What I want from Lance Armstrong is the unabridged and brutal truth. It’s very simple. I want to know why he doped.
Unlike other commentators, I am hoping Armstrong avoids mea culpa and throwing himself on the mercy of the court of public opinion. What I want is to know is just what it was about cycling in the 1990s and 2000s that enabled such a sophisticated doping operation. Armstrong knows where all the skeletons are buried and just how high systemic doping in cycling really went.
I hope that Armstrong really does tell all. I want him to describe just how tough it is to be an elite cyclist and what people have to do to get there. Joe Public is largely ignorant of what it takes to be an elite athlete. It is a bizarre and rarefied world that bears little resemblance to the two-dimensional purity we see on our screens. Broadcasts are carefully stage-managed and mediated to ensure a spectacle that is pure sport.
And we all fall for it because we want to be deceived into believing there is something pure and romantic about sport. This comes from Victorian times where sport was intricately tied to religion and the arrogance of British colonialism. Sport was seen as a method of training young British men to take their rightful position of moral superiority when dealing with the colonies. Sport in this era has been characterised as “muscular Christianity”.
The reality is that elite sport is a brutal place, constantly treading the line between abusing and venerating athletes. Sport constantly demands citius, altius, fortius at any cost. Athletes can end up being treated like widgets in a production line, where ones that fail any test are discarded. Athletes caught doping are replaced by the next available athlete with little, if any observable impact on performance, sponsorship or revenues. The costs are borne entirely by the athlete, and the benefits belong to the sport.
The problem with Armstrong is that his comments may make us face the brutal reality of what we ask athletes to do in the name of sport, usually for our entertainment. So I want Armstrong to describe, in detail, what athletes have to do when providing a urine sample. I wonder how many people in the general public would strip from the chest to the knee and have someone watch a sample “leave the body”. I wonder how many people would be willing to tell their employer where they will be for an hour each day (including weekends and holidays) three months in advance of a race or risk losing their jobs. This is what happens to athletes to enable randomised out-of-competition testing, and has been observed to be the kind of thing courts usually reserve for paedophiles released from prison. This is the reality of what athletes have to do to allow the public to enjoy “drug-free sport”.
Exposing the public to the reality of elite athleticism breaches the psychological contract we have with sport, where we agree to be deceived. This puts us in a state of cognitive dissonance. Our behaviour (enjoying sport where athletes are required to dope to meet our performance expectations) fails to match our attitudes (pure and virtuous sport defined by the absence of doping). It draws back the veil and shows us that there is no such thing as drug-free sport. We know the majority of athletes use a cocktail of pharmaceutical “supplements” and medicines in seeking a competitive advantage.
This is perhaps why some people want Armstrong to apologise. But what I want is for him to tell us exactly what role different players had in co-ordinating and enabling doping in elite cycling in the same uncompromising way he rode in every event he entered. I want to know if the US Postal Service, and by extension the US government was somehow complicit. I want to know if International Olympic Committee members were complicit. I want to know if the International Cycling Union was complicit. I want to know if the organisers of the Tour de France were complicit. I want to know if sponsors were complicit.
I also want to know what it is like being singled out and relentlessly pursued by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.
What I hope is for Armstrong to blow this whole thing so wide open that Joe Public can understand what went on and why doping happens. I hope to be mesmerised and confounded by just what it takes to be an elite cyclist – doping, anti-doping and all.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
" I want to know why he doped."
I think he wanted to cycle faster.
BTW, does Cadel Evans dope? Are the pressures Evans faces somehow lesser than those that Lance Armstrong faced? The hardships of the regime you so eloquently describe have been put in place to protect the interests of those athletes who obey the rules, they are not some sort of bizarre torture device dreamed up by grasping TV executives and advertisers.
Jason Mazanov
Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra at University of New South Wales
There is no evidence that Cadel has ever doped. There is lots of evidence that indicates Cadel is what is known as a "scientized athlete". Cadel, like all elite cyclists has had access to a lot of sport science to get to the top. This "legal" performance enhancement typically includes a swag of pharmaceuticals either as supplements or potentially medication. In this sense, Lance used a different brand of science to Cadel.
Suggesting that rules are put in place to protect athletes is a wonderfully romantic notion. Unfortunately, rules are changed for the benefit of broadcasts - like time outs in basketball or the amount of time allowed before converting a try in the NRL. Rules are changed for the grasping TV executive and advertisers all the time.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
"Suggesting that rules are put in place to protect athletes is a wonderfully romantic notion. "
It is not romantic at all, if doping provides real performance boosts then all athletes who want to compete at the elite level will have to dope. And some of these doping methods carry very real health risks and in cycling these include death.
Athletes need to be protected from that.
