The blogs are busy today with the latest athlete in a performance-enhancing drug scandal, following the accusation by French sports daily L'Equipe that a prohibited drug had been discovered in the stored urine of seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.
In a four-page article headlined "The Armstrong Lie,"... L'Equipe printed copies of documents suggesting six urine samples he provided during his first championship in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster erythropoietin, or EPO... The drug was on the list of banned substances at the time but there was no effective test to detect it.
Armstrong, fresh from a 17-mile bike ride with President Bush, responded (as he has for seven years) with the unequivocal denial, "I never took performance enhancing drugs."
I have to read these accusations with a shaker full of salt ready to hand. French sports writers have come afoul of Armstrong before, in their drive to find some way to denigrate the American's domination of their premiere race. In fact, the drive to find a test for doping with the drug Lance is now accused of using came after similar accusations were leveled at another non-French Tour winner, Danish Festina rider Bjarne Riis.
The French daily also has a history of sniping at Lance.
L'Equipe, whose parent company is closely linked to the Tour, often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him—portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be for real... "Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief," the paper griped the day after Armstrong's record seventh straight win.
It's important to note that while France's anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, found at least 15 urine samples (which had been frozen and stored from the 1999 Tour) that tested positive for EPO, they could not confirm any of these positive results were Armstrong's. The samples were "anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist."
During his entire post-cancer career, Armstrong has been subject to blood testing after nearly every stage he has raced in the Tour, according to his autobiography, It's Not About the Bike. He's simply very, very good, in a sport for which his natural physical abilities are admirably suited.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matthew T. Sussman
"People ask me what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike six days a week. What are you on?" - Lance
The best column I've read on this subject was crafted by one of my fav sportswriters, Tony Kornheiser. (Link pops to new window). He outlined the difference between Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Marion Jones and the drug scandal du jour in April, Panthers' punter Todd Sauerbrun. The difference was the connection between Armstrong and the common man: he got cancer, and so can we.
TK's masterful quote:
Rarely does a sports story transcend sports and become a story about humanity. Kornheiser showed me in this piece it can.
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
I misquoted Lance. I put the quote in my head in the box, forgot to fact-check it for accuracy. This is what Lance told the New Yorker:
3 - -E
Heh, Lance Armstrong has a deal with the 24Hour Fitness clubs in Austin, and that quote is up on the wall. Being the huge celeb in Austin that he is, the local media has been all over this and report that he has NEVER tested positive to any drug tests.
4 - SFC Ski
Do you think the French will ever realize that very few people outside of France give a damn about what they think?
5 - Bob A. Booey
I think Lance is a great story, but there's an awful lot of smoke and independent reports by papers about drug tests over the years. We'll never know for sure, but it's something to keep in my mind when we try to evaluate him objectively, which is hard to do because of his back story and heroism overcoming cancer.
One thing that does bug me a little bit is that he dumped his wife who stuck with him through cancer and bore his kids and is now flaunting his relationship with Sheryl Crow.
Read this excerpt from a Chicago Tribune op-ed by Josh Charlson, a lecturer at Northwestern University:
"...
Of course, Lance mania has everything to do with his iconic status as cancer survivor, and little to do with his tenacious competitiveness, brilliance as a tactician, or staggering athletic ability. If Levi Leipheimer were returning with the yellow jersey, there'd be hardly a ripple in the public consciousness. Beyond serving as crusading voice on cancer issues, Armstrong has become a symbolic emblem of hope to millions, a figure one newspaper referred to as "St. Lance."
Yet Armstrong's public persona as cancer vanquisher may, paradoxically, prove a far more questionable component of his legacy than common wisdom would have it. As someone who, like Armstrong, received a diagnosis of testicular cancer in my early adulthood and was treated at the same facility and by many of the same doctors, I am sensitive to the enormous waves of goodwill toward him that sweep through the world of cancer survivors and beyond. But I also harbor a number of serious reservations--not regarding Armstrong himself, but the myth that has risen around him.
The fundamental message conveyed by the Armstrong image machine--in pharmaceutical and automobile ads, in media coverage, in the work of Armstrong's non-profit foundation--is that if you will it, you can do it. Whether it's beating cancer or winning the Tour de France, the right attitude, the proper measure of confidence, will make you victorious. When it comes to cancer, however, this philosophy is dubious and misleading.
...
I've never worn the yellow band, or marched in a walk for cancer survivors, or joined a cancer survivors' support group. What I do wear proudly is a thick, pinkish scar that descends about 8 inches starting at my mid-abdomen. It's been on display recently at my local pool, where I engage in the everyday act of being a dad to my two young kids.
