With admissions and apologies flowing in cycling, the biggest admission of all is still being withheld by one Lance Armstrong. However two very important apologies have not been issued either.
Or, more accurately, a number of apologies to two specific men.
Following the release of the reasoned decision, Levi Leipheimer wrote 563 self-pitying, self-excusing, woe-is-me words for the Wall St Journal, in which he attempted to explain why he did what he did.
After asserting doping was the norm in the peloton, not the exception, and he was just doing what he had to to keep up, he apologised.
“I am sorry that I was forced to make the decisions I made,” Leipheimer said.
“I am sorry that the sport and I have let you down.”
It’s a cowardly way of admitting your mistakes, by showing contrition but laying the blame squarely at the feet of the institution.
While there is overwhelming evidence doping was widespread, to say the sport has let people down is a huge slap in the face to all those riders who spent years toiling on Europe’s greatest mountains without EPO or transfused blood in their veins.
But Levi’s biggest insult was yet to come.
“I could have come forward sooner. But would that have accomplished anything – other than to end my career? One rider coming forward and telling his story in the face of cycling’s code of silence would not have fixed a problem that was institutional.”
Levi is right, one rider coming forward would not have made a difference. But had Levi come forward, he would not have been one rider. He would have been one of three riders.
Because both Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton had come forward and told the truth about Lance (even now, it feels as though I should write ‘come forward and made accusations against Lance’).
Landis was the first to make his revelations, in 2010, while Hamilton followed suit in 2011.
Unfortunately, both men were noted drug cheats who had maintained their innocence for years and finally admitted their guilt while also pointing the finger at Lance.
As a result, their credibility as witnesses against him was shot to pieces.
How could you trust two men who spent years lying about their own use of drugs? Perhaps with a man like Levi Leipheimer coming forward to support their story.
Had, say, Levi come forward and confirmed what these two men had said, that he himself had doped and got away with it, this whole sordid affair may have played out far sooner.
Sure it would have probably ended Levi’s career but, with his 39th birthday falling this week, it’s not as though he had much of a career left when Landis and Hamilton told their stories.
I’m picking on Levi because of his pathetic ‘admission’ in the Wall St Journal. But all the riders who knew what Landis and Hamilton said was accurate are almost as bad as Lance for maintaining such steadfast silence in the face of truth.
Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, George Hincapie, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie were the other former teammates who testified against Lance when subpoenaed and under oath.
Andreu and Swart both testified against Lance in 2006 and refused to back down from claims made then, but the others all kept their mouths shut and allowed Landis and Hamilton to be crucified in the media.
It’s not enough to cite the ‘code of silence’. Where’s the code of basic human decency? The code of teammates standing by one another? They may not have wanted to throw Lance Armstrong under the bus but when they saw Landis and Hamilton going under, they simply stood by and watched.
As a result, before any of Lance’s other teammates admitted their role, their testimony was already being discredited by Lance’s team, with attorney Robert Luskin saying in June this year:
“We’re focused on what we understand to be a corrupt bargain USADA made with other riders and said, essentially: ‘Here’s the script and, if you co-operate, you get a complete pass. And if you refuse, we’ll use Landis and Hamilton against you and you’ll never ride again.”
And the line of argument was reasonable – none of these guys had said a thing about Lance in the past, why would they say it now unless they were being coerced in to it by the testimony of the two discredited and disgraced riders?
But if more riders who had doped and not been caught come forward and supported Landis and Hamilton while their names and reputations were being dragged through the mud over the past two or so years, this line of defence would never have been possible for Lance’s team to raise.
Instead, the likes of Leipheimer, Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vande Velde – even Matt White – maintained their silence, giving a lying cheat a hall pass and allowing the men they knew to be telling the truth be painted as petty, bitter and looking for an angle to sell their respective books.
So when Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, penned his preface to the reasoned decision last week, one part was not totally accurate:
“The riders who participated in the USPS Team doping conspiracy and truthfully assisted have been courageous in making the choice to stop perpetuating the sporting fraud, and they have suffered greatly.”
Those who finally told the truth about USPS Team may have shown courage and suffered as a consequence.
But compared to their cowardice in perpetuating the lie at the expense of their former teammates, their courage is too little, too late.
And their suffering is little more than deserved penance.
