The A-Z of doping

Tyler Hamilton, one of Lance Armstrong's former lieutenants tells all in his Autobiographical book 'The Secret Race'. In this no holds barred account, Hamilton openly reveals the lengths that some cyclists will go to in order to win. I've decided to review 'The secret race' in an A-Z of doping format

A is for Armstrong. The Alpha male who acquired the help of the 'best' doctors in order to stay ahead of the game. Much of this book is focused on Armstrong's doping.

B is for Blood Bags or as Tyler Hamilton cunningly coded them BBs, used for blood transfusions. Riders like Hamilton would collect their own blood into bags and re-inject the blood back into their system, usually during the rest days of big races.

C is for Cortisone. The drug Armstrong tested positive for whilst winning the TDF in 1999. He, like many others, got away with it by producing a medical reason for needing the cortisone.

D is for Denial. Nearly every cyclist accused of doping has denied it, at least at first.

E is for Edgar, the code word used for the blood boosting super drug EPO.

F is for France, who commendably have much stricter controls on doping than other European countries like Spain

G is Glowing. Glowing refers to the time period after doping when a cyclist would test positive. Hamilton told of how is ex-wife Haven would cover for him and pretend he was out if a tester showed up whilst he was glowing.

Tyler Hamilton taking Gold at the 2004 Olympic Time trial

H is for Haematocrit. The percentage of red blood cells in your blood had to be as close to 50% if you were going to contest the Tour de France. Bjarne Riis apparently had a haematocrit level of 56% when he won the Tour in 1996.

I is Ingenuity. The cyclists who were doping had to think of ever more elaborate ways to use their doping products. The US Postal team reportedly staged a breakdown in order to administer EPO in the safety of their team bus.

J is for Jail. Spain's long-running Operation Puerto doping saga will finally reach the inside of a courtroom in January, nearly seven years after the case started. Sports Doctor Eufemiano faces the possibility of a prison sentence.

K is for Kimmage, the hard hitting anti-doping journalist who's spear-heading the fight against drugs in cycling. Paul Kimmage famous for feuding with Lance Armstrong; his views are uncompromising and his work is really worth reading.

L is for Lies. Dopers not only have to lie to the UCI but often to their friends, family and often even partners. This often causes them to feel very isolated

M is for Money. There is big money in cycling. Top riders can become millionaires so it is worth their while doping. Dr Fuentes, who reportedly treated top cyclists Ivan Basso, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich and Alberto Contador made tens of thousands of pounds off each of the cyclists he helped, demonstrating how lucrative it could be for the doctors also.

N is for No going back. Once a cyclist has doped he is committed. It's very unlikely that a rider will go clean after trying a doping product.

O is for Omerta. The secret world of doping is protected by the code of silence that exists within professional cycling.

P is for Paranoia. Dopers have to live in constant fear of having their whole world turned upside down at any moment.

Q is for Quiet. which descends whenever a doper gets caught out. Very rarely do you get any of the professionals commenting on dopers.

R is for reality. Tyler Hamilton paints a vivid picture of the quasi-reality of being a professional cyclist. A world where pushing your body beyond normal limits both in terms of training and weight loss becomes the norm.

S is syringes. Vitamin shots, cortisone, EPO and blood transfusions all relied on syringes, which are now banned at UCI races.

T is for Testosterone. Cyclists would often take testosterone to help with recovery. In 2006 Floyd Landis tested positive for testosterone after winning the Tour de France. According to Hamilton, testosterone doesn't make nearly as much difference as blood altering products.

U is for the UCI who contributed to the madness which was the 1990s and 2000s. They need to not be scared of the bad publicity associated with doping scandal. It is more important to out dopers than to save face.

Vaughters suffered from a bee sting in 2001

V is for Vaughters. Jonathan Vaughters famously quit the 2001 Tour de France after being prevented from taking a cortisone shot by his Credit Agricole team. He had not registered cortisone on his medical record before the race, so using it would have risked a positive test and a ban.

W is for winning. That natural human desire which makes it inevitable that there will always be those who will push the boundaries in order to win.

X is for eXplosive - This book is really fascinating and provides an extensive account of the doping in cycling.

Y is for yellow. The one race non-cycling fans focus on is the Tour de France. Winners of the Tour are naturally going to come under suspicion thanks to the race's history of doping.

