Olympics Blog

News about the Summer and Winter Games

« Previous Post | Olympics Blog Home | Next Post »

The buzz: Is Landis the fly who can finally sting Armstrong?


A colleague from my journalistic past, former newspaperman Dan Barreiro, e-mailed out of the blue yesterday to ask if I would go on his radio show (KFAN in Minneapolis) to talk about the Floyd Landis doping revelations and accusations.

As I did the interview late Thursday afternoon (click here for the audio, in the middle of the segment), a little voice in the back of my head kept repeating Capt. Renault's words from the movie "Casablanca'':  "I'm shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in here!'' just before a croupier hands Renault his winnings.

Anyone who has followed professional cycling -- or, in fact, any sport -- the past 15 years would be painfully naive to be shocked by Landis' admission of having been a previously unrepentant doper or by the idea that there could be truth in the doping accusations he has leveled at Lance Armstrong and the other members of a former cycling team, Motorola / U.S. Postal, that already had several riders connected to doping.

It's hardly novel for athletes to proclaim their innocence loudly for several years and then suddenly admit to having lied about doping.  Marion Jones did it.  So did Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettitte and Mark McGwire and many East German swimmers.

The difference between all of them and Landis is they were compelled into confessions by the feds or Congress or irrefutable evidence uncovered when the Berlin Wall fell or, in McGwire's case, the desire to get back into baseball as a coach. 

Landis did it to clear his conscience, according to Bonnie D. Ford's exclusive interview on espn.com with the defrocked 2006 Tour de France winner.

In the process, he chose to sling mud at other cyclists, including Armstrong, the one name guaranteed to get attention, the only one with name recognition beyond his sport.

The best efforts of amateur psychologists notwithstanding, it remains unclear why Landis chose to implicate Armstrong, Levi Leipheimer, David Zabriskie and a few others.

Was Landis trying to assuage his suddenly clear conscience and minimize the guilt he admitted by showing he was not alone?  Is he simply an embittered, broken (and reportedly broke) man looking to extract several tons of flesh from the sport that had rewarded and then rejected him?

To Armstrong, the charges leveled by Landis are merely a couple of new flies in the gigantic swarm that has buzzed around him since his first of seven straight Tour de France victories in 1999.  Over those years, Armstrong has either brushed away the pesky buggers, as he did in comments Thursday, or swatted them with threats of legal action.

But the buzzing won't stop, as if this is a special breed of fly attracted to suspected liars.

(Interestingly, Landis claimed in 2007 the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency had offered him a shortened ban for his 2006 Tour de France bust if he would pass on information that could help make a doping case against Armstrong, which Landis apparently refused to do. A few months earlier, Armstrong had said of Landis, "I don't think he did it [doped}.  That's always my position and still is today.'')

So far, what Landis has said in recent e-mails to cycling officials about Armstrong and others falls into the "he-said, she-said'' category.   Whether Landis can provide documented evidence -- or get others to corroborate details of his allegations -- may determine whether this is the fly that will give Armstrong's reputation an incurable infection despite his repeated denials about use of performance-enhancing drugs.

There already is a body of evidence to suggest Armstrong was a doper, some purely intuitive, some by implication, some "he-said, she-said,'' some scientific, even if he never has had an officially positive doping control.  (A positive in 1999 for a banned corticosteroid was dismissed when Armstrong belatedly produced a therapeutic use exemption, reportedly backdated, for the substance.  And not having failed a drug test hardly is proof of righteousness in an era when athletes find undetectable substances and masking agents and other ways to beat testing.)

The intuitive: In an era when cycling was rife with doping, as revealed by test results, police raids, trials and subsequent confessions, Armstrong crushed admitted dopers over and over again in the Tour de France.  Too good to be true or a one-in-a-million talent?

The implication:  U.S. riders Landis, Tyler Hamilton and Frankie Andreu, and Spaniards Roberto Heras and Manuel Beltran, all former Armstrong teammates, either have admitted to or been caught for doping.  Andreu admitted to doing it in 1999, which is significant because of ...

...The scientific: The French newspaper, L'Equipe, reported in 2005 that retroactive testing showed Armstrong had tested positive several times during the 1999 Tour for EPO, which was not officially banned at the time because no accurate test then existed to find it.  No sanctions were applied because the retroactive testing was unofficial -- and perhaps scientifically questionable, although that never was determined.

...And the statement:  Andreu's wife, Betsy, testified that when Armstrong was hospitalized for cancer treatment, she had heard him admit to having done extensive doping.  Armstrong denied ever saying it, and the case that led to the hearing (over whether a Dallas company had to pay a bonus owed Armstrong) was settled without determination of whether Betsy Andreu's testimony was believable.

So why don't people scorn Armstrong the way they do Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or other serial deniers?

Because the good work Armstrong has done for the cancer community, the funds and the consciousness he has raised, the hope he has given to millions with the disease, will mean a lot more in the long run than whether he told the truth about doping.  Many cancer survivors see Armstrong as a beacon to guide them through the darkest moments of their struggle, his triumphs a symbol of possibility, and they may no longer care if there was something wrong about the way that beacon was illuminated.

Even they may not be shocked if it turns out Floyd Landis was telling the truth.

