X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

Is Lance Armstrong a Cheat?

21 May 2010

1:02 AM

21 May 2010

1:02 AM

This is a question of faith and those who believe won’t let anything change their mind, while those who can’t believe in the Miracle of Lance won’t be satisfied until the poor man does something impossible and proves a negative.

I’m divided: I think the believers deluded and the sceptics dangerously monomaniacal but I also have much more sympathy for the latter than the former and not just because I think Lance Armstrong a creep. Nevertheless…

He cannot ever demonstrate that he has never doped – but that doesn’t mean one has to believe everything Armstrong says. 

As readers who are cycling fans and who possess long memories may recall, I am an Armstrong sceptic. We are asked to believe that because Landis lied when he said he didn’t take performance-enhancing drugs he must now also be lying when he says he did and that everything he says about his then team-mates must be coloured by his previous fabrications. That neither follows nor makes sense.

But according to Armstrong and his coterie Floyd Landis is, like everyone else who has made allegations against Jesus-on-a-bike, "bitter". Granted, it is hard for Armstrong to disprove these allegations but it is nonetheless interesting that when they are made he chooses to concentrate upon discrediting the character or reliability of the person making the suggestion rather than confront the substance of the allegation itself.

[Alt-Text]


And if the allegations are to be believed – and in cycling smoke tends to be produced by fire – doping was widespread in the US Postal team but, if we are to believe Armstrong, he knew nothing of any of this far less aided and abetted in other riders’ doping or doped himself. If Landis and, previously, Frankie Andreu doped while with the Posties (and perhaps Tyler Hamilton too) then we are asked to believe that thier master – for cycling is a feudal enterprise – knew nothing about it? Please.

These men were working for Lance Armstrong, sharing a bus, an hotel and doctors with him and it is scarcely conceivable that they could be, if they were, doping without his knowledge. And if the rest of the team was doping then it wouldn’t be super-strange if the team leader wasn’t too. All this, obviously, is conjecture and I don’t mean to allege that Armstrong took anything illegal.

Nevertheles such suspicions would be easier to avoid if Armtsrong didn’t have a relationship with the Italian doctor Michele Ferrari. True nothing has been proved and I do not suggest anything to the contrary, but again it is a little odd that a physician who supplied illegal drugs to so many other riders didn’t offer or give or sell them to his highest-profile client – a client who stuck with him through the doctor’s own disgrace. And of course Armstrong did fail a drugs test in 1999 – aka The Year of the Heartwarming Miracle – only for that, perhaps, no presumably or at least quite properly, to be rescinded.

Even so, my argument has less to do with Armstrong than with his more myopic fans for whom he is the greatest cyclist ever. Full stop. To say that this is balderdash is not to say that Armstrong is not a great cyclist, merely to protest at his elevation above so many others and to object to a view of cycling that thinks there is only one truly important race a year. There is more to cycling than the Tour de France but it is a great shame that there is not more to Lance Armstrong than the Tour de France.

Oh, and just to be clear, I have no problem with Armstrong being an American – hell he has a good Borders name – since if that were some kind of disqualification then I’d never have been the big Greg Lemond fan I once was. But Lance Armstrong is like a tennis player who wins Wimbledon seven times but only once even attempted to win the French Open at Roland Garros and, unsurprisingly, never did win that bauble. You wouldn’t call such a chap the greatest tennis player ever would you?

And I’m not upset by cylists taking drugs either. Given what we demand of them I’d be amazed they don’t. That’s the nature of the sport.The problem is with those who lie and, sure, there’s little concrete evidence that Lance Armstrong is one of those liers but there’s an increasing quantity of circumstantial evidence….

But of course Lance is about more than cycling now and low-information fans are always appalled at the cynicism shown by, well, the likes of me. So be it. Armstrong is a great cyclist regardless of his training techniques and injection history. A great story, for sure, but that doesn’t mean one has to purchase shares in every element of it…

And to answer the headline question: no, I don;t think taking drugs amounts to cheating.Cycling is different to most sports and the aim of drug-taking is different too.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close