The times have changed

I really, really want to rip the cyclists in the Tour de France. As I'm sure most of you know -- those who follow the Tour at least, and I suspect that number is growing smaller every day -- Riccardo Ricco failed a drug test a few weeks ago. Ricco had already won two stages and was in the top-10 overall.

This is the third year the Tour has had a major rider fail a drug test mid-race. This just adds to the absolutely crippling perception of the Tour, particularly the past few years. The number of people I personally know who follow it has dropped from somewhere in the 20's to 1. Some of that also has to do with Lance Armstrong leaving the sport, and I admit that Armstrong was the only reason I followed the Tour in recent years. But there is also a growing disgust with the cyclists and the event itself simply because of the doping, and in some cases the accusations of doping.

But how different is cycling from other sports nowadays? The perception of sports and athletes is always tied to the current situations in society.

That's why when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa went on a home-run binge in 1998, no one questioned how quickly the duo bulked up, and locker room chatter of performance-enhancing drugs was never investigated by either the media or Major League Baseball. It was because, after a strike that canceled a World Series, baseball desperately needed that duo.

In the 2002 Super Bowl, just months after 9/11, everybody but the city of St. Louis cheered for the New England Patriots. It was the fact that they were an unheralded team, without any superstars, playing tough, hard-nosed football. Throw in the facts that they were a huge underdog, were introduced as a team instead of by individual names (the first time that was ever done at a Super Bowl -- it was a huge deal at the time) and simply because the team mascot was the "Patriots," America pulled for them to win. They did, and it was very healing to huge groups of people.

Yes, cycling has a drug problem. So does baseball. So does football. So does basketball. So does track & field. Certain athletes will always look for ways to cheat the system, to stay ahead of the testing and gain an edge.

And this mirrors other issues in our society: the incredible addictions we form, the incessent competitive edge, the need to cheat the system.

There's one more point I want to make, and that is the public perception of an athlete is changing, and will continuously change.

I actually read a blog about this yesterday that made a few great points. Joe Posnanski, a columnist for the Kansas City Star, wrote a great blog about Stan Musial. (And by the way, I think his blog might be the best on the Internet. I'd encourage all sports fans, especially baseball guys, to check it out).

One of his most salient points in his Musial blog was that, in the "good old days," people looked up to players like Stan Musial. Players who signed autographs, played through pain, stayed out of trouble and generally wanted to be a role model were regarded as heroes.

Today, the typical hero is Josh Hamilton -- a supremely talented athlete who somehow loses his way, fights off his demons (in this case major drug addictions) and makes a spectacular, engaging comeback.

Everybody has their own demons they fight off, their own set of problems and their own ways of fixing it. Rather than looking up to these "perfect" athletes like in the past, I think people want to relate to athletes now. And guys like Hamilton, or guys who have stories like Hamilton, are the new-breed of heroes.

And I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.