The New York Times is reporting that Lance Armstrong "has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering
publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and
blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several
people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the
people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to
restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career."
We'll have to wait and see what happens.
In other news, I highly recommend reading this VeloNews interview with doping historian Dr. John Hoberman.
Dr. Hoberman offers some excellent insights into the institutional
problems in anti-doping: "No one is more powerful than sports officials
in positions of
responsibility who decide to keep their foot on the brake and do as
little as they can get away with to catch dopers. This quiet sabotaging
of anti-doping efforts was an unofficial, but very effective, policy
during the IOC presidency of Juan Antonio Samaranch (1980-2001)."
Further, Hoberman notes "For what all the little emperors — Samaranch, Nebiolo, Blatter, and
others — have understood is that doping can be managed as a
public-relations problem. Going through the motions of drug testing can
be enough."
I also recommend a piece by Frank Rich on fallen "heroes" (e.g., Lance Armstrong) for New York Magazine, which includes commentary on the role of the media: "There are various motives for press complicity
in some of these ill-fated heroic narratives, starting with hunger for
access to newsmakers [...] Some of us just can’t resist a great story, so much
so that we forget to ask the Journalism 101 question of whether it might
be too good to be true."
If that Armstrong story is correct, he really is a piece of work. You completely deny everything, and you are found guilty to the tune of a lifetime ban (all the while usurping the credibility of countless witnesses by claiming that everybody had an axe to grind). Now that he realizes he can't compete anymore, he's willing to admit that he cheated. He's being banned for cheating. Why would they lift the ban for admitting what he's being accused of (after years of denials and strong-arming people)?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there's a bunch of political BS going on behind the scenes. It's really simple to me. If I'm in charge, he's banned. I don't care what he has to say now. His chance to speak has passed. That chance was to be had in a courtroom setting. Nothing he says in public has any value to me.
Let me throw out a possible scenario. Talking to Lance might be a maneuver to get at the UCI and reveal their ultimate complicity in the whole Armstrong case though?
DeleteHowever, if Tygart indeed let's Lance off the hook in return for more information (please, not!) on their illegal activities, I'd be rather upset at them, especially Tygart. Lance does not deserve to ever compete again.
His confession would be the equivalent of a backdate TUE - too late and yet another way of cheating revealing his scheming personality. Imo whatever Lance could contribute to the case is already known and they should take down those folks like Verbrugen et. al from the UCI asap to set an example and foremostly, scare other sports federations, who run their very own scam of an antidoping program, like the ITF or FIFA...
As Hoberman nicely puts it, they are only going through the motions of running a program.
Mr Miller and Ricci-Bitti, in the highly unlikely case you are reading this, Hoberman is also talking about guys like you!
It certainly is an interesting piece. The cynical side of me says it is just about the money. He can't make money with the "I am innocent" story, so he goes on Oprah, cries and says, "I was wrong, now please buy my book about redemption."
ReplyDeleteIf I were the USADA, I would allow a reduction in the ban in exchange for detailed information on how the doping was conducted. That is, if he does indeed provide "substantial assistance" in reducing doping, the Code does allow for a reduction ... "The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the
seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport." [The codes states that the minimum a lifetime ban can be reduced to is 8 years].
I would feel that a period of 8 years is a sufficient ban and his public involvement in anti-doping activities would greatly help reduce doping in sport. In addition, details about how he avoided testing positive in "over 500 test" would also greatly help reduce doping in sport because the public would be well aware of how ineffective current testing is and it would likely be a large impetus to change the system. It would also highlight how complicit the administrators were in allowing him to backdoor the system for decades. The bottom line is that Lance Armstrong knows a lot more than the witnesses have already testified to. Getting that information public is well worth reducing his ban to 8 years.
