Right: in 2007, Olympic Games champion runner Marion Jones admitted to taking banned performance-enhancing drugs. She managed to win five medals, three golds and two bronzes, all of which she had to return. She also served six months in jail for lying to an American grand jury. '
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
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.