No news flash! Lance Armstrong back in Tour!

You knew all along that Lance Armstrong’s public dithering about whether his comeback would include the Tour de France was just a ploy to generate more buzz, right?

So you weren’t at all surprised on Monday when the Astana cycling team website’s "latest news" section led with: "NEWS FLASH: Lance Armstrong announces participation in 2009 Tour de France."

What point would there have been in Armstrong's returning to competitive road racing after more than three years if he were to skip the race that brought him both fame and notoriety?

(The latter is not good, even if the two words have mistakenly become interchangeable to most people.  In Armstrong’s case, "notoriety" refers to doping suspicions that have dogged him since the first of his seven straight Tour victories in 1999. He tested positive for a banned corticosteroid but was cleared by a therapeutic use exemption many feel was conveniently backdated).

All that yammering during a recent interview with a British newspaper about fears for his safety?  Clearly a way to manipulate sentiment when Armstrong rides the Tour next July.

He had voiced similar concerns in the past, concerns always legitimate in an event with virtually no crowd control. A free-for-all is one reason why the Tour appeals to spectators who wait hours for a few seconds’ glance of the riders as they whiz past.

But Armstrong needs the Tour de France, and he told the Associated Press that the race needs him.

The race certainly needs something after years of doping scandals (seven more riders caught last year, including the third-place finisher). It always will remain a part of French culture, but its competitive legitimacy has been severely compromised –- not the least by revelations that ex post facto testing (with no punitive consequences) found Armstrong had used the banned blood booster EPO in his 1999 victory.

Armstrong maintains he is coming back to get more publicity for his fight against cancer, a commitment that is unquestionable and laudable.

And he knows few would pay much attention to what happens in the other events on his 2009 schedule, including the Tour Down Under, the Tour of California and the Tour of Italy.

The Tour de France became water-cooler discussion material the last few years Armstrong rode –- and it will do so again next summer, especially with the expected headline-making controversy over who will be the Astana team leader in France -- Armstrong or Alberto Contador, reigning Tour of Italy and Tour of Spain champion.

Armstrong never has competed in the Tour of Italy.

At nearly 38 years old, he plans to ride the sport’s two toughest stage races.

Not since 1998 has one person won both:

Italy ’s Marco Pantani.

His 1998 Tour de France triumph was a footnote to the Festina affair, when an arrest of a performance-enhancing drug mule made it clear elite cycling was riddled with doping.

A year later, Pantani was booted from the Tour of Italy for a hematocrit level so high it screamed, "EPO."

That has been cycling’s main buzz since.

-- Philip Hersh

Photo: Lance Armstrong is shown leaving the podium before the 10th stage of the 91st Tour de France cycling race between Limoges and Saint-Flour in 2004. Credit: Paolo Cocco / AFP / Getty Images

Comments

[Richard D]

Who the hell cares what Armstrong does. There are much more important issues to worry about than someone who rides a bike. Big deal. Another overpaid nobody that stupid people worship. Get a life.

[matt]

The 1999 EPO incident is still under investigation. A French tabloid published a report about the tests and provided little or no proof to back up its claims. Now WADA is being investigated for ethics concerns. That might be important information to include in your article.

[Michael]

Tour de France is a premier bike ride, quite entertaining, and Armstrong always made it exciting. I believe he will make it exciting again.I also believe the allegations are mostly zealous and jealous french accusations.

[BF]

Richard D,
You are an idiot. Yes he may be an overpaid athlete, but he is doing a lot for one of the most important issues out there. And because of his fame, he is able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a just cause. So why don't you quit being so stupid.

[James]

Aren't you supposed to at least try and keep articles like these neutral? Personally I think you could perhaps have mentioned that the corticosteroid test in 1999 was actually NEGATIVE, not positive. Seems to me like quite an important detail. His cortisone levels were below that which would be considered a positive test, so he didn't actually need a medical certificate, but produced one anyway because of people like this author getting the facts wrong.

Also, an independent commission investigated the back dated EPO tests. They found that the testing procedures and regulations used "fall so far below the required scientific standards that it is irresponsible to suggest that they constitute evidence of anything." Pretty strong words, he investigator also called for a complete overhaul of the lab in question.

If I know all this from a few minutes research, surely this author should be able to do the same, and perhaps include these points that I see as somewhat important into the article.

[El Gordo Loco]

Hey Richard D,
Have you ever achieved anything in your life?
Are you one of these guys that just whinges because…well you’re not much of an achiever?

Do you think winning tours like Le tour are a walk in the park?
You have no idea.. The amount of good that this guy has done for cancer is phenomenal!

We should all sit and hold hands and sing the cumba-ya…I think Richard needs a life…your wasting our environment by breathing.

El Gordo Loco.

[Ellen D]

Surprise! Surprise! Another negative article about Lance Armstrong in the LA Times. "...dithering...yammering...CLEARLY a way to manipulate..." Did Lance refuse to give an interview or something of the sort to put the Times in a permanent snit? CLEARLY trotting out old retreds of Lance Bashing is an easy way to generate readership with minimal work by the reporter. As for the comment, "...few would pay much attention...," did you happen to notice the amount of coverage the Leadville 100 received simply because Armstrong showed up and this before he even announced he was coming out of retirement? Get serious, this is article is a silly little rant - nothing more.

[Zachary Keeler]

In response to Richard D:

Some people surely get too involved in athletics. If nothing else, the purpose of professional athletes - ranging from ball tossers to pedal spinners - is to inspire people to exercise and take their mind off of more serious subjects. Maybe sometimes sports seem dominated by marketing, but when it's for a yellow band to raise cancer awareness then all the bette for business. I can understand your discomfort in such times, but surely Armstrong's hard work deserves some appreciation.