Six Questions About Lance Armstrong

By Tom Kando

I watched both of Oprah’s interviews with Lance Armstrong, mesmerized. The second one was even more gripping than the first. Lance choked, when talking about the burden he has placed on his 13-year old son Luke. Still an act? Still a lying psychopath? You decide.

Despite the incredible amount of coverage and the enormous brouhaha, many things remain obscure. Here are six questions to which I don’t have answers:

1. How did Armstrong pass over 500 drug, urine and blood tests, during his career? With all the cheating and the increasingly stringent and sophisticated testing, how did he get away with it so often? I am sure many other racers got away with cheating as well, but many did not. Why was Lance so exceptionally successful at cheating?


2. In which ways did the authorities approach “the big fish” differently from the way they treated other cheaters? After all, the list of cheaters who were caught is nearly endless: In the modern era, it includes such superior riders as Basso, Contador, Hincapie,  Indurain, Landis, Lemond, Pantani, Rasmussen, the Schleck brothers, Ulrich, Vinokourov, and practically every single American teammate Armstrong ever had (who subsequently ganged up on him and testified against him). And before that, during the classic era, when both cheating and testing were still primitive, the list also includes nearly all the great ones - Anquetil, Bobet, Copi, Merckx, you name it.

It would be easier and shorter to put together a list of riders who have NOT cheated. And here is the thing: NOT ONE among these dozens and dozens of cheaters has received (1) the attention and opprobrium which Lance has gotten, and (2) the enormously severe penalties. I know, I know: Lance was defiant and arrogant. They say that he threatened and terrorized some of his detractors and that he tried to bribe the authorities. In my view, a better explanation is this: he was sooo good, he dominated the sport to such an extent, he was so head and shoulders above the rest, that the authorities went all out. He was the big kahuna. He was worth the hunt. Catching him would be a crowning victory and an unparalleled reward for the USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency). So in my view, Lance Armstrong is a big deal more because of his performance ON THE BIKE, than due to his behavior off it.


3. Did the authorities also preserve the blood/urine of people like Greg Lemond for years, waiting for testing technology to be perfected, so as to test retroactively for what they did DECADES earlier?

4. What about the discrepancies between Armstrong’s claims in the Oprah interviews and those of the USADA report? He denies having tried to bribe the USADA or the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale). The USADA claims that he did, offering them $250,000. He says that when he came back to the 2009 Tour de France, at age 38, he was 100% clean. The USADA disagrees. He finished 3rd. At his age this would be pretty impressive, if he rode clean. But given his record, it is logical to assume that he is the one who is (still) lying.

5. Is there the possibility of criminal prosecution and prison time? Lying under oath is a crime, and he did. Marion Jones went to prison for that.

6. Finally: I have read more than 100 comments about the Oprah-Armstrong interview. The vast majority (80%) express outrage, vitriol, the feeling that no punishment can be severe enough, and that the man remains a psychopathic liar. I can understand this. I am one of the millions who feels deeply betrayed. At the same time, this reminds me of those medieval executions on the market square. On execution day, mom would pack a nice lunch for the kids and the whole family would happily picnic on the market square while having fun watching criminals be slowly tortured to death. Can someone explain to me where this wolfpack mentality comes from? Am I weird, for not enjoying the man’s suffering? leave comment here