Lance Armstrong says he believes he will win the whistleblower lawsuit brought against him by former team mate Floyd Landis, but fears he could lose his home if it goes against him. The disgraced cyclist has also defended his decision to take part in former footballer Geoff Thomas’s charity ride following the route of the Tour de France next month.
He was speaking to the Daily Mail’s Matt Lawton, one of four British journalists invited to attend a training camp in Colorado with leukaemia survivor Thomas and others taking part in the ex-England and Crystal Palace player’s One Day Ahead charity ride, which will tackle all 21 stages of the race 24 hours ahead of the peloton.
Thomas, who says Armstrong’s return from cancer to win the Tour de France inspired him to battle leukaemia, aims to raise £1 million for the charity Cure Leukaemia through next month’s ride, which the Texan will join for a couple of stages.
Armstrong: My participation in charity ride "least of Brian Cookson's problems"
Leading figures within cycling, including UCI president Brian Cookson, Tour de France race director Christian Prudhomme and Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford, have said that Armstrong should not take part in the event, and have warned him he won’t be welcome in France.
But Armstrong said: “I mean, I don’t know Brian Cookson. I don’t know what his vision is for the sport. I don’t know if he is even able to form a vision. But I do know that me and Geoff riding in France is the least of his problems.
“If he is making public comments — and this is as strong as I’ll go — he needs to be talking about other things because this sport is not in a good place for a variety of reasons. A lot of it has to do — perhaps some would say — with me. But he doesn’t need to worry about this.”
He questioned the success of Cookson’s efforts to clean up the sport, given that the UCI Licence Commission [which operates independently of the governing body] decided earlier this year not to rescind the WorldTour licence of Armstrong’s former team, Astana.
“You guys can decide if he has done a good job, if he’s been tough on Astana, whether he’s stuck with his mission statement,” he said.
“Plenty of people would argue he’s laid down on a lot of things. Cookson is not very good at taking people down. So no disrespect to them [Cookson and Brailsford] but I don’t care what they think. This is not about them.”
Armstrong himself believes he will get a better reception than some are predicting. “I could be wrong but I’ve been to France since all this happened and that’s not the reaction I get,” he said. “I don’t know if certain people might be concerned that, God forbid, the reaction is positive. What happens then?”
Asked about the health of the sport now compared to when he was riding, Armstrong, who testified before the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC), said: “I absolutely don’t think it’s in a better place.”
However, he added that a figure provided by a source quoted in its report who suggested 90 per cent of the current peloton is doping was “excessive”.
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named still wants reduced ban
He maintains that he has been singled out for particularly harsh punishment, and said: “I’m that character in Harry Potter they can’t talk about, Voldemort? It’s as if you can’t mention him.
“I’m the one everybody wants to pretend never lived. But that will not be the case for ever because it can’t be the case for ever. That won’t work, people aren’t stupid. We know what happened.”
Armstrong revealed he is still in discussion with USADA CEO Travis Tygart, the man who brought him down, and explained why he would like to see a reduction in his lifetime ban.
“The ban matters for a couple of reasons,” he explained. “Primarily for triathlon [at 43 he still wants to compete] and because the world was told I was the biggest fraud in the history of sport and I don’t think that’s true.
“I’m not done talking to Travis, I’ll tell you that,” he went on. “But he wants fresh evidence? If we don’t know it by now then I missed it, between 10 books and three movies.
“At this point, after a federal investigation, a criminal investigation, a civil investigation, a federal agency, the threat of perjury and jail, an anti-doping agency threatening lifetime bans, books — trust me, it’s all there.
“I came through on my end with the CIRC report. I said I would be the first man in the door, I did it, went twice, answered every question I could.”
Hopeful of winning the whistleblower case - but says losing will ruin him
As for the whistleblower case, initiated by Landis and subsequently joined by the US Department of Justice, Armstrong is said to be “quietly confident” of winning.
The case revolves around the alleged misuse of federal funds, with US Postal Service sponsorship money helping finance the team’s doping programme, and should Armstrong lose it could cost him up to $100 million.
If that were to happen, he said, “We would not be sitting at this table any more. We wouldn’t be sitting in this home any more. We wouldn’t be sitting in any home. I don’t have $100 million.
“But we like our case, is all I will say. I’m not going to jinx myself. But I don’t know.”
As the person who originally brought the action, Landis – himself stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title – stands to earn one third of any money recovered from Armstrong.
He asked his interviewers: “How do you guys see it? Say the jury says pay up $100 million so Floyd Landis gets $33 million. Is everybody at this jury happy with that?
