Lance Armstrong: Saint or Swine?

OK, I've found in life that there's no point trying to duck awkward issues: sometimes you just have to meet them head on, say what you want to say, then move on.

As per a recent post of mine, I am SICK TO DEATH of forum/twitter posters (and blog commenters) who spout off angrily and spitefully about [insert subject - they don't seem to be too fussy!] which just generates more bad feeling.  I believe it's called "trolling", where people, thinking that they are protected by the anonymity of the internet, seem to think they have the right to be as nasty as they want, with no come-back.

What's this all in aid of? Well, the Lance Armstrong thing has reared its head again, and I don't want to spend the next several weeks having this blog's comments hijacked by people wanting to rant on about that subject.

So I thought I would tell you all my thoughts on the matter, then we need not comment on him any more, but can just deal with the scandal as it affects our Leopard boys.

Armstrong is someone who divides opinion very strongly: you either love him or hate him, it would seem.

Personally, I'm not that bothered: I'm certainly not a fan, but I don't hate him either. I've read a couple of his books, (among many other cycling books) so my comments are influenced by that, in the following two ways: on the one hand, there is no better authority on Lance than Lance himself, so we can assume that reading his books gives you a better insight than reading news reports (we all know how accurate THEY are, ha! ha!). On the other hand, he wrote them himself so you would expect him to show himself in the best light possible, so reading his books give a somewhat biased view of the person.

We are not children, we are adults, and part of being an adult is taking the responsibility to assess what you read, to balance news sources, and to make your own decision as to what you think is likely to be truth - not to blindly accept what someone else says, especially on the news and ESPECIALLY on the forums. Rather like using Wikipedia - you know, you have to hope that you are not reading it on a day when some idiot has decided to be "funny" and to make some silly changes.

So, starting with facts:

Armstrong is an outstanding athlete for two specific reasons which have been scientifically proven, it is a matter of record, not of opinion: 1) his blood can carry more oxygen than "normal" and 2) his muscles produce less lactic acid than "normal". More oxygen gives greater reserves of strength before feeling tired, and lactic acid is what makes our muscles burn when we over-use them. This means he can go faster, further and harder than we can, and it doesn't hurt him as much as it does us, plus he recovers more quickly.    Lucky him.  I would expect to find that Contador is similarly blessed.

Right, so we start with him being naturally "good" at sports.

He was a winner during a time when doping was, well, quite common. It was "all the rage",  "everyone did it", it was "well, if you don't dope, everyone else will, so why should you let them have the advantage" etc, it was a cultural thing. We keep hearing all this stuff, from a lot of sources, so we have to believe it.

Did Armstrong dope during this time? Who knows: but bear in mind that he was naturally gifted, stronger than everyone else in the team, and it's quite likely that he was the one that everyone else was trying to keep up with.

He says "I have never had a positive dope test."  and I believe him - he is probably the most-tested cyclist over the last 10 years, and you can bet your boots that if there were a single positive test, it would have been publicised. Remember Contador? A tiny, tiny amount of a banned substance, the UCI themselves wanted to keep it under wraps, and still someone leaked it to the press. By now, with all this money at stake, if anyone had real proof of a positive test, they would have run to the press with it. Therefore we can believe that statement.

Now, saying "I never had a positive dope test" is not the same as saying "I have never doped."

I believe - and you don't have to follow me on this one, it's only my opinion - that Armstrong made use of any and every Performance Enhancer (Drug or otherwise) that was not banned, and that includes weird food supplements, odd herbal preparations, any exercise or physical therapy that would help. Well, wouldn't you? I am perfectly willing to believe that Armstrong, working for a big, well-funded team, and working for a manager who would do pretty much anything to win, would have access to all the very latest ideas, theories and suggestions about how to improve performance. And would also know exactly when any specific item was going to be found by WADA and added to the banned list, in time to stop using it.

I can't believe that he used "illegal" PEDS and was just "very lucky" and didn't get caught: he was, as mentioned, possibly the most-tested cyclist of our time and if he had been trying to slip in a crafty PED here and there, well, he would have been caught. There are some stories in the press ("pfff!") about ways to fake urine tests, with tubing and someone else's urine etc etc - sorry, I just don't believe all that stuff. For two reasons: firstly it has all the hallmarks of a classic urban myth {*1} and secondly because if that were the case, believe me, people would be crawling out of the woodwork to say so.

