- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Lance Armstrong confessionOprah interview Part 1: Lance Armstrong admits doping, but leaves many questions unanswered +reaction
“Did you ever take banned substances to enhance cycling performance?” “Yes.” Thus replied Lance Armstrong to the very first question put by Oprah Winfrey in part one of her interview with him that aired at 9pm Eastern Time in the United States yesterday evening. Admissions to using EPO, cortisone, testosterone and having illegal blood transfusions swiftly followed as he admitted he had doped his way to all seven of his Tour de France victories from 1999 to 2005. However, he strongly denied doping following his comeback in 2009.
From the outset, it was clear that Winfrey would not be giving Armstrong an easy ride. Her research had been meticulous, the questions were uncompromising, and each was preceded by a short montage that set the scene.
For Armstrong's part, there were none of the predicted tears, his gaze steel-blue, though his nervousness at some of the more punchy questions was betrayed by nervous laughter and shifting uncomfortably in his chair.
At other times, he was defiant, particularly when aggressively rejecting certain parts of the testimony laid against him - shades of the man who for so long denied everything, though given the reaction on Twitter and in the media, no-one seems inclined to believe any of his protestations now - and occasionally he even seemed distant and detached, as though talking about someone else.
"You brazenly denied everything so why now?" asked Winfrey.
"That's the best question," said Armstrong. "I don't know I have a great answer.
"This is too late, probably for most people and that's my fault. I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times. It's not as if I said no and moved off it. While I've lived through this process, I know the truth. The truth isn't what I said and now it's gone."
Regarding his doping, he said: "I viewed it as very simple. There were things that were oxygen-supplying drugs that were beneficial for cycling. My cocktail was EPO, but not a lot, transfusions and testosterone. There's no true justification.
"Were you afraid of getting caught?"
"No. Testing has evolved. Back then they didn't come to your house and there was no testing out of competition and for most of my career there wasn't that much out-of-competition testing so you're not going to get caught because you clean up for the races.
"It's a question of scheduling. That sounds weird. I'm no fan of the UCI but the biological passport worked."
However, it became apparent very early on that Armstrong would not be admitting to all of the findings of the USADA investigation that saw him banned from sport for life and stripped of all results dating from 1 August 1999.
He maintained that USADA's claim that it was the biggest doping conspiracy in sporting history was incorrect, citing the former East German doping programme.
Most notably, he refuted suggestions he had taken banned substances following his comeback in 2009, despite evidence in USADA's dossier of, among other things, suspicious blood values and payments to the banned trainer and physician Michele Ferrari, who Armstrong said he viewed "as a good man, as a smart man, and I still do.”
Armstrong's denial of doping since his comeback echoes the words of UCI President Pat McQuaid, who when he announced in October that the governing body was endorsing USADA's decision, said: "I don't accept the findings in 2009 and 2010."
There is a good reason for Armstrong to continue to deny doping from that period; under a statute of limitations, parties such as sponsors cannot sue him following his confession to doping. However, no such bar would apply to lawsuits relating to the period from 2009 onwards.
Likewise, he rejected some of the testimony provided by USADA's witnesses, insisting that he never told junior riders on the team to dope, mentioning Christian Vande Velde to dope.
Armstrong admitted, "I was a bully. I tried to control the narrative. If I didn't like what somebody said, I tried to control that. I've been like that my entire life.
"It was win at all costs. When I was diagnosed [with cancer in 1996] I would do anything to survive. I took that attitude - win at all costs - to cycling. That's bad. I was taking drugs before that but I wasn't a bully," he added, thereby admitting doping before the period to which the USADA investigation relates and, moreover, before he contracted cancer; some have wondered whether his contracting the disease may have resulted from prior drug use.
Asked about those who had been among the first to point the finger at him, he said that his former masseuse, Emma O'Reilly, was "one of these people I have to apologise to. She’s one of these people who got run over." Reminded by Winfrey he had sued her, Armstrong seemed lost for a moment. "We sued so many people I’m not sure," he said.
He confirmd she had been correct when she said that he had tested positive for cortisone during the 1999 Tour and had only managed to escape further action after producing a ficticious and backdated therapeutic use exemption certificate.
