Lance Armstrong, doping and a necessary debate

The confessions that the mythical and controversial North American cyclist Lance Armstrong made on the podcast Club Random, by television presenter Bill Maher, should be broken down far beyond the obvious, restrained and brief condemnatory stance with which a large part of public opinion - and sports corporations - have sealed their judgment regarding the sports career of the phenomenon and the influence that the consumption of prohibited substances has had in this regard.

“Yes, you can mask the use of doping substances, but that’s not what that’s all about. In that sense, you would frustrate the system, but as I have always said, and I am not trying to justify saying it as something I would like to repeat... One of the phrases was ‘I have been tested 500 times and I have never tested positive for doping’” said Armstrong.

“It’s not a lie, it’s the truth,” he acknowledged. “There was no way to skip the test. When I urinated on the cup and they checked the cup, there was nothing. The reality and truth of all this is that some of these substances, mainly the most beneficial ones, have an average lifespan of no more than four hours.”

Armstrong, who knew how to leave testicular cancer behind, said that “other substances, such as cannabis or anabolics, have longer half-lives. “You could smoke a joint and drive your tractor... and in two weeks you would still test positive. Its half-life is much longer.” By the way, none of this happened with EPO, which was the substance that improved his performance.

However, the Texan’s brutal honesty should not skew the gaze on a couple of issues that the sport should discuss in greater depth.

It is clear that credibility is a fundamental element of the spectacle that consumes a large part of humanity. I suspect that a show about which even the most unprepared raises suspicions of fraud would be very unpopular and barely yielding in audiences. If something sets sports apart, it is that we have the feeling that anything can happen, that it is the eternal battle between men, their tenacity, their talent and their courage that defines everything. However, sport is raised much further: not only do they have to be noble and avoid the doping trap in the competition, but they must also serve as an example of physical and spiritual purity. The same one that we don’t always demand from our leaders.

In any case, if we take the Armstrong case, the fact that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) took 13 years to detect the offence, considering that the sanction announced in 2012 included everything from his first victory in the Tour de France, in 1999, to his last, in 2005. Any cycling fan will remember the thrill of seeing that man recovered from testicular cancer achieve feats that neither Fausto Coppi nor Eddie Merckx themselves did. Although that emotion does not legitimate the trap, it is logical that we keep in mind that sporting glory is neither before nor after. It’s that time. The moment of crossing the triumphant goal.

By the way, I admit that this position is somewhat whimsical and has the complicity of another issue that should be taken into account. The seven Tour titles that were taken away from Armstrong were left vacant: some of those who could have been awarded them, bodyguards for the North American in those editions, also had doping problems.

To give more volume to reflection, we return to the cyclist and his talk with Maher.

“EPO, which was the rocket fuel that changed not only our sport, but all endurance sports, had an average life of four hours, so it left the body very quickly. The truth is that you had a drug that was undetectable, which improved your performance and recovery. Both are important, but especially performance... And as we were led to believe, and what I don’t disagree with, is that if taken under the supervision of a doctor, it’s safe. Of course, I don’t want to encourage anyone to do something they don’t have to do.”

In this latest testimony, Armstrong leaves open a door that could go a long way in opening up the scenario. It seems like a silent cry that many more athletes sometimes consume something forbidden than the controls that are detected. There is a big difference in speed between resources to improve performance artificially and the progress of systems to detect them.

From every point of view, it is essential to avoid the feeling of farce, that what we fans consider magical may actually be just another laboratory device.

However, the reality is cruel and poses a struggle that is too unequal to maintain the status quo. Sooner or later, every piece of the cog involved in the doping phenomenon walks a common path. Be it a world cup, a great tournament, an Olympic game.

Perhaps, proposing an open and stark debate in which the main references show all the cards could generate a powerful movement that, at least, allows us to be sure that the podium we are celebrating is real and will not blow up a couple of years later.