There are, and there will remain forever, many who continue to believe in Lance Armstrong’s truth.
I for one wanted to believe that he had returned to the top level of cycling post cancer, a miracle.
The story was one of hope for all cancer suffers, one of grit and recovery for aspiring cyclists.
I am humbled and disappointed, not because I don’t believe the evidence but because I didn’t want to believe it true. I knew him, I roomed with him.
I like many others never saw this side of Lance but as I review the evidence I more than anybody am deeply saddened.
From time to time over the last few years I have shaken my head in consternation at the happenings in cycling. Every day in every race during my career and since races began alliances were made, the results often planned beforehand but the final victory always a salute to the best rider in the field the results never a foregone conclusion.
Drugs in cycling changed that. It wasn’t just one rider cheating or dominating. Teams were formidable and the winners were odd.
There was George Hincapie, the loyal lieutenant and domestic. I rode with him and suddenly he was a race winner.
Bjarne Riis, never more than a domestic, suddenly a Tour de France Grand champion. Marco Pantani, a true champion, a climber that could not be caught but a Tour winner!
Many professionals ride their whole career without a win and there is much glory in this career. They are amongst the top 200 hundred riders in the world but it would seem some were not satisfied with this.
By the end of my career performance enhancing drugs were appearing that had not been seen before. It was known that EPO had to be kept cool and we saw the odd esky but these guys were not really a threat to the ranks in the peleton.
The peleton however was changing and the late Laurent Fignon coined it perfectly. The pace of the peleton was increasing, the demands on the great champions were changing, the races were getting shorter to satisfy the networks but the pace was increasing significantly and the pony’s or hacks were dictating the terms.
The thoroughbreds, the riders that always stood out in every peleton were getting shelled out the back.
The evidence suggests that both pre and post cancer Lance was struggling with the change in the peleton, he was getting smashed and so were his lieutenants. Lance clearly made a decision at this point in time about what needed to be done, his improved results lent credence to his team mates considering the same solution. The evidence would also suggest that Lance got away with it, the doping became sophisticated and systematic.
When you are at the top of your game life is good, the rewards are rich and the moths flutter around the brightest light.
Lance was a beacon that even the UCI would appear to have been tainted by. As the powerhouse establishments in cycling fought for dominance on a global scale everybody wanted to be on Lance’s team.
The current scandal clearly taints the UCI and there is not a national cycling body in the world that should not come under scrutiny.
The administrators of this sport have sought to shut down critics very quickly and have not reacted to establish clear processes.
Lance was surrounded by people who believed he could do no wrong, those whose careers as cyclists, administrators, sponsors, media or doctors were changed by his success. Lance’s friends became his team mates, to make the team you had to be part of the family.
Lance’s way breed success but underlying all of this was the cancer story, we were all so imbued with the hype about Lance that the rumours, the allegations that followed him were easily denied.
I guess with time Lance, George, Frankie and the rest all believed it would be ok, they weren’t cheating, they were maintaining their professional credibility and they were clearly advantaged by Lance’s success. They and the UCI were basking in a glorious era of cycling growth.
People often ask what it is like to sacrifice your career, wins and glory for a team leader but as a cyclist you do, you will put every effort into your leader winning as there is great professional advantage in being part of a winning team.
If you were on Lance’s team the gains were greater, the risks reduced.
Lance made many enemies during his career and he now appears to believe his own truth. He has told the story so many times he believes it himself. Lance is, by not admitting the truth, in denial but there are many who are complicit in all the deceptions.
The UCI have tried to shut down Floyd Landis in a staggering legal pursuit. Floyd may be emotional and clearly he is entitled to be, but we are now witnessing an organisation on the back foot. This information has been around for a long time but due process in cycling takes even longer.
An amnesty is not the answer, I have hinted at this before. The UCI lacks the courage to change the rules, to provide clarity for riders and teams alike.
In the 2010 tour Alberto Contado showed anomalies in his bloods. Surely he should have been expelled from the tour at that moment.
For 18 months he acquired pro-tour points under the banner of a UCI investigation.
Yet his titles were stripped by another body and his team put under pressure. None of this makes sense.
Imagine the risk to rider and team if expulsion was instant, why has this rule not been implemented? No Race, no points until clear.
I cannot imagine any rider taking a risk if this were the case. I cannot imagine that the process would take so long if this were the case.
The UCI are now reviewing the evidence that they have had all along, let’s hope this time they don’t just read the dossier, they have the courage to change the rules and consider the future of cycling not just the future of the UCI.
I get the feeling there is far less doping in cycling now. When you read the testimonies of the riders who spoke out against Lance it seems that 2006 was a turning point for all of them. It could be because that’s when Lance retired.
I believe that Lance is such a strong character that his leadership demanded total loyalty. His retirement spelt the end of one era in cycling, however I fear the fallout from this saga will continue.
Kim Hart
Guest
We know that HGH causes some cancers so my question is did EPO cause his?
