"Lance Armstrong Won't Fight Drug Charges"
Let's be clear. This is the story. It's not, Lance Armstrong is Guilty or Lance Armstrong is a Liar or Lance Armstrong, Alien Husband?
If you work at ESPN, CBS, The Huffington Post, TSN, Sportsnet, FOX Sports, CBC, BCC, Some French Television Station Whose Sole Goal in Life is to Tarnish American Superstars, Al-Jazeera, or any other credible mainstream news organization, your goal is not to speculate over whether he's guilty or not. It's to report the facts.
Sure, your columnists will surmise whatever they want, and the blogosphere will be ripe with opinion and controversy -- that's all well and good. We should want to read other's opinions, and we should want to hear perspectives we don't agree with. It's a democracy and, aside from British Columbians voting down the HST and Greece electing a power duo of Communists and Neo-Nazis, democracy works most of the time.
If you think Armstrong is guilty, let's suggest you read something from one of his defenders while you're sucking back Merlot and feasting on brie tonight and reaping the rewards of your country's occupation of Vietnam in the 1950's. (Yea, that would be France.)
It would also do you good to read Armstrong's actual statement. He never admits guilt, never says he doped his one remaining testicle, and never once backs away from what he's been saying all along: "I'm innocent."
What he says is that he's tired of putting up with a "witch hunt" which has tarnished his name and soiled his reputation. And, it's true. Armstrong's name has been dragged through the mud like a hamster caught in one of his spokes.
Even that scene from Dodgeball is forever ruined, because we'll always feel like Peter Le Fleur got his life-changing advice from a skinny dude on some seriously strong Ritalin.
Listen to what the man says, because it actually makes sense. No athlete in modern history has gone through the kind of persecution that Armstrong has with the USADA or any other drug-sniffing corporation that's pretending to be for the good of the game when it's really only thinking about one thing: headlines.
Is Armstrong guilty? Maybe, maybe not (well, probably). But, does it really matter? Has it ever?
Carl Lewis was juiced when he won at least one of his two Olympic gold medals for the 100m dash, and he admitted to it. His excuse? Everyone else was doing it, so whatever, I did it, too.
"Who cares I failed a drug test," he said in 2003, in his trademark perfect English grammar. "There were hundreds of people getting off... everyone was treated the same."
Yeah, Carl, but Ben Johnson did lose his gold medal, and he gave it to you. And, you still have it.
This year, Carl Lewis was often cited as the only challenger to Michael Phelps for the title of "Greatest Olympian Ever".
Right, and Usain Bolt is just one of the guys from Cool Runnings.
Meanwhile, Ozzie Guillen got suspended for saying he loved Fidel Castro and a worker at ESPN got fired for an unintended mental slip-up involving the phrase, "chink in the armor," which is something most people say all the time and without any thought that it has nothing to do with anyone's nationality.
(Listen to Anthony Federico during his apology: "I'm so sorry that I offended people. I'm so sorry if I offended Jeremy." Yea, what a racist.)
But, Carl Lewis is viewed as a god, despite his musical career.
How can we be so outraged and violent with some, and then so selective and convenient with others?
So, if you're an independent mind, write whatever you want. If you believe Armstrong is guilty, then write it and support it. If you believe he's innocent -- and you can find anyone else who agrees with you -- then write it, and support it.
But, if you're a reporter or a news organization -- if you're Reuters or the Canadian Press or the Associated Press -- then please, for the love of Abraham, just write it as is. If I'm looking for the actual headline, I want to see the actual headline. I want to know what happened and I want to hear it straight up. I want the good stuff -- uncut and pure.
Write that he's been stripped of his titles. Write that he's given up the fight. Write that he has one testicle.
Write the news. Write what we know, because somebody has to.
The rest will have to wait.
*This was originally posted on White Cover Magazine.
Follow Kolby Solinsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KolbySolinsky
Christian Piatt: Lance Armstrong and the Way of Fallen Idols
Which doesn't mean I don't think Armstrong is innocent-- I only know what I've read, which casts doubts, at least, on the possibility. But it does mean that there's been a cottage industry in the bike racing world dedicated to finding whatever reason it could to knock Armstrong off his pedestal of most wins, all-time. Ironically, it may be Armstrong who provided the rocks that sent him to the ground.
Perfect summary of the situation. Thank you for making sense.
Most journalists, if they adhered to this rather curious principle, couldn't fill up one Twitter tweet.
Speculation, assertions without evidence, and grandstanding are SO much more fun (not to mention profitable), wouldn't you agree?
But, I didn't say it was undemocratic, I just said it "didn't work" in that case. Obviously, it's an opinion – my opinion – and it's clearly that more people disagreed with me among voters than those who agreed, because it was voted out.
Overall, the article on Lance Armstrong is sadly lacking. The entire thing is premised on what you perceive as a rush to judgement by mainstream news reporting, but does not provide a single example of a news story that does so. This is a particularly glaring omission since you mention a number of media organizations by name - "ESPN, CBS, The Huffington Post, TSN, Sportsnet, FOX Sports, CBC, BCC (BBC?), Some French Television Station Whose Sole Goal in Life is to Tarnish American Superstars, Al-Jazeera". Did Al-Jazeera (to choose one example) do a news story on Mr. Armstrong's decision not to further participate in the USADA process? If so, what did it say? Or were you just being clever?
Since you didn't include any concrete examples, one is left to infer that you don't have any and are making a general claim in the absence of specific evidence, which is painfully ironic considering the nature of your complaint about the media's treatment of Mr. Armstrong.
So let's stop pretending the LA accepted the guilty charge and ban for any reason other than he knew the USADA had the evidence to prove his guilt and it was best to keep that evidence under wraps.
Kolby
It had become a witch hunt.
No matter what, people like you will assume the worst.
Lance did the best thing for him, his family, and his work.
Is there a point to this diatribe?
Seems like you must be a Lance fan or have some other reason to attack EVERY network about how they are doing a terrible job.
Here's a tip. When writing things like this, you might cite some examples that support your "theory" & I use that term loosely. Really helps a reader see your point of view.
No not every network or every reporter does their job in an unbiased way. However it's strange that you choose Armstrong's current situation as the source of your displeasure.... not Tiger Woods / Iraq / Iran / 2012 election / Bain capital / Fox news...
1) I don't think Tiger Woods compares to Iraq, Iran, or Bain Capital, either. I'm writing about sports. Others can write about that. (I did write this little "parody", if you're interested: http://www.whitecovermag.com/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-2012-us.html)
2) I really don't have a vendetta against all those networks. I said, if you're on those networks, I'd really appreciate it if you reported the story AS IS, and then had commentators come in with their opinions afterwords. I assume ESPN would report the story at its bare bones, so we all have the proper facts, and then First Take could start grandstanding about it. That's all.
People have been confused by this story, because many of the headlines and titles out there simply look like the story is LANCE GUILTY.
I'm really not a Lance fan, actually, if that matters. I just think news is news, and commentary should follow. They shouldn't be mixed or muddied, at least not originally.
As for the "Lance Guilty" part, he is. By not repsonding & avoiding the hearing, he is guilty under USADA doping laws.