the tour winds down. done. discussion lingers. i'll bring up a few things over the next few days with regards to the '07 tour. but for now, i simply wish to reproduce the wisest thing i have seen in years of observing cycling. from our resident professor of cyclingology, the esteemed dr. von doctorstein:
...suddenly the people i know who wouldn't say two words about the tour have this uncanny knowledge of and desire to discuss the perceived "scandal". well, fuck off all of you. just go back to not caring about my sport. i'd much prefer it that way. remember, i don't care about your sports either so it's only fair, right...?
got that? good. all you espn-zone types quaffing $1.50 miller lites and batting around bits of knowledge about drugs in cycling can hit the bricks, take it on the arches. water cooler types who want to pick your brain about it ("hey, you race bikes like lance right? are they all doing it? I can't imagine how hard that must be...") never stop to wonder why major league baseball and football only recently started testing and don't find the size and speed of football players to be slightest bit thought provoking.
it's not so much hypocrisy as obliviousness. i had a coworker for years who had a degree in philosophy. she had what i thought was a great policy: she never debated anyone. it wasn't because she didn't want to, but because she felt they didn't do it right. philosophy is about constructing arguments. arguments are not always right, but they represent a formal approach to thinking and communicating. She felt like people were sloppy and half-assed about constructing arguments and it was more frustrating than productive. she felt as though itwasnt'worth engaging with someone who wasn't willing to put any real time in with the basics.
when you think of someone like michael johnson or jackie joyner kersey, you know they were runners. but they studied running. In your foot stroke, how much should you push with the quads versus pulling with the hams and glutes? what is a good leg angle to have before beginning the catchup? How do you change your posture as you move down the track to maximize speed and power? In the same way these athletes studied running, philosophers study how to think and construct arguments. they know a lot about the history of thought, they have a solid foundation in different approaches, and critically assess all aspects of the process. you can'tjust wander in off the streets and engage with these people. and this is the very point the good doctor was making above. you can't have anything approaching a rewarding discussion of drugs in cycling with someone, the extent of whose knowledge appears to be a 500 word article on espn.com or a 10 minute summary by al trautwig on abc sports. the npr interviews with some velonews writer earlier this week were particularly egregious. the washington post provided more factual information than that guy did, and that's saying something.
- - - posted by scott