Hey all. A bit off
topic to the usual blurb but I wanted to air my viewpoint on the Armstrong vs
USADA topic.
I have only really participated in cycling for a couple of
years but have always watched the Tour De France as I love sport. The more I have being involved in cycling the
deeper I have looked into the history of the sport and come to learn about the
individuals who race in the sport. There
are a couple of stand out individuals to me and one of these is Lance
Armstrong. I have the fortune of
remembering Armstrong’s famous battles with Ullrich in the Tour De France and
remember being excited by the mountain attacks and ‘the look’. A feeling that has been recently being
reignited by Contadors attacks in the Vuelta d Espagna. I have read Armstrong’s books on his fight
with cancer, his tour victories and life in general. I still follow his progress post-retirement
from professional cycling during his Ironman career and his work through
Livestrong.
I am writing this on the day that Armstrong has come out and
said he will not be fighting the USADA investigation into his alleged drug
taking. You can find an article here http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/lance-armstrong-wont-fight-usada-charges-35040/
This is not on the grounds that he is
guilty but on the grounds that he feels that USADA doesn’t have jurisdiction
over his case and that the UCI does. This
means that a lot of people have come out and said he is obviously guilty. Recently I have been probably 70/30 in favour of
feeling he is guilty but I keep having swings from one side to the other. I have a lot of thoughts and questions, which I
would like to be answered but I am not sure if they ever will be.
My first point is that Armstrong post cycling has continued
to be engaged in top level sport through his participation in triathlons and
ironmen. His performance has been at a
constantly excellent level which indicates to me that either he is still
doping, which is unlikely or that he has always been an exceptional athlete. My second point is that if we look to his
build before his brush with cancer you can see it was totally different to his
post cancer build. Armstrong even says
that the cancer treatment meant he could reconstruct his body to be a better all
round cyclist. Call me naïve but being
from a Sports Science background I can understand this and so will most
cyclists be able to. Climbing a hill is
mostly about body composition and engine then anything else. Also the way that Armstrong’s teams rode was
similar to the way Sky’s team ride all out for GC at a pace that other teams
cannot live with to deliver their man to the best possible position.
If we assume that Armstrong is guilty does that not mean
that pre 2005 most cyclists where doping? I say this as Armstrong never failed a drug
test so this implies a cover up by whomever his team, the UCI, who knows or
that Armstrong was clean and won his titles legitimately. The repercussions for the first implication don’t
bare thinking about. I would have to say
that anyone who won a Grand Tour pre 2005 must have doping and therefore the
heritage of cycling is blatantly flawed. There must have been exceptions to this rule
as I refuse to believe that everyone doped but that’s what they must have been
exceptions rather then the rule. This
means up until a few years ago cycling was a sport dominated by dopers. Not a great history to have.
Saying this I firmly believe that cycling nowadays is mostly
clean. There are still people being
caught for indiscretions but most cyclists must know that they cannot dope and
get away with it. If you look at the
amount of scientific knowledge and hard training teams are putting in then the
level of performance is going to be very high like other elite sports.
