Turning Point
The effect of the release of USADA’s “reasoned decision” and the accompanying documents has been rather like a Hollywood special-effects explosion. Debris has been raining down from the sky long after the explosion itself has ceased to reverberate. Some of us continue to wince and duck because we know there’s more in the sky than just blue. With a single download George Hincapie has gone from one of the United States’ most beloved riders, to one of its most vilified. Johan Bruyneel has gone from genius mastermind to evil genius. So many characters from the heyday of American cycling have been thrust into the role of criminal that Tyler Hamilton’s one-time team director Bjarne Riis—an enigmatic figure if ever there was one—has the enviable position of occupying a kind of moral purgatory where people aren’t really sure just how to feel about him.
Reams continue to be written about the USADA case, Travis Tygart and, yes, Lance Armstrong. Some of it, like Charles Pelkey’s recent Explainer, will be reasoned and objective. Some of it, such as Malcolm Gladwell’s piece for Business Insider, will get the conclusion wrong due to a lack of understanding of the facts; simply put, Gladwell doesn’t understand that the public wants a clean sport. Unrestrained doping results in deaths, and deaths are bad for the sponsors. Others, like John Eustice’s piece for TIME, hails from an outlook of such moral ambiguity one would prefer he didn’t speak on behalf of the sport; his attitude is a great example of what got us into this mess. This is no time for more of the same. The biggest surprise came from Competitive Cyclist’s “What’s New” blog, which is the most unapologetically ambivalent piece I’ve been able to find. Unfortunately, cycling fans don’t seem to be willing to entertain negative capability where Armstrong is concerned. As a result, no one I know is ready for nostalgia.
One wonders about the curious silence of Sally “Lance Armstrong is a good man” Jenkins, the Washington Post columnist and Armstrong biographer who has been known to take on a sports icon directly, such as when she wrote, “Joe Paterno was a liar, there’s no doubt about that now.“ And then there’s the astoundingly politician-like flip-flop of Phil Liggett who has been far more effective as a PR agent for Armstrong than Mark Fabiani was. His statement that he finds it “very hard to believe Lance Armstrong did not dope” falls rather short of the more definitive, ‘I believe Lance Armstrong doped’, was nonetheless a shocker for those who watched him on the Four Corners program on Australian television, and re-broadcast by CNN in the U.S.
No matter what faults readers may find with the print media, they cannot compare to the sin committed in the orchestrated slander of Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis by Liggett and co-commentator Paul Sherwen. In allowing Armstrong to join them as an investor in an African gold mine, they gave him their short hairs, and the last vestiges of their objectivity.
The outrage about Armstrong is really understandable. His seven wins in the Tour were a Ponzi scheme that even Bernie Madoff would admire. How Armstrong managed to do what he did, why he did it, why others aided him, all of that is easy to process. It’s a word I keep coming back to: coercion. At some level, everyone who succumbed felt pushed by forces outside their own will. What has been harder to understand is how the reception to the Armstrong story changed over time.
In 2001, almost no one wanted to hear any suggestion that Armstrong wasn’t clean. For a long time, David Walsh was treated as if he was running around in a tinfoil hat. Even in 2005, once the allegations were out there more firmly, the cycling world still seemed to have their hands at their ears, collectively yelling “la-la-la-la I can’t hear you.” But by 2009 it was apparent, based on—if nothing else—comments here on RKP, that a great many serious cyclists had come to the conclusion that Armstrong wasn’t clean. It was also apparent by that time that a great many stories had emerged of just what a domineering personality he was. I’ve often wondered just how much peoples’ dislike of Armstrong greased their ability to conclude that he was a doper. Once a villain, then why not all-in?
So while the Friday Group Ride is a few days away, I’d like to pose a few questions to you readers: When did you come to the conclusion that Armstrong was a doped athlete? If the tipping point for you came before the USADA Reasoned Decision, what served as your personal tipping point? Also, if your change of opinion came before the Reasoned Decision, did the release of those documents change anything for you, even if it was only to cause you to hate Armstrong even more? Finally, for those of you who have been outraged by what was detailed in the Reasoned Decision and its supporting documents, why did it anger you in a way the same allegations made previously did not?