Kim Hart
Guest
Or the deca-triathlon in Mexico
Kim Hart
Guest
S-N-A-P!
Kim Hart
Guest
Who cares? Johns probably shouldn't have been made an immortal but I fail to understand how that is any argument in Armstrongs favour?
Skippy
Guest
You appear to have not posted my comment which io displayred in full on facebook :http://www.facebook.com/skippydetour Have a look at www.parrabuddy.blogspot.com and see if you feel like following the same path to cleaning up this SPORT that we all love/enjoy ! Have tweeted @katelundy with several links including this website !
dasilva
Guest
Competition: A single race, match, game or singular athletic contest. For example, a basketball game or the finals of the Olympic 100-meter race in athletics. For stage races and other athletic contests where prizes are awarded on a daily or other interim basis the distinction between a Competition and an Event will be as provided in the rules of the applicable International Federation. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/Code_Review/Code%20Review%202015/WADA-Code-Review-2015-1st-Consultation-Definitions.pdf So yeah, In competition generally only refer to the singular athletic contest. the exmple provided was a basketball game So I assume that Johns is only illegal if he was on ecstasy during the match.
dasilva
Guest
Yeah he admitted to taking in during season, yeah I did do so reading about it after my intiial post. I'm not entirely sure whether in competition just includes the game or it includes the enitre season. I do think the effects of stimulant is really only useful in the present as the effects wears off fast. It makes more sense that it's only ban if there is presence of stimulants during the match. Although I do admit him admitting taking it during season put a large question mark and it should be investigated whether he did actually take it just before the match and we don't know how truthful he is. Yeah there should be an asterix there
Josh
Guest
dasilva - Here is a quote from the transcript of the Footy Show interview PHIL GOULD, INTERVIEWER: So, am I to assume that you were still taking drugs in your playing days, does it go that far? ANDREW JOHNS, FORMER RUGBY LEAGUE PLAYER: Yep. PHIL GOULD: How far? ANDREW JOHNS: Probably ten years. Yeah, probably ten years I've taken them on and off, generally during the off season, but there's times when during the season I've run the gauntlet and played Russian roulette and taken it. Johns admitted taking drugs (considered banned drugs) during competition. Source: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2020083.htm I admit in that interview he didn't specify that he took the drugs prior to a game. But we don't know how it helped him (if at all).... the point being banned substance/in competition.
dasilva
Guest
Stimulants which is where ecstasy is illegal due to methylenedioxymethamphetamine; are only prohibited in-competition. There is no performance enhancement when taken out of competition unlike stuff like steroids If johns admitted taking ecstasy right before the match then yes he should have been banned and be considered a disgrace athlete However if he took it in his spare time then there really isn't an issue and it isn't a prohibited substance out of competition.
Josh
Guest
Ouch... must have hit a nerve with a Newcastle fan. Since you missed the point Steve, I'll explain. Andrew Johns admitted on the Footy Show to regularly taking ecstasy throughout his career. Common ingredients used in Ecstasy are banned on the WADA list of banned drugs at anytime (in/out of competition). Are we about to put Lance Armstrong in a cycling hall of fame? I don't think so. So why have Rugby League made Andrew Johns an immortal? It doesn't matter if you take a single tablet of a banned drug (although Johns took more than one) or have continued use over many years. A sportsperson who is a drug cheat, is a drug cheat... either way. He took banned drugs. He did everything he could to cheat the system. I do have a point.
WoobliesFan
Guest
So Phil has something to hide too? I knew there was something off with the angle of this article. Cadel, Phil, Mcewen were around the professional cycling scene for decades....don't tell me they didn't know....THEY KNEW......the tsunami of information coming out is irrefutable.....they would have come in contact with drugs, had team mates on them or were on them themselves…..without a doubt. The UCI facilitated this drug-cheating, drug-ignoring environment. It was all too easy for the athletes.....little risk, MASSIVE reward. Robbie in yesterday’s Australian ---> “I rode my whole career clean”…Cough *Matt White* cough….. oh Robbie, we understand, deny it till you die. And where’s Mr Liggett in all of this?....very quiet he is...he's a joke now too....the articulate Englishman who espoused the beautiful and glorious virtues of the Le Tour for decades….made you think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread…..HA!....Phil was the MAN….the King of the pro cycling in-crowd…..he WAS the inner circle… I'm telling you, this is big....this goes deep down big! They ALL knew about it and now they’re all scrambling for their lives. Bet ya Cadel has had a few sleepless nights.
