enuff for one day ....... Lance Armstrong. Selected Works Lance Armstrong, Sally Jenkins: Its Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life (ISBN 0-425-17961-3), Putnam 2000. Lance Armstrong, Sally Jenkins: Every Second Counts (ISBN 0-385-50871-9), Broadway Books 2003. Lance Armstrong, Comeback 2.0: Up Close and Personal, Touchstone; 2009 Linda Armstrong Kelly, Joni Rodgers: No Mountain High Enough: Raising Lance, Raising Me (ISBN 0-7679-1855-X), Broadway Books 2002. Johan Bruyneel, We Might As Well Win: On the Road to Success with the Mastermind Behind a Record-Setting Eight Tour de France Victories, Mariner Books ISBN 0-618-87937-4 A is for Armstrong. In the world of doping A is certainly for Armstrong, however, the problem is with where to start. And although in some ways we do start at the beginning it might be useful to recall the words spoken in Rio Bravo by John Wayne to Dean Martin who was at the time sufffering a Homeric hangover: “Dont set yourself up as being so special. Think you invented the hangover?” And surely, Lance Armstrong, would answer the same as the plaintiff Dean Martin: I could sure take out a patent for this one. Armstrong provides the figure with which to begin to grasp both doping and sport in the neoliberal age. Armstrong didn’t start doping in sport but it might be said that he and his entourage perfected a practice and machine that surpassed anything seen previously. In its own way, in its matter of fact naturalness, the Armstrong machine was a sporting machine that surpassed in many ways the commonly accepted evil of the former East Germany. In the post Cold War era, the Armstrong machine brought together the frightening force of the coming together of American and Eastern Bloc know-how, the coming together of American management, marketing and social control with the knowledge of former Eastern Bloc doping practices. Consistent with this age, the figure of Armstrong is multiple, each having its place as a paradigm in the world of anti/doping. Armstrong encompasses the figure of America, an America that has sought constantly to surpasses its frontiers in order to extend across the globe. Armstrong was the figure that globalised cycling and shifted its centre of power from Old Europe to the new Anglo world and economy. What is has now been called euphemistically, the “American Winning Years” by British TV commentator Phil Liggett during he coverage of the 2013 Tour de France, was in fact the Armstrong Era, an Era that saw the rapid globalisation and Anglicisation of the sport. And just like a defrocked priest, in this context, Armstrong’s evils are measured against his good works. The Americanisation of cycling is not necessarily about ‘opening up’; its process does and must contribute to a loss of tradition and respect. Not only did one person become bigger than the sport itself and, hence implicitly, the peloton, but old European solidarities that had dominated cycling from time immemorial were finally broken down. No longer was doping a manner in which to keep a band of workers in employment, a means of putting on a show, it became simply a means for the pursuit of individual interest, or the American dream. Lance gave cycling America and beyond. Lance gave the sport and the corporate interests that pushed it – US clothing, bicycle and television-spectacle manufacturers; everything they needed to establish their global dominions. But just as America individualises everything - its heroes and it villains; when it came to fall, systemic failure was never on the agenda. Failure is always personal, individual moral failure. In the world that created Armstrong, the same world that brought him down, just as in Margaret Thatcher’s world, there is no society; there are no systemic reasons why. We now all know the end of the Lance story. The multiple figures of Lance embody at their various times all of the qualities that we tried to attribute to the paradigmatic figure of the Imperial athlete. Lance 1.0 Born in Plano Texas on September 18 1971 Armstrong (or Lance Edward Gunderson) was destined to be anything but plain. The son of a broken marriage and humble beginnings (what they endearingly call in the United Sates ‘trailer trash’) Armstrong only way up was to become a self made man – he has, from the beginning, to ‘Just Do It’. By the age of 12 he was excelling as a long distance swimmer and at the age of 13 took up the quintessential neoliberal sport, with its total focus upon multiskilling and personal bests, of Triathlon. At 16 he was a professional triathlete and by the age of 18 he became US sprint-course Triathlon champion for the first time. At the age of 21 Armstrong became a professional cyclist with the Motorola Cycling Team. In his first year as a pro he finished last in the Classica San Sebastian. In his second year as a professional he won ten times. Included in these ten victories was Stage 8 of the Tour de France that finished in the fortress town of Verdun and later that year he became the youngest ever winner of the UCI Road World Championship held in Norwegian capital of Oslo. The following year he was placed second in both Liege-Bastion- Liege and the Classica San Sebastian. Already he was making his mark. In 1995, as a third year pro, he won the stage of the Tour de France that finished in Limoges with his now famous homage to his teammate Fabio Castarlelli, who had crashed and died on the descent of Col de Portet dAspet three days ealrier. The week following the Tour he returned to the green hills of the Basque County, to this time, take out the victory in the Classica San Sebastian. In 1996 his upward trajectory continued, he won the Fleche Wallone one day Classic, but had to withdraw from the Tour de France after only 5 days. Following the Tour he signed a contract valued at $4million US with the new French Cofidis Cycling Team. However, he was never to ride for Cofidis being diagnosed with testicular cancer in October 1996. Lance 1.0, the young, driven pre-cancer version was that who seized the opportunity