I was asked years ago whether I though Armstrong was likely guilty of using PED’s and my answer at the time was “My head says yes, but I’d like to be wrong.” Given the recent revelations, well, I still wish I’d been wrong.
More recently, a friend asked what I thought about the recent news about Armstrong and his doping operation. The only interesting thought that came to mind involved Armstrong’s continued statements that he didn’t cheat. Given all the evidence, it seemed an odd statement.
But then, thinking about it from a lawyerly perspective, or parsing the words a bit more, there is one context in which they make sense. From Armstrong’s perspective, everyone else was using some kind of PED at the time. Therefore, his taking them meant that he wasn’t “cheating” in the sense that he had given himself a competitive advantage. He was keeping the other guys from gaining an advantage over him. When competing at the highest level, that’s probably all the rationalization needed.
While Armstrong is taking the brunt of the criticism here, it’s telling that the Tour will not be awarding the Armstrong’s now stripped victories. I take that as an admission that the entire era was out of control with regards to PED usage. To the point that they can’t name a victor because it’s likely that rider would also subsequently be found guilty. So, from an enforcement and “high ideals” perspective, that time period was not cycling’s best moment.
I guess the big question here is, does it really matter? After all, we’re talking about a time when everyone was “cheating”, and Armstrong won 7 Tour victories in the time period. If everyone was doing it, what’s the BFD?
I guess I’d go back to a couple of simple minded lines of reasoning. First, the sport, and the Tour particularly, is about endurance and pushing limits. How far can a man push his body over the course of the Tour? If the competitors are using PED’s, then we don’t get a credible answer. Second, by allowing the victories to stand, then a competitor can rationalize that it’s worth it. After all, the governing bodies for cycling won’t catch up until some time later and by then, the victories will be years in the past. By stripping those victories, a message is sent that it won’t be worth it. The rider’s name won’t appear in the books, except with a large asterisk that means “HE CHEATED TO WIN.”
Ultimately though, the whole thing is just terribly disappointing. For those years when Armstrong was winning, the race was interesting to everyone. It was probably a high-water mark for popularity of the sport, and the Tour in particular. Plus, Armstrong had a very compelling story with his cancer recovery. Looking back, it seems too good to have been true.
Turns out, it was.
One reply on “A Random Though About Lance Armstrong”
I think you hit the nail on the head, and that is that Lance has become the poster-child for the full spectrum of a sport. He was the man that took it to its pinnacle during his run on the Tour and now he is the one that serves to be its example of what they need to stop. Cycling has not been a legitimately contested sport for almost as long as track and field. If you want to compete at the highest level, and you have chosen not to utilize PEDs, then you are never going to compete at, possible, even its second tier level and you will probably never gain sponsorship necessary to reach the major leagues.
The greatest cyclist I ever saw race, personally, was Lance, and the second was probably George Hincapie. They both had to use PEDs to become world competitors, and that is the path that the sport chose to take, they let PEDs take over the sport and now they are there to stay. Baseball let the same thing happen, and for the most part, baseball has embraced them. They are not legal, if you get caught, you get suspended, but everyone knows that 70-90% of players in MLB and its sub-leagues are utilizing PEDs. I actually hold the opinion, in an activity where the pool of elite players is so large and the difference between a MLB player and a AAA player is the manicure on their pitching hand, that the only difference between MLB and AAA is a few percentage points on that PED usage league-wide. AAA is maybe 40-60% versus the 70-90% of the MLB…the increased salaries make it much easier in the MLB. But the governing body and even the media has embraced the fact that MLB is tainted and has been for many many years. It will always be tainted and there is no way to clean it up, the sport is not interesting unless players are pitching 90+ mph and hitting 40+ homeruns per year. That is not possible without a good PED regimen. At least it is not possible on such a grand scale with so many players competing at that elite level. No one pays to watch great base running and expert infield play…the sport is interminable without PEDs and everyone knows and respects it.
I do not hold the NFL immune, as I would estimate that around 25-40% of the players use HGH. They use it for the recovery benefits though, not any other purpose. They do not really have a steroid problem in football because the testing process is so strict that you will get caught, and many players have…it is only a matter of time. But they do not test for HGH, and until they do, the players that have the money will use it if they see fit. The reduced salaries in the NFL as compared to the rest of the professional leagues are why it is not more widespread.
All this said, I find it said that everyone is acting like this is a shock and a new story. PEDs have been rampant in the sport for decades and will continue to be a major part of it. Lance was the best at using them, still no positives and he is the most tested athlete in the HISTORY OF SPORT, not cycling, ALL SPORTS; that, in the end, may be more impressive than his seven Tour titles.