All confidence in cycling is lost; if the sport was a horse you’d put it down.
Drugs have riddled cycling from times predating the Tour de France. The first reported death due to performance enhancing drugs took place in a cycling race from Bordeaux to Paris. The year was 1886.
Fast forward 130 years, and it was Lance Armstrong’s implosion which finally brought the sport to its knees, with the explosive news the US Postal Service team were systematically pumping out more contraband than countries south of Texas.
Akin to being born into a family that knows no other way than criminality, the world of elite cycling has developed over this period an almost psychotic dependence on drugs.
As the cheats are finally getting called out, the excuses roll in: “Everyone’s doing it. I’m not a bad guy I’m just trying to keep up with the pack. You can’t finish the Tour de France without it. Armstrong made me do it.”
And the circus rolls on; no fewer than 21 cycling drug cheats have been called to trial for banned substances this year alone.
So how did it get this bad?
The International Cycling Union (UCI) and United-States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) are the toothless, fumbling, non-functional organisations which worked in glorious tandem to allow this to happen.
If the UCI was a parent its kids would end up in juvenile detention.
The organisation has only recently conceded that Armstrong is a cheat, when for 14 years the evidence smacked of someone permanently munching through Erythropoietin pills like a nine year old on a box of Smarties.
In 1999 when Armstrong first won Le Tour, a drug test returned positive for the banned substance Glucocorticoid. This was ignored by authorities as the spin doctors assigned to the US Postal Service team wrote a note to say it was for treatment of a medical condition.
And in August 2005 an old sample taken in 1999 was retested, showing a positive result for EPO. Despite this explosive revelation the UCI ignored the result due to a lack of a second sample.
A payment of $100,000 was made by Armstrong’s company to the UCI in 2005, in what can cynically be described as serendipitous timing. Another payment of $25,000 was made in 2002 supposedly for the betterment of the sport in finding drugs cheats.
Dozens of riders past and present are screaming the man’s guilt and the sheer scale of the problem as permeating every level of elite cycling.
Fast forward to 2012 and eventually some form of intelligence found its way into the USADA, as the organisation finally managed to mount the case against the US Postal Service team and Armstrong.
Lance Armstrong Inc. has now been certified as a scam, and Armstrong himself managed the significant milestone of being labelled the world’s biggest liar.
The reality has hit home that he’s an average rider who’s truly great achievement was getting away with it for so long, despite failed drug tests, blatant bribery and a harem of co-conspirators who at any time could have brought him down.
Of course the piper always gets paid and eventually the creditors got to swooping.
Armstrong has recently been stripped of his titles and prize money, Nike’s jumped ship and a liquidation of his moral assets has begun. He’s been forced to resign as Chairman of Livestrong, the cancer charity he set up in 2004 to silence the screaming of the lambs.
There’s a general sense that the end justifies the means; that Armstrong’s charity has vindicated the cheating. In reality all he’s done is siphon people’s money into his cause, probably diverting these funds from other equally worthy charities.
It’s all a total waste and any contest in this sport will surely now be seen for the farce that it is. Like a magic eye stereogram from the 1990s, the picture of systemic cheating has become so clear to us all that there is going back from this.
The fallout of Armstrong’s legacy, of course, is that future ‘champions’ will have an indelible asterisk etched against their name.
This is unfortunate for a bloke like Cadel Evans, who won the 2011 Tour de France to the immense pride of his country, friends and family. And while there is a possibility he didn’t cheat, the asterisk remains, mounted grotesquely beside the man’s achievement.
The public’s confidence in cycling is now past breaking point as the policing bodies are clearly not up to the task of keeping a clean sport.
The only way to reinstate a credible level playing field in cycling is to allow drugs, and open slather for all athletes.
Until such time, medals in this sport shall be useless as the Insert button on a keyboard.
joeb
Guest
Doctor sanctions steroids October 28, 2012 Adrian Proszenko "The 87-year-old, who practised medicine for 67 years before his retirement last year, claims to have administered steroids to as many as 5000 clients as part of a ''harm reduction program''. He denies ever providing steroids to the great Dragons teams he oversaw or to any Commonwealth Games athletes, saying that ''very few'' of his clients were professional athletes." http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/doctor-sanctions-steroids-20121027-28c9k.html ''I would prescribe these anabolic steroids, monitor you and bring you back when you finished to follow you up to see what happened," said the inaugural City2Surf doctor. ''I didn't have any deaths, no heart problems and I did this for some 20 years. It all depends on what you do with whatever it is. Guns are very dangerous - if you put them up to your head and pull the trigger. But they're not dangerous if you put them in a drawer."
FrancisC
Guest
To those that are still defending Lance's case. There is an apt word for all of you - Lance Apologetics. Its not a bad word actually its better than fanboys that is being bandied about around here. My stance - never allow drugs and yes make an example of the person who won it by cheating to strip him/her of the medal. That is the only way to discourage this illegal practice.
Colin
Guest
JoeR_AUS, they've made up their minds mate. LA is the modern day guy fawkes. Hang one man so we can look the other way rather than confront the whole rotten barrel. He's still done more for cycling and cancer than all the whistle-blowers together, whatever they may say.
