It was not with just a little incredulity that I heard this morning of a resurfacing, once again, of the whole "did-he/didn't he?" about Lance Armstrong and doping. I have discussed before how critical an issue the whole question was, and whether the sport itself, and its ruling body, would find it in their interests to dig deeper into it, and face the potential stripping of a staggering seven Tour de France titles away from an international athletic superstar. The issue being how much the sport would be damaged by such an outcome, and how painful it would be to have to rewrite the history books and redefining Armstrong's reign as having been a total fraud. "Defrauding the American people" is how I think some federal prosecutor put it. Such crises truly do impact the widespread image of a sport, and another great example would be the collective global wincing of what another dominating king-of-the-world did to another sport: golf. If it's golf then we have to be talking about Tiger Woods, right?! We are not going to get back into that one, but experts did say in terms of sponsorship losses and the tarnished image the former ruler of the sport gave to it, that it was a very black and bleak period in golf history. So one should not underestimate the impact and reach of a sporting hero, who defies the odds and competition to rule the world, repeatedly. It is the stuff that kid's dreams are made of.
My question and trouble over this type of situation is what is the best thing to do, and is that the right thing to do? I think we all might sort of agree that we wish it would just go away; the guy or gal gets to keep their crown even if it's not quite as shiny as before, and time heals the wounds. But, if someone has dominated a sport in untouchable fashion, but does so by "cheating" (in this case that means using illicit performance-enhancing means), then should they not face the full consequences? It's not just because they are our hero, that they are above such scrutiny, yet we don't mind seeing some wannabe getting caught for such fraudulence. I think in the end, if evidence is uncovered, that we have no choice but to bring it out and let the athlete answer for their actions. This is sport, and it is supposed to be fair competition, even when it has today become big business. What is frustrating about the whole thing is that many insiders claim that if he is stripped of his titles, and they are given to whomever was second in those seven tournaments, that all we are doing is taking medals off one doper and handing them over to another doper. But one who has never been similarly so polarizing or as scrutinized as Armstrong. In other words, it is often claimed that doping is rampant, and everyone's at it, so it is an equal playing field! Therein lies the rub, my friends.
Personally, after I saw the "60 Minutes" interview with Tyler Hamilton, an ex-teammate of Armstrong's on the US Postal Service team, I was sure Lance's goose was cooked. His former friend and colleague made no bones about having doped with Armstrong during the 1999 tour, as well as in preparation for the 2000 and 2001 tours. The federal prosecutors turned cycling into the new mafia, whereby they offered sweetheart deals to lesser stars to dish the dirt on the big star, so they could go after him. The Godfather is always a sexier target than some soldier, right? Sure enough, a few former cyclists (now the equivalent of mafia rats) stepped up to the plate and claimed they were all doing it, Armstrong included. I cannot help but feel that most of us sort of know, deep down, that they were all doing it, Armstrong included. But, and it is a very big but, one must remember that the US Federal Prosecutors closed their investigation into Armstrong in February this year, after two long and harrowing years for probably all concerned. I concluded that there had been a lot of hype but not enough real evidence to prove anything, so in that case it was considered the right thing to do to walk away; let the champion remain the champion. It should have been the end of the matter.
But no, now, with his cycling days behind him, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has decided to go after him again, and tarnish his dominance of another sport, triathlon. I have to say that I remain extremely impressed by a cancer survivor having done what he did, and now, when rich and famous, and retired, he decides to compete in "Iron Man" competitions for a little downtime! This guy is simply an incredible athlete and competitor who has a dedication that most people can only dream of, not least as it requires enormous physical effort as part and parcel of that dedication. But the USADA has now prevented him from competing even in triathlons, and have charged him with using EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, human growth hormone and anti-inflammatory steroids during key Tour de France years.
It's the gift that keeps on giving, and frankly it's a mess. Now that it has popped up once again, can we please do a rapid, efficient investigation and come to a verdict and put this to bed once and for all? I don't think it's fair to put the guy through this again, especially, if as he claims with his lawyer, "I have had over 500 drug tests, passed them all, and never failed a single one". The aspect that I find most tragic of all is the feeling that Lance Armstrong would still have been the best and would have won all those races without any enhancements, but if he did use them, he is about to lose it all, and have a legacy pulled off him like fresh wet wallpaper off a wall: leaving behind only a sticky mess. For sure, the entire sport will suffer along with him. - Kevin Mc
No comments:
Post a Comment