Chuffy, I'll 'fess up, if you stop calling me a fan boy
I admit to being quite naive about drug taking in the sport right up until the last few years. Sure I knew the rumours but it wasn't until I started attending cycling forums that I began to question things a lot more. In particular I concentrated on the Tour because really that's all I've ever followed and of course I began with Armstong because......well because I bought into the myth.
It took me many a good hour to hunt down LA Confidential through various websites and then to put all the snippets together (I still didn't get every single bit). When I read it the scales fell from my eyes. I mean I'd read Kimmage and Simpson and a few others but they didn't really have the impact of questioning something which had in my mind (and the minds of many others) been beyond question. I'd always assumed the French were bitter because they hadn't produced a tour winner for so long (they are bitter by the way) but that doesn't begin to cover it.
In a way you're quite right, Walsh is tilting at the wrong windmill. You're also spot on in your observation that LA wouldn't be so keen to stamp on people if he wasn't concerned but then he is also a control freak of the highest order.
I do believe if Walsh had presented his findings in a different way, if he'd been more critical and questioning and not started from the basis that Armstong was guilty and he just had to prove it, then the book would have had far more power. That said, the interviews with Andreu, with Lemond, his masseur, are compelling and Armstong's recent angry outburst defending his ex team mates bizarre.
But.....I'm wise. I've watched, in real life, up close and personal, things develop into the wider world that are alledgedly the truth. Things said and ascribed to people that weren't said or are taken so far out of context that their meaning is lost. Eventaully what you get is some pale imitation, masquerading as the truth. It's taught me enough to question deeply peoples interpretation of things.
I also have enough of a science background to question methodologies around drug taking and testing, enough to doubt the validity of results and question peoples absoloute assertion that such and such a thing is infallible. It hardly ever is, especially when it's at the cutting edge.
So where does that leave me. Well, in doubt is the answer. Deeply disenchanted is another answer. Clinging to moments which are not real or may not be real. Pantanis incredible tour win, Riise's attack on Alpe D'huez, Roches incredible recovery in the Alps (?) to claw back 2 minutes, the list goes on.
I bow to yours and Noodley's knowledge simply because you follow the wider sport, which I don't. You are chipping away at me but................I reserve the right to chip back. I don't like the idea of all my illusions being shattered at once
![Oh my! :ohmy: :ohmy:](/styles/default/xenforo/smls/ohmy.gif)