Mentioning Sunday Times journalist David Walsh, to whom O'Reilly had revealed details of Armstrong's doping, and Betsy Andreu, wife of his former team mate Frankie Andreu, Winfrey pressed him: "You’re suing people and you know they’re telling the truth? What is that?"
"It’s a major flaw… it’s inexcusable," replied Armstrong.
However, he refused to answer a question about whether Betsy Andreu was telling the truth when she said that she had heard him list substances he had taken to a doctor in an Indianapolis hospital room when he was first diagnosed with cancer.
Speaking to CNN immediately after last night's interview, Mrs Andreu said: "The hospital is where it all started. He's going to infuriate people who know the truth. He's still protecting people who are close to him."
Referring to his protestations that he had no influence over whether others in the team doping and no control over hiring and firing, she added: He was co-owner of the team, decided who was hired, fired, who got paid what. He was cosying up to politicians, the governing bodies. It's completely disingenuous and a way of distancing himself of being the leader."
One of the more surprising twists was Armstrong's claim that the donation of $125,000 that he made to the UCI was not a unilateral one made voluntarily, but rather was made at the request of the UCI. He denied, however, that it was linked to a suspect test for EPO during the Tour de Suisse in 2001 - he said "there was no positive test" and that "the UCI did not make that go away."
He added, "I'm no fan of the UCI," which begs the question of why he made the payment, whether that be of his own volition or at the request of the UCI. He also said that the payment was made after his first retirement in 2005.
However, in 2010, Pat McQuaid said that Armstrong had offered the money at a meeting at UCI headquarters in Aigle in May 2002, paying $25,000 by personal cheque there and then and the remaining $100,000 in 2005 when he was sent a reminder. Questions are bound to be asked of the UCI about whether Armstrong made the payments voluntarily, or whether the sum was requested of him.
Armstrong also insisted he had no influence in the Department of Justice dropping the federal investigation against him in February last year - he said it was "difficult" to do which some observers noted isn't the same as saying it's "impossible" - and he added that he believed he was "out of the woods" when the it was shelved.
Referring to the prospect of a truth and reconciliation commission, Armstrong said: "If they have it, and I'm invited, I'll be the first man at the door."
For many, the tipping point in the investigation against Armstrong, and the moment their suspicions he had cheated turned to certainty, was when it was revealed that George Hincapie, who rode alongside him in all seven editions of the Tour between 1999 and 2005, had testified to the federal grand jury investigating the former US Postal team.
"George is the most credible voice in all this," reflected Armstrong. "He did all seven Tours, I knew him since I was 16, we parcatically lived together, we trained together every day, and for the record, we're still great friends. We still talk once a week, I don't fault George Hincapie. But George knows this story better than anybody."
Those were Armstrong's final words in the first part of the interview, and it appears that the focus will now shift away from cycling. Among issues that will be explored in the second part, airing tomorrow at 9am Eastern Time (2am GMT in the UK) are LiveStrong, sponsors, his children, his mother, and what lies ahead for him.
In a statement issued shortly after the programme finished, USADA, without whose persistence Armstrong would most likely never have been held to account, said: “Tonight, Lance Armstrong finally acknowledged that his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and deceit.
"His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities.”
Livestrong, the charity Armstrong founded as he recovered from cancer, also issued a statement after the interview aired, saying: “We at the Livestrong Foundation are disappointed by the news that Lance Armstrong misled people during and after his cycling career, including us. Earlier this week, Lance apologized to our staff and we accepted his apology in order to move on and chart a strong, independent course. We look forward to devoting our full energy to our mission of helping people not only fight and survive cancer, but also thrive in life after cancer.
"Even in the wake of our disappointment, we also express our gratitude to Lance as a survivor for the drive, devotion and spirit he brought to serving cancer patients and the entire cancer community. Lance is no longer on the Foundation’s board, but he is our founder and we will always be grateful to him for creating and helping to build a Foundation that has served millions struggling with cancer.
The Livestrong Foundation is one of the most highly-rated and effective cancer organizations in the United States. Our success has never been based on one person – it’s based on the patients and survivors we serve every day, who approach a cancer diagnosis with hope, courage and perseverance. We listened to their needs and took action to create free cancer support services that offer access to clinical trials, fertility preservation, insurance coverage and even transportation to treatment. People living with and through cancer are the inspiration behind our work. They have been, are and always will be our focus.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mctrials23 20 min 57 sec ago
Part of it is that but a large part of it is just deeply ingrained hatred of cyclists because cyclists are blamed for ridiculous things and drivers...
