Lance Armstrong

[Bombot]

Not sure what the level of interest is in this given that cycling is not the most widely-followed sport, but I have created this thread in case anyone else wishes to continue the discussion (cut off in the Olympics thread) on Lance Armstrong and the USADA allegations that he refused to fight (USADA’s statement here). I will open with some responses to defences I have seen offered by his supporters.

“He never failed a drugs test”

Not really true. It would be more accurate to say that he any test he failed at the time of competing was accompanied by an excuse. As highlighted in the Olympics thread (so I won’t dwell on this for too long), he failed a test for Cortisone (a steroid) in 1999 but avoided a ban through use of a doctor’s exempted use note, an excuse put in doubt by Armstrong’s then-masseuse.

Perhaps most importantly, the USADA claim to have found evidence of EPO use when testing blood samples from 2009 and 2010 (see here). Testing for EPO has been improving over the years, and these claims, which go beyond mere testimony from ‘jealous rivals’, are partly what Lance Armstrong refused to face in a public hearing.

“He did not receive a fair trial”

This is perhaps best summed up by the USADA themselves: “As is every athlete's right, if Mr. Armstrong would have contested the USADA charges, all of the evidence would have been presented in an open legal proceeding for him to challenge. He chose not to do this knowing these sanctions would immediately be put into place.”

“But he raised money for cancer awareness”

Not relevant to the charges brought against him by the USADA and whether he cheated at cycling. They charged him with using drugs to compete in cycling, not failing to raise money for cancer awareness.

“But everyone else in pro-cycling was cheating”

Probably not a million miles from the truth. However, unlike many cyclists who were caught previously, Lance Armstrong continues to deny he ever took anything and he continues to profit from his supposed ‘superman’ image. There are some riders who are above suspicion, such as Christophe Bassons. He wrote that riders were shocked by Armstrong’s speed was subsequently criticised and shunned in-race by Armstrong and other riders (this is not denied by Armstrong). Why would any cyclists genuinely interested in cleaning up a notoriously dirty sport adopt this attitude towards Bassons?

Furthermore, if sports are ever to clean up then it is appropriate for anti-doping agencies to continue to look for signs of doping in the past. Cheaters may get the message that they will be caught eventually. Retrospective sample tests such as those used by the USADA against Armstrong are very much the most powerful tool against doping. They nullify the dopers’ ability to outwit contemporary tests. The USADA’s efforts are to be commended, and other countries’ agencies (hello Jamaica!) should follow their example if they aren’t already.

[BigbyWolf]

Although I suspect this may end up in PnR, I'll give it a go for the time being.

I was under the impression that all the recent charges that he has decided not to challenge as just a lot of witness testimonies? If that is the case, I'd have to say "not guilty".

As for previous offences that have been "excused", if they have been dealt with and any reasons accepted by the relevant authorities, then they have no relevance to the current case.

[Ultimate Life Form]

I've been waiting for this for 20 years. Apparently sometimes, in very rare cases, justice is still served.

[Bombot]

I was under the impression that all the recent charges that he has decided not to challenge as just a lot of witness testimonies? If that is the case, I'd have to say "not guilty".

Then I need to underline this part of the USADA's statement:

"Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong's use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong's comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France."

The USADA's case is not bassed purely on witness statements. Armstrong's refusal to face the evidence in public is the method he could best use to perpetuate that myth.

Your second point was point in doubt by testimony of a witness who was not competing against him. As far as I can see she stood to lose mre than gain by speaking out against him.

[nagash66]

Guilty as sin, no big surprise either, the fact that he refuses to face the charges against him only highlight his certainty of the validity the evidence gathered against him contains.

[theunwantedbeing]

Whether or not he was doping the entire thing looks like a giant witch hunt against him.

He isn't contesting it? GUILTY!!!!
He failed a single test back in 1999 that they allowed anyway? GUILTY!!!!
His Misseuse at the time says he was taking drugs and the team was recieving suspicious packaages? GUILTY!!!!

I'de be a lot more inclined to believe the accusations if they'de be clearer on the evidence and be a lot less reliant on eye witness testimonies from over a decade ago.

[Chaos and Evil]

Most sports which involve money at some point end up riddled with corruption and cheating.

The more money, the more sophisticated the cheating - I'd be stunned if athletes in some of the really money-soaked sports aren't already using gene therapy enhancements. Such enhancements of base genetics would be completely undetectable by chemical analysis of blood samples, etc, but would provide benefits such as increased adrenaline levels or denser muscle growth.


As to Armstrong, he's obviously guilty.
You don't spend a lifetime decrying dope-cheats and talking up the merits of never giving up in the face of adversity, only to fold like a wet bag when you yourself are accused of cheating... unless the evidence against you is actually a whole boatload of truth yearning to be heard.

[Freak Ona Leash]

Or perhaps he simply tires of his life being scrutinized and his name, and presumably that of his family, being dragged through the mud. I have no comment on whether he is guilty or not, because I do not follow cycling at all and because I would not be surprised if he was in fact cheating. However, to say that he is guilty because he doesn't want to go through what would almost certainly be an incredibly public and trying judicial process no matter his guilt looks reminiscent of the witch hunt atmosphere mentioned above.

[TheBigBadWolf]

First they take away his titles, then he dies...

[Hrw-Amen]

I hope he is not guilty but I don't know enough about him to make a proper judgement call. But I do know enough to realise that sometimes people can just get worn down by countless attacks on them so it is easier to just give in and accept it rather than fight on, regardless of whether you have actually done something wrong. It does not make you guilty, just tired and disillusioned.

