Category Archives: PEDs

January 17, 2013 · 9:57 pm

Lance Armstrong Oprah Interview Initial Reaction

Here are some initial and preliminary reactions to Oprah’s interview of Lance Armstrong.

I was fascinated by the interview from the get go. Oprah asked tough questions. As one would expect, Armstrong looked very uncomfortable through most of it. My response is mixed: he seemed mostly straight with the doping aspects (most of which will come to light anyway). He was much more ambiguous on how he treated people, particularly Betsy Andreu. At times, Armstrong was evasive and maybe Oprah could have pushed harder on some points. But overall, I thought she did a great job.

Some of Armstrong’s responses suggested to me that he was sincerely regretful and contrite: for example, saying unequivocally that the doping was his choice. Other times he shifted to language that deflected his responsibility. He talked about his actions as “flaws” as though they were just things he couldn’t help. He used “we” instead of “I” making it seem less on him. This isn’t surprising to me. Armstrong is a mix—as he said—he is a jerk and a humanitarian. In the interview, he is taking some responsibility but also shirking some of it.

Although it allowed him to side step the question of USADA cooperation, I like the idea of a “truth and reconciliation commission.” Without fear of prosecution, many more athletes might come forward and bring to light just how pervasive doping is.

I’m looking forward to Part 2.

1 Comment

Filed under Lance Armstrong, PEDs

Tagged as ,

January 15, 2013 · 10:45 pm

CNN asks “Give Lance another chance?”

I provide my take on Lance Armstrong’s upcoming confession of doping here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/opinion-roundup-lance-armstrong/index.html

1 Comment

Filed under PEDs, Site Announcements

January 9, 2013 · 8:33 pm

Quick Thoughts: Bonds, Clemens, and MLB Hall of Fame

I love baseball, but I am not a baseball stat-head. I can’t recount how many bases someone stole or how much shutout innings someone pitched. I don’t go in for all those fine-grained analyses over who should and should not get into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

With that caveat, I think it is silly that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were not voted into the Hall of Fame today. Yes they both cheated; they used substances that were prohibited by their sport. Their legacies are forever tarnished by this, and rightfully so. But both Bonds and Clemens were two of the greatest baseball players ever—PEDs or not. And given the alleged pervasiveness of PED usage in their era, one might argue that their dominance was even more impressive.

Moreover, there is little doubt that PED users and cheaters of other kinds are already in the Hall—having played in a time when knowledge of such things was harder to come by or just ignored. No one, as far as I know, has called for a purge of all cheaters and scoundrels already in the Hall of Fame (Let’s not!)

The voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens seem to be trying to undo history or pretend like it didn’t happen. But it did happen. These men played the game. They dominated. How does one tell the history of baseball in the late 20th/early 21st century without talking about Bonds and Clemens? As ESPN baseball writer Jayson Stark puts it: “Do we really want a Hall of Fame that basically tries to pretend that none of those men ever played baseball? That none of that happened? Or that none of that should have happened?”

Another view of why the voters voted the way they did is that the voters were taking out their frustration and anger at the whole so-called Steroids Era by punishing these men. But this strikes me as largely misplaced. It is not the voters’ role to dole out justice for such rule-violations. That role belonged to the league, owners, and players. They all failed in that regard, but that does not license the baseball writers to take it up.

I am of the camp that thinks we ought to put the best, most dominant players of their respective eras in the Hall and where appropriate note the admitted, alleged, or suspected PED use on plaques/signs by the players’ bust. Anything else seems to be either hypocrisy or evasion.

5 Comments

Filed under baseball, PEDs

October 26, 2012 · 1:57 am

Quick Thoughts on Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis, and ESPN’s 30 for 30 9.79*

I finally got around to watching the ESPN’s 30 for 30 documentary 9.79* and I have three quick responses. One, I was surprised at how sympathetic Ben Johnson comes across. He shows regret, is appropriately contrite, and doesn’t try to rationalize or make excuses for his steroid use. Second, I was surprised at how poorly Carl Lewis comes across. He seems unlikable and vain: more concerned with his image than anything else. Lastly, the movie nibbles around and all but accuses Lewis of having doped. For example, there is a clip of a doctor discussing how many HGH uses need adult braces because their jaw grows. About ten minutes later there is a clear shot of Lewis with braces. The film also has several interviews with Lewis competitors that suggest Lewis doped.

This documentary doesn’t answer the question of whether or not Lewis doped or not, nor does it suggest any resolutions to PED issues. But it is a thought-provoking look at the runners of the 1988 Olympic 100m and how PEDs affected the sport and the athletes.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under ESPN, Movies, PEDs