{*1} Urban myth: a story that is not true, but that we really, really want to be true because it contains the following elements - someone was lying, tried to cover it up, got caught out, preferably in a really embarrassing way. This makes us feel smug that we aren't that stupid.

Now, at this point we have to draw a line and look at this again: the above was all written about three months ago, but I didn't finish the post and publish it, as I just didn't want to get embroiled in the Lance trolling. But as we all know, this case has now broken wide open, and we are all having to deal with the fall-out. There have already been a couple of comments today and yesterday about Lance, so - as per the first sentence - I  might just as well deal with it head on.

Firstly I have to re-state, for the benefit of the thick, and the skip-readers: I am NOT a Lance fan. At the time of his wins, I was a superficial cycling fan, I watched the Tour but not all of it, and I didn't have any great interest in the riders. (oh, how things have changed!) So please, I don't want the rabid Lance Haters ripping my every word to shreds. Nor do I want the rabid Lance Fans singing his praises. I like to think that we are all grown-ups here, we can make up our own minds and we won't be influenced by anyone shouting on about it.

There is one odd fact that has to be dealt with: the FBI spent two years investigating the allegations of systematic doping, and in Feb of this year they dropped the investigation. They said "there is no case to be answered."

Now pardon me if I am taking TV too literally, but I cannot believe that the great and powerful FBI would fail to pursue every single, tiny, little lead, applying pressure wherever they went. We don't have the FBI here in the UK, we have the Police and that's pretty much it. In America you seem to have the cops, then there are US Marshalls, then the FBI (and possibly something called Homeland Security, but that might be fictional) and the clear message is that the FBI out-ranks everyone else - when they appear, the normal cops roll their eyes and say the American equivalent of  "oh blimey, it's the Feds, they will take over our case."

So if the FBI, with all their powers, found that there was no case..... and the USADA case has the same statements, the same witnesses, the same facts..... well, I just don't believe that the real-life equivalents of Mulder and Scully would fail to get to the bottom of it. And if they did fail, then I simply don't believe that a sporting arbitration panel could do any better.

Now I can hear some of you jumping and down and shouting about all the new witnesses who have come forward.

Yes, all of those who would not come forward for the FBI? Those who have come forward after Lance announced that he would not be fighting any more?

Makes you wonder why they would not speak to the FBI, but will speak to the media.

Oh, I know that one, "Lance is a bully who threatens people who stand up against him." Yes, I can believe that, but the FBI, you would have thought, would have been the only people who could persuade scared witnesses to speak.

Anyway *sighs* it seems to me there are two aspects of this affair, which are getting confused. One is the issue of Lance doping, which he has always denied. The other is the systematic cheating, lying, and oppressing of lesser riders - which, incidentally, I can fully believe.

Personally, I am still waiting to make my mind up about the first aspect. Did Lance dope? He says he didn't, he has sworn in court before that he hasn't: but you do have to realise that whatever he says has been very carefully composed by a lawyer, so it may be technically truthful, but not morally truthful.

What do I mean by that? As stated at the top, I believe that Lance will have used every possible means to improve his performance and that of the people around him, and the statement "I have never tested positive for drugs" is not the same as "I have never taken drugs." As I believe I have discussed before, ages ago, Lance will never be able to make the sworn statement, for example, "I have never done EPO" because he did EPO as part of his cancer treatment. In the same way, I am absolutely certain that he would have taken every PED (Performance Enhancing Drug) ever invented, right up until the moment when it became illegal and testable.

As an aside, don't forget that when the Tour first started, it was considered "cheating" to practise for it......

So I suppose I would be prepared to accept the sworn statement that Lance has never taken illegal PEDs at the time during which they were illegal. If you see what I mean, pardon that confused sentence.

As for the second aspect, the "sophisticated doping program": so far, based on what I have read in books and in the news over the last several years, including the opinion I have formed about Lance and Mr Bruyneel - bearing in mind that I have never met either of them - I am fully prepared to accept that they encouraged and/or allowed other riders to dope, in order to support Lance.

I am also fully prepared to accept that most teams, back in the day, allowed/encouraged their riders to dope, and I do believe that some teams made it plain to riders that if they did not dope, and did not get results, then they would lose their contracts.

I don't KNOW, but I can easily believe, that Mr Bruyneel would be the sort of team boss that would push all his riders to perform, with threats of the sack if they didn't, knowing full well that the only way the riders could meet his demands would be for them to dope.