Now, having asked all that, I’ll make a final request: This is meant to be a conversation, not an occasion to vent self-righteous spleen. We want to hear from as many readers as possible, so we ask that you try to keep your comments both brief and civil. Thanks.
Image: John Pierce, Photosport International
I was pretty damn sure the top 10 or so were doped when I saw an interview with Julich: he was hanging with all the best climbers, and I think he was 3rd that year in the TdF. He said something like , It was easy, then checked himself and said, “Well, not easy, but I just paced so-in-so and hung on”. Ultimate confirmation when George friggin’ Hinkapie won a mountain stage– how does that happen?? In the Tour where the lightest, zero-percent-body-fat-climber-jockeys with 90% VO2 have been keying on that one day for an entire year, and some 6 ft 160 pounder wins…let alone is in the same group?
Also, friend of a friend who was In always spoke about , “He’s on a good (air quotes) medical program”
Turns out my top 10 theory was way off….
I think that once it was clear that Jan Ulrich had doped, one could only conclude that the guy who always beat the perennial number 2, and a bunch of other guys who were doping, was hugely unlikely to have been able to beat them racing clean. I really didn’t think it was so widespread as it was within the teams . . . I thought surely if George was doping, he’d be doing more winning. And given their vehement denials, I really questioned whether Floyd and Tyler were being truthful now or just trying to bring others down with them.
I like Phil and Paul, but they sacrificed their objectivity early on, if ever they had it. Sportscasting seems to accept this sort of thing.
For me, it was when Greg Lemond spoke of his concerns. I had wondered, but never allowed myself to believe that Lance was doping. I had bought the yellow bracelets, had friends with cancer that he had inspired, etc. But, I respect Lemond immensely and if he felt that there was something amiss with Armstrong’s “victories,” that was good enough for me. Turns out my faith in Greg was well-placed.
2006 Boston Marathon.
No matter what, any man who can ride 200km could punish himself enough to get a better time on a 26km marathon. Armstrong said he had shin splints so bad it crippled him. More than likely he did, but with the past accusations about doping, it made me question whether or not he was juiced enough or at all for this marathon. His time with Matthew McConaughey and whatever Olsen twin he was trying to seduce displayed his attitude which I mistook for playboy-chic, but now realize it filled well into the DSM-IVTR’s taxonomy for sociopath.
I enjoyed the hell out the Lance Tours, watching almost all the coverage on cable. There was always some doubt, but I elected to wait until something was proven – considering how many others were caught doping. Even with the doubts, some hope that maybe he did race clean.
I forget which Tour, but at the time my parents – not cycling fans – were staying with me and my family. There was some talk about Lance’s taller black socks and my folks were joking, “That’s where he hides his dope”, which I now think back on as ironic and hilarious – in a sad way.
The USADA report and Hamilton’s book proved it to me. What really did it was Hincapie though. If George said Lance doped – Lance doped. That 110% proof for me.
If Lance came out now and admitted it, then assisted with cleaning up the sport in some way – that would be huge. Lay it all on the line and attempt to grow something positive out of all this.
I doubt that will happen, considering his reaction so far and people’s commentary on his personality. Maybe, eventually, this will happen. Remains to be seen…
As doping use accusations and indictments against an overwhelming majority of fellow TdF podium finishers accumulated towards the end of the last decade, the idea that LA could have beat them clean was shattered. Certainly, any rider can win on any day, but to do so with such consistency against so many riders we now know were cheating, and in such a methodical manner surpassed believability for me.
I really became suspicous in the 1999 tour on that epic stage when LA changed a 6 minutes backlog to Pantani and Ullrich to a 4 minutes victory over just these guys on the last mountain climb. (was it Ventoux? I don’t recall)
And a couple of years later there was a remarkable interview from Ullrich when he was trying to explain his deeds: “I never cheated…… my competitors”. That was a good lough…
I was first suspicious when I heard the famous “There’s nothing to find” press conference. Then When all the ex team mates kept getting busted. Oh and George’s win in the Alps….if he could win an Alpine stage, surely his Team Leader is on it too?
