Beyond the car crash: Armstrong testimony

Most of the people I follow on twitter, whether professional journalists, or unattached commentators, seem extremely keen to dismiss any attempts by Lance Armstrong to belatedly confess his doping infractions. This is despite reports that he is prepared to testify against officials that facilitated his cheating. This reminds me of the vitriol hurled against Joe Papp, whose testimony to USADA and federal agencies in the US resulted in a reduced ban and a non-custodial sentence.

Many focus on Armstrong’s desire to control the Media, and indeed the role a confession might play in mitigating his exposure to civil, criminal or sporting litigation. My view is that his motives for revealing some of the institutional factors in professional cycling’s darkest times are fairly irrelevant. There is little enough incentive for elite sportspeople to be honest about the factors leading to exceptional performance: it is not enough to expect them to be honest because it is the right thing to do. That is a naïve position and will not advance efforts to control doping.

I will not applaud Armstrong for testifying to USADA, but I welcome it nonetheless. If we are serious about combating doping in sport an understanding of institutional factors and how they interact with personal motivation is essential. The Armstrong/USPS case presents an opportunity, and without his testimony, will always remain incomplete and inconclusive.

3 thoughts on “Beyond the car crash: Armstrong testimony

  1. That’s about right, I think! Anything that helps clean up cycling (and other sports should take note and do likewise!) is a good thing moving forward.

  2. Don’t forget Joe Papp is still working for someone and anytime he contacts you its to obtain more info on who you are and how you relate to any issues in cycling or the world. Its not all fun and games with him, although it may read like it is. You’ve been warned.

    As for Lance, he’s on the bitter end of a long plank, what will he say and how much if it is true or will be true just to save his own hide? What will he hold back to save his hide? Remember, the reasoned decision had not hard evidence only word of mouth so this can be battled in court for years as long as either party wants to pay the lawyer fees.

Leave a Reply to spandelles Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.