I was thinking of writing a post tonight even before I saw the comment from AustinCyclist linking to the teaser for a certain story that will be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Pat McQuaid, in his usual McQuaidian self, has been spouting off about banning riders who doped in the past from serving as directeurs sportif (or in other managerial roles) of professional cycling teams.
Now, while I can appreciate creative thinking on how to solve a problem, McQuaid’s proposal is not the way to do it. First off, very few former pros go on to become DSes at high-powered teams. So his ban isn’t exactly going to be a disincentive, as far as doping goes. Secondly, even fewer have the skills to be effective DSes. And thirdly, McQuaid’s proposal ignores the possibility that someone could learn from his mistakes and do something positive for the sport (Jonathan Vaughters, I’m looking at you).
I could go on, but there is a way bigger story brewing right now. Tyler Hamilton came clean about his use of performance-enhancing drugs while competing as a pro cyclist in an interview with Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes. During the interview, Hamilton says that he actually saw Lance Armstrong use EPO during the first years of his legendary run of 7-straight Tour wins. Here’s the teaser:
Also, from the written piece that accompanies the video, it appears that Frankie Andreu will be mentioned or shown during the story, too.
Another former Armstrong teammate, also a witness in the federal investigation, is Frankie Andreu. He tells Pelley he took banned substances because lesser riders he believed were doping passed him by. “Training alone wasn’t doing it and I think that’s how…many of the other riders during that era felt, I mean, you kind of didn’t have a choice,” says Andreu.
The story also makes mention of the alleged positive test result Armstrong had during the 2001 Tour de Suisse, reminiscent of comments by Floyd Landis almost exactly one year ago. This isn’t a rushed-together piece. Pelley’s 60 Minutes story has apparently been in the works for the last 6 months and will be interesting for any sports fan with even a passing interest in cycling to watch (to say the least). To get some additional background before Sunday, take a look at an Associated Press piece published on the Washington Post’s web site.
Of course, Lance Armstrong has been quick to respond. On his Twitter feed, he posted this comment:
20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.
Not failing a test isn’t the same thing as not doping. It could also be that Armstrong is smart enough to know how to beat the tests. To give Armstrong his due, he observed years ago that it’s hard to prove a negative. And that’s what he seeks to do with his comment. Prove a negative. Armstrong also has a new website available, which is rapidly filling with commentary on a number of aspects of the developing story. The site features this statement from Mark Fabiani:
Every cyclist who appeared on 60 Minutes has in the past sworn that they never doped. Now, their stories have suddenly changed out of desire for money and the need for attention. Just as eager for money and attention, 60 Minutes has embraced these falsehoods uncritically and enthusiastically. But greed and a hunger for publicity cannot change the facts: Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in the history of sports: He has passed nearly 500 tests over twenty years of competition. The time has long passed for this nonsensical investigation to stop, and for the enormous wasted resources to be re-directed to investigations that might actually protect Americans from wrongdoing. For more information, please go to www.Facts4Lance.com.
It also contains a number of pages attacking the credibility of Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreau, and Floyd Landis. No great surprise, that. Meanwhile, Hamilton sent a letter of apology to his friends and family, which appears in full on CyclingNews.com. In his letter, Hamilton says:
There’s no easy way to say this, so let me just say it plain: on Sunday night you’ll see me on “60 Minutes” making a confession that’s overdue. Long overdue.
During my cycling career, I knowingly broke the rules. I used performance-enhancing drugs. I lied about it, over and over. Worst of all, I hurt people I care about. And while there are reasons for what I did — reasons I hope you’ll understand better after watching — it doesn’t excuse the fact that I did it all, and there’s no way on earth to undo it.
The question most people ask is, why now? There are two reasons. The first has to do with the federal investigation into cycling. Last summer, I received a subpoena to testify before a grand jury. Until that moment I walked into the courtroom, I hadn’t told a soul. My testimony went on for six hours. For me, it was like the Hoover dam breaking. I opened up; I told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I felt a sense of relief I’d never felt before — all the secrets, all the weight I’d been carrying around for years suddenly lifted. I saw that, for me personally, this was the way forward.
The second reason has to do with the sport I love. In order to truly reform, cycling needs to change, and change drastically, starting from the top. Now that I’m working as a coach, I see young people entering the sport with hopes of making it to the top. I believe that no one coming into the sport should have to face the difficult choices I had to make. And before the sport can move forward, it has to face the truth.
So who’s telling the truth in all of this, Lance or Tyler? The stories that keep surfacing sound awfully similar, don’t they? Either there’s a vast cycling conspiracy against Lance, or there’s some fire behind all that smoke. Armstrong has managed to find a way to protect his name and brand from doping accusations over the years and may yet do so with this latest go-round. That said, it’s one thing to mount a PR campaign that a cynic might argue is designed to distract and misdirect people’s attention away from an embarrassing story that originated in a French sports newspaper.
When 60 Minutes broadcasts a story accusing someone like Armstrong of wrongdoing, the stakes get higher, given the program’s national audience and the likelihood that other media outlets will repeat the story, amplify the story, quote from the story and follow up. And when the government gets involved, as with the Novitzky investigation and the grand jury testimony, the stakes get much, much higher. Armstrong may yet win this latest battle, but it’s going to be a tougher, more drawn-out and costlier skirmish than anything he’s faced in the past, I suspect.
I would like to believe that Lance won 7 Tours clean. Really, I would. But the realist in me (or perhaps it’s the cynic in me) hears all of these stories and thinks that there must be something to them. And given how many others have admitted to doping or been caught doping, along with how far back doping goes in the history of cycling, I can easily picture Armstrong having succumbed to the siren call of the needle, too. It just doesn’t sound all that far-fetched that Lance Armstrong might have doped during his years as a pro cyclist. Will the house of cards finally come tumbling down? Time will tell. Meanwhile, I expect some very interesting twists and turns before the cards and the dust settle.
(Hat tip to AustinCyclist for several of those links, and a tip o’ the hat to OldRunnerGuy, who sent me the link to the WaPo AP story.)
Rant –
We are looking square in the face of why I’ve grown to hate cycling, and what I think is wrong at the very heart of anti-doping.
I’ve made no secret of my admiration for Lance Armstrong. It sounds almost trite to bring this up, but Armstrong is a hero to millions of those yellow bracelet-wearers. His fight against cancer is possibly the single best thing any athlete has ever done with his fame and influence. I now feel foolish wearing my yellow bracelet, which is too bad, because my feeling foolish is emblematic of money that’s NOT going to be raised going forward for a good cause.
I feel much the same way about Lance in 2011 as I felt about Floyd in 2007. I don’t know if Lance is telling the truth. Actually, I was inclined to believe Floyd’s story in 2007, and I’m no longer inclined to believe Lance’s story in 2011.
But this business of belief is at the heart of what is bothering me. Back in the day, there were many here who BELIEVED in Floyd Landis, that he was the kind of guy who would not lie to his mother, that he was essentially honest and guileless, that he was fighting the kind of fight (open and transparent) that only someone wrongfully accused would have fought. I bet that Tyler Hamilton had his own group of equally devoted fans. I suppose that Lance does, too.
I did not want to say this at the time, but the belief in Landis was a fan’s belief. That should be obvious now, that Landis has proved to be the kind of guy who would lie to his mother. But it was obvious then, too, because the sympathy that was expressed here for Landis never extended to Jan Ullrich, or Ivan Basso, or Christian Moreni, or Alexandre Vinokourov, or Thomas Dekker, or any of the others accused of doping while the Landis case was ongoing. It remains obvious now, that most of you who admired Landis as the wrongly accused clean rider, continue to admire him as the confessed doper pointing fingers at others. You may have thought of yourselves as many things, way back when, but you were just sports fans being sports fans.
