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.
























51 thoughts on “Lance Armstrong: “I’ve paid a high price” for doping”
Beyond comment really, what
Beyond comment really, what an ego. Not only was he the best cyclist in the world now he’s the most hurt? I’m weeping.
alotronic wrote:Beyond
Just another David Millar style sob story really.
He really doesn’t understand
He really doesn’t understand what he did.
The thing that always got to
The thing that always got to me about him was the fiction he created about his amazing drug free comeback from cancer. What he did was above and beyond what anyone else was doing and he was rewarded above and beyond anyone else. Now he is being legally pursued above and beyond anyone else.
What goes around comes around.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:The
Short of not actually doing any cycling, he had no real choice. A journo says “are you doping?” what does he (or anyone else) say?
“Oh yes, of course I am Mr Journo, didn’t you know we all do it?!”
“No, of course not”
And you can attribute answer number 2 to pretty much every cyclist, indeed pretty much every athlete, who’s ever been caught.
It’s just that once you start lying, the lies have to get bigger, you have to defend those lies, one lie leads to another and the whole thing is actually a house of cards; one wrong move and the whole deck collapses.
There’s an interesting 4-part interview with LA over on the cyclingnews website. Regardless of your thoughts on LA, it’s worth a read, as is the chapter in Cav’s new book (At Speed, out now) which deals with Cav’s thoughts on Lance, on doping, on the media attention it gets.
I don’t really accept that
I don’t really accept that because he made such a big thing about his cancer. He used it as a screen for those that questioned him. He used it for self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. He didn’t have to do that. In fact, out of respect to other cancer sufferers he could have been so much more modest. But he actually used and abused that angle for his own ends so I refute your response CrazyLegs. He, more than anyone else played that card. He made the lie about drugs in sport into something bigger (ie it wasn’t just about cheating/competing, it was about life itself).
I read lots of things about Lance and from Lance. I have no sympathy for Lance. He just continues to show what a user he is, so don’t patronise me. I’ve heard what Cavendish thinks too. He just wants it to go away because that suits him. And I don’t really care for that because he would like to bury it all in a small forgotten field. Sports has a problem with drugs and burying is not going to help. It just means riders don’t have to soul search and answer difficult questions.
(No subject)
(|:
Lance, do us all a favour and
Lance, do us all a favour and F**K OFF.
It’s not about you any more.
If he hadn’t been doing it,
If he hadn’t been doing it, someone else would have been. You have to go way down the results to see any clean riders in the years Lance was riding. The whole sport is tainted, and has been for many years, and its a bit daft to pin it all on Lance as some kind of sacrificial purge, whilst so many other riders drift off the back of the peleton they were a massive part of
I think he’s a unique case.
I think he’s a unique case.
I can (sort of) understand how a lie on top of another lie on top of another lie left him a bit trapped in a spiral, but regardless of this he accepted the fame, plaudits and money shamelessly, and aggressively attacked anyone who doubted the myth.
He basically killed off Greg LeMond’s bike company, as well as the character assasinations of Betsy Andreu, David Walsh and Emma O’Reilly.
Regardless of his personality (although being Dubya’s buddy may not help here) I think the damage he’s done should preclude him from playing ANY role in cycling and that no form of reconciliation should take place.
And he still owes me eight quid for that book of his that I was duped into buying.
allez neg wrote:I think he’s
+1
The fact that he wrecked the lives of so many others who did speak out with his ferocious legal attacks means I have no sympathy for him at all. He was not the only cyclist doping but he was certainly the only one to use such a wide ranging programme of heavy-handed legal measures to quell any negative comments prior to his unmasking as a liar and a cheat.
OldRidgeback wrote:but he was
Even just straight up physical intimidation….
I feel no personal grudge
I feel no personal grudge against LA but understand why plenty do. I feel sorry for those who were trying to compete clean, names probably largely forgotten now.
There is an irony in a man facing legal ruin having been so willing to use the law when the boot was on the other foot – live by the sword, die by the sword comes to mind.
I am coming around to Cav’s view, ie move on and write off the past. However I doubt that LA’s past behaviour is going to allow this to happen.
It wont be a popular thing to
It wont be a popular thing to say but Armstrong is correct, he hasn’t been treated fairly.
You either ban everyone involved for the same length of time, rather than giving people reductions for grassing other people up *after* they were caught/retired or you have to give Armstrong the same reduction in sentence.
UCI and ASO had Froome on the podium in Paris with the guests of honour being Hinault and Indurain for being multiple winners whilst Armstrong is being written out of history? Really? Other than their personalities, and possibly nationalities, what have they done differently?
farrell wrote:It wont be a
It’s a fair comment. Maybe they should just bin the entire list of TDF winners up until 2011? Wipe the slate clean. I’m not sure if I’m joking or not myself.
MrGear wrote:It’s a fair
If the UCI were to wipe the slate clean you’d have to do it from 2014 otherwise they would be the judge and jury saying that they are currently assuming Wiggins and Froome were clean.
It’s fairly clear with Contador and the Shlecks recently getting caught and this year Sylvain Georges and Danilo Di Luca being at it that the sport still isn’t totally clean.
Personally I don’t think they should wipe the slate clean, they should just give the race to the guy that came last, he was either doing it clean or his team weren’t that well clued up on doping.
William Black wrote: they
Errr…. Like three time winner of the lanterne rouge Wim Vansevenant?… http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/omega-pharma-lotto-cuts-ties-to-vansevenant
farrell wrote:It wont be a
Armstrong had his opportunity to be treated equally (or at least to cut some form of deal), but he refused to cooperate with the USADA and instead perpetuated his lies and attempted to get the investigation / USADA shut down instead using his political influence. He has zero right now to complain that the treatment of athletes was unequal when he refused to be a part of the process and come clean.
