The Inevitable
So the big news is that USADA is finally charging Lance Armstrong with doping—really and for true! Let’s consider this for a moment: nearly two full years after one of cycling’s greatest practically washed out of the 2010 Tour, Travis Tygart is going after Armstrong for what he claims is clear evidence of doping. Among the penalties Armstrong is said to face is the possibility that he could be stripped of all seven of his Tour de France victories. While there is some doubt that could take place, what is very real is that Armstrong’s nascent triathlon career has been encased in carbonite.
It’s an event more problematic than whether or not Los Angeles will behave itself for the Stanley-cup-winning Kings parade, but a good deal less important than, say, the civil war in Syria.
Why problematic? This will prove to be a lengthy, costly case. Armstrong has already begun to remind the public that these are tax dollars at work. The argument that this is a bad use of tax dollars is a red herring. The moment we question whether doping cases should be prosecuted with tax dollars, the whole of USADA’s mission enters the blades of the combine. The more appropriate question is what good can come of this?
Several outspoken cyclists have commented that we should pursue the case because if you gradually clear away all the dopers you will, at some point, end up with a clean rider. It’s an idiotic assertion. What you eventually end up with is a rider who just never got tested. If every rider were tested at the end of each race or each stage of a stage race, it would be another matter, but it has been possible for riders to go weeks or more without being tested. Clear away doper upon doper from the ’90s and what you are left with is a guy you just can’t prove is clean, nor can you prove he doped. What kind of improvement is that?
The problem isn’t that Armstrong is innocent. If you’re reading this, it’s highly unlikely that you believe he’s innocent. Lance Armstrong is Santa Claus for grownups. Sorta. The world can be divided into those who believe Armstrong is innocent of doping and those who believe his innocence is as possible as the elimination of the student loan debt.
Armstrong has even been called the cancer Jesus. It’s a rich vein of irony, waiting for a pickaxe. There’s the obvious miracle of his seven straight Tour wins—statistically, it’s a stunner. The miracle that no accusation could stick. The messianic quality he has in giving those on death’s door hope. And then the wry fact that Armstrong himself is an atheist. But I’m not here to poke fun at religion, or at Armstrong, for that matter.
Armstrong has not one, but two dilemmas. In a tweet earlier today I used the hashtag #roadrunnerandcoyote to point out the inevitability of Travis Tygart’s pursuit of Armstrong. Tygart and USADA are his front-burner problem. He’s got to deal with this and he has to deal with it convincingly for everyone who still puts out cookies and milk on Christmas eve. History suggests that with his batting record, he will find a way out. He has on every previous occasion. The odds seem to favor him even now.
But Armstrong has a bigger problem. Competition is his raison d’etre. He nearly spelled that out when he came out of retirement by telling the world that he was most useful to the LiveStrong foundation as a competitor. As a competitor, he’s an example of clean living (try not to snicker), and that’s what gives hope to millions. When he’s hanging out on the beach with Matthew McConaughey or dating one of the Olsen twins (which one was it?), he’s just a playboy, which is to say a rich slacker. Not exactly role model stuff.
So, to continue his role as “the cancer Jesus” he needs to stay in the public eye as a competitor, whether as a cyclist, triathlete or marathoner. It’s a tough part to play. After all, there’s a shelf-life for everyone who plays at the most elite of levels. And unless Tygart gets taken out by a band of ronin, he’s not going to tire of playing Javert.
Which brings us to Tygart’s problem. And yes, Tygart has a problem. He’s beginning to seem like Inspector Javert chasing Jean Valjean. Armstrong stands accused of much more than Valjean was, but the great tragedy of Hugo’s Les Miserables is that Javert pursues Valjean relentlessly, showing a capacity for cruelty and spite that suggests he’s more of a villain than Valjean ever was.
And that is Tygart’s problem. He risks looking like a tyrant and losing public support for his efforts. He could make Armstrong look like a victim.
The other oft-asked question is why Armstrong won’t just come clean (pun intended). The reason is Tygart. Armstrong still has much to lose. LiveStrong isn’t worth much without Armstrong, no matter what the foundation says. They need him because he is the brand, their best advertising.
So back to that earlier, unanswered question of what good can come of this prosecution. I’m going to assert that nothing good can be achieved. We can’t really change the results, not at this point. Armstrong will forever be remembered as the winner of seven Tours de France. Try and strip them away and soon enough that asterisk that says “stripped of victory” will be forgotten, the exact details washed away from the public consciousness the way no one remembers Oliver North’s specific misdeeds. Let’s bear in mind: There is doping going on today, doping that needs to be stopped and chasing the past will really do nothing to help us in today’s fight. And frankly, I know a bunch of racers who are angry enough about facing doping in masters races they are ready to do some back-alley ass whooping. A full-court prosecution of Armstrong will take a lot of human capital that could be devoted otherwise.
