I don't know Lance Armstrong.
Not personally anyway.
I've read "It's Not About the Bike'' and the sequel "Every Second Counts''.
I watched him claim seven Tour de France victories on television and, like millions of others, I've worn a yellow wristband with the inscription LIVESTRONG for the last four years.
I've even got an autographed print of him on my wall.
But I still don't know the bloke; not really.
How can you truly come to know someone through the carefully crafted words of a novel, newspaper speculation or selected grabs on the evening news?
The truth is you can't.
The knowledge I have of Lance is an amalgam - a composite image derived from secondary sources, each with their own spin and agenda.
That must be true for the thousands of "commentators'' who have written opinion pieces about Armstrong's return to professional cycling in the last couple of weeks.
Not knowing Lance hasn't stopped them writing about his motivations and commenting on the merit of a comeback...So I suppose it shouldn't hinder me either.
I confess that after reading "It's Not About the Bike'' I became an unabashed Armstrong fan.
I suppose I'm a romantic by nature.
The story of a young man who fought back from life-threatening cancer to win the toughest sporting event in the world moved me deeply.
His words and deeds were like a beacon for me. The LIVESTRONG mantra - the creed of never giving up - became a life code.
It's fair to say Lance became my hero.
In the years since discovering the Armstrong phenomenon I've also become acquainted with the Armstrong conspiracy.
I'm supposed to be a journalist so I've chided myself to look at things more critically.
And I'm prepared to concede that Lance is not the living expression of human perfection.
I can see that his singular focus could make him hard to live with.
He might be a downright tough guy to get a long with for all I know...And I don't like the way he's been linked with a series of Hollywood starlets.
I preferred the storybook version where he was married to the beautiful Kristin and they lived happily ever after.
Life's not like that though.
I'm sure Lance has character flaws. However character flaws do not necessarily make you a drug cheat.
There has been an "it's too good to be true'' cloud swirling around Lance since 1999.
He dominated the tour in a way no man ever had at a time when doping was seemingly rampant.
The fact that some former team mates have since returned positive tests has done nothing to quell the rumour and innuendo.
What can't be challenged is the fact that Armstrong, for many years the most scrutinised athlete in the world, never tested positive.
Some say Lance Armstrong is returning to Le Tour next year in a bid to crush the drug talk once and for all.
They reason that if he comes back just as dominant, and his tests are negative, cynics will have to shut up.
If that's true then so is the reverse - anything less than a commanding victory will be seized upon by the doubters.
French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, wasn't referring to Lance Armstrong when he wrote "there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows for those who don't'', but it still applies.
Some people can't comprehend why Armstrong would put his legacy on the line.
You can't prove a negative, so why try?
Obviously those people don't understand what drives a competitive athlete.
Why subject yourself to torture on an unforgiving mountain at all if you're not guaranteed of glory?
Why endure years of training and sacrifice when the odds of actually winning are so minute?
Why bother committing your body and soul to the fight when you're up against a foe as formidable as cancer?
Why?
Because life is not a spectator sport and it's certainly not about what other people think.
If you haven't tested yourself, if you haven't poured your spirit into the pursuit of a worthy cause you haven't truly lived.
Winning a bike race or even a battle with cancer does not underscore your value as a person. How you wage that battle does.
In his own words claiming another tour is not the primary concern for Lance Armstrong:
"Of course I want to win an eighth Tour de France, but the most important issue is taking the global epidemic of cancer to a much bigger stage. That is the first priority here.''
If Armstrong says his motivation is the plight of the 12 million people diagnosed with cancer around the world every year, who am I to question him?
Armstrong will outline his "Global Cancer Initiative'' at the Clinton Global Initiative Conference in the USA tonight.
I for one will be taking more than a passing interest.
In the end we have to make a judgement about the man they call "Mellow Johnny'' and what he stands for from a distance.
And our summation may say much more about us and our view of the world than it does him.
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter