Lance Armstrong: A Bright Shining Lie?
As federal agents prepare a grand jury case against Lance Armstrong (a dubious undertaking, from a legal standpoint, on many levels) several questions must be asked. The outcome of the investigation may lead to the downfall of one of the greatest sports stories (and athletes) in the history of the world, or it could lead to the complete exoneration of a legend who will then deserve an enormous apology from his many doubters. More likely, it will lead to some sort of messy place in between those two things. Wherever it leads, it will cost an enormous amount of money and time and will be unlikely to change much about sports, cycling or improve the public perception of either. With all that in mind, Andrew Corsello may be on the right track when he pleads with Lance to just stick to his story, regardless of the actual facts.
Lance Armstrong is either the greatest cyclist (potentially greatest athlete) in history or he is one of the worst (but most successful) cheats in history. He is, without question, the most most successful cancer survivor in history, one of the most successful cancer fund-raisers in history and the most tested athlete in history. In all those hundreds upon hundreds of tests in both the off season and during all his races, he has tested positive exactly zero times. To date the number of people, including even the absurdly bitter Floyd Landis and the perennially accusatory Greg LeMond, that have ever even alleged that they have actually seen Lance use performance enhancing drugs or blood doping procedures is also exactly zero. This while seemingly all around him in the peloton, other cyclists were falling to positive drug tests and substantiated allegations. Lance rode above it all, and even in the wake of persistent rumors and repeated investigations, no proof of wrongdoing has ever been found against him.
Despite that fact, the cynical among you (and you know who you are, your fingers are already itching to type the jaded comments that will inevitably appear below) have already concluded that Lance is guilty of doping and has been for years. You can be excused for those feelings, of course, after practically every rumour of athletic drug cheating (and most other rumors as well) ever uttered has already been substantiated in numerous recent investigations that seemed designed specifically to destroy any confidence anyone ever had in the integrity of sports. Are we always going to be disappointed by the sports heroes we most admire, or is it possible that some of the most heroic are actually worthy of our admiration? We may never really know the answer to those questions, but whether we do or not, it’s perhaps understandable that after all we’ve been through before, when the hard questioning in the Armstrong case starts, we will mostly just wince and turn away.
Posted on August 10, 2010, in Sports and tagged Cycling, doping investigation, Lance Armstrong, Sports. Bookmark the permalink. 34 Comments.
Is “cheating” even relevant when everyone does it? I assume that Armstrong was dirty — it’s naive to think otherwise — but every guy he beat was just as dirty. Seems to me that he won on a level playing field.
And there it is, right out of the gate.
I have no real interest in Armstrong or cycling, but the doping stuff fascinates me just because there is so much of it. It almost seems that every person in the sport either hates him and has it out for him, or the dude is doping.
To answer the broader question. I have yet to find a hero that does not become some kind of disappointed when put under a microscope. Actors, comic-book writers, church leaders or professors. They’re all human.
Maybe the problem is putting our heroes so high on a pedestal that the smallest infraction suddenly makes them seem unredeemable to us. I had a friend that loved The Killers, and thought Brandon Flowers was some kind of lyrical genius. Well one day this friend read an interview where Flowers said he’d kissed a guy at one point, and this friend had some kind of weird anti-homosexual reaction. Suddenly mp3s were being erased, t-shirts where being ripped up and he was a Killers fan no more.
You know what? Maybe these people are good at something that we enjoy watching or listening too and that’s enough. Do they need to be heroes for us to like watching them race?
Armstrong being Armstrong, he has accumulated more than his share of less-than-well-wishers over the years.
Does it really need to be said that this fact is not the equivalent of proof of doping?
If Lance is guilty of doping, he should be enshrined as the world’s greatest genius at not getting caught.
kuri, to a cynic, anyone who believes that someone in Lance’s position is telling the truth is hopelessly naive. But the cynics are not always right.
In any event, your view is beyond even the most hardcore cynic I have heard before. It’s virtually impossible that every single rider was using performance enhancing drugs in all of Lance’s races. Even if they were, some got caught, so that’s hardly a level playing field.
jj, I think your second comment is getting at something really important. There is a hero-worship culture that is setting people up for a fall. That culture should be relegated to the dustbin, no question about it. But even if we all agree that hero-worship must be stopped, Lance’s situation is different.
That’s because of the magnitude of the lie. If Lance is a doper, the lie is the biggest in history. Bigger than anything yet revealed in any other sport. If seven separate Tours were all tainted by drugs, there is no repairing the damage.
I figured his success came from the chemotherapy. It breaks your body down so much that when he recovered he was able to rebuild his muscles specifically for biking.
But the doping thing wouldn’t surprise me.
MCQ,
The thing about doping is, it works. It works like hell. Everybody knows there was widespread doping in cycling during Lance’s career. Do you seriously think that the guy who dominated that era was the one guy who wasn’t doping?
And the playing field was level because not getting caught is part of the game.
The thing about what “everybody knows” is that sometimes everybody’s wrong.
All I’m saying is that’s a pretty cynical view, kuri, and that the idea that Lance was a doper for seven straight years without getting caught is a pretty unbelievable thing in itself.
And no one except you said Lance was the one guy who wasn’t doping.
Is it really so realistic to believe that every single cyclist is cheating?
He’s done well with or without doping. After all the bruhaha in baseball, I have no real anger at any performer or think any less of them over the accusations real or not.
“The thing about what “everybody knows†is that sometimes everybody’s wrong.”
And a lot of times they’re right.
“All I’m saying is that’s a pretty cynical view, kuri, and that the idea that Lance was a doper for seven straight years without getting caught is a pretty unbelievable thing in itself.”
Why is it unbelievable? The dopers are always ahead of the testers. Only people who make mistakes get caught.
“Is it really so realistic to believe that every single cyclist is cheating?”
Not every single rider, just the good ones. Once one good rider dopes, everyone else has to do the same or get left behind. No choice if you want to compete.
And there we have a great presentation of the cynical view, courtesy of kuri.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you think the dopers are always ahead of the testers, kuri. And if that’s “always” the case, why have so many people been caught recently?
“Not every single rider, just the good ones. Once one good rider dopes, everyone else has to do the same or get left behind. No choice if you want to compete.”
No bad riders dope to get better?
And is there really “no choice” except to become a cheater? None at all? What about helping to catch the dopers? Why hasn’t any other cyclist come forward with allegations about all these cheaters? Seems like he could really clean up by getting all the “good” cyclists caught. The podium would be wide open.
“And if that’s “always†the case, why have so many people been caught recently?”
Mainly because of a) Trevor Graham, b) leaks from supposedly confidential MLB documents, and c) confessions from washed-up dopers looking to score a few bucks.
“No bad riders dope to get better?”
There’s a limit to what doping can do. It can’t make a bad rider into an elite rider.
“And is there really “no choice†except to become a cheater? None at all?”
You could, of course, quit or settle for mediocrity or find a cleaner sport. But if you want to win in a sport as dirty as cycling, then no, there’s no other way to compete.
“What about helping to catch the dopers? Why hasn’t any other cyclist come forward with allegations about all these cheaters? Seems like he could really clean up by getting all the “good†cyclists caught. The podium would be wide open.”
Riders and journalists come forward with allegations all the time. What they don’t have is proof. But most riders are dirty, so if they stir up too much trouble they’re likely to end up banned themselves.
Anyway, I’m not sure why this is supposedly such a “cynical” view. It’s just a realistic one. Cycling is what it is: just about the dirtiest sport in the world. So I simply admire Armstrong for what he almost certainly really did (winning dirty in a filthy doping-ridden sport) rather than for what I want to imagine he did (winning clean in a world where non-dopers can dominate dopers).
“I’m not sure why this is supposedly such a “cynical†view. It’s just a realistic one.”
Ha. Behold, the rallying cry of the true cynic!
I’ve got to hand it to you, kuri, you’ve really busted out every cliche in the book.
“Riders and journalists come forward with allegations all the time.”
BTW, this is provably false. No active riders ever come forward with allegations. Retired riders like LeMond do (sometimes), and disgraced riders like Landis do (now), but active riders? You couldn’t fill a phone booth with active riders that come forward with doping allegations.
The idea that this is because they are all doping is pretty cynical.
The fact is that these guys ride together all the time. Many of them are former teammates, current teammates, or might want to be future teammates.
That Armstrong almost certainly doped is the most reasonable conclusion. There’s nothing cynical about it.
This is the sport in which Armstrong competes, the one he dominated for seven years. It’s just about the dirtiest in the world, with a culture of doping that dates back more than a century, rife with banned athletes and trainers, with entire teams banned en masse for doping, with winners of the most prestigious events caught and banned, with former competitors confessing and accusing left and right.
It’s also the sport, BTW, in which Armstrong has been accused of doping by journalists and former competitors, teammates, and employees, the sport in which retrospective testing of his urine samples was positive for EPO (but the results were correctly thrown out for violating numerous protocols), and the sport in which for years he employed a doctor strongly associated with doping as part of his training team.
So here’s a man in the world’s dirtiest sport, with dirt swirling all around him but never quite sticking, dominating his doped-up rivals for seven years, and I’m a “cynic” for thinking that he almost certainly doped too? Give me a break.
You know, I was about to make some smartass comment about how we don’t have this kind of trouble in the arts –– who cares if an actor has a substance abuse problem? Since I only know them through their work, they could be injecting heroin through an eyeball directly into their brain tissues, and as long as they could still act, I really wouldn’t give two hoots –– sadly though, that’s not quite true. Opera aficionados start screaming for blood if they find somebody’s being miked. (There are some venues where it might be acceptable, but not so much during opera per se.) Folks are also annoyed when they find a ‘live’ performance was lip-synched. In spite of all our sophisticated, world-weary cynicism, I think many people still crave authenticity. (Corsello does bring up some vexing moral arguments though with the cancer research thing.)
The view you’re taking is cynical because you’re interpreting all the evidence one way. You needn’t think of that as a negative label, it’s just one side of the argument, and it’s a legitimate one.
But there is also another view: that Lance has never been caught while so many others have must mean something. That view that you call naive is a legitimate interpretation of the evidence too. Until there is a final weighing of all the evidence, it’s impossible to know for certain whether Lance is guilty, and we may not know even then. But as is clear from this conversation, it may not really matter what comes from the investigation.
Barring some unforseen evidence, I don’t see how anyone will prove he did or didn’t.
Let’s bring back the good old days when the riders used to stop now and then for cigarette breaks.
Maybe they should just create new leagues for each of the sports: Amateur – Pro – Enhanced Pro
And then have Vegas betting on when the Enhancers drop dead from overdosing.
Of course, you just know there will be a guy who fakes the drug tests so he can prove that he’s better than the dopers. Of course, he will be CRUSHED by his competition.
(How’s that for cynical?)
I have it on pretty good authority that Armstrong is a habitual user of two substances banned in France: soap and deodorant.
Is that more cynical than Kuri?
Sports and doping is weird. We accept genetic freaks but cringe when some (often mild) stimulants are used. The effect of doping on performance is exaggerated in most sports but arguably cycling is on where it has the greatest effect simply due to the nature of things. Yet as we’ve reached the stage of creating what others have genetic chance for one has to ask what on earth the point is. Why is finding some genetic freak somehow sporting while say taking a muscle enhancer to create the same biology is unsporting?
The whole situation is pretty silly. The Olympics worst of all. The athletes will always be two steps ahead of detection. But the biggest question is what the point of it all is. I mean who cares anymore when you stop to think about it. If there were more strategy that’d be one thing. But when it’s really just a test of the genetic lottery (which is what the doping issue really is saying) then there’s something really weird about it all. At least in hockey, soccer, football, and so forth the effect of any one person is smaller and skill has a lot to do with things. One can argue skill also involves the genetic lottery, but at least there’s a lot more going on than how much oxygen your heart can pump and how long until exhaustion your muscles can go.
To add, when nearly every regular over the counter medicine regularly used by almost everyone reading counts as doping then something is seriously wrong as well. i.e. probably everyone here is a doper according to most sports bodies.
That’s damn funny, Eric!
Clark, that’s an interesting point that genetics gives allowed advantages. Clearly, that’s true, but there’s something “natural” about that, whereas, with drugs or medical procedures, the advantages move into a decidedly “artificial,” and therefore less sporting, realm.
Of course, every year there are advances in bike technology as well, which is also an arms race of sorts. Less weight, more efficiency, better materials, more aerodynamics, better nutrition, better training techniques. All of these things were used to help Lance (and others) win. Are any of those methods more sporting or more legitimate than taking out litres of your own blood to be pumped back into your body later when it’s needed? Or, for that matter, taking a drug that increases the oxygen-carrying capacity of that same blood?
There’s also no question that money plays a big role in this, as always. Those with the big sponsors can afford better equipment and better training, as well as, presumably, newer technology for doping and concealing it.
Also, strategy does play a role, even in cycling. Is someone who wins because they had a better strategy, designed by a better coach, paid for with more money, more deserving of the win than the poor athlete who came in second because of a lack of those things?
We have simply decided that some things, like technology and strategy, are part of the game while others, like chemical enhancement, are not.
Even then we often have to re-evaluate. Swimming has been through several breakthroughs in strategy (the Berkhoff blastoff) and technology (full body speedsuits) that were later outlawed. Cycling also outlaws certain types of enhancemenmts to bicycle geometry and equipment. In the end, it’s just a matter of where we choose to draw the lines. Those choices will inevitably change over time.
But that’s my point. These sorts of “sports” are all about determining genetic freaks on ever increasing small scales. (Seriously – look at the change in times in many Olympic sports from the 30′s through the 70′s and how small it is now) The question becomes: why?
Yes, the appeal is to “nature” but that’s a pretty problematic notion.
It’s all pretty goofy.
Strategy does play a role, but a fairly smaller role than genetics.
MCQ,
You really think that there is a scenario in which Lance will be completely exonerated? Unlikely.
