Cycling Leaders Let Doping, Armstrong Flourish, Report Says

The Wall Street Journal / Associated Press ^ | March 9, 2015

[Cecily]

GENEVA—Cycling officials let doping flourish and broke their own rules so Lance Armstrong could cheat his way to becoming the superstar the sport badly needed, according to a scathing report into its drug culture.

The International Cycling Union was severely criticized for failing to act during the doping era dominated by Armstrong, but the 227-page report the governing body released early Monday found no evidence that he paid to cover up alleged positive tests.

The report was commissioned by the new UCI leadership to investigate doping that shredded cycling’s credibility and led to Armstrong being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles in 2012.

While the yearlong probe turned up no major revelations, and found no proof that a payment Armstrong made to the UCI was to cover up a positive test, it suggested doping is still rife in top-level road cycling.

[762X51]

Just like Tiger Woods’ was coddled for the viewers he brought to golf. Hell, now that I think about it the entire NFL works this way. Shenanigans are ignored if you can get the viewers to the TV.

[Baynative]

Bike Ping

"Cycling officials let doping flourish and broke their own rules so Lance Armstrong could cheat his way to becoming the superstar the sport badly needed, according to a scathing report into its drug culture."

Still another bad mark against the UCI, in my opinion. In fact this statement not only doesn't make sense, it mocks the sport and [again in my opinion] shows some culpability in helping LA ruin his life.

It raises two simple questions:

1. If everyone was allowed to juice, then wasn't LA still the best rider at the time and...

2. If they had clamped down on usage heard from the start, would he not have still dominated?

Back to my former statement from years ago:

"Sport is entertainment. Let them all do whatever it takes to thrill the spectators and fans, it's their choice. We like film and recording stars that are artificially enhanced, why not athletes?"

[bigbob]

Whenever cheating like this happens, it seems highly unlikely that national organizations are not aware of it, and keep it quiet out of self-interest.

[grania]

If the cycling association allowed Lance Armstrong to be drug-enhanced, why did he have to give up his titles? They should be restored with an asterisk. JMHO

I just don't like after-the-fact changing of the rules for anything.

[llevrok]

I'm shocked! Shocked I say !

[11th Commandment]

I thought of Tiger immediately... here is another.

The NCAA will bring the death penalty to small schools for infractions, but barely investigates large schools.

[bigbob]

Then eliminate the rule. I object to the hypocrisy more than the juicing.

[babble-on]

1. It wasn’t a level playing field of juicing. Armstrong was the pacesetter in juicing, innovating, taking risks, demanding risks be taken by his teammates, and if they expressed misgivings, he ratted them out and crushed their careers, all the while secure that the UCI would never come after the champion, the guy selling all those bicycles in America.

2. We’ll never know. I’ll never care.

[Steve_Seattle]

"While the yearlong probe turned up no major revelations, and found no proof that a payment Armstrong made to the UCI was to cover up a positive test, it suggested doping is still rife in top-level road cycling."

This seems to contradict the headline. The headline suggests that the officials knowingly allowed Armstrong's doping to continue so that - as a superstar - he would help publicize and expand the sport. This would indeed be a major revelation, but the article doesn't support that claim. Maybe the full report does, but the article doesn't.

In fact, there are reasons not to believe it. Armstrong cleverly fooled all the mandatory drug tests; it's not as if the test results were ignored. Moreover, Armstrong was not well-liked, was considered by many in Europe as an outsider, and even many Americans found him a bit prickly. I do not see a huge motive to make him - rather than some European - as the face of the sport.

[Baynative]

Good question. If this is so egregious, why are proven and admitted drug users Marco Pantani, Bjorn Riis, Jan Ulrich and Alberto Contador still listed as champions?

[Mercat]

Please add me to your ping list.

[discostu]

It’s all about when they tested positive.

The fact is cycling and track are rife with drugs, all championships are temporary, most get revoked within 10 years. If you enjoy the show it’s best not to pay attention to the off field stuff, it’ll just make you sad.

[Wolfie]

Same as Major League Baseball...they needed the jacked-up home run hitters to drive ratings.

[oh8eleven]

Armstrong was the pacesetter in juicing, innovating, taking risks ...
LOL ... surely you jest. I suggest you take a look at the history of doping in cycling and then tell me LA was the "pacesetter."

[SuzyQue]

” It raises two simple questions:

1. If everyone was allowed to juice, then wasn’t LA still the best rider at the time and...

2. If they had clamped down on usage heard from the start, would he not have still dominated?”

Exactly.

[Boogieman]

“1. If everyone was allowed to juice, then wasn’t LA still the best rider at the time and...”

Or maybe he had the best juice, or just used it more than others.

[Boogieman]

“I do not see a huge motive to make him - rather than some European - as the face of the sport.”

Well, that’s easy. Armstrong had star potential and they didn’t.

[Yogafist]

Wasn’t it Al Davis who said, “If you ain’t Cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.”

Lance won those tours, and anyone who follows cycling knows it. Lance’s problem was his personality, which also contributed to his winning ability.

There isn’t a single top tier athlete that doesn’t cheat, or bend the rules to help him/her win. I was watching an Angel’s game last year, and the announcers were talking about how the opposing team allowed the grass on the infield to grow longer to slow the ball down a little because their infield lacked quickness. That started a conversation about what other teams were doing, and it was pretty amazing. Sorry, it is a fact of life, everyone tries to get an advantage.

[babble-on]

He was taking newer drugs, and cheating in more innovative ways. This is all known, public information. He was the best, most aggressive cheater in the game in the years he was winning. I did not say he was the first or the only cheater, only that the statement “they were all cheating therefore the sport was actually fair” is ludicrous.