Charlatan or Hero? The Rise and Fall of Lance Armstrong and the Consequences of cheating
Like many, I was mesmerised and inspired by the story of Lance Armstrong's battle with cancer and his subsequent rise back to the forefront of cycling, winning the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times between 1999 and 2005 following his return from near death and the absolutely debilitating nature of the treatment he had to undergo.
By Michael Marnewick
Putting your body through 23 days of cycling (two are set aside as rest days) over a distance of 3200 kilometres, through the mountain chains of the Pyrenees and the Alps, suffering from saddle sores, agony and even death, is hell for anyone. Never mind a man whose cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy.
He was a modern day hero as far as his tour victories are concerned. But dig a little deeper (and in the UCI's case, they dug and dug and dug; relentlessly so) and he's simply one, undeniable thing: a drug cheat.
The Tour has been plagued by doping allegations since the very first race in 1903. Alcohol and ether were consumed to dull the pain. Brothers Henri and Charles Pélissier admitted to using strychnine, cocaine and chloroform – amongst other drugs – in 1924, but the big one, EPO, really surfaced in the 1990s and to date, it appears that few actual winners have achieved the feat drug-free.
In 2012, Armstrong was stripped of his seven titles and banned from competitive cycling for life for doping offenses by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). The fall-out in his case has been massive and prize-money, sponsorships and endorsements are all being claimed back by the donors.
His Livestrong Foundation which provides support for cancer patients has, since its launch in 2003, earned in excess of $500 million, although he has been forced to step down as the face of the charitable organisation.
Is it a sad indictment on a sport plagued by doping (and doping claims and denials) and the very possible reality that you can't win without that 'something extra'.
It is just over a year now since his stark admission to Oprah Winfrey that he cheated. His tone and choice of words suggested that he had carefully planned what he was going to say, while the questions appeared to be soft and orchestrated. Often described as ruthless and psychopathic, Armstrong ducked and dived around the issues. Those who study imperceptible twitches and eye movements would have noticed honest body language conflicting with verbal communication.
But he admitted it – in a roundabout way – appealing to the sympathy of the viewer. It was a case of "everyone was doing it, and if you didn't, you were not going to win." Plain and simple as that.
And he's not the only one, although the pursuit of an admission has been widely publicised and was clearly the most intense. And his was just one in a long line of guilty riders.
The top three in 1996 were all linked to doping, winner Bjarne Riis admitting to regular EPO use between 1993 and 1998. 2006 winner Floyd Landis was stripped of his title after testing positive for synthetic testosterone. Winner in 2010, Alberto Contador tested positive for low levels of clenbuterol and in February 2012 was stripped of his title. Those are just a few of the many named and shamed.
And as confirmation of the all-round drug use, Jan Ullrich (winner in 1997) reportedly suggested in August last year that Armstrong's wins should be reinstated, due to the prevalence of doping at the time. Ulrich had his third place finish in the 2005 Tour stripped in 2012.
The question remains: Are they drug cheats, or is a Tour win impossible without the drugs? If everyone is doing it, why couldn't Lance or Jan or Floyd or the multitude of other riders (not just winners) who were disqualified?