provided by the society of competition and played that game with verve and vigor. He was already a privileged expert and ambassador, already a minister or angel of the new order in construction. Being a player was the ticket to fortune and to a life free of the trailer park in which he was raised. His entry into professional cycling coincided with the entry into the professional peloton of new methods of artificial blood doping with the substance EPO that had come to replace the blood transfusions of the 1980’s. Armstrong was determined, and he was determined not to turn up at the OK Corral with just a water pistol. He was not going to turn up at the shoot out without a gun. Lance 2.0 “Without cancer, I never would have won a single Tour de France. Cancer taught me a plan for more purposeful living, and that in turn taught me how to train and to win more purposefully. It taught me that pain has a reason, and that sometimes the experience of losing things — whether health or a car or an old sense of self — has its own value in the scheme of life. Pain and loss are great enhancers.” The comeback commenced in Spain when Armstrong surpassed all his previous achievements and finished fourth in the 1998 Vuelta a Espana. Already things were different. The following year, in 1999 when Armstrong miraculously, or incredibly – in the fullest sense of the word; was first on the road in the Tour de France, his victory was heralded as the Tour of Redemption, a new clean start for pro cycling following the previous years Festina tour which saw a number of riders arrested for doping by the French police. In a post Festina world the figure of the American who had overcome death and was not tarnished by the old ways of Europe provided cycling’s overlords with the perfect fodder to carry out their own dream – a cycling as a global sport. On the back of the Tour of Redemption cycling began its journey from a European sport with a cult following elsewhere, to become the ‘new golf’. As the American Winning Years progressed more and more white, English speaking, middle aged men (and women) donned lyrca and preferably the yellow amulet of Lance. The amulet rendered him present in their lives and conferred upon them a certain efficacy, by having the thing with them, they were close to Lance and they too are made strong. Lance 2.0 was organised, disciplined and resilient, backed by a machine he overcome death to enforce a form of victory and dominance that gave him the status of the sport’s patron, but also as an archetypical figure for us all – an inspiration. He was driven. Driven for revenge against those who had not stood by him, against those who had dominated him, and against those who had not seen the warning signs of his cancer. More importantly in the contemporary context individualism can mean and emphasise both strength and suffering and Lance embodied both. Armstrong not only changed the way we see cycling and cycling’s nature as a product. He changed the way the game was played and the manner in which one prepared for the game. The French philosophers Deleuze and Guattari compare the royal or aristocratic approach with that of the nomadic. The Armstrong of the American Winning Years was definitely of the former. Armstrong learnt and appropriated from the way the nomadic Italians and Spanish played the game and prepared. The Europeans had ridden like a journey-men’s association, allowing each to survive and shine, at times allowing each to take their turn in putting on a show. They were nomadic bands that sought out and did what was necessary to obtain support from the outside (corporate) world. Lance 2.0 was fully immersed in both the world of the State and the Corporation. With the coming of Lance 2.0 what was required was a search for constants. To enforce Anglo-American superiority chance had to be tamed and in doing so Lance 2.0 assembled a team that reproduced himself. The royal approach was a homogenous approach in which science and technology was both autonomous and fully integrated. The manner in which the team prepared, the manner in which they rode the race (for Lance 2.0 there was only one race – the Tour de France) was scientifically calculated, planned, managed and carried out. For all the hype around it the model of racing developed by Lance 2.0, a model that has been adopted since by the likes of Team Sky, was robotic and above all else boring. No one could challenge such domination and if they tried they did survive for long. From the very beginning there were detractors – those that did not believe. They were dealt with. In the case of failed doping controls or suspicious results, the complicity of the International Cycling Union, ensured that Lance 2.0 was protected. He was of course, just like the banks of the Global Financial Crisis, too big to fail. Journalists that questioned him or his success were ostracised and denied access. Others simply treated as crazy or bitter. Teammates that sought to strike out on their own and take on Lance 2.0 all seemed to suffer a similar fate: Hamilton, Heras, Landis all tested positive after leaving the fold. And those that denied the strength of the peloton’s omerta were the subjects of bullying and on the road enforcement. The paradigm example is that of Simeoni. The Italian cyclist Filippo Simeoni was a former client of Dr Michele Ferrari, the same doctor that treated Armstrong and various other former and current cyclists. Ferrari was a disciple of the Conconi who had been funded by the IOC and the CONI to develop testing procedures for EPO. Whilst undertaking that research Conconi had been also testing the substance under real conditions by preparing various cyclists. The first great EPO victories were the result of these early experiments, notably the triple of Gewiss in the 1994 Fleche Wallone. In 2002 Michele Ferrari was tried in Italy for the crime of ‘sporting fraud’. He was convicted principally on the evidence of Fillipo Simeoni who had testified that he had begum being treated by Ferrari on 1993. By 1997 he was being