Shuaib Manjra
The NAME Armstrong has dominated the past week’s headlines. Neil remained a public hero until the end.
Lance’s drug-infested career came home to roost. But the level of public support for Lance Armstrong, evident in website comments and polls, has been surprising.
That such support seeks to discount the compelling doping allegations against him underlines his iconic status in the public’s eyes – for his athletic prowess and courage as a cancer survivor.
In fact, these are not allegations any more – they amount to an uncontested conviction in view of Armstrong’s decision to not participate in the adjudication process.
The charge is not only one of a simple doping offence – or inadvertently taking a supplement or cough remedy – it is one of a carefully planned and executed, systematic doping programme, using sophisticated drugs and methods, over nearly a decade that involved a team of experts.
David Walsh, who has written four books on Armstrong calls it “[one of] the greatest, most sophisticated doping conspiracies in the history of sport”.
The first big question is why Lance Armstrong, not known to walk away from a fight, declined the adjudication of an independent tribunal that clearly has no beef with him, but rather would rule on the basis of the evidence before it.
Here was an opportunity for him to publicly clear his name once and for all.
The answer is contained simply in Mark Twain’s adage: “It is better to have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Armstrong’s refusal to participate in the process allows him to invoke doubt and conspiracy, and masquerade as a victim.
Otherwise, with the evidence so compelling against him, it will unequivocally confirm to the world the veracity of the charges, with witness after witness unravelling the doping conspiracy – “fact by fact, piece by piece” – thereby breaking the once-sacred omerta and crushing Armstrong’s veneer of sanctity.
Armstrong, in attempting to protect what remains of his legacy, has decided to operate in the murky waters of doubt and conspiracy, using his iconic status as a cyclist and cancer survivor to ride public sentiment and create a virtue out of his cop-out.
Current evidence against Armstrong derives from two sources.
First, a dozen of his former teammates and support team gave evidence that Armstrong was centrally involved in systematic doping in the teams he was involved in.
He either admitted to them, or they directly observed him using (and encouraged them to use) erythropoietin (EPO), blood transfusion, cortisone, testosterone and human growth hormone from 1996 to 2005. For this, the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) charged Armstrong with possession, distribution, use, administration and trafficking in prohibited substances.
He was also charged with assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity in anti-doping rule violations.
These are serious charges – where the agency invoked aggravating circumstances in slapping him with a lifetime ban.
Scientific data also points to evidence of Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation, including EPO or blood transfusions, in his comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.
This scientific evidence is based on laboratory results that compared his samples taken against his “biological passport” – constructed over time and a range of tests of his personal parameters. It is the equivalent of a physiological fingerprint.
These allegations are not new.
Reports from French anti-doping agencies stress past positive tests, that were covered up, or that Armstrong was warned before being tested.
Eight years ago, the French anti-doping laboratory, in a retroactive analysis using new technology, detected evidence of EPO in an analysis of Armstrong’s stored samples. Floyd Landis fingered him a few years ago in an interview with US Federal authorities.
In 1999, the year of his first Tour win, it is alleged he “bullied” young French cyclist Christophe Bassons, who raised concerns about doping on the Tour.
Team masseuse Emma O’Reilly reported she had heard team officials discuss how to get around Armstrong’s positive test for steroids, and described how she was asked to travel to Spain to deliver “material” across the French border.
But Armstrong’s political power and spin machinery allow him to deflect these issues. The UCI probably allowed him to supersede the sport. He even appropriated yellow, the colour of the Tour leader’s jersey, for the Livestrong campaign.
Does Armstrong’s claim that he was tested over 500 times, but never returned a positive test, present a compelling case for his innocence?
The limitations of antidoping agencies in detecting prohibited substances through sample collection are well known.
SA returns a 1 to 2 percent positive rate where nationally it is believed at least 10 to 20 percent of elite athletes are doping. Olympic Gold medallist Marion Jones was tested as much as Armstrong, but did not return a single positive test.
She was banned due to the Balco scandal which uncovered systematic doping, largely by US athletes, using “designer steroids” that avoided detection.
These drugs were only discovered through a whistle-blower and good intelligence work.
Bernard Kohl, who came third in the 2008 Tour de France and subsequently tested positive, opened up his doping diary to the anti-doping authorities in an act of penance.
In a scientifically designed doping programme aimed at maximally enhancing performance and avoiding detection, Kohl’s case was instructive.
He admitted to using blood transfusions, EPO, steroids, cortisone, human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factors, HCG, thyroid hormone, designer testosterone and plasma expanders in a planned programme.
Kohl was tested over 200 times, but tested positive only once, when he probably deviated from his doping schedule.
So, not testing positive is not equal to not doping – it simply attests to the dopers’ sophistication.
Armstrong, Kohl and others were advised by a host of scientists – including the two doctors banned from sport for life – and carefully monitored for adverse consequence and to avoid detection.
Thus, in recognising the limitations of sample testing, anti-doping agencies internationally are investing more resources in the “biological-passport” programme and intelligence collection.
The successful prosecution of Armstrong can be attributed to this paradigm shift.
Also, importantly, Usada chief executive Travis Tygart’s singular determination needs to be commended. He steered this probe through threats, political pressure and personal attacks to ensure justice would prevail.
Usada also benefited from information gathered by US federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who led the US Federal investigation into Armstrong – a case that was unexpectedly dropped.
While Armstrong has retired from cycling, his lifetime ban will affect his new career as an elite triathlete. He will be unable to participate, compete, coach or be involved in any organised sport for the rest of his life.
By not taking up his opportunity to face a tribunal, he has also waived his right to an appeal process.
Being stripped of these titles would logically require the prize money to be returned.
Attempting to reconfigure the winners of all these events will also be a difficult task.
This is certainly not the end of the legal process.
Former team manager Johan Bruyneel and trainer Dr Mi-chele Ferrari’s decision to proceed with their cases will continue to throw light on Armstrong’s history.
Whatever the outcome, Armstrong’s legacy lies in ruins.
Those who continue to support him should finally realise it should be about the bike and not the boosters.
And that they have been taken for a ride.
l Manjra is the chairman of the SA Institute for Drug-free Sport