About Armstrong

About Armstrong

About Armstrong. It’s all about power – which to me has always seemed to mean money. Are the two distinguishable?
 

         B. A. - before Lance, there was a little European sport called cycling (actually it’s called professional road racing) which didn’t amount to a hill of beans in the tennis and golf context and probably didn’t add up to much stacked up next to football (American football) and baseball or even Association Football or soccer. Not financially that is; it was rich in talent and tradition and got you out of the house of a weekend. But no one got rich from it. Even the great champions had to ride all season and sometimes in the winter too to make a decent amount of money. Eddy Merckx used to ride Six Day events in the winter for the appearance money and the prize money that it brought him – we’re talking the Muhammad Ali of cycling here. I think most would place Merckx up there alongside Ali and perhaps Nicklaus, and Pele as the giants of sport; those who had been so dominant that no one else could get a look in.

         That was B. A. After Lance won his first tour it all changed. If you read his books you’ll find that he was more surprised than anyone. That he had to be persuaded to return Stateside for a day prior to fulfilling his kermesse commitments and it wasn’t until he actually saw the huge crowds on the streets of New York that he began to understand the impact his victory was having; after all, an American had won the Tour before. Lemond won three. With Lance it was different and the sponsors went bonkers. Nike alone pumped millions into making, marketing and maximizing sales of clothing and other accessories. But there was more; much more. Middle class America took to cycling and wanted more.

         Conversely, when Lance retired, the shit hit the fan. The sponsorship of a minority, non-telegenic sport, thousands of miles away in Europe dried up like a one day lake in a desert. Hence the power struggles. How to divvy up the remaining dosh!? If you look at the pro-sports that have their act together, especially golf and tennis, you don’t see unseemly squabbling over the delineation of power. They are administrated in an efficient and orderly manner. They have been since Mark McCormack spotted the huge potential of the new telly markets. Cycling on the other hand has suffered bitter infighting.

         Now let’s talk about drugs; please! Doping – goodness, such an outpouring of outrage! The whole world dopes; housewives on Valium, hangover merchants on aspirin, tea and coffee for goodness sakes, are drugs. So is beer and whisky; 1 in 4 hospital admissions are booze-fuelled.

         Now let’s look at cycling and drugs; first it was brandy, then poor old Tommy and the whizz; then it got more sophisticated and then it got considerably more sophisticated. But Maitre Jacques said it all in the 50’s; you can’t win the tour on mineral water. Or as my best mate Mart, bike shop owner and lifelong bikey says, “The crowds, the sponsors, the television, the sponsors and the team managements all demand levels of performance that simply aren’t natural, that cannot be attained without pharmaceutical help.” Whether it’s in yer steak, a syringe or a blood bag.

         What gets my goat, really makes me angry is this; there are many many people biting the hand that feeds them. Especially journalists. They are besmirching our sport to round up the circulation numbers. They should be thinking about who and what pays their bills, and writing about the wonderful, exciting newly competitive racing we’re all watching agog these days.

         So what’s going down? This; almost (but not quite; he had help, both corporate and private) singlehandedly L.A. moved cycling into a different league as far as the dosh was concerned. He did it by bringing the States on board, marketing it thru’ his name. Armstrong was branded. And boy did the brand move some units!

         So why is he being witch hunted now? Cos’ he’s gone and there’s no one to fill the void. The market has contracted and the USDA, the UCI and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are fighting for what’s left in the cart. Nike aren’t interested in marketing a little Spanish lad with a penchant for cow’s arse, are they? If there was another Lance in the pipeline, it might all be a bit different. But there isn’t. Not yet. Maybe there never will be. The truth is he is and was a phenomenal athlete, far and away the best of his generation. Maybe the equivalent of Merckx; in longevity if not in all round ability.

         The real questions are how on earth Lance has acquired such vicious enemies; tho’ there’s no doubt that he was dominant and ruthless and a manipulator so was every other great champion. By definition he wouldn’t have achieved such success without those qualities. Hinault was at least as bad. And why everyone in the media, the sport’s government and administration and Joe Public seems determined to ignore the wonderfully open new racing (surely an indication that it’s cleaner than ever; really as well regulated as Cavendish would have us believe) and commit as open and public a Hari Kiri as is possible.

         Three indisputable facts: firstly, Lance Armstrong, whatever you feel about him, was and is a great champion. No one can take that away from him and he knows it. Two, the popularity of the sport, if not the pastime, is due to his Magnificent Seven. Three, the only loser here is the sport and its new young practitioners, boys and girls of all ages and at all levels.

         Why hasn’t he persisted in his legal battle? It’s massively, hugely expensive and Lance has chosen not to contest things in the past, saying publicly that he would rather spend the millions on cancer research than give it to the lawyers. Reading his books (well written by a Welsh girl; Sally Jenkins) it’s clear that all he really cares about is his kids and a cure for cancer.

         Personally I’ve always thought there’s a great deal more to cycling than elite men’s road racing. See you out on the bike then!