Veteran commentator Phil Liggett has said Lance Armstrong would have won the Tour de France even if he hadn’t doped.
The 77-year-old journalist, who covered 48 editions of the world’s biggest cycling race, said that Lance was ‘naturally just extremely good’.
He made the comments in an interview with Australian broadcaster 7news.
Liggett, who has a long and complicated history with the Texan born cyclist, said: “When Lance realised that the Tour de France was drug-ridden, he told his team ‘We’ll do it and we’ll do it better than they do it’.
“And if they didn’t agree, they were off the team.
“Most of his team had to take drugs just to back him up … because Lance was exceptional.”
Liggett, who used to regularly talk at Armstrong’s Livestrong rallies, said Lance would often do multiple ascents of some of the highest Alpine climbs in training.
He continued: “He would climb L’ Alpe d’Huez, the most fabled mountain in the Tour de France, in training with his team and when they got to the top, which was over 5000 feet high, he would turn around and descend the 16km and then climb it again.
“But the management wouldn’t let the team do it because Lance would wear the team out.
“He would wear them out when he went training, he was that good.
“And he wasn’t taking drugs when he went training. He was naturally just extremely good.”
When asked if he thought Armstrong could have won the TdF without drugs, Liggett replied: “No question.”
Armstrong, now 49, has made similar claims in the past and in an interview with NBC in 2019 he said he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean.
His former directeur sportif, Johan Bruyneel, 56, also recently called Armstrong the ‘strongest rider of his generation with or without doping’.
Liggett continued: “Don’t forget [Lance] was racing against other drug users, they also passed the drug test but the fact is the Tour de France itself didn’t promote the second-place riders to wins, that’s unprecedented.
“We’ve got seven Xs in the history books.
“All the guys who finished second have all had drug involvement or controversial situations but they were never nailed.
“But they didn’t give them Lance’s victories, there’s simply no winners at the Tour de France for seven years, so they knew the guys in second place took drugs but couldn’t prove it.
“It was a different world back then – guys were dying left, right and centre. Young riders were dying.”
Armstrong is often accused of being the ‘ring leader’ who encouraged other riders to dope and got rid of those who refused to do so.
USADA famously said the US Postal team had been operating the most ‘sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program’ in the history of sport.
Armstrong has always insisted he was simply part of a deep-rooted culture that existed long before he joined the ranks of the pro-peloton.
Liggett, who, like many others, at one time called the accusations against Lance ‘ridiculous’, said he still admires the former US-Postal rider but cannot condone what he did.
He said: “I haven’t spoken to Lance as a friend since 2011, he’s never contacted me but you know even when I was working with him, he’d only contact me with one-liners saying ‘Hey do you know this guy’ or ‘Can you do that in LA’.
“Those were the longest emails he ever sent me because Lance was his own person, I never mixed in his inner circle which was like five guys.
“So we can never say we were close friends but I certainly admired him enormously on both fronts, his riding style and his work in raising 600 million bucks for cancer.
“I’ve got no mixed feelings, people say ‘You must hate him’ – I would never hate Lance Armstrong at all.
“I still admire him, I know how he beat cancer, I know how he fought hard and that’s the mentality of the man who can only do things one way and that’s the very best way.
“I admired him for his achievements but I can’t condone drug cheats, it’s not for me, I just can’t do that.”
Lance won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after recovering from testicular cancer.
Following years of accusations and investigations in 2012 he was finally stripped of all his titles.
A short while later in 2013 he admitted for the first time that he doped throughout his career.
A new documentary about Phil Liggett’s life entitled, Phil Liggett: The Voice of Cycling is set for release on March 8.
47 thoughts on “Phil Liggett believes Lance Armstrong would have won the Tour without drugs”
“Phil Liggett believes Lance
“Phil Liggett believes Lance Armstrong would have won the Tour without drugs” and he still chose to cheat and bully those around him. And thus ultimately begs the question of why he felt he had to cheat and bully people.
I think he means that LA
I think he means that LA would have won the tour without drugs provided everyone else was clean too. Which is patently true.
Kadinkski wrote:
Lance had a very low hematocrit which meant he gained far more from EPO etc than riders with a naturally high hematocrit (who gained little, or nothing)
That’s why it’s a lie that he would definitely have won the TDF. Maybe he could have…but more likely, he would have been a good one day racer as he proved prior to the epo era.
Many of the haters are anti
Many of the haters are anti-American xenophobes, which is a joke really given Europeans’ history with cycling and drug abuse.
If cycling would have been clean, Lance would never have had to gamed the system in the same way as other nationalities had been doing for decades.
No, LA is a horrible human
No, LA is a horrible human being AND a cheat, it’s not xenophobic to ‘hate’ that particular combination.
