Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Lance Armstrong says he wouldn’t need to dope in 2015

Disgraced cyclist gives first broadcast interview since Oprah confession two years ago

Lance Armstrong says that if he were riding now, he wouldn’t need to dope. But he admits that if he were taken back to the mid-1990s he would still use performing enhancing drugs in that period, because they were “completely and totally pervasive” in the peloton at the time.

The disgraced cyclist, who in 2012 was banned from competitive sport for life and stripped of results including the seven Tour de France titles he won between 1999 and 2005, was speaking to the BBC’s Dan Roan.

Their conversation is the subject of a 30-minute programme that will be shown on BBC News at 8.30pm this Thursday, and will be available to watch on BBC iPlayer afterwards.

It’s Armstrong’s first in-depth broadcast interview since he confessed to Oprah Winfrey in early 2013 that he had cheated to win those yellow jerseys, but he remains insistent that he didn’t dope after his return to the sport in 2009.

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) whose investigation of Armstrong led to his ban say he did, but former UCI president Pat McQuaid, ratifying the sanction in 2012, said the governing body did not agree with that part of the national agency’s reasoned decision.

Roan asked Armstrong: “When it comes to the doping, would you do it again?”

The 43-year-old said: “It's a complicated question, and my answer is not a popular answer. If I was racing in 2015, no, I wouldn't do it again, because I don't think you have to.

“If you take me back to 1995, when it was completely and totally pervasive, I'd probably do it again. People don't like to hear that."

Quizzed about whether he was riding clean on his return to the sport with Astana in 2009, four years after his first retirement, he said, “Absolutely, absolutely."

But he agreed that while it does hurt him when people don’t believe he is telling the truth about that, he can understand why.

"I got patience on that. Because we are going to be in a time and place where there is a rock-solid test for blood transfusions, and the first person they say 'let's test' will be Lance Armstrong.

"So I can tell you that I didn't dope in 09-10, and the day a lab, a scientist or a group of people come up with a definitive test for blood transfusions, I'll be the first man to give my samples.

“And not just one of them: I'll give them all. From those years there must be 100 samples, if not more.

"That one, I just have to be patient on. That one, I'll be proved right on," he maintained.

The Texan has spoken with the Cycling Independent Research Commission set up by UCI president Brian Cookson, and said: "I have met them twice, they have asked me not to go into details, but everybody knows I have met with them, so that is not a secret.

“I think it's safe for me to say that whatever questions they asked, I told. A lot of it is out there. So I don't know if there's a whole lot out there left, but I was totally honest, and I was totally transparent.”

The father of five added: "At this point of my life, I'm not out to protect anybody. I'm out to protect seven people, and they all have the last name Armstrong."

He conrasted his own fate with that of two of the other big stars of the Tour de France in his period of dominance who have been allowed to keep the jerseys they won, despite themselves admitting to doping.

"Ultimately, and I'm speaking as somebody else: 'I watched seven Tours, I watched them, I kind of see who won, yet he didn't win, nobody won, the sport is left with no winner, seven empty yellows, and yet the same years you have green jerseys from [Erik] Zabel who's fully admitted [doping], polka-dots from [Richard] Virenque who's fully admitted... how does this [happen]?' I don't think it serves our sport well."

Armstrong also sought to put his doping, and that of other members of the US Postal Service team he rode for, into a wider sporting context.

USADA insisted that the team had been involved in “most sophisticated, professionalised, successful" doping programme in sporting history.

"Yes, but that's not true,” he insisted. “Lance Armstrong is not the biggest fraud in the history of world sport. US Postal was not the most sophisticated doping programme.

“To say that in light of all you read about the East Germans, the West Germans, the Turks, the Russians, God forbid, all the other major sports leagues in the world.

“No," he continued.

"Listen, I get it, Travis Tygart and USADA needed a splash. All those [words] are great. They work for PR, they create a buzz. But they're not true.

“There was doping, it was dirty, it was a terrible time. All those other headlines, they're not true," he added.