Regardless of the outcome of the investigation and possible trial there will always be an asterisk next to Armstrong’s name in some quarters.
I say this as an occasional fan of cycling who knew of Armstrong before he ever got cancer and was considered an up and coming sprinter but not much of a climber.
While he has done enormous good through his Livestrong efforts I’ve really never heard anybody claim that he’s a likable guy. I’ve always put him in the same category as Barry Bonds and Tiger Woods. Nobody liked those two before their scandals and they didn’t win any points because of their scandals. Lance has enjoyed a certain celebrity but nobody likes him. His celebrity will decline either way now that solo victories are behind him. Americans don’t care about cyclists that don’t come home dressed in yellow.
Winning seven tours is an amazing accomplishment. Winning them cleanly during the era he did seems to defy logic. If he did it cleanly he’s one of the most amazing athletes ever. If he didn’t he’s one of the most skilled drug cheats ever and his string of wins is still improbable given that nearly everyone else was cheating.
arJ, only in that anything is possible.
The scenario I’m thinking of is that they don’t find any conclusive evidence. You know that will be treated as an exoneration by anyone who wishes to see it that way. The fact is that he’s already been investigated and this latest investigation is not even the only one going on currently. The difference is that a federal grand jury has subpoena power, so people can be compelled to testify. If, even with that power and the resources of the US gov’t, Lance is not found to have been guilty of anything conclusively, that will put a final nail in the coffin of doping allegations.
But as I said in my post, it’s most likely that the investigation ends in a messy area where some doping allegations are substantiated, but it’s unclear what impact it had on his victories.
As we already discussed above, Lance is not exactly the most beloved by one and all, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant. I mean, he’s a bit of an asshole, and really, he admits that. So what?
Lance has already said that his retirement will mean the end of his celebrity status, which he apparently welcomes.
Your last paragraph is basically what I said in my post. I’m just not sure how much we can be sure about this “nearly everyone else was cheating” thing. The people who have been caught cheating are fairly numerous, but still a fairly small minority of professional cyclists, and very few of the actual winners of major races have been stripped of titles. Given that, it’s hard to know for certain just exactly how widespread the doping was or is.
As I said in the post, people love to jump to the conclusion that “everyone” in cycling cheated or is actively cheating, but we can’t really say that. Unless, of course, you’re a cynic.
Because cycling goes after doping with such vigor, I find it hard to guess what the extent of doping really is. My only frame of reference is the MLB/NFL/NBA where the testing is comparably weak. In those sports, the ratio of the caught cheating to cheaters is artificially low due to union interference and management indifference.
I don’t know if cycling catches more cheaters because it looks harder or because it has more cheaters.
As for Lance, I’m not on board with the “superlative” argument. The “best cyclist ever” vs the “biggest cheat ever” oversimplifies his achievement. I think he should be remembered for what he did. Not what conventional wisdom said about what he did. Not what he might have done. And before long, a new cyclist will explode on the scene, and we will forget that Armstrong ever rode.
“I don’t know if cycling catches more cheaters because it looks harder or because it has more cheaters.”
Exactly. We can’t know. All of the rhetoric about cycling being the dirtiest sport is completely unfounded because there is no comparable frame of reference to other sports.
I think saying we will forget Armstrong ever rode may be overstating it, but I take your point, and you’re right that the future may eclipse Armstrong some day. Saying he is the best ever or the biggest cheat ever is only comparing him to the past, but in that comparison, those superlatives may be apt. History will tell.
The idea that someone else will explode on the scene in the way Lance did strikes me as unlikely. He was a talented but not amazing sprinter that nearly died and then dominated a sport that really only one other American had ever achieved acclaim in. Not only did he dominate but he did so for longer than anyone ever had. It might be a century before we see another performance like that even without the drama of the cancer backstory.
Personally I think cross country skiing is dirtier than cycling. Also one might want to consider eastern bloc Olympians ignite 70′s.
MCQ,
I think the asshole thing is relevant. People would be more invested in him as a hero if he weren’t such a jerk. Also his infortunate timing on breaking up with Cheryl Crow didn’t help his image. If he were widely seen as a good guy the doping allegations would tarnish his image. Right now I don’t think the allegations surprise anyone.
He probably doped pre-cancer, but not since. He might be a jerk on an interpersonal level, but in light of his cancer survivorship work and other philanthropic activity Lance can accurately be called a hero regardless of performance-enhancing drugs.
That seems like a very possible scenario. The only strong evidence of Armstrong’s doping that I’ve heard comes from Frankie Andreu and his wife saying that they overheard Lance admit to it with his cancer doctor.
I agree that coming back from cancer so successfully and spending the time, effort and money that he has on cancer causes makes a legitimate case for Lance being a hero. He is an inspiration to many people.