The second part of the interview was more focused on Lance, how he is feeling and his family, it was familiar territory for Oprah Winfrey as a talkshow host. More about emotion and less about situations for which observers are still seeking answers.

While the interview was heavily edited before broadcasting, it seems to have been linear – there was a lot more repetition as Lance reconfirms that he is sorry, there were however a few snippets that will raise eyebrows.

When asked whether he deserves to be able to compete again, Lance responded “I think I deserve it” and suggested that others had received 6 month bans and he receives a “death sentence”. The magnitude of his actions against his competitors hasn’t registered yet, not only with the number of competitive victories over such a long time frame, but also the side stories of bribery (accusations) and his legal fights and suing people which is now clearly based upon the lie.

The donation attempt to the USADA was discussed with Lance denying knowing who would made the offer. Oprah asked “Were you trying to pay off the USADA?” to which Lance responded “No, that is not true.”

In fact, Lance points the finger back at the USADA asking why this wasn’t included in their reasoned decision. Extremely murky territory though we are asked by Lance to believe him even though he has become a serial liar.
In short, the second part lacked the substance, included a lot of repetition and spent little or no time on topics that may have legal or financial implications.

The interview comes across as an orchestrated event, at least from Armstrong’s side while the Oprah team have every interest in promoting this, even if they haven’t the power (or jurisdiction) to delve into the details to deliver a complete and more truthful picture.

John Fahey, the chief of the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) said after part one “The evidence shows variations in [Armstrong’s] blood that show with absolute certainty that he was doping after 2005. Believe Usada or believe Armstrong. I know who to believe.”

There is very real doubt about the extent of the truth that was revealed. Armstrong said in Part One that he wouldn’t be sitting here if it wasn’t for the USADA action – he would not have confessed. Have we heard the convenient truth or entire truth?

Finally the public has some satisfaction – satisfaction of a confirmation what everyone knew and what he was charged with. The interview kicked off with the questions of doping and without padding was direct.

Lance Armstrong: “The story and so bad and so toxic, and a lot of it is true.”

The padding and indecisiveness began later with questions on specific events such as doping in the tour bus while fans were outside and for most of the questions regarding other people or organisations.

Strangely, Armstrong says that he is “no fan of the UCI” which is unusual considering the backing of the UCI and that he ‘donated’ money to them which he says they asked for because they needed money.

Most revealing is the suggestion that he wouldn’t be sitting here today – confessing with Oprah if it hadn’t had been for the USADA case. Lets think about that, only because of the USADA case is he driven to confess and had otherwise no intention.

What he did confess to:
- Doping with EPO, Testosterone, Blood Doping
- Doping during all seven Tour de France wins
- Motoman
- The last time he doped was in 2005
- bullying (to an extent)
- The story regarding Emma O’Reilly and the backdating of cortisone

What he didn’t confess to:
- (Verbally) pressuring anyone to dope
- Firing anyone from his team for not doping
- Masterminding / Conspiracy
- UCI bribery
- Testing positive during the 2001 Tour de Suiss and coverup
- Betsy Andreu and the hospital accusations of doping admission to doctors (In the interview he says he wont discuss and suggested a deal has been made).

What he avoided:
- That Michelle Ferarri was involved “he was a good man”
- Generally talking about others

It is disturbing to see the smirks and attempts at jokes for example the bullying of Betsy Andreu, it is certainly not a joking matter. There is an aire of confidence in the way Armstrong addresses questions  which he wants to answer. Where Armstrong doesn’t have a direct answer he moves around and talks around the question – suggesting that we are not hearing the whole story.

Cycling fans who have followed this case want more detail and answers on specifics are left partially only partially satisfied – though Oprah Winfrey is still asking many of the questions “we” want answers to – even if clear answers are not forthcoming. Part two is likely to be less informative: “how did you feel when…?” His motivations for the interview and future will be asked though based on part one will unlikely escape the feeling of “self preservation”.

Voting Here: Are you satisfied with the Lance Armstrong Confession?

Further community discussion in the forums: Holy showtime Batman – Lance to admit doping?