But the final nail in the ‘coffin’ so to speak, was the Marion Jones confession. I really admired here as an athlete and if she could succumb to the dark side and never get caught, well anyone can.
The doubts crept into my mind during Lance’s comeback years because of the vocal, non-doping stance that he took followed by his backing away from some of the standards he set for himself. The LUG tried to send me a hint during a stage of the TdF about Lance in a side conversation, but I did not want to lose my feel good story. I still held on to Lance’s innocence until the bitter end. When the evidence began to be published and the riders (Hincapie, etc) began to release their statements, I could no longer deny it.
The whole thing feels like getting out of a bad relationship. Initially, it hurts. As time goes by, I see how it makes my love of cycling stronger and better; I see how my denial was harmful to the sport(and me).
Thanks for your coverage.
Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, Ray Lewis, Lance Armstrong…all great athletes, but each of them a ‘certified’ a$$hole. The singular focus on success and winning at all costs brings glory in sports but alienates people. Everyone says Lance is a sociopath. Everyone says he is a bully. Everyone involved in USPS cycling says they were ‘coerced’.
I buy that he may not be a ‘nice guy’. The world is full of them not-so-nice people. So what? If you don’t like someone, don’t hang out with them.
I don’t buy the coersion story. None of the people involved was under eighteen. They were all adults. They knew right from wrong. They CHOSE wrong. Tyler and Floyd stayed quiet because Lance and the doped out cycling culture was their meal ticket. They only fessed up because they were caught and were mad as hell and they were taking THE MAN down.
My teachers and my parents taught me that doing the right thing is hard. But it should be done not when everyone’s watching, but when nobody’s watching. All of these guys (Lance included) did not do the right thing right away. Unfortunately, our society has degenerated to the point where you can (figuratively speaking) commit murder, get caught, say “Ooops, I’m sorry, I was wrong”, and move on. The emphasis is no longer on doing the right thing. It is a culture that is now embedded in our life. I don’t think that it will change anytime soon, but I remain optimistic.
As far as when I knew that Lance doped: I was one of the fools that believed he outworked everyone else. I read the first edition of “It’s not about the bike” in one sitting. I was fascinated with his story. I am still fascinated about his beating cancer. I also remember one year thinking “I sure hope he’s clean, because this is freakin’ awesome!” OK, I was duped. Like another comment said, when TREK brushed Greg LeMond aside in favor of Lance and all the million$ that went along, I lost all faith.
I love the sport. I love the Tour, the Giro, the Vuelta, and the Tour of California. I love listening to Phil and Paul. I will not stop following cycling, and I will not get rid of my bikes.
I will, however, continue to NOT treat sports figures as heroes. Because they are not.
For me it was gradual. The lawsuit in which the Andreus and LeMond came out started it. His constant statement of “I never tested positive” sounding like a tacit admisssion kept it going. It built through his constant use of Ferrari. When he failed to deliver upon making his blood values public during his comeback and his really unnatural appearance at the 2009 Tour where he was so thin and his skin was unnaturally tight got me closer to accepting it. Articles about the majority of the people he beat being dopers clinched it.
The USADA Reasoned Decision, while it only confirmed further conspiracy I suspected, hit me like a ton of bricks. It brought to the full light of day that he is probably the most effectively doped athlete the world has ever known. His use of bullying to force his teammates to dope is particularly loathsome. Yet the worst things I realized upon reading the USADA decision are that his doing all of this stole careers from riders who never doped, stole from his sponsors and, worst of all, stole from cancer patients (what percentage of Livestrong money actually goes to cancer research vs the American Cancer Society?).
From a pure bicycle racing fan perspective, how many podiums or wins in The Classics would he and George have racked up if he had left Tour GC riding to those so gifted and focusing on the type of riding he was so naturally gifted at. I dare say that I would much rather have witnessed that. Tyler’s book, the USADA Reasoned Decision and reporting since lead me to suspect that those results would not have required as much doping, if any.