I personally was something completely other, back in the day. I liked Landis, but I had little invested in him. The guy I followed was a different guy: a guy from Texas that I’d originally liked back in 1995 because those of us who’d followed Greg LeMond needed a new American hope to keep alive the American interest in cycling. Then the Texan got sick … and I heard he was going to die. Remember, this was back in the day when the internet was something other than it is now; if you were a casual fan of cycling, you’d mostly hear things haphazardly. Then it turned out the Texan was not going to die, only his French-based cycling team had tossed him off the team. Then it turned out that the Texan was not only going to race, but he was going to race the Tour de France. You hoped he find a way to finish. Instead, he won.
It seems incredible to remember, but back in 1999, Lance was the guy who “saved cycling”, whose triumph over cancer made people forget the Festina doping scandal. Lance finished more than 7 minutes ahead of Alex Zuelle, who had been tossed from the 1998 race along with the Festina team, and who happily reported in 1999 that he was “feeling even stronger since he had stopped taking banned products” (this reported in a Sports Illustrated article without even a hint of irony). Yes, this is the same 1999 race where Tyler Hamilton reportedly saw Armstrong shoot up with EPO.
It’s really a pitiful thing, being a sports fan, and following your favorite team or favorite athlete through a season and a career. It’s a form of emotional investment, and as was proven here, we often make this investment carelessly and foolishly. We come to admire and care about people who don’t deserve it. Even when we come to care about an athlete with a good and honest heart, we still have to endure the false starts to his career, his injuries, his struggles for early recognition, the times his career seemed to plateau, never to go any higher. Then there’d be the decline, the approach of old age in athletic terms, the injuries that never seemed to heal … all the while there being the nagging feeling that maybe you’d hitched your wagon to the wrong star, that the other guy your best friend had followed instead would have made for a better choice. But there are those other moments, even if they’re only as fleeting as a stage win, or a near-brush with a podium finish, or a breakaway that almost succeeded in taking a stage.
Cycling adds another element to sports fandom, where you start following some young and reputedly drug-free rider who emerges on the scene after the prior year’s drug scandal, only to watch that rider get swallowed up by the next succeeding scandal. It happened to Armstrong, perhaps deservedly so. It happened to the guy who followed Armstrong, too. You may remember that new guy. The French loved the new guy, because unlike Armstrong, the new guy had good days and bad days. We were told, that’s what clean cycling looks like: not one day’s domination followed monotonously by another day’s domination, but a guy struggling one day and beating the world the next. The new guy, of course, was Landis. Meet the new hero, same as the old hero.
So today we have Alberto Contador, the latest dope-tainted hero of the peloton, who was elevated to that status as the then-hopefully clean alternative to Michael Rasmussen, who was unceremoniously bounced from the 2007 Tour because the world could not bear to have a likely doper like Rasmussen win another Tour. Now likely doper Contador is about to win the 2011 Giro, and later have THAT title stripped from him (along with the 2010 Tour title) when (if as expected) the CAS reverses his clenbuterol doping exoneration. Closer to home, they’re running some kind of bicycle race in California I hear; the Tour of California being the now traditional time for cyclists to change their doping stories (last year Landis, this year Hamilton) to gain maximum publicity at the expense of the guys on the bicycles that I used to care about.
You can try to persuade me that the next generation of cyclists is going to do this differently, but starting with Armstrong I’ve watched at least three new generations of cyclists get it wrong. Back in Armstrong’s day, the new generation was going to prove itself by subjecting itself to rigorous year-long WADA drug testing, the same drug testing we laugh at now when Armstrong calls himself the most tested athlete in history. Today’s cyclist has the new and improved biological passport – a passport that Contador carries proudly, for all it means to anyone.
Cycling has come up with more ways to prove doping guilt than any sport in history: you can fail doping tests, or you can associate with the wrong doctors or team officials, or you can be linked to large-scale doping busts, or you can eat steaks from the wrong cow, or live in the wrong country, or ride for the wrong team, or have your name leaked on a “list of suspicion”, or you can live long enough to watch your teammates contradict their earlier testimony sworn under oath and condemn you as a doper.
Someone is bound to ask me, who do I believe? Do I think Lance is telling the truth, or Floyd, or Tyler Hamilton, or someone else? That’s where I jump off this particular bus. The only reasonable position to take is that they’re all liars, that this is a sport full of liars and half-truth tellers and people who keep silent when it’s convenient to them. Floyd lied to try and save his cycling career, then he shifted to a new and improved set of lies to seek vengeance upon his enemies, seek a whistleblower’s financial recovery and in general to keep his name in the papers. The folks at UCI lie back at Landis in an effort to retain power and preserve their jobs. The only difference worth a damn is that maybe Lance is lying to protect and preserve his ability to fight cancer, and if that’s the case, then I support Lance’s lies against the lies everyone else is telling. Perhaps the ends don’t justify the means, but since the “means” consist of universal lying, I’ll take the side of the liar with the noblest ends.
In the meantime, I’ll observe that you all are determined to destroy this sport of cycling in order to save it. Anti-doping was supposed to serve the interests of sport, not the other way around. When Armstrong falls, that will satisfy you for a moment, but then the mob will need to feed on someone else. How about Indurain? LeMond? Hinault? Are you telling me there’s no largely forgotten teammate of one of these guys willing to dish a little dirt in exchange for a publisher’s advance? At what point do you lose interest in this blood sport, and soon after the sport that inspired the blood sport?
I guess it doesn’t matter. It’s just sports. The world is supposed to end tomorrow; there are probably things more important to care about.
But please. Don’t tell me about the future, how the fall of yet another cyclist is going to usher in an era of clean cycling. I’ve heard that one before. You’ll only make me laugh.
It doesn’t matter that LA is/was a hero to millions. That fact doesn’t give him carte blanche to lie, cheat, and essentially belittle those millions of admirers with his extraordinarily disingenuous denials through the years. Not only that, but he has willingly let quite a few good, albeit misguided people, dangle in the wind until they went down in flames so he could preserve his name and his fortune. Of all of the dopers he is the most despicable, of all of the dopers he is the one who least deserves anyone’s admiration!
strbuk (the bitter)
Will Lance secretly write a tell-all to try and outsell Tyler?
Larry,
It’s going to take me a bit to come up with a reply worthy of your comment and observations. One thing I will say right now is that I take no joy in seeing Armstrong laid low.
strbuk,
It certainly seems that many have paid a high price for the fame and glory of The One.
austincyclist,
Who knows? He might find himself with a whole bunch of time on his hands and not much to do. I’m sure any book that Lance pens will sell millions of copies. Not so sure that Tyler’s book (if it’s published) would sell even a fraction of that.
Larry – of all the many great comments you’ve written on this site, this is one of, if not THE BEST. Amen. Amen, amen, amen. And as a Terp alumna, I can sing for ya. 🙂
I’m actually thinking of laminating it. Putting it up on my wall here at work, to remind me of the bar we should ALL strive for on a blog such as this. In fact, I think I will title your piece : THE BAR.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts & feelings with us.