- chrisonabike 32 min 44 sec ago
The exact situation shown in this photo is pretty common near me....
- brooksby 1 hour 34 min ago
Nope - had an urgent appointment with his tax advisor
- brooksby 1 hour 38 min ago
I'm not sure which one of them looks more like a crook…
- OnYerBike 2 hours 11 min ago
It might not be Miche-specific, but across all the thru-axle, disc brake wheelsets in my household (including Hope, DT Swiss and Bitex hubs), none...
- S.E. 4 hours 22 min ago
That made me think of that "Hot Fuzz" comedy movie... so many truths in it.
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 15 min ago
Good to see a V-brake option available for all those people who ride Cosmic Elites with V-brakes...seriously, you must know really that the answer...
- mattw 6 hours 53 min ago
Get thyself over to Buildhub - a community owned forum where I am on the moderation team ("Ferdinand") which is about self-build and renovation....
- Destroyer666 16 hours 57 min ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 17 hours 5 min ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
Add new comment
71 comments
This human being? Has now proven himself to be a cheat and bully amongst other things that we can all read about. He should now be totally ignored by Joe public and have his wallet emptied by the peoples who’s life he has or attempted to destroy and the payments should be punitive.
This is my first and will be last remark on this person because as I see it it just feeds his chance to make money and haven’t we got better things to do?
I must admit that in part I agree with Mescale's comment. If your going up against a so called human being like Armstrong especially with his reputation for aggressive defence then to protect yourself you need cast iron evidence and doing any other is terribly naive, considering as at the time there was no other accepted cast iron corroborating evidence, mainly because he was never tested positive. Last thought how much was he paid to appear on the show!? Nuff said first and last comment.
C••T!!
Simples, no more needs to be said.
pwake - EPO was freely available over the pharmacy counters in Switzerland - legally.
And there are any numbers of doctors who were/are willing to prescribe it for a fee.
Mescale. I really don't know how to begin.
'Justice is crap? Exists to appease the stupid masses?
People trying to do the right thing 'ruined their own lives'?
'What if Lance had been innocent?'
Congratulations - the most cynical (not to mention mind-numbingly stupid) attitude I've yet encountered.
And there is some stiff competition on this site.
'Mescale'? Hmmm...either you've taken too much of it, or your name is actually Lance.
Journalist David Zirn has d(r)ubbed Armstrong "The Tony Soprano of the cycling world". His indignant analysis can be seen here.
I think that's letting him off lightly.
~It was a $75 million day and its just gone, I'll never see it again.
Yeh I know the feeling; I'm thinking of the 75mil I'll never earn too.
This Comment says much of what i put in my recent Blogs :
" Armstrong has single handed almost destroyed cycling as a sport. Nicole Cooke was spot on. His so called confession was yet another orchestrated media show and does not move events forward very much. The UCI are equally guilty and need to be swept clean of all existing members. The blazer brigade is no better than Armstrong. Vote for Lemond. The independent inquiry it has set up has no teeth. We need a clean break with the past and move forward with a strong dope testing process with strong punishments for offenders, ie life bans. At the same time we need to be tolerant to past dopers caught up in the Armstrong world. At the very time cycling had the chance to move forward after the Festina and similar episodes he took us back into the dark ages, with the apparent full knowledge of the UCI. Brian Cookson, top BC man, needs to explain what he was doing as a UCI member. Why did he and his colleagues not look further into suspicions about Armstrong that many cycling fans had had for years? "
UCIIC are confronting the UCI , in the next week , hope they succeed in changing their " T of R " , because if they don't we are stuck with " Same old " , for the future !
People like Brian Cookson , need to step aside so thast people like Nicole Cooke can get the job done !
Use the following links to see the truth of the coverup that currently exists :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8854048/lance-armstrong-i...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130117/betsy-andreu-lance-a...
I think there were several zeroes involved, hang on...
.... here you go: $0.00
He didn't get one red cent for it, confirmed by the producers.
Spot on mate
Its really rude to selectively quote people you know. but its ok I forgive you.
