CYCLING:AS THE reverberations continued from the US Anti-Doping Agency's declaration that it was imposing a lifetime ban on Lance Armstrong and stripping his seven Tour de France titles, the cycling world was coming to terms about what that would actually mean.
Reaction was varied, with many media outlets perceiving Armstrong’s non-contestation of doping charges as a sign of guilt, others known to be sympathetic to him portraying the situation as the result of an unfair witch-hunt, and a range of viewpoints in between.
The same applied amongst riders and fans, with Armstrong being as polarising now as he was during his career. For some, the outcome was a much-needed and logical conclusion after years of scandals in the sport; while cycling is perceived as being cleaner now than it was in the 1990s and the last decade, many big names in Armstrong’s era were either directly or indirectly linked to doping.
This number included some of those who stand to inherit his Tour de France titles if it is decided to promote the runner-up rather than leaving the top slot blank; a real headache either way for Tour organiser ASO.
Despite that complication, the argument is that cycling can never truly leave its past behind when unrepentant individuals suspected of practising or facilitating doping still hold positions of great influence.
For others on the opposite end of the scale, Armstrong is regarded as a great champion who has been maligned by an agency seeking publicity – a surprisingly common claim on internet forums and comment panels, furthered perhaps by Armstrong’s PR team speaking constantly of witch-hunts and vendettas, and accusing USADA as having an axe to grind.
One intermediate line of thought is that he may have used banned substances, but that it is either too late to do something about that, or that his cancer-related work outweighed any sporting misdemeanours.
What’s clear is that Armstrong’s hope of controlling the message appears to have had limited success. While some continue to believe in his innocence, his image has undoubtedly been dented since the current case began in May 2010, and particularly this week when he decided to fight no longer.
An individual who once hung out with presidents and who was tipped for a career in politics and – why not – an attempt to push for the White House itself, now seems to desire the quiet life above all. In his Thursday statement, Armstrong said he wanted to concentrate on his family, his foundation and his fitness and that he’d had enough of a fourth F – fighting.
As regards the loss of those Tour titles plus all his other results from August 1998 onwards, the reality is that USADA’s sanction could potentially yet be contested. The UCI and WADA both have the right to appeal the penalties to the Court of Arbitration, although the latter is unlikely to do so as it backed the USADA process at key points.
Former Irish pro Sean Kelly said yesterday that he considered it too soon to talk about seven stripped Tour titles. “The decision is not final yet . . . it can still be appealed,” he told The Irish Times. “The evidence has not been seen (something which was unnecessary for USADA to present as Armstrong simply decided not to fight the case – ed.), so it’s too soon.”
However, Kelly conceded that if Armstrong’s former team manager Johan Bruyneel was ultimately deemed guilty in the arbitration hearing which will come later this year, that the consequences could be severe for someone who has been accused of doping his riders. “It would be very hard for Bruyneel to have an involvement in cycling if that is the case,” he said.
The Belgian said yesterday that he hoped to be able to block the USADA hearing against him, although he didn’t explain how that could be achieved. Some have suggested this is why Armstrong choose not to fight his own case, preferring to walk away rather than have testimony from a dozen or more witnesses become public.
For Armstrong, it means that, while the big headlines are occurring at this point in time, the tremors could last quite a long time.
