Apologies for a 2nd consecutive post, but as you can probably tell, the general deification of Armstrong is something about which I feel quite strongly.
The point I want to make is probably best illustrated by mention of another rider, David Moncoutie, one of the very few professional riders to have finished top 10 in one the major tours and who is unanimously regarded by his fellow professionals as always having been clean. Moncoutie illustrates that it is possible to remain beyond suspicion and manage a positive reputation within the sport. That Moncoutie is such a rarity speaks volumes about the sport’s credibility and is why Armstrong’s latest statement “We like our credibility” in the wake of Landis’s admissions/accusation simply serves to intensify my rabid dislike of him.
Greg Lemond is on record as saying that the timescale of Armstrong’s Tour victory following his cancer was not humanly possible in terms of recovery and competitive performance. It is possible that Lemond also doped, could have been prone to sour grapes, but his assertion as a 3-time tour winner is no less credible. I also imagine Lemond also likes his own credibility but he would never have the arrogance to utter such words on the basis that he was never caught. However, the critical difference between Lemond and Armstrong is that the former somehow managed keep a healthy distance between himself and any allegations whilst Armstrong has somehow, despite all protestations, has singularly failed to do this.
For all the conspiracy theorists, it seems to me that a man who has the will, guts and intelligence to win 7 tours would also find it within himself to manage a clean reputation, as proved possible by Moncoutie - he chose instead to align himself despite persistent allegations and suspicions with a doctor who was already proven to dope cyclists . I wonder if he also refers Dr Ferrerri’s to credibility when he uses “We”?
Given cycling’s reputation, ultimately Armstrong’s own reputation will be determined in whether he in anyway contributed to enhancing the credibility of the sport (as opposed to appeal) at a time when the sport has been in real need of it. Moncoutie has proved that it is possible to make that contribution, but all Armstrong has proved to me is that if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. To me, Armstrong is nothing short of a disgrace, not because he is a 7 time tour winner, but because, in Lemond’s words, he is so obviously a fraud in having achieved this - his legacy will be generations of cyclists to come unquestioningly viewing Armstrong's blatant lack of integrity and disregard for the wider sport as aspirational. By contrast, the true tragedy will be that the vast majority of these cyclists will be likely to say "David....Who!?" Thank you Lance, cycling and the sporting world in general is not worthy of you!
