For years the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that Lance Armstrong was a drug cheat has piled up and for years people, such as myself, have dismissed it. Because we had answers.
They asked how could a man be so dominant for such a sustained period during an era when the peloton was so polluted with dopers?
We responded they should have a look at Lance’s VO2 results, the physical size of his heart and the sheer amount of training he put in.
How could a man whose body was riddled with and a deadly illness and decimated by both its poisonous cure ever come back and achieve such dizzying heights?
Easy – his cancer reshaped his body from that of a stocky, classics rider into a lean, physical specimen who was capable of powering up the Pyrenees. Perhaps more importantly, it gave him a mental toughness no other rider in the peloton could match.
How can you dismiss such damning evidence from former teammates, as has been presented from Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis over the last couple of years?
How can you believe anything from two blokes who spent years proclaiming their innocence and then admitted their guilt by saying “Lance did it too”?
Today brings questions without answers.
How do you respond to 1000 pages of evidence? To the sworn testimony of 26 people, including 15 riders? To 11 former teammates, including the up-until-now infallible George Hincapie, all of whom have received bans and retrospective disqualifications, so no one can argue they got off lightly in exchange for giving up Lance?
From a staunch and previously unshakeable defender of Lance Armstrong, I don’t know.
I wasn’t a fan of cycling as a sport until 2007 (some would say I was on the Cadel bandwagon, I say I had never been awake in the middle of the night and bored until then), so I didn’t see any of Lance’s Tour victories.
Anyone who was interested in cycling at that time would question why I ever had faith in Lance, given the climate.
The 2006 Tour champion, Floyd Landis, had been stripped of his title. The favourite for the 2007 Tour, Alexandre Vinokourov, was booted for doping mid-race. Days later the race leader, Michael Rasmussen, was ejected from the race by his own team under a doping cloud.
The eventual winner, Alberto Contador, was not able to defend his crown the following year because he had joined the highly suspect Astana team (which Vinokourov had been integral in creating) and they were not welcome to return in 2008.
As such, I didn’t come to love the sport naïve of its foibles. Neither did I come unaware of who Lance Armstrong was. Like many of Lance’s supporters, I knew him before I knew cycling.
I read his autobiography ‘It’s Not About the Bike’ in 2005 and was struck by two things. Firstly, he was so fiercely confident in his own ability it bordered on neurosis. Secondly, he was not the kind of bloke you would ever want to have a beer with.
But both these fed my belief he would not dope. Simply put, a guy with that much self-belief would have been offended by anyone who suggested he needed to.
As such, he helped fuel my love of cycling.
Sure my introduction to the sport had come about when the previous year’s winner, the pre-race favourite and the mid-race leader were all disqualified, and the eventual winner was not allowed to defend his title – all for reasons relating to doping.
My reasoned response was, simply, these guys might be cheats but they were trying to live up to the legacy the greatest athlete to ever compete in this sport had left.
Thus every cheat who was to follow was an argument in favour of Lance’s impeccable record, rather than mounting evidence he could never have achieved what he did without going to the same lengths these men had.
But there was more to it.
Lance was the man who came back from an illness that could have ended his life and should have ended his career as a professional athlete and, instead, won seven Tours de France. His story was the stuff of Disney movies.
There were those who smugly said they had a bridge in Sydney to sell us Lance supporters (a line brought up daily; how anyone thought they were clever constantly recycling someone else’s poor joke is beyond me).
Today they must be patting themselves on the back over how clever they were not to believe anyone could achieve something so extraordinary.
And good on them for backing the right horse. Lance was dirty. We who believed in him were wrong.
But sport is brilliant and magic for the unbelievable stories – for the man who played a rugby league grand final with a broken jaw, the woman who came back from an on-court stabbing to once again win a Grand Slam, the girl who surfs competitively after having an arm bitten off by a shark.
So for you who today so happily proclaim your victory as a Lance cynic, I ask, who would you rather be – the person who sees human achievement and wants to applaud it, or the person who seeks to belittle what others accomplish whenever it seems too good to be true?
