Lance Armstrong

There are relatively few people in the world as famous as Lance Armstrong. There are definitely a very small number of sportsmen as famous as he. However, there are an even smaller number of people who divide opinion quite as much as he does. Considering he is not a politician, a fascist dictator, or a multiple murderer, Lance Armstrong truly has the ability to engender very strong emotions in both his fans and detractors alike.

Most people, cycling fans or not (unless you have been living in a self-contained bubble for the last ten years) will know the story of Lance Armstrong. In 1997 he was a professional cyclist and a good one at that. He had already won the much coveted cycling World Championships and a prestigious one-day classic. He had also won stages of the Tour de France. Then, seemingly at the height of his powers, he was struck down by testicular cancer. The cancer was incredibly severe and had spread to many areas of his body. He had secondary cancer of the lungs and brain. He then underwent several surgeries (including brain surgery) and an intensive chemotherapy program. He survived and then went on to win the world's biggest cycle race, The Tour de France, in 1999. He even went on to win an unprecedented seven Tours in a row from 1999 to 2005 (the previous best was five victories). To underline his commitment to cancer, he founded The Lance Armstrong Foundation, which helps in research and treatment of cancer. Among other things he pioneered the yellow LIVESTRONG wristbands that are now seen on arms throughout the world.

So, all good then you might think? Nothing controversial there at all. Well, the story runs a bit deeper than this brief outline might show and this is what makes Lance such a complex character. I will try and outline this in as unprejudiced way as I can...

Several people believe that Lance Armstrong achieved his successes in the Tour de France by using performance enhancing techniques. By this I basically mean various practices of doping (drug cheating). The theories run from misuse of drugs such as Testosterone and Erythropotein (EPO) to autologous and homogeneous blood doping (re-infusing your own or someone/ something elses blood). These are all well known practices in the world of endurance sport and they all have a significantly beneficial effect on performance (for example, if I took a regular course of EPO prior to doing the Etape, I could expect to be at least 30 mins faster over the relatively short course).

Lance would tell you that he has never failed a drugs test (strictly not true, he failed a drug control at the 1999 Tour for testosterone misuse but, seemingly out of nowhere, he conjured a doctors certificate saying he was using a steroid cream for a saddle sore. He had earlier stated that he had no such exemptions) and that he is the most tested athlete in the world (also not true but he does submit to a lot of drug testing all the same).

On the other hand there is some fairly compelling evidence for the prosecution. Several of his former team mates and staff have stated that Lance used drugs. It has even been claimed by some that he was using these items before he was diagnosed with cancer and that this was part on the cause of the disease (google Betsy Andreu). David Walsh (the respected Sunday Times journalist) has almost made it his lifes work to uncover the myths of Armstrong and his books LA Confidentiel and From Lance to Landis do a pretty good job, without uncovering the "smoking gun" as it is called.

For me the most damning statistics are purely sporting. Prior to his cancer treatment, Lance was a very good cyclist (as I have said a former World Champion and stage winner in the Tour de France). However, he was a certain type of cyclist. He was a one day racer. He was relatively big, strong on the flat roads, with a punchy turn of speed for short climbs or sprints. He was definitely not a mountain climber and definitely not a Tour de France contender (he had competed in the race many times, occasionally winning stages, but always finishing many minutes or hours down on the overall winner). To suddenly turn into a Tour winner post-treatment is stretching the imagination to say the least (Lance and his team always put forward a theory that he had lost weight as a result of the cancer and that this change in body shape was the reason for his new skill in longer races. In actual fact, studies done on Armstrong as a youngster and later in his career show no real difference in body weight).

The second "fact" comes from that first Tour de France victory in 1999. In this race Lance didn't just win, he completely annihilated the field. He won by a margin of 7 minutes, 37 seconds. Now it is not unheard of for a rider to win by this amount but what makes it such a damning statistic here is the riders he was competing against. The late nineties are generally regarded as a time that was rife with doping throughout cycling. In particular, the abuse of EPO to boost the amount of red blood cells in the blood, thus allowing the rider to ride faster, for longer. Of the other riders in the top ten of the 1999 Tour de France, up to more than half of them have either been convicted or suspected of doping, depending on what you read or who you believe. Some of them have been banned from the sport. (see here: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Tour_de_France_19992008_article_267949.html for an idea, although they are pretty lenient on the 99 riders, especially those from Spanish teams, I think.)

So, taking all of this into account, there is certainly food for thought as far as Lance and doping is concerned. Some would argue that "so what" and his legacy to cancer sufferers transcends any cheating in sport. Others would say that this irreparably tarnishes his legacy. You make up your own mind, I guess.

I wanted to finish this post with a list of true facts about Lance. However, this is not as easy as it might seem. Try his name for example (pretty easy that one you might think) he was actually born Lance Edward Gunderson and changed his surname to that of his (now estranged) stepfather. If you search on the internet for his height, or weight, or racing program, or sexual orientation even it would appear that you get as many different answers as searches. So what I have decided to finish with is a list of my facts about Lance. Here they are...

• Lance Armstrong inspired me during my recovery from cancer (for this I will always be grateful). His book "It's not about the Bike" is a true inspiration for many (btw his second one is naval gazing crap).


• Lance Armstrong got me back into bikes and bike riding (again, very grateful. I wouldn't be the cycling geek I am now, were it not for him).


• Lance Armstrong amazed me with his early Tour wins. I revelled in his beating of Ullrich (especially "the look" on Alpe D'Huez) and his total domination.


• Lance Armstrong lost a lot of his appeal once I started to scratch beneath the surface and became more aware of the world of professional cycling.


• Lance Armstrong is a superb manipulator of the media but is also a bully and I suspect, an arse in real life.

So, Lance Armstrong will always have a place for me (as he will for many millions) but it is not quite the place that it could have been...

Take care and happy riding,

Col.