Armstrong in the Guillotine

Why has Lance Armstrong’s case attracted so much attention? What is it that is so interesting about being stripped of the seven Tour de France titles via accusations of doping? Nothing that happens to sport icons goes unnoticed, much less if the news follows a play by play of their downfall. People use the words “fraud” and “deceit,” even when popular belief, not a solid scientific base, indicates that no one wins a cycling event as difficult as the Tour de France by drinking tea and eating cookies. Much less win it seven times.

The accusations of the Anti-Doping Agency of the United States, ratified by the International Cycling Union, were supported by the confessions and denunciation of Armstrong’s ex-teammates, who provided details about how the doping system functioned. In some cases they exchanged testimony for protection against prosecution. Old tests were not exhumed and all of Armstrong’s blood evidence was clean and pure. The voluminous reports admitted that the doping tests and controls were mocked (218 occurred during the Tour alone) and it was clear that the efforts meant to control doping were completely ineffective.

.

The International Cycling Union proclaims that it seeks to bury a long period of cycling history stained by doping cases, to leave behind a time of seized cars and doctors that do harm instead of heal and to open a new era in the sport. The organization has focused on particularly sought after cyclists like Bradley Wiggins, the first Briton to win the Tour de France in 2012, who continued almost without rest to compete in the London Olympics where he won his fourth gold medal. Wiggins was sarcastic about the Armstrong incident saying,” in the end it’s like Santa…you realize that he doesn’t exist.” Without saying it explicitly, the International Cyclists Organization acknowledges that Armstrong was the most successful and sophisticated cyclist in a period that appears to have been a festival of substance abuse. He mocked the tests and jumped over any alarms. He wasn’t the only one, but certainly the best.

There’s no question that what Lance Armstrong did was illegal. It was against the rules and gave him an unfair advantage over other cyclists. He didn’t hurt any third parties, except those who had invested in his image, hence the sudden departure of his sponsors. Brands wanted the cancer survivor, the cyclist with the strength of 20 men that moved mountains, not the manipulator. It is still unclear whether this was legitimate. The practices of which Armstrong is accused were common at the time, not so long ago. It is becoming obvious that an international body like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), financed with money from the sports and the governments that subscribe to its policy, has failed completely in its efforts to “clean up” cycling. The fact that Lance Armstrong was found guilty based on accusations rather than tests, proves that WADA is a machine that every once in a while will send a “big fish” to the guillotine in order to justify its existence. Large organizations that intend to take the “cheaters” out of sports cannot explain their existence if they let someone like Lance Armstrong escape individual persecution.

The American Greg LeMond, the first non European winner of the Tour de France in 1986 (he also won in 1989 and 1990), bluntly stated his opinion without justifying Armstrong’s actions: “the problem in cycling is not doping but corruption…” There may be corruption without doping, but doping cannot exist without corruption. Armstrong’s head is in the guillotine. Meanwhile, those who command and control still refuse to tackle the real problem.