Dylan Cleaver: The strong arm of the media

If any further evidence was needed that anger is a blinding emotion, look no further than the news that this week Lance Armstrong is considering making his retirement one of the most spectaculary short-lived in sporting history.

Armstrong is increasingly irate over the fact that his seven Tour de France victories, the last one crowned on the Champs-Elysees just six weeks ago, are being "smeared" by drug allegations.

An investigation carried out by French newspaper L'Equipe uncovered seemingly incontrovertible evidence that Armstrong's first victory in 1999 was done under the influence of blood-booster EPO.

It's provoked a well-spring of opinion and a surprising response from Armstrong.

"I'm thinking it's the best way to piss [the French] off," Armstrong told his local paper in Austin, Texas, of his planned comeback. "I'm exercising every day."

But Lance's hasn't been the most interesting reaction. It has been relatively predictable - after all, it's his reputation on the line. He knows he represents more than the brethren of professional cyclists; he represents the dreams of the thousands who want to believe that you can come back from serious illness and beat the world - Livestrong, for want of a better word.

The most fascinating reactions have belonged to the cycling cognoscenti, the media and the US of A in general. Everybody seems to have an opinion on whether he's guilty or not.

As unimportant as it may be, I don't have an opinion. I've never administered him drugs, I've never seen him take drugs. I have talked to people in cycling who have an opinion but none have convinced me conclusively, one way or the other, whether he's 'juiced' or not.

But one theory I have the most difficulty accepting is that the freakish nature of his riding is a pointer to drug use. What has become the 'nobody should be able to ride up L'Alp d'Huez at 25km/h' argument.

To deny the possibility of seemingly supernatural performances is to deny the existence of an Edwin Moses, a Christian Cullen, or a Michael Jordan. It's unbearable to think that anybody whose head sticks so far above the rest does so only because their neck is swelled by steroids.

But while it's pathetic to condemn someone because they're better, it's unforgivable to condemn a media outlet for doing what it's meant to be doing - breaking stories.

L'Equipe did what every newspaper worth its salt would have done. It worked a source, got a leak, checked its sources and had the balls - probably not the wisest choice of words considering the subject - to run with it. The US media now hold L'Equipe in the same regard as Arab television news service al Jazeera.

Time magazine, a host of newspapers, sports network ESPN and even the supposedly neutral Associated Press have jingoistically implied that L'Equipe has an axe to grind; as if it's somehow acting as the guardian of a great French race which has been desecrated by a loathed American breaking all its records.

The one good thing about L'Equipe's revelations is we finally have arguments based on science rather than innuendo.

Isn't it incredible, given the tight nature of Armstrong's team of advisers and medics, how many people know someone, who knew someone that roomed with Armstrong while he openly administered pills, injected himself and drank potions concocted by East Germans in lab coats?

As unfashionable as it might be, it's more fun to believe in miracles. You actually wish it was all about the bike.

An ill-advised comeback is not going to un-muddy the waters. If Armstrong loses it'll provoke a chorus of "I told you so". If he wins the sceptics will click into gear.

- HERALD ON SUNDAY