What if Lance Armstrong is found guilty of doping?
Columnist 
Seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong of the U.S. addresses a press conference for the Tour Down Under cycling race in Adelaide, Australia. AP Photo/Aman Sharma
As seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong faces a federal grand jury investigation for supposedly using performance enhancement drugs, amid fresh doping allegations, the legitimacy of the greatest sporting story of our generation is in doubt.
That story transcends sport: the road world cycling champion and Tour de France stage winner diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer that had spread to his brain.
He was given a 40 per cent chance of surviving.
But following the removal of the infected testicule, brain surgery to remove tumors and rounds of chemotherapy, he not only survived but also returned to professional cycling, subsequently winning seven Tour de France titles. An icon was born; a hero to all those impacted by cancer.
But in a sport dogged by drugs, particularly in the era of Armstrong’s reign, doping allegations followed the American’s career. Those allegations form the basis of a grand jury investigation led by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the US government, in Los Angeles.
They are currently investigating Armstrong for alleged doping in his tenure with the team sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service from 1999 to 2004, during which time he won six of his seven Tour titles.
As Armstrong ended his professional career at the Tour Down Under in Adelaide last week, American magazine Sports Illustrated released information on those doping allegations, including: links with discredited Italian physician Michele Ferrari; claims from former teammates, including the banned Floyd Landis, who claim they saw Armstrong with performance enhancing drugs, alleging he used private planes to avoid stringent customs checks; and a report claiming Armstrong’s testosterone-epitestosterone ratio was higher than normal on three occasions between 1993 and 1996 (pre-cancer), but the tests were dismissed (the full Sports Illustrated article can be read here).
Armstrong denies the allegations, claiming the grand jury investigation would vindicate him.
He has never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs or methods, but the ongoing grand jury investigation and possible indictment (the grand jury will determine whether he should face trial or not) puts the spotlight on Armstrong like never before. This is not a French newspaper or a disgruntled colleague making allegations, this is an investigation by the government of the country that reveres one of its favourite sons.
As I watched Armstrong in his final professional event on the streets of Adelaide, I couldn’t help but ask: what if it’s revealed that Armstrong cheated his way to the majority of his Tour de France wins? What it would mean to the world of sport and beyond?
For cycling, it would be a devastating blow that it may never recover from. Armstrong was the beacon of light for the sport in the darkness of the doping era.
So while Landis, Marco Pantani, Jan Ullrich, Tyler Hamilton, Ivan Basso and now Alberto Contador were mired in drug allegations, either proven or unproven, Armstrong was seen as the antidote – an all-American hero who survived a life threatening disease and subsequently rose to the top.
The doping allegations against Armstrong were an anti-American French agenda, we thought. How could a cancer survivor, having endured chemotherapy, pollute his body again?
His cause meant he was too noble to cheat.
I’ve watched Lance Armstrong in his press conferences at the Tour Down Under, and what struck me most was how convincing, eloquent and intelligent he is when speaking on topics as varied as cancer, cycling, American politics, whatever. It felt like I was listening to a President or Prime Minister (one of the eloquent ones) and not a sportsman; an ambassador for goodwill, not one of the peleton.
But what if it was just a performance?
His story was too good to be polluted by the use of performance enhancing drugs. The belief that he was clean, his survival story and dominance of Le Tour fuelled his worldwide popularity. Armstrong was also extraordinary to watch. His performances on the Pyrenees and Alps of France were some of the most awe inspiring sporting moments I have ever seen.
He became to cycling what Michael Jordan was to basketball, Muhammad Ali to boxing, and Valentino Rossi to motorbike racing: bigger than the sport itself.
Tour de France television figures nearly halved when he retired for the first time. Tour Down Under attendances and television ratings skyrocketed when Armstrong used the race to launch his comeback in 2009 – a comeback driven by his desire to clean his name of the drug allegations (through stringent testing) and to promote his cancer charity, LIVESTRONG.
The economic impact of the race on South Australia shot up from $17.3 million in 2008 to $39 million in his comeback race of 2009. Attendances increased by 212,500 in that year’s event.
Armstrong’s retirement (for good this time) weakens the state of cycling, but far more damage will be done if he is indicted and found guilty. If the hero wasn’t clean, then who could be in cycling? Armstrong himself said the number of riders found doping is proof the system in place to catch the cheats is now working, and therefore it’s a good thing.
But no sport can cope with having its heroes constantly marked as cheats, in particularly the hero that transcends the sport.
But the Armstrong story goes beyond the sport of cycling. The greater issue is what will become of his cancer survivor legacy if he is found guilty; what will it mean to cancer sufferers who are inspired by the Armstrong story?
