|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"It's Not About the Drugs"
It's Not About The Drugs
Recovering from cancer and winning seven Tours de France in a row has made Lance Armstrong a hero for many. Others question whether he's resorted to drugs to get him to the top of his sport. In 1993, Lance Armstrong rode his first Tour de France. Nine days into the race, on the road from Chalons-sur-Marne to Verdun, Armstrong and a small group of riders broke away from the peloton on the short-but-tough climb of the Cote du Douamount, about sixteen kilometers from the stage finish. Attack followed counter-attack, but soon the breakaway group solidified around six riders who, working together, slowly stretched their lead over the peloton. In the sprint for the line, Armstrong got clear by two bike lengths and won the stage. The youngest rider in the 1993 Tour de France, Armstrong had signalled his arrival in the race's history. Twelve years later, he's torn up the Tour's history books, winning the race seven times in a row. After that stage win in 1993, one journalist asked Armstrong the obvious question: "On 21st July 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first man to land on the moon. How high can this Armstrong go?" Even despite his innate Texan self-confidence, Armstrong didn't answer that question. But in his heart he knew the answer. Certainly he knew how far he wanted to go. A year before, Armstrong had been interviewed by Samuel Abt and the pair had talked about his Tour ambitions: "I know I want to do the Tour de France, I know I want to win the Tour de France," Armstrong told Abt. "I think I can someday get to that level but it's a long way off, a lot of hard work. The desire is there, the ambition is there, the goal is there. It's only a matter of doing the hard work and winning the race. [...] Win the Tour de France and you're a star. I'd like to be a star. I'm sure I'd get sick of all the pressure and all the appearances, but I'd like to try it for a while." Today, Armstrong is a star. Since being forced out of cycling in 1996 and 1997 with testicular cancer, he's put a virtual lock-out the Tour de France, claiming it as his own private domain since 1999. Wherever he goes, he's applauded for what he's done, not just on the bike, but in recovering from testicular cancer and promoting cancer awareness. Appearances follow appearances, interview follows interview. Today, Lance is living the life of a star that he told Abt he wanted to try in 1993. But it's a life that has come with a high price. The failure of his marriage has been blamed on his commitment to the Tour. And his performance in the race is constantly being questioned, the spectre of the sport's long history of drug abuse hanging like a cloud over his achievement. * * * In recent years, the Irish journalist David Walsh has become one of the American Tour de France champion's most outspoken critics. Today Armstrong describes Walsh as "the worst journalist I know." The next time the two talk is likely to be during one of several court cases against Walsh instigated by Armstrong. Twelve years ago though Walsh and Armstrong had a totally different relationship. David Walsh was one of many journalists who covered the 1993 Tour. He wrote a book about it - 'Inside the Tour de France' - in which he interviewed riders and team personnel, telling their story. The book opens with Walsh interviewing Armstrong, Walsh painting a picture of the sort of Tour champion we all want to believe in, one with wings on his ankles and the heart of a lion. "Physically I'm not any more gifted that anybody else," Armstrong explained to Walsh, "but it's just the desire, just this rage. I'm on the bike and I go into a rage, when I just shriek for about five seconds. I shake like mad and my eyes kinda bulge out. [.] That's heart man, that's not physical, that's not legs, that's not lungs. That's heart. That's soul. That's just guts." Today, Walsh paints a totally different picture of Lance Armstrong. In his 2004 book, 'LA Confidential - Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong' (co-authored with Pierre Ballester and still unavailable on English translation because of on-going litigation in France and England), Walsh argues that Armstrong has admitted to having used EPO. The evidence, Walsh admits, is not conclusive. Could Walsh be right? Could Armstrong be just another Tour champion in a long line of Tour champions who has resorted to performance enhancing drugs to get around le grand boucle? Or is Armstrong as clean as he himself contests he is? The fact is, we don't know. That Armstrong's never officially failed a drug test (the saddle cream incident aside) is, unfortunately, meaningless in modern cycling. Up until French police found evidence of EPO usage in David Millar's apartment, he too hadn't failed a drug test, despite being repeatedly subjected to them. Right now, Millar's just over halfway through a two year suspension because of his drug use. The evidence against Armstrong, the evidence that he is himself one of the many cyclists whose performance is pharmaceutically enhanced, is all circumstantial. But, sadly, the evidence trotted out by many who want to believe in a clean Armstrong is equally weak. For then the thought that Armstrong could be perpetrating such a massive sporting fraud is simply too appalling a vista to be considered. And that is enough for them to declare his innocence. There is scientific evidence though, put forward by researchers at the University of Texas (Armstrong's home state), which contests that he is clean and that his performance is down to the fact that he's a genetic freak. Much of that evidence though is, sadly, inconclusive. Take the argument that Armstrong's VO2 Max rate (how much oxygen his body can process) proves his ability is in his genes and not brought about by drugs. Unfortunately for anyone relying on that argument, it has to be remembered that the now disgraced sports doctor Michele Ferrari specialised in increasing his clients' VO2 Max rate. Right up to the day Ferrari was found guilty of sporting fraud by an Italian magistrate in October 2004, Armstrong was his most high profile client and vociferously proclaimed Ferrari's innocence. Much has been made of the revelation earlier this year by Hein Verbruggen, the head of the UCI, that Armstrong donated a substantial sum of cash to the sport