Re: SPORTS: The tour de Framce, the Olympics

Daryl DeBell writes: "I'm afraid that RH is struggling in a rear-guard action in a hopeless cause in his essays against sports, and particularly the Tour de France. There is no accounting for tastes, and being a fan (fanatic) is a perfect example. Nearly all games, including non-physical ones, are competitive, from tiddley-winks to fighting, and appeal to people on that basis. They can be understood as substitutes for war or other manifestations of combat, and as such should be of interest to WAISers They provide (usually) harmless experiences of victory and defeat. Personally I admire Armstrong's survival of a deadly cancer, and his courageous and dedicated striving and success at even competing again, let alone being successful. All sports can be denigrated as pointless or worse. Mark Twain scorned golf I believe, saying something like; it was "something that spoiled a good walk". But he overlooked the fact that most golfers get considerable satisfaction from seeing a well hit ball go flying through the air for hundreds of yards in the direction they aimed it. Is there anything in the world less important to everyone else in the world than that event, except to the golfer and those who identify with him? I think that participation in sports, even vicariously as an observer, provides an opportunity for the gratification of primary narcissistic aims on two levels, the first on the level of simple successful performance; the good feeling one gets from doing anything well, and second on the level of 'victory'; the elation one feels when one wins at anything. Sports provide opportunity for such experiences. War does too, but at hideous cost".

RH: I have an enormous admiration for Armstrong, who exemplifies the virtue of fortitude.