His best-selling autobiography, ‘It’s Not About The Bike: My Journey Back to Life’, has become a bible for those impacted by cancer.
LIVESTRONG has become the most visible charity fighting against cancer, having raised over $300 million for various programs, research scholarships, support groups, etc. For example, Armstrong’s charity will give its name to a new cancer research centre – to be called The LIVESTRONG Cancer Research Centre – at the Flinders medical facility in South Australia.
Over 70 million people, including me, wear the yellow LIVESTRONG wristbands to promote the fight against cancer. His charitable nature often comes to the fore: see his response to the Queensland floods while he was in Australia.
If he is found guilty, we can only hope the charity is not tarnished too severely, although surely there will be some serious repercussions.
The Armstrong story resonated because it was a tale of one man’s willpower to overcome the disease and return to the top of the sport. If that return was helped by performance enhancing drugs, then his story and the LIVESTRONG mantra will lose its key meaning – the power of the human spirit to overcome, not a power generated through cheating.
But should a guilty verdict bring an end to LIVESTRONG brand? After all, drug cheat or not, he is still a cancer survivor. And if drug usage was so endemic in the sport during that era, his achievements as a Tour de France winning cancer survivor should still rank as one of the most amazing in world sport.
But his story would be tarnished. He will be condemned, like so many before him. You also sense the investigation alone is hurting the Armstrong and LIVESTRONG brand.
As I watched Armstrong ride around for the last time on Sunday, I was left with one overwhelming feeling: I can only hope he was clean. Armstrong’s story is too important to too many people, particularly to a cause that impacts so many of us.
Let this story be genuine, please…
Follow Adrian on twitter @AdrianMusolino
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
January 25th 2011 @ 7:15am
Bianchigirl said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Adrian, I loved the naivety of this article – you quite clearly have no clue about the sport of cycling. Armstrong a ‘beacon’? Armstrong hasn’t been taken seriously as anything but a dope cheat since he failed a test for corticosteroids when he ‘won’the 1999 Tour de France. As for Livestrong, good seems to have been done despite rather than because of Armstrong who has used the charity to fund his lifestyle, using monies raised to buy property & private jets. I hope the grassroots supporters of Livestrong are strong enough to make the charity survive – it is thanks to them that much good work has been done.
January 25th 2011 @ 9:19am
Marsh said | January 25th 2011 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Bit harsh to say no one in cycling takes him seriously. Seems to see many in the sport do as they treat him like the poster boy.
January 25th 2011 @ 7:20am
Jason said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:20am | Report comment
His charity is a good thing. He also survived cancer. He rode with an outstanding team to win seven Tour de France titles. Even if he was doping, he still had to push the peddles, it’s not like he was riding a motorbike.
For those who have always called him a cheat, they’ll feel vindicated. Americans will stop caring about the Tour de France because an American isn’t likely to win. The sport will again be tarnished as an unclean sport where cheaters prosper and life will go on.
January 27th 2011 @ 2:15am
amazonfan said | January 27th 2011 @ 2:15am | Report comment
“Even if he was doping, he still had to push the peddles, it’s not like he was riding a motorbike.”
If he was doping, then he was cheating, and whether he was riding a motorcycle or not (which does require tremendous skill), I think it is irrelevent. Consider me harsh if you wish, but if someone has taken performance enhancing drugs, then I will give them no credit for their performances whatsoever. It’s like Barry Bonds in baseball. He will find it tough to get into the Hall of Fame due to his taking drugs, even though he would have been a superb player if he was clean, and was great before he started taking drugs .
January 25th 2011 @ 7:32am
Rupert said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:32am | Report comment
The laughable thing is that some people still think he’s clean.
As for his charity, charitywatch.org regularly rates the LAF 1-star or 2-star. I would hope that people keep giving their money to cancer charities but, hopefully, to ones that actually do something with their money.
January 25th 2011 @ 7:50am
Brett McKay said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Adrian, I’m not quite sure “what it would mean to the world of sport and beyond”, should Armstrong be found to have used PEDs, but it would certainly be a massive, and potentially fatal – blow for pro cycling.
Hard to say what it would do to the LIVESTRONG brand either, but maybe it would be string enough to surivive on message alone. LIVESTRONG has a lot of corporate muscle from sporting brands the world over (Nike, Oakley, to name just two), so the principles and ideology behind it should still be maintained.
But I’m like you, the Armstrong story almost deserves to remain as is…
January 25th 2011 @ 7:53am
John said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs. That is a fact.
January 25th 2011 @ 7:56am
Jason said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Provide these facts.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:45am
John said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:45am | Report comment
It is totally transparent ” do You believe in Santa Claus ” I guess not,
January 25th 2011 @ 1:33pm
Jason said | January 25th 2011 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
That contribution isn’t fact. I’m happy to address him as a drug cheat as soon as he is proven to be. Proven, not accused.
