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.

What drives them?

I have written before about heroes and why people choose sporting icons as people they aspire to. Sportsmen and women command respect not only for their punishing training regimes and collection of silverware, but their determination and mental attitude. Their regimented and relentless struggle to push themselves not only inspires us, but also makes us question their resolve and will to compete. These people, from all backgrounds, have a purpose and drive that often shuns the normal plateaus of human endurance and takes them to the top of their profession and the podium.

The Olympic Games is nearly within a year and it is the sporting event that perhaps captures the public’s imagination the most. Though most of the athletes are now professional and sporting contracts have made athletic careers more lucrative, it is popular because there is something very organic and pure about the competition. Years of struggle, injury and scrutiny, culminate in the opportunity to reach the ultimate goal in sport. Why do they push themselves so far and often to the edge? And why do we admire these people so much? What is it that separates them from politicians or scientists?

Perhaps the first thing to reflect on is the result. Athletes yearn to the pinnacle of victory. Defeat is an obstacle that drives them further. A critic could suggest that in today’s wealth and sponsorship dominated market, athletes can comfortably survive, even if they do not always finish first. However, it would be naive to suggest that the top athletes enter competitions purely to fulfil branding and contractual obligations. They are there to win, there is no other alternative. The trials of Tim Henman at Wimbledon became of perennial interest to the British public because of the struggle and narrative. His story represented the ‘glorious loser’ as he struggled to contain Pete Sampras or failed to put down Goran Ivanisevic. Though fond in the British public’s eye, I’m certain Henman would prefer to be history’s victor rather than nearly man.

The determination of most sportspeople is something different that we cannot contemplate. For many it is the only life they have ever known. Boxing is an avenue for them to harness something out of life, away from the traumas of poverty and crime. There are of course plenty of rags to riches stories within the world of politics and business but they do not encapsulate the same setbacks as sportspeople. The candour can often be lost in Hollywood films but it represents a dogma that both children and adults aspire too.

Contrast that to the lives of politicians. They possess that drive and vigour to achieve something and create ‘change’ for the better. However, the fog and cloudy toxicity in politics is something that does not represent something pure or clean. We do not see the negotiations and compromises. We see politicians as shady and self-serving; determination is a thirst for power not success.

Compare and contrast two men of time: Steve Redgrave and Gordon Brown, both highly determined and motivated people. Brown, a custodian of power for the past 15 years is seen as spiteful and insolent, his insipid relationship with Tony Blair fragmented the heart of New Labour and tarnished the portrayal of government. Redgrave, the five-time Gold Olympian rower, was diagnosed with diabetes three years before the Sydney Games in 2000. The media wrote him off and said that someone with condition would not be able to compete. Redgrave, 35 at this point, used this as a thrust to win. Three years later he was picking up his fifth and final gold medal. Perhaps it is unfair to contrast the two but it represents the difference between drive and selfishness in these two fields.

Politicians’ legacies are often judged by history, politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had obvious personal flaws; cold, ignorant and opportunistic, but their history is written in legislation and its evolution in society. Whereas sport captures in real time the first person over the line, the goal in the final minute and the shot that beats the clock. We recognise the training and the punishment, but we remember ‘the moment’. That is what drives sports people over the edge. That is why we understand the rage and the adulation. The goal is to win and that is final.

It is often why people take extra measures to ensure success. The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones were under pressure to perform and they knew drugs were an easy option to achieve that. Just like politics the necessity to smear and stain rivals is often an easier, yet dirty road to journey.

Politics and sport define eras, and define the way we organise our lives. It is just that sport conveys emotions in a much more visceral and raw manner. Being a part of that as a fan is an inspiration, but being the athlete that everyone wants to cheer and recognises is the spur that pushes them over the line. Sport answers easy questions, politics does not.

Dwain Chambers: Hollow Victory

I am one of those people who distrust those who question the value of sport or scorn any passing fixture in the sporting calendar. There is something illogical of people who give equivocal answers to their dislike and refuse to admire any form of athletic achievement. Doubting Thomas’s will certainly have to agree the power sport can possess in uniting countries, cultures and societies after years of civil unrest, war or hardship. Sport is an omnipresent good-will vehicle and forceful in breaking down barriers. After years of civil war in Cote D’Ivoire, it was the voice of their superstar striker Didier Drogba who called for an end to arms and a future of peace. How foreign diplomats would love that power. There are countless other examples.

Sport sells a dream and despite the commercialism and universal professionalism over the past half century, no one can deny the vivid aspirations of youngsters and that realisation when they fulfil those dreams; I bet everyone wishes they could hear their national anthem at an Olympic Games.

Watching the European Championships earlier tonight, there is one thing I cannot do and that is cheer on a cheat. The British sprinter Dwain Chambers is no doubt a real talent; however, whatever he does in the next few years his athletics' epitaph will be tarnished by his drug use. The competition in single-competitor sports is fierce and success is laden with financial and heroic plaudits, think of the Team GB’s cycling team in the last Olympics. In his autobiography Chambers claims that being placed outside the world’s top three would mean a substantial drop in pay from his paymaster’s Adidas. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of pressure at the top of sport and certainly in events where history is dictated in less than 10 seconds, a lifetime of practice can be extinguished or rewarded by the starter gun. Why then should someone morally corrupt their career and selfishly cheat those around him in the pursuit of success. Michael Johnson, the superb athlete and equally good pundit, explains that it took him four years to wipe less than a second of his 400m lap time and perfect his running style. That is an answer from an honest athlete, not someone looking for narcissistic admiration and hollow success. Chambers may be a reformed character and one of Britain’s finest athletes but ultimately his testimony of victimhood and desire to steal success is the nadir of sporting competition.

Drugs again.

There have been plenty of examples of ugliness in sport this summer. The defensive, ugly formations on show in South Africa; though many would say 'parking the bus' is purely pragmatic against some opponents.

The real ugliness is drugs in sports. Recently, the Jamaican sprinter and the world's fastest woman, Shelley-Ann Fraser's tested positive in a drug test, however she claims it stemmed from a toothache relief supplement. In a sport where people are hung out to dry when doping is mentioned, we will have to wait and see what the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have to say about recent events. It certainly dampened the British Athletics event in Gateshead yesterday.

This year's Tour de France, a competition plagued by drug scandals, has an air of militancy among the riders, fed up of the constant drug tests required by officials. It is for the benefit of those watching and taking part to know what they are seeing is through human achievement, nothing else. Let's hope rage is the only thing in their blood.