BengeBoy 

Bicycling Magazine yesterday posted on their website a preview of the May issue, in which their senior editor, Bill Strickland, writes that he is finally willing to concede that Lance is guilty of the doping allegations made against him.

This is the link to the story...

https://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cy...dgame?page=0,3

...but if you're really interested you should find the link on the page that invites you to register and download the whole package of stories and accompanying charts and sidebar stories all about Lance and doping (it's a big PDF file, a reprint of the layout that will be in the magazine).

Whether you are a Lance fan or opponent, it's an interesting moment in the Lance saga. Strickland has covered Lance since the beginning, and wrote a book about him, "Tour de Lance," about Lance's comeback. I think Strickland has always been considered one of Lance's defenders and true believers, and Bicycling has certainly done its bit over the years in drafting off the Lance phenomenon.

The noteworthy thing about the article is not that there is anything new in it -- it's just the fact that Strickland wrote it, and Bicycling is going with this as their May cover story.

Interestingly, Strickland is *extremely* guarded about what made him change his mind. He hints, in this very obscurely worded passage, that someone on the inside confessed:

"I don't know, if you're not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn't Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong's opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath.

"It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended."

DX-MAN

As that website is temporarily down (probably overloaded), I can't get to the details of it right now. But it sounds like a vindication for a certain David Walsh. (His other book, "From Lance to Landis", pretty much disabused me of any last vestiges of doubt.)

alcanoe

They want to sell magazines. There have been several insiders (team members and folks who worked for him) that charged Armstrong used drugs. They all lost in court. The French lab and the overseeing body have charged Armstrong on at least two occasions as I remember. They had lab evidence. They lost in court due to shoddy testing procedures.

There's an anti Armstrong industry out there.

Al

'47

Bill Strickland would have more clout with me were his magazine more than just an unofficial organ for the commercial interests of the cycling industry. Mostly it's "voice" is given over to stimulating us to buy shiny new products. Until actual evidence that passes critical scrutiny-- I think it's called a "trial"-- is made available to the public, anyone, even that juicy target Lance, is innocent. Given the number of critics snapping at his heels, if anything concrete is out there, it will be proudly marched through the streets of public opinion. A sad day.

AzTallRider

Innocent in court yes, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. The two are very different. People who are known to have committed prosecutable offenses are not prosecuted for those offenses every day, because the case is insufficient, the prosecuter had too much to lose going after them, etc. etc. Again, that doesn't mean, nor certainly prove, that they didn't commit the prosecutable offense. It just means they weren't prosecuted, or the prosecution failed, which can happen for a variety of reasons.

In some people's world, being convicted of a crime means the person did it; not being convicted means they didn't. My world recognizes the many factors influencing these decisions, and the fact that humans make errors. I suspect yours does as well, but that you are just not applying it to this situation, because doing so wouldn't suit your purpose.

NealH

I suspect if you surf the web you will find quite a few that think Lance doped. So good ole Bill may not be the only one to hop on the anti Armstrong bandwagon. I'm just glad he won 7 crowns. And I have too many interesting things to do, and too many miles to put on my bike than to read a bunch of data that I don't have any interest in. Anyway, heresay information never stands up in court, and it shouldn't.

A "disguised" admission of guilt? Can you imagine convicting someone of a crime based on a "disguised" admission of guilt from a secretive informer?

I'm afraid its going to take evidence, something they have been unsuccessfully trying to find, concoct or fabricate for years now.

'47

You might be right, TallRider. Therefore I'm suggesting that all trials be conducted a second time just to make sure the not-convicted really really didn't didn't do it. To be really really really sure, we could go for a 3rd trial-- just to be a little more cetain. Then again, a 4th trial might not be a bad idea either.

I truly agree that we should be skeptical about a judicial system that's shot through with compromises, shady deals, co-options, and downright corruption. But, what ya gonna do..........after the trial (or trials), we'll all return to those original notions we had-- unless there's a red-hot, smoking gun-- make that hypodermic.

Imagine........Lance Armstrong as the new O.J. !!

RavingManiac

That "obscurely worded passage" is beyond my reading comprehension skills. Just what did he say, can someone translate that?

ctyler

I agree. Bicycling Magazine is a joke. All they want to do is sell magazines. I have found it useless for any real information about cycling. I get more ad better information here.

Phil85207

I for one am tired of the whole thing.

BengeBoy 

Translation:

"Somebody in a position to know the truth told me he was a doper -- but the person who told me will never, ever admit he told me."