Z is for Zebra. Because it's black and white. Doping is wrong and more needs to be done to flush it out of cycling.

NFL 2012 Predictions

If you know nothing about the NFL I really would recommend it. There aren't many better ways to spend your Sunday evening, so pick a team and get involved. Basically there are 32 teams split into 2 conferences, the AFC and NFC (the American Football Conference and the National Football Conference) each with 4 divisions (North, East South & West) of 4 teams. That's 8 divisions in total. Each team plays 16 regular season games and the top 12 teams make it to the playoffs and have the chance to win the Super Bowl. 

Here's who I think will win each division. 

AFC American Football Conference

AFC East

AFC North

AFC EAST -New England Patriots. The NFL's yardstick team will be after homefield advantage again. I think the Jets will be competitive, with Miami and Buffalo battling for 3rd. 

AFC North - Baltimore Ravens. The Steelers have not made any exciting additions to their team. The Bengals could cause an upset. I don't expect much from the Browns.

AFC South - Houston Texans. Way too soon for Indy and I'm not buying the Jags or Titans. 

AFC West - Denver Broncos. Got to the playoffs with Tebow, Manning is an upgrade though this division will be tight. 

Wild Cards from - Raiders, Steelers, Bengals, Jets.

AFC South

AFC West

NFC - National Football Conference

NFC North

NFC East

NFC East - Dallas Cowboys. Giants will suffer a Superbowl hangover. The Redskins great start will prove a false dawn. I expect  inconsistency from the Eagles.

NFC North - Chicago Bears. They've got the defence to beat Green Bay and Detroit. Vikings should see a slight improvement.

NFC South Atlanta Falcons - the most solid all round team in the division. The Saints will miss Payton. Cam Newton needs help and the Bucs are transitioning.

NFC West San Francisco - No dramas. Too tough. Cardinals, Hawks and Rams will fight for second and a possible wildcard spot

Wild Cards Green Bay and one from NFC East. 

NFC South

NFC West

The beauty of the NFL is that its so hard to predict and there are always surprises along the way. I'm very likely to be completely wrong but it's here in print now so come and find me in February (the end of the season) .Here's to an exciting season.

It's Football, not Baseball but can it work?

If Liverpool fans expect big spending then they will be disappointed. John Henry's Moneyball approach to running a football club is here to stay. 

John Henry thinks that he can redefine football, only time will tell.

Most of us satisfy our managerial fantasies with the odd game of Football Manager or maybe owning a Sun Dream Team, but when you are a billionaire like John Henry you can afford some expensive toys, namely, the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool FC. Not surprisingly for a self made billionaire, John Henry is extremely ambitious and not scared of a challenge. Before he purchased the Boston Red Sox in 2002 they had not won a World Series since selling Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1919/1920. After implementing his new Baseball philosophy, with help from Bill James, they won their 6th World Championship in 2004, breaking an 86 year duck and their 7th title in 2007. 

Winning the Premiership with Liverpool is a bigger challenge due to the wealth of Manchester City, Chelsea and the relentless success of Manchester United. Like Baseball, football these days is an unfair game, with the the wealth and talent restricted to several top teams. Liverpool are no longer one of the big boys, and with none of the equalisers they have in American Sports, like the draft or a salary cap, Henry will have to come up with something pretty spectacular in order to take Liverpool back to the top.

John Henry believes in the Moneyball philosophy to sports management, which means he'll use statistics to look for value when buying and selling players. For those people who have not seen Moneyball, it is a book and film (starring Brad Pitt) about how one of the poorest teams in baseball, the Oakland A's, managed to successfully compete against much richer teams like the Yankees. The key ideas that the A's used to win were a) buy low sell high, b) look for players who are underrated but useful and c) the numbers don't lie.

Whilst Liverpool has many similarities to the Boston Red Sox, football is a very much more open sport than Baseball, which has very few moving parts and lots of easily accessible statistics. Whether the 'Moneyball' philosophy can really succeed in football is the billion dollar question. We also don't know for sure whether Liverpool really is being run by number crunchers or whether Henry has reigned it in a little to appease the football fraternity on Merseyside. 