Joe is the editor of Disaffected Middle Class
bigjohn
Guest
I think that there is some confusion between criminal and civil court hearings. The onus of proof is completely different in these Courts, and if Armstrong took action for libel / slander / defamation etc, the people he sues can defend themselves with everything at their disposal. A lot of evidence is allowed in civil hearing that would never be heard by a jury in a criminal trial. The weight of evidence is against him, and I would say that he would leave the Court with empty pockets. This is probably why he said that he will not fight the charges, because he can say that he has never been convicted by a Court of law, which is true.
aussie sports lover
Guest
Roman is correct. As far as official blood test are concerned, Armstrong has never tested positive and this was again stated by Pat McQuaid yesterday. Very few people believe that Armstrong is clean, but there are people that questions whether the accusations will hold up against Armstrong in the court of law. As for witnesses, Roman and I have made the point that there is conflicts of interests which is always considered in the court of law. I hope Armstrong appeals - there's at least 2 people on this forum who thinks he has a chance (even UCI...as reported on this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci?newsfeed=true Again, it's almost certain he was a doper but in a democratic and liberal society governed by law, Armstrong has a chance. Here is what UCI published after the speech by McQuaid on Monday: The UCI's "Decision" document accepts Usada's sanction against Armstrong, but calls its evidence and methods into question, and raises grounds for a possible appeal – either by Armstrong himself, or by the World Anti-Doping Agency – against the report's conclusions. Very interesting...it gives you the impression that UCI is bowing to public pressure to say what the public wants to hear but is giving Armstrong a fairly clear message: fight the charges because the evidence and method of obtaining them are questionable.
Roman Sandstorm
Guest
James, My point was 'If this was a court of law". I understand that sporting tribunals and the like operate under different standards of evidence. In this USADA case against Armstrong, two of the strongest planks in the accusation rely on eye witness and hearsay testimony; both of which increasingly over the decades have been determined to be less and less reliable *in courst of law*. Human visual cognition has been demonstrated time and again to be all-too fallible. There are literally hundreds of research papers, both from the physiological side, as well as from the psychological side which clearly demonstrate that humans do not see 'reality', but rather a 'construct' of reality which their brains interpret. There are dozens of famous examples, but I'm sure we've all seen the gorilla on the basketball court one. (Or, more to the point, most of us *didn't* see it!) A suspicious bag is noticed, whispered conversations seen, subsequent newspaper articles about clandestine meetings and drugs being distributed, and... what a witness originally 'saw' can be totally restructured within their recognition. I am *not* saying this has happened in this case. OK? I *am* saying that eye witness accounts are generally accepted to be pretty weak in many instances from a legal perspective. Likewise, hearsay evidence. In English law, hearsay has been on shifty ground for hundreds of years. 'Second hand' verbal information is regarded as even less reliable than eye witness information. The 1999 'positive' tests would be a double-edged sword in a court of law, with real standards of evidence and accountability. The results have been rejected by the sport's ruling body, so to accept (or re-accept) them as valid then, in a court, a separate case would have to be made as to the reason the ruling body rejected them. This would end up in a log-jam, as conspiracy would have to be *proven* (possibly resulting in separate legal action). And still, the original results would be 'tainted' evidence. (Not necessarily the tests themselves...LOL) My point was not about *ultimate truth*. In secular societies, which operate under accepted rule of law, strong lines of evidence are required for conviction. Forensic or scientific evidence, backed up by circumstances, eye witness and verbal testimony is all required to convict beyond reasonable doubt. The actual *truth*, at an existential level is not, and cannot be determined. That is a philosophical/moral issue, beyond the courts. My point remains: I feel the evidence is on very shaky ground, from a legal perspective. The kangaroo courts of tinpot sporting bodies may accept lower standards, but I'd be surprised a conviction would be upheld in courts of law in strong democratic countries.
jameswm
Guest
Nup
jameswm
Guest
You're kidding. You have multimple witnesses seeing him doping, offering them drugs, forcing them to take drugs. Several saw the defendant shoot the victim. You also have forensic evidence backing it up. Armstrong's 1999 samples were re-tested and found to be positive for EPO. You need something better than this to defend him.