“The stories that keep surfacing sound awfully similar, don’t they? Either there’s a vast cycling conspiracy against Lance, or there’s some fire behind all that smoke”
“vast cycling conspiracy”? Actually, all it takes is a connection to the internet. Any reader of this site and many others could easily come up with the same story as Mr. Hamilton. Ever heard of a Internet meme. Or have a crazy FOX News watching uncle rant on about the President’s birth certificate.
Umm, Bill, that was supposed to be a sly tongue-in-cheek reference to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” comment Hillary Clinton made eons ago. I guess it fell kind of flat.
SMTML, thank you. Wow. That’s high praise, particularly coming from you, my personal favorite commenter ever.
Strbuk, I acknowledge your comment. For the reasons I discussed above I will not engage it. I say this to you with all friendship and respect.
Three things:
1. Legal theory of the case;
2. Jurisdiction;
3. Statute of limitations.
I’m still waiting for answers before I can see how this gets into a U.S. Federal courtroom.
Pelkey and I are lone voices crying in the wilderness; he’s been baying for longer than I have, see below —
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/news/the-explainer-what-crimes-could-federal-investigators-charge-against-lance-armstrong_132057
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/the-explainer-new-old-and-updated-allegations_156198
Larry,
Your self delusion is touching.
At least I always believed that Barry Bonds almost certainly doped.
They were both gigantic assholes. Just one of them wrapped himself around the cancer flag.
Lance and his many teamates were probably the biggest dopers in the peloton. This was the biggest rot at the heart of pro cycling’s “success” and “growth”. And for that what does he deserve?
Rant, with all due respect, if you think there’s a chance Armstrong won all those Tours without PEDs, then there’s no help for you, and you should stop writing about cycling.
Larry I loled at this quote…
“The only difference worth a damn is that maybe Lance is lying to protect and preserve his ability to fight cancer, and if that’s the case, then I support Lance’s lies against the lies everyone else is telling. Perhaps the ends don’t justify the means, but since the “means” consist of universal lying, I’ll take the side of the liar with the noblest ends.”
Pro-omerta to the end I see. Anyone who threatens cherished delusions earns hatred. You claim that Landis’ lies were/are beyond forgiveness….so how can you claim Armstrong’s lies are any different? No doubt, you will vocally hate on Armstrong when he violates omerta and confesses (which will happen eventually).
It’s very sad–as soon as these athletes choose to do the right thing–people like yourself will hate them for it. Because you love your cherished illusions more than the truth.
When I first came on this board I told you Landis was lying, and that Rant and TBV’s talking points were transparent propaganda. I talked about the history of the sport, the dominance of omerta, the overwhelmingly convincing testimony from multiple whistle blowers. I told you that if you really wanted to support the likes of Landis and Armstrong, then you should lobby for legalizing the dope. And nothing has changed. Fundamentally, cycling is in the same position it was in 4 years ago.
Larry,
So, to echo SMTML, that was one of the best (if not the best) comment I’ve seen on this blog or anywhere else. Well-written, my friend. Better, I think, than the post it’s attached to. And it’s given me some inspiration for another post that I’ll be putting together over the weekend.
One of the life lessons I’ve taken from the experience of being a Floyd supporter (really, it’s more like a reinforcement of previous life lessons) is that we’re all human. Subject to the same temptations as anyone else. Doesn’t matter if you’re Lance the Airconditioning Repairman or Lance Armstrong, Floyd the Gas Station Guy or Floyd Landis. We all make mistakes. Most of us, however, have the good fortune not to make those mistakes in the fishbowl of fame that professional athletes live in.
Being a sports fan is a peculiar thing. I think you’re right that many on this site approached Landis and his possible guilt/innocense from a fan’s perspective. Fans idolize their sports heroes, putting them on a pedestal that the athletes don’t really deserve. We look up to those people as shining examples of how to excel in life. And when we find out they’ve taken shortcuts, or broken the rules, or used banned performance-enhancing drugs, we react with disappointment, anger and perhaps even a desire for vengeance.
Cycling as a sport and as a retail industry goes through … well … cycles. After the LeMond era ended, interest in the sport and in purchasing bikes dropped. Armstrong, in his earliest days, was a brash, young whippersnapper who seemed destined for greatness. And then he almost died. And then he came back and not only competed again, but won the Tour seven times in a row.
His story, like both LeMond and Landis, had the elements of overcoming adversity. LeMond almost died as a result of a hunting accident. Landis had a necrotic hip which caused no end of pain. But Lance, he’s badass. Cancer challenged him to a duel, and Lance won. And then he went on to do what he seemed destined to do before the big C struck. He became one of the top cyclists in the world.
Along the way, he did “save cycling” in the US, if by that you mean he inspired others to take up the sport on a competitive or non-competitive basis. Clubs flourished, shops did well, manufacturers and importers sold more products than in that downtime between the Greg and Lance eras.
The illusion (reality?) that Lance created was that he won clean. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. More and more, it sounds like he didn’t. But maybe all the naysayers are just looking for a big payday, like Armstrong’s PR flack suggests.
Thing is, we’re suckers for a good “overcoming adversity to win the big prize” kind of story. It’s the stuff of countless Hollywood movies and commercial fiction. Might even be the stuff of sports, too. Or maybe especially true of sports. We root for the underdog, hoping that he or she will take on the favorites or the establishment and show them who’s boss. But sometimes the underdog is no better or worse than those in the establishment. Like someone once said, “Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss”.
The big lesson I walked away with from this whole experience is not to put people on a pedestal. It invariably leads to disappointment, because no one can ever live up to the high expectations that come with life on a pedestal. Although I enjoy keeping up with what’s going on in the world of cycling, I find that I’m not much of a “fan” anymore. At least, not one who believes in heroes. Or even in those who purport to run the sport and claim to be looking out for the sport’s best interests.
It’s still great fun to get out on the bike (when the weather permits) and feel the rush of the wind as I speed down the road. I’m not watching as much of the cycling coverage on the Internet or on TV. And I don’t know that I’ll even bother to record the Tour this year. Much as it’s a great spectacle and all, I’m finding less appetite for actually watching the spectacle unfold.
Liggett junkie,
I’ll have to take a look at those articles. As quiet as the investigation of Armstrong appears to be, I do have to wonder what might ever come of it.
ludwig,
What I said is I’d like to believe he won clean. That’s not the same as saying I believe he won clean. There are too many people telling the same stories to convince me that Armstrong didn’t have some help along the way.
I think I’m more bothered by the possible buried positive and what it says about the powers that be. If Lance was protected by the alphabet gang because his narrative was good for cycling, then who else is being protected? Can we trust, for instance, that the french teams aren’t being protected? To be clear, I think the french teams are clean, but, if the testing regime is suspect, then all I’ve got is belief.
If the testing is subjective then the fairness reason for opposing doping/supporting sanctions is gone. And it’s worse than no testing at all. Anyone can visit a pharmacist, not many people can speed dial Verbruggen.
Brian,
Excellent point.
It’s kind of hard for me to make heads or tails of all this. On one hand, we have the whole smoke and fire thing: if so many former teammates are dropping the dime on Lance, there must be something going in, right? But many of LA’s accusers have credability issues and/or an apparent ax to grind. Lance is, after all, a convient target, well known, with rumors circulating for at least a decade.
On the other hand, he has been tested numerous times and always clean, except perhaps for the one TdS test which is disputed. And there are a number of former teammates willing to vouch for him. Of course, these all have their own ax to grind, if LA goes down, they might well go down too.