It seems unlikely that these proceedings will result in anything that pleases anyone. And that means we are left with a decision. How do we want to remember Armstrong? There are plenty of cyclists out there who despise big Tex. It seems that some of the dislike for him comes from his alpha-male demeanor. Others dislike him for simply dominating the Tour for seven years. And I suppose some are angry that he seems to have gotten away with stuff that sank other riders. But the most surprising group are those who have told me they feel betrayed by Armstrong, that they believed he was innocent and now they see those years of his wins as a bushel of lies. I wonder if maybe this isn’t mostly embarrassment at having been naive enough to drink the Kool-Aid.
Armstrong won in a dirty time. Stripping him of his victories won’t fix that. And unless WADA is prepared to go after every cyclist who rode at that time, the pursuit of Armstrong will be perceived as unjust because it is an unequal enforcement effort. Forgetting for a moment all the foreign riders who will never be pursued—the Spaniards especially—what of other American riders? What of George Hincapie? Does anyone really think he was clean? Is the only reason to leave his meager legacy intact just that—because it was meager?
Some of the bitterness for Armstrong smacks of the “I never loved her anyway” that follows high school breakups, which is my way of insulting some of the anger directed at him as being childish.
And so now I’m going to say something I suspect will be wildly unpopular: I cherish those years. I loved watching Armstrong win. I recall sitting near the top of the Col du Glandon in 2004 and watching le train bleu come by at the speed of freeway traffic and hearing the guys chatting and laughing within the pack—laughing! I walked back to our van with a stupid grin on my face, knowing I’d seem something special. I’d have to stop to think about all the stages that I watched with the same breathless anxiety that school girls reserved for the Beatles. I loved every minute of it.
Lance doped. He’s not gonna confess. We can’t fix the past, but we can police the present. So unless you’re prepared to see all of cycling burned down like Dresden, let’s leave it alone.
Hank, who decides who is “a little fish?” Where did USADA get that power? Some people think we would be better off in a simpler world run by clear minded Savanarolas who cut through the niceties and just string people up. Not me.
wsquared.
Who decides who is a little fish? You tell me. Is it a domestique struggling just to keep his contract and make a living or some minor team employee… or is it the team leader and owner and the team manager/owner and the doctors making a fortune juicing riders. It’s not rocket science.
Prosecutors do this all the time and rightly so. Give the little guys incentive to spill the beans to get the bosses.
My apologies, let me rephrase:
Shame on you. Not for your fond memories, as we are all entitled to those, but for wanting the truth to be ignored. The truth is never inconvenient.
Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
On the history of cheating in cycling – yes cycling has always been a dirty sport. Before the EPO era, before doping was effective enough to determine the outcome of a race. Races were often fixed and riders paid off to go along with a result. That does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say thats the way it’s always been. Hopefully humankind can at some point progress whether in sport or society.
Prosecuting a cheater is never unfair. Driving clean cyclists out of the sport or relegating them to second class careers because they are clean – now thats unfair.
USADA is not governed by the checks and balances of a civil court or grand jury. They are not federal prosecutors. They are a private organization whose original reason for being and basis for funding is to police the Olympic games. Where us it written they can let dopers off the hook for any reason? & spare me the pathetic straw man arguement that we’re only talking about poor little domestiques getting a pass here. You know better than that.
wspuared
A very good reason would be to get testimony. Otherwise there is no way or incentive to break the omertà.
Next to a powerful owner/director and the leader/7 time tour winner everyone else on that team was a small fish. It was built around one guy.
There is an incorrect syllogism in the original post. Two arguments are conflated that need to be treated separately. Whether or not cheaters should be pursued is one question. How the pursuit of alleged cheaters is carried out is a separate question. Answer first, whether or not cheaters should be pursued, and then if you think they should be you can have a second conversation about how but don’t confuse the two.
Hank, I believe its reached the point where our fundamental disagreement on the underlying issues at stake here have been more than adequately defined. Time to walk my dogs.
Wow! I haven’t been around here much lately, but dare I say that was one of Patrick’s worst and least sane posts.
well, opinions are flying off the shelf, so here is mine, since we are all bouncing this off one another.
I have several questions, some of these have been raised
1. How on earth did USADA get this case for prosecution, WHO brought them the evidence? Who gave it to them?
2. What jurisdiction do they (USADA) have to ‘remove his TdF wins?’?? How?? You mean the French will respect this?
3. How will this entire case be heard objectively, fairly and justly…WHEN there is NO statute of limitations. Will the case evidence be available for LA’s lawyers to test?? or is it even available still? IF not, then how is that just that the prosecution only has the evidence tested?? Because I have read/heard that there is no more sampling available for testing.
