It was Lance Armstrong’s inspiring cancer-survival story that lifted cycling’s profile to a more mainstream level of appeal.
Now the unraveling of the truth behind that story threatens to bring down the sport he ruled.
The evidence of doping is now overwhelming. For anyone who still proclaims Armstrong’s innocence, read the 200-plus pages of the USADA report or Tyler Hamilton’s The Secret Race tell-all book that details the systematic doping methods during Armstrong’s reign. It’s the game-changer that unveils the truth.
Even Armstrong’s staunchest supporters have described the new evidence as overwhelming. And while he continues to proclaim his innocence, Armstrong must know deep down that this is the endgame.
What’s now clear is the depth of the doping in this era. According to Hamilton, at least 80 percent of the peleton was doping. Australian Matt White, who has stepped down as team director of Orica-GreenEDGE, is just one of many implicated in the USADA report with more sure to follow his path in admitting the truth.
So where does this leave the governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI)? President Pat McQuaid insists the sport has “moved on” but has suffered “big damage” from the Armstrong saga.
But where does it sit in all this? How did Armstrong and his cohorts avoid penalty till now, following on from an independent examination from an outside party? Even if it wasn’t involved in the alleged doping, surely the UCI is guilty of failing in its role as governing body to ensure such cheating is punished.
Former WADA president Richard Pound says: “It is not credible that they didn’t know this was going on. I had been complaining to UCI for years. Where the rubber really hits the road is with UCI.”
And how convenient, when you consider the Festina drug scandal at the 1998 Tour de France exposed the doping culture in the sport that immediately preceded Armstrong’s reign.
As cycling journalist David Walsh, one of the earliest doubters over Armstrong’s legitimacy, says, “Cycling had just come out of maybe its worst year for doping – the 1998 Tour was shown up by French police to be a drug-riddled circus.
“Then Armstrong came along and you had to make a decision: Was this part of the rejuvenation of cycling or was this a continuation of the doping culture?”
How did we believe that a clean rider could win seven Tour de France titles in an era when doping was so prevalent?
Moving forward, when the governing body, riders, race and team directors, general managers, media and so many in the sport were seemingly part of the omertà (code of silence) that existed in professional cycling, then how can the sport cleanse itself and convince us that it’s moved on to a cleaner era?
Should White, for example, be pardoned for simply following the leader and the wider pack into doping or cast out of the sport for giving in? If it’s the latter then a hell of a lot of people at all levels of the sport must follow suit, leaving the world of cycling short of masses of participants and personnel.
But, in saying that, the cleansing process must surely set a strong precedent to try and somehow discourage doping from the sport once and for all.
As Hamilton says, “If we don’t figure out what happened in the past, how it happened, why it happened and how we can prevent it from happening in the future, how do we know it’s not going to happen again in two or three more years?”
This cleansing process comes at a time when the sport will undoubtedly suffer a backlash from sponsors eager to distance themselves from the anger of the fans, on top of relying so heavily on a European economy still bleeding from recession.
With a good chunk of the supporters Armstrong introduced to the sport likely to turn their backs and watch something else, having rightly felt cheated by the sport, cycling has a tough ask to try and win them back considering so much of the recent history of the sport is now blanked out.
Hopefully Armstrong can see the damage this has done to the sport he supposedly loves and finally admit the truth. An admission from the Texan will help the healing process and close the chapter on the drug-filled era in the sport.
But Armstrong’s greatest defense is his title as cancer survivor. As SBS Cycling Central’s Philip Gomes says, “Is supporting Armstrong even sustainable after those new to the sport read for the first time about the thuggery extended to those who crossed him? It appears so. Why? Cancer.
“Cancer is Lance’s shield. He beat it and evangelises about it and has amassed a fortune and acolytes because of it. It is the source of his strength and what support he has left.”
In this immensely complex saga, perhaps the most difficult aspect to grasp is the fact that Armstrong, doping-assisted or not, still beat cancer and returned to compete at the highest level of cycling, for which he is lauded as a hero by many. No one can take the title of cancer-survivor away from him.