There is growing awareness that eye witness testimony is not always reliable, even excluding eye witnesses that knowingly lie to advance some agenda. Witness X thinks he sees something or someone when in fact who or what is entirely different. Given all that, I am inclined to regard Hamilton’s statements, along with Landis’, as interesting, but please pass the salt.
M, I am not ignoring you. I can’t claim to have expressed myself perfectly above, but I think I’ve come as close to it as I can. I think your question to me was intended as rhetorical, which is fine of course. I don’t see anything you’ve raised that I haven’t already addressed to my own satisfaction.
Ludwig, I confess to a particular fondness for you. I LOL at your stuff too, and I mean that in a nice way. But your last comment directed a level of meanness and bile in my direction that I found surprising and disappointing. In truth, there’s much in what you wrote that deserves a reply. But you approach this topic with a certainty that you know who is telling the truth and who is lying. Events may prove you correct. But your certainty is a kind of prejudice that makes it impossible for me to reason with you or even to engage with you. I love the truth enough to respect the process I use to try to find it, and not to brand something as true until I’m sure I know that it IS true. I doubt I succeed in this as well as I’d like, but this is my goal.
Ludwig, you are a living, breathing example of something I was trying to describe in my original comment. In the last 4 years, you’ve had a lot of truth come to light, a lot of people who (in your words) have chosen “to do the right thing”. You’ve had Landis and Riis and Andreu and others. Now you have Hamilton. Soon you may have Armstrong. Yet by your own admission “nothing has changed”, and “cycling is in the same position it was in 4 years ago”. Meaning that cyclists still dope and that the “omerta” in the peloton is as strong as ever. Does this trouble you, that the truth you profess to love does not seem to be helping any? Now, here’s a funny thing, you may find it funny anyway, as you like to LOL as my illusions (or “delusions”, as you prefer to call them). Here’s one illusion I hold: telling the truth should make things better. So why isn’t this happening? Could it be that what we’re receiving from these truth-tellers isn’t exactly the whole truth? Or that these truth tellers are motivated by some desire less pure than the need to set the record straight? Or that it isn’t really truth we’re seeking after all, but something else, some kind of destruction instead?
Ludwig, I’m not really asking you any of these questions, by the way. If you want to engage in an exchange of ideas on this point or related points, I may be fine with that, but you’ll have to come back to me with something a bit more polite. Not respectful, mind you. Just more polite. Otherwise, thanks for sharing your thoughts. All except the thought that I am “pro-Omerta to the end”, because I’d like to continue if possible.
Rant, thanks. Somehow your post (excellent, by the way, I impolitely neglected to say so) and this forum allowed me to say some things that were on my mind. I think you’re on to something when you talk about the stories we like. We also seem to like the story of the top dog that falls, of the too-arrogant boss of the peloton who gets his come-uppance from the subordinates he took for granted, or even abused. Not to say those stories aren’t true, but somehow we end up with the stories we like.
As for putting people on pedestals, no, we shouldn’t do that. It’s why I used a different metaphor, about “investing in people emotionally”. It’s hard not to care about the people you watch on TV. The moment you root for so-and-so to reach the finish line before the other guy, you’re emotionally hooked, with the only question being the matter of degree.
Thanks for reading, thanks for responding, thanks for being here. Much appreciated all the way around.
William, ARE there former LA teammates willing to vouch for him? Who are they?
Some very well reasoned points made here. I can offer no more, except that I can not dismiss someone who changes their story. To me the denials of Landis, Tyler, Ullrich, etc boil down to game theory. Their choice was made because the other option was untenable. Once the consequences changed the story changes.
Whoever writes the book that explains this in terms of game theory will have my $.
It is a shame that for generations, talent has not been realized as cyclists chose to not play the game of doping, and sacrificed their dreams.
I just can’t believe that a pure climber doped to the gills, Pantani, was taken to the line on the Ventoux by a clean LA.
Larry
I believe that Levi and George Hincapie have come out in LA support, they well may be others. Of course, they have a stake in all this, as I mentioned.
Rmmcrea
Good point about game theory. You might want to take a look at a book called Scorecasting. While it has nothing in it about cycling, it does have a chapter about doping in baseball. In general, it looks at some theories about sports and analyzes them with stats from a largely economical angle. Home field advantage and all that.
My question to Larry and Rant and all the other denyers:
Is do you honestly believe that Lance most probably doped during his career?
Like I said, I can champion my homeboy Barry Bonds, and hope he beats the feds on legal grounds, but I don’t tell myself stories that he did not dope, or that maybe he did or maybe he didn’t, I believe in my heart and brain that he did dope. He was trying to be the best home run hitter at the end of his career.
Can you folks say the same about Lance?
M,
I’m not sure in what way I’m a “denyer”, but here’s my take on Lance. I’ve always been somewhat agnostic about whether he did or didn’t dope. Also, I would never have called myself a huge Lance fan. I can appreciate what he’s accomplished as a cyclist, but he’s not someone I can picture sharing a drink with down at the corner pub.
Having raced, I know just how hard it is to get to his level. I never had the innate ability he has, or the desire to pump myself full of whatever it takes to win. For me, Category 3 is as good as it got. To get higher would have required more time, better coaching, and probably more than a bit of rocket fuel. And I’ve got no desire to put that stuff in my body. If I can’t race on my own ability, I won’t race.
So, that said, I can look at what he did and respect the accomplishments. More and more, I believe that he did not win on just his athletic ability. At the same time, if you look at the people who stood on those 7 podiums, who among them has been untainted by doping charges, rumors, allegations? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a soul.
Lance is one competitive S.O.B. So were the others he raced against. I think they all used whatever means necessary to compete and win. Lance just happened to do it a bit better than the others. That includes in choosing doping regimens, too, I suspect.
So, like you say about Bonds trying to be the best home run hitter, I’d say Lance was trying to be the best cyclist. He used all the techniques available to him, as did most (if not all) of the people who stood next to him on those 7 podiums at the Tour. But I’ve never been a fan of Lance in the same way you’ve been a fan of Barry Bonds.
CBS is now reporting George rolled on LA at the grand jury.
Drop goes another domino.
I have long thought of pro-cycling as part sublime athletic contest, part soap opera & part tragic opera….
When really it’s all just Shakespearean … ‘ET TU, BRUTE?’
There are certainly more questions on the subject than there are clear answers. Brian Ledford wonders if the testing regime is suspect. That is one of the few items we can be certain about. The testing regime, without a doubt, is suspect and therefore all we have left regarding results is personal belief. You can blame the various alphabet soup entities, to varying degrees, for that reality. Regardless of who gets the blame, it’s a shi&&y way to manage a sport.
Rant makes a notable point when he writes about Armstrong’s importance to the bicycle industry during his heyday. Bike shops, manufacturers, touring companies, and the rest of the industry owe him at least a note of thanks.
I’m less convinced of Armstrong’s importance to the cause of curing cancer. He sold a lot of 1$ yellow wrist bands. I think that benefited his foundation and him more than the overall cause. Armstrong lives large, in no small part off of his position within his foundation. That provides him with comfortable travel in a private jet along with first class accommodations and dining when he arrives. That part certainly benefits Armstrong more than the overall cause. On the other hand, Armstrong did bring a great deal of publicity to the overall cause. He also brought a measure of hope to those suffering by virtue of the heartening story related to Armstrong personally overcoming cancer and then excelling once cancer free. Plus one (+1) for the cause and for those suffering from cancer that were/are inspired. Also, +1 to Armstrong personally for surviving and thriving. On the other, other hand, the Livestrong Foundation is probably not the most efficient vehicle for getting the money to researchers who are working on cures? A cursory check will show Livestrong has high overhead. I’d suspect Lance’s jet setting is only the tip of the overhead iceberg, but I’m just not motivated to dig too deep. On a personal level, I find Armstrong to be a jerk, so while I admire what he did on the bike, it stops there. Given the chance to meet with him or share a meal, I’d 100% decline. It would be a waste of valuable time.