Armstrong also spoke about what he sees as cycling’s current challenges when it comes to doping, and where it may go in future; we’ll report those comments tomorrow.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

52 comments

Avatar
equilibrium102012 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Has the question been answered who was in the hospital room 1996 when lance admitted using performance drugs. We know betsy and frankie the two cancer doctors. We also know the Oakley representative was there. What about Trek and Nike and US Postal. Oakley knew he was cheating was he sponsored by the others at this time? It is interesting that a sponsors had employees there and now going to court to get money back.

Avatar
Cyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

America is not bothered about LA because....

American football
Baseball
Collegiate Football
Track & Field

Overshadow anything cycling has done with PEDs...

Avatar
remy1234 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Okay, okay: you Armstrong haters got me to comment.

First, think about those 7 Tour wins. If you weren't for Armstrong, who were you for?

(enter yr favorite cyclist here) Guess what?

HE DOPED!

Lance won because he had more drive and desire, pure and simple.

He was a better racer, a better athlete, and a better doper when being all those things were needed to be the best.

Is he a driven b*****d who would cut yr mother's heart out and eat it with a spoon to gain 3 seconds on a stage?

Most assuredly.

Would he be the person I would want to compete at ANYTHING with?

No way.

Im tired of all the sanctimony.

Nice guys don't always finish last, but singleminded s.o.b.'s win wars, and often championships.

I hope cycling is cleaner now. But I can't be sure, and neither can you.

I would love to have an all encompassing, fool proof doping test.

It would eliminate a lot of problems in cycling, and other sports as well.

(American football, which I love, would have revelations that would make cycling dopers look like kiddies in a playground).

But if that happens, and we go back testing old cycling champions, we will have to restore Lance's wins, because we will see that he was far from the only one then, and perhaps now as well.

He was just the best at it in a regrettable, (hopefully past) era.

But I, for one, really enjoyed many of those days he wore yellow. There is something appealing about watching the meanest, toughest s.o.b. just take all the other mean, tough guys and cram wins down their throats.

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

Jesus. Some people really cannot accept it, can they?

Avatar
crazy-legs | 9 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Once again Armstrong seeks to minimise his offence by claiming everyone was doping, when there seems to be a body of evidence to contrary Christophe Bassons being a case in point.

Have you seen the "reasoned decision" against Gert Leinders (the infamous Sky doctor). When he worked for Rabobank, he was running a guarantee that riders wouldn't get caught. Rabobank had in place a doping programme every bit as hardcore as US Postal, every bit as pervasive and with the same standards of "if you don't dope, if you don't toe the line and support the team, you can kiss goodbye to any hope of ever becoming a professional cyclist"

Interesting reading. Basically Rabobank was a Dutch version of US Postal but, because they didn't have the multi-million pound cancer-survivor superstar, there doesn't seem to be quite the same level of outrage over it. I think some people need to be a bit less anti-Lance and a bit more open as to what was really going on...

Avatar
WashoutWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes

Once again Armstrong seeks to minimise his offence by claiming everyone was doping, when there seems to be a body of evidence to contrary Christophe Bassons being a case in point.

Armstrong's if I cant have it I will smear everyone else attitude truly sickens me and displays the bloke's true nature, cycling is a far better sport without him in my opinion.

Avatar
WashoutWheeler replied to remy1234 | 9 years ago
0 likes
remy1234 wrote:

Okay, okay: you Armstrong haters got me to comment.

First, think about those 7 Tour wins. If you weren't for Armstrong, who were you for?

(enter yr favorite cyclist here) Guess what?

HE DOPED!

Lance won because he had more drive and desire, pure and simple.

He was a better racer, a better athlete, and a better doper when being all those things were needed to be the best.

Is he a driven b*****d who would cut yr mother's heart out and eat it with a spoon to gain 3 seconds on a stage?

Most assuredly.

Would he be the person I would want to compete at ANYTHING with?

No way.

Im tired of all the sanctimony.

Nice guys don't always finish last, but singleminded s.o.b.'s win wars, and often championships.

I hope cycling is cleaner now. But I can't be sure, and neither can you.

I would love to have an all encompassing, fool proof doping test.