Robert Foster

I have no idea if Lance did or didn't Dope and after reading the Story of the Tour De France I am not sure any racer doesn't dope. That being said with all of the comprehensive tests they have run on Lance after each and every race I wonder what good the tests are if a person is guilty even after passing them?

Landis dropped a dime “after” he was tagged for failing a test for doping. Contador was allowed to continue racing even “after” testing positive using the same battery of tests that have come up negative on Lance.

There seems to be a double standard or at least a political one the runs rampant in professional cycling. The one thing that seems clear is the testing isn’t trusted by anyone. It seems the best attitude we can take is to assume if someone wins the Tour de France they must have doped period.

snpiperpilot

I read the whole screed. Nothing new. What's really sad is how far rodale has dug to try anything to get sales. A company based on the idea of clean living has now debased what little name they had left to beg for money from people who will never share their core beliefs.

They set of 10 possible "cases" against lance and all the west case stuff depends on new evidence or testimony no one has ever heard to come true and the rest, they admit, can never come true. This is really just a sad rehash of the same crap that's been floating around for 15 years. Just pathetic.

trackhub

I must also agree. Their circulation must be dipping way down, so this is what they came up with.

It will indeed be a sad day for cycling, if it is ever proved that Lance took performance enhancers. But, as it stands right now, there is no undeniable proof. Stating that "I heard it from someone who knows, but I can't name him, and even if I could, he can't admit how he knows", in print, in a magazine, sounds libelous. Of course, I'm no expert on that. Seriously, that's not journalism. That's urban mythology, ranking right up there with "Well I heard from someone that fast food burgers contain ground up earthworms!"

And all that aside, I agree with Phil, above: I am tired of the whole thing.

lugnutz5

Yes, I agree with you, too. It's about time someone got to the real truth ... PHIL LEGGETT DOPES!!! Oh, that wasn't the right Phil was it? Sorry, I'll go back to my Blizzard now ...

billydonn

Commiting a crime is not the same as violating the rules of your sport, so the standards for conviction aren't necessarily the same.

BigBlueToe

I don't know whether Lance doped. For me the jury is still out. I do know what I think of Bicycling magazine. It sucks. I'm guessing their marketing strategy is to appeal to people new to the sport who are all jazzed about their "new lifestyle." If they keep with cycling they soon learn that Bicycling doesn't offer much and let their subscriptions expired. New bikers take their place. Is there any other explanation for what a lousy bicycling resource it is? (It should win an award for the most, shortest, most insipid "articles" ever.)

work4bike

They all dope.

Road Fan

And even worse than all that, Strickland admits that the "source" did not even make a clear statement that is not open to interpretation.

"A guy said something I think means Lance doped, but I can't get him to clarify it, and I'm sure other people will not think it means the same thing that I think it means."

Come on!

I'll take "planing," tire pressure, antiquarianism, neat-looking canvas bags, and expensive French stuff any day, over that.

leob1

+1

Retro Grouch 

There is no "Innocent" in court. There is only "Not guilty." To me the difference is significant.

BluesDawg

Interesting article. I'm not sure what did or did not happen, but I like to read what people with various perspectives have to say about the subject. I try not to be so emotionally invested in one side or the other of a story that I can't accept that someone could have an opinion different than what I would hope to be true.

BengeBoy 

That was my reaction. It was really a first-person story by Strickland about "his" struggles to figure out what to think about Armstrong.

I had 3 different conflicting reactions:

1. Too much "navel gazing" by a magazine editor for me. You're paid to come up with a story and point of view, not discuss your struggles with me.

2. Seems very cynical. Your magazine tirelessly promoted the Armstrong brand (and Carmichael Training Systems) for years; you personally wrote a book about his comeback; you squeezed every last drop out of the Armstrong phenomenon. All along, you knew what was going on in the peloton, but you didn't "turn" until he was finally retired.

3. This story might be a precursor to a confession, plea bargain or whatever. As close as Bicycling and Strickland were to the Armstrong machine, I just can't imagine them taking the risk of going with this story as a cover story unless it was "blessed" by an insider.

bradtx

An oft forgotten FACT.

I too am tired of the did/didn't contoversy.

Brad

kenji666

Whenever the media attacks something or someone near and dear to the diehard fan, the standard knee-jerk reaction is to attack the source. This happens in politics, religion, sports, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. As long as there is reasonable doubt about any topic, the truth will always be an unreachable goal.