J. M. LeBlanc, goes for it...

[yenrod]

Former Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc has questioned Lance Armstrong's motives for returning to race riding next year.


"It seems that you want to collect funds for your foundation into cancer research. That's a laudable intention of course but was it necessary to get out your jersey and racing shorts given the revenue your conferences make in the United States?" he asks.

"They're also saying you haven't been overly impressed with the victories of your former rivals - (Oscar) Pereiro, (Alberto) Contador and (Carlos) Sastre - and that at 37 the challenge doesn't seem insurmountable; and that is something we can understand.

"But Lance, let's suppose that you'll still be competitive in 2009 - and that's a strong possibility - there is all the same a small problem which is bothering us.

"It's the side effects that your return will inevitably have on cycling's image.

"Us former riders generally have respect for winners, but that's not always the case with the public and above all the media who have heavy suspicions about you.

"The hounds will be let loose, column inches will be written, images repeated, and debate sparked about the one word which has petrified our passion over the past ten years: doping."

LeBlanc refers there to the persistent allegations of doping that have dogged Armstrong's career, his most vociferous detractor being France's sports daily L'Equipe.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/30092008/58/leblanc-questions-armstrong-return.html

 

[Noodley]

Where's his proof?



Good article, well spotted.

 

[John the Monkey]

Commentary below is wholly pro-Armstrong (or at least it was when I saw it), including a "he single handedly saved the tour" bit.

 

[Skip Madness]

I know that modern drug-testing is far from perfect, but given that it has improved in the years since Armstrong's retirement, isn't this an opportunity for Lance to try to put the whole debate to bed in as much as he can by winning the Tour with a much more stringent testing system within the races and the teams themselves? Regardless of whether or not Lance has doped in the past (of course he has famously never tested positive, but I won't pretend there isn't evidence of varying substance against him), it would be so pointlessly stupid to risk his whole reputation by taking drugs next year when his place in the Tour's history is already enshrined that I find it hard to believe he will be on anything illicit this time at the very least.

It reads like Leblanc saying, "I don't like you and am worried you will win the Tour next year so here is a stupid reason why you shouldn't come." As though the Tour's image has not been tainted by doping since Armstrong's retirement.

"Us former riders generally have respect for winners, but that's not always the case with the public and above all the media who have heavy suspicions about you.

"The hounds will be let loose, column inches will be written, images repeated, and debate sparked about the one word which has petrified our passion over the past ten years: doping."

Why "above all the media"? Surely the public's perception is more important than the media's? The media whinged about Lance for years, the public still turned out and tuned in in force to watch the Tour during his reign.

 

[yenrod]

>Why "above all the media"? Surely the public's perception is more important than the media's? The media whinged about Lance for years, the public still turned out and tuned in in force to watch the Tour during his reign.

Maybe, because l'equipe are sister to le tour and are pretty much the mouth piece to the tour de france.

 

[Noodley]

Why "above all the media"? Surely the public's perception is more important than the media's? The media whinged about Lance for years, the public still turned out and tuned in in force to watch the Tour during his reign.

He is only saying the media in particular may not respect former winners due to suspicions. This has nothing to do with whether people turn up or not. Cycling fans turn out in force for the Tour every year.

 

[Skip Madness]

Maybe, because l'equipe are sister to le tour and are pretty much the mouth piece to the tour de france.

He is only saying the media in particular may not respect former winners due to suspicions. This has nothing to do with whether people turn up or not. Cycling fans turn out in force for the Tour every year.

Well yes, this is my point - Leblanc is trying to make it look like a Lance comeback will harm cycling because it might upset the public and the media. There is no reason to believe it will upset the public, and I don't see why Lance or anyone else should care if it upsets the media. "Don't come back because some journalists won't like it" - boo hoo.

 

[Chuffy]

Well yes, this is my point - Leblanc is trying to make it look like a Lance comeback will harm cycling because it might upset the public and the media. There is no reason to believe it will upset the public, and I don't see why Lance or anyone else should care if it upsets the media. "Don't come back because some journalists won't like it" - boo hoo.

Lance won't give a sh*t about the media, but in terms of cyclings image JML-B (and ASO) will. Armstrong has a distinctly dodgy past and if he returns then there will be never-ending reminders of his positive sample from 1999 and all the other stuff which suggests that he was not Mr Clean. All stuff which can, and will, dominate the Tour while Lance rides. Not useful for a sport still reeling after the last decade of doping tribulations. And don't blame the media for that. Lance is heavily tainted and the sport is still in crisis. Should we, or the media who we rely on for info, just pretend that the 1999 tests never happened? Stick our fingers in our ears and go 'la la la, all u haterz r jus jelous' whenever anyone mentions any of the stories told by reliable people who know more about Team Armstrong than we do? The Armstrong fan-club will be whooping with joy, but there will be a lot of fans who won't be so keen. LA has a consistent record of speaking out against the anti-dopers. His return will be a deliberate two fingers to them, especially if he tests clean for the whole Tour, which I would expect him to do. Won't do the anti-doping movement any favours at all and it needs all the help it can get right now.

