{"id":71021,"date":"2013-09-27T07:33:52","date_gmt":"2013-09-27T11:33:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=71021"},"modified":"2015-05-10T10:10:51","modified_gmt":"2015-05-10T14:10:51","slug":"the-books-the-only-game-in-town-sportswriting-from-the-new-yorker-edited-by-david-remnick-the-long-ride-by-michael-specter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=71021","title":{"rendered":"The Books: The Only Game In Town: Sportswriting from The New Yorker<\/i>; edited by David Remnick; \u2018The Long Ride\u2019, by Michael Specter"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"mvcDqpjykOqgVQ_bbyNrXGQ\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Next up on the essays shelf<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Only Game in Town: Sportswriting from The New Yorker<\/a>\"\"<\/i>, edited by David Remnick<\/p>\n

\nThe Only Game in Town<\/i> is a collection of sports writing from The New Yorker<\/i>. So far, I have excerpted from the following collections: Life Stories<\/i><\/a> (profiles), The Fun of It<\/i><\/a> (Talk of the Town pieces), and The New Gilded Age<\/i><\/a> (financial writing), and Secret Ingredients<\/i><\/a> (food writing). <\/p>\n

Michael Specter wrote this adulatory profile of Lance Armstrong in 2002. Armstrong had already won the Tour de France a couple of times, and was at the height of his omnipresent fame. Michael Specter was an amateur cyclist, who was living in Europe with his family, and obsessed with the Tour de France (and Lance Armstrong’s achievements). Specter talked to Armstrong’s coaches, his whole team, the team doctor, and also went out cycling once with one of Armstrong’s coaches … just so he could see the vast difference between what Armstrong was able to do, and what the rest of humanity was capable of. The high passes in the Tour de France, the vertical climbs up the damn Alps, the superhuman strength and endurance it required … Specter was really into it all. He was a FAN. There are sentences in this Armstrong profile that will dog Michael Specter through the rest of his career. <\/p>\n

But all you need to do is Google “Michael Specter Lance Armstrong” to see what has happened since. Specter has written on Armstrong every step of the way for The New Yorker<\/i>. He probably felt like he HAD to, for professional reasons. His reputation is on the line. But that was true for a lot of members of the press when it came to Armstrong. You know, many bought the lies. But then, so many people did. There are so many quotes in this piece that predict the eventual outcome. Specter uses such quotes to bolster his own assessment of Lance – but they read very differently in light of all that has happened since. Armstrong has certainly seen this happen across the board: former supporters become his most vicious detractors, because they feel DUPED. It’s kind of like the critics of a certain cult which shall remain nameless. Once these people break free, and they start to realize how they have been conned, they become very dangerous to said Cult. They are the most vocal critics. They know that their own reputations are at stake, because they realize they have been duped, and so in defending themselves, they must try to bring the Cult down. One of the most famous critics of said Cult says over and over again to the leadership, “You make your own enemies.” So did Lance Armstrong. <\/p>\n

\"Lance<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s well worth it to read Specter’s columns on Armstrong in chronological order. You can see him throughout the process, as the facade crumbled, trying to deal with the revelations that were coming out. He makes no bones about the fact that this is personal. It’s personal because he’s a fan of the sport of cycling. It’s also personal because of this column I am excerpting today. Specter knows that he seems credulous and naive. His following columns (4 or 5 of them) are increasingly angry and increasingly damning. <\/p>\n

I was never a Tour de France follower, and never cared for Lance Armstrong as a persona\/role model (I hated his snotty Nike ad, but more on that in a bit) … but I really feel for my friends who are devoted to cycling as a sport, and who adore the Tour de France. It has been a horrible experience for them. I watched Armstrong’s Oprah interview, and felt that he was still lying. I did not buy at all his version of the conversation he had with his son. I think he’s a sociopath. He is a world-class Liar. I don’t trust one thing he says. Now back to that Nike ad. <\/p>\n