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
If ever there was a moment where it was appropriate I retract everything I wrote, this would be the time. Good post mate. Great research and proved me dead wrong!
sheek
Roar Guru
Sorry, this is a typical cop-out to say athletes don't seek to be role models. This is precisely how Tiger Woods made millions of dollars before he was exposed. He used his extravagant ability to foster the image of "the clean skin boy next door" image reaping in even more money until the sham was exposed. When some people seek a pay rise, all they want is the extra money. Most quickly realise that with extra money comes greater responsibility & accountability, whether they like it or not. Many sports stars might only be interested in the fame & fortune. But they also find out that with the fame & fortune comes the responsibility of being a role model, whether they like that or not.
sheek
Roar Guru
SB, Pardon my ignorance, but where did you get all that info on Armstrong? Although I guess any good cycling fan would know where to access it. And yeah, it would be one heck of a get-together with (quite) a few bottles of wine for company!
dan_ward
Guest
i think its really bad if it is true, Armstrong should maybe come out and admit it before it gets more embarrasing than it already is, if he is telling the truth and other are telling lies to help themselves out then it's a shame for the sport bringing the bad publicity. one thing i have been thinking which has probably been said before, IF he was doping, then the increase in Testoserone and everything else he could well have caused his Own Cancer because of this.,,,,
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
"With a good chunk of the supporters Armstrong introduced to the sport likely to turn their backs and watch something else, having rightly felt cheated by the sport, cycling has a tough ask to try and win them back considering so much of the recent history of the sport is now blanked out." I dont agree, if you were introduced to the sport by Armstrong you would be more likely to be turned off by the riding of todays cyclists in the TDF. An attack from 200-300m on a mountain stage is no comparison to Armstrongs attacks, or Pantani attacking from 11 miles out 3 days in a row. When you see the footage of Armstrong on the news you generally see his great attacks, or passing up a mountain. SBS showed his famous ride across rough ground when he avoided a crash and had to go off road to stay upright. These are still among the greatest things I have seen on a bike, and are fondly remembered as some of the greatest sporting contests ever. A positive test cannot erase the memories of tours gone past, if anything a positive test goes to demonstrate that Doping arguably makes Cycling a better spectacle. Has Armstrong ever asked to be a role model?
sittingbison
Guest
I know nothing about the Storm sheek, and wasn't even thinking about them, the analogy might be a bit skew whiff? Everything I said is opinion, will be a good conversation over wine in the future - like who should have won the '62 world series, did Hurst score in '66, did Fignons ponytail cost him the '89 TdF, did George Ayoub rob the Force of first home win vs Crusaders in 2006 (BTW that is a categorical YES!). BTW quick mathematical correction - 13/97 = 13.4%, but 7/91 (after removing all six Armstrong samples) = 7.7% (not the 12% I mentioned). So the liklihood is about 5% were doped, not 10% as I mentioned.
sheek
Roar Guru
Sittingbison, You know your stuff here & it's hard to argue against you! ;-)
sittingbison
Guest
Could he? If they were ALL clean? Armstrong is a "super responder". His natural VO2max was 72ml/kg/min. LeMond was 92ml/kg/min, Evans 87ml/kg/min. Elite endurance athletes tend to be well over 80ml/kg/min - tone of the reasons why they are "elite". The average untrained male is about 35-40 ml/kg/min. His natural HcT is 39%. Elite endurance athletes tend to be 45% heading towards 50%, although it has been suggested Ullrich was lower than normal for elite at 42%. Contador "appears" to have a natural level of 52%. UCI in the middle of the EPO plague introduced the nominal 50% limit for "health" reasons, but Asho and Parisotto suggest it should have been about 52%. So when they are all doing everything known to mankind 1993-1996, with Pantani clocking 60% HcT etc, Armstrong could only manage three withdraws and a 36th. Did ok in classics but not like Tommike and PhilGil, or even Wiggo and Evans. The 93 WC in Oslo was devastated by storm, none of the big guns were riding and the finishing peleton was the smallest on record. Then we have the Tour de France 1999. Comeback v1.0. The interesting thing about this tour is that 1998 was the Festina Affair. The gendarmes led cyclists away in handcuffs. Doping became illegal in France and Italy (not in Spain where Lance resided). Bassons complained that USPS were riding wayyyy to fast (he was a cleanskin). He was the very first victim of Lances bullying tactics, withdrew after being publicly humiliated, and retired. In 2005 they retested the 1999 stored samples. From memory 13/97 contained EPO. However 6 of the 13 were from one rider - Armstrong (another two were as well, but were contaminated). So that leaves say 7/84 or 12%. And we know that 9 riders out of the 189 were doped to the gills (USPS). So the liklihood is that below 10% of the entire field doped in 1999. Probably for fear of the gendarmes. Armstrong and USPS killed them all. Then we have Swarts evidence Lance bribed his way to the triple crown. I believe he was only a moderately gifted cyclist who had been doped since a teenager under Carmichael. He would never have come within kooee of the podium without doping, even if nobody else doped. In fact not even top 50.