Here some examples of justice,
http://road.cc/content/news/74420-ctc-and-british-cycling-heavily-critic...
http://road.cc/content/news/74613-jury-fails-reach-decision-cyclist-deat...
Driver kills cyclist and is fined £35.
Thats justice its what our justice system has decided to do.
Can you really read that article and think that justice isn't crap.
Justice isn't about whats right or wrong its about the upholding of a buch of arbitrary rules. True some of the rules are a good idea, and some less so.
I think we can all agree killing someone is wrong yet the justice system can charge qa £35 fine for killing a cyclist and give prison sentences for other deaths.
That is why justice is crap. I'm sure some people think justice is done in this country, and it makes people feel happy and safe.
These people are stupid.
So ther we have proof that justice is both crap and exists to appease the stupid.
See the point I made about selective quoting I never wrote this.
I said
There is a good reason why there is a saying saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Try thinking about it.
You don't get anywhere in this world by being nice or good, people will take you for granted or walk all over you, is it cynical? no its reality. Very few people in your life will look out for you. If you don't look after yourself you will end up having a pretty crappy life.
Whilst I admire the people who took a stand against Lance and had their careers ruined. I can't say they didn't ask for it. It would be nice if the world worked like that, the plucky individual takes down the big man, and everything is right with the world.
This doesn't happen, and to think otherwise is naive.
I wonder where you and all the other people so dead set against lance were when these individuals were trying to unmask Lance, I don't think you were busy supporting them. Thats why they failed and their careers got ruined.
Right now its over, Lance had confessed, and now people are getting all uppity, and belligerent about it. Thats weak. Its pathetic, and I really can't stand people who do it. Where were those people when it was happening, adoring worshiping Lance.
Sorry I can't accept such hypocrisy, and double standards.
Again well done on selectively quoting my words.
My point was simple and required you to read my post, right now you are busy venerating those people who spoke out and had their careers ruined.
Its easy to do so now when you know they were right but you would be singing a different tune if they weren't.
The point being that at the time they spoke up they weren't obviously right, and their words were those that would ruin someone else's career.
Now if they had the ability to prove their words then this would be a moot point but they didn't.
Who do you believe which is the right choice? Its not a simple choice to make, unless you already know that they were right, making your moral decision after the truth is known is weak. You choice or decision should have been made at the time not years later.
Is it guilt that when these people spoke up you were unwilling to listen, that now you want some way to assuage your guilt at not believing them? Is it because you are in part guilty of ruining their career?
Don't feel bad this happens all the time, people are right and people think they're wrong all the time. Its part of life and society. Those people are certainly admirable to stand up in what they believe in, but also foolish because ultimately they don't actually do anything but hurt themselves. If anything they managed to improve Lances mythical stature as some god of cycling by making un substantiated claims which he 'disproved' in which case they didn't help at all.
Good intentions be damned, do it by the book, if you can prove it speak up, if you can't get evidence. If you have a hunch, this isn't scooby doo.
No congratulations to you, you are just one of millions of people who can neither read, understand or think about something in a useful way. You are only reactionary, you are part of the problem because you will never solve a problem, you'll just lament how terrible it was that it happened, and how the bad people who made it happen should be punished.
Weak
I think you're probably thinking of Mescaline.
Wit only works if you're clever enough to use it,
'Astounded. You deserve Lance and he deserves fans like you.
'
this. Jaw-droppingly naive.
'Everyone likes the guy who says at the end "I told you so" right? right?
'
In this case, yes. And everyone laughs at the guy who believed the bullsh1t.
The French, L'Equipe, Walsh, Kimmage and most of my club mates have been proven right in their long term doubts about Armstrong. The LA Olympics 1982 were the turning point for me and with it the realisation that our American friends did not play cricket or share our sense of fair play and all that. Winning at any cost was the credo and with it gold medals were won by those who came from nowhere and quickly vanished off the scene.
