The most disappointing aspect of the latest Lance Armstrong doping allegations for cycling fans is the ambiguity that continues to cloud his legacy and professional cycling.
On the one side is the US Anti-Doping Authority (USADA) investigation into alleged doping and blood manipulation by the Texan; the most significant attempt to uncover the truth behind Armstrong’s reign, and the mounting evidence to suggest doping was endemic in professional cycling throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s.
Is this the end for Lance Armstrong?
On the other is Armstrong; defending his innocence with emphatic pledges he was clean throughout, like so many other cyclists before him.
Who to believe? The truth is lost somewhere between all the bickering, accusations and counter-accusations. And the lack of a definitive end to this saga only erodes at cycling’s past and it’s legitimacy.
Armstrong’s story – cancer survivor conquering the toughest cycling race in the world seven-times – is one of the greatest of our generation and greatly contributed to the boom in popularity of the sport and cycling’s growth as one of the most popular leisure/fitness activities.
If Armstrong is found guilty, the one rider so many insisted was clean amongst so many cheaters, can the sport simply try and move into what it hopes will be a new era of clean heroes, casting aside a recent past scarred by cheats who nevertheless helped build the sport into what it is today?
And what if it definitively emerges that higher ups in the sport were culpable in protecting Armstrong? How far does this cancer spread?
Already two recent Tour de France titles have changed hands long after the finish-line was reached; countless star riders of a period in time tarnished with doping charges.
And if Armstrong is found guilty and loses his seven titles, the likes of Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich, themselves tainted by doping bans, are in line to inherit tainted yellow jerseys. The constant rewriting of the record books undoubtedly chips away at the sport’s legacy.
But this leads to another difficult question for cycling fans to ponder: if doping was so rife in this era, with so many of the star names in the peleton seemingly on the juice, do Armstrong’s achievements still deserve the respect they have received?
Armstrong versus the USADA, what is hopefully the final chapter in the Armstrong doping allegation saga, is about more than just the American’s legacy, reputation and records.
It’s about whether the recent history of a sport needs to be forgotten and eradicated, with the lessons hopefully learned and guilty parties removed so the sport can truly move on.
Even then the scars will be visible for a long time to come and could seriously debilitate cycling’s growth as a big-time sport.
We can only hope the USADA investigation can produce definitive results so the sport can move on. But don’t hold your breath…
thurmcord
Guest
I agree, one rest day test ,miniscule results of a roid with no other positives? clearly points to a transfusion of blood but steroids sounds so much worse. Look a guilty lance I believe destroys what little credibility the UCI has because after 7 tours all they come up with is a bad 'b' sample possibly belonging to armstrong from 10 years ago, means either they are incompetent, the testing is inadequate, or there is politics and corruption involved. I say let em all dope, that'll even the field.
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
Amen to that Bones
Ben zerbe
Guest
Look Contador was caught with Clenbutynol in his system in one positive test. There is no allegation of systematic cheating as in the allegations that have been laid by USADA at the feet of the U.S Postal hierarchy. To claim that a rider's whole career should be wiped due to one positive test is preposterous. I understand he was transferred to Astana which was then suspended however in what other workplace is an employee held responsible for the transgressions of the employer prior to employment? Note the difference between the two cases? In one case their is a positive test and in the other there is not. There is however a systematic system of doping and covering up in order to prevent a positive in one case and not in the other. I'm sorry but not all dopers are equal.
Bobo
Guest
Ha. A blue passport doesn't turn you into a saint. They may well be clean, but not because they are Australian.
wisey_9
Roar Guru
Agreed. If you are caught cheating, ALL previous wins and prize money must be forfeited.
Bones506
Roar Guru
The Sport of cycling will endure. The Tour will remain the biggest annual sporting event in the world and people will still ride and race their bikes and tune in to watch the pros. Eurosport are now showing races like Tour of Turkey live. Nine has the rights to the Tour Down Under - all signs of the sports growing popularity. No one man is bigger than any sport. This was not the case for a period when Lance dominated the sport but I believe that with Global TV and an American winning it repeatedly (disregard whether he is clean or not) brought what has been a European sport into the living rooms of America, Australia and a great number of other countries outside of Europe. I personally believe we are ina golden age of cycling right now. There are so many great riders in each disciple - Boonen and Cancellara in the Belgium classics, Cadel and Wiggins fighting it out for the GC in the tour and at least a half dozen gun sprinters all pushing Cavendish. For Australia personally - we have our first ever TDF winner, our first ever pro team in Orica-GreenEDGE and a stack of other Australian's in the peleton and more people than ever taking up the sport.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
A guilty Armstrong may have less impact on the sport than an innocent Armstrong. Even if found inncoent, even if acually inncoent, the much of the public will never believe such a result. If found guilty, a case could be made for cycling starting to look at cleaning itself up (although the shortened ban of Contador, and much else, speaks against that). If found inncoent, even if actually inncoent, it wil look like yet another cover-up. Cycling is in a no-win situation here, it either loses its greatest modern athlete from the record books or (regardless of the facts) further loses its credibility. And the administrators of the sport have nobody to blame except their own adminstrative bodies over a decade or more for the problems the sport is now in. There may well be a temptation to pronounce him guilty regardless of the facts, as it may be the less damaging option. I truly hope that he did not take drugs and is found to not have taken them. Either way, I don't think we can have any confidence in the verdict or cycling authorities.
SimonB
Guest
The implications are quite obvious. Australian cycling will rise to the top of the heap. Surely people like Cadel, Stuart O'Grady and Robbie McEwen have never taken any drugs?
sittingbison
Guest
Thanks for this article Adrian, which does not look at Lance per se but the implications. One interesting aspect you have raised is what happens to the seven Tour results if Lance is found guilty, especially considering Ullrich, Basso and the like are themselves drug cheats. I believe the Tour will not award results for these years, they will leave an asterix with "no result - PED era" or similar. Under no circumstances will they award the maillot juene to a rider already convicted of using PEDs. In fact what they should do is scrap every result from 1996 (Bjarne Riis who has admitted his guilt) to 2009 (Contador, who is now convicted) and proclaim them all the PED Era. From now on, any rider being convicted of PEDs should have their entire palmares scrapped, and fined their winnings. Its ludicrous that Contador for instance can retain his 2009 win but not his 2010. The presumption must be if caught you have always been cheating. You only start with a clean slate after serving your time, not before. This will soon start to make them query the use of PEDs, if their entire career can be wiped and fined $millions of winnings. Speaking of Contador, it is a disgrace and travesty that he was allowed to race after his positive. He has besmirched several other results including the Giro and last years Tour, and has not served his sentence half of which has been spent racing. This is the type of situation that brings into question the UCI. Which brings me to my final rant. The largest effect this will have on cycling is the UCI will be scrapped, while Verbruggen and McQuaid plus others will probably be criminally charged and convicted. Because the biggest issue raised (elephant in room) is not Lances guilt or otherwise, it is that UCI was complicit in covering up positive results.
Punter
Guest
Yes I could not believe that comment either. I mean he has had a question mark around him for a long time. But then most of that era was also suspect.
Gareth
Guest
What does a guilty Armstrong mean for pro cycling? That the sporting world's worst kept secret is finally out of the bag?
jameswm
Guest
I find this comment in the article odd: " the one rider so many insisted was clean amongst so many cheaters". I don't think that's the public perception at all.
BigAl
Guest
What does a guilty Armstrong mean for pro cycling? My answer to this, considering the record of the sport and the long and widely held beliefs about Armstrong is . . . - not much at all !