[ColShaw]

I'm not nearly well informed enough to state an opinion here. My only opinion is that the sport nodded and winked at doping for many, many years... to go back and single out a particular participant doesn't seem right to me, and more than a little hypocritical. If they're re-examining the bloodwork of everyone who was in the Tours in question, then no problem; I'd be interested to know how many cyclists were clean.

[Bombot]

My only opinion is that the sport nodded and winked at doping for many, many years... to go back and single out a particular participant doesn't seem right to me, and more than a little hypocritical. If they're re-examining the bloodwork of everyone who was in the Tours in question, then no problem; I'd be interested to know how many cyclists were clean.

Yes, one of the implications is the many in the international cycling union (the UCI) were complicit in the deception. It is the US Anti-Doping Agency that went about doing its bit to clean up cycling and, unlike the World Anti-Doping Agency, still the UCI are dragging their heels in offering support. Apart from the fact the USADA does not have jurisdiction over all cyclists, what better way is there to send a message that cheaters will not ultimately get away with it than to go after the most high-profile target there is?

The USADA follows the code of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Many sports do not, which should raise more eyebrows.

As for being worn down by the rumours, as has already been indicated we're talking about the guy who appeared in Dodgeball to say "I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't have anything to regret for the rest of their life"!

[theunwantedbeing]

As for being worn down by the rumours, as has already been indicated we're talking about the guy who appeared in Dodgeball to say "I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't have anything to regret for the rest of their life"!

Wait? films are real and anything said in them is always true, unless you use drugs?

[Bombot]

Wait? films are real and anything said in them is always true, unless you use drugs?

Well seeing as he was in it playing himself and telling his own story, I would have though any reasonable person might conclude that it looks a little suspicious for him to be quitting this fight, which will see him officially stripped of his sporting achievements.

But if that isnt good enough for you, how about this one from his book 'It's not about the bike': "Pain is temporary. Quitting lasts forever."

[Burnthem]

I don't see how steroids would have helped him walk on the moon anyway, pointless.

[canberraguy]

I don't see how steroids would have helped him walk on the moon anyway, pointless.

Har har har

I have followed this story and, although I think we will not know the full story, a lot of things point to Armstrong being guilty. I remain hopeful he is not but his performance in the Tour all those years is pretty suspicious

[Chaos and Evil]

Bombot's post from the Olympics thread bears repeating:

1) A good cyclist develops cancer then, having defeated it, decides to capitalise on his good fortune by setting up a cancer awareness charity and use this to boost his support while using drugs to boost his performance. He knows that the odds against being caught are not too high if you are careful (see Marion Jones only having one sample fail a test for EPO - her 'B' sample turned up negative and she was cleared for a while). So he wins the Tour de France seven times and only fails one drugs test (at the time), but he gets away with that because his corrupt team has a friendly doctor available to give him an exemption. However, after rumours persist that he has been banned substances, US Anti-Doping Agency gathers enough witnesses prepared to testify that he was not racing clean, including a masseuse who casts doubt on the validly of the exemption that cleared him of the test he did fail and says she was asked to dispose of used syringes for him and pick up "strange parcels" for his team (*). Realising that he faces going before a hearing and being denounced in the glare of the world's media, he opts for damage limitation and volunteers to hand back his achievements whilst refraining from admitting he doped. In doing this he knows he will he can rely on the support of fans who believe his story that there is a witch-hunt against him and who will point to the lack of failed tests (except for the one he had an excuse for - an excuse that would have been debunked at the hearing he has dodged).

or

2) A good cyclist develops cancer then, having had the good fortune to defeat it, also returns to the sport so much faster than he was before that he able to win the Tour de France seven times against a number of cyclists who definitely were using banned substances. All the witnesses prepared to testify against him at the USADA's hearing are motivated to do so purely out of jealousy, including someone who was not racing against him. He has enough endurance and willpower to beat a field of many cheating cyclists on the road, and goes so far as to extol the virtues of 'not quitting' in a Hollywood movie, but he subsequently quits his fight against USADA allegations that will remove his historic achievements from the record books.

[Thanatos_elNyx]

Innocent until proven guilty.
And quitting to defend oneself, due to stress and fatigue, do not a guilty plea make.

The USADA’s efforts are to be commended,...

I disagree, they have convicted the man without a fair trial and I seriously doubt USADA has the power or right to strip Lance of his Tour titles.
That is a matter for the Tour de France themselves and no one else.

[Crazy Ivan]

Whether he's guilty or not (though I actually really fear he is). The news itself really bums me out. I wasn't his biggest fan (the tour de France got rather boring during his heyday), but I'm sick and tired of every win, every result, every damn outcome of every single cycling match being revised some time later. So now it's suddenly the numbers 5, 6, 8, 15 who won! I hardly remember seeing them, but they're the ones who haven't been caught (yet). Bah. We should have seen this coming, especially after the disastrous season of '98, but I still seem to remember a time when cycling used to be fun to watch. I must have been wrong all that time. This is killing the sport and it certainly kills my enjoyment of it.

[ColShaw]

Either the cycling officials need to crack down, hardcore, with an absolute zero-tolerance policy, and implement it across the board, fairly and consistently, or they need to just chuck the whole job. This years-later revisionism is absurd, especially when many of the other competitors (and no one knows how many) were equally guilty.

This does not excuse cheating. Absolutely not. But this ex post facto enforcement is ridiculous. There's some felonies for which the statute of limitations would've expired by now!