Good Velonews iterview with John Hoberman too. It's long, but good. To have any faith at all in the UCI any more (not that we did) is not possible any more. I remember they were criticising USADA before the Armstong decision came out, trying to reduce their credibility. It's laughable now, given the fall-out from the Armstong saga. Yet the UCI were still sticking up for him only a few months ago. They need a serious cleanout. From the top down. To have any cred any more.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for FIFA's dope testing. Well, as poster Team_Kickass has pointed out several times in the past, this is a joke too. Even in Germany, let alone in southern and eastern Europe, where it's like a free-feign. To think no positives for how many world cups now? And how often does soccer report a positive from a name-player? Never! Yet young men, in their 20's and supremely fit, are dropping dead like flies in Europe and South America. They can't *all* have bad hearts.
I just don't see what kind of substantial assistance Lance has to offer unless he wants to snitch and give up some names. Naturally, he won't snitch if he wants to be an athlete again so what does he have to offer? What a douche this guy is to finally want to start talking now after all these years of vicious lies.
ReplyDeleteI think it's the public adulation that he craves. He once was the Cancer Jesus, now he's going to be the Anti Doping Jesus. He is going to expose the UCI and WADA and save the world from the scourge of illegal drugs once and for all (and maybe make a few much-needed bucks on the side).
ReplyDeleteHow come the quotes below have me thinking about the ITF INSTANTLY?
ReplyDelete1.) "No one is more powerful than sports officials in positions of responsibility who decide to keep their foot on the brake and do as little as they can get away with to catch dopers. This quiet sabotaging of anti-doping efforts was an unofficial, but very effective, policy during the IOC presidency of Juan Antonio Samaranch (1980-2001)."
2.)"Together, they (=Verbruggen and Mc Quaid) have presided over all of the major doping scandals of the past 15 years. Under Verbruggen’s leadership, the principal result of the 1998 Festina scandal was the age of Lance Armstrong, which the UCI did nothing to bring to an end. On the contrary, even during the endgame, as Armstrong was going over the cliff, McQuaid and Verbruggen stuck with their man. They protested how (the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) pursued Armstrong. They are still denying USADA access to documents. That is how closely they identify with the systematic doper who has done so much to enable their operation and their hold on power"
----> Mindless adoration of stars who generate revenue and attention to keep the operation "succesful"
3.) "This pathetic “anti-doping program” served the IOC as a successful PR strategy for many years until the Festina Affair blew up in 1998."
----> So far, the ITF has been lucky to avoid a Festina type of scandal. And I bet they do everything to keep the covers down.
4.) "At the same time, the corruption, hard and soft, of certain international federations, including the UCI, has produced an attitude of cynicism and resignation in a lot of people including some of the journalists who shape the attitudes and expectations of the sporting public."
----> Wertheim, Nguyen, Tignor, Rothenberg, he is talking to YOU!
Yes, a huge problem affecting tennis as well for the obvious reasons this blog has been discussing here in great length. Sadly, media people have made peace with cheating, and this has terrible effects in shaping public opinion and raising awareness. By painting a happy picture, media contributes to ignorance and complacency. Which in return is creating the (false) impression that a majority of people would hold a permissive view on doping.
5.) A year later, Verbruggen made it clear that the entire concept of doping control would have to adapt to the continuing medicalization of high-performance sport: “Society and sport are becoming increasingly adjusted to high-tech medical methods,” he said. “It’s an irreversible reality. The fight against doping has to adjust to that reality.”
-----> Sadly, many pro-tennis players and their handlers along with the ITF seem to push for more lenience thereby sanitizing doping practices as acceptable medical routine. See PRT treatments, oxygen tents and all the various TUE exemptions available to athletes...
And, as already pointed out before, had they seriously been interested in catching dopers, they would have quietly strung the noose around David Ferrer, Sara Errani and others, players known to have been using Del Moral's services, and then busted them prior to making any general PR type announcements regarding Del Moral himself. As it was, they gave the game away with their lame press release.
DeleteHoberman puts the lie to Richard's "the tennis authorities are not deliberatly trying to cover up doping".
ReplyDelete