sittingbison
Guest
OK, I am going to come to the defense of Phil now. Phil mostly rode in a different generation to Armstrong. He mostly rode before the advent of oxygen vector doping completely changed sport. This distinction is of major importance to how Phil operates withing the culture of cycling. Sure when Phil was competing in the 80s there was doping. Kimmages "Rough Ride" was published in 1990. There was omerta. There was the concept of "spitting in the soup". These concepts existed because it was an open secret. The doping was not necessarily to alter your ability, to changer results. It was largely to endure the crushing grinding monotony of pro cycling. The drugs were speed, pain killers, that kind of thing. Sometimes a bit more like steroids, but I suspect the peloton took care of individual riders that partook too much. The omerta was not an evil thing then, it merely protected the peloton, most of whom were solid domestiques, only a smattering of contenders who everyone knew were the best. I will now quote the same Phil sentence again, in this context: “…Every day in every race during my career and since races began alliances were made, the results often planned beforehand but the final victory always a salute to the best rider in the field the results never a foregone conclusion…” with emphasis on the the final victory to the 'best rider'. This is the peloton of LeMond, Fignon, Hinault. This is what Phil competed in and really understands. The problem is that EPO, blood bags etc - oxygen vector doping meant that the natural order of things that the peloton had understood for 100 years was suddenly turned upside down. Classics (one day) riders like Armstrong were able to dominate three week tours. Pantani was able to time trail. Donkeys like Riis were able to come from nowhere and win a Tour. Big Mig with team support was able to hold his own in the mountains (and thus win 5 TdFs). Teams took to systematic doping to win (Banesto, Festina, USPS, ONCE etc) instead of it being individual riders doing whatever it took to compete. This is NOT the world of Phil. This is NOT the world of LeMond (who got shelled out the back after 1990). This is NOT the world of Fignon (who became a domestique FFS). Now the problem for Phil with the triple crown bribery scandal, and ALL of the riders from the pre-EPO era, is that omerta HAS become an evil concept. It has been corrupted to not protect the toiling peloton, but to protect cheats and frauds of a higher magnitude - contenders, teams, doctors, directors. And transformed donkeys. Which is where the 1993 triple crown bribery scandal falls, because Phil, in his last days as a pro, fixed a race with the concept of "... the final victory always a salute to the best rider in the field..." entrenched in his psyche. He was a lamb to the slaughter, spitted by a systematic cheat and fraud. A guy who had been juiced from 16yo by Carmichael. A guy who admitted to using EPO, steroids, insulin, HGH, and testosterone. I will preface this by saying the EPO was introduced by Ferrari after Armstrong was introduced by the Cannibal in 1996. And this was before systematic team doping, it was still individuals. So Phil might well have been unaware of the extra level of juicing Armstrong was indulging in. Anyway, thats my two bobs worth.
Vitus
Guest
I've never sat down with Adolf Hitler personally, does that mean I can't name him one of the worst people to have ever walked on Earth?
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
I actually think LA is sick and suffer from mythomania or some other mental disorder. the way he answered the questions was mond blowing. the guy is a robot. how could someone believe him over betsy Andreu, her hubby, Hamilton, the masseuse ??! seriously
DerailleurED
Roar Rookie
Chin up, enjoying the cycling even if you can't enjoy the riders. Cheating happens in every sport, Cycling deserves to be done through the ringer because of what happens but these things take time to come out. Just don't have any delusions about any other sport you enjoy in life, heck even the capitalistic model of business in Western democracy supports cheating when you think about how much the banks and CEOs are getting away with...
DerailleurED
Roar Rookie
Good for Anderson to back flip, to keep his head in the sand. All his comments, from SBS News, from the ABC interview to now, just a joke. You've been supporting the party line for years, heck, even as recently as months ago. If you're going to continue that and make the same 'everyone else was doing it' comments then you have no respect from me unless you come out with a full apology that you knew what you were saying. You helped the Omerta ffs, the one that helped LA bully his peers and capitalise on. Sorry but anyone that continues the myth deserve scorn. And anyone who keeps plugging their stupid Tours at the end of an article, deserves ridicule.
Steve
Guest
I think that's it: the doping is something we can, sort of, argue about morally: maybe everyone was doing it, maybe Armstrong was still the best etc. I don't go for that line myself, but it could be argued that way. The fact that Armstrong seems to be incapable of guilt,vindictive, manipulative, self-righteous and narcissistic to the point of looking like a bona-fide psychopath is harder to dance around, and I think it's one of the major reasons why people are finding it hard to sympathise with him.
Steve
Guest
If Andrew Johns had taken performance enhancing drugs, still denied any wrong-doing to this day, had fraudulently built a charity in his own name, used said charity to counter arguments against him, was a shrill denunciator of others who had committed lesser crimes than himself; if he had used his power and influence to intimidate, or even ruin the careers and lives of those who questioned him, then you might have a point. But he didn't. And you don't.
Josh
Guest
How about that Andrew Johns eh? lol. Who cares about drugs in Australia? Do the crime, cheat, have fun, then confess when you retire and become an immortal and a sporting legend!! That's the double standard message Rugby League in Australia is now sending.
sheek
Roar Guru
Nick, With respect, you have what might be referred to as "misplaced loyalty." Well-intentioned but misplaced nevertheless. The emperor has no clothes (anymore).....