I’m sure this is not an original thing to be blogging about at the moment what with all the recent developments with the USADA case being published and Lance losing virtually all his sponsors/endorsements yesterday. Yet, for whatever reason I feel compelled to put my thoughts out there. Call it self indulgence I suppose.
Anyway, its a lot to cover, I thought of actually doing a video blog and all that kind of thing. But, on second thought I’ve decided to bullet point my basic positions on the various points. Keep it brief and if I get any interest to expound I’ll add on at that point.
Yes I think Lance did it. Yes I think the majority of cyclists at that time did it as well. Yes, I think it is better now but there are still quite a few guys/teams doing it. Yes I think it is a product of a system created by that generation of riders and team directors.
That said, I don’t agree with the “I had to do it because it was dope or don’t compete”. Frankly, I think if that is the reality then the only option is- don’t compete. This is not a life and death decision, this is a career decision similar to “do I rob a bank or get a real job”. The “I had to do it to compete” argument boils down to, “I wanted to race my bike professionally, I wanted to make a very good salary doing so, and I was very willing to ignore the rules to do those things”. To make that into a justification of doping is just fooling oneself and playing the victim.
- USADA investigation as it pertains to Lance
Lance and others love to say the USADA investigation and the Federal investigation before that was a “witch hunt”. I’ve lately found a perverse love of this excuse because I love coming back with, “yeah it was a witch hunt, there were a hell of a lot of witches in cycling and Lance was the Queen witch”.
Ultimately this too is just and excuse and self victimization. The fact is, any investigation that does not go in favor of the accused will be viewed as a witch hunt by the accused and their supporters. If Lance didn’t want to be a witch he should never have straddled the broom and put on the pointy hat. He made his decision to be the best doper in a dirty sport and that decision had its risks. He is now seeing the repercussions of making that decision. When you’re the ringleader you get your very own investigations. Nixon, Madoff, Capone etc would all agree they were victims of witch hunts.
Frankly I think trying to strip titles etc. is futile. Sure you strip Lance, but who does the win trickle down to? Probably some dude in 54th or something, and if anyone really looked that guy was probably dirty as well. So, as far as stripping titles etc. I think we just have to let thing stand and move on. If anything I think Floyd should get his Tour win reinstated.
As for bans. I do think there should be some kind of penance to be paid. What, how long, or how much that should be is a difficult subject. And, it really doesn’t matter unless a rider is still racing pro. This is the problem with Lance. He’s not racing bikes but he wants to race triathlon. As a pro triathlete I don’t want him in my sport. I think it sends a poor message of blindness toward the past. And also I think he has lasting benefits from doping that are unfair when coming to triathlon. Expanding on that, I don’t think this is as much of an issue if he were cycling because so many others have those same benefits. In triathlon, the majority of us are clean and we would be competing against an “altered” athlete. So, I don’t like the past dopers coming into triathlon.
Obviously the Livestrong foundation’s contributions should be separated from Lance the athlete. However, this is a tough topic. Yes Livestrong has raised a lot of money, most speculations are around $500 million. However, that is a fake number. That is total gross earnings. You have to consider operating costs etc. etc. So the number really isn’t that big. Then there is the fact that Lance used Livestrong to fund his lifestyle in many ways: Livestrong private jets, write offs for travel, expenses, etc etc. Now many will argue “that is just how business is done” but, is Livestrong a charity or a business? I would argue business in the guise of a charity. So, there ya are, its kind of a tainted foundation.
Yet, we are lucky that Livestrong has matured to the point that it doesn’t need to be affiliated with Lance any longer. It can continue to do its beneficial work for cancer seperate of Lance Armstrong. Perhaps this is the ultimate punishment for his athletic infractions: loss of involvement in a cause I do think he genuinely cares about. What better penalty than to remove one of the very few things Lance actually cares about.
So, that’s my take in broad strokes. I’ve put a lot of thought into this topic and would honestly argue I know it as well as virtually any one. So, I’m happy to discuss it. But, I’m also tired of it and would really like all the doping crap and Lance would just go away and let cycling, triathlon, and the world just move on without them.
Jimmy
