http://www.cbssports.com/cycling/story/11948357

I agree read the bloggers comments at the end of the article.

This is one of many annual trolls that surfaces this time of year, playing on the popularity of cycling(and the LA affect) and tries to question/undermine the validity of the sport. FWIW, sending hate emails to this guy or complaining to his editor will not make him go away, but rather it empowers them as that is exactly what they are trying to do - stir a little contraversy.

DELETE!

Right. Normally it is the guy from the San Fran paper that writes the "cycling isn't a sport" column... every year.

If Lance is not first by July 26, which I still predict he will not be, then I wonder if this guy will write a follow up.

The key to columnists is this: for an article like this, make it as incendiary as possible. Thus, you'll get the maximum amount of feedback, links, click-throughs, and everything else for your article.

hmm. the basic question that the article asks is -- in fact -- valid. how can a 38 year old come out of 3 1/2 years of retirement and still be in contention at the tour?

he is also accurate in depicting the usual age at which great champions start to go downhill (30-31).

i disagree with the idea that the competition just sucks.

but the question then remains. and it is even more important that it should not go unanswered.

how is he doing it?

I agree with Chris on the subject of said mentioned Fish Hack being an idiot.


Butttttttt I have to say I do agree with him on some of his points. Does anyone think the other contenders have not sucked up until this point?

Menchov….sucks azz

Sastra …….sucking and (waiting I guess)

Shlitz brothers …..sucking …crashing ……fo attacking….

Evans……..collective team sucking …….attacking for not….

Exceptions to this would be------ Wiggins, Rinaldo Nocentini, and Voeckler for making a break stick.

So what he says is basically a Fish Hack that does not know anything about cycling trying to come up with a story. He calls himself a sports writer but the only thing he can actually report on with some knowledge is the Asshat Olympics,,,,speaking of which I hear are looking for a few beat reporters this year.

Also note that he questions the age of the Tornado and his performance.
Which should have been a HUGE indicator in baseball a few years back when all these old azzzzzzzzzzzzzz pitchers were just somehow able to pitch at the big leauge longer and loger. Sometimes becoming more effective! WTF this fish hack really is a IDIOT!

So, after reading OARs comments, I went back and read the whole article. I think it may be worthy of a discussion, though unfortunately, this needs to be moved to the "doping" list.

The guy misses some points:

1. MJ joined the wizards, not the Lakers. Take Kobe out and plug him in, and he's got jewelry for both hands. Astana's TDF team is about as good as the Lakers of late or the early 90s Bulls. Yeah, you have Jordan, but you've got Pippin and a supporting cast that would be #1 on any other team.

2. I don't know that cycling has fewer players than basketball worldwide. At first glance, that might be true in the US (almost certainly) but worldwide? We in the US always assume that our sport is the greatest-of-the-great simply because it is a US dominated sport. There are Cat 2 riders trying to break into the big leagues in just about every country. Probably not true of basketball. The EU and Aussie b-ball leagues are comparable to Cat 1 cycling in the US (that is, EU cycling is a notch above the US at the top level).

3. I don't think most of his assumptions around doping in cycling versus other sports is necessarily true.

4. I said this in my first post, but it bears repeating: Being 8 seconds back after week 1 doesn't mean squat, given the rest of the parcours, and the 2 remaining uphill finishes and 1 TT that includes a cat 3 climb. We could see Armstrong back to 9th or 10th (or not).

What this all means is this: the guy isn't an idiot, but rather a columnist who didn't do a bad job stirring the pot about cycling in July. And, he does make an interesting point about where LA stands now. I just think that his comparisons are old and tired, and don't really support his thesis as well as he thinks they do.

Nonetheless, some of his points are worth discussing.

glad to see this move forums.

because my main fault (and it is a typically american one to buy the huge armstrong PR) with the article is this:

"Armstrong has been scrutinized longer than Barry Bonds or Marion Jones, and unlike them, he has come out clean."

That is blatantly false.

And if he realized that it may go a long way to explaining his very valid primary question.

THIA GUY IS NOT WORTH THE CHAIR HE IS SITTING ON!!!


Makes folk realise how good award winning journalists like Walsh, Kimmage and Ballester really are...

Doyel used to write for my hometown paper, the Charlotte Observer. He was and is terrible. He thrives on negative feedback, writing anything that will get a rise out of a fan base regardless of the facts. Of course by posting this I'm feeding his hunger, but he truly sucks. I just have always wondered why he apparently thinks that pissing people off means he's doing a good job as a journalist. A true hack who adds no value.
And I haven't read this article yet, but I'm betting it blows.

The guy would be on to something if he looked at Merckx's palmares. All those wins makes you wonder what was going on with the competition. Could it be a chronic communication breakdown of his opponent's teams? Could radios have helped to offset Merckx's wins?

Which one?

Dave.

Too bad the guy gratuitously attacks cancer survivors. But since facts are our friends, let's give the 'journalist' his due ..,


'Back in the 1880s .., an English cyclist reportedly drank a concoction of caffeine, cocaine and strychnine to boost his performance. Killed himself, the poor SOB.'

'Teams carry around vats of enhanced blood'


Is cycling journalism is the dirtiest sport there is -

Hello?