Below are various links regarding l'Equipe's accusation that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour de France. Timewise, the links roughly start from the bottom up if you want to follow them through.
What can we say about this? We basically know five things:
1. The Tour (and other sports) has a history of doping. This can't be denied. Some have called it a "culture" of doping. The Tour is probably the most grueling sports event in the world. It requires such fine-tuning of the human body, 21 days of terrible strain on that body, and the mental stamina even to finish the race in last place. Given this, the Tour has moments of mind-body altering throughout its history that run from heroin use, caffeine and alcohol combinations, various steroids, cigarettes, and so on. As a result, in today's climate of steroid use in nearly all sports and attempts to weed this usage out of sports, and given a few recent cases of doping in the Tour (the Festina Affair, etc.), serious suspicion falls on any rider involved in the Tour. This is a given.
I had the good fortune to ride in the lead car into Paris on the final day of the 2002 Tour. Talking with Tour organizers, journalists, and others of various nationalities, there appeared to be broad consensus that doping was still widespread in the Tour and that the US Postal team was clearly one of the offenders. This suspicion doesn't function as proof. But it does serve to create a particular climate in which allegations of doping are likely to meet with broad acceptance rather than immediate scepticism.
Further, although it changed over the years, many French were not terribly pleased with Armstrong's success on the Tour. There are several reasons for this that we can go into another time. The preferred American version -- that is, French anti-Americanism -- is only part of it, and probably not the biggest part. Or it probably even disappears once one pays attention to the race itself, since part of the displeasure with Armstrong has reasons generated from notions of what cycling and the Tour are, what it means to be a great rider, etc.
2. L'Equipe says it has evidence showing that Armstrong used EPO in at least the 1999 Tour. The laboratory that carried out tests on frozen urine from 1999 Tour riders was running the tests in order to refine methods of EPO testing, and not to test individual riders. The lab says that they don't even have identification for which rider each sample belongs to. L'Equipe, however, says they have been able somehow to match names with the anonymous numbers on the samples the lab has been using. Representatives of the lab say they're not sure how l'Equipe could have this information. Leblanc, the Tour director, says he has seen l'Equipe's evidence and finds it to be quite strong.
Further, during the past several Tours, the French paper Le Monde has investigated and made doping accusations against Armstrong and US Postal / Discovery. From my own view, the evidence usually seemed rather circumstantial.
3. Armstrong, Bruyneel, US Postal/Discovery have vehemently denied the charges, and Armstrong is threatening to sue. A few present and former riders, including Miguel Indurain, Eddy Merckx, Jan Ullrich, and others have said they do not think Armstrong is guilty. A few others have bought into the accusations.
4. The laboratory work itself may be illegal. And at least one lab worker elsewhere (see link below) wonders whether it is technologically possible to do accurate EPO tests on 6-year-old frozen urine samples.
5. We don't yet have information on what ties the urine sample at the lab to Armstrong. The lab says it doesn't have this information. The lab is perplexed. L'Equipe says they do.
So, what can we say besides the above points? Not much. L'Equipe has to furnish the public with irrefutable evidence of the sample in question being Armstrong's. That appears to be very difficult. So what's their evidence? Good question. Are they trying to sell more papers? Suffering a bizarre version of anti-Americanism? Are they right?
If L'Equipe is wrong, it actually risks quite a lot. It is considered the most important sports journal in France and one of the better ones in Europe. If its accusations are false, it risks losing much of its prestige. Armstrong dismissed them as trying to sell more papers with a sensational story. This may be enough for Armstrong fans, but it doesn't make a lot of sense from a business point of view.
If l'Equipe is right, but cannot provide firm enough evidence to convince everyone, it may all be a wash or it may still bode ill for the paper. A lawsuit would be nasty, and l'Equipe's prestige would still be damaged. The American press would generalize and raise more anti-France hackles.
If l'Equipe is right and can provide evidence, what do we do? Armstrong is the hero, one of the biggest sports stars of the past century, and an important icon for millions of cancer patients. The ignominy would be tremendous, perhaps even more so because of the mythologizing that has grown around Lance. It would be a very long way to fall. The kind of people who buy the picture of the Iraq War going well might still believe the myth of Lance, but he would be done as the huge global sports figure and money-maker he is today.
What about us? I don't know. I'd rather wait to see how this plays out. There is, of course, the larger question of steroids in sports, and some might say that athletes ought to be able to take whatever they want -- their bodies will face the consequences. But that question doesn't matter here in one very important way -- not everyone dopes.
Police Staked Out Discovery Hotel
Armstrong Considers Legal Action
Legality of EPO Tests Questioned
Leblanc: It's a Blow for the Tour
Reaction to L'Equipe's Claims
Opinion Split Over Armstrong Accusations
Armstrong Defends Record on Larry King
Top Lab Official Wonders if Delayed Testing Is Possible
L'Equipe Alleges Armstrong Samples Show EPO Use in 99 Tour
Armstrong dans la Tourmente
No comments:
Post a Comment