Lance’s mouthpiece has slammed Hamilton pretty hard. Hamilton may be telling the truth, or not. However, the Armstrong mouthpiece’s explanation doesn’t seem to ring true. If you can believe the mouthpiece, Mark Fabiani, then Hamilton is lying and managed to be questioned before a Grand Jury and be interviewed by 60 Minutes to sell a yet to be completed or named book. Fabiani reminds us about Armstrong’s record of drug testing. http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/idINIndia-57146820110520
He claims it is perfect, while ignoring others have issues with at least one post dated TUE and an irregularity regarding a shower while AFLD reps were waiting for samples. (AFLD reps screwed the pooch with their own irregularities, thus officially nullifying Armstrong’s irregularities in the matter). Regardless, I refer you to the first paragraph on this post, specifically the part about the certainty of the drug testing regime being suspect. Garbage in, garbage out. Protestations of a clean record of testing (somewhat debatable anyway) ring hollow.
I’m guessing Hamilton giving back his olympic gold medal is significant. I have zero reverence for the IoC or just about anything it stands for, but I believe Hamilton valued the medal. Speaking out as he did required him to give up something he valued. I think that means something? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-gives-back-olympic-time-trial-gold-medal
Now, I wonder who should end up with the gold that was formerly Hamilton’s? Could it be legitimately worn around Ekimov’s neck? Some might find it more satisfying for the medal to be passed to Julich or even further down the line. YMMV……………..
Meanwhile, William Schart’s assumption that Hincapie did not roll on Armstrong was premature according to CBS News (noted by eightzero) and the LA Times
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/20/60minutes/main20064858.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-doping-20110521,0,3959897.story
At the ATOC, Hincapie is focusing on the race and not commenting specifically.
He did offer this tweet:
“I can confirm to you I never spoke with 60 Minutes. I have no idea where they got their information.”
Seems some of the facts are still in dispute.
Meh, if you can believe certain religious zealots, we won’t have long to worry about this anyway. LOL………………………….
Jeff,
Thanks for posting those links. I was just about to do that.
M, I anticipated your question in my post and tried my best to answer it there. The short answer to all of these questions is, how in hell do I know what Armstrong did? I wasn’t there. Put me on a jury with 11 others charged with the responsibility of finding justice, proceed with the process of prosecution and defense, and I’ll give you my opinion based on the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the case, because it would then be my duty to do so. I have no duty to prejudge the case against Armstrong.
You are asking me to speculate, and I won’t. I see no good that could come from doing so, and I can imagine a great deal of harm. I’m willing to predict the outcome of a sporting event, but I won’t (for example) attend a wedding and predict how many years the marriage will last. Not every guess has a public value. I’ll guess how many jelly beans you have in your jar; I won’t guess on the guilt or innocence of a human being. At some point (being the pompous ass that I am capable of being), I may pass judgment on Lance Armstrong. But I won’t pre-judge his case until all the facts are in.
I can assure you that I am aware of all of the existing evidence and what it means, and I take the accusations against Armstrong quite seriously. Some of this evidence has weight and probative value. I’ve had the same training as you, M. I don’t know if the elements of a crime are contained in any of these allegations, and I don’t know how Armstrong can convincingly defend himself against these accusations, but they are out there and they are serious enough to turn heads.
I do not believe that all of the evidence is in. Both my training and my sense of ethics tell me not to rush to judgment. I do not believe that I am required to have an opinion on this matter, let alone state it publicly. I think that the need for everyone involved in cycling to be “for” this guy or “against” that guy is part of what is ruining the sport. I very much hope that Armstrong is proven innocent, or at least that he’s not proven guilty. I’m prepared for the possibility that things will not work out the way I hope, but I will not quantify that possibility for you, because doing so violates my sense of what is fair.
I think you have asked me a perfectly normal question within the current culture of cycling, and I do not fault you personally for asking it. But I’m deeply troubled by the fact that your question IS perfectly normal. It’s also perfectly normal for some (not you) to suggest that those who are not first on board to pronounce an athlete guilty of doping bear responsibility for doping in general. It is not a good thing when the careful and deliberate search for truth is seen as a negative, or when the exigencies of a matter appear to justify finding the shortest possible path to condemning another human being.
Jeff, the Livestrong Foundation has raised more than $400 million, and approximately 81-83% of this has gone into programs to fight cancer. About 5% has been spent on administrative and 12% on fundraising. I think this is considered to be a good record in the charity world. I don’t know how much Armstrong himself was paid or whether he received anything. I know that Armstrong himself gave $5 million to his foundation in 2007. I understand your skepticism but I think all indications are that Armstrong’s charitable endeavors are substantial, well-run and doing a lot of good.
Larry,
I am asking what you believe in your heart and brain given the information that you know now, imperfect as that is.
Do you believe that Lance has never doped in his whole career? Do you believe he has?
I’m not talking about the evidence or whether it can be proved that Lance committed some crime, or violated some anti-doping regulation. I’m asking what do you believe – did he dope or not?
“I don’t know” just doesn’t cut it. It’s not believable as an honest answer given all the information that is out there.
You’ve called Contador a likely doper on pretty flimsy evidence. So what about Lance? What do you believe?
M, I answer your questions, yet you persist in asking them. Why exactly is it that I am required to have an opinion, and why exactly is it that I am required to express it?
Contador’s is a case where all the facts are before the jury, so to speak. There is no dispute that clenbuterol was found in Contador’s system. Contador has presented his defense; it was the beef. He didn’t say maybe, or probably. He said it was the beef. That (or any other form of food or drink contamination) doesn’t seem likely to me, given the absence of any proof of environmental clenbuterol contamination in Spain or France. The remaining explanations are that he took clenbuterol during the Tour — again unlikely — or that he blood doped, which is both possible and the only explanation that makes sense of the evidence. So yeah, Contador is a likely doper. I think it’s OK to say this because all of the evidence appears to be in. Sure, there’s a possibility of new facts emerging, but that possibility always exists, even with cases decided long ago.
Jurors are typically instructed not to form an opinion on a case until they’ve heard all the evidence. A pretty good piece of advice, don’t you think?
If you promise to stop asking me, I’ll tell you that the evidence against Armstrong is damning so far. As if you need me to tell you that. I can imagine a few arguments that might be made in Armstrong’s defense, but I haven’t heard him make them yet.
I’m ignoring the “honest” answer part of the comment. If you don’t think I’m being honest, we can end our discussion right now.
Sorry Larry, hate to burst your bubble.
Here is a Forbes article on Celebrity Foundations:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/30/oprah-jolie-pitt-letterman-philanthropy-personal-finance-celebrity-charities.html
It doesn’t speak to Livestrong specifically, but you can infer from examples of efficient foundations that Livestrong is not particularly efficient. It will also provide you with some indications as to the motives for Armstrong giving $ to his own foundation.
Here is a comment on Armstrong’s foundation by the American Institute of Philanthropy. It takes into account 10 years of history:
“The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.”
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html
As of 2008, Livestrong had over 50 paid employees with the Executive alone being compensated at a rate greater than a quarter of a million dollars ($250,000.00+) annually.