As it is Lance Armstrong's victories denied other athletes who obeyed the rules their chance of glory. Even if they are recognised post facto as the victors, it will be a bitter sweet victory.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
This time, I'm with Sean.
This Armstrong guy was good - he wanted to be the best. He prioritised being the best ahead of being honest. Is there more?
Jason Mazanov
Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra at University of New South Wales
If your test is whether something provides a "performance boost" then we have to scrub a lot of science from sport.
The current playing field is inherently unfair to any athlete unable to access that sport science. We found that there is a pressure point in athlete careers to access sports academies, the impact of sport science is so big that increase their vulnerability to doping.
In the Cycling Australia Review, Justice Woods acknowledged that the health argument around doping is no…
Read moreRosco Hamilton
logged in via Facebook
@Sean Lamb, I've been following cycling very closely for 10 years now. After all the doping scandals I have now come to view all professionals as dopers unless there is evidence that indicates otherwise. That is probably quite unfair of me, but then I dont work for WADA, so my bias doesnt really matter.
As for Cadel, I have seen a lot of small things to make me think he is clean. Since his early days Cadel hasnt really gotten faster, other just got slower. The most compelling evidence for me is in analysing his time at the T-Mobile team from 2002-2004. He never seemed to settle in to the team and was consistently ignored for TDF selection. The whole team but for Cadel getting sick in 2004 was also a good indicator too (probably a botched blood transfution).
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"The current playing field is inherently unfair to any athlete unable to access that sport science."
Jason - don't we have to re-think the assumption that sport is somehow inherently "fair" in the first place?
Junior sports that are graded by age are inherently unfair to small kids. Basketball is inherently unfair to short people. Heredity leads to "unfairness" - height, build, fast muscle twitch, size of hands or feet. Upbringing leads to unfairness - nutrition, family interest and motivation…
Read moreJoe Gartner
Tilter
The whole point of this sorry saga is at young cyclists were coerced, expected and peer-pressured to dope. Whilst you might see this as a voluntary and perfectly consented use of drugs, I disagree. There are dangers involved with using hormone enhancement and I'm not sure a system that is so concerned with winning should be the arbiter on what is safe for athletes.
I'd be happy if Dr Ferrari, Fuentes et al were sports physicians or endocrinologists and the science of doping was as sure as you make out.
Joe Gartner
Tilter
Addit:
This is from the Red Cross transfusion guidelines
http://www.transfusion.com.au/adverse_events/risks
Transfusing blood is quite risky in the clinical environment, let alone carried out by GPs in a hotel room. the only argument that makes sense to me in allowing doping in sport to be conduct legally in a medically supervised manner is the harm minimisation argument.
If athletes must allow themselves to be transfused it may be a good idea to do it properly.
Jason Mazanov
Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra at University of New South Wales
Sue:
I agree. Sport is a genetic freak test at the elite level aimed at discriminating particular factors. Sport has never been about fairness.
The issue is that it is hypocritical to allow athletes access to every form of performance enhancing technology except one, when the reasons for the ban could be applied to almost every aspect of sport science. In making the ban against doping easy to administer it has been made too broad.
Best wishes,
Jason
Jason Mazanov
Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra at University of New South Wales
Joe:
You are putting words in my mouth - I have never condoned coercion of drug use, and have argued that coercion of children by parents to take HGH (which happens in the US) is a core example of why we need drug control in sport.
Characterising these drugs as somehow more dangerous than other drugs is misleading. All the substances that Lance Armstrong took have been through Phase I-IV testing as therapeutic substances - they are safe for use under medical supervision. Pharmacologically…
Read morecarolyn fisher
life traveller
well said.
carolyn fisher
life traveller
Well said Sue. I often don't agree with some of your comments, but you are on the money on this one in my book.
I think there are wider cultural expectations outside of sport too these days, possibly originally out of the USA, ie "we are the greatest". Parents, teachers, tv, magazines giving kids the message that to be 'successful' in life you have to be the best and that a 'do whatever it takes' to get to the 'top' is the imperative.
Some of the things I hear coming out of even primary schools…
Read morecarolyn fisher
life traveller
good point Jason.
Gary Cassidy
Sports science primarily helps the body train, recover, perform by optimising the bodies inbuilt biological mechanisms. Drugs offer performance boosting through mechanisms beyond the bodies biological mechanisms. Subtle but big difference. I'm sure one could argue specifics on where there are cross-overs and similarities but sport needs a line drawn somewhere.
If every professional cyclist was allowed to add a 20 watt motor to their bike for a "performance boost" is this not analogous to allowing a drug that will boost performance 5-10%. Would anybody argue that adding a motor to a bicycle would add to the spectacle?