Through all of this, I’ve frequently thought that Johan was the one with the initial connections, influence and plans who coerced, enabled and steered the “willing victim(s)”. A close read of Hamilton’s book and the already released USADA Reasoned Decision hint at that. I’m interested in learning more as that particular case reaches its conclusion – arbitrated or not…
I started riding in 2004 as a senior in high school largely due to watching the 03 Tour. I was a good runner and cycling had always seemed a natural corollary. Lance and made it look epic and, after spending a summer working two jobs, I bought a Trek 5900, the only bike befitting a future champion (did I mention I was a good runner? Little did I realize bike racing was a little different
I spent 2005 in Italy racing and it was there that I was first confronted, personally, with drugs in cycling. In 2007 I took another year of school to race for a continental D3 squad in Spain and it was on the roads there that my still young dream died. Riding in a pro European peleton where talk of loading and doctors was normal, where it was common knowledge that the team paid for the best riders to travel to Barcelona for ‘testing,’ after a couple weeks of which they would come back with thresholds five, seven, or ten percent higher. The first time I was given ephedrine I was getting dropped out of a grupetto doing 320 Watts 30 minutes into the last climb of the day after 5 hours of hard racing. I was told by my director that it was aspirin and I believed him until I was laying in bed that night unable to sleep, my usually slowly beating heart pounding. It only got worse from there. When I came back to the US, I didn’t touch my bike for five months. I couldn’t look my girlfriend, whose cycling dreams had always paralleled my own, in the eye. Our relationship fell apart soon after. Friends who expected great stories were surely disappointed; I had nothing for them but bitterness and self loathing. I now know my heart broke that night, in a hotel bed in Cartagena, and that with it my belief in the unsullied beauty of this sport died. Knowing that Lance likely had a similar moment makes me pity him. That he then forced that moment on others makes me hate him.
When I started cycling in 2009, my friends asked what I thought about Lance. Honestly, I figured if he was guilty, they’d have busted him by then. My moment was when I started to read the reasoned decision a few weeks ago. Thing is, I never cared enough to look it up, and I still wouldn’t if I had a choice.
The real question I have is: which new Americans have a chance at the Classics next year?
When I read the book, “It’s not about the bike” his comments on the anxiety of the surprise tests seemed very genuine and while a nuisance, not in proportion if he did not have something to fear.
Asserting that all the tests are “clean” was less definitive than “I don’t”.
Beyond that, I figured most of the peloton was amped up. So, at worst he was just insuring he was on the same level of playing field.
The way he approached racing was similar to what Dennis Conner did with the Americas Cup, look at everything, leave no avenue unexplored.
I had two aces others may not have had. One, as a neo pro, at the very beginning I had team mates pressure me to take “vitamin B12 injections, wink wink” My family, half murdered by the Nazis, parents who taught me to care about others and myself, I was horrified and quit. A big dream gone, took me quite a while to realize this was the whole sport headed into the crapper.
As a result, I saw that the “new speed” of the peloton, Armstrong 8 minutes faster on Alp d’heuz than Lemond, and riders like Virenque with VO2 max of 78 retested after EPO with 95, was NOT ENTERTAINING AND EXCITING like it was for so many new fans who did not realize what this really meant.
And I read David Walsh and Kimmage, and was utterly horrified. It all made complete sense.
Two, I was in graduate school to become a Forensic Evaluator and researcher. So I saw the entire pattern of LA as an extreme sociopath, yes extreme. There are different degrees of this and he was in the destructive and sadistic end of the scale, i.e., Betsy Andreu stating he did not just want to intimidate and stop you, but he enjoyed destroying you.
Padraig, thanks for moving forward as you are! This is a pivotal time.
If you and other journalists read Walsh’s new book, on Amazon now, it details how the UCI was not only complicit, they actively suppressed findings, paid doctors to dope athletes, and many other horrid things, which are factual not theories.
And that McQuaid, himself guilty of being barred from all olympics after false identity to ride in S. Africa during apartheid, and having dragged a very young Sean Kelly there also
Is NOW trying to corrupt the so called independent commision by choosing a IOC fellow with a terrible history and who tried to sue Dick Pound of WADA.