I for one encourage a more cerebral way to think about football. Football tends to be run on conventional wisdom, hunches and gut feelings which often amount to little more than guesswork and listening to popular opinion. Clubs like Arsenal prove that it is possible to compete with the big boys and turn a profit and I think that more teams should be run properly and responsibly. John Henry's biggest challenge will be to a) find a manager willing to work under financial constraints and b) to convince the football mad, yet knowledgeable Liverpool fans to accept his intellectual approach to running their beloved club.

Below is a a copy of the letter which John Henry addressed to the Liverpool Supporters. It hints at some of the Moneyball ideas that I mentioned, which I have highlighted for you. It actually reads pretty well and for Liverpool fans they will be pleased, and I believe that this is genuine, that the owners say they aren't in it for profit. Ultimately I believe that John Henry is a sports fan who could help change the way football club's are managed in this country. Watch this space. 

John W Henry's open letter to Liverpool Supporters.

I am as disappointed as anyone connected with Liverpool Football Club that we were unable to add further to our strike force in this summer transfer window, but that was not through any lack of desire or effort on the part of all of those involved. They pushed hard in the final days of the transfer window on a number of forward targets and it is unfortunate that on this occasion we were unable to conclude acceptable deals to bring those targets in.

But a summer window which brought in three young, but significantly talented starters in Joe Allen, Nuri Sahin and Fabio Borini as well as two exciting young potential stars of the future - Samed Yesil and Oussama Assaidi - could hardly be deemed a failure as we build for the future.

Nor should anyone minimise the importance of keeping our best players during this window. We successfully retained Daniel Agger, Martin Skrtel and Luis Suarez. We greatly appreciate their faith and belief in the club. And we successfully negotiated new, long-term contracts with Luis and with Martin.

No one should doubt our commitment to the club. In Brendan Rodgers we have a talented young manager and we have valued highly his judgement about the make-up of the squad. This is a work in progress. It will take time for Brendan to instill his philosophy into the squad and build exactly what he needs for the long term.

The transfer policy was not about cutting costs. It was - and will be in the future - about getting maximum value for what is spent so that we can build quality and depth. We are avowed proponents of UEFA's Financial Fair Play agenda that was this week reiterated by Mr Platini - something we heartily applaud. We must comply with Financial Fair Play guidelines that ensure spending is tied to income. We have been successful in improving the commercial side of the club and the monies generated going forward will give us greater spending power in the coming years.

We are still in the process of reversing the errors of previous regimes. It will not happen overnight. It has been compounded by our own mistakes in a difficult first two years of ownership. It has been a harsh education, but make no mistake, the club is healthier today than when we took over.

Spending is not merely about buying talent. Our ambitions do not lie in cementing a mid-table place with expensive, short-term quick fixes that will only contribute for a couple of years. Our emphasis will be on developing our own players using the skills of an increasingly impressive coaching team. Much thought and investment already have gone into developing a self-sustaining pool of youngsters imbued in the club's traditions.

That ethos is to win. We will invest to succeed. But we will not mortgage the future with risky spending.

After almost two years at Anfield, we are close to having the system we need in place. The transfer window may not have been perfect but we are not just looking at the next 16 weeks until we can buy again: we are looking at the next 16 years and beyond. These are the first steps in restoring one of the world's great clubs to its proper status.

It will not be easy, it will not be perfect, but there is a clear vision at work.

We will build and grow from within, buy prudently and cleverly and never again waste resources on inflated transfer fees and unrealistic wages. We have no fear of spending and competing with the very best but we will not overpay for players.

We will never place this club in the precarious position that we found it in when we took over at Anfield. This club should never again run up debts that threaten its existence.

Most of all, we want to win. That ambition drives every decision. It is the Liverpool way. We can and will generate the revenues to achieve that aim. There will be short-term setbacks from time to time, but we believe we have the right people in place to bring more glory to Anfield.

Finally, I can say with authority that our ownership is not about profit. Contrary to popular opinion, owners rarely get involved in sports in order to generate cash. They generally get involved with a club in order to compete and work for the benefit of their club. It's often difficult. In our case we work every day in order to generate revenues to improve the club. We have only one driving ambition at Liverpool and that is the quest to win the Premier League playing the kind of football our supporters want to see. That will only occur if we do absolutely the right things to build the club in a way that makes sense for supporters, for us and for those who will follow us. We will deliver what every long-term supporter of Liverpool Football Club aches for.

99.94 not only the Don's average but also the percentage of positive Strauss sentiment.