Armstrong has single handed almost destroyed cycling as a sport. Nicole Cooke was spot on. His so called confession was yet another orchestrated media show and does not move events forward very much. The UCI are equally guilty and need to be swept clean of all existing members. The blazer brigade is no better than Armstrong. Vote for Lemond. The independent inquiry it has set up has no teeth. We need a clean break with the past and move forward with a strong dope testing process with strong punishments for offenders, ie life bans. At the same time we need to be tolerant to past dopers caught up in the Armstrong world. At the very time cycling had the chance to move forward after the Festina and similar episodes he took us back into the dark ages, with the apparent full knowledge of the UCI. Brian Cookson, top BC man, needs to explain what he was doing as a UCI member. Why did he and his colleagues not look further into suspicions about Armstrong that many cycling fans had had for years?
Armstrong was unlike any other doper past or present. He was a nasty piece of work - straight out of the Robert Maxwell school, a bully and media manipulator. I like to think that I am non vindictive but hope that the American justice system, which can be very persistent, will eventually catch up with him. Pour encourager les autres.
I didn't watch Oprah. Lance has lied for long enough, he won't start being honest now.
However, Bonnie Ford has written a fascinating, extensive piece about Armstrong that sheds far more light on this than his own showbiz appearance, including some facts I haven't known before:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8854048/lance-armstrong-i...
Bonnie also tweeted a link to a Q&A with Betsy Andreu published yesterday:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130117/betsy-andreu-lance-a...
It really doesn't matter.
Whats done is done, it won't be undone, his admitting won't undo what he's done, even if he apologises it won't undo what he's done. ruining his life, bankrupting him, won't un -do what he's done.
Instead of looking to the past look to the future.
The future you want doesn't start with revenge against some guy who cheated and was generally nasty to a bunch of people in the past.
'Generally nasty' would cover something like calling those people douches. If that was the extent of his vices I'd agree with you. But it doesn't come close to describing his use of the courts to intimidate and destroy those who dared to be truthful.
Additionally, he perpetuated and encouraged a culture of doping which destroyed careers. And we're supposed to shrug and just say "never mind, what's done is done." Justice is important here.
Justice is crap, it exists to appease the stupid masses but is meaningless.
Lance Armstrong has wasted his cycling career cheating himself, he got 7 Tour De France titles, but he never got the satisfaction of winning them himself, and never will. His crime is its own punishment.
He ruined people's lives?
No they ruined their own lives, if you are going to accuse someone of cheating, or doping you better have evidence, and when he's a big famous person who can crush you with his media presence and/or piles of cash, you'd be stupid to waste your career on trying to take him down with just good intentions. Innocent until proven guilty, they couldn't prove he was guilty, so they committed career suicide.
What if he had been innocent? Those people would be the bad guys trying to ruin a career.
Its easy to say after the fact that oh he's so bad, he ruined careers how despicable.
Everyone likes the guy who says at the end "I told you so" right? right?
No
Don't be that guy.
Astounded. You deserve Lance and he deserves fans like you.
If you truly think Armstrong is one of the most vile and despicable people on the planet, you're not paying attention to what's going on in the world.
Armstrong was one of very many cheats in sport but certainly one of the most successful. It won't make me feel any better if he goes to jail or loses every penny.
He used the sport to enrich himself and even now he couldn't give a fig for cycling.
The pros in the peloton better have watched carefully and realise that if they continue to dope the sport is doomed.
Time for Wiggins and other team leaders to demand transparency (publish blood profiles every week), a change in the UCI and not just McQuaid/Verbruggen but whole scale, more money spent on testing and longer bans (min 4 years.
If history tells us anything it is that if you have the means to avoid detection it pays to dope. Cycling is never going to be "doomed" worst case scenario is for the pros with the big buck contracts getting paid less due to sponsors withdrawing. As money in sport draws in cheats like flies around the honey pot it will never change, cycling just has this tag of doping. it probably makes it more interesting to sports journos looking to for an easy story on a quiet day with a deadline looming
The guy made is money, fame and status on the back of a lie that served many people very well. Why on earth would he suddenly about turn. He knows exactly what he is doing and saying and that is based on what his legal team are advising him to do to minimise damage to himself. Don't expect a tearful confession any time soon it's still lance Armstrong we are talking about
No mention of the word sorry
' I agree as well - it wasn't just that he doped, but that he lied about it and continued lying by using the legal system to keep quiet all those who spoke out against him. It's one thing to confess to being a cheat, a liar and a bully, but it's another to repay the damage.'
