What's also compelling is the news that Lance may have failed a drug test in 2000, and the circumstantial evidence pointing to a cover up involving Lance, the Swiss laboratory that performed the test, and professional cycling's international governing body also known as the UCI.
The witnesses all tell the same story: everybody was doping. And when they get caught they lie about it until they can lie no more, followed by a tearful confession.
I follow this painful story primarily out of my love for the sport of cycling. For those who aren't cycling fans, this still should interest.
Star athletes like Lance Armstrong are cultural icons. When they lie and cheat, the way that we react to it tells us a lot about ourselves. Lance is right about one thing, it's not about the bike.
George Hincapie released a statement through his lawyers saying that the whole affair is unfortunate, and that he wished that investigators and reporters would instead focus their attentions on all the good things presently happening in the sport and about the sport's future. It's all water under the bridge.
Many of my cycling friends feel the same way. They love the sport and will continue to follow it, with or without doping. Doping is nothing new to professional cycling and for many decades has been accepted with a wink by insiders and fans alike.
By today's standards, the doping methods used throughout most of cycling's long history were crude and marginally effective. In the early 1990's the dynamic of competitive cycling began to change as more racers adopted powerful new doping methods such as EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone. These were (and still are?) mandatory for anyone wishing to win elite-level races.
All the while, the Lance Armstrong story grew and grew. His victory against cancer and seven Tour de France wins formed the basis for an international brand of books and product sponsorships, and a not-for-profit foundation supporting cancer research and its victims.
Doping in any sport creates a bargain between athlete and fan, providing the fan a more entertaining spectacle with faster races, more points on the scoreboard, more record-breaking performances.
Some say that this and many other doping scandals have created enough negative attention to get professional cycling's authorities, team managers and sponsors to once and for all implement the controls necessary to clean it up.
Even if justice is served against Lance, they say, what good will it do? Consider the harm it will cause his charities and those who receive inspiration for their own battles against cancer. For anyone who really wanted to know, they could piece together enough evidence to realize for themselves that Lance deceived us, and that should be good enough.
Finally, some object to how cycling receives an inordinate amount of attention from the anti-dopers, as we know that doping also pervades the elite ranks of many cherished and profitable sports such as baseball, football, soccer, track and field--even golf.
All that may be true, but our accepting the bargain for cheating and lies about cheating begs larger questions. What constitutes doping, and how do sporting authorities discern legitimate acts of personal care from illicit ones? Why do we restrict doping? Are there any victims of doping, and who are they?
How would we really know that the sport is cleaning itself up? All the competitors rising behind Lance, what message do they get?
For me, the deceit is most unsettling. I hate being played as the fool.
Doping in any sport creates a bargain between athlete and fan, providing the fan a more entertaining spectacle with faster races, more points on the scoreboard, more record-breaking performances.
Some say that this and many other doping scandals have created enough negative attention to get professional cycling's authorities, team managers and sponsors to once and for all implement the controls necessary to clean it up.
Even if justice is served against Lance, they say, what good will it do? Consider the harm it will cause his charities and those who receive inspiration for their own battles against cancer. For anyone who really wanted to know, they could piece together enough evidence to realize for themselves that Lance deceived us, and that should be good enough.
Finally, some object to how cycling receives an inordinate amount of attention from the anti-dopers, as we know that doping also pervades the elite ranks of many cherished and profitable sports such as baseball, football, soccer, track and field--even golf.
All that may be true, but our accepting the bargain for cheating and lies about cheating begs larger questions. What constitutes doping, and how do sporting authorities discern legitimate acts of personal care from illicit ones? Why do we restrict doping? Are there any victims of doping, and who are they?
How would we really know that the sport is cleaning itself up? All the competitors rising behind Lance, what message do they get?
For me, the deceit is most unsettling. I hate being played as the fool.
I asked a friend why someone in such a powerful position as Lance could not come clean and finally tell us the facts of life in sport, what many of us already understand to be true. He said, because too many people can't handle the truth.
How bad do the lies about doping have to get before I exercise my only right to stop being a fan?
We sometimes accept such forms of deceit in other competitive realms such as politics. How does it serve a useful purpose?
Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies.
We sometimes accept such forms of deceit in other competitive realms such as politics. How does it serve a useful purpose?
Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies.
