Handle With Care

This past week was whirlwind of entertainment in the cycling world with "The Gospel According To Floyd".  It was a transcribed -7hr interview by Paul Kimmage at Landis' residence.  It was intriguing and at the same time exhausting to read.  If you have some time, you may enjoy the read (not sure if 'enjoy' is the right word though).

I'm a born skeptic by nature, so let's get that out of the way right now.  I almost never remember a person's name initially, but for some reason, it has been somewhat easy for me to observe and remember a person's agendas and motives.  Let's also make it clear that Landis and Kimmage have long been accused of being hell-bent on linking Lance Armstrong to doping in cycling, even though neither of them has ever been able to submit solid evidence as proof.  And Kimmage has been at it a lot longer than Landis.  So for me, it wasn't going to be a surprise what the interview and implied conclusions would be about.  And since I am a natural born skeptic, I also don't completely buy Armstrong's argument that he "has never doped".  I mean, testicle and brain cancer are typically the two most common cancers of steroid use.

However, as I made my way through the interview, there were parts that just didn't seem to add up to me.  The interview seems to conveniently use ramblings from Landis to shift topics and skip over others.  There was also a point where Landis speaks of his first time doping (on the US Postal team).  Kimmage asks him if he ever doped before that.  Landis says no.  And they just move right along.  Kimmage never presses the question, or cross-questions him in any way about that.  Landis talks about his incredibly short rise to the top while moving through teams, and I find this hard to take at face value.

Also, I wasn't note-taking, so I don't know the exact number, but Landis kept coming back and dwelling on the fact that he was caught because he wasn't Lance, or have the money Lance had, or had the friends Lance had, or had the inside connections Lance had, or had the drive for women that Lance had, or whatever.  Landis is obviously obsessed with Armstrong in a lot of really negative ways.  He never eludes to why other cyclists are, or are not caught. Being Lance Armstrong is one thing.  Being everyone else is another.

Landis speaks of the fact that 'doping was so rampant, almost everyone in the peloton was speaking freely and openly about it amongst one another'.  But Floyd seemed like he could be a real A-hole cyclist.  I don't think he ever thought maybe they were just f*&king with him just to see how far he would go.  I would like to think if what he was saying was true, that the latter (or something like it) may be as well.

But the absolute, most striking realization I came away from reading the interview with, was the age old lesson of what some people are willing to sacrifice for just a fleeting moment of glory.  I couldn't help thinking of Landis and his desire to win in the same way I'd see a crack-head on the street doing ha nus things for a piece of crack.  Friends, family, dignity will all go by the wayside if they can just get their hands on a piece of it.  Landis' Mennonite parents must have felt like all those others who watched their child go off the deep end into life-ruining drug addiction. 
Sad.

So the lesson I have learned from this read is that we all started riding a bike for the same reason.  It was a sense of mastery, freedom, flight, escape etc. 
'A simple high'. 
The sad part is that some cyclists will eventually search for a stronger dose of high and cheat themselves and others to achieve it.  Some like Landis will proceed right up until they drive their lives straight into the gutter if they have to.  Even sadder, is that some will do this on the lowest amateur levels.

So I can care less whether Armstrong doped.  Or whether Landis is lying or telling the truth.  All I care about is the lesson of those before us.  And that is, that we need to handle our bike addictions with care.  

Be safe out there kids.  In more ways than one
.