If I could be so bold as to offer a suggestion to the reigning Tour de France champion, I would say to Armstrong: Take off the superhero mantle, and learn how glorious ordinary life can be. That kind of normalcy is the true goal for most of us living in the aftermath of cancer."
That is all.
[Edited quoted material down: Temple]
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
The only reason Lance got a divorce was because he kept finishing 7 minutes ahead of his wife.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk ... but people just relate to him, even if it's one of the lower-level cancers. He got cancer, and now he's the best cyclist in the world, perhaps of all time. We get cancer too. That's the connection.
7 - DrPat
My local "ist" site, SFist, has a wry look at Lance's dominance in the Tour as a conspiracy. Take grain of salt in hand before clicking link to read...
8 - DrPat
BAB, please don't crib entire articles (or even substantial chunks of them) for comments. Use an excerpt and a link instead, please!
9 - -E
Lance Armstrong is arguably the best Tour de France cyclist, but a far cry from the best cyclist in the world.
10 - DrPat
It might surprise you to know that Lance Armstrong (and I) would agree with you, -E. He's never made much secret of his strategy to focus on the Tour to the exclusion of a broader cycling competition.
That focus has more to do with his dominance, IMHO, than even his VO-max and superlative fitness.
11 - Jud
OK, I'll bite, who is better. Better make an educated argument and not something you read on the headline of some bike magazine.
12 - DrPat
Absent data from a broader range of competitive events that demand a wider range of skills, there is no way to compare Armstrong to every other top-notch bicycle racer.
For example: is he a better cyclist than Pete Penseyres, whose 15.4 mph AVERAGE in his second consecutive solo win in the Race Across AMerica is only one of the records he holds in that event?
Penseyres was 43 when set that record, too...
13 - Matthew T. Sussman
Official UCI Rankings have Armstrong at #2 in the world. Italy's Danilo Da Luca is tops.
And it's not even a close second.
__--THE MORE YOU KNOW--***
14 - KYS
Lol, Matthew... but the question is, what is she still hanging around for seven minutes later?
15 - Tan The Man
I'll give Lance the benefit of the doubt; but with all of the steroids around in baseball and track, it wouldn't be a surprise if Lance did it.
16 - Nick
First of all, Eddy Merckx is universally acknowledged as the greatest cyclist ever. Compare Armstrong's 7 TdFs to Merckx's 5 Tours, 5 Giros, 4 world championships and countless one-day classics.
Second, when will people learn that returning negative drug tests proves *nothing*. You have to be very unlucky to fail a dope test. Long-time cheaters are often only caught due to a lapse or due to persistent attention from authorities (the kind that anti-French bias in the US depicts as a witchhunt). Ben Johnson and Marco Pantani satisfied dope controls for years while on steroids and EPO respectively. Carl Lewis' failed tests only came to light recently; Flo Jo never failed one, nor has Marion Jones. I could go on.
The scandal of the Festina team that finally broke the EPO scandal during the 1998 Tour emerged - not due to a positive drug test, which never happened - but due to police raids. (By the way, during that scandal the French destroyed their own national cycling hero, Richard Virenque, so attempts to portray the crusade against Armstrong as simply an anti-Yankee vendetta are off the mark).
Thirdly, the reference to Bjarne Riis as "another non-French Tour winner" are puerile. The French haven't had a winner for 20 years, but they haven't suspected every champion. Miguel Indurain won for 5 years before Riis and wasn't the subject of great suspicion (though in retrospect he should have been!). Riis was doubted for good reason: extraordinary improvement in the late stages of his career. If Riis was clean I'll pedal up L'Alpe d'Huez on a unicycle.
I know lots of people want to believe in Lance Armstrong for lots of very good reasons, but try to view things a bit more dispassionately. And lay off the anti-French chauvinism, please, it's ridiculous.
17 - wf
You've got your facts wrong in the following statement:
One thing that does bug me a little bit is that he dumped his wife who stuck with him through cancer and bore his kids and is now flaunting his relationship with Sheryl Crow.>
Kristen Armstrong did not "stick with" Lance through cancer -- he met her when he was in remission.
Also, in reference to your comment and quote about the Armstrong "mythology" and perceived ability to "will" cancer away, I'm not sure to what the author refers. I haven't gotten any sense that any of Armstrong's cancer work, ads or other public efforts celebrate such an ability. In reality, his direct comments on the subject say just the opposite: in his first book, he says that his survival has nothing to do with strength, will or any other factors over which he has control. Instead, he chalks it up to "dumb luck."
