Research Journal Entry #3

Research Journal Entry #3

Citation

Smith, E. (2013). Left Field. New Statesman, 142(5141), 62.

Retrieved from http://proxy.library.vcu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&db=a9h&AN=84990772&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Main Claim

1. The real losers in this game are the clean riders and the writers who contradict the mood of the moment, those who spoke out against doping at the time. There is a market for the truth but it is a very fickle one.
2. The cyclists and writers who knew it was wrong to continue to keep silent over doping were shut down by their team mates or colleagues at the time. It shows the power of celebrity and the complicity of the media.

Summary of Source

Before 1998, doping was an obvious action and everybody involved in the Tour de France knew it. Even though most media outlets and cycling journalists were aware that it was very unlikely Lance Armstrong could have raced at that level without drugs, they still kept silent and even shut down those journalists who were brave enough to fight the Armstrong conspiracy. The same phenomenon could also be seen beneath cyclists as well. They cut down the whistle-blowers inside the peloton; they called it “pissing in the soup”.

After the 1998 Tour de France, which was a drug-fuelled disaster, the 1999 Tour which was Lance Armstrong’s first Tour De France, was supposed to be a new and clean start for a doping free cycling race. After Armstrong averaged unheard record times, the media chose to call Armstrong the greatest natural athlete, and ignored to consider that he might be cheating.

The reason for this was that the press prefered to play nice with Armstrong and this way get some quotes and face time with the hero. Lance on the other side, divided the world into two camps - with him or against him, friend or enemy. Those who inflated the Armstrong bubble, are the ones who now capitalise from his confession that he did take performance-enhancing drugs.

Important Quotations (and Screen Captures)

“Beneath the surface, Armstrong's story is about the power of celebrity and the complicity of the media. It is a depressing tale but a deeply salutary one” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

“Cyclists were brutal in cutting down whistle-blowers inside the peloton; they called it "pissing in the soup". The journalistic mainstream mirrored the peloton: they closed ranks against reporters who challenged the comfortable status quo” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

“Was doping really that obvious, even back then? Yes. Even if journalists ignored the persistent rumours and Armstrong's association with Dr Michele Ferrari, a master of doping, simple maths should have been enough” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).

“And Armstrong, like a brutal political spin doctor, was utterly ruthless about dividing the world into two camps -- with me or against me, friend or enemy, soft touch or "troll"” (Smith, 2013, p. 62).