Is it more noble to be an
Is it more noble to be an anti-European xenophobe than an anti-American one? Asking for you.
How is it xenophobic to note
How is it xenophobic to note that pre-Armstrong pro cycling, which was almost entirely European (including a few Brits), has been stuffed full of riders using drugs pretty much since day one?
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Well, as I am a European, it is literally impossible for me to be a xenophobe against European people.
Or did you deliberately conflate “Europe” with the patrician, anti-democratic empire which is the EU? In which case, yeah guilty ?, certainly hope it fails.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
And I suppose as a human being it is literally impossible for you to be a xenophobe against other human beings…
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Is it more noble to be an anti-European xenophobe than an anti-American one? Asking for you.
— Nigel Garrage Well, as I am a European, it is literally impossible for me to be a xenophobe against European people. Or did you deliberately conflate “Europe” with the patrician, anti-democratic empire which is the EU? In which case, yeah guilty ?, certainly hope it fails.— HarrogateSpa
If you vote to end freedom of movement to keep those nasty European foreigners out then people might call you a little xenophobic.
Or did you want to keep freedom of movement for EU citizens?
If you vote to continue
If you vote to continue freedom of movement in order to legally prioritise immigration from predominantly white countries then people might call you a little racist.
It’s fun to make ridiculous assumptions isn’t it!
Scraping the barrel there.
Scraping the barrel there. Most Kippers dislike immigrants from non-European countries even more than those from European countries.
Just demonstrating that you
Just demonstrating that you can make ludicrous assumptions on both sides.
Unsurprisingly, it appears to have gone a long way over your head.
Bollocks, the same people
Bollocks, the same people like LeMond. Who is from where?
Sniffer wrote:
He doesn’t count because he has a French surname
“Which is patently true.”
“Which is patently true.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Read what Eddy Berckx wrote.
“And he wasn’t taking drugs
“And he wasn’t taking drugs when he went training”.
How can a man involved with the sport for so long be so blinkered?
We’ll never know and we were
We’ll never know and we were robbed of the opportunity to find out. Too few journalists questioned what was going on and were, therefore, complicit in the con.
IanMK wrote:
And anyone who did felt the furious wrath of Armstrong and his lawyers.
Greg LeMond paid a heavy price for voicing his opinion but he was adamant that Armstrong could not have ever been a Grand Tour winner without being on EPO. Although many other riders were also using EPO it certainly wasn’t a level playing field.
I hope the documentary doesn’t spend too much time on the Armstrong era; there’s so much more depth to the sport than one man, regardless of how many times he won in Paris.
It’s rather sad how Phil can
It’s rather sad how Phil can’t bear to admit he was taken in by Armstrong and instead continues to act as a sycophantic cheerleader for him. While it would be embarassing to have to admit he played part in promoting the lie, it’s far more embarassing to continue to defend Armstrong as he finds it easier than admitting he got it wrong. It’s a shame as he’s damaging his own reputation in the process – I have fond memories of him and Paul Sherwen commentating on the Tour as I first started following cycling, but he’s become a bit of a sad irrelevancy.
I think Phil Liggett is
I think Phil Liggett is giving some much needed nuance to the debate. Enough water has passed under the bridge, for us to wonder, was he the best?
Yes he was one of the greatest athletes of all time, certainly the preeminent cyclist of his generation. And he topped up all his prodigious genetic gifts with drugs.
Who is able to understand that there is no paradox here?
Well, it’s very generous of
Well, it’s very generous of you that you can read Liggett’s comments as ‘nuance’ rather than demeaning credulous bootlicking. To paraphrase Armstrong, it was never just about the drugs, it was also the obscene bullying of anyone who he viewed as a threat to his status and reputation. That bullying played a significant role in making it harder for clean cyclists to get any sort of foothold in the sport (c.f. Christophe Bassons), and it mystifies me that anyone can even partially absolve Armstrong because ‘everyone else was doing it’ when his drug-taking was only one aspect of what made him such a malign influence on the sport.
‘The 77-year-old “journalist”
‘The 77-year-old “journalist”.’ You forget the quotation marks.
‘I can’t condone drug cheats, it’s not for me, I just can’t do that.’ And yet that’s exactly what you’re doing here, Phil.
Nowhere does Phil condone the
Nowhere does Phil condone the behaviour. He simply believes LA was the best athlete and competitor of his generation . Lots and lots agree, myself included. I think you should give PL more credit!
No need for the quotation
No need for the quotation marks, he was a journalist trained on Fleet Street and wrote for cycling publications as well as mainstream news media. Then moving into commentary for numerous TV broadcasters. And he was pretty good at it too.
There’s no contradiction in assessing Armstrong’s ability as good enough to win without drugs while rejecting his use of them. That you try to disparage Liggett on the basis of guilt by association says more about your bias than his judgement. A good journalist can separate emotion from opinion and it’s clear that is what he has done in his comments.