It also seems believable, on balance, that Mr Bruyneel would have sources that warned him of impending tests in order to get his riders in fit condition to be tested.

I have not read the whole of the USADA statement, and I am aware that I am being influenced by other people's opinion here, but still, I am prepared to believe that Lance (and Mr Bruyneel, of course) bullied, forced, and coerced other riders to dope, in order to support him.

I think that it is clear from Mr Bruyneel's own website and blog, that he is highly competitive, driven, forceful and, like Lance, fearless in pushing forward his own agenda, regardless of how many people get trampled underneath. You don't get to win the Tour seven times, or to produce the number of sporting successes that Mr Bruyneel has, without being ruthless.

So yes, I am prepared to believe about the doping program.

Well, there you go, that's my opinion on the subject. I can accept Lance's carefully composed sworn statements of not doping, on the understanding that I believe he sailed very, very close to the "illegal" line. I can believe the doping program aspect.

Now we can move on to the diabolical treatment this case is getting from cycling news, forums and fans.

As I commented on my last post:

1) There has not been a "proper" court-style case where one side presents the accusations, the other side presents the defence, and an unbiased panel make a judgement. (Yes, I know Armstrong chose not to, that's not my point.)

2) Yet "everyone" has judged that Lance is guilty. Before the USADA have even announced their findings. (Yes, I know that looking at what has been leaked so far, any idiot would say that Armstrong is guilty. But until or unless we hear both sides, how can anyone say that any "verdict" will be the truth?)

I call it "Trial by Twitter", where whoever shouts the loudest is the one who is believed.

USADA haven't even issued their "verdict" yet - it's due out at mid-day today - and yet everyone is screaming that Lance is guilty.

I was pleased when I read that Oakley, sunglasses sponsor said "we've read what they said, we'll wait to hear what Lance has to say."  At last, I thought, someone behaving like a grown-up, and not kowtowing to what the forums, Twitter and the media are saying.

Then one day later, they withdrew their backing. I find that pathetic - to be so influenced by what morons on Twitter say!  These are anonymous people! Not "real" people, not people who "know", not people who have the facts, but totally uninformed people who believe what they read in the media. Even the people standing outside your head office with banners: I have a little more respect for them, at least they weren't wearing balaclavas, but if I were a serious business, I would not allow myself to be blackmailed by a couple of dozen people standing outside for half an hour.

The aspect of this scandal that really annoys me, in case you hadn't noticed, is not so much the case itself, but the way that  "the media" can publish and re-publish and repeat the opinions of the totally uninformed, as though they were facts, thus influencing the rest of the uninformed to believe whatever it is.

It seems sad that everyone these days has to be so quick to leap to conclusions, why can't they wait for facts and then form an opinion, what is it about having to be the first with the news or gossip?  It's as though people have forgotten how to wait, to obtain facts, to assess those facts, to listen to both sides, and to then make a reasoned decision.

In fact, it's as though you ("One") somehow get "points" for being the first to say something, or the first to support someone else saying something.

*shakes head*

Where do we go from here?


"Move forward" is my ideal response. Cycling managed to get past the Festina scandal, we will get past this one.  Maybe next year and the year after there won't be as many Pro teams as there are now;  we will lose a few more sponsors, I imagine, but who knows, that might  make the Tour a little safer, if there are fewer riders. (Although "fewer cars" would be more desirable than fewer riders...)

Perhaps a new era of "clean" teams might lead to some new sponsors.

Enterprising managers could perhaps approach some new companies for sponsorship.

How about some of the "pure" toiletry companies?

I'd love to see a team sponsored by Dove, for example.

They make skin-care, hair-care, body lotions etc, and one of their slogans, "Where real beauty meets strength" is very appropriate for cycling, don't you think? And it would be a really elegant kit, I bet...

Or how about Pears soap, keeping on the "clean" theme:

"Pure and gentle" isn't quite the image we want to portray in cycling, but it is a TRANSPARENT soap, so that could be a good sub-text. But not a transparent kit, please *shudders*.

LLB suggested it would be fun to get some drugs companies to sponsor a team: they would have to have slogans like "Our team don't use our products - but YOU can!"  or "Brad Wiggins dare not use our products - but YOU can!"



Then there is the whole Health food industry - wouldn't they make good sponsors?

"We're good for you". Yup, I could live with that as a slogan.

Any others that I missed?