Joe Gartner
Tilter
Yes, Gary, that's a good point. Training hard, scientifically and intelligently makes you the best athlete you can be. Using EPO and blood doping brings an athlete to a point they could never achieve with the normal feedback mechanisms controlling endogenous EPO production. This is coupled with the dangers ( that some readily gloss over) of transfusion, which is a dangerous practice in a tertiary hospital, let alone in a hotel room. And what are the long term effects of hGH and EPO in healthy subjects?
Coercing, pressuring or expecting athletes to pharmaceutically prepare for racing is dire, lucky if you have a smart doctor, a bit of luck and manage to be more surreptitious than your competitors.... But hardly fair or safe, at least in how it is currently practiced.
Joe Gartner
Tilter
Well you don't seem to believe me that transfusions are dangerous.. Do you believe this guy?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/operacion-puerto-transfusions-could-have-led-to-deaths-says-expert
Joe Gartner
Tilter
I have to echo the author's last paragraph about wishing to know the full circumstances of Armstrong's doping past. I have no interest in an apology or mea culpa, except in respect to the people that Armstrong allegedly coerced or bullied in an effort to keep his surreptitious activities out of the public eye. Armstrong is no 'guiltier' than any other doping cyclist, except by virtue of his allegedly malevolent behaviour and constant self aggrandisement.
Read moreIt is glib to state that all cyclists have…
Aden Date
Manager of the Guild Volunteer Hub at University of Western Australia
Great article Jason.
"Exposing the public to the reality of elite athleticism breaches the psychological contract we have with sport, where we agree to be deceived."
I think you've struck the nail on the head here, elaborated in your exchange with Sean Lamb, that blood doping is just one of many grossly unhealthy byproducts of our fetish with athletic elitism. Hopefully Armstrong's fall from grace provokes a broader discussion as to the moral bankruptcy of pursuing one thing in life to the exclusion of all others.
As Kurt Vonnegut said of a character who was teaching his eight-month old daughter to swim: “What kind of a man would turn his daughter into an outboard motor?”
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
"I think you've struck the nail on the head here, elaborated in your exchange with Sean Lamb, that blood doping is just one of many grossly unhealthy byproducts of our fetish with athletic elitism"
Its not my unhealthy fetish, maybe its yours.
All I am saying if you want clean athletes like Cadel Evans to get rewarded for their hard work you need to get rid of the cheats. If you think there is no harm in doping you need to get rid of the rules.
I have sympathy for all the cyclists who didn't dope and had a less successful career while Lance Armstrong and his mates were hogging the limelight. I have no interest in what Lance Armstrong has to say at all. Its not like he is going to forced to flip burgers or anything.
Aden Date
Manager of the Guild Volunteer Hub at University of Western Australia
I think you let my analogy spread the wrong way. I'm not saying "doping is just one consequence of elitism, therefore it's okay." I am saying "doping is just one consequence of elitism, therefore elitism is generally not okay." I'm interested to find out why Armstrong doped because I want to understand the specific environmental antecedents of elitism that motivated doping.
That some cyclists have not doped or have not responded to the pressures of the industry in the same way is not to be dismissive of those prior causes.
Jason Mazanov
Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra at University of New South Wales
Firstly, many thanks to those who have commented thus far. It is refreshing to have a discussion about core issues rather than debating "but drugs are bad".
The Phil Liggett interview on the 730 Report 18/01 was interesting. The conclusion was much the same as my article - Mr Liggett wants to know more about how the whole operation worked who knew about it.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
It wasn't just performance-enhancing drugs. It was his need for lie-enhancing drugs -- Liacin, Fibberol, Deceptril, Cheetemal, Exploitdasyteme (wipes), Fuldadummise...
;]
Colin Kline
logged in via Facebook
Jason MAZANOV asks a simplistic question:
"I want to know why he doped."
... for which there is a simplistic answer ...
"ARMSTRONG doped because he perceived some gain in doing so."
Gain?
Money, ego, fame (notoriety) ...
Who cares what that gain might be in fact.
He knew he (and other guilty parties (yet to be identified) would badly damage :
- the sport of cycling;
- all sports;
- his colleagues;
- etc.
No mercy! He is not a young foolish person; he is an adult witting person; he ought make recompense for this damage.
Allan Lindh
Turkey Farmer
He could not have been more clear -- he doped because he could not have won otherwise. Cycling has always been dirty. What was interesting was his assertion that after 2005, he did not dope because the Biological Profile and out of season testing made it too difficult to not get caught. I hope he's right.
As to naming others, IMHO it shows some class to not name names.
As to whether he was the best cyclist of his time -- my guess Armstrong was. The other top riders were likely doping, if he gained an advantage it was probably just because he was so well organized.
The unstated question is why was he crucified 8 yrs after the fact, when doping was endemic during his time, and everyone lied about it? Why isn't the US Govt. going after Clemens, Bond, etc. with equal vigor? They made a lot more money, and provided a far more significant "role model" to the youth of America.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
And, Bonds et al were just passed over for the B-ball Hall of Fame. That's the 'role model' we all see.
