2013/03: Should Lance Armstrong be allowed to return to international competition?
What they said...
'It was Armstrong, the evil American, who single-handedly thwarted the pure motives and saintly innocence of a pristine world, forever tarnishing the European love of competitive cycling.
Please. What puerile and unmitigated rubbish. Lance is no more than a scapegoat'
'six_o'clock', a commentator published in The Roar
'The evidence is...clear that Armstrong had ultimate control over ... the doping culture of his team'
United States Anti-doping Agency report of October 10, 2012
The issue at a glance
On January 17 and January 18, 2013, two interviews with Lance Armstrong were telecast around the world. Armstrong is a seven-time winner of cycling's most prestigious international competition, the Tour de France. Last year, he had his titles stripped from him for taking prohibited substances.
The interviews were conducted by Oprah Winfrey, the American media proprietor and talk show host.
In the second interview to be telecast, Armstrong indicated that he would like to compete again, if not in international cycling, then in triathlons. He did not claim that his lifetime suspension from all competitions was 'unfair'; however, he did note that it was 'different' to the penalties imposed on others. He expressed his regret at being given a 'life sentence'.
Armstrong's critics have argued that he has simply used the interviews as a platform from which to attempt to return to some form of sporting competition and that his misdeeds are so great that he should never be given such an opportunity.
Others have suggested that the penalty inflicted on Armstrong is excessive and that at least as much fault lies with cycling's regulatory bodies as with Armstrong.
Background
(The following information is an abbreviated version of the Wikipedia entry titled 'Lance Armstrong'.
The full text of the entry can be accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong)
Armstrong began competing at 16 as a triathlete and was a national sprint-course triathlon champion in 1989 and 1990. In 1992, Armstrong began his career as a professional cyclist with the Motorola team. He had notable success between 1993 and 1996, including the 1993 World Championship, Cl sica de San Sebasti n in 1995, an overall victory in the penultimate Tour DuPont and a handful of stage victories in Europe, including the stage to Limoges in the Tour de France.
In October 1996, Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer that had spread to his brain and lungs. His cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy.
In February 1997, Armstrong was declared cancer-free and the same year he founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation. By January 1998, he had renewed serious cycling training, having signed a new racing contract with US Postal. He was a member of the US Postal/Discovery team between 1998 and 2005. Armstrong won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times between 1999 and 2005.
On July 24 2005, Armstrong retired from racing at the end of the 2005 Tour de France, but returned to competitive cycling with the Astana team in January 2009 and finished third in the 2009 Tour de France. Between 2010 and 2011, he raced with the UCI ProTeam he helped found, Team Radio Shack.
On February 16 2011, Armstrong announced his retirement from competitive cycling, while facing a US federal investigation into doping allegations. In February 2012, he returned to triathlon, competing as a professional in several events.
In June 2012, United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged Armstrong with having used illicit performance-enhancing drugs, and on August 24 2012 it announced a lifetime ban from competition, applicable to all sports which follow the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code, as well as the stripping of all titles won since August 1998.
The USADA report concluded that Armstrong enforced 'the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen'. On October 22, 2012, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the sport's governing body, announced its decision to accept USADA's findings.
Armstrong chose not to appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and in January 2013 Armstrong admitted doping in a television interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey, despite having made multiple denials throughout his career and having successfully sued a number of individuals who had made accusations against him.
Internet information
On September 17, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece by Kate Henne, a research fellow at the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University.
The piece is titled 'Punishing doping athletes isn't a long-term solution' and explains that a variety of other preventive initiatives from improved regulation to better education of athletes are more likely to be effective in reducing the use of performance-enhancing substances.
The full text cab be accessed at http://theconversation.edu.au/punishing-doping-athletes-isnt-a-long-term-solution-9387
On October 10, 2012, the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA) released its report into U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team. The report found a concerted program of doping within the team and particular condemned Lance Armstrong for his refusal to confess to his drug-taking.
The full text of the report can be found at http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
On October 11, 2012, the Canadian newspaper, The Globe, published an editorial titled 'Lance Armstrong was the champion of a sick sport'. The editorial argues that Armstrong was no more than symptomatic of a sport in which substance abuse was endemic.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/lance-armstrong-was-the-champion-of-a-sick-sport/article4607499/
On October 12, 2012, Time Magazine published an opinion piece by John Eustace, a two-time U.S. professional cycling champion and television analyst. The piece is titled 'Lance Armstrong Had Little Choice but to Dope'. The piece argues that the wide-spread use of performance-enhancing substances was not attributable to Armstrong. The full text of this article can be found at http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-had-little-choice-but-to-dope/
On October 19, 2012, BBC Sport carried a report on major sponsors withdrawing from cycling because they believed the standing of the sport had been damaged by the Armstrong scandal.
