I hate telling people not to do what they want. Free will is intrinsic to the human experience.
That said, I wish Lance Armstrong would stay retired from professional cycling. It's not that I'm obsessed with athletes retiring on top. I didn't think any less of Michael Jordan after he failed to fly in his two-year comeback with the Washington Wizards. But Armstrong is fighting a battle that goes beyond his competitive legacy, andit's one he cannot win.
You see, many cycling aficionados, especially those outside the United States, believe Armstrong took performance-enhancing drugs. His sport is as corrupted by doping as any in the world and yet, Armstrong dominated its signature event, the Tour de France, for seven years without failing a drug test. That defies common sense for many fans and cycling journalists.
When a French newspaper report emerged in 2005 touting evidence that Armstrong had cheated in 1999, then-Tour-director Jean-Marie LeBlanc said his legacy was tainted and that race officials were glad he wouldn't be back. A Dutch investigator's review seemed to exonerate Armstrong. But you wouldn't have known it from Tour director Christian Prudhomme's cool reaction to news of Armstrong's plans for 2009.
The American will face much tougher doping tests this time around, Prudhomme noted. Four of Armstrong's former teammates have been caught since 2005, he added.
No matter what he does in his comeback, Armstrong can't win. If he rides poorly, critics will say he's incapable of greatness under stricter drug testing. If he wins, they'll say he's still a master at beating the system. If journalists dig up more dirt, true or not, his legacy will be further tarnished.
Armstrong left a hornet's nest when he retired from cycling, and now he's going back to kick it. I admire his gumption and his devotion to raising money to fight cancer. But logic tells me that if he keeps kicking, he's going to get stung.