4. Why not test all..ALL other heros and giants of cycling…Eddy, Coppi, Anquetil, Big Mig, et al?? Its well documented as many have said, and if there are no statutes of limitations in the USA, why not Belgium, why not Italy, why not France, why not Spain???
Listen, we all want a clean sport, and we all squarely have feelings about it, as I do. But really, when do we move on, bury the past, and how do we do that???
I agree that Padraig is right. There is nothing that can come from this that is good, just, nor morally right. If a case had been brought with immediacy, that is another story, but now if we open this up now, in history, its a slippery slope that will/should go back into the 1800′s, and how realistic is that??
In the words of my hero who I vicariously live through, “its so stupid, I’m speechless”
Thats exactly how I feel when this case hit the news..again
I am in stunned disbelief that some people here do not consider cheating to be a moral issue. Cheating is a moral issue and if you let it slide then you are simply condoning it. You can argue all you want about whether the USDA is the right body or whatever but you go after cheats whenever and wherever you can.
I want to try to stress again here that these guys under suspicion, and that have been served by USADA, are currently participating in sport. Do we not all agree that Johan Bruynell is probably the most influential person in cycling right this very moment?
It seems like many people here are sticking with the “let sleeping dog lie” belief and “let’s address current issues” to help with the future of our sport. This seems really current to me. Johan, at this very moment, is deciding who is going to ride in the Tour de France for the Radio Shack/Nissan team.
If any of the allegations are true, then what? Will all be okay and he can confess his misguided ways and then, like Bjarne Riis, go about his way as Sports Director extraordinaire.
Sorry guys, I’m not going with it. Just because it has been going on for more than a decade, doesn’t give you a get out of jail card. The USADA charges are from 1999 until present day. Present day is the key here. Not yesterday or 2001, now, today. That is pertinent to this whole discussion.
How about if this didn’t come out for a while and Lance had won the Ironman in Hawaii, would you think the same about the time frame argument? I think so.
>>> Just because it has been going on for more than a
>>> decade, doesn’t give you a get out of jail card.
This ^ atmo.
Gerard: I don’t think anyone reading RKP is unclear that doping is cheating is a moral issue. We’re past the morality. And the question isn’t whether or not cheaters should be pursued. In a perfect world we should prosecute all cheating, and it should all be prosecuted equally. However, this isn’t a perfect world. USADA has limited resources. If we’re going to start focusing on the past, how far back do we take that? And what of the present-tense doping that we will miss?
Tilford: I agree with you that if Bruyneel has a current system in place we should be concerned about that and investigating/prosecuting it. The sport is a good deal cleaner than it was and I fully support seeing USADA’s limited resources used to pursue anything going on right now. No matter what is uncovered.
Anybody care that A. Schleck is out of the TdF?
Padraig, well written post but I’m afraid I don’t agree at all. To quote one of your lines: ‘There is doping going on today, doping that needs to be stopped and chasing the past will really do nothing to help us in today’s fight.’
In this case, chasing the past will do precisely that. As Steve noted in his very logical post, Bruyneel is currently one of the most influential directors/managers in the sport, and still has huge influence over cycling and also the young riders in his care. Lance has now moved into triathlon and stands to add to his millions there; even if he isn’t using PEDs now (and, given past history, can we be sure about that?), the effects of said PEDS last in the system for a long, long time. Also, what signal does it send out if he can simply move sideways into another sport, having helped corrupt another one? Pepe Marti either is or, until recently, was Alberto Contador’s coach, and may well work with others. Pedro Celaya is the current RadioShack Nissan team doctor. Michele Ferrari is an absolute pox on the sport and has been doping athletes for at least 25 years; through his son, he’s continuing to work in the peloton and to corrupt cycling. And Luis Garcia del Moral is another long-running doping enabler. Yet you want this to be brushed under the carpet? I’m sorry, I can’t agree with that.
The argument is that the Tour de France results will look skewed with Armstrong’s name missing. Actually, I’m not thinking about the TDF results at all. For me, the most important goal is not about rewriting history; it’s about acknowledging history, officially recognising what went on, and fixing the present/future. If you ignore that, if you ignore the corruption in the UCI that enabled this to take place, which tipped off the team prior to tests, and which helped to cover up positive test results, if you ignore the doctors and directors on this list which continue to have major input, then nothing at all is being done to try to ensure that the next generation doesn’t encounter the same problems. It’s precisely for all these reasons that truth and action is needed, even if it’s going to make the waters choppy for a while.
What a thing to say that an anti doping body pursuing a possible doper is anything but the right thing to do. Who cares if he has hung up his wheels? This is an incredible deterrent in my opinion. It shows all those dopers out there that there really is a possibility that even when they have finished their careers, they still risk being discredited and major financial ruin (having to pay all those winners purses back).
