Reaction from the public trial of Lance Armstrong
There has been no time wasted in reaction pouring in from around the sporting world at the confession -- or part thereof -- by Lance Armstrong to his use of performance enhancing drugs. For the most part those in the cycling community remain unconvinced, believing that there is much more still to come and that Lance's words yesterday were carefully choose with an eye to potential upcoming legal trials.
"I am surprised that he didn't give any names. Is he is holding them back for prosecutors or will he go further in the second half of the interview?" asked Christophe Bassons -- the man who Lance helped drive out of the sport for daring to question the use of drugs by many at the 1999 Tour, and whom I hope Lance will address tonight -- in an interview with RMC in France.
"To carry out blood transfusions, to access EPO, you need advisers, suppliers and perhaps ever protectors," said Pierre Bordry, the former president of the French Anti-Doping Agency, also to RMC. "I think that we need to know all of that. The anti-doping agencies need to be clearly informed. He needs to go a little bit further."
World Anti-Doping Agency president, John Fahey, said much the same when speaking to ABC News 24 in Australia: "We learnt nothing new. He refused to give names of the entourage, the officials, the other riders, the source of the drugs which he admitted taking."
Sadly though, not everyone felt there was a lot missing from Armstrong's confession. Old buddy from the days of cycling's great Omerta, Jens Voigt tried to pour water on the whole thing during an interview with sporten.dk.
"I think that Armstrong has it hard enough these days. He has been punished enough now, he really struggles," said Voigt without considering how hard it's been for the likes of Bassons, Filippo Simeoni, Betsy and Frankie Andreu, and Emma O'Reilly to name but a handful. Had Armstrong came across as truly remorseful on that subject then yes, Voigt might have had a point, but he didn't and there's still a lot to answer for.
I hoped to be waking up this morning ready to forget the name Lance Armstrong and think nothing more than about the 2013 season, yet the way he answered his questions has left so many questions that I fear this thing is only going to run and we have far from heard the last of him.
"When Armstrong began taking drugs, many of today's riders were 10-15 years old," continued Voigt. "So what do they know about doping? For them, Armstrong is just a name in a book or in a newspaper. They didn't ride with him, so they do not deserve to be hung up on something that happened 15 years ago. I hope we can move forward now."
Unless Voigt is suffering from memory loss, didn't Armstrong race with almost all of today's pros as recently as 2010? And fifteen years ago was 1998, a before Lance won a single Tour de France. Voigt is from the Armstrong era. He has denied ever using performance enhancing drugs himself, but he is defending the indefensible with this and there is no doubt he's still caught up in the 'move along, nothing to see here' brigade.
But not all the old-school were content. Greg LeMond, now the only American winner of the Tour de France, was angry that Armstrong claimed you had to dope to win the Tour. "Armstrong has destroyed anyone who has been successful in cycling," LeMond told Cyclingnews. "I get pissed off when I hear that you can’t win the Tour without doping."LeMond has long since maintained that he rode the Tour clean and is one of the few you probably can hang your hat on.
Mixed in with the feelings of frustration and pity was the huge sigh of relief that came from UCI President, Pat McQuaid.
"Lance Armstrong has confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy between the UCI and Lance Armstrong," he said. "There were no positive tests which were covered up and he has confirmed that the donations made to the UCI were to assist in the fight against doping," he concluded before, I assume, shuffling off to bed long before the interview had ended.
There was also reaction from outside the world of cycling with Tennis champion, Novak Djokovic, being one of the first to weigh in.
And he was absolutely right to suggest that it was "A disgrace to the sport that there can be an athlete like Armstrong," and that "In his cycling career he has deceived the sport and many people," but he lost me with the following condemnation: "Like many others, cycling lost its credibility for me." Yes, as though Tennis is the bastion of clean sport, Novak. Give me a break. Ask your buddy Rafael Nadal about Doctor Eufemiano Fuentes.
Had the regular fan on the street said that, I'd have felt I knew where he was coming from, but to come from a Tennis player was laughable. Tennis still has its credibility no doubt, but then how much does it test by comparison Is there blood tests, is there out of competition tests, is there a blood passport? If the answer to any of those questions no, then it's hypocritical to scoff at cycling as an entire sport. Novak might try tell me that Tennis never has any positive tests therefore it must be clean, but isn't that what Lance Armstrong said for years?
The circus rolls on...