Photo © jdegenhardt

In Australia we are more than familiar with the Tall Poppy Syndrome, a dose of cynicism lets us rightly, or wrong question success. It also saves us somewhat from the same level of sensationalism and media attention as in the United States. When accusations of doping first emerged it was easy to dismiss these as bad spirited attempts to discredit Lance Armstrong.

Allegations continued, were vehemently denied but there was a growing sense of uncertainty. Cycling fans were divided into those for Armstrong and those who were against. This seems to be the story of Armstrong, you are either with him or against him. Against him as a bitter rival or ex-teammate, against him as a journalist who questions his track record, against him as any organisation who challenges him.

Lance Armstrong’s success skyrocketed him into stardom, he was a household name and raised the profile of professional road cycling among the masses. At one stage he had the largest twitter following (currently over 3 million followers) and when he launched his charity LiveStrong to fight cancer, the appeal reached well beyond cyclists – it was mainstream. It wasn’t easily comprehensible that this was all built upon a lie – the believers were not gullible, rather the truth was well concealed.

Since the United States Anti Doping Authority released their reasoned decision that stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France victories and imposed a lifetime ban Armstrong’s support has grown thin, even the voice of cycling Phil Liggett who supported Armstrong for longer than most finally conceded “I really thought he was clean, and in 2003, he actually told me to my face, in his own room. So obviously I am devastated.”.

Cycling Photographer Graeme Watson wrote a January 1 blog post on his website and concludes, “Outright angels do not win a Tour de France. That is the domain of the most talented, hard, driven, ruthless and selfish riders. Lance did what he had to do to win, and he clearly did it very well. If he cheated, he cheated the other cheats of that era, even if by doing so he also cheated an adoring public.”

At the time of writing, Lance Armstrong has already sat for his interview with Oprah near his home in Texas and the media interest grows pending the broadcast on Friday.

The media interest has been curious, most journalists are careful what they report without facts to back them though the timing of ‘news of a confession’ was strangely convenient; on January 5 the New York Times published the first report of a confession and on January 9 Oprah reported the interview which will be broadcast on Friday 17 January. All of the sources in media reports that have provided actual substantial information have been unnamed or anonymous sources.

The US based 60 Minutes reported that Lance Armstrong has met with the USADA to explore a pathway to redemption and news reports from today (Jan 15) are from unnamed sources that Armstrong has addressed staff at his charity LiveStrong so increase the likelihood of a confession to doping in the Oprah interview.

The confession however is on Armstrong’s terms and while the team at Oprah confirm that it isn’t scripted, it is certainly a more convenient and comfortable format to admit guilt, Oprah is not deeply involved in cycling and caters to a mainstream audience. The USADA provided Armstrong the chance to come foreword and after Lance’s lawyers questioned the jurisdiction and motives, Armstrong decided not to fight because he was tired.

Why would Armstrong choose to come clean now? If he does he has a lot to lose, despite a suggested net worth of US $100 million, if he does confess there will be a few people lining up to get their money back though he has great chances of minimising loses. If he comes clean the statute of limitations saves him from lying under oath in 2005. Could it be that timing is good for Armstrong? He wants to return to competitive triathlons and a deal with the USADA could make this possible if the latest new reports of testifying against fellow cyclists is true.

In the Tyler Hamilton Biography, The Secret Race, Hamilton goes further than the USADA accusation of conspiracy, he suggested there was a program of intimidation against himself and others which was quite sinister. The force at which Armstrong’s opponents have been publicly discredited has been more visible to the public and it is well known that he has friends in high places.

If Armstrong is able to minimise loses and create an advantage for himself with clever PR, does this truly make up for the damage; to the cycling fans who believed, to the LiveStrong charity supporters; to clean cyclists who missed a fair chance; to young riders, clubs and team who have lost sponsors, to the average person who views cycling as a tainted sport.

So is Lance Armstrong worthy of forgiveness if he confesses? No, not at this stage. It doesn’t seem like this is a confession “because it is the right thing to do”. What the confession however does do is create a sense of closure, confirmation that it wasn’t a witch-hunt after all.

When the interview is broadcast a lot of eyes will be watching, even a few ex-pros who have not been targeted, could we see a few of these step forward and lay their cards on the table. If anything, the Lance Armstrong doping scandal is a strong warning for younger cyclists.