“There’s no logic to that. But the case is not about who lied, who doped. The case is about the damages. The Postal Service on its own commissioned the studies in 2004 that showed it made $100 million [as a result of its sponsorship]. So where are the damages?”
Armstrong’s legal team has continually tried to block the process but he insisted: “Certainly in my depositions and hearings in the trial for the federal case, at this point in my life, I’m not lying, I’m not going to jail.
“I’m not leaving what I got going on. And they would. If they found out I had lied, they would absolutely move for that. They would love it, love it.”
Livestrong door still firmly shut
In the wake of his televised confession to Oprah Winfrey in January 2013, Armstrong was removed from the board of Livestrong, the charity he founded as he battled cancer in 1996 and whose yellow wristbands became its signature.
He said he wanted to return to the organisation, saying: “I would like ultimately to be part of Livestrong again. And that might take longer than any of it. But it would be the logical move for both of us, them and me.”
Asked whether Livestrong seemed receptive, however, he said: “No. Not that I know of. But I’m here, I’m ready.”
Armstrong said he appreciated Thomas’s invitation to take part in the One Day Ahead ride, adding: “I view my life and career as two parts.
“One was the cycling side and one was the non-profit side with Livestrong. And that’s all totally authentic and real. That work is unimpeachable.
“But Geoff has been consistent. He caught a ton of grief. Most people don’t have the guts to ride that out,” he added.
Add new comment
27 comments
Armstrong is right with regards to UCI turning a blind eye to Astana though. Assuming he's still better placed than the rest of us, that statement pretty much confirmed just how rotten they are. Unless the UCI deal with this pretty smartly, there's a strong likelihood history will simply view Armstrong as a convenient scapegoat.
Bodybuilding has a 'freestyle' division where anything goes. There's no testing and you can watch drug-fuelled athletes at the pinnacle of pharmaceutical advancements slowly kill themselves. Then there is also a natural division where they test, the difference between the two is so stark that they probably don't even need to test. It works well for them.
Division is the wrong word, but you get what I mean.
I wasn't so highly invested in cycling back then so I just like to think of Lance as an average cyclist with a career best of 36th in the Tour.
He never has been a decent cyclist and should only be considered a legend in the realm of pharmaceuticals!
Why then is he given any air time, his opinion is invalid.
What a truly bizarre thing to say. He is giving his opinion on Landis's lawsuit against him, his ban from sport, his participation in a charity ride, and Cookson's attack on him. Out of the six billion people on earth his opinion is literally the most valid and relevant one out there.
You are joking, right??
I have no problem with the fact that he doped. He did it, he got caught. There were plenty of others at it in cycling and other sports.
My issue is how he tried covering it up, ruining people's life to maintain the illusion.
I don't mind hearing about him. I watched the docs on him and find him fascinating. There is a certain something about him that you can see how he got away with it for so long.
Funny that the trailer for 'The Program' appeared on IMDB today, looks like a thrilling psychological drama. People love a good bad guy and this is what keeps LA in the news. We secretely love the drama and love-to-hate-He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3083008/
Was expecting Chris O'Dowd to ask him 'Have ye troyed NOT takin the drugs?'
Miller was invited and given a ticket free gratis by sponsors no shame in that and who wouldn't ????.
He's not one for high fiving it in any case. The recent Tour of Yorkshire proved that with him getting on a bus with joe public and happy to talk to everyone.
I digress though, Armstrong should just shut up, accept what life has thrown at him and move on.
I imagine if he wrote a book spilling the beans on everything he did, who with, where and why he would earn himself quite a few quid then he could disappear into the sunset.
I quite like hearing what he has to say, and I suspect others do too! He's still box-office - I can't see that changing.
some are so desperate to support Wiggins/Sky, course they do. I guess Wiggins 'misspoke' when he called LA great ?
So McQuaid, Millar and Bruyneel all bought their tickets online, via Sky tickets, presumably within seconds of each other?
Are we *really* buying that?
It's a bit galling to have Brailsford, Cookson et al saying that Armstrong shouldn't ride the Day Ahead ride and that he shouldn't be welcome in France when you have Bruyneel and McQuaid windmilling their cocks round track centre in the middle of Brad and British Cycling's hour attempt.
It's also more galling that person who tried to convince the world he had an evil twin providing the positive results and then when on to defraud cycling fans out of a million dollars through the 'Floyd Fairness Fund' now stands to gain a lottery win sized sum of money.
I do believe that in comparison with others Armstrong has been very harshly punished but he was the one that made that rod for his back so fuck it.
I wouldn't be that arsed if his ban was reduced, to be honest, I'd prefer it if his ban was overturned from right now and he was eligible to race again but everyone in Pro-cycling made the unanimous decision to not work with him, but as the aforementioned Brad's hour, McQuaid and Bruyneel escapades show, you've probably got more chance of plaiting piss than that happening.