Perhaps the author of that quote's personal battle with cancer makes it difficult for him to be objective.
18 - Jud
Again, who is better. Eddie Mercks? (is...present tense.) Give Lance the prepartation time to do another racing challenge would he be number 2? As to the drug accusations. "When will people learn?" I hope you never have to face a jury trial based on the evidence you read in the news. Besides, if the USA Today had four pages of (Name your French hero here) accusations, the world would never hear the end of it. Talk about chauvinism. Clearly there is an anti-Yankee vandetta that goes on in the French news and has for years. Had Miguel Inderain been American would he have gotten off as easy. Do you really believe that the French Media is completely unbiased? Is our own?... Perhaps the passion you feel for convicting all who do well could be due to your disappointment in those who have cheated. Does that make all who do well cheaters? If Lance is proven to be a cheater I will be disappointed. But until it is proven I will be pleased to go with my passionate American bias that he is innocent until proven guilty.
19 - John Donne
Armstrong has been found out - just like Bush with his lies about Irakays - it would help if he could actually speak. American imperialism has rarely looked so ugly.
20 - Matthew T. Sussman
Jud, it's not just the French.
American TDF winner Greg Lemond has openly expressed his doubts about Armstrong's honesty.
21 - kmrufner
Maybe Nick should learn what the doping tests really are. The EPO test is greater than 95% sensitive, meaning that only 5% on EPO will test negative. Its not like steroids, where the test is only 50-70% sensitive. In addition, the test is 95% specific for two samples, and only 75-80% for one. Meaning that for one sample it is falsely positive 20% of the time. They only ran Lance's B sample. And who knows how the test works after 7 years frozen away.
My problem with the EPO on Lance is that EPO detection means nothing without a Hematocrit, the number of blood cells in the blood. In 1999 they took blood samples and screened them for hematocrit. A study in the Journal of Applied Physiology showed a pre-race hematocrit of 47 in Lance '99--not indicitive of someone on EPO.
Enter L'equipe. A magazine that has always had it out for Lance. Every year they have a new charge against him. Their former cheif editor is that guy who wrote "LA confidential" which has been largely discredited. I would not be the least bit surprized if information has been falsified--not an implication I am quick to make, but in this case its fair.
Finally, Lance has been tested over and over for seven years. How many negative tests do you need before you leave the guy alone? Want to know why he wins. He has the porbably the highest VO2 max (the best measure of aerobic exercise ability) of any person ever recorded. His heart and lung capacities are equally impressive. His Watts output vs oxygen consumption is also off the charts. Bottom line, he is clearly one of the most, if not the most, impressive physical specimin to ever to race.
22 - Jud
Matthew, Greg Lemond was a great champion. How do you know he wasn't on a preformance enhancing drug. What if another American accused him of cheating. Does that give more credibility to the argument until reliable proof is given? You were accurate in saying that Lemond expressed his "doubts." The French press has expressed their "certainty" for years without proof. And what kind of argument is equating Bush with Lance? What has more historical accuracy, equating the word imperialism with the French or the United States? Most of Europe, part of Russsia, and part of the United States experienced French imperialism. No, I believe that the more credible writing on this blog to this point has been by kmrufner. Well done...
23 - john dunne
Plenty of US bias here.
So kmrufner would like to dismiss all lab tests on frozen samples - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Nice thought - another 3 years and we wont have to deal with the 2 thin lipped cheating Texans.
Americans are spoilt children that cant accept the truth.
24 - Matthew T. Sussman
John Dunne trying to wedge President Bush into a Lance Armstrong discussion and make a blanket assertion makes him a bona fide troll. I am ignoring his comments in this thread from now on.
Jud, I'm saying it's not just the French. While they may have their agenda, not every American believes Armstrong, but it could be simply because of the nature of drug testing in sports today, which is sad.
25 - Dogbone
I raced in the U.S., as a Category 2 rider, for many years. I competed during the 80's and 90's, qualifying and attending the Olympic Trials in '88 and the National Championships. I won plenty of races and truly suffered for my craft. I find great beauty in this sport.
I left cycling for more than a decade to pursue career objectives and upon recently returning my focus I find this: a man who should be a grand champion but who instead has managed to put a large black spot over the image of (american) cycling. Lance Armstrong's manner of achievement is inconsistent with that of the great riders and that is a shame. Whether or not he was on the "clear or the cream" is irrelavent. I wish he had continued to focus on triathlon and stayed out of this sport. Despite his "victories" in the tour de france, this controversy will be his lasting legacy.