The lingering shadow: Lance Armstrong
Roar Rookie By Binoy Kampmark, 14 Jun 2011 Binoy Kampmark is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Cycling, Lance Armstrong, Tour de France
The seemingly herculean man of wheels Lance Armstrong has been having a tough time of late. If it isn’t the doctor after him, it’s cycling colleagues piling the odor-rich manure of drug taking allegations upon his sporting prowess.
While Armstrong has seemingly resisted these allegations with some success, the latest accusations further mark the point that cycling is well and truly in the pits of drug-induced corruption.
Earlier this year, Sports Illustrated shot the first salvo. Then came a rather crumpling blow from one Armstrong’s former team mates in the CBS program 60 Minutes.
As The Guardian reported on January 11 this year, Armstrong claimed he had nothing to worry about ‘on any level’. The allegations then were connected to the raid by Italian authorities of one of Armstrong’s team mates Yaroslav Popovych in November last year.
Texts and emails were found linking the tarnished RadioShack team with the now infamous Dr. Michele Ferrari, who had allegedly aided another rider in using performance-enhancing drugs.
While Ferrari was cleared on appeal, it was a troubling presence. The dates of the correspondence went as far up as 2009.
The web of accusation is growing with speed. The International Cycling Union has also found itself in the hot water of doping allegations, being accused of colluding with Armstrong to conceal a positive drugs test.
A US grand jury in Los Angeles decided to poke its inquisitive nose into the affairs of cycling, hearing evidence about the health of the professional sport. What they found was distinctly ugly.
Those in finance inevitably want to see their dollars going to a good cause, not because being financial is moral, but because revenue should not be seen to be going to a stained cause.
Money in itself has a false value. It transforms the subject. Its origins, however, can trouble recipients. One is often less interested in outcomes (the creation of a sports stadium) than with origins – did it stem from a disreputable source?
Appearance is everything where money is concerned. Armstrong’s Live Strong foundation has made a name for itself, and its role in the opening of a football stadium in Kansas City was clear from the start.
The stadium itself has come to $200 million, and is advertised as a superbly modern facility.
Funding bodies will always face the dilemma. To accept a sizeable sum from a dubious donor might jeopardize its own reputation. To not do so would jeopardize its standing in receiving money from that source and valuable supply of funds.
The ‘damage’, if that is the appropriate term, is done, in so far as the shadow lingers over Armstrong and his company. But this will not in itself undermine the aims of the stadium.
The promotional team behind the stadium was, however, worried about the impact the new round of allegations would have on the links. Tragically for Armstrong, these remain just that – allegations. That said, they should have known better, given that, where Armstrong goes, greatness and accusation follow like Siamese twins.
One cannot be a champion of the Tour de France seven times and remain saintly if cycling itself is regarded as rotten, an ailing body that requires drastic operating and cleaning.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
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.
The Crowd Says (4) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Cycling, Lance Armstrong, Tour de France
June 14th 2011 @ 1:05pm
Danny_Mac said | June 14th 2011 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Cycling and Atheltics… why do we even bother? I am so convinced that the odd ones out are those who aren’t doping, that it doesn’t even depress me anymore.
Go and read a book called Positive by Werner Reiterer and tell me that it’s not happening.
Furthermore, I lothe the fact that LiveStrong and Armstrong Doping are used together? It really is a case of how much money absovles you of your sins? On the LiveStrong front, Armstrong is just one of any number of miraculous cancer survivors, who happened to be able to use his profile to promote the organisation.
Armstrong the cyclist, was (and still) is an agressive, prickly, winner. No amount of LiveStrong charity dollars will save him, and nor should they.
I also thing that doping is really starting to come home to roost for the sport. We are starting to see teams like HTC-Columbia (or whatever they are called this year), struggle to find ongoing sponsorship. Sky started thier own team so that they knew that it was new and clean (both figuratively and literally), given the recession that is smashing Europe, companies are reluctant to spend big on sponsorship, and even less so when the glory shot (Cyclist in yellow on the podium in Paris, with thier name on the chest) is only going to be tainted for all history…
June 14th 2011 @ 2:27pm
amazonfan said | June 14th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
“Armstrong the cyclist, was (and still) is an agressive, prickly, winner. No amount of LiveStrong charity dollars will save him, and nor should they.”
Completely agree. Armstrong may be guilty, he may be innocent, but if he is found to have doped, he must be treated just like any other cheat. I don’t care what he may do for charity.
June 14th 2011 @ 6:37pm
Jimbo said | June 14th 2011 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I would add that I think if more sports had the same intensity of testing that cycling does, they would be shown to have the same problems with doping. Although you can’t dope for skill, there isn’t a sport in the world in which your performance isn’t drastically improved by being faster, fitter, stronger etc.
Certainly I have no time for Armstrong; his tactic of attacking the credibility of accusers, rinse and repeat as necessary is getting tiring and increasingly suspicious.
July 3rd 2011 @ 3:18pm
Rob said | July 3rd 2011 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Agree that cycling has a special, historical reliance on doping – it is probably the only sport that expects professional athletes to cycle the equivalent of a marathon every day for nigh on 3 weeks, let alone do it throughout a season – and train at a similar rate just to be fit enough to race. Plus there’s enough money in it to make doping likely. That’s the special case argument. But in truth every sport has its own reasons to dope, be it for recovery, endurance, glory or money.
So in all likelihood it’s everywhere. We just don’t see it.