Review: Cycle of Denial

It’s been a few days since the CBC ran their story, Cycle of Denial (note: requires Windows Media Player), featuring Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, and via various bits of old footage, Lance Armstrong. At a running time of just over 23 minutes, it is not possible to cover all the nuances of the stories of any of these cyclists, or even the bigger story that ties the three together.

To the CBC’s credit, they did attempt to balance their coverage. And the good news for Floyd Landis is that in this piece he came across as much more relaxed, poised and confident than he did at the beginning of this sad saga. Frankie Andreu comes across better, in my opinion, than he did while covering the Tour last summer for OLN/Versus. While some of his work on OLN was quite good, at times Frankie was uneven and came across as a bit stilted.

But in the CBC piece, Andreu is comfortable and relaxed while recounting his story. Perhaps that’s because he’s had so much practice telling his own tale of doping. Once Frankie’s story came out in the New York Times, he became the go-to guy for commentary about personal experience with doping.

There are no new insights into Lance Armstrong as an individual in this story, in great part because CBC did not use any original footage or original coverage (unless you count the Andreu interviews). They merely used clips from other sources. And they make no mention of any effort to contact Armstrong for a response or comment on the content of the story.

To get a sense of CBC’s own bias on the story, consider the title: Cycle of Denial. The word denial has a number of definitions if you look it up in the dictionary. For example: asserting that a claim made by someone else is not true. Or in a psychological sense: a defense mechanism to deny or avoid painful thoughts. But in the common lexicon, denial has also come to mean a conscious misleading of others away from the truth in order to escape responsibility for one’s actions.

And that’s exactly what they mean, as becomes abundantly clear when the narrator closes the show by asking whether the sport of cycling, “will come clean or continue its cycle of denial.”

In this story, Frankie Andreu is held up as someone with the courage to stand up and speak the truth to power. And he certainly is courageous to stand up and admit that he took EPO in 1999. But there’s a problem with how they present Frankie and Betsy Andreu’s testimony in the lawsuit between Armstrong and SCA Promotions.

CBC presents Frankie and Betsy’s story of Lance admiting to having used steroids and other banned substances to his doctors in 1996, while he was being treated for testicular cancer. It’s a fascinating story. Compelling even. Makes for good TV.

One aspect of the Andreu’s story that CBC didn’t address is this: While they do mention and show Armstrong vigorously denying the Andreu’s story, they don’t mention that everyone else in the room also denies the story. Even though Lance may cut an imposing figure still in the world of cycling, he’s not such a fearsome person to the doctors who treated him.

Lance may have the power to destroy a cyclist’s career, but he doesn’t carry that kind of weight too far outside the world of cycling. So the medical staff wouldn’t have any reason to fear crossing Armstrong by supporting the Andreu’s story, if that’s indeed what happened.

From what I’ve seen and read about the lawsuit, the medical staff have no record of such comments by Armstrong. And that’s surprising if Armstrong had really told them, because such knowledge might well have affected some of the decisions made in his treatment.

Leaving out that information casts Frankie and Betsy’s story in a more believable light. It’s a game of he-said, she-said judging by the CBC story. Put that way, it comes down to who you’re more likely to believe. Those who are absolutely convinced that Lance is a doper will see this as just more proof. Even some who aren’t so rabid might come to the same conclusion.

But add in that no one else present recalls such comments, and who you might believe changes. Do any of us really know what happened there? No. But I’m more inclined to believe Armstrong’s side of the story, given that everyone present backs him up and no one else backs the Andreus. Does that make Lance a saint? No, not at all. Just more likely to be telling the truth.

And CBC blows it when reporting the specifics of Floyd’s testosterone tests, too. Instead of saying he had a higher than “normal” ratio, they repeated the canard that Floyd had “a high level of testosterone” in his system. And they repeat it not once, but twice. The second time in the closing minutes of the show.

Now, in the early days of the story, before the data became public, reporting such information might be excusable (not by me, I believe they should check their facts first, regardless — but I’m hardcore on that issue). Given that the data has been in the public domain now for two months, there’s really no excuse for getting that wrong.

The CBC reporter also betrays a bit of bias when interviewing Dick Pound, by asking Pound about “the nabbing of Landis.” Almost makes it sound like he was a criminal caught in the act of robbing a bank. But, of course, that’s not what happened.

Dick Pound does his best to come across as a reasonable person, speaking in a calm and measured voice. This time with a Canadian accent. (He tried very hard — and for the most part succeeded — in his portion of the Real Sports interview to speak with an American accent.) But of course, he can’t help but let a zinger or two out.

And Pound does so with his suggestion that, “if [Floyd] knows in his heart of hearts that he doped, he should come out and say that.” Now, this sounds awfully reasonable, except what is Floyd supposed to do if he knows in his heart of hearts that he’s innocent? Just shut up and say what the powers-that-be want him to say?

My favorite Poundism from the show however, is his comment that, “what’s important in sport is that everybody be accountable for their conduct.” I assume that might mean Mr. Pound, too?

While the story strives for a balanced presentation, and has done a better job than most media in presenting Floyd’s story, the manner in which they close the show makes me wonder if their point of view is that Floyd Landis is yet another example of denial of the doping problem in cycling.

The story has the ambition of talking about the overall problem of doping in cycling, but by their choices, it seems to be more a story about doping in American cycling. Operation Puerto gets only a brief mention, and many of the other scandals (like the 1998 Festina scandal which led to the formation of WADA) are conspicuous by their absence.

All that being said, if you haven’t already watched the video posted at the CBC’s site, it’s well worth a look, if only to see how far Floyd Landis has come in terms of handling interviews. Floyd handles himself very well. However, if you’re looking for a totally unbiased report, which is totally definitive about the Landis case or doping in cycling, look elsewhere.