JMan: I'm just wondering, did I miss an old column where you don't cover golf or something, because you totally ignored Tiger winning the British Open.

It's written into my contract that I don't have to write about golf.

thanks: No snark or attitude...I just wonder what must it be like to be a sports writer and bang out a really good column after some spectacular sporting moment--such as Landis's now questionable 'comeback'--only to find out days later it may have all been because of doping?

Very interesting question. Same as for fans, I think. It's annoying. It's discouraging. It's heartbreaking. It's complicated. You feel let down, but then again you really did see what you saw when you saw that great performance, and you really did feel what you felt. You did have that great moment of enjoying that great moment.

I mean, does it make you jaded, or want to say WTF! and temper your enthusiasm? I'm curious. I mean, I imagine a lot of sportswriters look pretty foolish after stuff like this happens...though it's obviously not their fault.

I for one don't think it makes sportswriters look foolish. You write what you see and know. You'd look a lot more foolish if you wrote, "Floyd Landis made a tremendous comeback by winning Stage 17 in the Tour de France today, but he was probably all doped up," and he wasn't all doped up.

It does make you jaded, though, as it does fans. And I think that's the worst part of the whole doping culture, aside from the health issues for kids who feel the need to dope to keep up with other dopers. It's a drag to watch some great sporting achievement and sit there thinking, "Must be juiced." No fun at all. I don't see this being much different for sportswriters than for fans. I distinctly remember not really being able to enjoy the shocking home-track win of Fani Halkia, the Greek hurdler, at the 2004 Olympics, because it seemed likely to me that she'd test positive -- which she didn't.

- - - -

My editor and I don't believe the word "elevated," which also appears in headlines and text at many other publications on this story, is incorrect. The level of testosterone, as measured in comparison to the level of epitestosterone, which is what the test is, was high.

Deleted letter

I was asked to delete the letter that had the article from the CBC pasted in. Here's what the letter writer wrote on his/her own:

Say it ain't so!

The knee-jerk denial in this forum is astounding. It's King Kaufman's fault! It's the jealous French! It certainly couldn't be an American athlete! They never cheat! They're just trying to spread freedom, democracy, and good sportsmanship to the world!

Will it even matter if the second test shows Landis guilty? I'm sure most of the posters here will proclaim the test itself fraudulent and decry the French. Why don't you just wait and see, and accept the possibility that an American athlete just might be a cheater.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/drugs/stories/top10.html#3

-- Anonymous