Joe is the editor of Disaffected Middle Class
rt
Guest
You imply that people who didn't believe in Lance can't see "human achievement" and "applaud it." That's really completely unfair. In the case of Lance Armstrong, there was a mountain of evidence implicating him in doping. People like you chose to listen to all those invalid arguments for believing he was innocent. It has been clear for a long time that the doping tests can be fooled. For example, Marion Jones was never caught doping through direct testing. She was caught through her association with a doctor who was implicated in doping when her husband was caught by a drug test. She had been tested many times and passed every one. As soon as he was linked to Dr. Ferrari, known by then to be strongly associated with doping, you should have grown highly skeptical of Lance Armstrong. The more evidence that came out showing a strong and long term link between the two, the worse it got in my mind. You should admit to yourself that you chose to ignore the relevant evidence and made excuses to believe in this fraud. I'll give an example of someone I want to applaud. Derek Jeter. So far, knock on wood, no association with any doctors pushing PEDs. No obvious signs of muscular growth or changing hat sizes. He's not a home run machine, he's just been consistently good for years. He's remarkably humble, at least publicly. I'm not even a Yankee's fan, but I still notice him.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
It may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it is of absolute importance within a sporting context. That 'he represents hope for cancer patients' is insignificant within a sporting context. "You people are focusing on the small shit." No, on a sporting site, we are focusing on the significant shit. Why does it matter whether he 'he represents hope for cancer patients'? Is that meant to get him off the hook for being a cheat?
Jason
Guest
There are more important things then being good at riding a bike/money. He represents hope for cancer patients and if he or did not dope to help peoples lives, it is insignificant. You people are focusing on the small shit.
Hawkinsob@comcast.net
Guest
This author is as wrong about what led Lance's critics to conclude he was doping as he was about Lance being clean. The critics didn't simply conclude his results were "too good to be true," they studied the issue and the evidence and were forced to conclude Armstrong doped. Now the author mischaracterizes the critic's arguments in order to suggest that somehow, he was "right" all along.
Gerad
Guest
@teevee You're right about Robert Plank the thing that drives me nuts (in a pulznizg good kind of way) about the guy is that he manages to get so much done, all on top of full time job! Bizarre.
kyle
Guest
some of us listened to the the people in cycling that we knew were good and honest and/or had no reason to lie, and watched as Lance tried to destroy them. that made our decisions quite easy.
John Standen
Guest
"who would you rather be – the person who sees human achievement and wants to applaud it, or the person who seeks to belittle what others accomplish whenever it seems too good to be true?" That's a false option - i'd rather be the person not taken in by lies and the person who fought to open the eyes of others rather then the deluded magical-thinking adult with no critical thinking skills. And in answer to the first question..."We were right to believe in Lance, weren’t we?" You were right until the first proof emerged. And that was a loooong time ago.
Jojo
Guest
Russ - Nicely stated comment. For the younger riders named in the USADA report, everyone seems to be calling for their heads. I just find their stories sad. Dave Z's story in the Reasoned Decision and his Affidavit was particularly sad to read. His shame, confusion, guilt - even attributing his getting hit by a car in 2003 and bad crash in 2004 as payback from the gods because he had just started doping - also shows his mental state being really affected by it all. "A dozen riders and half a dozen team officials were implicated in the report, and their stories are worth reading. Several are very sad. Many took to cycling as a form of escape from broken homes (including Lance, incidentally); they looked up to Johan and Lance as paternal figures, trusted their doctors, and were, frankly, abused. They were adults, if young ones, and they made their choices, for sure, but this runs much deeper than someone merely using drugs to win."
Rhys
Guest
They're generally referred to as 'Fanboys', and many are about as likely to be convinced by the mountain of evidence against their beloved idol, as those who still belong to the Flat Earth Society.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
What's more, sittingbison, is that I used to be a Lance believer. I used to be the guy who scoffed at the suggestion that he doped. I tried to find any excuse to make what he did seem right in some way, even the most recently rolled out one that doping levelled the playing field. But after reading The Secret Race, Bad Blood and Racing Through The Dark (by Tyler Hamilton, Jeremy Whittle and David Millar respectively), my faith in cyclists and the integrity I used to hold them to has been utterly destroyed. I'm not sure I would give up watching cycling. I love it too much. Even though he's a convicted doper, watching Contador tear the Vuelta apart on Stage 17 was nothing short of spectacular. But I can't connect with the athletes on an emotional level like I used to. I used to love the romance of a rider's story, of where they've come from and how they got to the pinnacle of the sport. Now, I just couldn't care less.