The full text of this report can be accessed at http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/20001685
On October 20, 2012, The New York Daily News published a report detailing the 'relief' felt by those who had been directly intimidated or persecuted by Lance Armstrong in the wake of the release of the UDADA report.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512
On October 28, 2012, the Australian sports magazine, The Roar, published an opinion piece titled 'Armstrong's punishment has changed nothing for cycling'.
The piece argues that Armstrong has been used as a scapegoat and that further actions need to be taken to reduce the problem of performance-enhancing drugs within cycling.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/10/28/armstrongs-punishment-has-changed-nothing-for-cycling/
On October 29, 2012, The Age Education Resource Centre published material background the USADA report on Lance Armstrong. The full text can be accessed at http://education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=135&intversion=405
On January 18, 2013, the BBC published an edited transcript of the first of Lance Armstrong's two interviews with United States compere Oprah Winfrey. In this interview Armstrong admitted to using performance-enhancing substances in all of his winning Tour de France rides.
The text of this edited transcript can be accessed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21065539
On January 19, 2013, the BBC published an edited transcript of the second and final of Lance Armstrong's two interviews with United States compere Oprah Winfrey. In this interview Armstrong indicates that he believes his life ban from certified competition to be excessive and that he would like to compete again, especially in triathlons.
The text of this edited transcript can be accessed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21087586
On January 19, 2013, The British newspaper, The Telegraph, published the results of a poll it had conducted in response to the question: should Lance Armstrong be allowed to compete in elite sport again?
7,281 respondents took part, with 28% voting 'Yes' and 72% voting 'No'. The full text of this article can be accessed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9813078/Poll-should-Lance-Armstrong-be-allowed-to-compete-in-elite-sport-again.html
On January 21, 2013, the celebrity magazine Perez Hilton published an article titled 'Lance Armstrong: Charity Work the Key to Forgiveness?' The article contains the view of public relations adviser, Michael Bilello, that Lance Armstrong's charity work may result in his partial rehabilitation within the sporting community.
The full text of this article can be found at http://perezhilton.com/fitperez/2013-01-21-lance-armstrong-oprah-confession-doping-sport-cycling-charity-work-forgiveness/?feat=yes#.URcOmGdYn-k
On January 21, 2013, Triathlete Europe published an opinion piece arguing that Lance Armstrong's confession to Oprah Winfrey should not be sufficient to give him access to the upper levels of the sport.
The full text of this article can be found at http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2013/01/21/comment-lance-wants-to-race-oprah-was-not-enough
Arguments in favour of Lance Armstrong being allowed to return to international competition
1. Armstrong's punishment is greater than that given to other cyclists who were found to have used performance-enhancing substances
It has been claimed that Lance Armstrong has been punished far more than other cyclist who also took banned performance-enhancing substances.
In the second of his interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong noted that some cyclists who had admitted to doping and provided evidence against others had received far lesser penalties. He stated, 'When you see the punishment - I would go back and say you are trading my story for a six-month ban so I got a death penalty - meaning I can't compete. I'm not saying that is unfair but it is different.'
Armstrong is implying that where he received an extremely high penalty, others received short-term bans for the same offences.
Among the cyclists who received six-month suspensions as part of a plea bargain are Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, David Zabriskie, Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and Michael Barry. Some of these men pleaded guilty to using the same substances in some of the same events as Armstrong has now admitted to.
In a USADA report released in October, 2012, evidence from a former teammate of Armstrong's has him stating in 1995, after a poor team performance in the Italian classic Milan-San Remo, 'People are using stuff [and] we are getting killed.'
USADA has reported that all but one of the 21 top-three finishers from 1999 to 2005 were tainted by doping, as were all but nine of 45 podium finishers between 1996 and 2010 were tainted.
In his first interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong explained that what he was trying to achieve through doping was a chance to compete equally within a sport where so many others were taking prohibited substances.
Armstrong stated, 'I went and looked up the definition of cheat...And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field.' His concern is now that he only did what others were doing, yet his punishment is so much greater than theirs.