sittingbison
Guest
Perhaps the cancer acolytes should actually pay attention to Betsy Andreus' sworn testimony now. Armstrong admitted to using EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone, insulin, steroids, transfusions. At the hospital. To the oncologist. I'll leave it at that, draw your own conclusions. BTW has anyone done any research on the survivability of testicular cancer? Might be of some interest, google is your friend.
Blinky47
Guest
The first thing that jumped into my mind after reading your bit on EPO and altitude training was a very dominant Sky team winning the last Tour after training at altitude before the tour. Let's hope there's not another scandal brewing.
GC
Guest
A shame for sure. It's akin to bodybuilding where most of them are on the gear. Yes Armstrong, among others, did raise the profile of the sport, but now will ironically bring it down a peg or two. I don't like the pressure of drug taking in any sport. I don't like that the USADA has targeted Armstrong either. Is it a win / win....I don't know..
sheek
Roar Guru
If anything is going to bring down the world of cycling, it might be the UCI themselves. They are very uncomfortable with the thorough USADA report, which has basically exposed how weak their own drug testing protocols are. Drug testing in cycling is way behind the times, & UCI is struggling to determine how to move forward. Already, they seem to be treating the Armstrong years as merely a blip. They seem to be thinking that if they ignore the massive problem of drug taking in cycling, it will go away. I have some sympathy for the UCI. They have some massive problems they need to solve, assuming they wish to solve them.....
sheek
Roar Guru
Fair point Frank. I bristle at the treatment of the Storm. The punishment was aimed at the wrong people. The administration should have been punished, but instead it was the players, the fans & the game itself that suffered. All just because the NRL could be seen to be doing "something."
Bones506
Roar Guru
It is extremely important to understand that the UCI introduced a 50% hematocrit level test for EPO which is structurally flawed. A rider with a 35% hematocrit level could micro dope up to say 45%. A mix of small EPO injections overlayed with sleeping in an altitude tent and training at altitude (the only way to naturally produce EPO) was able to mask the synthetic EPO. The lenght of ban is also not long enough at 2 years. The sport will endure - the Tour De France experienced cheating right from the very first race. It all adds to the flavour. Whether it is your taste or not is up to the individual.
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
Lance Armstrong's doping is sad on another level for me. Do people remember when the Melbourne Storm lost their premierships because they breached the salary cap? It was sad for the club, but it didn't detract from the fact that they were a great side that prepared well, trained hard, performed on the day etc. You have to ask yourself: Could they have won those premierships if they didn't breach the salary cap? My inclination is yes. Would Armstrong have won seven titles if he didn't take drugs? Probably not. But if you're saying that 80% were on performance enhancing drugs, and that it was a drug-riddled circus, one wonders what Armstrong could have achieved if everybody was clean. In cycling was a clean sport, could Armstrong have come from behind to win the TDF? Armstrong won so many TdF by such a large distance. Could he have won? Did he doubt himself? Could he still have had the fairytale story?