January 25th 2011 @ 5:44pm
Cate said | January 25th 2011 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Well said, Jason. I see no ‘facts’ in John’s statement. And bringing Santa Claus into it? what are you John, 12 years old?
January 25th 2011 @ 8:01am
Brett McKay said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:01am | Report comment
exactly right Jason..
John – or should we call you Grand Jury Witness No.1? – you’re going to need to back up a statement like that…
January 25th 2011 @ 7:54am
John said | January 25th 2011 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Only the naive would have You believe that he never took performance enhancing Drugs.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:38am
BennO said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Is that another “fact”?
January 25th 2011 @ 8:43am
plugger said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from colleagues that Armstrong is a drug cheat, but facts are, to date, elusive.
Contador has failed a test, but Armstrong has officially evaded detection so far. I personally believe the inuendos re Armstrong even though hard fact has not yet been established, so the jury is “still out”.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:51am
BennO said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:51am | Report comment
So it seems that the only facts that are currently to hand are ignored by many including, with respect, yourself. I mean, has he “evaded detection” or just always tested negative?
It would seem to me that that right there, is a fact.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:53am
plugger said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:53am | Report comment
You obviously didn’t read a word I wrote. I said there are no “facts”. But I also believe the rumours from people who have no reason to lie.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:57am
BennO said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:57am | Report comment
No I read it, but you said he hasn’t tested positive (except you used the rather loaded phrase “officially evaded detection”) to drugs.
So through all the drug tests he has done, he has never tested positive. That’s a fact, is it not?
January 25th 2011 @ 8:30am
Rich_daddy said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Why do you bother? The cheats are always one step ahead of the testing agencies.
Even if Armstrong is found guilty, the moment is etched in time and cannot be erased no matter what the punishment (Marion Jones is a classic example).
The solution is have no restrictions, a ‘drug’ Olympics or tour de France. It could either replace the existing format or run parallel to it. That way, people can take whatever they wanted and we could see how well athletes can really perform.
It may sound ridiculous, but many countries have general harm minimisations policies when it comes to drugs. Why should drug takers in sport be punished, whilst drug takers in the rest of society get needle exchanges?
January 25th 2011 @ 9:30am
Hutr said | January 25th 2011 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I’m sure that would make everyone taking performance enhancing drugs attend the right olympics.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:41am
John said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Apart from all the recent and past allegation’s, Floyd Landis, Stephen Swart, Micheal Anderson, Betsy Andreau, Frankie Andreau, Emma O’ Reilly. Plus Stephanie Mcllvain’s admission heard on the the Tape recording with Greg Lemond ” I was in that room I heard it “. Which she later lied in court about to protect herself and keep her Job at Oakley. You also have six positive test’s for EPO, from frozen blood samples that were taken from Armstrong in the 1999 Tour De France. And verified by the renowned expert Dr. Micheal Ashenden.
An association with the infamous Italian ” Doping Doctor ” Michele Ferrari with whom he Made his first visit to in Late 1995, prior to which he still doped but to a lesser extent. As Stephen Swart has confirmed, Armstrong was the instigator. He was the guy who pushed the team toward it. In other word’s ” We need to step up to the plate “. Institutionalized systematic Doping programmes at Us Postal Services and Discovery Channel Teams.
Here is a Link to the Results of the 1995 Tour De France in which Armstrong finished :- 36th – Lance Armstrong (USA)————–1h28:06. GC.
http://wap.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/letour/letour.html
A long way from Seven consecutive Tour De France Victories. See for instance how far he was of the pace in the prologue’s, Time Trials and Mountain Stages. Compared to his doped up victories in those seven Year’s.
January 25th 2011 @ 9:44am
EP - Rugbywits said | January 25th 2011 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Now that is an interesting idea. 1.28hrs behind the pace the year before he won. That could be down to any number of things. For instance, his recovery was not yet fully complete. He also would have had a better team to win the title than the year before it.
There are often people who out perform expectactions in the tour – I’d say bettering your place by coming from 36th to first would be out performing expectation – but not many of those types of guys actually WIN the tour. They are attention grabbers and possibly setting up a victory 1-2 years down the road, but rarely win. Eg – Cadel Evans exploded into the Tour when he came around 12th. He was noticed and had a few great stages, but he didnt suddenly win the next year, he made incremental improvements. Alberto Contador didn’t surprise people by racing 36th one year and winning the next. That is a truly extra ordinary improvement in placing for a race like the Tour.
On the flip side, he is a truly extra-ordinary athlete.