“A good journalist can
“A good journalist can separate emotion from opinion and it’s clear that is what he has done in his comments.”
No he hasn’t. He was always a Lance Armstrong fanboy, and he is still defending him now. It’s pathetic.
I don’t mind your ad hominem attacks, but it would be much better to stick to the substance of the debate.
You shouldn’t use words you
You shouldn’t use words you don’t understand the meaning of, it’s embarrassing. There’s a number of interviews with Phil Liggett where he condemns the drug use, that hasn’t changed since Armstrong admitted to doping. Such as this one from 2013, on the national broadcaster ABC when he was here for the TDU in 2013.
PHILIP LIGGETT: “He hasn’t got any sporting achievements as far as I can see, although he’s categorically said also in the program that he has never taken any drugs since 2005 which means that his third place in the Tour de France after his comeback would still stand.
But you know, you can’t believe him now because he has sworn and perjured himself to say he never took drugs and yet- but the same words were used in the interview, when he was saying he did take drugs. You can’t no longer believe a word he says I’m afraid.”
In an interview with Gary Maddox of the Sydney Morning Herald published on 20 Feb 2021 he said “I’m glad they got him”. It’s not like he’s softened his stance on Lance’s doping over 8 years. Is that what you call “being a fanboy” and “defending him”?
There were some more quotes
There were some more quotes from the interview in the Mail, whilst Liggett doesnt condone drug use,it seems clear he still admires Armstrong,not just for his charity stuff,but as to the very traits which made him that TdF winner.
And it’s that admiration part which I dont believe alot of cycling sport fans do share on Armstrong because of the drug use and the way Armstrong treated people.
Controversial opinion: Doping
Controversial opinion: Doping was widespread at the time. Lots of people that Armstrong beat were probably doping at the time. If we turned back the clock and did it all again with no doping, Armstrong would probably still do well, compared to other big names who also lose a lot of power. Probably, maybe. But we’ll never know. The only reality we have is the one in which Armstrong (and a lot of less prominent people) cheated.
Even more controversial opinion: There were probably a lot more undiscovered Armstrongs in the interval between (a) clever pharmaceutical and biochemical things being discovered, and (b) international sports bodies realising they ought to test athletes for that stuff. I grew up following folk like Indurain and Bruyneel and Fignon and Rominger and Bugno and Jalabert and Bjarne “I never tested positive” Riis… does anybody still think that generation is 100% clean?
In a no drugs world Armstrong
In a no drugs world Armstrong would have won it once and it would have looked like it was killing him like Cadel Evans.
bobrayner wrote:
Times on major climbs of the tours would be quite revealing, with a period where times were significantly lower than before or after. There shopuld be a general downward trend driven by training and equipment weight improvement, and then a significant anomolous period driven by drugs.
It’s not just physiology that
It’s not just physiology that wins you a grand tour.
It obviously helps but you also need tactics, mental strength and to be a very good bike handler.
Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single current rider who has finished 7 TdFs in a row whilst being competitive for GC?
With a naturally low haematocrit you’d have to assume that Armstrong would also respond well to altitude training and other legal ways to boost your red cells so I don’t think that fact alone eliminates him from competing cleanly.
I think cycling at the highest level is probably relatively clean now but it’s been so for less than a decade IMHO.
There’s Froome of course in
There’s Froome of course in the 8 years from 2011-2018. Apart from crashing in the TDF in 2014, so its only 6 TDF’s, but in mitigation he still came 2nd in the Vuelta that year. Without that crash its likely he would have finished the TDF in the top 10 easily.
He was the closest I could
He was the closest I could think of as well.
I completely agree that he would have been competitive if he hadn’t crashed in 2014.
The dominant GC rider of his generation, in the most dominant grand tour team and he couldn’t manage 7 competitive TdF finishes in a row.
It wasn’t just the doping that made Armstrong successful.
Rich_cb wrote:
That is obviously true … particularly if you assume (as appears to be the case) that everyone was doping, therefore it was a level playing field.
I just always have an issue with an attitude like “he/she wasn’t successful only because he/she cheated”. The second part of that renders the first part irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
That’s fair enough.
That’s fair enough.
It does rather limit the amount of riders who you can actually admire though!
During the EPO era the south
During the EPO era the south American cyclists virtually disappeared and as we’ve come out of it they have come back strong. Yes, Lance was a beast in terms of training and commitment, but the EPO era meant it was impossible for many to compete. Although he is rarely spoken about I’ve no doubt Indurain would have not won five tours in a pre or post EPO era. I think the story that always makes me laugh is one from Roger Hammond. I think he was riding the Vuelta and they didn’t want to let him start because his natural haematocrit was so low compared to everyone else due to him not being on EPO.
yup the denial around
yup the denial around Armstrong and Indurain is crazy. THese are not races a rider should ever dominate for 5-7 years…the number of miles, days, and riders is too much probability in a clean race to dominate for 7 years. Obviously the use and deployment of EPO team to team was not even.