It would eliminate a lot of problems in cycling, and other sports as well.

(American football, which I love, would have revelations that would make cycling dopers look like kiddies in a playground).

But if that happens, and we go back testing old cycling champions, we will have to restore Lance's wins, because we will see that he was far from the only one then, and perhaps now as well.

He was just the best at it in a regrettable, (hopefully past) era.

But I, for one, really enjoyed many of those days he wore yellow. There is something appealing about watching the meanest, toughest s.o.b. just take all the other mean, tough guys and cram wins down their throats.

Err he cheated and in the process stole from others I don't care how bad a SOB people think he was on a bike, he was and in my opinion still is a SOB and cycling is a far better sport without him.

Avatar
WashoutWheeler replied to crazy-legs | 9 years ago
0 likes
crazy-legs wrote:
Quote:

Once again Armstrong seeks to minimise his offence by claiming everyone was doping, when there seems to be a body of evidence to contrary Christophe Bassons being a case in point.

Have you seen the "reasoned decision" against Gert Leinders (the infamous Sky doctor). When he worked for Rabobank, he was running a guarantee that riders wouldn't get caught. Rabobank had in place a doping programme every bit as hardcore as US Postal, every bit as pervasive and with the same standards of "if you don't dope, if you don't toe the line and support the team, you can kiss goodbye to any hope of ever becoming a professional cyclist"

Interesting reading. Basically Rabobank was a Dutch version of US Postal but, because they didn't have the multi-million pound cancer-survivor superstar, there doesn't seem to be quite the same level of outrage over it. I think some people need to be a bit less anti-Lance and a bit more open as to what was really going on...

I refer to Armstrong as the piece was about Armstrong. I am anti cheat whoever they are and feel the same degree of disdain for each and every one of them.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

oozaveared, I'm perfectly aware prior generations used drugs like stimulants, alcohol, even heroin. You need to read what I wrote more carefully - the bit you quoted even. ;). I wrote:

"modern drugs" ... "the hormones that are abused today"

Stimulants and depressants have a limited scope for enhancing performance. They can dull pain, make the heart race a bit and loosen your brain's "safety governors" a little. However they can't grow you new muscle or make your blood thicker.

Physiologically, athletes are more than capable of doing those long stages, even without those modern drugs, just not as fast. Again, there is simply no logical reason to think shorter stages would reduce incentives for doping.

Avatar
manmachine | 9 years ago
0 likes

 20  20  20 -  14  14  14

 24  24  24

Avatar
Deggo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Incredible....what are we doing giving him all this air time and publicity.
He was the most prolific drug taker, and tried to ruin anybody who stood in his way.
A lifetime ban...abso bloody lutly.
Now lets move on.

Avatar
herohirst | 9 years ago
0 likes

Tool.

Avatar
Pat Hayes | 9 years ago
0 likes

Armstrong was probably the greatest stage race rider ever he won 7 Tours and that can't be taken away,( I was there to see him get the jersey for many of them ) and compared to many other top cyclists was actually quite friendly and approachable , in very sharp contrast to the boorish Cadel Evans and aloof Bradley Wiggins.

Yes he doped but so did all his major opponents and most of the bunch he rode with . He never actually failed a drug test and has only been banned on basis of plea bargained testimony of former collegues following a level of scrutiny other multi tour winners have not been exposed to partly because US law is very different from that in Europe.

It is naive to think most other Tour winners havnt doped in some way . Indeed I would reserve judgement on current crop in including messers Wiggins and Froome until time has past , the money has run out and personal rancour has hardened .

In time the self righteous animosity will die down and he will be seen in the same light as Maitre Jacques , the Proffessor et al.

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

'people are noticeably tired'

Agree on the whole. But for every TdF 2012 stage 10 low speed knackered sprint there is still a 'I can just pedal really fast, honest' 2013 stage 10 farce.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 9 years ago
0 likes

Regarding peloton speeds, I think there has been a step change in the sports application in recent years which has helped drive up average speeds.