Bruyneel said he bought his tickets on the open market, unless the UCI outright bans him from even turning up to events (which is possibly a bit dodgy legally) he can turn up if he wants and has paid for it.
I don't know which I find more amusing, the fact that you believe something Bruyneel has said or that you think it's possible your average Joe on the street could buy tickets right next to the likes of McQuaid and David Millar and various other cycling top bods.
So they were threatening people, the average Joe on the Street, that sold tickets on secondary markets (a perfectly legal thing to do by the way) that they would have their tickets cancelled and entry refused to the extent that people were warned to bring ID for the door but somehow Bruyneel managed to just log on to Sky Tickets and buy himself some of the plummest of plum seats in the house?
I suppose for an extra tenner he could have got Brad to give him a backie?
Sure, why not? I've been to VIP events where you're hobnobbing with people that are mildly famous even if you're not. Makes more sense he bought tickets than the sponsors inviting a noted doper and persona non grata.
(Selling tickets on the secondary market is a bit of a grey area, depending on what the ticket T&Cs actually are. I believe the rules were tightened up on it earlier this year, but it's still a bit iffy.)
No it's not.
The event promoters and venues can put terms and conditions in, but there is nothing illegal about buying and selling tickets, even over face value.
*Edit* Except for football, within a mile and a half radius of the ground on matchday.
This is why it's a grey area, they can put in the T&Cs that tickets are only usable by the person who bought them and they can then refuse admission if they're not used as such. I'm not sure if any cases have actually gone to court over it though.
I missed this bit, was it in the highlights?
I know he'll get a great reception in France (in fact anywhere on the continent). Its just the sanctimonious brits (and to a much lesser extent Americans) that hate him.
He's spot on about Cookson too, why is he (Cookson) even bothering to give an opinion about the charity ride, its just making the distraction to his stated goals even bigger.
And Landis, what a cnut!
Believe me, there are plenty of sanctimonious French that hate him too. The difference being, he who shall not be named will (allegedly) be riding in their back yard. I hope he is training hard because I suspect there will be one or two who might like to express their views directly to him.
Yadda Yadda Yadda. He's a bad man, it's a long way down and history will, on a scale, repeat itself.
Leave him alone.
As in stop kicking him? Or in stop giving him the oxygen of publicity?
I'm not sure where I sit on this.
Both. Doping is still endemic so hounding him for cheating is ridiculous, hounding him for being a bastard is fine but we've heard it all. Anyone who believes Lance beat clean riders is deluded - if they were in with a chance they were in the pharmacy. If you look at the CIRC report mentioned in the article and believe that 90% of the peloton is cheating the battle is lost. If 90% is "excessive" and it's nearer 50% the battle is still lost - is 20% okay? If the human condition makes seeking advantage by any means a natural behaviour - why not give up and make doping legal but run two races in one: dopers and clean but constantly test only the clean riders. The ever increasing cost of testing could be borne by a levy on the dopers and a Pro/Am style handicapping system used to level the playing field that doping is supposed to be doing.
Yes, I know it's crazy and unworkable - just like fighting doping... Cookson's hollow promises make the vilification of one person pointless. Until there is a cheap test that catches the micro-dosers we may as well just watch and enjoy or follow a sport where cheating never happens. Good luck finding one.
I accept fully that (like FIFA officials of today) he acted at the time within the culture of cycling. The problem is that when caught he fought tooth and nail to supress the truth, gag his accusers and has, as far as I am concerned, failed to make any sort of meaningful apology for his actions. Becoming, if anything, more arrogant as the years go by. As a result, he above anyone else involved, has become synonymous with drug cheating in professional cycling. He will always be Lance Armstrong the drug cheat and no amount of attempts to rebrand his image in the world of cycling is going to change that.
Should we all move on, forgive and forget? It's not my place to 'forgive' Armstrong for what he did, but until every single last competitor from whom he stole a podium position, their place in the spotlight, a sponsorship deal or chance to succeed has publicly forgiven him and reconciliations made, I certainly wouldn't participate in any event to which he is associated and will continue to express my opinion that he should bugger off and leave cycling alone.
I agree with most of what you have said, but I would say that he (like the FIFA officials) played a big part in creating/developing/furthering that culture.
For me it's not so much the cheating, it's the way that he ruined other people's lives and reputations to protect himself at all costs. He should never have anything to do with cycling ever again.
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named...... Of all the names he's been called this is probably the BEST NAME EVER!
I'm with Voldemort, or should that be Col'de'mort ?
Can we officially call him 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' now pleeeeeeeeaaase?