Tributes roll in for skipper Strauss

Nearly everyone had positive things to say about Andrew Strauss. The class with which he handled his departure speaks volumes about the man, as do the tributes paid him by players past and present. His no nonsense attitude is illustrated by he fact that he doesn't have a Twitter account. However many of his counterparts do and below are a selection of their tweets.


The current crop, AKA the Straussites, unsurprisingly heap praise on the leader so integral to their England careers. They also hint at his golfing abilities.

Stuart Broad ‏@StuartBroad8

Awesome guy, great leader, dependable batsman and a solid 1 slip catcher. Cheers Straussy you'll be playing scratch golf within a year

Graeme Swann ‏@Swannyg66

An emotional day with Straussy hanging up his boots. What a great captain, brilliant player and most importantly fantastic bloke.

Matt Prior ‏@MattPrior13

I know a lots been said already but I have to say I'm so sorry strauss has stepped down! Fantastic leader player and most importantly....Person! Took over when we were at the bottom in '09 and took us to Ashes victories and no 1 in the world! Unbelievable effort and will....Go down as a legend! Congrats on a fantastic career and all the best for the future (on the golf course) #strauss

James Anderson ‏@JimmyAnderson9

Really sad to hear Straussy has called it a day. He's done so much for this England team not just as captain but also as a player.......He will be missed but he hands over to a very fine replacement in Alastair Cook. Best of luck to Cooky and to Straussy in his future

Alastair Cook via BBC Sport "Obviously I've got huge boots to fill. It feels like I've spent all my England career walking out to bat with him. Unfortunately it might mean I have to take the first ball now."

The ex-players focus on the level of respect there is for Strauss the captain.

Michael Vaughan ‏@VaughanCricket

A.Strauss....3 Ashes wins...2 as Captain.. 21 Test 100s... Debut at Lords.. 100th Test at Lords.. 50th as Captain at Lords.. #righttouch

Matthew hoggard ‏@Hoggy602

Andrew Strauss has been a fantastic servant to the game of cricket I am lucky to have played with him and one game as him as captain. I wish him all the best for the future !!

Phil Tufnell ‏@philtufnell

Wishing Straussy the best of luck in retirement. He's been a great player, a credit to England and got them to number 1 in the world...I was surprised by the news. Thought he might go on to another Ashes series, but he's had a brilliant career.

David 'Bumble' Lloyd @BumbleCricket

Looks as if A Strauss stepping down .Great time to go .Ashes Captain, 100th Test at Lords .doesn't get better . Done a brilliant job. Sure the cricket public will see Strauss in a very good light. An excellent leader, respected throughout the crick world by opponents.

The fans - give probably more interesting thoughts on Strauss, as is customary of non-celeb tweeters. A dig at KP, a dig at footballers and allusions to Strauss' potential political career. He's too nice a bloke for politics if you ask me.

Tom Harper ‏@TomJHarper

Don't forget #Strauss was appointed England cricket captain to solve another crisis caused by Kevin Pietersen's massive ego

Ben Monro-Davies ‏@benc4

Dear andrew strauss. If u want a career in politics wait for a safe seat. You will get one. Marginals always lead to defeat. #strauss

Andrew Slade ‏@aksqprfc

What a gent #Strauss is. Triumphed at highest level home & away. Dignity intact. Footballers take note (yes you, Joey) #cricket

The 0.06 % - there is no I in team. End of story.

Kevin Pietersen @Kevinpp24 - Nothing (not even when asked directly by a reporter on Sky sports). In my opinion this came across terribly. If you can't bring yourself to say something nice just say, "I wish him all the best", simple.

Piers Morgan ‏@piersmorgan

Good capt, wrong re KP. 

I only half understand Andrew Strauss' decision.

Andrew Strauss: a captain we can all be proud of (2009-2012)

His decision to stand down as England captain today was not a surprise, especially to those close to cricket.  Strauss won his 100th Cap a fortnight ago in the final game of the series defeat to South Africa, to whom England lost their number 1 ranking. With Alastair Cook having been groomed for the role of captain, Strauss' poor form with the bat and England needing fresh impetus if they are to regain their number 1 ranking, now is the perfect time for him to step down as captain. 

