Lance Armstrong believes he has not been treated fairly in the aftermath of being found by the United States Anti-Doping Agency to have masterminded “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme sport has ever seen”.
Armstrong told the BBC World Service’s Tim Franks that he had suffered “massive personal loss” while others who had confessed to doping “have truly capitalised on this story”.
But the 42-year-old American, who was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories in 2012, said that if he is treated fairly, he will testify with "100% transparency and honesty" at any future inquiry into doping.
“If everyone gets the death penalty, then I’ll take the death penalty,” he said.
“If everyone gets a free pass, I’m happy to take a free pass. If everyone gets six months, then I’ll take my six months.”
Armstrong was not simply found to have consistently used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career, but to have coordinated the doping programmes at his US Postal and Discovery Channel teams. The USADA found that he had “ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use, but over the doping culture of his team.”
According to the USADA’s Reasoned Decision, Armstrong had final responsibility for hiring doctors and other staff to coordinate the doping programme at his team and his goal of repeatedly winning the Tour de France led him “to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own.”
The consequences for Armstrong have been, unsurprisingly, severe. The emergence of the full details of his doping activity has opened the door to lawsuits from the former team-mate Floyd Landis and US Justice department, insurance companies that covered his win bonuses and the Sunday Times.
“It’s been tough,” he said. “It’s been real tough. I’ve paid a high price in terms of my standing within the sport, my reputation, certainly financially because the lawsuits have continued to pile up.
“I have experienced massive personal loss, massive loss of wealth while others have truly capitalised on this story.”
Armstrong said that the sport of professional cycling had also been adversely affected by revelations that the sport was driven by doping in the 1990s and 2000s.
“Do I think that this process has been good for cycling?” he asked. “No. I don’t think our sport has been served well by going back 15 years.
“I don’t think that any sport, or any political scenario, is well served going back 15 years.
“And if you go back 15 years, you might as well go back 30.”
Armstrong retired from cycling in 2005, but made a comeback in 2009. He rode two Tours de France before retiring for good in 2011.
While evidence from his 2009 comeback was not central to the USADA case against Armstrong, the agency documents substantial evidence of a continuing relationship with doping doctor Michele Ferrari in 2009, and delaying submitting himself to testing.
The full interview with Lance Armstrong will be broadcast on the BBC World Service Newshour at 13:00 and 14:00 GMT.
Add new comment
51 comments
I totally agree and it should be on a logarithmic scale!
“the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme sport has ever seen”. Maybe the most successful doping program that has been caught?
Reading "Wheelmen" right now. Highly recommend it.
What an a##hole. He deserves everything he's getting, twice over.
Hi Colin - apologies if you thought that was aimed at you and patronising, it wasn't meant to be at all. It was sort of an add on to what I'd written, just highlighting the interviews and Cav's comments. Wasn't commenting on what you said or indeed my thoughts on the interview or Cav's book so sorry if it came out wrong, no offence meant.
Cheers
Technically speaking the most successful doping programme cycling has ever seen will never be caught
I don't think you are 'technically' right. Liestrong won 7 TdFs and became the richest cyclist to ever live.
If there was a richer and/or more successful cyclist than Armstrong you may technically be right. Not even sure what your point is.
Thanks for the apology. You are a gentleman and scholar. Though I didn't really take offence - just me being an opinionated so-and-so. Mr Liestrong does get me hot under the collar though.
There is actually a part of me that does feel some sympathy (despite what I wrote). But it is elicited when I want to give it, not when he starts whining about things which he has brought on himself.
Primarily, if he really wanted to change public opinion about things he should just shut up and get on with doing the right things. If they strip him to nothing, then it for us to give him cloth. We decide when and how we do that, not him.
Don't worry for Lance the next autobiography will be out soon enough
I spent most of the previous decade being anti Lance, because he was boring and American.
Now I have a touch of sympathy.I don't see why his drug taking is worse than that any others.
He other behaviour, so called bullying is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't believe Hinault was exactly the pelotons' favourite either.
Cavendish is right. Time to move on. nothing to be gained and you cannot judge the past by the present's standards.
He's suffered. Really..Nov 11.....and he's suffered? Bah...
The most successful cheats are the one's that don't get caught.
Whilst Lance Armstrong made millions when he was at the height of his career he will now probably file for bankruptcy (how ever much he's not snaffled away somewhere), spend the remainder of this decade making out of court settlements and never compete again...so at the end of the day it wasn't all that successful. Nobody would have batted an eyelid if he won one or two, pulled out of a couple but being a big dumb Yank with his fatal ego he kept on winning.
You don't have to be terminally cynical or jaded if you were thinking there were/are teams currently riding that are implementing a bit more than marginal gains and have/are got away with it.
Maybe they could have a mountain stage in next years TdF and climb his ego
Oh, I don't doubt you on that front. I think the different between them and Armstrong is that those teams are not 'that' greedy yet. Armstrong is still the most successful/professional. He did set a new bar, and I don't think anyone has matched it. Whether in the future other teams/individuals will match that is a different matter, and whether still they don't get caught if they do is even another thing.
Any doping done at the moment has to be somewhat systematic to ensure that it meets/beats the blood passport. But I think the riders these days are far more aware that you can spoil the soup in many different ways….dobbing on your riders is one thing (spitting in the soup), but pissing in the soup by dominating everything is equally bad for the sport. I have no basis for knowing this, but teams do not seem to want to garner the sort of publicity LA did for his exploits. I'm also sure that the blood passport sort of makes it harder for a team/rider to dominate a whole season.
geezus this bloke has the cheek of the devil, he deceives the public for over ten years, wins countless races through cheating and doping, confesses all to save his own worthless conscience, then has the gall to come out with this pile of $hit, the arrogance of this baffoon is breathtaking ..
yes yes yes, and he deserves EVERYTHING he (hopefully) gets ...
oops double post
It would be really good to hear Lance talk about 'atonement' a lot more. He could still do so much good - even now. He COULD BE FORGIVEN if he set out how he was going to make up for his mistakes rather than whinge. Never mind about how anyone else has been treated. He has a very high profile, he could use that in a very positive way. If he wrote a book 'His Story' and donated ALL the profits to some kind of antidoping cause, he could achieve a huge amount.
Still an arrogant dude!!! Hopeless!!!
“I don’t think that any sport, or any political scenario, is well served going back 15 years."
Ahhh, so let's forget about all the lessons history has taught us. Armstrong should be put in an asylum and not given airtime. Does ANYONE sympathise with him? Agreed, Doubledex, some degree of atonement might help his cause.
'He other behaviour, so called bullying is irrelevant to the discussion.'
It really isn't.
So tell us all then, oh wise one, what punishment should the UCI be handing out to cyclists found guilty of "bullying" or "arrogance"?
Pages