On the eve of the Tour Down Under where Lance Armstrong made is 2009 comeback this will be a hot topic, the South Australian government is requesting the money it payed Armstrong (thought to be in the millions) which was initially announced as a charity donation though later acknowledge as personal income.

This is an opinion article that does not reflect the views of Bicycles Network Australia

Photo © Eugene

The president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid said “We will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and will recognise the sanction that USADA gave. The UCI will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling and strip him of his 7 Tour de France titles. Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling.”

While the USADA verdict showed “beyond reasonable doubt” that Lance Armstrong engaged in doping and coverups, Armstrong retained his titles awaiting the UCI response.

This bring closure to the ordeal but by no means an end to the mess as this has further tainted cycling and sponsors are dropping out. It does however send a powerful sign to would-be cheats that even the most untouchable cyclist can eventually be brought down.

Is this the dawn of a new era where competitive cyclists put their trust in in sportsmanship? Speculation is loud that the Pro Cycling is now cleaner than it has been for years. There is plenty of room for improvement, faster testing and convictions are necessary along with improved testing so that the next generation aren’t tempted. This goes along with more clarity in the jurisdiction of different sporting bodies and courts.

Photo © Eugene

And it could get worse, Anti-doping researcher Dr Michael Ashenden who appeared on the recent televised ABC Four Corners report on Lance Armstrong will be involved in a discussion panel to be aired on Cycling Central on SBS on Sunday and says “There is no question cyclists are afraid to tell the truth about what has happened both in the past and what’s continuing to happen today,” said Dr Ashenden. “I’m in touch with cyclists who have told me things that I am not able to take to the authorities because they (cyclists) won’t put their name to it. Certainly I pass the information anonymously to the authorities but unless there’s a name they can then go to corroborate that evidence, there’s nothing they can do.”

Cycling is taking a hit but even if more cyclists come out and reveal a checkered past, the real effect of the actions of riders who have cheated is that they are now damaging the sport today.

On the one hand cyclists who were caught up in the system complain that the only way to survive and make progress was to cheat. Any cyclist with the integrity to resist PEDs did so knowing that this would have affected their performance and career chances. They were less likely to have a successful and profitable career -  cyclists who cheated have profited.

When the Lance Armstrong decided not to challenge the USADA I wrote an opinion piece titled Ramifications of Lance Armstrong losing his Tour de France Titles in which I speculated that the sport would lose credibility and affect positive media interest, funding and sponsorship. Now the first big sponsor, Rabobank has pulled out, will they be the last?

Even just outside of Pro-Team Sponsorship, Nike was once an all-in sponsor of Lance but have now about-faced. SRAM today announced that they are officially terminating their sponsorship of Lance Armstrong. And to quote Rabobank in their official statement: “It is with pain in our heart, but for the bank this is an inevitable decision. We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future.”

The riders who doped and the team and organisational structures that encouraged and supported doping may have just been “part of the chain” however the damage now affecting cycling is a result of the strongest and the weakest links of this chain – each person involved now shares responsibility for when sponsors drop out for when cycling receives less funding and for when the media decide not to show cycling coverage and support.

For a sport that many pro-cyclists say that they love, it was a kind of selfish love.

After Hamilton was busted for blood doping and couldn’t clear his name, he kept a low profile until he was summoned by Jeff Novitzky and, under oath, revealed all. Though this case against Lance Armstrong was dropped the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) has come now close formally convicting one of the most prominent cyclists of our times.

The release of The Secret Race by Tyler Hamilton, “co-authored” by Daniel Coyle, is well timed and critics are quick to point out that Hamilton will profit handsomely from it; after all, it is focused primarily on Hamilton, Armstrong and doping. As it turns out, Hamilton was in the right place at the right time to give us an account of what went on.

The book is an eye-opener and Hamilton owns up to his failings; he isn’t a saint and shows his path to doping and cheating the system. Systematic doping and evading the authorities was planned in careful detail. When you are already riding at your limit, getting the extra advantage can be the difference to getting dropped or attacking and dropping others. It was not a level playing field, rather competition of who was doping the best.