People will naturally speculate as to whether Kevin Pietersen's public fall out with Strauss had anything to do with the decision. I'm not privy to the chatter of the England dressing room but I believe Strauss when he said that the KP issue had nothing really to do with his decision. The departure of Strauss does seemingly make the much needed return of Pietersen more likely. Hopefully Cook, Flower and KP can move on from the ugly mess which KP created and rebuild the harmonious dressing room which was a cornerstone of Strauss' captaincy.

I think you'd be hard pushed to find an England cricket fan with a bad word to say about Andrew Strauss. Strauss always conducted himself in a professional and dignified manner both on and off the field. He has always been level-headed, calm, articulate and is a credit to the game of cricket. Much like Michael Vaughan who lead the side with distinction in collaboration with Duncan Fletcher, Strauss formed an effective partnership with team manager Andy Flower. There are 4 other similarities between the two 1) they both left the job with the team in a better state than they inherited 2) their lack of batting form hastened their departure 3) Their last tests were both against Graeme Smith's South Africa and 4) They are both the kind of people who have extremely bright futures upon retirement.

Strauss' career Highlights

2004 Scored a century on his debut at Lords

2005 Was part of England's Ashes winning side

2009 Appointed Captain for England's tour of West Indies

2009 Captained England to Ashes win

2011 Captained England to Ashes win in Australia

2011 Captained England to number 1 test ranking with series win against India

2012 Retires after playing 100th Test

England's Ashes win in Australia, Strauss' finest hour.

Half his decision

I agree with Strauss that it is the appropriate time to hand over the captaincy to Alastair Cook. It is the perfect time and he has earned the right to go out on his own terms. What I struggle with, and this may be because I am not a professional sportsman, is his decision to retire from cricket. 

You have to love cricket in order to become England Captain but if you love cricket why would you want to stop playing? It could be argued that he has other things to do, or that he might want to spend more time with his family but surely nothing beats playing the game you love. Its not like he couldn't be a top performer at county level or in the IPL, why not spend some time enjoying cricket without the weight of the England captaincy? Its not like he is a fast bowler with masses amounts of wear and tear on his body. He is only 35, which is not at all old for a batsman.

I hope that Straussy doesn't ever regret his decision to retire from cricket. As i've said, he'll have plenty of attractive career opportunities ahead of him and i'm sure he'll do well. I disagree with his decision but with all he's done he's earned the right to make it and I wish him all the best. 

Lance, Team Sky and a man named Paul.

Cycling's leading lights must take the lead in cleaning up the sport

If Lance Armstrong didn't win the Tour de France between 1999 to 2005 then who did? Below is a graphic produced by By Alan Mclean, Archie TSE and Lisa Waananen for The New York Times that shows the top 10 finishers in the Tour de France from 1998 to 2011. Faces of riders with solid links to, or convictions of, doping are shown. It is an interesting chart but it is very conservative in who it links to doping. On checking the top tens for myself, I found many more of the riders had been on doping teams or been associated with doping directeur Sportifs and so the true chart would surely show far more riders than this one. 

Figuring out who is to be credited with winning all those tours is really of little consequence now, and I use it purely as a lead in. What is most important is that cycling makes progress in it's battle to become clean. Although the general assumption is that cycling, with the rise to prominence of clean teams like Team Sky, has turned a corner, some, including Paul Kimmage, still worry if enough is being done.

Paul Kimmage is the man to look for if you want to read more about doping in cycling. The award winning, anti-doping, sports journalist is the most vehement opposition to doping in cycling that i've come across. Kimmage, a former cycling pro himself, loves cycling. Where he differs from others is that he isn't willing to hold his tongue on doping 'for the good of the sport'. Kimmage, the author (Rough Ride, 2001) believes that cycling's governing body the UCI needs an overhaul and that people within cycling should be willing to talk about it. In the wake of  Lance Armstrong's fall from grace it is worth noting how few people from within cycling have chosen to pass comment on it.

Armstrong and Kimmage's famous confrontation at the 09 Tour of California

Team Sky are one of cycling's youngest teams having only been formed back in February 2009. However with the likes of Wiggins, Cavendish and Boasson Hagen in the team and cycling guru Dave Brailsford at the helm they are by a distance the number 1 ranked pro team in the world. Cycling is booming in Britain at the moment as a result of the successes of Team Sky and the GB track team and I am a massive fan of what they are doing.