JoeR_AUS
Guest
Its interesting how WADA chased LA when EPO was a 12 billion a year business, you might want to read this article http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud There is a lot more going to happen with UCI as well.
jameswm
Guest
I agree Colin - with so much at stake, some will inevitably look for the advantage. However our difference is that I don't think it can be condoned at all. These USADA proceedings are not against ONE person. They are against 4-5. Others have been found guilty and penalised, so why shouldn't Amrstrong? Armstrong didn't help himself by so aggressively denying it all these years. I'm sorry - everyone was not doing it. The guy cheated, he got busted. I have no sympathy for the guy and I don't understand how someone like you does. They're picking on him? Yeah right. He's a big boy who cheated.
aussie sports lover
Guest
My arguments are all "one way" because it is opposite to yours, jameswm. Anyhow, I don't think this is really going anywhere other than degenerating further away from a debate on issues we are both passionate about. It's never my intention to offend you, and if I did, I apologise. Cheers.
jameswm
Guest
For 10-12yos? I'm talking about kids, and by that mainly pre-pubescent. You asked me what I would do if I found out my kid doped and his team did, and I said I'd probably pull him out of the sport. I never said footy has more or less health risks that other sports. You started arguing about that, not me. And you didn't define what a health risk was. As a health professional you should also know the biggest issue with contact spots now at any age is head knocks. I was talking about pushy parents looking for an advantage in sports where over-training is prevalent (do the research yourself, I have). You turned that into a discussion on whether rugby is more dangerous (or more of a "health risk") than those other two. You've totally missed the point.
jameswm
Guest
I'm glad you're not ON the debating team. You're trying to be objective, but your personal bias makes it impossible. It's not that hard a concept to understand. Your arguments are all one way.
aussie sports lover
Guest
Thanks for your analysis, Bobarillio Maybe LA need to get OJ's lawyer!
Bobarillio
Guest
Hi asl, The primary focus of the article was on the weakness of identification evidence - i.e. the positive identification of a suspect by a witness should be treated with a degree of skepticism. I think this is a valid point and is recognised in the Queensland jurisdiction at least - there are strict procedures for police to follow in obtaining identification evidence and if the procedures are not followed the evidence will be inadmissable in a criminal hearing. Anyway, I digress. I don't think positive identification is an issue in the case of Lance Armstrong. The witnesses knew him very well - this is not the case of identifying a stranger down at the local park after a 60 second viewing. More pertinent to the Armstrong case was the section of the article which discussed the fallability of human memory. Lance should be able to call an expert witness in his defence to make this point - it is possible, although unlikely, that each of the witnesses may have misremembered the events to which they are testifying. His lawyers could then take the chance to vigorously cross-examine them. I am not as optimistic as you however that he would be able to break down all of their stories convincingly - but Johnnie Cochrane got OJ off (not Marion Jones however) so if Lance fights he is in with a chance!
aussie sports lover
Guest
I'm nterested to hear from you, Jameswm, why footy has less "inherent health risk" than swimming or gymnastic. As a health professional, I have seen far more significant injuries from footy than swimming or gymnastics, including spinal fractures leading to paralysis, eye gouging leading to almost complete loss of vision of one eye (from a rugby injury), splenic rupture, pneumothorax, fractures of arms and legs amongst many.
aussie sports lover
Guest
So on one hand you're saying I'm trying very hard to be objective but on the other hand, I'm prevented from being objective by your assumption I'm an "unabashed LA fan". I'm glad you are coaching a footy team and not a debating team.
jameswm
Guest
It taints your opinion asl. It prevents you from looking at things objectively. You've been trying really hard to seem objetive. You're lecturing the wrong person about the inherent risk in kids sports.
jameswm
Guest
Why not allow bionic legs? Where will it end?
aussie sports lover
Guest
Thanks for your feedback Bobarillio.
Bobarillio
Guest
Hi asl The article was an interesting read. I was unfamiliar with the Kirk Bloodsworth case, but I like to read and critically evaluate these types of cases and the media responses to them. I am really wary of making conclusions re: innocence or guilt without having reviewed the evidence - I haven't so far been able to find interview or court transcripts in the Bloodsworth case - I did find an interview on Larry King in which a prosecutor seemed to think he may still be guilty but I won't make up my mind based on the say so of a web site. Unfortunately I couldn't find any source documents. Will see if I can find any and let you know what I can turn up.
aussie sports lover
Guest
No problem ,Bobarillio. Let me know what you think of the article, if you get the chance.
aussie sports lover
Guest
OMG, he is an unabashed LA fan. Quick, stone him to death!!!
aussie sports lover
Guest
Hi Jameswm, It's not about casting stones to yourself - it's about casting stones to OTHERS. Perhaps you should "re-think" what this phrase actually means. I must congratulate you on your black and white approach to what I thought was a situation that would have been more complex and difficult to handle. But fair enough. I have to say I am a little amused that footy has less health risks than swimming or gymnastics.
Bobarillio
Guest
Thanks for the link asl