So what do we make of Lance Armstrong now?


If we’re to believe what “sources say,” Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey will have him admit to blood doping. A lot of evidence has been previously presented that would seem to leave all but his most ardent supporters without any doubt that he used performance enhancing techniques to win so many Tour de France cycling races over the years. But with Armstrong’s forthcoming admission, it’s more “official.”

The rumors have been swirling around for years, but there was a time when Armstrong’s story was one of the most amazing in sports. A stout cycler at a young age, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer, which had later spread to other parts of his body. He survived the cancer, came back to competitive cycling and was, for many years, the most famous, successful and dominant endurance athlete on the planet.

But we now know (if we weren’t sure before) how he achieved that status. By blood doping, he infused his body with extra red blood cells that supercharged his muscles in ways that allowed for higher performance and quicker recovery, not to mention increased strength at altitude, which is pretty important during the Tour’s notorious mountain stages.

A lot of people will excoriate him even more with this admission. He faces legal battles that will cost him money. And there is worry that his Livestrong Foundation, which assists cancer patients and survivors with recovery, will be further damaged by the scandal.

I’m going to steer clear from a lot of the common arguments about Lance Armstrong’s sins. There are some other issues to consider.

To me, Armstrong is a lot like the big-hitting baseball players from the 1990s and 2000s. Before we call Armstrong a complete fraud, you have to realize that doping was (is?) very common in competitive cycling. Floyd Landis was nailed for it and lost his Tour championship. Some of Armstrong’s teammates also admitted to it. Some may say that they raced clean, and this may indeed be true. But the reality seems to be that Armstrong was the best blood doper in a field of blood doping competitors, much like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez were the best of a whole slew of Major League Baseball players who were loading up on performance enhancing drugs en route to batting titles, home run records and World Series appearances.

If we crucify Armstrong, then erect more crosses for the cycling federations and organizations which allowed such rampant cheating to take place. I know that’s a broad brush, and there are people who are trying to keep the sport clean. But obviously the proverbial blind eye was being turned in large numbers.

Should Armstrong be allowed to compete again? I don’t know. There is a chance that he can in eight years, when he’ll be a half-century old. By that time, he might be able to win age group races in competitive running and triathlons. But nothing that would help him regain the fame and fortune that he achieved during his heyday.

There is also the question of righting old wrongs. Armstrong was aggressive in suing those he said had defamed him. He won some of those suits, including one in which he was awarded $500,000 in damages from the Sunday Times of London. I’m sure that newspaper will be eager to haul him to court to get that money back.

There is a two-fold tragedy here. One is that we lost his amazing comeback story, that of beating back cancer to regain his life. I’m sure a non-doped Armstrong would still have been a compelling story back in the day, but not nearly as powerful as it was when he repeatedly crossed the finish line wearing the yellow jersey in Paris.

Two is what may become of Livestrong. While Outside Magazine criticized the foundation for providing little in terms of funding for cancer research, the publication missed the point of the foundation – that of helping cancer patients and survivors find ways to regain their lives. Exercise, physical therapy and other measures are what Livestrong specializes in, and it does these things very well. He’s tried to mitigate the damage the scandal has done to the foundation, but it’s not certain what the future holds. Hopefully the work of the foundation and the testimonies about the people it has helped can overcome the bad press.

My earliest memories of Armstrong were those in restaurant in Crested Butte, Colo., with some backpacking buddies. A TV was showing the Tour, and they were intently watching the progress Armstrong was making, swallowing up the competition in the mountains, breaking their will in Terminator-like fashion.

It’s sad that such greatness was a bit of an illusion. I hope Armstrong can make things right with those he’s hurt, and that maybe he can find ways to feed his tremendous competitive drive. I hope Livestrong can survive and thrive.

But I hope that this story can become Armstrong’s new testimony. His history of being an overcomer is being overrun by the reality that he cheated. His current testimony is different, a cautionary tale of how doing everything to win short-term glory can cause you to lose everything down the road.

Bob Doucette

On Twitter @RMHigh7088


8 thoughts on “So what do we make of Lance Armstrong now?

  1. “…but the reality seems to be that Armstrong was the best blood doper in a field of blood doping competitors…” This is exactly what I think. I’m not condoning cheating, but I think we’d be hard pressed to find a competitive cyclist who hasn’t doped.

    • Exactly. It’s rampant. There are those who are clean, but the bulk are dopers, meaning PEDs and infusions have basically leveled the playing field for all cheaters, a group in which Armstrong rose to the top. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s a big problem in cycling.

  2. I think you’re right on the mark, Amy. Note that there will be no new champions named for Armstrong’s vacant titles. Doubt they could find any “clean” replacements in the respective fields. Question I have; will the international sport do anything to clean up the sport across all fields? We’ll see . . .
    RGDS, Bill

  3. I saw a tweet from a comedian that said ” Does anybody really give a shit about watching someone pedal a bicycle”. I might not fully agree with that statement but it is funny. Regardless of what he did to win, lets face it, it is pretty freakin amazing. In the end it gave a lot of people excitement, hope and the actual desire to watch a sport that is about as boring as golf to watch. I am sure that last comment will get a kot of heat.

    • In a sport that was rife with cheating, he was merely a part. Among the best of the best, who were mostly doped up, he was the best.

      You’re not wrong in saying he was amazing to watch as he broke the wills of competing riders through the mountain stages in the Alps. He displayed strength and determination which was pretty compelling.

      But the doping and his rigorous (and at times damaging) defense of the illusion of riding clean is what gets him a negative view. People lives were trashed in the midst of the coverup, and some folks lost a lot of money. Didn’t have to be that way.

      Good take, and worth noting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.