No, the retirement(s)—or more appropriately, the coming-out-of-retirement(s)—to which I refer belong to none other than two incomparable sports legends: Brett Favre and, made official just today, LANCE ARMSTRONG.
[applause. crowd cheers.]
Yes, it is official: Armstrong will ride the ’09 Tour de France with Johan Bruyneel and team Astana. I can’t deny that I am very much excited about this news. When I first heard the rumors a couple of days ago, I had mixed emotions: why must these legends call it good only to return? Knowing that, at least among athletes, one’s return performance rarely matches the hope and hype left in the wake of one’s former glory and victorious departure, why tamper with a legacy? But that’s the story, right? The brilliant narrative. Retirement: the dénouement. That isn’t, as Russian Realism shows us, the experience of living.
So we see our larger-than-life characters dressed in the fictions we create for them, then are somewhat shocked when they do not recede into memory, submit to being placed on the shelf, their stories complete.
A while ago, during all the Favre hullabaloo, I wrote that I thought Favre should just apologize to everyone for all the fuss and stay retired. I still feel that way. Yet, I am excited for Armstrong’s return. Why the discrepancy? Both are immensely talented. Both have captured the hearts and imagination of a broad population. Both have remarkable, compelling stories to share. Both are amazing competitors and just plain enjoyable to watch.
I reckon that it is just the manner of coming out of retirement: Favre put the team, and by extension his fans, in a really difficult position. The Packers organization entertained Favre’s vacillation about retirement for much longer than a few weeks this spring; speculation and indecision about his retirement accompanied the end of every season for the last four years. When Favre finally decided to retire, he said it was on his own terms. No one wanted to see him go, but if he was going to go, at least he was going to go a Packer. If the reports are true, then the organization even hung with him through the period of indecision that followed his announcement last March. But at some point the team had to move forward. Once they made that commitment to Rogers, following Favre’s insistence that he would not come back, they were bound to honor it. A sports writer, whose name escapes me at the moment, once wrote that GB fans may never get over their collective crush on Favre; all the drama surrounding Favre’s six-month retirement certainly assuages the pain. I always admired Favre because he seemed to put the team first; his actions significantly called that assumption into question for me. I still like Brett Favre: I just can’t help myself, but neither can I help but feel more than a touch disappointed, nor can I watch him play for the Jets. His tale should have ended last Monday night at Lambeau with a ceremony to honor him and retire his jersey. Dénouement.
By contrast, Armstrong’s return to cycling, while risky at age 37, brings with it a drama of a different sort. To continue my earlier metaphor, Armstrong’s return is more like a long-awaited sequel rather than an epilogue the author should have scratched. And I, for one, am quite ready to read this tale.
Live Strong.
No comments:
Post a Comment