Choosing sides in the Lance Armstrong debate

The evidence is damning, but is Lance Armstrong really that much worse than all his competitors? (AP file)

There’s plenty of fallout from the decision by the U.S. Anti-Doping agency to ban Lance Armstrong for life and strip him of all seven of his Tour de France titles.

But is he really that bad? That was the debate Friday on Ross and Burbank in the wake of the ban.

“If they give the yellow jersey from Lance Armstrong’s seven tour victories to the guys in second place, most of them have had, at the very least, a run-in with the anti-doping officials and some of them have actually been stripped of their own titles,” says Mike Pesca, NPR sports reporter.

Pesca says doping was clearly pervasive during Armstrong’s unprecedented reign from 1999 to 2005, and his repeated denials ring hollow.

“Put it this way, people couldn’t believe what the guys Armstrong was beating were doing and they got found out to have been taking PED’s (performance enhancing drugs) so just that alone puts a lot of suspicion on Lance,” Pesca says.

Nearly a dozen former teammates were said to have testified they saw or knew Armstrong was taking PED’s.

Pesca says since Armstrong’s retirement and subsequent doping scandals involving a number of top riders, there’s been a significant increase in recorded times during the Tour’s most grueling stage. And he says that could signal many riders prefer to not dope.

“It seems to be true that there are a lot of cyclists who don’t want to have to dope, but they have no other choice if they want to succeed in their life’s work,” Pesca says.

Some wonder why Armstrong never simply admitted doping and apologized. But Pesca says he had too much at stake given his image both as a celebrity and the head of his hugely popular cancer fighting charity.

“So much of everything he had going, not only his self image and his literal self worth but what he was doing with Livestrong, kind of over took that. And I don’t think psychologically, you could figure out a plausible scenario where he would say ‘I’m going to jeopardize the good work.'”

Pesca says it’s too soon to tell if Armstrong’s charity will suffer any residual effect. But he says major partner Nike will likely have at least some second thoughts about continuing its partnership depending on public reaction, citing the company’s about-face when it first supported disgraced Penn State football coach Joe Paterno before stripping his name from a childhood center at the company headquarters.

“I wouldn’t think that Nike will ever be doing anything that’s not in the interests of their shareholders, so they’re going to wait to see how the public reacts to it.”

The issue is generating some strong reaction from Ross and Burbank listeners. While Luke argues there’s plenty of evidence linking Armstrong to doping, others disagree.

Listener Jarrod in Mukilteo writes:

Not sure what country Luke is from but here in America a man is innocent until proven guilty. If the USADA has actual hard evidence and proof that Lance did something wrong, then they should present it. I don’t care what Floyd Landis or anyone else says that he did, let’s see the proof! I’m not even a cycling or Armstrong fan, but this international witchhunt is insane. The amount of time and money he has spent trying to defend himself against these unfounded allegations is a crime.

“I’m from the country of Greenlake and where I grew up, Jarrod, everybody who’s ever met this guy is saying one thing happened. I’m sorry, I tend to believe them,” responds Luke.

Joseph in Seattle feels otherwise:

“With Lance Armstrong it’s simple. If the rules say no doping then he is a cheat and he should be stripped of his titles. As an ex-collage and current masters athlete, I am so tired of the “everyone is doing it excuse” because guess what EVERYONE is not doing it, they just finish 4th, unjustly.”

“Actually, 8th. That’s how far they had to go to find someone who had no whiff of scandal,” Luke replies.

Josh Kerns/MyNorthwest.com