I read the Sports Illustrated article. And I’ve also read a number of other articles that range from speculation to good insider information. And without having all the facts I cant make a proper judgement. My gut instinct is that he probably has doped. I dont know for how long and whether he ‘directed the use of drugs’ in his team as some claim. Aside from whether he did actually dope I think he definitely surrounded himself with some very shady characters – bad choices, coincidences or purposefully, I don’t know.
Armstrong has had many people around him that like him, like his story, admire his achievements. That has led to a culture where people have actually gotten themselves in to trouble to keep his name ‘clean’ apparently without any reason to. That seems a little off to me.
January 25th 2011 @ 10:54am
Laz said | January 25th 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Lance always had potiential, right from the get-go; find an old Winning magazine or some-such from the early 90s, a good percentage of each had something about Lance before and after he won the World Championship in Oslo. I thought it was just because he was an American, and the publications were trying to boost North American sales….but it seems the potiential was a marked quality by more knowledgable observers. Lance trained much differently pre than post cancer; and the deal Confidis gave him only served to sharpen his commitment to prove his value to everyone and secure his financial future. The drawback of doping, besides getting caught, is that when you aren’t doped, you’re body is lacking a crutch and two, you lose the mental fortitude to go into the “land of pain” where you have to be to win. Doping makes you soft, weak. When did Lance ever look or act “soft” ? But his competititors, most notibly Jan Ulrich, were teddy bears. In fact, they were so soft, that after Lance left the scene in 06, the main guys got caught up in operation puerto- doping after the champion left the field- when all they needed to do was keep their talent sharp.
Good article by the way-fair enough.
January 25th 2011 @ 8:52am
Misha said | January 25th 2011 @ 8:52am | Report comment
For those who think he took drugs, for how many years did he do this? If all of his career, how did he avoid detection given the length of his career? If for only some of his career, how did he manage to win when he wasn’t taking drugs? Don’t confuse the fact that he is a prickly individual at best (or a complete arsehole at worst) with drug-taking. It seems to me that a lot of the people who suspect he took drugs just don’t like the man, which is pretty understandable if you look at his relationships with some other riders and some journalists.
January 25th 2011 @ 9:17am
Frank Strock said | January 25th 2011 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Misha,
Hundreds of cyclists pass thousands of tests each year and never get caught. Do some google searches on doping methods and enlighten yourself.
Examples? Ivan Basso and Jan Ulrich were both kicked out of the ’06 Tour for implicated doping. Neither has ever failed a drug test.
January 25th 2011 @ 11:08am
Misha said | January 25th 2011 @ 11:08am | Report comment
But for so long? This doesn’t mean that he is clean, but to win 7 Tours de France wth drugs implied that he was doping consistently for 7 years straight, and as the number one rider in the world, would be subjected to more tests than anyone else. And if he was taking drugs, there is no way he could have been clean in his comeback, after 3 years out, to finish third. So if he was on drugs, he was the most elusive drug cheat that there has ever been, bar none. To my knowledge, nobody has used drugs for so long and not either been caught or forced out of their sport. I don’t know if he is clean, but the number of people that have an axe to grind with Lance Armstrong are numerous indeed.
January 25th 2011 @ 9:22am
Mark said | January 25th 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Lance just seems like a good guy.
I don’t like him as a cyclist, i always followed Ulrich or Basso or Contador before him.
But over the years more people have spoken out about him and it appears more than just sour grapes now.
Not really sure how it will or will not be proven but if it is proven that Lance doped then it will be the darkest moment in the history of professional cycling
January 25th 2011 @ 11:14am
Misha said | January 25th 2011 @ 11:14am | Report comment
I read a book, can’t remember which, in which it is clear that he is not such a “good guy” at times at all. He is arrogant, and has not been averse to using his credentials as the number one cycling drawcard to ostracise both other riders and journalists. Reading the book gave me an insight into how individuals “slighted” by Armstrong could be very bitter and twisted about his behaviour, since if you were on the wrong side of Lance Armstrong, your life could be hell if you were a professional rider, or if you were a journalist, you could be “frozen out” of any cycling coverage that involved him. He has made an awful lot of enemies within the cycling fraternity, but an arrogant character who is hated by many does not necessarily make him a doper.
January 25th 2011 @ 11:17am
Megaman said | January 25th 2011 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Armstrong’s arrogance is pretty clear to see. But all the greats have that overconfident, arrogance in them. It’s what helps them become great on the sporting field.
January 25th 2011 @ 11:20am
Misha said | January 25th 2011 @ 11:20am | Report comment
The book is “Bad Blood” by Jeremy Whittle (http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/books-and-dvd/books/product/bad-blood-the-secret-life-of-the-tour-de-france-by-jeremy-whittle-34522). It’s a fantastic read into the “behind-the-scenes” of Le Tour.