I love that the authorities are hunting down Lance like he hunted down Fillipo Simeoni. He was never an Alpha male Padraig, just a bully boy who cheated and called it a moral crusade. Nor is he bigger than cycling. Maybe it will hurt teams and the sport in terms of sponsorship etc but really thats a small price to pay for having a clean sport.
Punkture, nailed it. Too much moral equivalence going on above. Too many people finding excuses. Too much casuistry.
punkture & Gerard
Exactly. It’s OK to go after Johan and some of those named but Lance is off limits according to some twisted formula of moral equivalence or allocation of funds? You can nail Johan for anything he has done post Lance but not for anything he did with Lance because that’s “history”?
This is all about policing doping TODAY in the sport. Lance’s legacy in cycling is a more sophisticated – high tech and impenetrable system of doping that includes management, medical staff and maybe the UCI and the labs. Take that down and we have made a giant step to a better, cleaner sport.
I don´t believe Lance rode clean. But I sure I don´t believe USADA stands on a higher moral ground just because their seminal mission is (supposedly) to clean the sport. This is about winning our hearts because neither Lance is the devil nor USADA is the saint, and nothing could ever uncover the “truth” because there´s not just one simple truth, no matter how simple we or anyone tries to make this.
To me, everyone has a “hidden agenda” and the people running USADA at the moment are, for some reason that escape my understanding (I float in a different, much more humble “citizen” life of course), chasing down Lance´s hidden agenda.
Moral and ethical issues aside, there must be other more important issues at stake than the “future of clean cycling”. May be the usual – money, power, politics – or even something more personal, why not – jealousy, bitterness, spite. I´d guess it´s a mix of all above both on professional and personal levels. Everything has its opposing force, so it looks to me like some sort of “power struggle” between a powerful persona (Lance Armstrong) and his Yang (or Ying if you prefer).
I understand that Lance is a symbol of an era and as such it should make sense to chase him for his past sins (reminding everyone that USADA has started an INVESTIGATION for the moment). But with such long list of great achievements came another long list of opponents (bitter riders, despised doctors and co-workers, ignored journalists, etc.). And I feel those won´t let it go even if Lance died.
We may never see the truth. I´m not yet sure about what good this case could bring to the sport of cycling, or if it could harm it further. So for now I´m with Padraig on this one, maybe we should focus on the present and future and leave the past in the past.
Shane: Thanks much for dropping by. I think many people, and I’m sorry but you included, have incorrectly come to the conclusion that I mean we should leave the entire former USPS operation alone. My point is that chasing what was going on in ’99 won’t tell us much, I believe, and stripping Armstrong of a win that occurred 13 years ago won’t fix a damn thing; it seems we’re on the same page with this one. However, I think Ferrari, Celaya, del Moral and everyone else currently working deserve our full attention, especially because what we know of their past. If Bruyneel can be shown to be running an organized system for blood manipulation in his riders, then he deserves the full weight of WADA against him.
This discussion will be much more interesting when the evidence is revealed. If the evidence is clearly reliable and damning then we go one way. If it’s weak or hearsay then perhaps the exercise is a waste of time. I agree Bruyneel is the big fish, for people interested in the sport. My guess is the RadioShack team is probably doomed no matter what happens.
As a tax-payer I don’t mind seeing USADA go after Armstrong. His wins in the biggest race in the world are still within the legal reach of anti-doping authorities. My only reservations would be about giving his trophies to the second-best dopers he beat.
How was LA able to be tested more than others yet not get busted? I’ve heard many reasons to that answer but none make logical sense. Reason: he had more money than the riders who got busted. Really? Remember that cycling is big busine$$ in Europe. Some teams have five or six supporters with more money than LA. Reason: He was ahead of the testing science. Really? he was the only one who could figure that out? This also ties to the above reason. Reason: The cycling world didn’t want to bring a big champion down. Really? Every european country wanted to bring him down because he was an American, and because it helped explain why their riders were slower. AC is a big champion and they brought him down.
Now everyone will want to type that I am naive so let me say that cycling, like all other sport, has been dirty since the begining. As the reward (fame, money…) increases so does the level of corruption (doping and other cheating).
I find this interesting: Chris Horner has gone on the record on cyclingnews as saying “I read the news like everyone else but you look at it with Lance and it’s the same stories that have been going around for years, forever, and it’s been relived and recycled many times. Lance has always come out clean from it,” Horner told Cyclingnews.
He went on to say “I don’t believe Armstrong has cheated in any way to win those victories and he’s gone through an insane amount of testing. Do we have pictures of it? Video or testing? Because without that you really don’t have anything.”