It was THAT HE DOPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then he LIED and Lied and LIED.
It's the dope thats the biggest crime to sport and all those who take part on merit. Yes we'd all like to win, we all want to win our own little races. But we want to win on MERIT.
We will never forget what his name did to our beautiful sport but I don't want to see or read about his dirty life. Enough!
The missus, whose first degree is in a psychology related subject, watched the interview this afternoon and made an interesting observation.
She made it after I'd put her in the picture that it was clear there were some things he was still denying, and a lot of people were upset not only about that but also about the way the old Armstrong came out in some parts.
Her point was this. When you've been living a lie for that long, when you've built and consistently defended a facade that has no grounding in truth, and on the scale he has, it's simply impossible for the brain to do a 180-degree turn on all the issues overnight (or at least in the space of at most a month or so, once he'd said to Tygart that he might be willing to talk).
The word sociopath has been mentioned a lot in the wake of the interview. Her view was that he doesn't really display those traits - such as having no awareness of the effects of his actions on others - but that right now, he (or his brain) is still unable to comprehend and rationalise the effects of living that lie and protecting himself at all costs, the scale of the deception and the damage he wrought.
But she thinks ultimately, he will.
None of this is to defend Armstrong, still less say we should have any sympathy for him.
But I think she has a point that right now, when he has only just acknowledged to the outside world - and in all probability, himself - that the entire life he has been living for nearly two decades has been built on falsehood after falsehood, it is going to take time for him to truly become aware of what he did.
The fact that he is still lying on some issues, presumably on the advice of his lawyers, probably adds to that conflict right now.
Just the wife's 2 cents' worth.
I totally agree with you and your wife. He has not understood the situation and his part in it all. He is still in denial to a certain extent, and this is why he is not contrite. This is why he is not ready to come back to the world. One day he may unload the shackles of this weird world he created, and then I can only imagine that he breakdown uncontrollably into an emotional mess. But until then everything is more or less A-OK in Planet Lance. Emma O'Reilly always talked about him in such a way.
The sad thing is, with all his money and clout, he could have been one of the people to put the pressure on against doping, when it became a pelaton of two speeds.
Not so surprised to hear cavendish has a high profile in the states, he delights and irritates in equal measures when he opens his mouth (thankfully)and as a result is interesting to read about whereas wiggins only just seems to be learning how to speak to the press.
Whilst i have no axe to grind against wiggins his profile as a multiple olympic medallist should have been much higher. He quite rightly had many column inches as a result of tremendous recent success but outside the fanboy world of cycling the general public could not have cared less about his fantastic season prior to his TdF and olympic TT.
The press want to sell "stories" and need peole to sell themselves. Stats are for fans.
The guy may be a bully, control freak, cheat, but love him or hate him the tour de france went from being a huge race for cycling fans (only) to a world wide sporting event. The cycling world was pretty small before and as a 30 year fan of the sport i feel it was lance who raised the profile. I can state i am not a fan of his nor have i ever been having always willed jan ulrich on to 2nd place.
There have always been cheats and there always will be. Any sport needs "characters" to make it interesting and accessable to the general public who unsurprisingly dont understand why heroic??? breakaways dont succeed and are left to hang out to dry until the last 10km day after day. Lance fulfilled this role until cavendish and wiggins came along.
P.S national pride withstanding how high a profile does wiggins have in the U.S as a multiple olympic medallist and true tour de france winner i wonder?
to quote eminem regards lance "its been so empty without me!!!!!!"
Not to mention the fact that today's crop of 'clean' riders are reaping the benefits of Cash-cow Armstrong with their 7-figure salaries and endorsmemts.
Cycling is, obviously, bigger in the States than pre-Lance and the TDF is a big event here and with the Tour of California and the USA Procycling Challenge things are still growing. But really it is a cinderalla sport compared to NFL, NBA & NBL (go drug test in those sports! Wow!).
The LA story was a fairytale (in more ways than one) that will never be repeated. Even when there is another American TDF winner, it won't have the impact that Lance had and despite the recent events LA's legacy will be a lasting one and, bitter pill as it may be for some, a positive one; he put bums on saddles at the end of the day.
Interestingly, as regards the Brits, I would say that Cav is a massive star over here (they love a winner), Wiggo not so much.
Pages