Lance Armstrong gets the cancer pass.  It is the ultimate insect repellent.

-- Philip Hersh

Photo: Floyd Landis, left, working with his then-U.S. Postal teammate, Lance Armstrong, on the climb of Le Grand-Bornard a few days before Armstrong won his sixth Tour de France in 2004.  Credit: Bernard Papon / Associated Press

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Comments (9)

Lance Armstrong is the most drug tested sports person around. If the drug is not illegal, then what is the problem. I guess you can have a ban on all unknown substances created or yet to be created.

Look, I can accept the argument that Armstrong was doping because everyone else was. But the "scientific" proof you offered is barely proof positive since the drug that he "supposedly" retroactively tested positive for using in 1999 wasn't even on the ban list. That's the first problem with that point. The second problem is the entire he said/she said debacle. All of the folks talking have admitted to their guilt, or would appear to have an axe to grind with him. It's lame and especially petty for them to try to deflect attention onto Armstrong and away from themselves. If he's guilty of doping, let it come out naturally, no need to rush. I presume most thinking people who care about this believe he probably did use ped's, but he's innocent until proven guilty, and using your lame-o arguments to push the final verdict really doesn't help get to the bottom of this, it's just more blah-blah that doesn't move the ball forward at all. Pardon my mixed metaphors, I'm in a rush.
Bottom line, you're entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. This tendency to apply guilt without the facts to support it is a slippery slope that reporters like you especially need to avoid. You're encouraging a laziness of thought that seems to be permeating all of this society. Cut it out would you?

Sounds like baseball...in those days using steroid was not illegal.

Why are all you media types so anxious to believe the worst in any situation? How does Armstrong prove a negative? What more can he do? So, now you choose to believe a guy when he says he doped, but didn't believe him when he said he didn't. Floyd Landis has become pathetic and you and your media friends are about to join him in your rush to bring down Lance Armstrong.

I am French and I think Armstrong is the greatest in that sport, please leave him quiet, he is a great champion, have you seen him during "Tour de France" ? he is really fantastic....................

Cheers (though muffled) to Floyd Landis for finally copping to the truth. I hope his detailed revelations will gain growing positive acceptance, because illegal and unethical performance-enhancing drugs must continually be fought against in sports (yes, ALL sports). Lance Armstrong's you-didn't-catch-me-so-I'm-innocent pose should be strongly exposed, and all cheaters like him vilified and sanctioned as the liars and cowards they are. Sorry Phil, Armstrong doesn't get a 'cancer pass'.

Armstrong was (is?) definitely doping.
The reason Americans don't want to see it, is because they are Americans and he is an American superstar,... if he had another nationality, no American would have been fooled.

Armstrong's story is just impossible; imagine, a man weakened by chemotherapy stages a come back in a drug addled sport and goes on to destroy his competition 7 times!

Look at the Larry King interview, he couldn't look in Larry King's eyes when he was asked if he was doping.

He was definitely doping.
I think that a lot of athletes in cycling and track and field have doped and are doping.

I'm Jamaican; look at Jamaica, we only really started winning gold medals in track and field after the Marion Jones scandal and the crackdowns by USADA and WADA that followed.

We could only get 4th or maybe 3rd place in major meets before that.

After those crackdowns, a lot of teams from countries you never heard of started winning.

I hope they can do something similar for cycling, it would make winning at the highest level possible for athletes who are talented but financially challenged. It would revive the sport and greatly increase it's popularity, since most of the world is poor. More people would be able to identify with the athletes and would restore a sense of fair play and overall appreciation of the health enhancing aspects of sport competition.
Right now most sports are like the Chemists Olympics, may the best lab worker win.

Is there anyone less credible than Landis? He took money from ordinary people like me to mount his defense. He maintained he was innocent and stole money from schmucks like me. Now we should believe him? He's a putz. What Armstrong did or didn't do is between him and his conscience. If he doped, he got away with it. And I imagine he wouldn't be the first. If he didn't, as he continues to maintain, then he really is the greatest athlete of my lifetime.

It's true there was no test for EPO in 1999. It's not true it wasn't banned. That was what the Festina scandal the previous year was all about. A soigneur was caught carrying banned substances in the trunk of his car, including EPO. Hotel rooms were raided, several riders and team officials were taken into custody, the Tour almost didn't survive. The events made it very clear that doping was not an individual abberation, but was carried out by teams. The fact that several riders who were formerly Armstrong's teammates, not just Landis, have admitted doping, makes it even more improbable that Armstrong was not.

The scientific evidence that the 1999 samples did indeed contain EPO is actually quite good. Michael Ashenden, who developed the test used to detect certain forms of blood doping, says he is convinced the samples were not tampered with. Since a much larger percentage of Armstrong's samples tested positive (6/17, with two or three more likely positive but not reaching the very strict criterion) than those of other riders whose samples were also tested, one has to argue that someone knew which samples were Armstrong's, and intentionally contaminated some, but not all, and some, but not all. But contamination would have had to be done by someone highly familiar with the lab procedures, as the amount of EPO present corresponded to the narrow range normally found in human urine. It is also unlikely that storage of the samples could have converted a negative sample to a positive sample. Storage might have degraded any natural or synthetic EPO present, not converted natural to synthetic.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Bloggers