I asked earlier what the evidence actually is, what exists and have found that the USADA’s exact evidence is unknown. Factual evidence, is unknown. Its apparent the case may spiral down to arguements of opinion….much like on this thread (which will be much more respectful than in court), nonetheless, their 15 page letter to Armstrong and others only includes testimony from ten riders.
Thats it?
For you all that believe sincerely he ‘broke the law’, and for other reasons exact punishment should be given, seriously??? Based on opinions of a testimony??
Is there anything else in evidence??
And again, will LA have the chance to cross test/examine it??
Kudo’s to Horner for sticking up for a friend, he is a class act IMHO.
I think Shane Stokes makes the case better then anyone.
padraig -how do you propose to part out Johan’s past behavior and current behavior? Do we have to wait 10 years until someone spills the beans on Johan, Marti, Celaya and company’s recent possibly bad behavior? Then you will tell us it’s water under the bridge, nothing to be gained by looking backwards. It’s a formula to keep the doping status quo forever.
If Lance is the means to take down bad actors still involved and powerful in the sport -why should that path not be taken? If the evidence exists and you have the chance to clean up present day corruption, act on it. If it requires involving Lance and the history of corruption of the accused -so be it. Cycling does not owe any cheater protection just because they got away with it for decades.
RE: Results: From a “patriotic” standpoint, I don’t want them to yank LA’s wins because that means that a doper from another country will get the titles. Many people have discussed it, but how do you give Ulrich (pick your second, third place guy/year) the title? If they prove that LA doped, I want the US doper to stay on top instead of putting the Euro doper on top. How deep do you go to find a “clean” rider in the ’90-00s? (Nothing against my cycling bros/sis over the pond! ;})
The author made that point that going after LA in this fashion smacks of unequal enforcement. That nails it.
I don’t doubt that there was lots of doping going on, only that singling out Armstrong because he’s the big fish is unfair and causes the general public to get a distorted view of what happened: that Armstrong won those TdFs over innocent riders by cheating.
I loved the reference to Les Miserables. As the author admitted, it’s not a perfect analogy but it largely rings true.
This is a disappointing article. It is not necessary to go after every cyclist who doped from say 1990 on but, it is necessary for the integrity of the sport that the winners who doped be held to account to keep the record straight.
Armstrong raises a ton of money on the basis of his TDF wins. That is his raison d’tre. This money does no go to cancer research as many believe. It goes to Livestrong for programs to facilitate help for people with cancer or it goes to Armstrong’s private company to pay Lance and fund his lifestyle.
If he has doped an I believe he has, he has raised this money under false pretences. As to Armstrong being a “Jesus” or “Messiah” to cancer survivors that personna is an over-hyped distortion based again purely on Armstrong’s achievements in the TDF and recovery from cancer.
To top it off he is an arrogant, defensive, narcissistic and grumpy personality who hardly inspires but comes across as abrasive and full of hubris. If cancer victims are looking for a genuine hero, contrast Armstrong to Canada’s Terry Fox, who was a genuine inspiration and in fact raised millions for actual research.
The biggest problem with Armstrong is that while he has athletic talent, as a human being he is a phoney. He is adored for his celebrity in an era besotted with celebrity status.
@ Souleur – if you haven’t read Gerard Vroomen’s blog on Horner’s comments, I commend it to you.
I am with Shane Stokes and Hank on this one. I haven’t read all of the comments above so apologies if this has already been said but there are also a couple of extra reasons why we NEED to go back and scratch these sores:
- we owe it to a bunch of people that have been vilified and bullied for many years for having the bravery (yes, bravery) to stand up to the established system and say what they saw in a terrible era. Ignore Landis and Hamilton if you must, but think of a few others out there who have been ridiculed and hated upon who had no particular axe to grind. What did Bassons ever do to anyone? Emma O’Reilly? Betsy Andreu? Steven Swart? Lemond? The list goes on – it could even include the “bitter and twisted” journalists who have continued the rage.
- we owe it to the clean riders of that era. Sure, we may not be able to identify them, but you can bet there were some. I do accept that it is senseless to re-award titles though.
- we owe it to the future riders. I wasn’t a bad rider as a junior. I raced in Europe and was blown away by the needle culture that was instilled in young teenagers. I have no idea what was in those needles, perhaps only vitamins, but ask former doped riders how they got started. This mentality still goes on – a DS on a protour team was bemoaning to me just months ago about how injections were just normal and necessary and banning it was ridiculous. We have to learn from our past. Management and doctors with this culture need to be cleaned out and those coming through need to see that this behaviour won’t be tolerated, and it will eventually catch up with you.
Sorry, rant over. I would have loved it if we had had some kind of “truth and reconciliation” commission as South Africa did post-apartheid – bad analogy I know – and I even thought it might happen when Zabel, Riis etc started fessing up but I fear that there were (and remain) some such as Armstrongwho just have too much invested. This move by USADA will hurt short-term but hopefully help long-term.
