by Randy Hill

Comment

His return especially has sporting enthusiasts licking their chops in Europe, where the American who won seven consecutive Tour de France championships continues to generate an ominous buzz among the distributors of alleged news.

However, at the risk of turning my back on the prospect of a mercilessly entertaining hullabaloo, I'm registering a desire to have Lance recommit to his cycling retirement. Sure, I think keeping the kickstand down could turn into an act of self-preservation, but by sticking with 2005 as his final Tour ride into the sunset, he may provide an even greater assist to those he's attempting to help by riding again.

For the record, that reference is to cancer survivors (and you thought I meant his sponsors). Ironically, Lance's return was promoted through an interview in the magazine Vanity Fair. But instead of coughing up a concession to ego, a theory many critics immediately seized, Armstrong announced that he's riding to draw attention to those who fight cancer through the inspiration of others who've triumphed.

That certainly seems like a much better reason for ending a retirement than, say, Michael Jordan's desire to take Reggie Miller to the hole a few more times. And Armstrong, who doesn't have to concern himself with losing velocity on a 40-plus-inch vertical, will return to work on a team that's far superior to the Washington Wizards.

Anyway, my reluctance to embrace Armstrong's return is provoked by all that his legacy has to lose.

In case the last couple of years have allowed you to dismiss the memory, Lance Armstrong had been riding about one kilometer ahead of the performance-enhancing-substance posse. He never officially tested positive, but Lance has been the highly visible subject of accusation, innuendo and speculation that just can't wait to be resurrected.

The allegation parade includes a book, published in 2004, that claimed supplement impropriety by his former masseuse and an ex-teammate from the Motorola squad. Other team members denied the latter claim and Armstrong received an out-of-court settlement after filing a libel suit against a newspaper that published portions of the book.

A year later, a French daily sports newspaper called L'Equipe credited Armstrong's urine with testing positive for an endurance-boosting substance called EPO. The report admitted the science behind this allegation was shakier than some of Lance's personal relationships, although tour honcho Jean-Marie Leblanc has referred to Armstrong's guilt as scientific fact.

In 2006, Armstrong's alleged association with illegal performance enhancement surfaced in separate reports published by the Los Angeles Times and France's Le Monde.

While no unimpeachable proof of cheating has been submitted, the quest to prove Lance's guilt has joined a list that rivals evidence-seekers committed to finding Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the home-run stroke of L.A. Dodger Andruw Jones.

In Europe, Armstrong frequently has been presumed guilty. His last ride through France wasn't terrifically different from Arnold Schwarzenegger's navigation of the victory-lap landscape in the film The Running Man. Unfortunately for Lance, those attempting to put him down seem to be more thorough in their preparatory tactics than Richard Dawson.

Even though there's considerable smoke regarding Armstrong and the aforementioned allegations, failing to test positive won't exactly assuage the impact of suspicion. Right now, with an amazing recovery from cancer and seven consecutive Tour triumphs on his resume, Lance is a sports icon and, far more important, an inspiration to those fighting a dreaded disease.

Riding back into the Tour de France fire, especially if he's successful, will only make the flames of accusation that much hotter. Instead of demonstrating the importance of living strong, of taking on the pain, Armstrong may be unable to distance himself from a screaming and negative presumption.

The symbol he's become to cancer patients already is established; although winning again after his first retirement would be a sensational achievement, I doubt that Lance's level of respect in either arena could climb any higher.

I really have no interest in rooting for Armstrong to stay put and avoid a potential defeat that might diminish his past accomplishments to the silly interpreters of what determines greatness.

But I do hope he considers the importance that riding away on top of the cycling world has for those who look up to him.

The tailwind from his accusers won't blow over when the next race ends.