The Armstrong interview

January 18th, 2013 at 5:39 pm by David Farrar

Well I think he is still lying. If the interview was part of a plan of redemption, I don’t think it will work.

I simply don’t believe him over stuff such as the 2001 $250,000 donation to the ICU. He says he doesn’t like them and has no reason to defend them. But he has a reason to lie – he could face bribery charges if he admitted to it.

He seemed barely contrite over his treatment of people such as Emma O’Reilly whom he sued and called a whore and alcoholic. He says he has tried to contact her, and I noted he e-mailed just before the interview a journalist he had lied to many times (and had been one of his big defenders). To me this looks like it is all part of an organised campaign. Do the interview. Then send out unspecific apologies just before the interview airs. In the interview admit to just what you have to, and don’t give any significant details.

The second part will be interesting, but I suspect the first part had the most significant stuff. I don’t think there’s enough there for any sporting body to even start to consider a path back for Armstrong.

Armstrong on Oprah

January 10th, 2013 at 8:49 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Will he admit to doping? That’s the big question being ahead of Lance Armstrong’s pre-recorded interview with Oprah Winfrey which is set to air in the United States next week.

The talk show diva’s network claims no question will be off-limits when the disgraced cyclist sits down for his first interview since being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.

Others are not so sure.

“Armstrong has no editorial control and no question is off-limits,” Nicole Nichols of Winfrey’s OWN cable TV network told AFP in an email, adding Armstrong is getting no payment for the interview.

Nichols also said the 90-minute interview at Armstrong’s home in Austin, Texas – to be aired on January 17 on the OWN network and online worldwide – “is not live”.

Former cyclist David Millar, a member of the athletes commission for the World Anti-Doping Agency, however expects it will be “completely stage-managed”.

Of course. He will break down in tears and talk of how everyone was doing it. How at first he won his titles without drugs, but then realized the only way he could compete was to join the others who forced him into it.

It remains to be seen if Oprah will be a “sympathetic” interviewer or if she turns on him like she did with James Frey. Armstrong has arguably lied for longer and to more people than Frey did.

Guest Post on Accepting Drugs in Sport: the Case of Pro-Cycling

October 30th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

A guest post by Mike Wilkinson, a former Ironman tri-athlete and a keen Tour de France follower:

The downfall of Lance Armstrong in the sport of professional cycling now seems complete.  Yet, as the dust settles, many are left wondering what’s next for pro-cycling: can it recover its credibility?  Or will it once more be tarnished by the brush of doping?  There seems little cause for hope, unless the Armstrong scandal helps the public reach a new acceptance of drugs in particular sports like pro-cycling.

Much has been written about Lance Armstrong. including allegations that he’s brought the sport into disrepute.  Although I’ll say that we can hardly expect successful pro-cyclists to behave like Mother Teresa, I have little to add about the man’s career.  I think, however, that there’s one important thing to keep in mind: the significant role of drugs in professional cycling goes well beyond just Lance Armstrong.

Before Armstrong, so many of cycling’s big names have tested positive for drugs.  They include Armstrong’s former rival, Jan Ullrich, five times Tour winner, Miguel Indurain and even the man who’s arguably the greatest road cyclist of all time, Eddy Merckx.  

Drugging does not seem confined to just individual athletes, either.  In 1998, the year before Armstrong won his first Tour de France, pro-cycling went through the Festina Affair.  It started when a team car that was stopped by the authorities at a border crossing and was found to be packed to the gunwales with EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs.  The case sent shockwaves throughout the sport and resulted in the trial of 10 people, including cyclists, team doctors and team managers   There were plenty of calls for pro-cycling to clean up its act following that fiasco, too.

But why is doping so rife in pro-cycling?  For my part, I think people need to appreciate just what the sport involves.  In the Tour de France, for example, competitors ride approximately 3500 kilometres.  Over that distance, the winner sets a phenomenal average speed of around 40kmh. And even with that pace, riders get just two rest days through the 23 days of the race  

I don’t doubt how hard it is to be a professional sports person in any code, but surely there are few sports where competitors operate so near the upper bounds of human endurance.  Cyclists must face a massive temptation to seek performance from wherever they can find it.

Some are calling for some sort of amnesty in which riders can come clean.  Whether or not that happens, you have to wonder just how long it will take for riders will start doping or not.  When someone in a race performs well, everyone else is going to think that person’s doping and they should, too.

Do others share my scepticism that the sport can clean itself up?  Yes, including some pretty important people.  One big name sponsor Dutch bank, Rabobank, has been involved in cycling for 17 years.  Yet, after the Armstrong scandal, it announced it was ending its sponsorship of both men’s and women’s professional cycling, saying that it was “no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport.”

What does it mean for something to be a fair sport?  Surely, it’s that players know the rules and abide by them.  What if the rules were changed so that a level of doping was acceptable?  If everyone was able to take drugs, wouldn’t the sport still be fair?

While cyclists might by themselves reach this point, it’s doubtful that the general public would accept any sort of doping.  This is my reason for writing this post for Kiwiblog and not for some cycling forum.  Isn’t it time that we woke up and ask whether, for some particular sports, a level of doping might be ok?

For my 2c I think it is desirable that top titles are won by those who are the best athletes, not have the best chemists. However it would be great to have a “main” Olympics and a “freak” Olympics where anything goes from drugs to biotechnology – and have the winners from both compete against each other 🙂