Sky though are not above criticism and I agree with the sentiments of Kimmage and others, that Team Sky should be more vocal and transparent when it comes to doping. When Team Sky was launched they admirably had a zero tolerance approach to doping, refusing even to hire anyone with a suspicious past. They even rejected the chance to sign the now reformed and anti-doping advocate David Millar, despite the fact that he is British, world class and a personal friend of Dave Brailsford.

Team Sky at the 2012 Tour de France

If Team Sky have this anti-doping policy why didn't they use their dominance of this year's Tour de France to speak openly about doping? Why haven't Brailsford, Wiggins or Cavendish (my cycling hero) made any comments about Lance? Surely, if someone has disgraced your sport, lied to the world and denied clean riders the chance of winning to that extent you would express your pleasure at justice having been done.

Team Sky's refusal to address doping questions at the Tour de France can be justified, but was the wrong tactic. On the one occasion that doping was brought up Wiggins launched into a passionate rant

“I say they’re just fucking w*nkers. I cannot be doing with people like that,” said Wiggins. “It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.

“It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s**t, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. C**ts.”

It's great that Brad is passionate about (not) doping but he could've used his position as race leader for good and banged the drum for clean cyclists. By choosing not to speak about an issue so pertinent to cycling he falls into the same trap as all the others, that of believing that cycling's doping problem can be swept under the carpet.

I'm not trying to stir up anti-Team Sky feeling, I just want to state that keeping quiet is not the answer to cycling's doping problems. They might argue that Top teams or stars from other sports don't have to preach to the media about these sorts of things. This is true, but the unfortunate reality is that cycling has been tainted by so many scandals in the past that surely clean riders have to play a part in cleaning it up and restoring its image.

The current crop of clean cyclists must have the guts to stand up for the good of the sport, it's millions of fans, themselves and their colleagues. I know that comes with the risk of upsetting their friends, colleagues and the UCI but in order to make the sport clean it would be worth it.


This is probably the last i'll write on this topic for a little while. If you want to read further here are links to some of the most interesting current articles.







Kimmage in Velonation speaking about Wiggins and Team Sky http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx#ixzz24rSnYHKx

The epic 7 hour interview between Kimmage and 2006 TDF Floyd Landis. This is the full transcript, so only read if you have a spare hour and a half. It provides a fascinating insight into Landis and all things doping 
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/complete-transcript-paul-kimmages-interview-of-floyd-landis_158328

Kimmage on Lance http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12721/Paul-Kimmage-Interview-Armstrong-the-UCI-and-the-true-winners-of-those-Tours.aspx

Video - Check out Armstrong vs Kimmage press conference at  http://vimeo.com/3214776. Available on other video sites also. 

Lance Armstrong "Pain is temporary, quitting lasts for ever"

Lance Armstrong forced to accept loss of 7 Tour de France wins

Lance Armstrong issued his decision not to contest the USADA's doping charges in a short statement late last night. In doing so, all but the most staunch Armstrong supporters will be forced to accept the conclusion that he did use doping products in order to win. Faced with the USADA's charges, Lance was finally backed into a corner, and forced to pick his poison. Most people believe that, in accepting the charges, he has chosen the least worst option, when compared to admitting his guilt or spending lots of his time and money fighting a losing battle.

In his statement Lance said that he was "done with this nonsense" and sick of "fighting to clear his name." He dubbed the USADA's case against him as being "heinous" and "unlawful" and reiterated his belief that it was a "witch hunt" lead by USADA chief executive Travis Tygart.  He went on to say that he "would jump at the chance" to defend himself in a fair hearing.

Tygart added in a statement released by USADA: "This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition, but for clean athletes, it is a reassuring reminder that there is hope for future generations to compete on a level playing field without the use of performance-enhancing drugs."

Fairness

There were in my opinion some interesting snippets in Lance's statement. Firstly, he said "I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999." I have to question whether he actually did have an unfair advantage against his main rivals, I'm not saying everyone in the peleton was doping but most of those at the the front of the races were. If Armstrong could dope and get around the tests, surely others could and did. In those days of the Tour de France, you simply wouldn't have been able to compete, if you hadn't been doping. 

