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.
52 thoughts on “Lance Armstrong says he wouldn’t need to dope in 2015”
Douche – still can’t admit
Douche – still can’t admit 2009 despite the evidence. Only once he accepts that will redemption be in his grasp.
He needs to stop blaming other people and look at himself more.
He probably has a point re
He probably has a point re the East Germans etc, they had state sponsorship and government research labs.
LA will be criticized when he
LA will be criticized when he lies or tells the truth.
The only thing I don’t like about him is his bullying.
People just love to hate him.
For me its not the doping
For me its not the doping issue as (in most sports) it was rampant and often with the tacit agreement of those in charge. It was the character assignations of anybody who got in his way and the way he could almost do anything by bullying and threatening those who tried to stand up to him. How many peoples lives reputations and livelihoods has he ruined in his pursuit of glory?
ambrosio2 wrote:For me its
are you familiar with elite athletes and their personalities. I have been and not just in cycling. There are precious few at the top that are mild mannered gentlefolk. I’m not saying it’s not possible but it’s unlikely. To get be an elite athlete you have to be pretty ruthless, single minded and ego driven. That doesn’t mean you act like a snarling dog at everyone. They can and are quite often polite and charming. Some are even introverted and shy. But if you do or say anything that jeopardises their ambition or chances of winning then you need to take cover. It’s not just a job or a sponsorship deal or even a title at stake it’s a fundamental part of their character. Armstrong happens to have an intimidating presence. He knows it and he used it. But people use what they have. Some bully in private, some quietly sledge, others launch sweary rants at the media …
The bullying argument makes
The bullying argument makes little sense. It’s arbitrarily deciding who is very guilty and who is perceived not as guilty even though so many were fucking using ped’s. The statist-mentality….kills me.
Uhm, yeah, well that guy over there, he just murdered someone in cold blood. But this guy he tortured, raped then murdered…so he is really a bad guy. But the murderer well he is bad, but it doesn’t bother me so much… 8|
How many peoples lives
How many peoples lives are/were ruined by the likes of scumbag global Banksters who went scot-free after the financial crises? DOJ here in the states flatly said, too big to jail.
Funny how there is NO punishment for people who committed REAL crimes and are not talked about, are not persecuted are not mentioned. It’s un-fucking believable the amount of illogical rhetoric spewed for a bunch of men playing sports.
:O
He’s like an immature 15 year
He’s like an immature 15 year old who hasn’t yet grasped that responsibility is just part of freedom, and somehow imagines that blaming others makes him look better.
imaca wrote:He’s like an
Not sure how “the buck stops with me” is blaming others. Sure, he then attempts to give context to his actions by talking about the prevalence of doping in the culture of the time – but that’s an indisputable fact – and it would be a pretty boring interview if he answered every single question with “the buck stops with me”.
And I think he still believes
And I think he still believes if he were somehow allowed to race again he could make a comeback and win some big races. Yeah right. He’s got some nerve. He’s too old first off the new peloton wouldn’t ride with him and Contador would crucify him. Soon LA will be filling himself with drugs again as he gets older and older, as old people do to stay alive. Ooooh the irony. He is certainly a class act to watch. I shall be watching. I hope he squirms when he is asked why he treated those close to him so badly i.e. Frankie and Betsy Andreu. For treating them so badly he deserves EVERYTHING he gets. For the rest he has shattered many a memory and dream. He wasn’t the first and won’t be the last but he was one of the most prolific and feared dopers of that time. Good riddance.
I was amazed that this was a
I was amazed that this was a story on BBC national news, a good way up the running order. He hasn’t got anything useful or interesting to say, he’s totally self-absorbed, and it’s time to move on.
I realise I’m a hypocrite saying move on, but commenting on an Armstrong story. Sorry.
Lance needs to shut up and go
Lance needs to shut up and go fish. After what he did he has no right to comment on the sport.
I am growing disillusioned
I am growing disillusioned with the BBC. Recently all they have focused on is Wiggo and Cav and their tracks ambitions and now this. There’s a whole lot more pro cycling that they could report.
stenmeister wrote:I am
Prior to this story, their two most recent cycling headlines were Cav winning a road stage and Dowsett abandoning his hour bid. There’s not a whole lot else going on right at the moment, but they managed to mention the Isle of Man’s cycling festival.
All of which could be noted using only a browser and about 5 seconds of your time, and completely counters your post.
andyp wrote:stenmeister
I was too busy using my browser and my time to do my job to check my accuracy but hey thanks for doing it for me, especially in that tone. =D>
Normally I avoid Armstrong
Normally I avoid Armstrong stuff, but the two-part article in the last Rouleur and the one just out has been genuinely interesting.
Why does the media continue
Why does the media continue to give this attention-seeking, lying, slandering has-been fraudster any publicity?