supplied and instructed on how to use EPO and Human Growth Hormone by Ferrari. Ferrari eventually had the conviction overturned on appeal. In 2003 Armstrong called Simeoni a liar in the French newspaper Le Monde to which the Italian responded with a defamation writ claiming 1000,00 Euros which he said he would donate to charity. The following year on stage 18 of the Tour de France Simeoni formed a part of a breakaway that posed no threat to the race’s general classification. According to Armstrong “in the interests of the peloton” he broke from his cover in the peloton, where he was protected by his praetorian guard and under no threat at all, to chase down by himself the breakaway group. Armstrong’s continued presence in the breakaway spelt the end of the move as his rival in the General Classification, Jan Ullrich, could not allow the risk of having the Texan up the road with the potential of gaining more time on him. Without Armstrong the seven riders would have been able to enjoy their day in the limelight and possible even go on to contest the stage finale. Armstrong would have none of that, on reaching the group he called “Bravo” to Simeoni as the burly Navarran veteran, Jose ‘Txente’ Garcia Acosta, understanding their fate, pleaded with Armstrong to return to the peloton. The only conditions upon which Lance 2.0 would return to the peloton was with Simeoni in tow. In a show of respect for the others in the group the Italian dropped back to the peloton with Armstrong who set about handling him, gesticulating and giving him a lecture of sorts. Once back in the peloton Simeoni was the subject of verbal abuse, he was spat upon and called a disgrace by other riders and lance 2.0 made his infamous ‘zip the lips’ gesture to emphasis that Simeoni had broken the omerta and should from now on refrain. Armstrong later said that Simeoni did not deserve to win, or it seems have even have the chance of winning. In the final stage two days later Simeoni interrupted the victory procession to the Champs de Elysees with constant attacks, each time he was chased by Armstrong’s team and again insulted and spat upon. By the end of the American Winning Years Lance 2.0 was the patron and sovereign of cycling and more. Not only had he overcome cancer he had won the Tour de France for 7 consecutive years. Lance 2.0 was no ordinary cyclist, nor was he any ordinary doper. He had created a following that responded as he did to criticism. His was a business model that changed the face of professional cycling, perfecting techniques of racing, doping, media management and being the vehicle by which cycling administrators globalised the sport. Lance 2.0 left us with these words: “Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: Im sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. Im sorry you dont believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. Ill be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets — this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive le Tour forever!” Lance 3.0 January 2009, the room was filled with television cameras, journalists from from around the world, a contingent of Americans in the first row ... This is Australia, the eve of the Tour Down Under, the first race of Lance Armstrong since his last Tour de France in 2005. Whispers, buzz, the anticipation. They bring in a bike, His Bike. A few times suddenly heard: Hes coming ... False alarm ... Do we have to stand when he enters?”. It was like being in church. A dead silence accompanied His arrival. One British reporter commented that the reception was as if we were waiting for Jesus Christ after his resurrection and the Lance 3.0 quickly responds: I don’t think that Jesus Christ rode a bike”. And he surely didn’t rise from cancer. Armstrong tells the throng that the “desire to succeed is different now”. Lance 3.0 has returned to promote the Livestrong Foundation. Good news for modern man: I have returned to bring the Livestrong message around the world and to discuss the burden of this disease. On his bike are carved two figures: on the downpipe is inscribed 1274 – the number of days since his last appearance. The other 27.5, the millions of people who have died of cancer whilst he has not been present. A staggering number he reminds us, more than the entire Australian population. Lance 3.0 appars in the guise of a privatised message of public health. Lance 3.0 is benevolant, he does not charge a fee to race, he will not accept prize money. He tells us I am calm because I enjoy it, and I do this for free. I do it because I love it. During 2004 and 2005 cycling was just a job, but now I have regained the passion and that will help to cycling and Livestrong foundation. He omitted that he would receive around $2 million Australian each year for three years to come to Adelaide to preach the Livestrong message. The economic value of Lance 3.0 was not forgotten. The then Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, had already compared the race gaining ‘Pro Tour’ status with the expansion of thre world’s largest uranium mine in that state. The Armstrong investment he said was “the best investment the state could realise”. As a cyclist returning from retirement Lance 3.0 should have been subjected to the rules that would have required him to be tested for a period prior to his return to racing. But as Anne Gripper, the then UCI head of Anti-Doping stated: “Lance is different” so the rules did not apply. Lance is different and importantly glory irradiates, it emits luminous rays, it reflects upon those that bathe in its light. Why else was the start of a stage of the Tour Down Under in Gawler, outside of Adelaide, delayed to await the arrival of the Prime Minister so that he might shake the hand of Armstrong before the amassed throng. But by the following year, in California during May 2010 things had started to change. Lance 4.0 I have never tested positive.
Posted on: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:37:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015