He also said "The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced." This is a serious point because during his career he passed hundreds of tests. The UCI (cycling's governing body) introduced a rule which said that if a rider returned an haematocrit value (red blood cell count) of over 50% then he was not allowed to race. What this succeeded in doing was to encourage riders to artificially boost their haematocrit levels to 50% using blood boosting EPO. By doing this cyclists could go harder for longer; this is shown by the fact that the Tour de France has actually slowed down over the last few years, as new measures of testing have finally made it harder for dopers to exist. 

Win at all costs

According to Forbes, Lance Armstrong is worth $125 million dollars. Coming from a tough background, surviving cancer and succeeding to the point where he is a champion cyclist, an author, CEO of his own charity and a global mega star tells you all you need to know about Lance Armstrong's determination and will to win. It also gives you an answer to the question, why would he cheat? More interestingly, how did he get away with it? The answer to the second question is that he made lots of people and companies lots of money, and he helped a lot of his team mates make careers for themselves as part of his winning teams.

His unprecedented success is ultimately what led to his downfall. Had his career been more modest then he could've faded into the background after his retirement. The truth is his success stuck in the craw of many people. No one liked the way he played by his own rules, took all he wanted from cycling and gave nothing back. The idea of one man rewriting the history books, becoming a multi-millionaire and a global icon whilst getting away with doping and being a hero was too much to stomach. The strength of feeling he provoked in the non-believers was so great that they couldn't let it go and finally his past has caught up with him.

Lance's Legacy.

After all that's been said about Lance Armstrong he remains for me one of the most difficult sporting icons to weigh up. On the one hand you have this fiercely determined and talented individual who fought the odds and lived his dream. On the other you have a controlling and ruthless individual who would do anything to succeed and who cheated his way to the top. Its very easy to sit in your ivory tower and judge Lance Armstrong harshly, in a black and white world cheating in sport is disgusting and its unfair on honest competitors and their livelihoods. We all know however that in this world, and especially when it comes to doping in the cycling world of that era, then really its shades of grey that we are looking at.

Note: EPO stands for Erythropoietin, it helps increase the amount of red blood cells in the body. This allows more oxygen to be carried to the muscles, thus enabling an endurance athlete to perform at a higher rate than usual for a longer amount of time.

Decision day for Lance Armstrong.



Lance Armstrong; why people don't care about one of sport's biggest ever stories.

Lance Armstrong celebrating his record breaking 7th Tour de France win in  2005

Thursday, August 23rd is the day when Armstrong will enter his decision to either accept a lifetime ban and the loss of his 7 Tour de France titles or defend himself against the USADA's extensive doping charges in court.  


The US Anti-Doping Authority, USADA, charged Armstrong and 4 others with being part of a sophisticated conspiracy in which they used banned drugs and blood transfusions to gain an advantage. 3 of Lance Armstrong's associates; team doctor Luis Garcia del Moral, Jose Marti and hugely controversial consulting doctor Michele Ferrari have already received lifelong bans after deciding not to contest USADA's charges. Armstrong and his former directeur sportif, Johan Bruyneel decided to question the USADA's jurisdiction and lodged an appeal to block the proceedings against them. The appeal was thrown out with derision; "This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandisement or vilification of defendants" wrote US district court judge Sam Sparks. After rewording their appeal, they were granted a 30 day reprieve, but a U.S. federal judge concluded that Armstrong must answer the USADA's charges.


Hero
Lance Armstrong is a hero to millions of people the world over. In 1996 Lance was diagnosed with testicular cancer which spread to his brain and lungs. Not only did he survive and recover from this but he then went on to return to pro-cycling and dominate the world's most gruelling sport's event, the Tour de France, winning it in 7 consecutive years. People, thankfully, survive cancer every day but few can doubt that Lance's story is truly remarkable. Lance details his story in his autobiographical books 'It's not about the bike' and 'Every second counts', both of which I enjoyed reading. If you can get over his American brashness it is impossible not to be inspired by Lance Armstrong. He is the poster boy of cancer sufferers and survivors everywhere. He has helped raise millions of pounds for his cancer charity Livestrong, most memorable for it's iconic yellow wristbands.  For his story, for his accomplishments, for the way he rode his bike and for the people he's helped, he will always be a hero.

