Racing cyclists have been taking stimulants since the wheel was invented - and arguably with some justification - so throughout the 50 years I have been interested in cycling.
I own or have read dozens of (auto) biographies on Kelly, Merckx, Coppi, Armstrong, Roche, Millar, Miller, Pantani,,...last week I reread Riis (Stages of Light and Dark) who won the Tour in 1996 and then went on to be a very successful Team Owner and Directeur Sportive.
I understand the psychology of denial (to survive) and cognitive dissonance - "I am a father and love my sport so I cannot be a drug cheat and so this needle in my arm isn't really there", etc.
But what has recently interested me is the attitudes of we who watch and comment.
Why Armstrong is still in the outer darkness (except in Austin, Texas of course) - although I understand why and have some sympathy with his position - but Virenque (whom I loathe) is forgiven, and now commentates for French TV, as is Pantani (whom I see as a tragic figure).
And of course Wiggins, the English national treasure, who obviously could not do anything bad; unlike that Scot, David Miller, who did - but now commentates on British TV.
Compare and contrast and then thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye..?
Reply With Quote