This is a well written book that I found hard to put down until I had finished reading it. The level of detail makes it really hard to believe that this is just another fairy tale. The personality traits and power of Armstrong are uncovered. Where the seven time Tour de France winner is a confident and charismatic personality in the media, inside the cycling world he can dominate, intimidate, manipulate and control. It’s pretty damning, and while Hamilton is portrayed as a more passive character in the relationship, even after leaving (or being ejected) from team US Postal, his journey continued with doping.

One incident sheds light on the relationship between Hamilton and Lance: in 2004 Hamilton’s team was summoned to the UCI headquarters in Switzerland. What seemed to be an unusual but unspectacular event was put into perspective when Armstrong’s team-mate, Floyd Landis, hinted shortly after that Armstrong was behind it, telling the UCI that Hamilton and the team were using new doping techniques.

Though it was obvious that Hamilton found it unfair, the relationship between the two continued as unfriendly rivalry. At least until Hamilton was busted for doping. He documents his demise, and details his depression and rejection. As clear and believable as many of the episodes are, others are speculative or open to speculation. Documenting instances of injecting EPO with other riders in the same room has more credibility than the stories heard “on the grapevine”. The book however pulls these into the chronological context and, in the case of the Dr Ferrari and Lance Armstrong connection for example, it becomes less and less likely that this relationship never involved doping prescriptions.

The author Daniel Coyle adds useful factual footnotes throughout the book that add context and value to the memoirs. As a reader I was always engaged; it was never too vague nor overly complex.

While it offers a level of satisfaction, confirming what went on behind closed doors, the Lance Armstrong saga remains unsettled; there may never be an actual admission of guilt, even though the evidence is stacked against him. As a powerful influencer, anything inconvenient can be wrapped up in spin, critics can be attacked and their motives questioned, their characters destroyed.

Though doping doesn’t turn lazy cyclists into winners, as Hamilton points out, doping also doesn’t create a level playing field.

Whether you are for or against Lance, or remain undecided, this is a good read and provides a new perspective, one you wont get from Phil Liggett. It is worth noting that there are differences in the US and UK versions of this book, the UK libel laws are stricter. The differences are relatively minor though if you are curious, the Velo Veritas website documents these differences.

I paid AUD 30 and in book stores it will be between $29 and $35. For an online option, Aussie book stores are pretty thin so go to Amazon The Secret Race US$17.24  (or US$12.99 for Kindle).

With Lance’s announcement to stop defending himself against the USADA allegation it creates in interesting scenario that Armstrong is conceding without admitting to doping. On the one side it is a clear signal to his accusers that he is guilty of systematic doping and conspiracy charges; if he is clearly innocent why not allow proceedings to start and defend the allegation? On the other there is an element of doubt left in the minds of the public, there is no clarity, a man hounded so heavily surely has his limits as well?

The USADA however will release its evidence which will give the media and public another change to find how how damning and convincing their evidence is, which is said to include testimony against him from a number of former team-mates.

What does it mean to lose the seven Tour de France? Consider when Contador lost his title, it was a sad day for cycling and one of the most unsatisfying wins for Andy Schleck who was denied the glory and sponsor and media value that he would have on the first place on the podium. In he 1999 Tour de France it would mean the Swiss Alex Zülle of team Banesto gets the title but in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the disgraced Jan Ulrich of Telekom would be next in line. Looking through the ranks there are plenty of dopers and editing the history book will not necessarily right the wrongs.

A big message for cyclists, it will be harder to get through the system. Though it is often suggested that dopers are always ahead of the system with, for example, newer undetectable doping and strategies for detection, if anti-doping organisations and courts can go back, find and convict riders on past doping activity, then it is harder to escape the system. Though the USADA is only active in the United States and the USA Cycling body, as one of the most influential nations this surely sends a signal to other countries who are more protective of their athletes.

Another message is that doping processes and convictions need to be faster, it becomes a farce when it takes years until someone is banned. This says a lot for the power of Anti-doping agencies compared with national sports bodies, not to mention the UCI. While national sporting bodies can be understood for defending their countrymen such as with Alberto Contador, the UCI is a surprisingly closed organisation where more transparency and actual movements against doping would benefit the sport.

