Demosophia

What's Up With LeMond?

Armed Liberal has promised to offer his thoughts on the controversy over accusations that Lance Armstrong has been using performance enhancing drugs. Impatient fellow that I am, I've decided to offer my own thoughts on the matter... even though I don't actually know a damn thing. In case the reader isn't aware of the flap, American cycling icon Greg LeMond has come out staunchly in support of those who have been claiming that Lance is a fraud.

I saw part of the ESPN report, which includes an interview with LeMond. According to the report there are several former associates of Armstrong, including a physician who's a former member of his medical support team, saying some rather incriminating things. But none of these detractors seem to have any direct knowledge of EPO doping. The physician says that he was approached by several cycists from the US Postal team (though not Lance himself) with what he called "veiled requests" for drugs, and shortly after he had refused to provide the "stuff" he was "unhired." That sounds sorta incriminating, but it's hardly a slam dunk. I doubt that his testimony would be worth much in court, since it largely amounts to hearsay.

Likewise a former pro cyclist said that he was at a meeting of cyclists in the early '90s where they discussed coming to a kind of collective agreement to use performance enhancers, and Armstrong was on the "pro" side of the argument. But this fellow doesn't seem to have any more direct knowledge than the physician, and someone else at the aforementioned meeting would probably have to come forward to corroborate what this guy says before I'd take it seriously.

LeMond is an order of magnitude more influencial than any of the other detractors, but I've only seen excerpts of his statements, and they seem to rest on his claim that he has been threatened, by Lance and others, with financial repercussions for speaking out. But what, exactly, does he know? What can he prove and what evidence does he have? I can't see that he's offering anything more than inference from what appear to possibly be guilty actions on the part of Lance.

I can't think of any particular reason why Greg would have it in for Lance, but haven't been paying that much attention. I suppose he could resent all the ad contracts, and the fact that Lance is sort of overshadowing his record as the premier American cyclist. In fact, Bernard Hinault, one of the five cyclists who have won the Tour five times, says that LeMond is motivated by jealousy. He'd be a lot more likely to know about that than the rest of us. The other folks could, likewise, be motivated by jealousy (in the case of the pro cyclist) or revenge (in the case of the fired sports consultant). But I don't know any of those reasons as facts, nor have I ever seen any evidence for them. What would the evidence be?

I guess the most damning thing I heard in the ESPN report was a statement by two women who were reportedly in a hospital room shortly after the cancer diagnosis, when Lance was asked by his doctor whether he had ever used performance-enhancing drugs. When asked what Lance's response was to the doctor the two women said that it was up to Lance to answer such questions. I suspect that if Lance had said "No, I've never ever used drugs," there'd have been little reason for them to defer to Lance. But he could have said something a good deal less embarassing than "Yeah, I've been using drugs nonstop for years," too. And even if he had used drugs, this would have been during the period prior to his cancer.

It's interesting to speculate whether or not Ullrich would be declared a four-time winner retroactively, if Lance is convicted of doping, since Jan was second to Lance thee times, and to Pantani once, and won the Tour in 1997. Pantani is known to have used drugs, though there's no proof he used them the year he won the Tour. (Ullrich was also second to Riis once, but I don't think anyone believes Riis was a doper.) Ullrich was once banned for six months himself, after testing positive for amphetamines.

Anyway, I'm not sure being declared the retroactive winner in those three (or four) races would be worth much, since I imagine if Lance turns out to be a fraud pro cycling will be pretty much in the toilet. But we're still a long way from that. For the time being I'm going to presume innocence, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I just don't see much proof here, extraordinary or otherwise.

Back in yellow, after his second stage win today.

Posted by Demosophist at July 20, 2004 06:18 PM | TrackBack