Doping achieved a near 1st in B-ball -- first time no one with top records was voted into the Hall.
They'll have to stew a bit more.
;]
Allan Lindh
Turkey Farmer
Ya but the USADA didn't spend 2 yrs damning his name, under circumstances where none of the "equal protection under the law" pertains. Bonds and Clemmens will walk away with their millions and their records, and Armstrong will be slowly grilled over a spit for the next decades. Yet probably only about 10% were doping in baseball, so Bonds, Clemmens and Co really did take jobs away from those that were clean. (Read AJ Hinches account of his career, and when he decided not to dope). Cycling has…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Armstrong is trying to "walk away with his millions", despite getting some of those millions from folks he wrongly sued.
Leo Kerr
Consultant
Just in: "Lance Armstrong should be applauded for riding a bike on drugs - I tried it once in my misspent youth and nearly broke my neck"
Elaine Saunders
logged in via LinkedIn
Three cheers for Lance Armstrong, and will someone tell me why drugs are any different to: the best bike, extra time to train and anything else that costs money. Read the story of the 4 minute mile, or the America's cup. It's all or nothing. I don't see any difference between drugs, doping and unfair advantage from the best support crew.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Wow, cheers for lying in sports.
Politics too, Elaine?
What about your doctors & dentists -- like them lying about what they learned, what they can do, or what you should let them do to you?
Wasn't there a Commandment or two about what Lance did?
;]
Peter Hindrup
consultant
All I want to know is if ANY of the whinging critics, ANY of the complaining -- also doped --- competitors believe that they could have beaten Lance during those years.
Frankly I don't think so. Lance fulfilled his contracts, gave his sponsors the exposure that they needed/wanted/paid for. Back off and leave him be.
As for the assertions that some rider or other is drug free, on what basis that he has never failed a drug test? Or that he never wins any races?
For those who would have racing drug free: are you really going towatch as riders dismount and push their bikes up the hills?
.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
"Back off and leave him be." -- really, Peter?
Lance sued the UK paper that was exposing him and got $1 million, wrongly, as he now admits. Want to ask him to pay that back?
What about his other suits that damaged people's lives? How about making restitutions all around, eh Peter?
Armstrong even damaged US cycling in the world's eyes, though not many Americans care about cycling.
So what about all the honest US competitors who now get looked at suspiciously around the world?
Could others have beaten him? Damned right they could.
Armstrong will never be able to repay/erase the damage he's done, even if all his $100 million gets used up. Let him crawl away.
.
Peter Hindrup
consultant
I love puritans!
Either the leading teams were doping in Armstrong’s time, or drugs do not make a significant difference.
You cannot have it both ways.
Those who pushed Armstrong must have been doping. It doesn’t detract from the fact that these people were incredible athletes, able to endure more than what most of us would comtemplate as ‘reasonable’.
Assuming that Jason’s description of what elite athletes are subjected to is accurate, I wonder why anybody would tolerate such treatment, for any reason, any reward.
As for Armstrong having damaged cycling, there has to be millions who wouldn’t have known it was a sport had it not been for Armstrong.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Glad you love Puritans Peter! You seem to see one in the mirror every morning, as well as someone who 'knows' without knowing.
Saying maybe everyone did it is not quite the same as saying some did it. And so your application of 'logic' fails for all to see.
If you think your opinion is widely supported, check what Americans think about Lance now.
Now,m if you plan to engage some sport, using you logic will you pick one with little doping or one with a lot, so you can dope without detection?
Will you sue others who suggest that you're doping, when you are? We need to understand your concept of "champion", Peter.
Joe Gartner
Tilter
The inequity lies in the amount and timing of doping, in particular blooded transfusions, that USPS employed at critical times in the TDF. Therefore, a more superior rider from another time was deprived of a level playing field even though he may have been using less sophisticated doping regime. Moreover, Pharmstrong was the favoured rider on the team and even when riders with better 'numbers' ( ie physiological test results, ie. VO2max) came up, they were not given access to the best doping methodology:even on the same team as LA.
All this is on the record in the statement of reasons provided by USADA.
Jason Mazanov
Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UNSW-Canberra at University of New South Wales
Well - looks like Lance went the mea culpa path.
The only thing that we have any certainty of is that the debate remains as vibrant as ever and that we will have the opportunity to do it all again.
I wonder which big name Travis Tygart has is eye on next?
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Stan Musial died today. There's an example of someone of value to sports and the world.
Joe Gartner
Tilter
Hopefully any other athlete who has broken the rules to gain reputational and pecuniary advantage, who has been involved in conspiracy, coercion and perjury.