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.

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