Updated: Sally Jenkins responded to JimRomenesko.com. Says she is busy working on a Pat Summit book. She hasn’t written about Lance Armstrong since late August.
She wrote in an email:
I can tell you that while my thoughts are complicated Lance remains a friend of mine, and my personal opinion of him was never based on what he did or didn’t do while riding a bike up an Alp. I like the guy.
If my editors ask me to write when I come back from the book project, I will discuss it with them. Until then my thoughts remain my own. As for my reputation, if I can wind up with a rep for being a good friend and an independent thinker, I’d like that.
*******
Questions were raised about Jenkins because of the two books she did with Lance Armstrong. I was forwarded this post from JimRomenesko.com.
Romenesko cites two columns questioning Jenkins’ relationship with Armstrong.
Glenn Nelson, a former beat NBA beat writer, writes in Seattle Weekly:
Jenkins is a sports columnist for the Washington Post who has written for Sports Illustrated, been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, and occupied the No. 1 spot on the New York Times best seller list. She also closely hitched her star to Armstrong’s by penning with him two books, “Every Second Counts” and “Not About the Bike.” I wonder if she consequently will–and should–be sucked into the draft of Armstrong’s nosedive. Because of Jenkins, we knew more about Armstrong than most athletes of his stature. Readers gained this perspective because Jenkins made a deal as old as her craft: access in exchange for a blind eye, either permanent or occasional.
This isn’t to claim that Jenkins knew the truth about Armstrong’s alleged doping activities. But, at the very least, she was in a position to view flags which were red as the blood Armstrong was supposed to be altering. Was Jenkins therefore obligated to employ more skepticism while sketching such overwhelmingly flattering pictures of Armstrong?
He concludes:
Until the recent rise of Web-fueled haterism, the writer-athlete partnership has pretty closely reflected the mores of society. People long have preferred their heroes not be felled. If the public wants access to those who inspire or titillate, the price of an acceptably blind eye may be one that cannot be refused.
By extension, Sally Jenkins has accomplished too much to be dragged down by Lance Armstrong, who did so much bad to offset so much good. She was just a partner in telling his story, not an accomplice to his misdeeds.
Previously, before the latest news about Armstrong hit, Harry Jaffe wrote in the Washingtonian.
Sally Jenkins is one of the Post’s most brave and incisive columnists. In the case of Lance Armstrong, she has tied herself to his fortunes, to his veracity, to his worthiness as a champion. If he takes a fall, will she write about it? Will she take one, too?
Jenkins has yet to respond to questions about whether she would write about Armstrong’s latest travails. Her readers deserve her take.
Jenkins has not written about Armstrong since an Aug. 24 column, when she slammed the policies of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. She wrote:
How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test? Whether Armstrong is innocent or guilty, that question should give all of us pause.