2. Punishing Armstrong only deflects attention from USADA's, WADA's and tournament organisers' shortcomings
It has been claimed that focusing on the punishment of an extremely high-profile athlete believed to be a drug cheat is a way of deflecting attention from a faulted regulatory process which allows doping to occur among athletes.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on September 17, 2012, Kate Henne, a research fellow at the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University, stated, 'Having studied the anti-doping regime since 2007, I can attest that nearly every anti-doping official I have met has said that "catching" Armstrong would be the anti-doping movement's crowning achievement.'
Henne argues that such a focus is misplaced as what is at issue is the regulatory bodies' failure to act preventatively - effectively monitoring to reduce athletes' opportunities to take drugs.
Henne notes, 'The case against Armstrong points to regulatory shortcomings.'
A similar claim has been made by 'six_o'clock', a commentator published in The Roar. This commentator has stated, 'Now we have someone upon whom to pin all of the blame. It was Armstrong, the evil American, who single-handedly thwarted the pure motives and saintly innocence of a pristine world, forever tarnishing the European love of competitive cycling.
Please. What puerile and unmitigated rubbish. Lance is no more than a scapegoat.'
'Six_o'clock' goes on to argue that the win-at-all cost atmosphere created within the sport is the real culprit. He writes, 'History should place the blame on tournament organisers, whose blinkered determination to run successful international events created the environment for illegal practices.
The principles of any company, club, team or organisation set the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Despite what is written on the notice boards, it is those in charge who establish the norms.'
3. Banning athletes is not the way to eradicate the use of performance enhancing substances
There are those who argue that focusing on punishing athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs is not going to remove the practice from sport.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on September 17, 2012, Kate Henne, a research fellow at the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University, asked, 'But now the dust has settled, what can the Armstrong case tell us about anti-doping regulation in cycling and in sport more generally? Is there too much focus on punishment for "dopers" and too little focus on prevention? And perhaps more importantly, what are the effects of prioritising punishment?'
Henne and others have argued that the more severe the punishment, the more athletes will seek to hide their drug use rather than stop it.
So many of the techniques used in cycling and other sports to boost a competitor's performance are very difficult to detect. Blood doping, for example, increases the competitor's circulating volume and thus his or her body's capacity to oxygenate fatigued muscles. The procedure carries the risk of blood clots and puts a massive strain on the heart, yet is virtually undetectable. Nor is this the only procedure used by athletes that is extremely hard to detect. Human growth hormone is another performance-enhancing substance with adverse side-effects which is not currently screened for effectively. The most frequently used prohibited substances and methods employed by the U.S. Postal Service and Discovery Channel cycling teams were blood doping, EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone and cortisone. During the period from 1998 through 2005 there was no available testing methodology to detect either blood doping or human growth hormone.
Thus, critics argue, what is required is a change in the sporting culture, rather than increases in punishment. Without guaranteed detection, increased punishment only drives dangerous and illicit practices further underground and challenges those who produce and promote such substances to make them even more undetectable.
4. Armstrong was not responsible for the drug-taking of other cyclists
It has been claimed that Armstrong's extreme punishment is appropriate because he not only took performance-enhancing substances himself, but he pressured others to do likewise.
A number of cycling commentators have disputed that it is appropriate to attribute to Armstrong such a level of responsibility for the behaviour of other cyclists.
In an opinion piece published in Time Magazine on October 12, 2012, John Eustace, a two-time U.S. professional cycling champion and television analyst, states, 'For the racers to conveniently blame Lance, now turned to a Saddam Hussein-like figure, for leading them all down the path of moral destruction is nonsense.'
Eustace went on to explain that he found such off-loading of responsibility unconvincing. Each rider, Eustace claims, was not only responsible for his own conduct, but also had a great deal of monetary incentive to dope. John Eustace argues, 'Every rider knew the score, made tons of money with him [Armstrong] and had the thrill of being on the most powerful racing team in history. They could have simply packed their bags and gone home, as plenty have done in the past.'
Eustace further argues that the confessions of Armstrong's former teammates seem a carefully orchestrated public relations performance designed to reduce their own culpability and that of the sport within which they compete. Eustace states, 'Their obviously scripted remorse, combined with the off-season timing of their reduced suspensions, only adds to the feeling of a p.r. spectacle.'
5. Armstrong has done a great deal to assist cancer sufferers and survivors
Those who consider that Lance Armstrong's penalty is excessive point to the positive contribution he made toward improving the lives of other cancer sufferers and survivors.