To be fair, Livestrong looks like it has taken steps to incrementally bring itself toward the spendy end of the acceptable spectrum insofar as industry norms are concerned, However, it’s a long stretch to attempt to categorize Armstrong’s foundation as being “efficient”.
Jeff, no bubble being burst here. I saw the Forbes piece and the American Institute of Philanthropy piece before I posted. I also read the most recent annual reports and financial statements of the Livestrong Foundation, as well as (1) a piece in the Wall Street Journal critical of athlete’s charitable efforts that had nice things to say about Armstrong’s (http://on.wsj.com/k1On4n), (2) a favorable write-up on the Livestrong Foundation from the Better Business Bureau (http://bit.ly/ijCdSk) and (3) a favorable write-up of the Livestrong Foundation by Charity Navigator (http://bit.ly/1rmA3), probably the leading charity evaluation organization. No slam on the American Institute of Philanthropy, also a respected organization, but the article you cited from there is four years old and the data they cite is not up to date. No slam on you, but you don’t even have the most recent AIP information, which they do not make available online.
Here’s one summary of Livestrong: “While its $50.4 million in annual revenue is less than what the 97-year-old American Cancer Society raises in a month, Livestrong has been a catalyst for better cancer care and education across the globe. “It’s a force to be reckoned with,” says Leslie Lenkowsky, a professor at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy. Livestrong’s help line, guidebooks, and website helped more than 400,000 people last year. Its social-media efforts reach about 3 million supporters. It has pioneered programs here and abroad for survivors; worked to unify the fractured cancer community; and instigated a worldwide crusade, which includes the United Nations and the Clinton Global Initiative, to make the world’s No. 1 killer a health-care priority. “I can’t think of an organization with the breadth of activity that the foundation has,” says Dr. Larry Shulman, chief medical officer at the renowned Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, “and that includes the American Cancer Society.””
The Livestrong Foundation cannot have annual administrative expenses of about $7 million and have 50 employees making over $12.5 million in the aggregate. Somebody’s numbers are off somewhere.
Jeff, I respectfully submit to you that Livestrong is a highly respected charity. I’ve worked a tiny bit in the arena of cancer charities and I’ve never heard any criticism of Livestrong. I’ve never read of anyone who had an unkind word to say about Livestrong until I found that piece yesterday from the American Institute of Philanthropy, and as I’ve pointed out, that piece is a single (but important) and somewhat out of date dissenting opinion. I’m not trying to say that there might not be someone at Livestrong flying in a private jet who could have traveled coach, not am I saying that Armstrong does not derive any private benefit from the public good he has accomplished. If you like, add Livestrong to your list of things that could do better. But if you’re trying to suggest that Livestrong is a scam, or is solely Armstrong’s ego trip, I think you’re out in left field on that one.
Well, well, well. I hadn’t been able to read many of yesterday’s comments till I got home last night, but wow, didn’t KNOW we were in the midst of ROYALTY… All Hail “king” ludwig – the all knowing, all seeing, God’s disciple of truth on this earth, the ORACLE of all that is known & worth knowing. Sure, sure, he’s definitely sub-par with his reading comprehension, manners & class, & talk about your “arrogance & self-righteousness”, but HEY, he KNEW Landis doped, that he was lying, & HE told anyone ‘smart’ enough to listen to HIM not just this “truth” but about the “history of the sport” & of COURSE, that Rant was a “transparent propagandist”. (Hey, Rant, what did you do with all the money for that paid gig?) We should all fall on our knees right now. We’re not worthy, we’re not worthy…. Truly, why is this little blog so FORTUNATE for your presence?
I don’t want to upset Larry by speaking for him, but I have NEVER read ANY of his comments as “hatred” for those who only admitted to doping or as “pro-omerta”. As far as Landis – what can’t some of you people COMPREHEND – it was not the doping or even the lying about it for 4 years that is his worst crime – it is his FRAUD, of taking people’s money for his LIE of a “defense”. To take money from people who are trying to HELP you to right a supposed “injustice” deserves a special place in Hell.
And despite the apparent indelible impression I’ve left on a few (jeff..), I’ve actually not been around here much the past 9 months. I’ve missed Rant & Larry & several others, but definitely NOT the trashing of each other. BORing. And hey, if you REALLY want to revel in trash-talk of fellow posters, go to a Yahoo Finance stock message board, you’ll be happier than a pig in shit.
Anyway, I’ll wrap up my post today with a little song dedication. To KING ludwig, M, jeff & any other bashers.
Crank it up Taylor :
“You, with your words like knives
And swords & weapons that you try to use against
You may have knocked us off our feet
Tryin to make us feel like a nothin’
You, with your words like nails on a chalkboard
Calling us out when were down
You, picking on the wounded.
Well, you can, TRY to, take us down with just one single blow
But you DON’T KNOW, what you DON’T KNOW…
Someday, we’ll be, livin BIG in this here city
And all you’re EVER GONNA BE IS MEAN
Someday, we’ll be big enough that you can’t touch us
And ALL YOU’RE EVER GONNA BE IS MEAN.
And I can see you years from now in a bar
Talkin’ over the Tour-day-France
With that same big old loud opinion
But NOBODY’S LISTENING
Washed up & ranting about the same old bitter things
Drunk & grumbling on about how “You KNEW, you KNEW”
But, ALL YOU ARE IS MEAN.”
Love ya, Rant (IN SPITE of your “transparent propagandist” past…) And if ever there was a PERFECT person to have a blog, it is you.
And Larry – if I ever stop hemorrhaging money, I’ll buy you a case of whatever you want. 🙂
SMTML, speak for me whenever you like!
SMTML,
Transparent propaganda. Yeah, I kind of let that snark slide. Transparent I’ll accept. I’ve never tried to hide who I am. Propaganda? Not any more than people advocating for a different point of view could be accused of spreading propaganda. I believed what I said. I turned out to be wrong on some things, but that’s what I believed at the time. No one told me what to write or how to write it. It all just kind of spilled out onto the keyboard.
Never got paid, either. For all the hours I put in, it sure would have been nice. 😉
Thanks for the compliment, too.
Larry,
Looks like we’ll need to agree to disagree about the relative efficiency of the Livestrong Foundation? To be clear, I never wrote that the foundation didn’t do some good work. I think I’m a bit more centrist in my approach than you give me credit? From my perspective, I gave Armstrong credit where I thought it was due. I see his primary positives to be that he gave the bike industry a huge boost (not so much cancer related) and he acts as an inspiration to cancer sufferers who otherwise might not have much hope regarding their health situation. He’s also punctuated awareness (and I write “punctuated” because most of us are well aware of cancer minus the Armstrong/Livestrong names in the equation) of the need for more research toward cures and his foundation has raised an enormous amount of money for the cause. Those are all good things.
In my previous post, I quoted a section of a dated piece from The American Institute of Philanthropy. It was critical of LAF/Livestrong for spending up to $45 to raise $100, based upon data from its first 10 years in business. That’s high overhead. I also noted, in the last paragraph of my previous post, that since the time of the publishing of the AIP link, LAF/Livestrong looks like it has taken steps to incrementally bring itself toward the spendy end of the acceptable spectrum insofar as industry norms are concerned. That would be something not too far south of AIP’s 35% recommended ceiling, for those who are counting.
Having lost a younger sister to Leukemia when I was a kid myself, I make it a point to make a reasonably significant annual financial contribution to a non-profit cancer research/support entity. That entity is not Lance Armstrong Foundation, also known as Livestrong, because they carry more overhead than I am comfortable with. YMMV.
