Lance Armstrong: It was more than the bike.

As London’s carnival of sport comes to an end with the closing ceremony of the Paralympics, the city will close the curtain to what will be seen as a defining summer not only for sport, but for the nation as a whole. Team GB’s success in harnessing the public’s attention and its ability to capture medals, many of them gold, will ensure that the London Olympics will be recognised as the most success modern games on record.

Even the achievements of our Paralympians have exceeded expectations. The British public have filled out the arenas and have continued to enjoy the relentless success. Many commentators are arriving at the belief that all athletes should be held as equals, despite any physical or mental handicap. And, whilst the athletes would prefer journalists to ask questions about their training and their hopes for the games, for most, it would be odd not to ask about their disability. This year’s games have seen injured members of the armed forces to a survivor from the 7 July terrorist bombings in London; all with unique and harrowing stories.

Whilst we marvel and are inspired by their success, a man who overcame his own challenges and rose to the top, inspiring millions along the way, has seen his reputation dissipate before him. Lance Armstrong, the cancer surviving cyclist, who went on to win Tour de France seven times, announced in August that he would not be challenging charges made by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in relation to doping offences during his cycling career. In doing so, Armstrong has been banned for life from the sport and all his successes, including medals and victories, will be stricken from the record books.

The subsequent press release from Armstrong signalled that he had spent his entire professional life fighting against doubters and doomsayers and that ‘enough is enough’. Armstrong felt that the ensuing investigations and allegations were having an effect on his family life and towards the work of his foundation. This in effect was not a confession of guilt, but a submission to the investigation.

Yet, as most involved in the sport point out, this is very un-Armstrong like. The Texan was renowned for his combative spirit, as well determination to take on obstacles. He fought his battle with cancer as he did when ascending the Alps; with the ultimate goal of winning. Why then is he suddenly stopping the pursuit?

It is likely that the investigations will uncover the scale of doping, not only committed by Armstrong, but by the whole US Postal Service team – maybe wider. Examinations and testimonies will apparently reveal that Armstrong was part of cycling’s dirty secret. Sport’s ultimate survivor did not possess superhuman qualities, but was tainted like many of others in the sport. Perhaps the prospect of seeing these allegations thrown at him in the courtroom was a step too far?

Undoubtedly, Armstrong will remain defiant despite what is thrown at him. Beyond witness testimony, there is no scientific proof of his guilt.

And it is that defiance which ultimately prevents Armstrong from saying anything further.

Anyone who has read his first autobiography ‘It’s Not About the Bike’, would not be moved by the American’s overcoming of cancer. His subsequent Livestrong foundation has helped raise millions of pounds and much more in awareness of the disease. Armstrong’s philosophy was that anyone can beat cancer and who knows how many it inspired in their own fight. This is perhaps where his reluctance-cum-intransigence stems from. Perhaps Armstrong feels that a confession of guilt would undermine his beliefs and everything the foundation represents. Not only would his reputation as an athlete be tarnished, but so too the charity he believes in anymore.

Are there any other precedents? It is now over a decade since the South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje died in an airplane crash. Cronje, a man who had led the country out of the sporting wilderness of Apartheid, inspiring millions of South Africans helped the team become one of the most feared sides in the 1990s. Yet, Cronje’s reputation was destroyed after allegations of match-fixing led to his ultimate confession in front of a South African courtroom. Cronje, a man of international standing, wept as he relayed his involvement in illegal match-fixing syndicates.

Cronje’s decision to confess all, perhaps partly down to the history of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, illustrated his willingness to confront the mistakes he had made and for the better of the game. His own personal reputation would forever be tarnished, even after his death. Yet people still recognise Cronje for his work to help rebuild South Africa, particularly his work in black townships, despite the match-fixing.

For Armstrong this is not even worth considering. He rode from the front in his career and it appears it is where he will remain.

Sport and the Law: Dwain Chambers and David Millar

There is an excellent quote from The Simpson’s in the episode when Springfield is chosen to host the Olympic Games. The Head of the IOC delivers a speech to the people declaring:

“People! People! Please. You are forgetting what the Olympics are all about. Giving out medals of beautiful gold, so-so silver and shameful bronze.”

In fact, the iconic British broadcaster David Coleman in his commentary of the 400m hurdle final in Mexico 1968 famously said: “Who cares who’s third?” unaware that Britain had picked up gold and bronze.

As the spotlight turns to London this summer, athletes will be looking to take home the medal that they have always dreamed to win. Years of practice can be rewarded or destroyed in a matter of seconds. The precedents set by the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Johnson only add to that desire. It is unfortunate that some athletes are willing to overstep the mark to achieve those dreams.

Chambers

Athletics is a sport that has been tarnished by drugs cheats down the years. No one forgets the industrial scale doping within East Germany and the stripping of Ben Johnson’s 100m gold medal in Seoul. Many have retold their story and tried to qualify their reasons for substance abuse, yet it still does not seem to restore their integrity.

The Court of Arbitration will soon be ruling whether the British Olympic Association’s (BOA) lifetime ban on athletes found guilty for drug use can be upheld. In late 2011, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) ruled that British sprinter Dwain Chambers, who has served a two –year ban for the banned substance THG, should be able to compete if he meets the necessary qualification time. They ruled that the BOA’s lifetime ban was ‘non-compliant’ with the WADA code. The ruling in Lausanne will see whether the BOA’s belief that the presence of athletes who deliberately cheat within Team GB would damage team morale, atmosphere and cohesion.

If the BOA loses, it may also see the cyclist David Millar able to compete.

The interesting debate between the two sides is the argument of whether it is in the legal interest or the sporting interest. If an athlete has served a ban for drug misuse then should they be able to compete on legal grounds or not compete for ethical purposes?

Millar

Both Millar and Chambers have competed in other events since their return to sport and both have done the media rounds and written books to exert their contrition. However, maybe it is only in the reactions of men or women who have competed against cheats that we should derive our judgement. The former British sprinter Darren Campbell was stripped of his 4 x 100m relay gold in the 2002 European Championships after Chambers’ positive drug test. Likewise, Michael Johnson was forced to hand back his 1999 World Championship and 2000 Olympic gold’s in the 4 x 400m relay after Antonio Pettigrew and Jerome Young were found guilty of substance abuse. These honest athletes were cheated out of medals themselves and forced to bear the indignity thereafter.

The CAS may overrule the BOA meaning both Millar and Chambers are legally eligible to compete. We shall see what reaction they receive from the fans; legally cleared, but morally never.