In an editorial published in The Globe on October 11, 2012, it was stated, 'Mr Armstrong, who survived testicular cancer, has done the world of cancer fundraising a great deal of good; as recently as August he was a standard-bearer at an international cancer congress in Montreal.'
Lance Armstrong founded the Livestrong Foundation, formerly known as the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a United States non-profit organisation that provides support for people who have suffered or are suffering with cancer.
In October, 2012, Lance Armstrong helped Livestrong raise $2.5 million to support the organisation's free services for people affected by cancer. The organisation staged a fund-raising gala attended by 1,500 guests at the Austin Convention Center.
Lance Armstrong was joined on-stage by Livestrong's President and CEO Doug Ulman and employees of the foundation, many of whom are also cancer survivors.
In addition to funds raised at the event, between October 17 and 19, Livestrong received nearly $240,000 in online donations.
On January 21, 2013, crisis expert Michael Bilello, President and CEO at Centurion Strategies, a public relations and marketing agency that handles high-profile athletes, stated, 'The only reason that people will forgive him [Armstrong] after even all this is that even though he "cheated the game" when you think of the things that went parallel with his career like the Livestrong Foundation, I would say that people would forgive and let him ride off into the sunset.'
Arguments against Lance Armstrong being allowed to return to international competition
1. Lance Armstrong has persistently refused to give the USADA information about the doping network of which he was a key member
It has been claimed that unlike other cyclists who received lesser penalties for similar offences, Lance Armstrong repeatedly refused confess to his drug use and when he finally did so, did not give evidence before a formal anti-drug agency.
In the report it released on October 10, 2012, USADA stated, 'The riders who participated in the United States Postal Service (USPS) Team doping conspiracy and truthfully assisted have been courageous in making the choice to stop perpetuating the sporting fraud, and they have suffered greatly.'
The USADA report further indicates, 'Lance Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution. He rejected it.'
Critics have argued that Armstrong's confession to Oprah Winfrey makes no difference to his penalty as it was not made to an official agency and did not include information about others involved in doping.
The head of the United Kingdom's anti-doping agency, Andy Parkinson, has stated, 'Mr Armstrong has said he took drugs. The next stage is talking to the agency that banned him for life, USADA, and telling them, in full, everything he did, and about everyone who helped him.'
Explaining the leniency offered to those who have confessed to authorities, Mr Parkinson stated, 'The process of enabling athletes and cyclists to come forward and tell the truth should be encouraged. We've been saying for years that we need to hear more from riders.'
It has also been claimed that in addition to refusing to admit his own offences, Armstrong acted against anyone making accusations against him.
On October 20, 2012, The New York Daily News published an opinion piece which claimed, 'The Armstrong myth was so lucrative that suppressing the truth came to require an endless behind-the-scenes campaign to bully and intimidate people into silence. Some of it bordered on gangsterism. Some of it was dressed up in the respectable wardrobe of elite law firms.'
2. Lance Armstrong pressured other members of his team to take performance enhancing drugs
In the report it released on October 10, 2012, USADA stated, 'The United States Postal Service Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices.
A program was organized by individuals who thought they were above the rules and who still play a major and active role in sport today.'
The report stated, 'The evidence is...clear that Armstrong had ultimate control over ... the doping culture of his team. Final responsibility for decisions to hire and retain a director, doctors and other staff committed to running a team-wide doping program ultimately flowed to him.'
The USADA report further notes, 'On paper, Armstrong's team contract provided him with "extensive input into rider and staff composition." In practice, however, as a team owner and by virtue of the power his rapidly accumulating titles conferred, his effective control was even greater... His goal led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own.'
The report summarised, 'The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his teammates. He did not merely go alone to Dr Michele Ferrari for doping advice; he expected that others would follow. It was not enough that his teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced.'
The USADA report concluded that Armstrong's greater punishment was deserved due to 'aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participation in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.'
3. Lance Armstrong helped to bring cycling competition at the highest levels into disrepute
It has been claimed that for so successful and high profile competitor to have been using performance-enhancing substances for years has brought the whole sport into disrepute. His conduct has cast doubt on the achievements of all cyclists, including those who have cycled 'clean'. He has also served to undermine the sport in the eyes of former fans, damaging attendances and potential sponsorships.
Betsy Andreu, the wife of another of Armstrong's former colleagues, has stated, 'So many people in the saga have been hurt. He hurt the sport of cycling. He caused it irreparable damage - I don't think he really understands the emotional toll, the mental toll, the financial toll. But he has to pay the price, some way, somehow.'