That was background. Let’s get to something more current. The LAF Form 990 from 2009 is reasonably current and is the most recent a cursory search brought up. There are other informative sources as well.
Anyway, LAF/Livestrong currently reports (80) paid employees. Listed key employees are all compensated in excess of one hundred thousand dollars, 100,000.00+, per year. Several are compensated in excess of two hundred thousand dollars, $200,000.00, per year. One employee earns over three hundred thousand dollars, $308,629.00, per year. The Chief Executive, Doug Ulman, is compensated well more than a quarter of a million dollars annually, coming in at $296,498.00. That compensation represents a great deal of overhead. When I contribute to an organization seeking to fund cancer cures, I don’t want that large of an amount coming out of my contribution to support high staff compensation expenses. YMMV.
Travel expenses is another overhead issue for me. In 2009, LAF reported travel expenditures just under two million dollars ($2,000,000.00-), with the actual number being $1,922,995.00. I acknowledge the reality that LAF conducts a number of events in various geographic locations, so lets compare LAF with another cancer foundation that also conducts events in a number of diverse locations. In 2009, the Susan G. Koman Foundation spent a bit more than double LAF on travel expenses @ $4,260,354.00, but Koman revenue was approximately 10x more than LAF @ $298,685,007.00 – Koman. I find find LAF’s tastes in travel expenses to be a little too rich for my contribution dollars. YMMV.
The way LAF handles their merchandising annoys me. It appears to represent something of a shell game. Rather than being under the same umbrella, LAF splits merchandising and events into separate arms. Both arms give all their money to the main organization, LAF, thus skewing the financials. It serves to consolidate revenue in one arm while splitting expenses via multiple arms and has the effect of providing LAF with a better score/ranking on prominent charity rating sites. Perhaps it is just smart accounting, but I don’t find it to be particularly honest or a best practice. It’s certainly deceptive, at least for those who rely on charity ranking bullet points when making decisions on their personal charitable giving. YMMV.
I’m also suspect of LAF’s advertising practices and expenditures. In 2009, LAF reported advertising expenditures of ~four million dollars, $4,000,000.00. Given Armstrong’s penchant for tech and the efficiency of mass fundraising via the internet, one might assume much of LAF’s advertising expenses would be aimed at driving traffic toward their website? Interestingly and according to Alexa.com (a web info company), traffic is flat at the non-profit LAF website, while traffic at Armstrong’s for-profit website is booming. It kind of makes me suspicious, but YMMV.
I’m a bike riding enthusiast. I would love to give to a bike related cancer fighting charity and that motivated me to research LAF. Unfortunately, that research brought up issues like expensive staff compensation packages, high travel expenses, creative financial accounting that effects charity rankings, high advertising expenses, and other issues not mentioned here.
And btw, Dana-Farber got over two hundred sixty six thousand dollars, $266,000.00+, from LAF in 2009. I’d think it is important for Dr. Larry Shulman to say nice things about LAF. YMMV.
My impression, based upon prudent research, is that LAF staff and vendors live just a bit too well at the expense of LAF donors. YMMV. I give to a cancer charity with a small frugal staff that has much less overhead and gets a higher percentage of my contribution $’s where I want them to go. There does not appear to be anything illegal with regard to what LAF does. They do a lot of good for themselves and they do a lot of good for others. Some would call that sharing the wealth and sharing is good. I favor organizations that are a bit more altruistic with my contribution dollars, but if you are comfortable with LAF getting your $’s, then more power to you.
I think it is important for prospective donors to have a more straight forward and easier system when seeking pertinent information on which to base their giving decisions. My opinion is that LAF deftly works the current system to its advantage. Transparent LAF is not, IMHO. As always, YMMV.
I think we can respectfully agree to disagree about the prudence of giving to LAF and will leave it at that.
Jeff, yes, agree to disagree. To be honest, there are charities I support with greater $$ and effort than Livestrong, including in the cancer area. But also, I do not judge every kind of charity by the same standards. Some charities I support are really money conduits: a large portion of their work goes to funding someone else. Livestrong does a great deal of advocacy and education itself, and that requires a larger infrastructure.
One thing Livestrong has done is to raise awareness and funding for different kinds of cancer. If you’ve been involved in the cancer-fighting community, you know that advocacy groups focused on different kinds of cancer have fought each other for funding and public attention.
But, hey, agree to disagree. There are many worthwhile charities and charitable endeavors, and I completely respect your right to choose where you’d like to focus your money and attention. Livestrong is out there doing good, even if they’re not doing it up to your standards, and I read you to acknowledge this.
Larry,
1) “Contador’s is a case where all the facts are before the jury, so to speak.”
But you haven’t seen the evidence and don’t know what it says. You’ve only read some fractured google translation of the hearing decision, which was cursory and actually found him INNOCENT.
Plus when we speak of doping wrt to Lance we are talking about intentionally taking something that gives you an advantage like EPO. Not some technical violation of the rules. The minute amount of Clenbuterol in Contador’s system doesn’t rise to that. The only thing that does is blood doping, which you say is “likely” based on the overall circumstances. I agree it’s probably likely. But there is no reported evidence pointing to that in the absence of plasticizer testimony which apparently wasn’t introduced. So it’s just surmise from the overall circumstances.
So why don’t you make the same conclusion from the overall circumstances about Lance?
His TDF 1999 blood tested positive for EPO multiple times when tested retrospectively. (same as Barry Bonds) There are multiple teammate witnesses saying he took EPO or admitted to taking EPO as early as 1996. (More specific than Barry Bonds who was only up for lying about it) Many on his team doped and he beat a doped out peloton. Was he superman? Was he out of the loop on what was going on with his team?
Yet you claim to have no opinion or belief about whether he doped.
Is self delusion dishonesty? Strictly speaking maybe only to yourself.
Or is it really a lack of honesty and courage on your own part to face what Lance’s dishonesty and cheating must mean to you and your fandom?
M, your comments to me once again are personal and insulting. You are free to think the worst of me and to publish what you think, but you are getting precious close to the line where I won’t engage you in further dialog. I think that one more crack on your part concerning my personal integrity would push me over that line.
You are an intelligent person. You well understand the difference between holding a private opinion or belief and expressing it publicly.
I don’t know what I’ve said about Contador that you’re failing to understand. Multiple tests found clenbuterol in his system. These are relatively simple tests GC/MS tests (thought we have to marvel at their sensitivity). Contador does not contest the test results, and neither does anyone else. The rules of anti-doping TURN on an explanation of how this substance got into Contador’s system, and as the facts of this case have been presented to the public (not just in the spanish language decision, but also by Contador’s team), I think we’ve reached a time when it’s fair to consider those facts and express an opinion.
The Armstrong situation is not even a “case” at this point — at this moment he’s not been accused by a prosecutor or even been asked to appear before a tribunal. There is a grand jury looking into the situation.
There has always been the possibility that Armstrong doped. There has been evidence to this effect for many years now. But Lance’s doping has been the subject of two prior legal proceedings – his libel suit against the Sunday Times in London and the SCA arbitration – and Lance won both of those cases.
There’s new evidence against Armstrong not considered in the two prior cases, which is why we’re all discussing this issue again. We’ve got the testimony of Landis and Hamilton, and if we’re to believe their testimony now, it means that they perjured themselves earlier. Both of these guys would be ripped to shreds in cross-examination. There’s whatever it is that Frankie Andreu is now telling 60 Minutes, which again would contradict sworn testimony he’s given earlier, plus he’s been asked about this matter countless times in the last five years and is only now giving us the new story. To be honest, I would probably give Andreu’s new testimony some weight. Not sure how much yet.
