This Is The End

The sticky point I could never get around with Lance Armstrong was this: in a dirty, dirty sport, where everyone cheats with performance enhancing drugs, how could he not only win races but beat everyone else out there like a drum?

I mean, Ben Johnson doped. But he didn't whip his opponents by 15 metres, never quite like Armstrong whipped his.

Armstrong was Superman, and a cancer survivor to boot.

Sorry, just not possible.

After Wednesday's USADA detailed report used 26 different witnesses to carefully show all the ways in which Armstrong systematically cheated came out, we're now left with another even stickier point.

Could 100 per cent of this report be false and concocted in truly Stalin-esque style?

Could the conspiracy against Armstrong be that deep and pervasive, involve that emany people, and be complete and utter fiction down to the last detail in a spectacular attempt to nail an international cyclist?

Because here's the problem. Let's say among all the cheaters and liars involved in this tawdry sport, that some fibbed and some exaggerated. Wouldn't shock me.

Let's say only 60 per cent of the report is absolute truth.

That still makes Armstrong a liar and a cheat. Forget any and all good he may have done by raising funds for cancer. That has nothing to do with whether he cheated.

Hell, let's say for the sake of argument 30 per cent of the USADA findings are fact.

That still looks awful for the man who said he never, ever did ANYTHING against the rules.

See where I'm going here?

This would have to be one of the great conspiracies in the history of modern-man, one that would go to the core of government, for Armstrong to be telling the truth now, and it would have to be 100 per cent lies and fiction. But it's not, and he's not.

He never has. And now he never can. Can you imagine a mea culpa from Armstrong now? While Mark McGwire or Roger Clemens could have arguably won many supporters by coming absolutely clean on their baseball activities a long time ago, the same isn't the case for Armstrong now. He'd lose all those who refuse to see him as guilty, and nobody would come to his side in sympathy. A quarter-century after Seoul Johnson is a somewhat sympathetic character. Armstrong can never be.

So this is probably where this ends. A hero unmasked. Logic finally addressed. He did cheat to be that much better than the rest of a dirty sport. And they finally nailed him.

 

 

 

Comments

[leefan]

Some good points made here. There are a lot of people who still support Armstrong, due to the money he raised for cancer research. But it defies credibility to think he beat a field of cheaters, 7 times, without any help from PDA's. I almost wish I could believe him, just because he is a cancer survivor and if it were true, what a story.

[Robbie]

You bring up some interesting points about the other characters who have cheated in their respective sports. The one defining thing that Lance Armstrong has over them is the near death experience of CANCER. He has taken that expereince and turned it into a very lucrative fight against Cancer. As a result, I believe, we as a society will overlook his indiscretions of the past. At the end of the day, who did his cheating hurt ???, certainly not society as a whole. As for Roger Clemens, Ben Johnson or even Pete Rose, had they fought and won the battle of a disease like Cancer and then raised money to fight it, the "game" would be totally different ....

[Mark]

Most of this is absolutely right. Armstrong's achievements became progressively less credible after more and more of the people he was besting in Tours turned out to have been cheaters. Even without a single witness, the circumstantial case against him has been mounting in the court of public opinion.

But when you are talking about sympathy, you kind of lose the thread. Ben gets some sympathy because after all the exposure and inquiries, he looked like a not terribly bright and poorly advised guy. And also because the Canadian backlash to him was so regrettably over-the-top at the time. It has nothing to do with how forthright he was.

Armstrong probably won't get sympathy, per se. He has been too all in on the not cheating bandwagon, and there is no selling him as an ignorant pawn in a larger scheme. And this is why he'll likely never admit wrongdoing (but if he's smart, will stay well away from statements under oath).

On the other hand, the very thing that led you to be so sure of his guilt also plays in his favor. He was competing against other proven cheaters. The whole tour was bent. There is no sympathetic example of someone who was denied glory because of his actions. The result is that many people think he's guilty, but really don't care much.

The ones in denial are the ones he needs to keep. And he is clearly concerned about scandal taking his charitable causes down with it, so he'll never admit anything that will lose them.

[Joshua Hart]

"Lance will never be a sympathetic character", despite raising hundreds of millions of dollars for charity and giving hope to millions around the world. Unless that can be proven false in court as well...

[Rob Greenfield]

Nothing like convicting someone with circumstantial evidence. At no time did he ever fail a dope test, and he was the most dope-tested human on the planet. How do you explain that, Damian? Oh, I know, he was just better at concealing doping than anybody else. Sort of like he was better at winning bike races than anyone else.

[Dean]

You know, you make exactly the same points as I did to a great many people who asked me over the years (I was a racer who raced internationally).

I have to say though..."tawdry" sport? You mean you actually think NFL, CFL, NHL, Track and Field, Marathon running, Cross Country Skiing aren't absolutely FULL of drugs? If you believe that cycling is the only filthy sport, you're not much of a sports reporter. Pro sports are filthy, all of them. Cycling is one of them, but just one of many. Better cast a critical gaze towards your favoured sports there Mr. Cox.

BTW...I raced clean, many others did, including many at a higher level than I ever achieved. Everyone in cycling is not a cheat, just to lazy reporters.

[Chris]

It's a dirty sport, as you said yourself like 60 times Damien... so really, who cares if he cheated? He was just a better cheat than anyone else.

Blood doping... glad I finally understand what it is. Is it really any worse than the Leafs Quarter Final with Gilmour hooked up to an IV bag in between periods? Blood Doping could actually provide a huge advantage in the NHL, especially deep in the playoffs... and unless someone rats on you, how could they ever prove you did it?

But again, I must repeat, it is cycling, who cares?