A bunch of riders pulling 25mph average for 100 miles a day is not in itself much of a challenge... even chucking mountains into the equation won’t change things greatly… it’s not a speed that in itself asks too many questions. In power terms, the front of the race will need to average not much more than 300 watts to hold 25mph all day, so the guys tucked in the bunch would in theory be pulling 200-240 watts average for 4 hours. I could do that.

The challenge, is the intense period of riding at the start of a stage, and the intense period of riding at the end… which would end my day pretty sharpish.

The structure of a pro race tends to be fairly consistent… an early shit storm of hell to form a break (this can last anything from a minute to the whole stage on exceptional occasions), followed by a settled period at a controlled pace. Then it all ends with another hellish shit storm.

In the EPO golden days, the early shit storm lasted longer and went harder with a similar story at the other end. The middle was nice and steady however. These days, the extremes have tapered a bit, however the mid-section of the race is controlled at a higher intensity because more teams have a vested in the end result more often.

Another change these days is that you don’t see the constant days of unbelievable riding that you used to see. These days, if the touch paper is really lit up, and its a mental day, the next day its controlled and tranquillo… people are noticeably tired.

There are less drugs in the sport now, from those inside it’s a clear message; it’s the riding style, the growing professionalism of the sport (not so much technology) that has driven the speed up.

Avatar
surly_by_name | 9 years ago
0 likes

I'd prefer a debate on making helmets compulsory. Seriously, can we stop giving this guy oxygen. It is doing us no good at all.

Avatar
Cycleholic | 9 years ago
0 likes

LA is like the captain of a sinking ship that refuses to accept the reality of his situation. He doped and got caught out and that went against the rules of competitive cycling. End of debate!
All of the supposed justifications for his actions, e.g. 'everyone was doing it, so I had to do it'....it's all just blah blah blah!

Avatar
Kadinkski replied to Cycleholic | 9 years ago
0 likes
tonymod wrote:

LA is like the captain of a sinking ship that refuses to accept the reality of his situation. He doped and got caught out and that went against the rules of competitive cycling. End of debate!
All of the supposed justifications for his actions, e.g. 'everyone was doing it, so I had to do it'....it's all just blah blah blah!

errrr, not sure where you've been for the last couple of years but that ship sunk long ago. Nobody is debating that he doped and got caught and it was against the rules - but, um, yeah, thanks for ending the debate anyway....nice one.

Avatar
Cycleholic replied to Kadinkski | 9 years ago
0 likes

@ Kadinski...nor was I, so it's clear you missed the point of my post which which was the last three words, blah blah blah or put differently, why are we still talking about him? As to where I've been...not around sarcastic people like you.

Avatar
ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Also Paul would add that if you make shorter stages, then it would only encourage drug use even more as the peloton would get faster.

Avatar
manmachine | 9 years ago
0 likes

So funny there is guy..who is so obsessed with Lance and how he is referred to as such a 'fraudster'. So imagine how shattered this poor bloke must have been and still is!? Imagine how he must have worshiped Lance in order for him to have such hatred for an athlete! Imagine how empty this guys life must be...to get so worked up over an ATHLETE! Entertainment! Hoo hoo...so unbelievably hysterical!  21  21  21

At least I direct my anger at those who are responsible for destroying liberties and freedoms, but an athlete!?  24  24  24
Wow, the fan-boys really have their panties in a wad eh.
Simply amazing...  35

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

The notion that 200 kilometre stages are not possible without modern drugs is clearly without merit. They were doing much tougher stages, 70 to 100 years ago, well before any of the hormones that are abused today were isolated, never mind mass produced. Can you do those stages as /fast/ as they do now without modern drugs, well, there's a question.

However, this idea that long stages are only possible with drug abuse is just wrong. This kind of thinking encourages the notion that if we only shortened the stages drug abuse would go away, but there's no logical reason to believe that. We see drug abuse in sports of all lengths of effort, from football down to sub-10s sprints.

So please, please, let's put that notion and leave it to die.

Avatar
Airzound replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

The notion that 200 kilometre stages are not possible without modern drugs is clearly without merit. They were doing much tougher stages, 70 to 100 years ago, well before any of the hormones that are abused today were isolated, never mind mass produced. Can you do those stages as /fast/ as they do now without modern drugs, well, there's a question.

