foot and mouth disease

More great reporting from Sports Illustrated here on Lance Armstrong. Where do they get these guys? I can't decide if he is trying to be contrarian on purpose or he's just stupid. I remember reading this magazine when I was in high school and think it was dumb then. It's clearly not improved.

But forgive me if I don't leap aboard the P.C. bandwagon and anoint him the greatest all-around athlete and greatest athletic performer ever. I'd just be selling out so the legion of Lance lovers would love me, too. My mission, as I see it, isn't to tell you what you want to hear.

I'm fine with this. To label Lance or anyone the greatest all-around athlete is a stupid exercise anyway. But I don't understand why thinking Lance may be a contender delivers you a free ticket aboard the P.C. Express. It's clear at this point the guys got a axe to grind. If he didn't he would have similar articles about people like Carl Lewis who excelled in sports that on the surface appear to be pure mechanical ability sports (short distance sprints, long jump). And if he didn't he would mention people like Sachin Tendulkar or Donald Bradman as some of the greatest athletes ever. But he doesn't. He mentions the same old great American athletes. That's probably his beef. He just doesn't like the sport just like he probably doesn't like cricket or 100m dashes.

Armstrong doesn't qualify as the greatest all-around athlete because cycling doesn't test enough athletic talent or skill.

I see this comment a lot. It's clear he doesn't understand the sport. What I would love is for these guys to descend a mountain behind any Tour rider who is coasting. The Tour rider is only allowed to coast down the mountain. Hell let this guy pedal if he wants to. There is no way in hell he'll be anywhere in the vicinity of where the Tour rider's time at the bottom. I did this once. Behind an amateur. I thought I was going to die. But even if he does, how much athletic talent or skill should be tested? How does one quantify that? It's just a stupid comment.

And he doesn't qualify for greatest performer because his sport doesn't have the equivalent of last-second shots or throws or catches, of two-outs-in-the-ninth swings or of final-hole putts.

Such a strange comment. What the hell does a clutch moment have to do with sports or athleticism?

But is he a greater clutch performer than Jordan or Ali or Montana or Nicklaus? When has Armstrong ever been tested under huge-moment fire the way those greats were? No, he doesn't belong in the same argument with them.

I will be a lot of money he didn't watch any of the stages on any of the Tours.

Similarly, how can you debate Armstrong's place among great all-around athletes when cycling calls upon such a narrow range of ability? Does Armstrong's sport demand hand-eye coordination or full-body athleticism the way ball sports do? No. Armstrong is the first to admit he's no good at ball sports.

No we get to it. It's that damn ball sport argument again. If it's not a ball sport it's not a sport. There's no way to argue against this. It's like me saying It's not great mathematics if it's not calculus. Algebra? Pffff. Who says?

So if you want the greatest all-around athletes -- combining the widest array of talent and skill at the highest levels -- choose your favorite from this list: Jim Thorpe, Jackie Robinson, Wilt Chamberlain, Mickey Mantle, Jim Brown, Bjorn Borg, Wayne Gretzky, Bo Jackson, John Elway and Deion Sanders.

Okay so I was wrong. He did include Canada in there. He is multi-national in this exercise. But then again he probably thinks that is the 51st state.

While just about every kid in America rides a bike at some age, how many dedicate themselves to winning the Tour de France? Not many. Far more want to be baseball, basketball or football players. Competitive cycling is more popular among kids in other countries, but not in this one.

There's that American thing again. Why does the greatest athlete have to be from America?

So by all means, savor the real-life fairy tale of the little man who thought he could.

Why did he call him little if not to belittle what he's done? Wild.

But please don't condemn me as one of the "cynics and skeptics" Armstrong referred to in the first speech the Tour has ever allowed on the victory podium.

Oh so that's why he's pissed. It's because of what Armstrong said. A little touchy dude? Let's sum up. In order to be the "greatest all-around athlete and greatest athletic performer ever" you need to be American or Canadian and play multiple ball sports. I'm glad he's cleared that up for me. Once again I'll be considering that subscription to SI that I have contemplated every year since 1985. Ahh...no.