It's hard to explain "real" athletics to the mainstream sporting media and fans, and by "real athletics" I mean sports that take athleticism like running, cycling (you thought I'd say golf) and basketball. Athletes often chide media types because "they don't play" or "they never played..." and to a large degree they are correct. When it comes to really knowing sports and what it takes to be an athlete, sportswriters and fans know nothing.
That's especially the case when it comes to cycling. The conventional appraoch by well-known columnists and sports media is to simply put the sport off by saying, "Well, cycling is dirty and no one can take it seriously..."
Yes, cycling appears to be dirty. But to say cycling is more dirty than football or baseball is just plain stupid. Actually, it's really, really stupid and the people who write and spew that crap should know better.
The problem cycling writers are having right now is the same one baseball writers had five to 10 years ago when the sport was at the apex of its so-called "Steroid Era," which is "how could we not know." Baseball writers really dropped the ball and now writers covering other sports are repeating those mistakes.
Joe Lindsay, in his Boulder Report blog, nails it much better than I ever could. For people interested in sizing up the true sports landscape and the media's place in it, Lindsay post is as right on as there is...
Perhaps some day it will all be about the game and/or race again.
More: Looking for the exit.