@trickydick, thanks for the reference. He does bring out the counter-arguement and true…its legit. Horner may be covering his tail with motive and intent to be picked for the tour team..or may not
I appreciate the entirity of this dilemma, and that is much of this is simply who you want to believe, what you believe in. And so far, that is the evidence before us in this case, testimony alone.
Although it seems we all here are a gulf apart, we really aren’t
-I believe in letting things go since time has passed, as some have
-I believe in Horner
-I believe there are too many ill-intended motives on the USADA’s part for them to call themselves ‘just’ and pure
Others believe in
-a clean cycling peloton
-a better future and desire to clean up the past, some stating we owe it to them, we owe it to all others
and truthfully despite the differences, there are still similiarities in goals and hope we can all agree on
unless more evidence is revealed
Robby Canuck,
The problem with your argument that we should only go after the winners not all dopers is that if you go after the winners all of the people behind them could become winners. In this case, if LA didn’t win, Ulrich did. He’s been convicted so Beloki, Moreau, Heras, Virenque, Botero, Escartin, Mancebo, Nardello…all of them either convicted or implicated in doping (Nardello might not have been). Plus, if they would have been tested more because they won, they might have come up dirtier. Of course at this point if they award Nardello, for example, the 2000 TdF title he won’t make the kind of mney that he would have had he actually won the race, but there will be money in it for him. Using your argument, will he make enough to go after him for potential doping?
JM Dirt
This is not about trying to figure who would of won some past race had everyone been clean. There is no way to know that. So leave it blank or give it to the next crooked guy on the list according to the relegation rules. It’s of little importance. No one will regard it as a true win anyway. Those races are forever tainted.
What is important is the impact it has going forward. Make an example of those who gained the most first if you have limited resources. The big fish who’s fall will be remembered by every future potential doper. Anybody remember the name of the Japanese rider on RS who got banned. Do you think that suspension is going to give any potential cheat pause? But the guy who was smarter then the authorities and made it to the top and made more money then any cyclist and retired thumbing his nose at the regulators. There’s a model for future cheats. Wait… he lost it all in the end?
Look at the names on the USADA letter. Only one is being pursued for his role as a rider. The rest are active managers, doctors and coaches and the current leadership of the UCI. This is bigger then Armstrong and it’s all about what is happening today. But it’s only possible to get at the truth about the current corrupt doping infrastructure because of the collapse of the wall of secrecy around LA’s activities. That’s why he should be part of this inquiry.
Hank,
I agree with you that if LA ever does get “busted” a lot of people will notice (I have lots of buts to this though). There are a lot of sub arguments within this mess and my reply to Robby was that you can’t base how dirty a rider is on how much he won or made because if you take that rider out of the picture the next doper in line would have won and made that money.
It is my belief that you can’t clean sports up from the top, you have to start from the base, the kids who are still participating for the love of it. If LA gets busted next year from this or the next investigation, will the 10 year old kid riding his/her BMX bike at the bike park know or care? In 10 years that kid might be a great mountain bike or road racer, but will he/she remember that LA got busted? Probably not. So busting the big fish has a very short effective window especially if the little fish are still eating the special fish food (don’t forget that if you get the big fish, some of the small fish become big fish).
This would be better discussed over beer or Patron. I could ramble on for days. Let’s talk about religion or politics next! ;}
I haven’t read all the comments, but I think my sentiment has been spoken already a few times. I’ll reiterate though… taking down Bruyneel et al, more than makes this investigation a worthwhile endeavor.
In light of these posts, a thought comes to mind: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”(Santayana).
Many of you would do well to recollect that ALL crimes are prosecuted after the fact. Statute of limitations notwithstanding.
Regarding the Present and the Future: If the sport does not do all that is humanly possible to clean up it’s past, it will forever be regarded in terms of it’s past, no matter how clean the future. Once a cheater, always a cheater…
One option: Institute lifetime bans and expulsion of ALL competition records for cheating(ie: historically, the cheater never existed).
Base grounds for judgements on irrefutable evidence handled by an agency beyond reproach.
(This would require the construction of a not as yet existing institution and an oversight process by multiple non-invested parties).
Lastly: Asterisk all previous years, draw a thick black line and note that this was the year that a true no-tolerance policy ruled the sport.
With one stroke of a pen, pro cycling could be elevated above all other sports. Think of the potential payoffs…
@Padraig – You ask why prosecute Lance now?? Because he is the poster boy for every rider who’s ever doped, continues to dope, or is tempted to dope. Who can blame riders for being tempted when they look at someone who systematically doped for a decade, was rigorously tested, yet won 7 Tours, is a hero to many, AND dated an Olsen twin! And are we even sure it was only the one twin???