Controversial Dr Michele Ferrari 

Tyler Hamilton accused Armstrong of doping

Controversial
The Armstrong story however is not that simple. Armstrong's career has never been far from controversy, not helped by choosing to associate himself with numerous controversial figures including the above mentioned Ferrari and Bruyneel. Dr Michelle Ferrari's name became synonymous with doping in the mid nineties and Johan Bruyneel has worked with numerous cycling dopers including 2 times TDF winner Alberto Contador and Tyler Hamilton. Lance Armstrong's ex team mates 2006 TDF winner Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton publicly accused him of doping in their own doping hearings. Their accounts, much chastised by Armstrong for being the words of convicted liars, are thought to make up some of the evidence against Armstrong, alongside the testimonies of other former temmates Levi Leipheimer, George Hicapie, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie. 

Cycling journalist Paul Kimmage's story featured heavily in an excellent book 'Bad blood' by Jeremy Whittle, about doping in cycling, which focused much of it's attention on Armstrong. It was an illuminating insight into the personality of Armstrong. His brash, alpha male, me-against-the-world personality never helped endear him to the sceptics and by all accounts he used to rule the peloton with an iron fist. Kimmage was one of a number of sceptical journalists who were barred from Armstrong press conferences by his support team. He also raised objections to the UCI (cycling's governing body) acceptance of a $100,000 donation from Armstrong 8 years ago.

During my research for this article two things stuck in my mind and I'll leave you to make up your own mind about them. The first comes from former doper and now anti-doping advocate David Millar's book 'Racing through the Dark'. Speaking candidly after receiving a two year ban for doping Millar said that the moment he doped he became more professional, meaning that because of using EPO he put a new pressure on himself to train and win races. I thought to myself, who was the most professional rider out there? The answer I came up with was Lance Armstrong; the man who'd ride up mountains on his own on Christmas day, the guy who'd weigh out his food and leave nothing to chance. 


The second was the story of Italian cyclist Filippo Simeoni, and his feud with Armstrong. Simeoni spoke out against Dr Ferrari, claiming that he had administered doping products to him. Armstrong called him a liar and Simeoni began legal proceedings against him for defamation. In the 2004 Tour de France,  Simeoni got into a breakaway with other riders who were no threat to Armstrong's overall race lead. Armstrong followed Simeoni, which meant that the peleton would have to chase him, and the breakaway riders would lose their chance at winning the stage. In exchange for the breakaway being able to stay away, Armstrong made Simeoni return with him to the peleton, where upon Simeoni was abused and spat on by some members of the peleton. Armstrong claimed that Simeoni wanted to destroy cycling by speaking against it but sceptics believed that Armstrong wanted to deny Simeoni the air time a stage-winning press conference would give him. 

Armstrong and Simeoni 2004 Tour de France.

So why is this huge story gaining so little coverage?

There are numerous reasons. Some people are sick of the constant speculation over Armstrong and whether he doped or not. Others have long since made up their minds and feel that the USADA's inquiry will not prove anything either way. There are also those to whom Lance is such a hero, either because of his comeback story or his charity work, that they don't care if he doped or not. After all, one might think, didn't all cyclist dope? 

People within cycling are fed up with the whole affair and don't want it to overshadow their sport, which in my opinion is far cleaner than it was. For a long time there has existed an 'omerta', silence, amongst professional cyclists. The idea being that if you get caught you carry the can on your own and you don't implicate your fellow professionals. After years of scandal and controversy this approach is not surprising, after all, there are careers and vast sums of money at stake. For these reasons there is not much noise on this story coming from within cycling.


Decision time

Lance Armstrong must now decide; he can either contest the charges and take his chances in court or accept the charges and face losing his titles and also his right to compete in Ironman triathlons, his current occupation. Armstrong knows that public opinion is what holds weight in his current situation. He has always been a fighter so I would expect him to contest the charges. The potential downside for him is that in doing this all the evidence and the testimony against him will reach the public domain. The other option, accepting the charges, could allow him to protest his innocence and dismiss the USADAs investigation as a politically driven witch-hunt against him. The third option would be to plead guilty to the charges. This no one expects, he has come too far and protested his innocence too long for this to be a valid option.

As Lance often says "he is the most tested athlete on the planet", this is extremely worrying. If USADA and others think that it is possible for the most tested athlete on the planet to be a doper, surely that would mean that the tests were ineffective and by extension that any athlete over the last 20 years could've been a doper. 


The Lance Armstrong story has long been the elephant in the room but over the next week or so, people are going to have to talk about it!