In an article published in The Roar on September 22, 2012, Phil Anderson wrote, 'The Lance case is setting a new precedent in that all riders with exceptional results are under suspicion. The cycling public believe that it is only a matter of time as to who is next and the real interest lies in the associations and the method...
The Lance issue is sad for cycling regardless of which side of the fence you sit on. It is sad because he was a great athlete and the ongoing saga has sapped the life blood from a great and passionate sport.'
The damage done to the sport in the eyes of sponsors has been immediately apparent. On October 19, 2013, it was announced that the Dutch bank, Rabobank, was ending its sponsorship of its professional cycling team following the Lance Armstrong doping revelations.
The Dutch bank's decision followed USADA's report which concluded that Armstrong engaged in 'serial cheating'. The bank's spokesperson, Bert Bruggink, stated, 'We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport.' Rabobank ended its sponsorship after a 17 year association with the sport.
The news followed the decisions of sportswear giant Nike, cycle maker Trek and Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch to sever their ties with Armstrong.
4. Lance Armstrong has permanently lost credibility as a sporting competitor
Armstrong's USADA life ban and now his confession to Oprah Winfrey have removed his credibility. It seems highly unlikely that any triathlon competition would forfeit its international accreditation in order to allow Armstrong to compete.
As early as September 27, 2013, a report published in The Wall Street Journal stated, 'No Ironman race would give up its certification to embrace Armstrong, and neither would any other competition that hopes to attract world-champion contenders. Only a few days ago, the Chicago marathon rejected Armstrong's bid to run in its October 7 race.'
Some of those who compete in triathlons are concerned that Armstrong's lack of credibility will bring their sport into disrepute.
Matty Reed, a former American Olympic triathlete, has stated, 'He got a drug ban and I would like to see him honor that and not race.'
Richie Cunningham, who came in third against Armstrong's second place at the Ironman 70.3 Panama race in February, 2012, has acknowledged that he had concerns surrounding some of Armstrong's competition results.
Cunningham stated, 'I think it's great he's raised money for cancer, but if he's cheating, he's cheating. It's disgraceful. If he wants to raise money on his own, fine. But he needs to pack up and go.'
5. No public service Armstrong has performed through his Livestrong and other charity affects his misdeeds as an athlete
His opponents have claimed that none of Lance Armstrong's charity work alters the fact that he persistently cheated. It has further been claimed that his public fall from grace has the capacity to harm the foundation he established.
An editorial published in The Los Angeles Times on October 19, 2012, stated, 'As the evidence that Armstrong's Tour de France victories were marred by illegal performance-enhancing drugs becomes harder to deny, support for the legendary cyclist and his Lance Armstrong Foundation is bound to fade. So it's not enough for Armstrong to step down as chairman... he should sever all ties to the charity, whose reputation is more important than his own.'
This argument was put prior to Armstrong's life-time ban by the USADA and prior to his televised confession to Oprah Winfrey. Critics claim that rather than his work for the Livestrong Foundation having the capacity to salvage Armstrong's reputation, the greater likelihood is that his proven cheating will harm the organisation he founded.
Armstrong's survival after cancer and his setting up of an organisation to support current and former cancer sufferers may have increased his public celebrity; however, in the eyes of many, the high public standing these actions helped him achieve have only given him further to fall once his cheating had been established.
Further implications
It seems unlikely that Lance Armstrong will have his lifetime suspension from all competitions run under the WADA code lifted. For this to occur he would have to testify before either WADA or the USADA and indicate who else was involved in the systemic doping program of which he was a leading part. To this point, Armstrong has consistently refused to take such a step. Even in the interview he gave Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong did not respond to the questions she asked about those who had facilitated his doping.
However, larger questions remain. It appears true that despite Armstrong's success, his celebrity and his apparent capacity to bully others to achieve his ends, it is not reasonable to see him as the only or indeed the primary source of the doping culture that has pervaded international cycling competition. Armstrong is much more likely to have been a symptom than a cause.
The larger questions which remain to be addressed are in part questions of philosophy and definition. If performance-enhancing drugs are to be banned, the primary justification for doing so would seem to be that many have the capacity to cause physical harm to those who use them. Where this is the case, the pressure to win should not be allowed to force athletes to take substances that could injure them as well as help them succeed. The only safeguard against such pressure is to effectively prohibit their use.