Yes it looks like a witchhunt and Tygart may end up looking bitter, but that’s what the the USADA is there for – to tackle doping in sport, and for me this sends a strong message and is money well spent.
It’s time the UCI, CAS, USADA, CONI and every other body concerned with the fight showed that doping will not be tolerated. We’ve had the dirty years in the 90′s, we’ve had soft sentences and short bans that did not work as a deterrent. If they’re serious we need lifetime bans and financial consequences for anyone (Lance, Bryuneel included) who has been shown to have engaged in systematic, wilful doping. At least then the rules would be clear, and riders will have themselves to blame for any consequences.
Like you I drank the kool-aid too. It was hard not to while watching him literally destroy the competition – an awesome sight. Maybe I’m embarrassed at having been duped, but I’m also angry. Angry too that he’s now infiltrating the sport of triathlon, which I love. He’s a fraud, but no one in authority has had the balls to call him on it. Until now. Bravo!
I agree with the article. well written. well thought out. i share the same sentiment. what is interesting to me is the conviction here. i guess its just impossible that lance worked the hardest, had the best team, the most money, the best training, the best manager? (as reported) 1) USADA bascially stated the reason for the charges is that the statute of limitation is about to expire and 2)the accusation of doping between 2009 and 2011. really between 2009 and 2011???? he won nothing those years. this: sends no message, is a waste of time (i won’t waste anymore on it either), effort, and money (regardless of whose money it is).
Given the current state of medical technology, it’s impossible to completely eliminate doping — unless you’re willing to put cyclists under 24/7 quarantine. As soon as we accept that a perfect solution unattainable, we can begin to discuss how to minimize the problem in a manner consistent with other, competing goals like protection of innocent riders and equal treatment of riders.
I understand why people want to go after Armstrong and make an example of him. However, I think it’s important to maintain a system that treats all competitors equally. Armstrong is clearly being singled out for extraordinary scrutiny. Exhibit A: the bit about his red blood cell counts being “consistent” with EPO use or blood doping. I’m pretty sure that applying the same criteria to others would yield lots of positives — but only Armstrong is being charged.
RealDogBoy
My understanding is that Armstrong is the only rider charged because he is the only rider that refused to cooperate. He was not singled out so much as he singled himself out. He could have done what all his team mates opted to do and been a witness against Bruyneel, Ferrari, and the rest named in the charging letter. All of whom are still active (Ferrari may be banned but he is still active) in the sport.
It’s much more than just “charging” him, Hank. He’s being subject to scrutiny (red blood cell count analysis and lots of other stuff) that isn’t being applied to anyone else.
My point isn’t that Armstrong is innocent. I think he probably did much of what they allege. It’s the process I object to – he’s being treated very differently because (a) he won a lot; (b) people don’t like him, possibly due to his saintly image with the general public which doesn’t stand to close inspection.
Thanks for a great perspective.
I continue to be amazed that people want to go after Armstrong just because he won. That’s a slippery slope.
Padraig, at this point I think you must simply be trying to stir things up to generate more responses. The latest comment above is incredibly facile in what it is saying – the comments others have made have laid out clearly why USADA are going after these guys, Armstrong included. It’s not jus because he won, although given that he earned over 100 million dollars, that does show how much he profited from what he and his team-mates did.
How about this for additional reasons?
1) He was not just a rider; he was an owner of Tailwind and someone with arguably the biggest influence in what went on.
2) He perjured himself during the SCA deposition.
3) He was the only rider who refused to meet USADA and to speak about the case. He had a chance to give his view on things but refused to do so.
4) He allegedly threatened Tyler Hamilton, Greg LeMond, Frankie Andreu, and various others.
5) According to the USADA document, he, Bruyneel and others were involved in pushing team domestiques to use doping substances. I heard many years ago that agreeing to use ‘the program’ was necessary to be considered for the Tour team. The USADA charges point to this as being the case. As team leader and Tailwind owner, he’s in a position of real responsibility.
6) According to the witness evidence USADA has gathered, he was also involved in the illegal transportation of these products across borders and with providing them to riders (ie trafficking and supply).
I could go on but I’m sure the point has been made. This is not just about him winning some races; it’s far more than that. You are an intelligent guy, surprised at the simplistic and one dimensional view that your last comment takes. In terms of Armstrong, there’s a clear difference between being a reluctant passenger and with being someone who actively drove things forward.
Shane: I’m not trying to suggest Armstrong is above suspicion; you’ve missed my point—and I’m more than ready to put this one to bed. My comment was meant to point out to readers that if you are going to invite immediate suspicion for every rider the moment they win, it is nearly impossible to enjoy the sport. Doping control, post race, should ideally be nothing more than verification that a rider was clean, not the beginning of a protracted investigation. If we are going to equate winning with doping there’s not much point to following racing.