 

[Skip Madness]

Lance won't give a sh*t about the media, but in terms of cyclings image JML-B (and ASO) will.

The same way they cared about Richard Virenque's transgressions?

Armstrong has a distinctly dodgy past and if he returns then there will be never-ending reminders of his positive sample from 1999 and all the other stuff which suggests that he was not Mr Clean. All stuff which can, and will, dominate the Tour while Lance rides.

There was plenty of evidence against Armstrong bandied around before he retired - I don't see why it will dominate much more next year than it did then.

Not useful for a sport still reeling after the last decade of doping tribulations. And don't blame the media for that.

I am not having a go at the media - I am having a go at Leblanc.

Lance is heavily tainted and the sport is still in crisis. Should we, or the media who we rely on for info, just pretend that the 1999 tests never happened? Stick our fingers in our ears and go 'la la la, all u haterz r jus jelous' whenever anyone mentions any of the stories told by reliable people who know more about Team Armstrong than we do?

Of course not. But as I said before, since Armstrong's retirement, we have had a Tour winner stripped of his title, a Tour leader kicked out with days to go and superseded by someone whose name came up in Operación Puerto followed by positives for two of the sport's biggest names, and positives this year from four riders including one of the sport's rising superstars and an admission of guilt from probably the greatest climber of the last five years. It is hard to bring doping back into the spotlight when it never left. I object to Leblanc's propagation that media opinion is more important than public opinion as an excuse to say he doesn't like Lance. He should finish with the weasel words and just say he doesn't want Lance back because he suspects he may have cheated.

The fact is, Leblanc could have said all these things about Valverde, Cunego, now Fränk Schleck, even Contador to a point; all riders who have had the finger of suspicion pointed at them (with differing degrees of evidence).

Really, if you want to have a good vent about Armstrong coming back I am all for it. But Leblanc's attack under the guise of advice and faux-friendliness is just a cheap shot. He should try forming some opinions of his own.

LA has a consistent record of speaking out against the anti-dopers. His return will be a deliberate two fingers to them, especially if he tests clean for the whole Tour, which I would expect him to do. Won't do the anti-doping movement any favours at all and it needs all the help it can get right now.

Possibly. Suppose this, though: wouldn't Lance riding clean - even if it may be for the first time - be a victory for the anti-doping movement?

 

[Noodley]

Actually I would give him the benefit of the doubt if when he returns he stops saying "I have prepared myself" which always used to piss me off and probably will again.

Now Lance, after me "I have trained hard"...bet he can't say it.

 

[Chuffy]

The same way they cared about Richard Virenque's transgressions?

Yes, that weasel should never have been given such an easy ride... Post-Festina you'd hope that such a lying piece of crap wouldn't be given the time of day.

Possibly. Suppose this, though: wouldn't Lance riding clean - even if it may be for the first time - be a victory for the anti-doping movement?

No. I can see why you'd say that but Lance will be using his, apparent, ultra-clean status as a club to beat the anti-dopers with. It's illogical to say that anything he does next year will reflect on his past, but that's the wild and crazy world of perception. If Catlin turns up nothing then Lance and the fan-boys will be saying 'see? I told ya'. As if it proved anything... If I had to pick just one reason for not wanting him back, seeing him use the 09 Tour as a way of 'proving' how clean he was back in the day is the one I'd choose.

 

[yenrod]

Actually I would give him the benefit of the doubt if when he returns he stops saying "I have prepared myself" which always used to piss me off and probably will again.

Now Lance, after me "I have trained hard"...bet he can't say it.

Never noticed.

But it makes sense - TOO say the later !

 

[Skip Madness]

It's illogical to say that anything he does next year will reflect on his past, but that's the wild and crazy world of perception. If Catlin turns up nothing then Lance and the fan-boys will be saying 'see? I told ya'. As if it proved anything... If I had to pick just one reason for not wanting him back, seeing him use the 09 Tour as a way of 'proving' how clean he was back in the day is the one I'd choose.

I am not saying a clean victory for Lance next year would mean he was clean all along - although it's true that some people would infer that - but it would tell us whether or not he is capable of winning clean, which is something I would like to know. Fair enough, though, I see your point.

Actually I would give him the benefit of the doubt if when he returns he stops saying "I have prepared myself" which always used to piss me off and probably will again.

Now Lance, after me "I have trained hard"...bet he can't say it.

I presume you are joking, but I have never quite understood arguments like the ones I have read which say, "When interviewed, Armstrong only says 'I have never tested positive for anything' and not 'I have never taken drugs', a bit suspicious to me!" As though he would be deceitful enough to con his way to winning the world's biggest bike race in the first place but lying about whether or not he has taken drugs would be one deceit too far.

 

[girofan]

Who was it who said: You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time!
And he had never heard of LA.

 

[Noodley]

I presume you are joking....

No I'm not joking. You must have heard him say that. He used to say it all the time.