Roman Sandstorm
Guest
The court scene analogy of Aussie Sports Lover is apt. I'd like to extend it further though. We have a murder trial. There is no body. No gun. No gunshot residue. No video evidence. There *are* ten eye witnesses. None actually *saw* the defendant shoot the victim. Some saw the defendant with a brown bag which looked like it probably contained a gun. Some saw the defendant at other times with a box that guns come in. Many of the eye witnesses are admitted 'criminals' themselves. *All* of the eye witnesses stand to gain personally if the defendant is convicted. There is a pervasive atmosphere in the courtroom that guns are universally evil. The judge does not operate on rules of evidence, but rather rules of hearsay, probability, likelihood, and feelings that the defendant is a nasty, mean person. The media is clamouring for a conviction of the bogeyman, universal in its condemnation. Sure, not a *perfect* analogy, but if the rules of criminal law were applied, I would expect that a competent lawyer would get this defendant off. (This *does not mean* that the defendant did not do the crime, but that the requirements for the prosecution to obtain a conviction were not met.)
aussie sports lover
Guest
It's like a court scene. Prosecutor: your Honour, 15 people saw LA shoot than man". Defense: "Where's the gun? Where's the fingerprints? And can you please list potential conflict of interest between defendant and the 15 witnesses?" . Judge: "guilty..." It makes me wonder if LA actually takes USADA/UCI to court, does he actually have a chance?
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
can you prove he did lie? Can you prove what was in the viles he injected? Can you prove it was tainted EPO blood being transfused? Unless you have proof of what was injected then good luck proving anything. What if it was an old EPO container he was storing saline in? lol there are ways to get off just about everything
Ben Z
Guest
I think you have provided pretty good reasons for Leipheimer and such not to come forth. Lance's ability to destroy people's livelihoods and reputations by the use of his legal team was and is a pretty big one. The fact that Paul Kimmage is being sued by the UCI. I think if you look at it objectively it is hard to say that yehp there was definitely a time for these guys to come forward earlier. Also Hamilton confessed to a grand jury and Landis failed a drug test. They didn't go out on a limb and testify in the same situation.
Joe Frost
Editor
I wrote about the non-riding staff last week (including Ferrari, Bruyneel, Marti, Celay and del Moral), have a look at http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/10/17/plenty-responsible-for-the-armstrong-lie/
Jimbo
Guest
I don't recall USADA commenting at all on whether they think Armstrong should be gaoled. If he is, it will be for lying under oath, when he claimed that he never used PED's during a sworn disposition in 2005. That is nothing to do with USADA. Lying under oath is a bit more serious than doping, as it is hardly going to reflect well upon the integrity of the justice system if it goes unpunished. As for the other riders copping lighter punishments, as the USADA report noted, he was handed the substantial ban due to the use, possession and distribution of PEDs. You also ignore the fact that Dr. Michele Ferrari Dr. Garcia del Moral, Johan Bruyneel, the team director; Dr. Pedro Celaya, a team doctor; and Jose “Pepe” Marti, the team trainer were all named and charged in the report; Armstrong was not the only target of the investigation.
aussie sports lover
Guest
Not to mention they were given very little punishment for coming out against Armstrong. Armstrong's biggest problem is that he was an alpha dog who made lots of enemies from combination of arrogance and jealousy from others. My biggest gripe with Armstrong is that he allegedly coerced others to dope or get out. My gripe with USADA is that they look like they were out to get Armstrong as their primary objective with cleaning up doping a secondary objective. Armstrong is almost certain to lose his 7 TDFs, which to me is the worst professional sporting punishment I have ever seen. But that's not enough for USADA and most of the public, it seems. They want to see him jailed, with increasing number of people targeting his Foundation and charity work. Armstrong's dirty laundry has been exposed to the whole world, although the truth is probably somewhere between Armstrong's defence and his portrayal by the media. All the riders in Armstrong's generation should be thanking Armstrong for copping most of the punishment - most of them were guilty, but it seems the only cyclist really being punished is Armstrong. With regards to the 7TDFs, one of the testers once said he definitely doped in the 1999 TDF, what about the rest? In other words, did he dope for all TDFs?
jameswm
Guest
Courageous? They were subpoenaed and forced to give sworn testimony. That's testimony under oath. They were not forced to speak against Lance. They were told if you don't tell the truth, you will go to jail. We'll chase you for perjury if we later find that you lied. Look at Marion Jones. Faced with that, they came clean. Who wants to spend time in jail? But were they courageous or saving their own hide? They didn't really have a choice. They realised it was going to come out, so no point going to jail for no reason.