The biggest losers are the cycling fans.
Lance Armstrong is one of the most celebrated sports people in history, a man who is credited with bringing cycling to a general audience in America. His book, the resolved determination against allegations, the millions earned in sponsorship and the hundreds of millions raise for the LiveStrong charity foundation all a lie?

The cycling enthusiast well versed in the history of cycling knows that doping has always been a cancer of this sport though may show understanding because ‘that is how the system is’. But for the non-cyclist and the outsiders who have been drawn to the sport, this is biggest betrayal yet. It is the sport of cycling the potential of cycling in general that suffers. In Australia cyclists are on the receiving end of angry motorists and when the sport has a bad name, this is yet another argument against cyclists and cycling.

Credibility also plays a huge role in the ability to attract publicity, sponsorship and funding for the sport. The German team Milram was disbanded as the sponsor Milram could no longer continue support in a sports arena with so many doping issues. When professional road cycling looks bad it doesn’t help women’s cycling, amateur cycling and even other disciplines such as Mountain Biking or BMX, when a company looks at cycling as a tainted sport the more than just the professional road teams are affected.

Life will go on, cycling will take a hit and loose credibility. Perhaps because Armstrong’s last Tour de France win was six years ago it makes it easy to move on. But even in this years Tour, Frank Schleck, brother of Andy Schleck who won by default, was sent home for doping.

As cycling fans perhaps we should look towards organisations such as Bike Pure which promotes clean cyclesport. The more support that these organisations get, the more that the sport and the athletes hear this voice: bikepure.org

Photo © Eugene

Although the charges relate to his career as a cyclist from 1996 to 2010, Armstrong’s return to triathlon has been suspended by the World Triathlon Corporation until the matter is resolved. Despite appearing on a US talk show in mid-May stating he was “done” defending himself against doping allegations, this latest development means he has to react, with a comment on his website label the charges an effort to “dredge up discredited” theories.

The letter from the USADA includes the alleged cover up of a positive doping test in 2001. Floyd Landis first made the accusation in 2010 that Armstrong bribed officials to quash a positive test at the Tour de Suisse with Tyler Hamilton supporting the story in 2011. If these allegations were proven, the implications of would be catastrophic for the sports governing body. The UCI and the director of the lab that undertook the testing have previously denied the allegations.

Armstrong has 10 days to respond to the allegations before an independent panel will decide whether to proceed to a formal hearing.

Photo © Eugene

The Crooked Path to Victory: Drugs and Cheating in Professional Bicycle Racing is from Les Woodland was initially disappointing in terms of providing technical insights, and it doesn’t touch on any of the current controversies, but it does provide rich returns in understanding the culture of doping in cycling and its long history, going back to the start of professional cycling in the late 1800s and its roots in the ultra-endurance athletics fad of the 1870s.

Starting in the early 1890s with the horrendous 6-day solo races, pharmacological assistance went hand-in-glove with these gruelling  events, packaged by promoters and served to a mass audience hungry to be entertained by the suffering of others.

These weren’t 6-day stage races through the countryside, where the riders got post-stage massages, a civilised meal and a good night’s sleep. No, these went for six days non-stop, around rickety indoor wooden board tracks and around the clock. Clarification – are these track events? — yes The more tired and hallucinatory the riders got, the more the crowd packing into the stadium loved it. Shady promoters pulling out bottles of exotic substances with a grandiose flourish to keep the riders going were part of the spectacle. Dosed with cocktails of heroin, cocaine and strychnine, numerous talented riders met early and sad ends, a theme that is revisited numerous times throughout the book.

The book is not limited to drug-related cheating. In the early days of pneumatic tyres, it was common for riders and spectators to scatter nails across the road to slow riders they didn’t like. As the motor car became more accessible, drivers would from time to time attempt to take out riders from opposing teams. Sometimes groups of parochial spectators would lie in wait for competitors who were a threat to their local favourites. Sometimes they succeeded; sometimes competitors fought back or developed ruses of their own to beat the cheats.