Stay the course Padraig!!!!! TY
Padraig and fellow cyclists, fabulous new compendium by Walsh, Kimmage and others reveals new depth and facts about USPS, and most importantly the UCI. Very worth while and quite empowering to read regards how to have a clean sport that we love and wish.
Thanks for this site love it!
Lanced: The shaming of Lance Armstrong [Kindle Edition] David Walsh and others
Just one more thing LOL
Very important and authenticated and high journalistic piece how McQuaid has a history of very similar characteristics to Armstrong tactics and methods. Very alarming piece.
Eamon Sweeney: McQuaid still blaming everyone else
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamon-sweeney-mcquaid-still-blaming-everyone-else-3276782.html
During LA’s comeback, when he didn’t publish blood values as promised, I started reading cycling message boards. I became astounded at the number of small pieces of evidence that collectively made the answer clear. I think I went from strong doubt he was clean to absolutely convinced he was dirty when one commenter wrote something like, “of course he out-worked everybody, no one can train hard for 8 hours day after day after day without doping. The doping allowed him to out-work his opponents.”
At that point I knew that his desire, work ethic, and determination weren’t at odds with the argument that he cheated medically, they all pointed in the same direction.
What saddened me most, and what still bothers me though, is the difference between Livestrong.org and Livestrong.com. It was when I found out how much money went into Lance’s pocket versus how little goes to actual anti-cancer research that I removed my yellow bracelet. Cheating to win a competition is unethical. Cheating anti-cancer donors of well-intentioned donations and purchases is monstrous, if not also fraudulent.
In the early 2000′s I had a business colleague from France and we used to debate frequently about Lance – he felt Lance doped and I adamantly defended his honor (“He’s the most tested athlete in sports – there’s no way is ever doped!”). Sound familiar?.
I read LA Confidential sometime around 2006. The arguments David Walsh made for Lance being a doper were just too compelling for me to ignore, despite my being a fan of his at that time. A year or so after that I was training in Boone, NC and our group was joined one day by a former elite rider who “knew someone who knew someone” and he shared some convincing, yet anecdotal, stories of Lance doing things he shouldn’t have been. I guess it was during this timeframe when I began to see the writing on the wall.
I was the typical US fanboy. I loved Lemond but could only follow on weekends on ABCs Wide World of Sports. I began following intensely when Lance began his rides. Prior to that, I followed Big Mig and the rest via newspapers etc. I wanted to believe in Lance. I have European a work colleague who was certain Lance must be doping. I hadn’t even heard of the ‘hemorrhoid steroid cream’ he got the TUE for. I was just naive and enjoying it all. Then, Charles Pelkey, while still with VN, told me via private message while LUGing, about the test and a lot of the other stuff. That’s when I finally became open to the possibility. I didn’t finally accept the liklihood, though, until the Feds and then USADA dug up the dirt.
I don’t hate Lance for doping. Disappointed? Sure. What I intensely dislike, though, is the bullying. The coercion. I’ve met a few people like that in the past. I avoid them like the plague! Not just because I dislike that behavior but, because I can be bullied and coerced. Good thing I was never good enough/fast enough to race.
The Reasoned Decision’s affect on me: It made me giddy. That’s because I intensely disliked him ever since meeting him on rides/races in Austin pre-cancer.
When did I first suspect LA doped? Always, but certainly the first time I heard him respond to questions about doping by saying that he had never tested positive. I believe there were many instances of that very early on.
When was I reasonably sure? 2000. “Activosomething”
When did I know? When L’Equipe reported about the testing of the 1999 Tour B samples.
I had a theory that the metastasis of his testicular cancer was hastened by HgH and anabolics. We know now that EPO has similar tendencies. And recently I read that Dr. Ferrari became more conservative after reaching a similar conclusion about the cancer spread…
Rather than adopt a moral tone, just a comment on the legal nature of LA actions. Although totally understandable, it is not really sufficient to characterize his actions as merely coercive and bullying. Actually many of the situations in the report really talk about fraud, extortion, assault (threat of harm and actual harm in various forms), harassment, and misappropriation of funds.
