Uh-oh Part II

It was as inevitable as the change of seasons that when the story in which two former teammates of Lance Armstrong admitted to past EPO use that the "is Lance dirty" chatter would grow louder.

Everybody, it seems, has an opinion whether or not Armstrong doped his way to the seven straight Tour de France victories. That's especially true in the climate in which athletes have to prove that they are not taking drugs. In regards to Armstrong, like every other professional athlete, there seems to be very little grey area

Forget the fact that Armstrong's VO2 reading (his ability to use oxygen) is one of the highest ever recorded, or that he has threatened to sue over accusations tying him with doping. Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds or any other high-profile athlete tied to sports' drug scandals haven't spoken as strongly as Armstrong has -- not that this is an absolution.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that Armstrong quickly fired back, calling the story in The New York Times, a "hatchet job."

Meanwhile, top cyclist Jan Ullrich's house in Switzerland was raided by authorities as part of the investigation regarding a Spanish doping case.

Before anyone gets on their sports hih horse and says, "who cares, it's just cycling," or, "who cares, it's just track," think about this:

What if they tried to keep baseball, football, basketball and hockey as clean as they do in those sports. How different would the games be?

Obviously, this (or anything like it) is never going to occur until an independent agency takes over as the drug authority. The league and player's unions will never let that happen.

On another Armstrong note, he is still slated to run the New York City Marathon on Nov. 4. He has already admitted that marathoning is more difficult than cycling (he's right), but based on Armstrong's VO2, he should be able to run a 2:08. That won't happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if he runs better than 2:30.