fiamme red
02-03-2011, 11:36 AM
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-wont-judge-landis-and-armstrong
“I don’t think I was courageous not to take drugs,” the former Festina, Française des Jeux and Jean Delatour rider told Cyclingnews.
“To me, courage is all about overcoming fear, and I was never scared. I was just lucky - I’d had a balanced upbringing, lots of love in my life, and no void which made me want to dope. Refusing to take drugs was easy for me, whereas other people have things missing in their lives which mean that’s not the case. Doping is always a response to a void, a need – whether it’s for money, or success, or love, or something else. That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything.”
Bassons says that, while the public, media and authorities view doping in terms of “legal” and “illegal”, an athlete will often superimpose his own ideas of what is legitimate and what is not. Landis, for example, told Kimmage that, for him, doping was a means – the only means in a sport allegedly riddled with corruption – to realize a Tour de France dream.
“I don’t know why Landis had that dream, why he needed that, or indeed why he lied for all those years – you’d have to look at his upbringing, his values – but there’s always something behind it,” Bassons argued.
“Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it’s legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad. For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern Europe it’s legitimate because they need money for their families – which is hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump iron because he’s uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves his need – it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it solves his particular problem...”
“I don’t care what anyone does, as long as they don’t try to stop me from living my life, or doing my job, which is what bothered me about Armstrong. But, again, I won’t judge. With him, I think it’s obvious there was a need for success. He didn’t have a relationship with his father, and his upbringing wasn’t easy, then I think what was already a hard character probably became more and more entrenched in those ways as he got a bit of success with triathlon and then in cycling, plus money and adulation...”
“I don’t think I was courageous not to take drugs,” the former Festina, Française des Jeux and Jean Delatour rider told Cyclingnews.
“To me, courage is all about overcoming fear, and I was never scared. I was just lucky - I’d had a balanced upbringing, lots of love in my life, and no void which made me want to dope. Refusing to take drugs was easy for me, whereas other people have things missing in their lives which mean that’s not the case. Doping is always a response to a void, a need – whether it’s for money, or success, or love, or something else. That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything.”
Bassons says that, while the public, media and authorities view doping in terms of “legal” and “illegal”, an athlete will often superimpose his own ideas of what is legitimate and what is not. Landis, for example, told Kimmage that, for him, doping was a means – the only means in a sport allegedly riddled with corruption – to realize a Tour de France dream.
“I don’t know why Landis had that dream, why he needed that, or indeed why he lied for all those years – you’d have to look at his upbringing, his values – but there’s always something behind it,” Bassons argued.
“Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it’s legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad. For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern Europe it’s legitimate because they need money for their families – which is hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump iron because he’s uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves his need – it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it solves his particular problem...”
“I don’t care what anyone does, as long as they don’t try to stop me from living my life, or doing my job, which is what bothered me about Armstrong. But, again, I won’t judge. With him, I think it’s obvious there was a need for success. He didn’t have a relationship with his father, and his upbringing wasn’t easy, then I think what was already a hard character probably became more and more entrenched in those ways as he got a bit of success with triathlon and then in cycling, plus money and adulation...”