded lady and all.
RE: "For me it started in '88 with Ben Johnson."
Well, for me it started back with Seabiscuit. Performance enhancing drugs were used on horses back then, and the enthralling book and subsequent movie made no mention of Seabiscuit's trainer being suspended and ruled off for drug use while training other horses.
Drugs became more sophisticated in the 1950s and stables that used them dominated--Calumet Farm back then. The odds against winning a Kentucky Derby have always been great. When a stable could back the odds and win the Kentucky Derby back-to-back, it was a tip-off that they were doing something that others had not yet caught on to--and that was usually drug related.
The movie SECRETARIAT chose hokey drama over the truth. Meadow Stable's fortunes were saved, not by Secretariat, but by Riva Ridge which won the Kentucky Derby the year before. Penny Tweedy would have bred and run back to back Triple Crown winners had it not rained in the Preakness for Riva Ridge's race there.
Anyway, at the time, steroids designed to make your horses more muscular and enhanced soon caught on and Meadow Stable lost its advantage because everyone with the money seemed to be using them.
Once sufficient regulations and testing were in place, the goal of drug designers was for a masking drug to be taken in combination with steroids but would alter the test results.
Baseball was late in following the pattern set by horseracing and Olympic sports. Melky, A-Rod, et al all must have been tempted by the claims of the dealers of masking drugs at one time or another.
Too bad we cannot look back and see how many Olympic marathon runners and swimmers simply used blood doping, which still is likely untraceable this side of an autopsy. I suspect that even Joan Benoit, whose husband was a doctor, might have used blood doping in her 1984 Olympic Marathon win. The stakes were high back then, and everyone was doing it.
Rich
That sure wasnt in the Seabiscuit movie was it?
Finally a good piece of overdue reporting on how the Armstrong case began to unravel here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sports/how-armstrongs-wall-fell-one-rider-at-a-time.html
To believe in Armstrong now (which a third of commenters in the NYT still do it seems) requires the same level of disconnect as a 9/11 truther or a believer in the faking of the moon landings.
Adrian, where are the comments onm that story? And did you see this ad, which appeared on my screen with the story:
Ads by Google
what's this?
EPO Cyclist Supplements
Fastest Way to Increase Your
Endurance and Speed - Guaranteed!
www.EPOBoost.com
Peter
I dont think they had comments on that story, I'm just taking my third estimation from that original USADA story...
Strange that some stories get comments and some dont. I wonder what the policy is on that
I wonder if they bar comments on stories that are likely to get lots of comments and swamp the personnel they have available to read, screen, and post them.
I liked the Mafia analogy. From reading the article, though, I would say that the Justice Department has more explaining to do than journalists.
Peter
Look at the comment thread under this NYT article on Armstrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/sports/cycling/armstrong-stripped-of-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html
It looks like the vast majority have gotten the message now.
A couple of things from the top of the comment thread struck me. First was a nice articulation of how the public was injured by Armstrong's story:
"Just being exposed as a complete fraud is not really enough.
Armstrong created a narrative for himself as the cancer surviver who returns to win the Tour de France. Armstrong made more money from the narrative then from all the prize money combined. Trouble is, he was cheating all along, but the story was so compelling that we all wanted to believe it, despite the obvious reality that it was a virtual impossible feat."
And second was a point that I have to say I agree with, from RDCO:
"It does seem a bit strange to remove someone's name from the list of winners.
I rather prefer the asterisk method, which states that the person was later (much later) found to have broken the (implied?) rules.
If passing drug tests was the "requirement" then LA did not cheat, if enhancing performance through medicine is the problem, then he did evidently do so, but in a sufficiently subtle way that he passed all the drug etc tests.
Eliminating all past winners who took such steps to enhance their performance,without violating the tests in place, seems a bit Orwellian to me. Its as if the Tour is claiming that the race has not been run for the past thirty or forty years."
Re: I rather prefer the asterisk method, which states that the person was later (much later) found to have broken the (implied?) rules.
It is a question of degree, like murder. This is a particular case, malice aforethought.
When Mark MacGuire broke the record for home runs, steroid use was not yet against the rules. He used performance enhancing drugs, but there was a level playing field. Anyone could do it then. MacGuire probably didn't think that he was doing anything wrong.
When Lance Armstrong won, blood doping (transfusions before races to enhance his oxygen) was against the rules though undetectable. He systematically used it to win knowing it was against the rules. Cheating in the first degree.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think they owe Lance Armstrong anything. But erasing the historic record always makes me uneasy. I'd be happier if they acknowledged that he came first over the finish line, but explained why it wasn't a valid win. Kind of like how they do it on The Amazing Race. "You are the third team to arrive. But I'm sorry to tell you that you took a taxi when the instructions specifically told you to walk." Something like that.
There has been one US outlet that has covered this thing - Outside Magazine. They've been on top of it even as Sir Lance Dopesalot appeared on their cover.
Crawdaddy
I like Outside magazine. Jon Krakauer writes for them doesnt he?
I just perused Outsider magazine which further highlights your thesis of the absolute failure of american journalism. wow. so it wasn't just the pesky french who knew.
Post a Comment