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."
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.
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.
Nice piece mate. Interesting to think that the guys who finished second in the seven tours that Armstrong won could well have (and probably were) cheating also. Presumably they will be awarded the tour wins without further scrutiny... seems a little unfair to me!
ReplyDeleteTom Willgoss
Cheers Willgoss. You are right, that's not fair either. Basically the control of doping in cycling in the 90s and early 2000s was pretty much ineffective. UCI only has themselves to blame. I hope that future tours can remain clean, like i believe this one was
ReplyDelete'we can only wonder who might now be deemed to have won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005, though we must assume that the Tour authorities would rather award no result than attempt the fool's errand of seeking retrospectively a clean cyclist in the top 10 of any of those years'
ReplyDelete(Matt Seaton, 'Lance Armstrong, the man who strong- armed cycling, gives up fight', on the Guardian website today)
Mickey
Too true. Yh I read his article. It was probably the best piece I read on Lance
DeleteThank you for one of very few balanced articles on this topic - so many people want Armstrong to be the greatest hero or the original arch-villain, but as you suggest, he is both and/or neither of those things. A few thoughts.
ReplyDelete1) Passing a drugs test does NOT mean that an athlete is clean, it means ONLY that s/he was clean at the moment when the test was administered. Very similar to a MOT certificate.
2) Lance Armstrong passed very many drugs tests and failed none at the time and (possibly) only a few retrospectively. Either a) he was clean or b) he used banned substances and had medical knowledge and/or help. For many reasons, it is extremely difficult to establish the relative probabilities of the two options, and Armstrong prefers for it to stay that way.
3) It's worth noting that donations to the Livestrong foundation have increased significantly since Armstrong chose not to contest the USADA charges.
Sadly, the probability is that Armstrong cheated. In which case, very few of us can now invest any emotion in his exceptional achievements. Because he chose to deceive so many people in such a callous manner, I cannot promise that, if I should ever meet him, I will treat him with the respect which his achievements deserve. A knee to the groin is more likely.
Best etc, Cedders
Haha. I did not know that Livestrong had received more donations since last Thursday, crazy. I think he still has a massive following, especially in america.
ReplyDelete