It is very alarming that he could not have done these things if he was being looked at and matters looked into even minimally. There were many people who could and should have stopped him.
Personally, I stayed positive since the beginning (~2000) until 2010; call it hope that in a sea of lies, cheats, and partial (mis)information there was one hero. We all love to have heros even if we don’t admit it. The last couple years showed, however, that doping was prevalent, if not mandatory, to be competitive at the highest levels of the sport. Logic concludes that ‘everyone’ juiced if they maintained a position at the sharp end of cycling.
The USADA decision did little to change my mind on ‘reality.’ However, the further reports with respect to the UCI’s fradulent behavior and LA’s ‘masterminding’ of doping and covering up of said activities I found shocking. Quite frankly, at this point I hope serious questions are asked in a court of law and those that allowed this all are displayed in public for the scoundrels they are.
I’ve always had suspicions about Lance since the controversy of the million-dollar Triple Crown days. But after the nightmare Tour of ’98, and seeing him return from cancer and perform well in the Vuelta, I had a change of heart. I met the woman who is now my wife on the day he won the prologue in ’99, and that first Tour coincided with our initial courtship, so they were pretty heady times. Nobody expected him to be able to defend his title in 2000 against the likes of Ullrich and Pantani, but he did. But gone was the humble cancer survivor of ’99. His increasing arrogance year after year reminded me too much of the Lance in the first half of the ’90s, and progressively drove me away.
I did believe he was “legally” clean if using dubious training and medical practices though. He simply had too much to lose (sounds a bit like Wiggins’s argument, no?). It was the revelation of the suspicious donations to the UCI which nobody could ever remember the exact sums or dates of transactions that piqued my interest, and introduced me to the hysteric but convincing “Clinic” forum over on that other website that finally turned me.
I tuned in to cycling in 2008 when I started riding a bike for exercise and the TDF was on soon after. What got me initially was the scenery! Then of course I discovered Lance Armstrong, read the books, watched all the DVDs etc. I was transfixed. I’d heard about the accusations and the cortisone incident etc. but I was a believer, it was all new and exciting. It didn’t occur to me to read what the accusers were saying, not because I didn’t want to hear, but because it was so much fun and negative stories just didn’t interest me at the time. I was always open to the possibility that Lance cheated even though I was a fan. But I didn’t see the point in condemning him when I wasn’t in possession of any proof that he had been doping. I mean how the hell would I know? I wasn’t necessarily comforted by the “never tested positive” defence, but I’m inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. There were always seeds of doubt back there, like when I read about him chasing down Simeoni and threatening him. While I didn’t fully understand it then, it seemed an odd thing to do for someone who declared themselves a clean rider and was very methodical in how they went about their business.
I was late getting in to cycling and my lack of knowledge of the sport made it easy for me to miss the indicators that seasoned people did not. Now after reading the USADA report and many articles, I can see how it all worked and why some people smelled a rat and didn’t let it go. Thanks to people like Lemond, Kimmage, Walsh, Simeoni, Bassons and the Andreu’s, we all know now what was going on.
Sure I’m very disappointed in Lance but like many others, the cheating is one thing, but the bullying is another. I can’t stand a bully. Has it affected my love of cycling? Not in the slightest!
I started having doubts about LA when I read about LeMond’s phone call with him in ’01-’02. When the L’Equipe article came out about his ’99 urine samples coming up positive for EPO, I was convinced. When Floyd Landis started talking it totally made sense and I was sure about it then. I followed the sport back in ’93 when LA turned pro and from the beginning I was ambivalent towards him. On one hand he was talented and had big rider charisma but he was also arrogant and abrasive, which was a turn-off. I enjoyed it when he won but I found his combative attitude annoying. When he came back in ’99 to wear Yellow, I really was excited and thought it was because he lost weight and his strength to weight ratio went up. I didn’t realize that it was a combination of that, EPO, testosterone, HGH, cotisone, actovegen, etc.