The book is not all doom and gloom however, and the author, a cycling enthusiast, lightens the tone with amusing anecdotes of riders pulling the wool over the eyes of officials and other riders. Episodes are shared in which riders have played practical jokes on the peloton, some of which backfired spectacularly. The 1969 Tour de France stage between Clermont-Ferrand and Montagis is one example.

Rini “Tufty” Wagtmans attacked early in the neutral zone before the official start and then, out of sight around a corner, hid in an alleyway. The peloton, enraged, took off after him. What Tufty hadn’t banked on was how spectacularly successful his ruse would be, and instead of joining his pals at the back at a sedate pace for a laugh, he was reduced to chasing the bunch for miles, his face grimacing and his teeth clenched.

Through most of professional cycling’s history, making a satisfactory living has been extremely difficult. Except for the select few stars and team leaders who made good wages, the rest, the domestiques (whose job is to protect and assist the rider with the best chance of winning) would often only be given a couple of jerseys, some bike shorts and a bike, and make do with prize money that the team accumulated during a race. Endorsements from outside the bike industry were rare.

It come as no surprise then that “understandings” and “arrangements” were often made between riders to share out the limited money on offer, and race results were often the result of these arrangements rather than who was best on the day.

This background provides a rich vein of stories of riders bucking the arrangement and upsetting the established order, with personal feuds and careers made and destroyed. This is presented by the author in an entertaining style, as an example, riders who had won the World Champs or another major race and resulting in their cycling career finishing instead of being kick-starting.

Frequently race organisers would expect the “stars” and their teams to make their way from one multi-day stage race in Italy or Spain after having won or done well, and then a day later turn up in northern Holland or Belgium to start another gruelling race and somehow be in top form. It was difficult to resist the pressure to take “a little something to help” and ignore the long term consequences to one’s health for the sake of the team and the next pay-cheque. The “dirty little secret” of professional cycling was an accepted part of the peloton  followed into the sixties.

The development of the anti drugs in sport laws by the left wingers in French politics began in the mid-1960s, up until which time the “dirty little secret” of professional cycling was simply part of the peloton. As this is explored it marks the start of the battle between riders and testers which unfolds as a cat-and-mouse game. In rapid succession the author shares tales of hidden tubes being used to supply samples before  taking a journey closer to the pharmacological bleeding edge.

The tragedy and irony of the high-profile death on Mont Ventoux of British star Tom Simpson is explored and the seriousness with which detection was applied by sporting authorities through the seventies and eighties increase. Fascinating detail is given to explosive Festina affair of 1998 which even included a few political conspiracy speculations. The Festina Affair was a seminal event in sports doping and sent shockwaves through professional sport worldwide.

Interesting Whatever happened to…? vignettes look into the repurcussions for those who were caught and punished fleshing out how they dealt with (and sometimes didn’t deal with) the impact on their careers of being caught cheating.

A useful set of references concludes the book for avid readers wishing to explore cycling history and sports doping generally in more detail

While the book didn’t deal with the subject quite the way I expected, and doesn’t take a view on whether the current state of professional cycling is now “clean”, it was nevertheless a riveting read.  Instead of quickly-dated technical information, the book deals more with the structural issues in professional cycling as a form of entertainment, particularly how the tensions between the interests of promoters and cyclists themselves have often led to riders burning their candles at both ends. That it does this while remaining thoroughly entertaining is a credit to the writer and his tabloid journalism background.

Likes

• Easy to read, entertaining style
• Doesn’t gloss over the seriousness of the human issues
• Thought provoking without being “heavy”

Dislikes

• Typesetting could be better

My Rating:  4 out of 5

This book and more are available from the Woodslane Online Bookstore:
The Crooked Path to Victory: Drugs and Cheating in Professional Bicycle Racing is from Les Woodland

The concentration of clebuterol detected in testing by a Cologne laboratory was announced by the UCI as being a very small concentration – 50 picograms, though both in the A and B blood sample. This amount is 400 times less than the limit that accredited World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) Laboratories need to detect.

Contador will give a press conference today.

Alberto Contador is currently signed to Team Astana as won the Tour de France in 2007, 2009 and 2010. In 2011 he will join the Saxobank team of Bjarne Riis.