Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 47
- 1
PaperclipPerfector
1d ago
(text post)
1077 thread views
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How do you think sports leagues should handle past wild-west-type PED usage when discussing historical records?
My preferred competitive spectator sports growing up were baseball and football, with a sprinkling of MMA/Boxing. So I was used to the ways that those sports dealt with steroids. Baseball whinged about it, drummed Barry Bonds out of the sport over it, and everyone stopped talking about Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire and the homerun record (suddenly people started talking about the AL home run record, which is theoretically clean), steroid users are mostly being kept out of Cooperstown, but it's still understood that records and stats accumulated by enhanced players "count." Football and boxing occasionally toss a suspension or a fine or a ban at somebody for steroid use, but mostly sweep it under the rug and ignore it. But those aren't the only methods!
Lately I've been enjoying recreational cycling, and listened to Nige Tassell's Three Weeks, Eight Seconds about the 1989 Tour De France while riding. It was exactly the kind of tightly written sports history book I love, from the title I knew it would end with a tight race, having no knowledge of cycling I didn't know who would win. The EPO era hangs over the historical narrative, looming "in the future" according the speakers who all deny that PED use was common at the time. Indurain and Lemond take star turns in 1989, between the two of them they carry the yellow jersey to 1995 and just before the Lance Armstrong era. But Lance has suffered complete damnatio memoriae from cycling authorities, and it's kind of fascinating how much cycling journalists and writers accept this politically correct erasure. Wikipedia lists the seven tours between 1999 and 2005 as having "no winner." And that weirdly Stalinist turn continues throughout cycling media, even in unrelated publications like the Wall Street Journal. This summer I followed the Tour casually, reading the articles in the WSJ, that kind of thing. Something I noticed was that people talk about Pogacar having the potential to match, and then beat, the record mutually held by Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, and Miguel Induráin of five tour wins. This ignores Lance's record of seven consecutive tour wins. Then they go on to talk about Pogacar being maybe the GOAT, surpassing Merckx or Indurain, with no mention of Armstrong. Tbh, on wikipedia, it's pretty hard to figure out Lance Armstrong's resume, because the sidebar with his "major accomplishments" just lists a couple relatively minor wins [Grand Tours: Tour de France 2 individual stages (1993, 1995) Tour de Luxembourg (1998) Tour DuPont (1995, 1996)] while refusing to list the seven consecutive tour de France wins. Indurain, by comparison, is listed in the first sentence as the only 5-time winner to win them consecutively. It just seems to be an absolutely bizarre way of treating the topic, and I have to assume that this is the result of some serious pressure from UCI to threaten any journalist who talks about Armstrong as a winner with such severe loss of access that writing about cycling would be impossible. Part of me wonders if this is the result of the European origin of TPTB in cycling lead them to particularly want to forget the period when an American came in and dominated the sport.
This seems like a bad way to handle things. Baseball fans acknowledge that Bonds lived and hit home runs, even if most of them hate him for various reasons. They might talk about the clean home run record, or the AL home run record, but they don't ignore the real home run record. My generation of fans, our memories are of Bonds and Sosa and McGwire and we're getting those memories back into play, I'm not sure why cycling fans don't feel the same way. Cycling fans seem to want to ignore the real TDF records, and make them impossible to compare, and pretend Lance Armstrong in particular never happened. I wonder if we'll see him readmitted to the fold if and when Pogacar wins eight, as then he will be a less threatening figure to cycling history and can be rehabilitated.
A third point for comparison: olympic weightlifting has twice shifted the weight classes in concert with new testing rules, so that the old records "don't exist" in the sense that the old records are from old weight classes and the new records are for new weight classes. We might be able to squint and say "gee they used to be a lot fucking stronger;" but there's never an unbreakable record for a current weight class the way no one will ever hit 80 home runs without steroids.
What method do you prefer? How should sports leagues deal with steroid records?
I think this is not a small part of it. After the LeMond-Fignon battle there hasn't been a French winner of the TDF. And oh boy, if you get one of the home fans drunk on the side of the road and ask them the right questions, 100% there's quite a few that are salty about it. It probably has hurt local sponsorship as well which isn't great give it's quite burdensome for the local towns to host. The dependence of cycling on Lance followed by his fall, was probably bad for the sport in net. Not unlike the Tiger Woods effect, but golf has arguably recovered better. I have no doubt Lance ruled peloton with an iron fist, but I also doubt anyone at Tour level was riding clean in that era. Ignoring the ethical question for a second though, to me his greatest tactical error was not having a plan to bow out gracefully. Lance had enough clout to tie up the UCI and quiet LeMond, but he left a void when he left the first time. There's no way the Tour organizers were going to let Floyd Landis of all guys continue the American domination of the sport. The crazy thing is Lance probably could have gotten away with it if he had just staid retired, and like did anything else. I doubt anyone would have cared about the B-samples if he had just chosen to slowly fade from public view. The UCI busting Landis and then Landis immediately outing him should have been his warning not to come back.
I do think it's strange people accept The Court of Arbitration for Sport/UCI/ASO committee decisions for who "won" a given race. Like the race is "won" when you crush your enemies and see them driven before you. Take for example in the 2001 tour. The experience of following the tour was that on the road Lance Armstrong won the day he gave Jan Ullrich "The Look" on Alpe-d'Huez and Jan couldn't follow. Sipping champagne rolling into Pairs or hoisting the trophy on the Champs-Élysées were just formalities after that point.
I know the problems associated with it, but I still think they should have brought back the clean and press when they redid the weight-classes in weightlifting. In its modern form the lifters are very explosive and athletic looking, but there's not really an event in the Olympics that has a pure test of static strength. I for one am willing to sacrifice the 20 km walk from the program if it means we can have the clean and press.
As far as general principles on records go, I treat it like my head cannon when I don't like what they've done with a show I like. I just ignore the "official" cannon. It's not like they can forcibly reprogram my mind (yet) and it's not like I'm going to all Custer's Last Stand to argue with someone about it. I just nod politely if someone wants to talk about the official cannon, then promptly go back to ignoring it exits.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link