As Michael Hutchinson tweeted earlier,
“A man of few regrets, apart from getting caught.”
Cycling is better off without him. I wish he would just f**k off and take his huge ego somewhere else.
He gets the attention because
He gets the attention because he gets the discussion. David Walsh made the valid point that actually this only happens in Europe, the US is really not bothered with him.
He is the biggest fraudster in world sporting history, he made millions from the fraud and the cancer charity and thus that makes his story and what he has to say interesting.
I think he has some good
I think he has some good points and I personally didnt like his bullying tactics – but that just happens in any professional situation (particularly sport). Whether we like it or not, he still has big interest – perhaps he starting to show some atonement here? I think he still needs to go further and use his draw to promote something positive – like David Millar did. It is a good motivation to think of his kids too. I was watching an DVD of his tdf rides and they are still great entertainment and I have kind of come to the conclusion that they were pretty much all doping – USP were just the best at it. The Team Sky of their day – but with doping.
whilst I think it is valid to
whilst I think it is valid to look at speed as one measure it does hide since LA won the vast improvements in bike technology, fitness etc.
So for example you stick a LA on his third tour form on a bike today what could he do then ?
Also and this has been said how much did LA hold back so the gap between him and others did not look out of place ?
Lance wouldn’t need to dope
Lance wouldn’t need to dope in 2015? Really?
Speed over distance is one posited (and often accepted) way to track the use of performance-enhancing drugs in cycling. Lance won his Tours, which were between 3,200 and 3,600-ish km long, at average speeds of between 39.5 and 40.5 kph.
Given the difference EPO made when it first appeared, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect a dropping-off of average speeds, or at least a levelling out, if drug use has been curtailed. Instead, we get faster.
Jump forward a decade or so from Lance’s pomp: the 2013 and 2014 editions of the Tour, both over 3,600 km long, are won at average winner’s speeds of over 40.5 kph.
I’m no fan of or apologist for Lance, but I do think he’s been turned into the bogeyman, a catch-all for the ‘cycling’s changed’ gang. Perhaps it’s time for the cycling world to look at the nature of events, especially the grand tours? Is it even possible for a clean rider to do more than keep up, maybe have one or two good days, over such distances and at such speeds?
We love the drama of riders contesting hard roads after 200 km of riding, the whittling-down to a final few before one cyclist breaks away, unmatchable. Every time I see that happen, part of me is thrilled – but my logical brain is telling me it’s not possible to be so dominant, not with 2,000 km of racing already in your legs.
Until the big races become more human in scale, more achievable by un-doped riders, I think this problem might always be with us. That’s why I now find myself increasingly drawn to one-day races; I know they’re not immune to doping, they have many of the same riders I suspect from grand tours – but at least I feel it’s possible that someone clean could win them. This is flawed logic, of course, but I love cycle sport, and I want to watch something!
PS Source for those general
PS Source for those general numbers, plus more detail if you’re interested:
http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
AndyP, sorry, I edited myself
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.
It seems that the persecution
It seems that the persecution is set to continue…
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/01/andreu-armstrongs-lawyers-have-subpoenaed-frankie-his-apologies-mean-nothing/
Lance isn’t even the tiniest bit sorry.
I thought what he said was
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.
Happy to correct your
Happy to correct your bullshit any time.
andyp wrote:Happy to correct
I’m imagining you saying this in the voice of Josh Widdicombe with half a wink.
Please stop interviewing him,
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
The notion that 200 kilometre
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.
Paul J wrote:The notion that
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.
Paul J wrote:The notion that
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!
So funny there is guy..who is
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! :)) :)) :))
At least I direct my anger at those who are responsible for destroying liberties and freedoms, but an athlete!? =)) =)) =))
Wow, the fan-boys really have their panties in a wad eh.
Simply amazing… 8}
Also Paul would add that if
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.
LA is like the captain of a
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!
tonymod wrote:LA is like the
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.
@ Kadinski…nor was I, so
@ 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.
I’d prefer a debate on making
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.
Regarding peloton speeds, I
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.
‘people are noticeably
‘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.
Armstrong was probably the
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.
Tool.
Tool.
Incredible….what are we
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.
–
:”( :”( :”( – X( X( X(
=)) =)) =))
oozaveared, I’m perfectly
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.
Has the question been
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.
America is not bothered about
America is not bothered about LA because….
American football
Baseball
Collegiate Football
Track & Field
Overshadow anything cycling has done with PEDs…
Okay, okay: you Armstrong
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.
remy1234 wrote:Okay, okay:
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.
Jesus. Some people really
Jesus. Some people really cannot accept it, can they?
Quote:Once again Armstrong
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…
crazy-legs wrote:Quote:Once
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.
Once again Armstrong seeks to
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.