Obviously, the kicker is Hincapie. If he’s testified against Lance, that is very, very damning evidence. But we don’t know what he’s said, or even that he’s said anything. Hincapie says he did not speak to 60 Minutes, and according to Facts 4 Lance, the government investigators and prosecutors are also denying that they spoke to 60 Minutes about Hincapie. Hincapie himself cannot set the record straight one way or the other.
M, I simply do not believe that all the facts are in.
As for my honesty and courage … please note that I am not defending Armstrong at this point. I’m not saying he didn’t dope and I’ve never said that he didn’t dope. I’ve made it clear that I hope he didn’t dope. Has this hope been shaken by the most recent revelations? What the hell do you think?
If it turned out that Lance doped, well then, I’ll be disappointed. And you’ll be there to comfort me. But you must imagine I live in a freakin’ bubble if you think that this would rank in the top 100 biggest disappointments of my life.
Wow…seems there is some ‘stuff’ flinging about and the fan has been turned onto high. I go away for a week (we DID just have this tiny little bike race here in CA last week) and all hell breaks loose. Can we expect this every year now? The ToC being the time to come clean? I guess for an American cyclist there’s no better soapbox if you want airtime.
As to the ‘did he do it?’ question, in all honesty I’d have to answer ‘most likely’ based on what little we ACTUALLY know at this point. And I don’t base that on either Tylers and Floyds testimony (for what that is truly worth). I base it on the simple fact that (as Rant has mentioned) nearly everybody who was anywhere near the the podium in the 99-09 decade have been either convicted or associated with doping. What does all that mean to me in the big scheme of things?
Well, for one, I was a Lance fan. Yes, I’ll admit it. I LOVED watching the TDF’s when he was the MAN (and I STILL love watching the TDF, and I don’t see that changing). I also love the spring classics. And the Tour Down Under. And the Veulta, and the Giro. And most certainly the Tour of California.
This isn’t high school sports here. Or College. This is the PRO’S. OPEN CLASS. The best of the best of the best. Name me ANY pro sport where the athletes aren’t doing anything in their power to be the best that they can be. Golf? Bowling? NASCAR? (not that it’s a sport mind you), but does anybody think with the MONEY and the POWER and the PRESTIGE that comes with winning in ANY sport, that the teams/athletes aren’t doing ANYTHING to win? That’s just human nature. We are imperfect creatures striving for glory and recognition (and money).
All this hubub about things like EPO/CERA. Illegal to use. However a hyperbaric tent/chamber that does EXACTLY the same thing (higher hemacrit level) is legal. I JUST DON’T CARE. EPO your brains out. Hell, I’d use it in a heartbeat if I knew it was safe (and free, cuz I’m poor)…and I don’t even race. I just have the desire to conquer the climbs as fast as I can, to beat my last time. I race myself every single time I ride. All the Pro’s (both guys and gals, anybody out there think the lady pro’s are squeaky clean?) are the cream of the crop. Was Lance ‘doping’ as a teenager when he was beating adults in triathlons? He was geneticly gifted and found what he ‘should’ be doing. Endurance sports. As are all of these elite athletes. They found their niche in life. And they are doing that to the best of their abilities, using whatever means is available to be the ‘best’.
And at the pro level, that’s what WE the fans want to see. Demand to see. If there wasn’t superhuman amazing performances, nobody would watch. And the money would go away, as the sponsors would go away. It’s a vicious circle, all fueled by the mighty dollar.
In cycling (past as well as present), was there massive amounts of doping? Seems logical. If there was a means to become better, it was used. Was it right? Well, the first question would be by whose standards? The cyclists themselves? If they ALL were doing it, then apparently it was accepted practice. That seems to be the common theme here…”I did what I had to do”. Hmmm. Seems like the playing field was rather level after all.
Who was cheated here if all the top cyclists were doping? The fans? Were the fans cheated watching Barry Bonds slamming yet another baseball into the water on his way to the home run ecord? By watching Floyd pulling away from the peleton to regain precious minutes the day after his famous bonk? By Lance and Pantani racing to the summit of French mountaintops? Lance and Ulrich battling it out over and over? Are the fans being cheated in Pro baseball/football/basketball/hockey even now? (ASSUMING there is doping going on, being as we have no actual proof).
I had this discussion over the weekend with another ToC fan, and he brought up this tidbit (to use auto racing again). In car racing, there are different classes, all the way up to ‘top fuel’. The different classes don’t race against each other, and for good reason. A car running on ordinary gas can’t compete with a car running nitro. So why do those divisions exist then? Oh, maybe becasue we want to see better/faster than is possible with ‘normal’ fuel. I get it. Of course. It’s ENTERTAINMENT. We want to be entertained. We pay money to see it on TV. Nobody wants to see guys like me racing bikes on TV. It would be quite boring. Actually, worse than boring. No, we want (and pay) to see superhuman performances. Isn’t that what it’ all about?
Surely there needs to be SOME kind of moderation involved…becasue rider (athlete) safety should be taken into account. That’s easily done. As has been discussed here many times. Set a level (hemacrit/etc) and do a quick test on race day. Over the limit? Sorry, you can’t ride today. That is your penalty. Cheap, easy, safe. Wow..what a thought. Get rid of WADA. All that money could be used ensuring the elite levels are as safe as can be. And trickle down into the lower levels where it’s most likely needed too. There is always risk in any human endeavour. Athletes can get hurt or killed in their chosen profession. But it’s made as safe as is reasonalby possible (arguably/hopefully). Pro Cycling is entertainment pure and simple, much as Pro Wrestling. Some like it, some don’t.
I’ve got a LOT more on my plate to worry about than whether Lance (and all the rest) doped in their careers or not. I simply don’t care. None of this will take away my enjoyment of the sport, both doing and watching. It is however taking away my tax dollars. And THAT I think is the real crime here. And apparently I don’t have a choice in that matter. I should get to vote whether Novitsky keeps spending my money, but I don’t. But I also don’t have to give a hoot as to the outcome of this ‘investigation’ either. That IS is my choice.
Potentially, the real kicker here is not what Hincapie said, but those frozen bottles of pee the French have. Assuming there’s anything like a proper chain of custody and that they still are viable samples for testing, if Novitsky can get his hands on them and subject them to open and honest testing, we might have something. Or maybe not: if they were to test clean, the Lance doped group will claim he had such a good doping program that he can still come up clean, or perhaps since (as far as I know), there are only a small number of samples, that these are not representative. But a positive test would pretty much nail it.
Until then, it’s just so much he said, he said, and in a couple of cases she said. Who do you believe? Like Larry, I am going to hold off on stating an opinion. Like the nether end of the alimentary tract, we all have’m and they all stink.
Mr. Rant,
The Armstrong camp’s “facts 4 lance” website, a crude effort worth a C+ in Web Design 101, contains something truly funny.
Daniel Coyle (“Lance Armstrong’s War”) quotes the rider as describing his nemesis, Irish journalist David Walsh, as “a bleeping troll”.
In trying to attack the reputation of Tyler Hamilton, “facts 4 lance” repeats charges dug up several years ago by — wait for it — David Walsh!
2, 3, Many Festinas,
LOL! That is priceless. Thanks for letting me know.