LANCE’S
ADMISSION – WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
I didn’t watch much of Oprah’s interview with
Lance Armstrong this week. He finally
admitted what all of us already knew. So
what?
What does it mean when the man who won the
toughest sporting event in the world seven times in a row admits he couldn’t
have done it without doping?
Why did he admit it? Why now?
Is he remorseful? Or is he trying
to limit the damage from the many pending lawsuits filed against him? Does he want to kindle interest in a book and
a movie about his life as a way of getting out of the financial hole he’s dug for
himself?
I think the answers can be found in the
questions. You just have to look at the
way celebrities conduct themselves these days to understand where this is
going.
I started cycling about thirty years ago, by
myself, and to keep in shape for cross-country skiing. Over the years, it’s become my favourite form
of exercise and a wonderful pastime. In
a good year I pedal 5,000 kilometres, and I plan to stay in the saddle for as
long as I can stay up on two wheels.
Since 2004, I’ve spent many pleasant hours cycling
along Island roads with my buddies, the Over
the Hill Gang. We’ve gone from North
Cape to East Point together, around the Cabot Trail, and on century (100-mile)
rides all over the Maritimes, in Maine, and in Québec.
In 2006, Russ Melanson, Gerry Ridgeway, Richard Birt, Ira Birt and I travelled to France to climb Mont Ventoux,
a 1,600-metre high monster that’s been included in the Tour fourteen times. It
features an average gradient of almost 8% over 22 kilometres and is a brutal test; not for the faint of
heart (or lung!).
We took a couple of breaks on the way up, one in front of the Tom Simpson memorial, just short of the summit. Simpson died of a heart attack on Ventoux in the 1967 Tour de France. The autopsy showed he had alcohol and
amphetamine in his system.
Elva and I visited France in the summer of
2005. Quite by accident, we happened to
be staying in a small town in the Pyrénées called Saint-Lary the very day the Tour de France cyclists rode up the Pla d’Adet, a climb that reminds me of
North Mountain on the Cabot Trail. We saw Lance ride by right in front of us, wearing the leader's yellow jersey
That year’s tour, the last of Armstrong’s seven
wins, took place over a twenty-three day period, with two rest days. The riders covered almost 3,600 kilometers in
that time, an average of 171 kilometres per day, at an average speed of over 41
kilometers per hour. These guys are
machines, whether doped up or not! We’ve
since learned that all three men who stood on the podium in 2005, Armstrong,
Ivan Basso and Jan Ulrich, were doping.
The organization that runs cycling, the Union cycliste internationale has
declared that no one won the seven Tours from
1999 to 2005. Of the 180 riders who
raced each of those years, so many were doping that it would be impossible to
find even three who were clean!
The only one who seemed to be above the rest was
Lance; until now. What happened? The simple answer is: like all the rest he
got caught! That he managed to escape
for so long is simply a reflection of his vast resources and the network that
protected him.
Why did he do it?
Lance’s team, the US Postal
Service, decided they would do whatever it took to win the Tour.
And they did, seven times.
Armstrong was the leader of the eight-rider team and every other rider
and team support member catered to him; including the doctor. It’s suspected that all of his teammates who
rode in the Tour were doping. It was expected of them.
So, if everybody was doping, why did Lance win
seven times in a row? We don’t really
know the answer to this question. It may
be that Lance, doped or not, was the best of the lot. Or, as many now suspect, he may have been
on something better than the others, provided to him by the best team doctor in
the business.
I’ll never forget where I was when Ben Johnson beat
the snot out of Carl Lewis in Seoul, South Korea, in the 1988 Summer Olympics. He shattered the world record for the 100 metres in 9.79
seconds! It was one of my proudest moments
as a Canadian. And I’ll never forget where I
was when I learned he was on the steroid Winstrol. No wonder he ran like
a racehorse!
Poor Ben was disgraced; but only because he got
caught. His doctor wasn’t as good at
hiding the doping as other runners’ were.
It is a fact that only one of the top five runners in that race never
tested positive for a banned substance.
Maybe, just maybe, they were all doping in that race. Maybe, in a distorted way, our Ben won fair
and square.
Contrast these so-called athletes with, in my opinion,
the greatest athlete Canada ever produced, Terry Fox. He ran from St. John’s to west of Thunder Bay
on one leg, covering a distance averaging almost a marathon a day, in all kinds
of weather, and in great pain. He ran
5,373 kilometres in 143 days and stopped only when he could go no further.
Contrast the Terry Fox Foundation with Livestrong. Which are you prouder of? The answer for me is quite clear.
Unfortunately, we'll never know whether Lance
Armstrong was the best professional cyclist of his era. Not even he knows the answer to that
question. From what I know of the man,
that must be the toughest question he faces.
Is he sorry because he cheated, or is he sorry because
he got caught? Time and Lance’s actions
will provide us with a better answer. I’m
willing to give the man a chance at redemption.
Everybody deserves that.