However, this idea that long stages are only possible with drug abuse is just wrong. This kind of thinking encourages the notion that if we only shortened the stages drug abuse would go away, but there's no logical reason to believe that. We see drug abuse in sports of all lengths of effort, from football down to sub-10s sprints.

So please, please, let's put that notion and leave it to die.

No they were just taking taxis, getting lifts, filled up to the eyeballs with some potion that Mrs Miggins advised them would keep them strong and awake to win or failing this sabotaging each others' bikes to gain an advantage.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

The notion that 200 kilometre stages are not possible without modern drugs is clearly without merit. They were doing much tougher stages, 70 to 100 years ago, well before any of the hormones that are abused today were isolated, never mind mass produced. Can you do those stages as /fast/ as they do now without modern drugs, well, there's a question.

However, this idea that long stages are only possible with drug abuse is just wrong. This kind of thinking encourages the notion that if we only shortened the stages drug abuse would go away, but there's no logical reason to believe that. We see drug abuse in sports of all lengths of effort, from football down to sub-10s sprints.

So please, please, let's put that notion and leave it to die.

That's pretty Naive

Gino Bartali took to raiding Coppi's room before races:
"The first thing was to make sure I always stayed at the same hotel for a race, and to have the room next to his so I could mount a surveillance. I would watch him leave with his mates, then I would tiptoe into the room which ten seconds earlier had been his headquarters. I would rush to the waste bin and the bedside table, go through the bottles, flasks, phials, tubes, cartons, boxes, suppositories – I swept up everything.
I became so expert in interpreting all these pharmaceuticals that I could predict how Fausto would behave during the course of the stage. I would work out, according to the traces of the product I found, how and when he would attack me."
Gino Bartali, Miroir des Sports, 1946 so 70 years ago in fact

Question: Do cyclists take la bomba (amphetamine)?
Coppi: Yes, and those who claim otherwise, it's not worth talking to them about cycling.
Question: And you, did you take la bomba?
Coppi: Yes. Whenever it was necessary.
Question: And when was it necessary?
Coppi: Almost all the time!

Avatar
graphite | 9 years ago
0 likes

Please stop interviewing him, he has nothing to say of any interest or use. Having said that, here's an interesting article all about him... http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

Happy to correct your bullshit any time.

Avatar
Leviathan replied to andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes
andyp wrote:

Happy to correct your bullshit any time.

I'm imagining you saying this in the voice of Josh Widdicombe with half a wink.

Avatar
oozaveared | 9 years ago
0 likes

I thought what he said was fair enough. Things were differennt in 1995. If you weren't doping you'd be nowhere near the pace. I am sure but not certain that this is no longer the case.

He says he has made a point of personally apologising to any bullyees that will still speak with him.

A lifetime ban from pro cycling was fair enough but from all or any sport even amateur is malicious. He can't even run in a charity marathon as a fun runner. I doubt he'd make much money as a professional sportsman now aged 43 but to stop him entering even charity events is overly harsh.

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

It seems that the persecution is set to continue...

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/01/andreu-armstrongs-lawyers-have-subpoen...

Lance isn't even the tiniest bit sorry.

Avatar
fourstringsisplenty | 9 years ago
0 likes

AndyP, sorry, I edited myself and moved below your (valid) suggestions.

Your points are both well made. Personally - and obviously this is all personal conjecture - I don't find them convincing. The trouble is, there's a credibility deficit; I've heard those 'Ah, but the technology's changed' explanations so many times before, and not only in cycling. In my own sport, swimming, it's the same story: new stroke techniques, new training methods (often in a hard-to-reach location)... any explanation other than doping. And yet, athletes continue to fail tests, and performances to improve. Really, what would William of Occam say? What's the simplest explanation?

As for whether Lance deliberately held back - who knows? Maybe not even he does. For me, it doesn't really seem to fit with his 'I must crush them all' personality, but there's no doubt he's a cunning fellow.

Pages

Latest Comments