As far as having doubts about whether Lance et al were clean? From today’s NY Times article: “…From 1980-90 to 1995-2005, the average speed of the Tour increased from 37.5 kilometers per hour to 41.6 k.p.h. How come?..” Those numbers, like Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and modern day 340 lb offensive linemen, sounded fishy. Innate biology has been supplanted by “better living through chemistry”.
So for me, the revelation was a snowball rolling down hill, picking up speed and diameter, moving faster and looking bigger. When other Tour winners were popped, one could surmise that Lance was superman or that he too was racing stock modified production. The USADA report was just the last and final shoe to fall.
The USADA “Reasoned Decision” was just the confirmation of all of the rumors and suspicions. The truly sad thing is this; if the top 50 (or 100, or all of them) were juicing, OR were clean, the outcome of the race(s) would be the same. Cyclists are still the best athletes in the world.
As for the USADA, their investigation revealed 2 very disturbing things: they are incomptetent at catching real cheaters, only the dumb/unsophisticated and the “inadvertent ingestion” cases are caught (their investigation proved that the tests don’t work), and, they (USADA) are doing a disservice to all clean athletes, as the clean athletes are depending on USADA/WADA to catch the dopers and get them out of competition quickly, not 2 years down the road, not 7 years down the road, and certainly not 14 years down the road when the doper(s) have already retired. We deserve better than what USADA/WADA are currently doing.
I wanted to believe for a long time at Lance was just a genetic freak and trained harder than the Ullrichs and Pantanis. But then I read about Bill Strickland changing his mind. The reason why, though never stated explicitly, seemed to me that Hincapie turned Lance in to the grand jury investigation. That was enough to tip me into the camp of disbelief.
I first doubted when Pedro Delgado tested positive for a drug that was on the Olympic banned list but not the Pro cycling banned list (probenecid?).
I started questioning when the PDM team abandoned the TdF en masse. The story was that they had some bad food, but even then it seemed more likely that they had a bad bag of blood or some sort of IV feeding that went wrong.
I became more cynical when the USPS team (or was it Motorola? Can’t remember) threw out a bunch of trash that turned out to have drug waste containing Actevegin (sp?), which was then an experimental substance — I believe made from calfs’ serum — intended for use in newborns who had surgery, to promote the growth of red blood cells. I think that incident pre-dated LA’s run of TdF victories, but I can’t be sure. Someone else with more interest will have to recreate the timeline.
That was about the same time that a lot of pro cyclists suddenly seemed to develop receding hairs lines or male pattern baldness — a condition sometimes referred to as “nandrolone forehead,” which pretty much explains itself. See, e.g., B Rijs, M. Pantani, etc.
Does anybody else remember the video clip of Allan Peiper telling the video camera in ’92 or ’94 or so (while on the bike) that Chiappucci showed Peiper his heart rate monitor on a TdF climb, and it read something like 87, at a point when Peiper’s heart rate was something like 187? Wonder what Chiappucci’s hematocrit was at that day.
Then there was LeMond getting dropped like a schoolboy by the whole peloton in the ’94 tour. That just didn’t seem right.
Then there was the Festina affair.
I really began to believe the bad news when Betsy A first gave her testimony — under oath — way back when. She spoke to a unique moment when LA had nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling the truth; his health, and quite possibly his life, was at stake. And what on earth would she gain from lying? Nothing. It’s not like she sold her story to some tabloid, or optioned a Hollywood blockbuster script. And it was likely to cost her husband a lot since he was still in the pro cycling world.
I was pretty much sure by the time that all of LA’s primary competitors and contemporaries had been busted or outed — Pantani, Ullrich, Rasmussen, Vino, etc. Stands to reason that if you repeatedly beat a bunch of known juicers, you were probably juiced yourself. I think the final straw for me was Ullrich’s killer time-trial at the end of the Tour de Suisse after sucking wind for most of that race, right before he was chucked out prior to the TdF start. (I may have my chronology a bit wonky here.) It was plain that no one could go from zero to hero at the very end of a stage race the way he did. There was only one answer.