Regulatory authorities should therefore ban those substances which can hurt athletes. At the same time, they should allow performance-enhancing substances which do not. This would immediately give the authorities' testing regimes and their prohibitions greater legitimacy as they would be seen to have been put in place to protect athletes. The use of performance-enhancing substances per se should not be regarded as 'cheating', for, as Armstrong noted in his interview with Oprah Winfrey, they are available to all competitors. What should be prevented is competitors being pressured to take dangerous substances. Once this becomes clearly the focus then a major strategy to prevent their use should be education rather than punishment.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
AUST, October 17, 2012, page 11, analysis (photos) by Chip Le Grand, `It was cheat or be cheated'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/it-was-cheat-or-be-cheated/story-e6frg6z6-1226497310054
H/SUN, October 15, 2012, page 26, editorial, `Drugs inject shame into fair play'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/drugs-inject-shame-into-fair-play/story-e6frfhqo-1226495682975
AUST, October 15, 2012, page 13, editorial, `Cycling must take firm action'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/cycling-must-take-firm-action/story-e6frg71x-1226495707543
AGE, October 15, 2012, page 10, editorial, `Sporting cheats are getting caught'. (scroll down to the second editorial)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/mr-premier-you-must-sack-this-disgraced-mp-20121014-27kvf.html
H/SUN, October 24, 2012, page 22, editorial, `Cycling must kick its habit'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/cycling-must-kick-its-habit/story-e6frfhqo-1226501830788
H/SUN, October 24, 2012, page 13, comment (photos) by Beverley O'Connor, `A drugs cheat who should be lost to history'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/lance-armstrong-a-drug-cheat-who-should-be-lost-to-history/story-fncqij35-1226501828896
AGE, October 20, 2012, page 14, analysis (photos) by Jared Lynch, Rupert Guinness, `Wheels turn away from big league'.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/wheels-turn-away-from-big-league-20121019-27wtn.html
AGE, October 27, 2012, page 19, comment / personal experience by Bradley McGee, `Dopers stole the best years of my career'.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html
AUST, January 17, 2013, page 10, comment by Natasha Cica, `Not such a big deal if you've got nothing to lose'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/not-such-a-big-deal-if-youve-got-nothing-to-lose/story-e6frgd0x-1226555390893
AGE, January 17, 2013, page 11, comment (with Spooner cartoon) by Jonathan Horn, `Lance's shades of grey'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/lances-shades-of-grey-20130116-2ctoz.html
AGE, January 16, 2013, page 11, comment by Drew Sharp, `Oprah's couch a cosy spot for Lance PR ploy'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/oprahs-couch-a-cosy-spot-for-lance-pr-ploy-20130115-2crgy.html
H/SUN, January 15, 2013, page 22, comment (ref to Lance Armstrong) by Patrick Carlyon, `Cheat: a tall tale to spin'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/lance-armstrong-has-a-tall-tale-to-spin-in-oprah-winfrey-interview/story-e6frfhqf-1226553881880
AGE, January 24, 2013, page 12, cartoon.
AUST, January 22, 2013, page 6, comment by Kathleen Parker, `Armstrong's not sorry, but suffering'. (paywall)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/lance-armstrongs-not-sorry-but-suffering/story-fnfi3i8f-1226558503972
AGE, January 22, 2013, page 9, comment by Craig Fry, `Naming and shaming won't wipe out cycling's dirty secret'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/naming-and-shaming-wont-wipe-out-cyclings-dirty-secret-20130121-2d31x.html
AGE, January 21, 2013, page 9, comment by Natalie Hickey, `Right or wrong, sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/right-or-wrong-sometimes-its-best-to-let-sleeping-dogs-lie-20130120-2d14j.html
AUST, January 19, 2013, page 19, editorial, `Armstrong's tour de farce'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/armstrongs-tour-de-farce/story-e6frg71x-1226557052057
AUST, January 19, 2013, page 15, analysis (photos) by Chip Le Grand, `A ruthless champion and shameless fraud'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cycling/lance-armstrong-a-ruthless-champion-and-shameless-fraud/story-fn8sc2wz-1226557039358
AGE, January 19, 2013, page 17, comment by Julian Savulescu, `Killing king of doping won't destroy kingdom'.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/killing-king-of-doping-wont-destroy-kingdom-20130118-2cze8.html
H/SUN, January 29, 2013, page 24, comment by Baz Blakeney, `Drug cheats deserve place in hall of infamy'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/drug-cheats-deserve-place-in-hall-of-infamy/story-e6frfhqf-1226563765916