I can understand to a degree why he did not cooperate – the legal ramifications for him are huge given the lies he has told and the lawsuits he brought. However, he brought about this situation himself through bullying and threatening anyone who he considered opposed him, and this is what differentiates him from other riders.
I have a huge amount of sympathy with riders of this generation, they entered a world where completing clean simply did not appear to be an option. Armstrong’s attempts to destroy the reputation and careers of others is what sets him apart. That’s not even to go into how he amassed a personal fortune through the Livestrong brand and then used cancer as a shield to hide behind
The last two comments sum it
The last two comments sum it up. If he wasn’t such a bully towards colleauges and others that he sued I might feel a bit sorry for him. But as he such a horrid, bullying human being I feel nothing. I hope hes sued for every dime he has and that this never happens again to cycling.
“Not been treated fairly”?
“Not been treated fairly”? What does he know about playing fair?
Hear hear, he loved the
Hear hear, he loved the lawyers when they were doing his dirty work making him money.
Is he being made a special case, yes because he is a SPECIAL CASE!
What goes around comes
What goes around comes around, baby. Actually on balance I think the outcome for him is entirely fair, for all the reasons outlined above. He was happy to dish it out, and now it has come back to bite him.
He cheated and bullied his
He cheated and bullied his way into a fortune and level of influence that he didn’t deserve… pre-cancer he was an OK, but unspectacular rider, who could have served his career in the peleton and had a decent retirement, but there was nothing in his stats to suggest that he could have achieved seven TDF wins without doping. And the doping programme around Lance seems to have been head-and-shoulders above the other teams, even above other riders on his team (if the stories are to be believed about the Lance Inner Circle).
So, if Lance had been doping on a level playing field and hadn’t so viciously attacked potential critics in life changing ways, then maybe, just maybe, we’d have some time for his claims and ongoing appeals for clemancy… but his cheating was on a different level to everyone else who was doing it… so he must be dealt with differently.
To be fair to Lance, I think that there are definitely others who were implicit in his doping (within his inner circle and in the UCI), who should also be dealt with similarly harshly, so hopefully then he won’t feel as though he’s being treated so unfairly then… maybe some UCI officials banned for life and chased for compensation?
Of all the dopers this one
Of all the dopers this one man gained the highest rewards for his doping.
It seems only proper that he should now be paying the highest price.
Simples! 🙂
shay cycles wrote:Of all the
I totally agree and it should be on a logarithmic scale!
Two names to respond to his
Two names to respond to his claim of unfairness….
Filippo Simeoni
Christophe Bassons
Now go f*** yourself you bullying, manipulative, scare mongering scum.
You are a CANCER of the sport. You even cheated cancer survivors who believed in you. I cannot put into words the disgust I feel for your sorry arse. Crawl away and leave us alone you tumour X( ~X(
Alternatively, he should stop
Alternatively, he should stop fucking whinging and just be happy to be alive and healthy.
In addition to the above, as
In addition to the above, as some have pointed out that “he was only doing what everyone else was doing”…
Was everyone else bullying and threatening journalists, soigneurs, riders, friends, family etc? No not the way he did, and NO ONE else profited the way he did.
He gets treated exceptionally because he behaved exceptionally.
Jog on Armstrong
I’m interested in the fact
I’m interested in the fact he’s sold his house. I’m guessing but I would imagine he’s trying to settle as many lawsuits as possible and if he can’t, he’ll declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile, his remaining investments well be in third party bank accounts or similar.
I agree with Farrell on this
I agree with Farrell on this one, he has not, compared to other cheats, been dealt with fairly BUT he has brought it all on himself.
The man is hilarious, but he
The man is hilarious, but he also has some good PR people. Most people won’t buy this spiel this time round, but it’s a process that will be repeated, particularly if he contributes to a truth and reconciliation process. Eventually, public opinion on him will soften a bit, and then a bit more, and he might stand a chance of making some money again.
As for fairness – as others have pointed out, it depends if you take account just of his doping (in which case the punishment is not consistent with others) or of the massive profits he made from it, and his brutal approach to those who tried to out him. With all that taken account of, it seems pretty fair, to be honest.
“the most sophisticated,
“the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme sport has ever seen”. Maybe the most successful doping program that has been caught?
glock59 wrote:“the most
Technically speaking the most successful doping programme cycling has ever seen will never be caught 🙂
William Black wrote:glock59
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.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Not
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.
William Black wrote:Colin
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.
William Black wrote:Colin
yes yes yes, and he deserves EVERYTHING he (hopefully) gets …
William Black wrote:Colin
oops double post
Reading “Wheelmen” right now.
Reading “Wheelmen” right now. Highly recommend it.
What an a##hole. He deserves everything he’s getting, twice over.
Quote:I read lots of things
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
Thanks for the apology. You
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. X(
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
Don’t worry for Lance the next autobiography will be out soon enough
I spent most of the previous
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
He’s suffered. Really..Nov 11…..and he’s suffered? Bah…
Maybe they could have a
Maybe they could have a mountain stage in next years TdF and climb his ego =))
geezus this bloke has the
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 ..
It would be really good to
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!!!
Still an arrogant dude!!! Hopeless!!! =D>
“I don’t think that any
“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
‘He other behaviour, so called bullying is irrelevant to the discussion.’
It really isn’t.
andyp wrote:’He other
So tell us all then, oh wise one, what punishment should the UCI be handing out to cyclists found guilty of “bullying” or “arrogance”?