to aid anti-doping measures. The money was given after the 1998 Festina scandal. How could a man who has funded anti-doping measures be himself using drugs? It would seem pretty clear-cut - until you start considering some of Armstrong's other actions. Take Armstrong's very public spats with WADA's Dick Pound. Pound is an outspoken critic of the manner in which cycling authorities have handled the drug problem within their sport. Given that French and Italian judicial authorities have done more to clean up the sport than the UCI itself, you would have to admit that Pound has a point. But Armstrong thinks Pound should keep quiet and not publicise the problem. Armstrong is, sadly, a firm believer in the sport's law of omerta, as evidenced by his treatment of Filipo Simeoni and others who have spoken out of their own experiences of drugs in cycling. Greg Lemond best sums up Armstrong's attitude to those who dare to speak openly of the role drugs play in cycling: "The problem with Lance is that you're either a liar or you're out to destroy cycling." The role drugs continue to play in the sport should not be hushed up, hidden from view. It needs to be aired publicly. For too long cyclists and sports riders have obeyed the sport's law of omerta. Despite all the effort that is being put into catching drug cheats and despite all the information available about the dangers associated with these drugs, riders are still doping. Dario Frigo and Evgeni Petrov failed to finish this year's Tour because of their drug use. Petrov was kicked off the race when a blood test suggested he might be using EPO. Frigo left the race after French police found EPO in his wife's car. Jurgen Scholl, the Gerolsteiner squad's soigneur, was sacked just days before the Tour started after a reporter produced an email from him in which he sought information on the effectiveness of various doping products. "What do you recommend when mixing Insulin and HGH?," Scholl had asked in the email, "What are the safe doses for Synachten? How long are you positive with 2.5mg of Androderm?" Riders are inexplicably dying of heart failure. In 2003 alone Denis Zanette (32), Marco Ceriani (16), Fabrice Salanson (23), Marco Rusconi (24), Jose Maria Jimenez (32) and Michel Zanoli (35) all died and their deaths have been linked to a resurgence in the use of EPO and blood doping in the sport. The deaths continue to mount up - only last month Alessio Galletti collapsed and died during a minor Spanish race. In 2000 he had been suspended for four months when EPO and Andriol were found in his fridge. Italian police raided his hotel room during the 2004 Giro d'Italia, on the basis of phone-tapping evidence. "I've bought a full suitcase of stuff from the doctor," the transcript of one phone call read, "there was some left over from before as well ... As long as we can, we use these and then when they're finished, we'll use the others. I've got a ton of stuff, you understand? I have a trolley-full." Does a dirty sport mean that everyone participating in it is dirty? No, it doesn't. Take the case of the French Cofidis rider, David Moncoutie. The peloton is united in its defence of Moncoutie, constantly telling journalists how clean Moncoutie is. Being clean hasn't stopped him from winning stages in the Tour - Mouncoutie won the Bastille Day stages of the Tour both this year and last year. But, perhaps tellingly, Mouncoutie is about the only rider the peloton says this of. Does this mean that everyone else is using drugs? Or that, in the eyes of the peloton, there is at least a cloud of doubt hanging over every other rider? Should any of this matter? Drugs alone will not make you a champion. Arguing that Armstrong's performance is drug enhanced is, ultimately as pointless as the catcalls from the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story - naked (doped) or not, the Emperor is still the Emperor. And Armstrong still has to put in the training miles, he still has to ride races each year in preparation for the Tour. He may not train as much as other riders and he still has time to be photographed at basketball games eating donuts but he certainly trains smarter than most, paying more attention to minor details. Even if he is, as Walsh argues, a doper like all the rest, does it really matter? If everyone else is doing it - now and throughout the history of the sport - then surely that just means a level playing field for all? None of it should matter. But it does. Drugs have stolen the soul of cycling. Like a cancer, they've eaten it up from the inside. They're the one cancer Armstrong thinks no one should talk about. They have transformed riders and they have transformed the Tour. The French philosopher Robert Redeker best sums up the situation the sport finds itself in today: "The athletic type represented by Lance Armstrong - unlike Fausto Coppi or Jean Robic - is coming closer to Lara Croft, the virtually fabricated cyber-heroine." According to Redeker, "Cycling is becoming a video game; the onetime 'prisoners of the road' have become virtual human beings." The riders may have freed themselves from being prisoners of the road, but today they are - to borrow the title of the Philip Gaumont's doping memoir - prisonniers du dopage. In their quest to find the perfect pharmaceutical solution to the inhumanity of the Tour de France, they have transformed themselves into something not entirely human. According to Redeker, "A huge gulf now exists between the race and the racers, who have become virtual figures, transformed into PlayStation characters while the public, the ones at the folding tables and the tents, drinking pastis and fresh rosé du pays, are still real. The type of man once promoted by the race, the people's man, born of hard toil, hardened to suffering and adept at surpassing himself, has been substituted by Robocop on wheels, someone no fan can relate to or identify with." Feargal Mc Kay July 2005 http://www.siglamag.com/features/050...-The-Drugs.php |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drugs are Cool. | crit PRO | Racing | 23 | March 22nd 05 02:50 AM |
Decanio Sounding Coherent | B Lafferty | Racing | 93 | February 3rd 05 10:32 PM |
Bettini on drugs? | Gary | Racing | 74 | August 19th 04 01:44 AM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |
BBC: Drugs In Sport | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | July 28th 03 04:19 PM |