I've never been comfortable with the tidal wave of autobiographies penned by journalists who might have to cover the subject of their collaborations in the future. As a columnist expected to comment on the prevailing sports issues of the day, Jenkins clearly was in this camp. Her books with Armstrong were published in the midst of his biggest successes and, as it turns out, near the height of his alleged illicit activities. Armstrong won two Tour de France titles after the second book was published and the clouds of rumored doping were flourishing in earnest, at least in Europe. Jenkins could have recused herself from Armstrong-related columns, but people recognized her as such an expert on the famed cyclist, many wanted her take. Jenkins provided one on Aug. 24, after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency leveled its initial doping accusations against Armstrong. She could have limited herself to commenting on the man to whom she was exposed, even mentioned his maintained innocence and her lack of knowledge about its veracity. Instead, she attacked the USADA and the system, providing a quasi-defense of her co-author. That column breached an ethical demarcation.
Nelson's post inspired feedback from a number of Daily Weekly commenters, including commenter zqxjkvb, who writes:
First off, it should be spread far and wide that the USADA is NOT a gov't agency and has no more credibility than the national association of quadiplegic abused transsexual pakistani meter maids.
Secondly, where the hell was the USADA for the last eight years? As far as I'm concerned, all this BS makes them look worse than Mr. Armstrong.
Thirdly, the past is the past, Lance needs to concentrate on the future and the rest of the dogs in search of a bone should just stick to licking their own.