Lance

i believed in Lance Armstrong. that was as clear as crystal.

but the various changes to the plot this past week have to me bordered on the absurd. what played out has been a very very tricky situation and to take sides really does no one any good.

Armstrong isn't just iconic for winning the brutal Tour de France in the gruelling sport of cycling. seven times. making him the greatest cyclist ever. Armstrong claimed that yellow jersey again and again after defeating cancer, not your ordinary benign kind, he was told by doctors death was likelier than survival.

his Livestrong foundation for cancer has raised $470 million, while the circulation for his iconic yellow wristbands stands at 80 million worldwide.

i challenge you to find a greater sportsman.

no doubt he's a controversial figure, but don't blame the sport. cycling's one of the most stringent and transparent sports on the planet. Armstrong can't be categorised with Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton.

then it happened -- Armstrong withdrew from contesting USADA charges. this is akin to discarding your gun in a pistol duel -- you're dead.

allegations have been aplenty since 2004, teammates, medical personnel, officials and insiders accusing him of doping and controlling a complex network that helped him evade prosecution. the fact, though, is that Armstrong has, in a career spanning hundreds of tests, never tested positive.

but look at the media coverage after his decision to quit. coverage was largely favourable to him, running stories of how fans believe in him, of how sponsors are standing by him. his full statement was published in my national paper, a statement even the man on the street would know is self-serving. in it he says:

"Enough is enough... I have been subjected to... Travis Tygart’s unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense.

I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court... recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.

I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair.

From the beginning, this investigation has [been] about punishing me at all costs.

I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours... Nobody can ever change that.

I’m looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction."

the issue is clear -- when you're a public figure and you face accusations, you have to answer them, especially charges from an official body. true, USADA may be rubbish, but we can only slam the authorities that much. at the end of the day, we need to have faith in governing bodies to have faith in sports.

Armstrong may be exhausted, he may spit at USADA's motives. hell, he may even be innocent. but walking away is wrong.

by quitting, a cyclist who never knew how to quit leaves fans hanging. what's the conclusion, we beg?

what is truly behind the statement, we will never know. the cynic in me says Armstrong could be manipulating the public into cementing his legacy. if the courts had the chance to find him guilty, he would forever be labelled a cheat, right? what's clear is that Armstrong has a fairytale story and by walking away there'll always be people who'll buy that story.

for me? his decision is likely to strip him of his Tour de France wins and trigger other technical, obligatory sanctions.

i say, so be it.

for the good of sports, he deserves it.

asking the right questions

i don't want to join the wave of criticism against imported athletes. this essentially doesn't even stem from xenophobic grounds.

there'll be people who say it isn't appropriate for someone working in the press to opine.

i questioned myself, and i think it's right. because at the core i am right. and it is, to an extent, public interest.

this was what happened with the national table tennis women's team -- a few of whom i should declare i already held poor impressions of -- after they surrendered meekly to Japan in the Olympic semis.

the Singaporean press were waiting. Wang Yuegu and Li Jiawei knew we were there but looked poise to hurry off.

i managed to stop Wang and my question was, "what went wrong?"

there'll be people who say athletes are human and can be emotional. but this is the highest level of sports. a loser at Wimbledon or Augusta will answer it. i think it's a fair question.

she replied with a sarcastic laugh, "isn't this result normal? i think it's normal."

Singapore came into the tournament seeded third, overtaken by the Japanese merely weeks ago. yet the semi-final was a washout, Singapore winning one game out of 10, crashing 3-0.

i was both shocked and offended.

there'll be people who say i'm being anal especially since i don't "know" the local scene. well, i covered local sports four years ago, before many current reporters, and i tell you, this issue is chronic and toxic.

i shot back the best line i could, one i suspect the mainstream journos won't.

"does that mean you came into the match thinking you would lose?"

not surprisingly, and in the most unprofessional, least respectable way, she stormed off, not just from me, but from the whole Singaporean scrum.

i put in four years at journalism school, did several internships, worked with multiple companies in the field. am i overreacting? am i wrong somewhere i don't see?

there'll be people who say i'm letting myself be affected by nothing. i disagree. i think people who adopt that stance are jaded and don't care enough.

there'll be people who say a cordial relationship with local athletes is important. they're missing the point.

simply put, a national athlete is a public figure. like politicians or celebrities, they are responsible to the general populace, a responsibility not at their discretion but expected of.

to quantify it, national athletes are funded by taxpayers. it is of course trickier that foreign-born ones often "cost" more. within just this quantifiable formula alone, national athletes must be accountable.

this incident again throws the spotlight on public figures' unspoken obligations to the media. some newsmakers and members of society believe the media sensationalises things. i dare say, the landscape in Singapore doesn't breed such journalism. it is pathetic there are people who have their heads in the sand.

the press is merely a messenger.

note: this was penned immediately after the incident, and has not been influenced by any subsequent discussion or judgment