Hi Padraig, not sure what you mean – I don’t think myself or many others who commented above said that every rider who wins should invite suspicion. This is about more than that; it’s about a huge amount of information that has built up over the past sixteen years or so, and goes far further than simply stating a rider may have used banned substances to win. If you look at the points I listed above, it shows why this is much more than a winner-may-have-used-banned-products scenario. It’s about trafficing, supply, intimidation, enticing others to break rules, etc.
Let’s look at it another way; what kind of message does it sent out if USADA does nothing at all? How would that improve the future for cycling, other than not forcing the sport to deal with what’s been going on while the UCI twiddled its thumbs? I’d argue that as much the negative headlines would be uncomfortable for cycling, that the damage is far worse if there’s no negative consequences whatsoever for those who ran such as system for so long. What signal does that send out? How does that reinforce the (very clear) rules?
If you’ll pardon the parallel – and I know it’s not the same topic, obviously – it’s akin to the catholic church deciding not to do anything about the scandals in Ireland and elsewhere as it might lead to negative headlines. As a result of that, the church is in a bad way here and has lost a huge amount of support and faith.
Sometimes you’ve got to grasp the nettle to uproot it, even if it will sting.
I think it’s a bit disingenius to treat this as if it’s just a rider who won a lot. The triumvurate of Bruyneel/Armstrong and Ferrari are the most effective and sophisticated doping operation in cycling history. Scarponi, Menchov and Pelazzoti are implicated in the Ferrari investigation. Contador’s former coach is named in the USADA letter. Armstrong is now bringing his ‘special’ brand of management and training to the top ranks of Triatholon competition.
This gets to the core of everything that is CURRENTLY wrong with cycling. It did not start yesterday and they are looking at the whole rotten development from inception until todsay. Armstrong is not just another competitor. Not by a long shot.He is also manager, enforcer, owner and a central figure in the whole rotten mess. If Armstromng or Bruyneel ever came clean it would take a decade for dopers to rebuild the infrastructure needed to support modern high-tech doping.
I think it’s a bit disingenius to treat this as if it’s just a rider who won a lot. The triumvurate of Bruyneel/Armstrong and Ferrari are the most effective and sophisticated doping operation in cycling history. Scarponi, Menchov and Pelazzoti are implicated in the Ferrari investigation. Contador’s former coach is named in the USADA letter. That could finish Contador’s career. Armstrong is now bringing his ‘special’ brand of management and training to the top ranks of Triatholon competition.
This gets to the core of everything that is CURRENTLY wrong with cycling. It did not start yesterday and they are looking at the whole rotten development from inception until todsay. Armstrong is not just another competitor. Not by a long shot.He is also manager, enforcer, owner and a central figure in the whole rotten mess. If Armstromng or Bruyneel ever came clean it would take a decade for dopers to rebuild the infrastructure needed to support modern high-tech doping.
Thank you for this post. I have posted a similar tome on my Facebook page, however not as eloquently put. But the nugget that gets me in all of this is precisely what you point out. Going after him now serves no purpose to actively clean up the sport. All the time and resources (that pesky tax money) will be spent essentially worrying over spilled milk. I hope that one day we will have clean sport, but I am confident that he’ll isn’t freezing over anytime soon.
I am just now reading through all of the posts on this article. It appears that those in favor of USADAs position think that by retroactively going after those who doped and one that it will serve the public good of cycling.
Doped + didn’t win = ok and not worth the chase
Doped + did win = justifiable chase
I would like to kindly push back on this logic. There is plenty of incentive for a rider to dope and not win given this logic. Perhaps a domestique in order to serve his captain, or a tired rider to have a good placing to keep his contract etc. I would ask how these are different, in my opinion the riders cruising around under the radar are perhaps more insidious than the stars of organized doping….er i mean cycling. Like others I am not a Lance fanboy, and personally don’t care one way or another. He will always be a seven time winner regardless of a stricken win in the books. So fine, go after him, but they should be retesting every single rider from very single race during the same time or put it to rest.
Travis,
Everyone charged is still active in competition at the top level. Bruyneel is managing a top team. Ferrari is still advising riders on doping despite his ban. Armstrong is competing in Tri (which just like cycling falls under the USADA). The UCI management is still calling the shots in cycling.
How is this about spilt milk? Old history? Yes, they have piles of evidence going back 16 years but are you saying Bruynell, Ferrari, Armstrong and company just decided after decades of making millions and unprecedented success through doping have decided to abandon the methods that got them here. Now they are all clean?
Plus the fall out is already effecting dozens of active pro cyclists as the Italians pursue Ferrari. What happens to Armstrongs wins is a footnote. The impact on the CURRENT doping enabling machine is potentially huge.