sittingbison
Guest
hamelyn, you have hit the nail on the head. This is the true crime, that cycling fans are becoming sceptical of results, even with no proof even circumstantial. As Tim said above, he would give up watching cycling if he believed they all doped. What a shame it all is.
sittingbison
Guest
Big Al he is known as a "super responder". It is also implied by Hamilton he had sole access to "the good stuff", which is rumoured to be Hemassist.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
To be fair to Cadel, let's not count chickens before they hatch. Hincapie said he stopped doping in 2006, which means he would easily be clean last year. The real question is whether we can take Hincapie's comment at face value. Cadel's never been linked to any doping, apart from doing some testing with Ferrari back before he turned from MTB to Road. But with the amount of corruption and covering up that it seems like the UCI is doing, for all we know, Cadel could be as bad as Lance. I doubt he is, but my scepticism is now complete. I don't trust any pro rider anymore, which is blatantly unfair as I bet a lot of them are clean. But you just can't be sure.
Brian
Guest
I am a casual cycling fan who has stayed up many a night watching the tour. Quite frankly I feel cheated. Riise, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Llandis, Contador and who knows who else. If Hincapie is a cheat what does that say about Cadel's win? What about the medals Armstrong and Ullrich won in Sydney 2000 don't the IOC have anything to say? They should either have a race where drugs are allowed or admit the whole thing is a joke.
sittingbison
Guest
What they should do is get the top ten finishers for 1996-2010 all at the Arc de Triumphe, with a podium set up. Put Riis on top with Ullrich and Virenque alongside. In front of thousands of adoring cycling fans Then they should systematically remove the maillot jeune from convicted dopers, and award it to the next place, then keep repeating the ceremonial stripping until they get to a "clean" rider. Then they should retire the jersey for each year, and put an asterix saying "period of oxygen vector doping, result anulled"
Aaron
Guest
i agree that we shouldn't award cheats, but in the landis (and contador) case it was immediately after those tours respectively. are andy schleck and oscar pereiro druggies? maybe. armstrong won his last tour title 7 years ago... would it mean anything to him to strip him of his titles, good or bad? more so would it mean anything to the 2nd placed riders, many of which were convicted dopers? of course for all the above mentioned cases the 2nd placed rider never got the magical feeling of pulling on the yellow lycra with the arc de triomphe behind him, but it seems ridiculous to strip a title awarded 7+ years ago. the UCI refused to strip bjarne riis of his 1996 title, so forever there will be an asterisk next to his name. at best, 1999-2005 would suffer the same fate.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
Erm, come again? Cheat (verb): to defraud; swindle; deceive; or influence by fraud I see nothing in that definition about how, if everyone else is cheating, then no-one is cheating. If you do any of the aforementioned things, you are a cheat, you have cheated, etc., etc. One thing that I think needs to come out of this is that Lance is not the only cheat exposed. Hincapie, Hamilton, Landis, Vande Velde, Leipheimer, etc. have all cheated too. Lance is just the only one who hasn't admitted as such. Just because you did something everyone else is doing doesn't make it not cheating. Like, if you were playing Monopoly, and everyone was stealing from the bank, everyone is cheating.
BigAl
Guest
Different sportsmen/patients respond differently to the same medication/drug - this is a long known and commonly observed pharmacological fact.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Your argument can apply to every other other cheat. If everybody cheated, then Landid didn’t have an unfair advantage over anyone, so therefore he was still the best the year he won. As such it was ridiculous that Landis had his title taken away, and he should therefore have it back. In fact no cheat should be punished. Afterall what makes Armstrong so special? Bottom line is that cheats shouldn't be awarded, and Armstrong should be treated the same as any other cheat.
sittingbison
Guest
Argh they are scientists, and I'm an artist . Left and right side of the brain lol I thought I'd launch a pre emotive strike, before too many posts were made. None from wiki though, it's all been repeated so ad nauseim I've become a sittingpavlovdog. I'm sure I missed a bit, such as raising $500-600m for cancer research through his charity Livestrong.com, curing cancer etc I was going to refrain from all this and stick to rugby, but as usual my passion for the sport (yes I am, even though I spend so much time debunking LA fanbois) drew me back in. What I would LOVE to see is peleton say "let's catch dopers and get rid of them no matter who, cleaning up is the best way to go" type comments. But no, it's still omertà or fauning