Haters are going to hate, but
Haters are going to hate, but Armstrong is one of the best ever. They were all on the gear, he was just the best of the bunch and continued to be. A freak became a bigger freak when he doped. Still a freak.
Amazing that Indurain gets the credit he gets. If you think he didn’t dope…..they just didn’t have the tests….
I belive the phrase you are
I belive the phrase you are looking for is ‘Innocent until PROVEN guilty’.
We have to thank the testing
We have to thank the testing for bringing people like Froome and Thomas to the fore- look at the problems they have suffered! Good days, bad days, fighting back..none of this ‘imperious dominance’ that Armstrong arranged. Armstrong was indeed a great athlete, and a pretty bad man. The most recent 2-parter on him allowed some of the old Armstrong through, with his bitter condemnation of Landis, who was also bad but not so calculating or ruthless.
god the Armstrong apolgists
god the Armstrong apologists rise again. Nobody is doubting that the Postal team was more disciplined, technical and better funded than most. But most dont understand PED’s like EPO and how Armstrong used it, and how he created a safetey envelope to use it. Expertly deployed EPO at the right moment in the right stage can give a rider HUGE advantages. In the shadow of Festina, the “everyone was using it” claim is not accurate….many riders were not, and others were using it without expert supervision and without key resources and protection needed to put together dosing during key timing during races. Lance was a gifted day-racer with potential but physiologically he was not a world-class top 5 hill climber. Suddenly a guy who was more of sprinter is blowning the doors off of world class climbers. Give me a break.
If you really think that 7 TDF wins is proof of greatness…you fundementally dont understand the TDF and mathematical probability.
I’m no fan of Ligget, but I
I’m no fan of Ligget, but I am fascinated by Lord Voldemort.
I sort of agree with the implied statement that Voldemort would have been an outstanding athlete with all things being equal. Maybe he would have won a tour, maybe he’d have flourished in one day classics, or TT’s? I’d like to believe he’d have found his place somewhere.
But this is all stuff and nonsense a debate with no answers, I’m off to go shout at some clouds.
Lance was absolutely correct,
Lance was absolutely correct, he would have won if everyone else wasn’t doping, all he did by doping was to level the playing field back then. What a lot of you don’t realize is that the French don’t really like Americans, and for some damn Yankee to win THEIR race 7 times was an insult to their national pride. Had Lance won one or two races nothing would have been made about the doping, but he won THEIR race 7 times, and some damn Yankee can’t be allowed to do that. They had evidence of a whole lot of people that were doping during the race and nothing was said. There were even team vans parked at strategic locations on the courses that riders would ride their bikes up to, dismount, go inside for a couple of minutes, and come back outside rejuvenated and ready to ride, nothing said about that, and the race officials knew those vans were there, you couldn’t miss them! The other weird thing is why did they just leave those 7 races blank with no winners? why wasn’t the second place guy determined to be the winner?
froze wrote:
I think that’s a very naive perspective.
You’re saying Lance was also “absolutely correct” from 1998 until 2011 when he said that he never doped?
No, he is a extremely convincing liar.
It has been widely acknowledged that the use of EPO in cycling during the late 90s and 2000s produced anything but a level playing field while plenty of observers far better informed than you and me have said categorically that he was not anywhere near the best athlete of his era.
However, I do feel that he did win those races, whether we like it or not, and it seems bizarre to have simply ‘no winner’ (though it does of course acknowledge that the other bastards in 2nd, 3rd etc were all cheating as well).
Wow, did you ever misread
Wow, did you ever misread what I wrote, here let me write it again: Lance was absolutely correct, he would have won if everyone else wasn’t doping, all he did by doping was to level the playing field back then. Let me rephrase it, Lance would have won had he not doped and everyone else did not dope either. In other words, Lance would have won all 7 of those races like he did doping against a peloton of dopers, had he not doped and the peloton did not dope. Can I make that any clearer? I never said he was correct that he never doped, he even admitted to doping a long time ago.
Uncle Phil misses the point
Uncle Phil misses the point (again),
I’m pretty sure that what most of us found odious about L*nce wasn’t the doping (and yes, it was endemic at that time), it was the Bully-Boy sense of entitlement, the vile behaviour that entitlement drove and his utter lack of contrition after the event(s). Quite a piece of work.
(Has he been hanging with Donny? That shade of Orange looks horrendously familiar…) He still only seems to offer concessions when circumstances have him cornered and even then he comes across as mealy mouthed & cynical; he can get in the bin and stay there.