My Glory Days and Lance Armstrong

I’m often asked “did you ever race against Lance Armstrong?”  In fact, I did, a few times.  As I sit here with my Achilles tendon newly repaired and a years worth of rehab ahead of me, I hear that Lance Armstrong is retiring (again) from the world of professional cycling.  I raced against Lance during the 90’s and prior to his onslaught of seven wins at the Tour de France.  In fact I raced against him in 1996 in Wisconsin right after he dropped out of the Tour de France, before the Olympic Games and later that year as he announced he was riddled with cancer. Lance did the impossible those next few years off the bike, beating an insurmountable cancer diagnosis and then winning the Tour in dramatic fashion.  Yeah, I read the book “It’s not About the Bike” and was inspired.  After all, I had done several races against Lance and saw first hand his talent.

I was lucky, I also had the chance to race against Levi Leipheimer, David Zabriskie, Tyler Hamilton and Chris Horner to name just a few that have reached the height of the cycling world.  Only Chris Horner (who is almost my age) hasn’t come under any type of drug doping suspicion.  I raced against a lot of great cyclists back in the 90’s and I look back fondly on that.  There were many days of suffering and hard work but it was what I loved and the joy of racing, the competition and camaraderie never got old.

Lance obviously missed that joy and competition after he retired in 2005 as he made a grand pronouncement and comeback four years later.  This time it was about his cancer foundation and spreading the word across the world.  To me, I didn’t care what his purpose was and actually I would have preferred he focus on cycling or cancer but not both.  Why come back as a side show?  If you come back from a sport you were once the king of the hill at, then come back to be that again.  But Lance had this grand scheme in mind to serve humanity and race his bike; at least that was the premise he gave us.

Lance leaves the sport again, having only won a minor race (Nevada City Classic Criterium) and in the midst of the most serious doping allegation to date.  The new allegations are from his former teammate and disqualified (and disgraced) 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis.  These accusations are specific and from a close INSIDE member of the squad back in Lance’s hay-day.  Some of the accusations seem a bit far-fetched, but on the whole they are very damning.  Perhaps Lance knew that his previous 7 tours were tainted and wanted to make a comeback in this seemingly new drug-free era of cycling to prove he could do it clean.  Prove it to himself and to those that drugged with him (and his family) that he really was a stand-up champion.  Without delving into the mind too much, Lance was probably giving himself a way out by saying “see, I can win clean and everyone else was dirty back then…so it’s all relative.”  This is just speculation of course.

To me, I’m glad Lance quit and quite honestly I didn’t revel in the articles that were posted immediately upon his announcement.  I did that the first retirement and there just isn’t anything up-beat to review this time around.   He disappointed me in his approach to cycling during the comeback just as he disappointed me in the news that came out about the possibility of doping.  It’s like I tell my kids, if you aren’t in a position to be in trouble, you won’t be blamed for anything.  Basically there are just too many rumors and stories and specifics that make the chance of Lance being clean his whole cycling career almost impossible.  Very unlikely at least.

I never did any drugs for my cycling, except a few caffeine pills before a race (within the legal limit) and my stomach was a mess the whole time.  I tried the method of working hard and it gave me several years of joy, lots of pain and suffering and great memories.  But I can look back on my time in the saddle and know that every time I did great, it was because of my own ability and hard work.  And every time I did poorly or not quite up to my expectations – well, I’m still trying to find an excuse for those times.  But in the meantime, I’ll relive my glory days with a clean conscience and a few laughs.

The 3/5ths Compromise and Chris Matthews

Just recently there has been some discussion in politics relating to the 3/5ths compromise included in the constitution from the 1787 Constitutional Convention.  It was postulated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC, that this clause to the US Constitution was in fact proof of America’s racist past and more specifically that of our founders.

What is the 3/5ths Compromise? 

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution reads:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other perons.

Reading that clause, it is obvious this paragraph is specific to apportionment for Representatives and taxes.  Remember, at the time of the writing of the Constitution slaves did not have voting rights and contrary to the beliefs of Chris Matthews the 3/5ths Compromise was not about reducing a slave to that of less than one person.

What was the purpose of the Clause?

 The Southern states were in effect slave states whereas the northern states were manufacturing with their delegates tending towards the end of slavery altogether.  The Southern states wanted the luxury of counting every slave as property for the purpose of the census and therefore retain power over the Northern states in terms of their representation in Congress.  The true abolitionists in the North wanted slaves to count for ZERO persons and thus creating a level playing field with the South in terms of voting and representation.  Eventually, the true equitable situation would be for all people to be free and have voting rights.  But without a compromise, the South would not sign on and the concept of a United States would be lost.

The Ultimate IMPACT -

The true impact is that the South wouldn’t have joined the final agreement founded at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 if it wasn’t for the 3/5ths compromise approach.  This compromise set in motion the ability to dismantle the Southern states strangle hold on Power (which wouldn’t have happened if they counted every slave as one person).  Think about Slavery as a global concept and the years and years of this evil practice with the consent of country after country and government after government.  Yet here is this newly formed country and government that sets up the concept of ridding slavery altogether and then fights a brutal war totally obliterating slavery within 90 years of it’s inception.  That took progress, patience and some serious divinely-inspired forethought.

Revising History to Score a Political Point?

Maybe Chris Matthews should be forgiven for his mistaken interpretation of the Constitution.  Even Frederic Douglass, the great Black Abolitionist of the 1800’s first thought the 3/5th’s Compromise was a pro-slavery clause.  But after further review of the notes from the Constitutional Convention and discussions with Abraham Lincoln, Frederic Douglass came to the realization that this clause and the Constitution as a whole was an anti Slavery document.

Regardless, let’s not let some blowhard political pundit (Matthews) change history to his advantage just because it serves his purpose to denigrate another person with whom he disagrees with on taxes or healthcare.