Finally, there was the cluster (!) of pros who suddenly chose to “prepare” for the TdF in Girona around the time of Operation Puerto, and then LA’s robotic “I never took performance-enhancing drugs” statement. The turn of phrase was so precisely repeated over so long, and in so many different fora, that it seemed scripted. I figured he was using some sort of recovery-enhancing substance instead.
I’m not sure precisely when, but I know that I had given up hope well before Tyler was busted and before Floyd imploded. Those incidents pretty much confirmed my own belief about doping in the peloton. Plus reading (somewhere . . . can’t recall where) that a remarkable number of pro riders have “prescriptions” for inhalers to treat exercise-induced asthma. Asthma?! In those guys? Yeah, right. We know what those bronchio-dilators are for.
Petros makes some interesting points.
I was one who never really believed it – I mean, this kid who went out and beat men in the prime of their careers in triathlons before switching to cycling? The one who did do more preparation than many had previously riding every stage & every climb in training? This guy who’s body was ravaged and stripped by cancer who was now riding much, much lighter?
Hate him? Not at all – on many, many levels, Lance has delivered more to people than ever promised. Teammates bullied into doping? I don’t see them cutting checks/handing back salaries/handing back prize money. Team managers, sponsors, hangers-on all had a helluva ride and only abandoned him when the political pressure became too much to bear. I’m not sure, but I would guess he’s done more for disease research and inspired more people than any single pro athlete. Hate him? Not at all.
These types of relavations are always a bit
Shocking. Does it make it right? No. Surprising? No. Hate him? Not at all.
When I read in ’08 that every fellow podium finisher ’99-’05 alongside Lance had been implicated in doping (except Escartin in ’99) but somehow Lance managed to beat all of them. Seemed inexplicable. There were 21 available podium spots from ’99-’05. The same 4 men occupied 16 of 21 available spots & the remaining 5 positions taken by Zulle, Rumsas, Vino, Kloden & a never-implicated Escartin. It’s the definitive who’s who of dopers. It’s not rocket science, it’s inductive reasoning. When something is not what it appears to be, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, & quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.
The most amazing Tour result over the past 20 years would have to be Fernando Escartin’s undoped 3rd place in ’99!
I wanted to believe. I defended LA to my family. I bought into the charisma, the survivor and the American hero. But each Tour got more and more boring. Anyone who had any hope were crushed one way or another. The media circus pissed me off with the same stories, the same quotes, and the same high volume of denial whenever anyone dared to stay anything about anything that LA did not approve of.
But it was the omissions and the strange way Levi and the rest started talking. One of them I could see doping or covering for LA (although I didn’t want to). But I put the names together and saw the pattern. Then they all went underground when the first investigation started. No media. No race results. A few excuses but mostly silence. I got it then and started looking back. LA never doped alone. He needed a whole team to keep him protected and seeming innocent. He needed to control the peleton. He needed others to be guilty as well.
I can say one thing, even though those results were bogus, some of those that followed weren’t. Levi and some of the others have raced clean and won. And it wasn’t easy. They really had to work for it. Maybe guilt was the fuel they really needed. But I can say that I’m so glad this is out. It will never be over. Too many lies. Too many deaths. Too many careers destroyed because they wouldn’t keep the big fat lies hidden and LA destroyed them.
One doper can force an entire sport to follow suit. Lance was not the first doper, but he brought to the sport a team of doctors and trainers and raised the science of doping to whee it could not be ignored. Would someone else have done this if Lance had not? I have my doubts, the sport lead by the riders have made major strides in reducing the influence of doping. This is why it was imperative to hold Lance accountable. If not given the harshest sanctions those 7 Tour would have stood for all time as proof that the system can be gamed. But the governing bodies, media and team management are still clinging to the past and resisting change. We need to take this moment of clarity on the important issue to not only change the rules, but the system.
And it is up to us to provide the answers and the motivation to advance our sport.
George Hincapie is a cheater. His net worth is estimated at $40 million dollars. It is “stolen” money. How can we let him get away with this?
Greg LeMond and David Walsh made me take notice in 2001. When Lance divorced his wife in 2003 I was certain you could not believe one thing he said..The guy even lies about his height, his weight, and what size bike he rides.