Doping Scandal Puts Dark Cloud Over Coverage of Tour de France

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: June 22, 2007

The end of the Lance Armstrong era was not fated to be easy for
Versus.

Armstrong transformed the Tour de France, especially for American
viewers, by winning it seven consecutive times. In doing so, he
transformed the race into an event around which Versus could reshape
its image.

Armstrong’s final victory peaked with 1.7 million viewers who watched
the live and multiple daily replays of the Tour on Versus. Last year
came the predictable and steep slide to 892,781 viewers for Floyd
Landis’s victory.

The 2007 Tour starts July 7, and Versus is faced with carrying the
elite event of a sport whose credibility is at a nadir. “I’d like to
believe we’re in the final death spasms of the doping era,” said Gavin
Harvey, the president of Versus, which has rights to the race through
next year. He said that he hoped fans would compartmentalize the
competition from the scandals.

“Fans don’t know on the field of any sport, at any given time, who is
competing cleanly and who is enhanced, yet sport goes on,” Harvey
said.

There is a lot for the fans to keep at bay as they watch this year’s
race.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/sports/othersports/22tv.html












J. Spaceman

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:18:04 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>From the article:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By RICHARD SANDOMIR
>Published: June 22, 2007
>
>The end of the Lance Armstrong era was not fated to be easy for
>Versus.
>
>Armstrong transformed the Tour de France, especially for American
>viewers, by winning it seven consecutive times. In doing so, he
>transformed the race into an event around which Versus could reshape
>its image.
>
>Armstrong’s final victory peaked with 1.7 million viewers who watched
>the live and multiple daily replays of the Tour on Versus. Last year
>came the predictable and steep slide to 892,781 viewers for Floyd
>Landis’s victory.
>
>The 2007 Tour starts July 7, and Versus is faced with carrying the
>elite event of a sport whose credibility is at a nadir. “I’d like to
>believe we’re in the final death spasms of the doping era,” said Gavin
>Harvey, the president of Versus, which has rights to the race through
>next year. He said that he hoped fans would compartmentalize the
>competition from the scandals.
>
>“Fans don’t know on the field of any sport, at any given time, who is
>competing cleanly and who is enhanced, yet sport goes on,” Harvey
>said.

Not when the outcome of the race is subject to change at a later date, or even
disappearing from the record book a decade later. How the hell is anybody
supposed to cheer for something that is open to revision at some later time.

The doping raises suspicion and some reservation in the mind of the fan. The
altering of results after the fact tells him directly to not make any emotional
investment whatever.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 7:27 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> Not when the outcome of the race is subject to change at a later date [...]
> How the hell is anybody
> supposed to cheer for something that is open to revision at some later time.

The 1904 TdF results didn't seem to permanently damage interest in
subsequent Tours.

 

[RicodJour]

On Jun 25, 1:27 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:18:04 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>
> >"Fans don't know on the field of any sport, at any given time, who is
> >competing cleanly and who is enhanced, yet sport goes on," Harvey
> >said.
>
> Not when the outcome of the race is subject to change at a later date, or even
> disappearing from the record book a decade later. How the hell is anybody
> supposed to cheer for something that is open to revision at some later time.
>
> The doping raises suspicion and some reservation in the mind of the fan. The
> altering of results after the fact tells him directly to not make any emotional
> investment whatever.

Every once in a while, Ron, you phrase things in such a way that it
has the ring of truth and makes me think. I guess it's like that
monkey at a typewriter thing - bound to happen sooner or later!

R

 

[Bob Schwartz]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:27 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not when the outcome of the race is subject to change at a later date [...]
>> How the hell is anybody
>> supposed to cheer for something that is open to revision at some later time.
>
> The 1904 TdF results didn't seem to permanently damage interest in
> subsequent Tours.

Nor the 2005 Vuelta.

I'm kind of surprised they gave up on the 2004 Olympic Time Trial
as easily as they did.

Bob Schwartz

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:41:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Jun 25, 7:27 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not when the outcome of the race is subject to change at a later date [...]
>> How the hell is anybody
>> supposed to cheer for something that is open to revision at some later time.
>
>The 1904 TdF results didn't seem to permanently damage interest in
>subsequent Tours.

How many months did it take to resolve that? Was the winner removed from the
record books ten years later?

My thinking is they handled it more simply and directly and immediately. Without
a glorious scandal.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:58:45 -0700, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 1:27 pm, RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:18:04 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>>
>> >"Fans don't know on the field of any sport, at any given time, who is
>> >competing cleanly and who is enhanced, yet sport goes on," Harvey
>> >said.
>>
>> Not when the outcome of the race is subject to change at a later date, or even
>> disappearing from the record book a decade later. How the hell is anybody
>> supposed to cheer for something that is open to revision at some later time.
>>
>> The doping raises suspicion and some reservation in the mind of the fan. The
>> altering of results after the fact tells him directly to not make any emotional
>> investment whatever.
>
>Every once in a while, Ron, you phrase things in such a way that it
>has the ring of truth and makes me think. I guess it's like that
>monkey at a typewriter thing - bound to happen sooner or later!
>
>R

I try to keep a ratio just high enough that people keep reading the ****.

Ron