If it was the boldness of the headline — “The Armstrong Lie” — that made the
immediate impact, it was the paragraph inset on the front page alongside a
photograph of the American that summarised one of the most sensational
stories that L’Equipe, the French sports daily, would ever tell.
It read: “L’Equipe has received the results of scientific analyses that took
place at the national anti-doping laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry, backed up
by official documentation. Our investigation shows Lance Armstrong used EPO
(the blood-boosting drug) in winning his first Tour de France in 1999,
contrary to everything he has said.”
A year before, at a Tour de France press conference in Liege, Belgium,
Armstrong was asked about accusations made against him in the book LA
Confidentiel — Les Secrets De Lance Armstrong, which I co-wrote with Pierre
Ballester. His reply was short and to the point. “Extraordinary
allegations,” he said, “demand extraordinary proof.”
The unqualified accusation of doping by L’Equipe went further than anything
printed or broadcast about Armstrong previously. In that sense, it was
extraordinary. The newspaper tried to contact Armstrong on the evening
before running its story and learnt from his lawyer, Donald Manasse, that he
did not want to comment. “For us, these are allegations,” said Manasse. “As
we have not examined what is going to be in your newspaper, it is not
possible to comment. We will see tomorrow if a response is necessary.”
A response was necessary. It first appeared on Armstrong’s website. “I will
simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken
performance-enhancing drugs. Unfortunately the witch hunt continues and the
article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its
own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no
way to defend myself.”
The L’Equipe piece did not say the science was faulty but pointed out that
because the tests were carried out on B samples of urine originally taken
six years before, another test to confirm the veracity of the B sample
results would not be possible. When the A sample was originally examined in
1999, there was no test for EPO.
One scientific option is open to Armstrong. In at least two of his six samples
that contained synthetic EPO, there is enough urine left over (20ml) for him
to have it DNA-tested to confirm that it is in fact his. So far there has
been no indication that he will have this done.
Armstrong has been busy defending himself in America. On Wednesday he spoke to
journalists on a video link-up from Washington. On Thursday he appeared on
CNN’s Larry King Live. King immediately confronted him with a quote from
Jean-Marie Leblanc, the race director of the Tour de France.
“For the first time,” Leblanc had said, “these are no longer rumours or
insinuations, these are proven scientific facts . . . He owes explanations
to us, to everyone who followed the Tour. L’Equipe have shown that I was
fooled, we were all fooled.”
Armstrong said he was shocked by Leblanc’s comments and told how the two men
had spoken over the telephone. According to Armstrong, Leblanc just hemmed
and hawed, and said he was surprised but didn’t spell out his
disappointment.
Asked why he should be the target of continual doping allegations, Armstrong
looked beyond cycling. “If we consider the landscape between Americans and
the French right now, obviously relations are strained. But this has been
going on for seven years.”
He also offered the view that the French were sore losers. “Couple that
(US-French relations) with the fact that French cycling is in one of its
biggest lulls it has ever been. I don’t know, I think it’s been 20 or 25
years since they won the Tour de France.”
In every interview he has done since the story broke on Tuesday, Armstrong was
asked if he would sue L’Equipe: “It’s a possibility . . . You know, lawsuits
are two things: they’re very costly and they’re very time-consuming.”
After the publication of LA Confidentiel, Armstrong sued The Sunday Times for
an article relating to the book, he sued the French publishers, La
Martinière, the authors and L’Express magazine for publishing extracts.
The apparent finding of EPO in six of Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour
de France occurred quite by chance. It was December last year and Professor
Jacques de Ceaurriz, head of the French national laboratory, and his
colleague Dr Francoise Lasne had been working to improve the EPO test
developed at Châtenay- Malabry in the late 1990s and approved for use at the
Sydney Olympics in 2000. Their aim last December was to find synthetic EPO
in urine by three distinct methods. They used the 1999 Tour de France
samples, which had been kept frozen at the laboratory, for a simple reason:
they knew that many cyclists used EPO freely through the 1990s as there was
no means of detecting it. From the samples, they found 12 that contained
EPO.
For the scientists, the discovery of EPO was not important. Their objective
was solely to measure the veracity of their refined test. They did not plan
to make public the results and even if anybody at the laboratory had wanted
to name the riders with EPO in their urine, they could not have done so. The
laboratory worked only with anonymous numbers.
Somewhere during this process, L’Equipe journalist Damien Ressiot learnt these
tests had been carried out and that there were 12 positives. Through sources
at the laboratory, he received the documentation for each positive test with
the number relating to each rider who had provided the sample.
Ressiot’s task was at once straightforward and formidable. He had to find the
documentation that showed both the name of the rider and his number for each
sample. Three agencies — the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the French
Cycling Federation and the French sports ministry — had all received copies
of that documentation.
From documents reproduced in L’Equipe, it is clear that Ressiot obtained the
UCI’s copies of these documents. This is ironic because of the speculation
in the US about a French conspiracy to bring down the American champion. The
UCI is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Once Ressiot received these documents, he cross-checked them against the
laboratory documentation. He then knew he had a sensational story on his
hands. The investigation, lasting four months, had reached an end and
resulted in L’Equipe devoting four pages to the story on Tuesday and 3Å
pages to its follow-up on Wednesday.
But questions remain. L’Equipe has not convincingly explained why it took so
long to get the story into print: the tests were done in December, the story
appeared eight months later. Had the story been published two months
earlier, shortly before the start of the Tour de France, it would have
greatly damaged the race. L’Equipe and the Tour are both part of the Amaury
group of companies.
Neither has the newspaper explained why the riders who produced the other six
positives found at Châtenay-Malabry from the 1999 samples have not been
named. Sources say the paper does not have those names. This raises the
possibility that the leaked documents from the UCI were specifically
designed to bring down Armstrong.
Previous allegations against Armstrong mostly involved testimony of former
employees, teammates and others involved in the sport of cycling. Although
they cannot be easily dismissed, they lacked the documented evidence in
L’Equipe’s story. “I’ve dealt with it for seven years,” Armstrong told Larry
King. “This is perhaps the worst of it.”
Because of his inspirational comeback from cancer and his athletic prowess, he
remains an iconic figure to many Americans. His is a story that millions of
them want to believe. Many still do, but not all. Following L’Equipe’s
story, many American commentators have openly expressed doubt.
In the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday, Gwen Knapp compared Armstrong to
baseball’s Barry Bonds, the record-setting hitter who has been linked to the
Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (Balco), the California steroid factory.
She wrote that Bond’s disgraced trainer, Greg Anderson, who has pleaded
guilty to two federal charges in the Balco case, is not much different from
Armstrong’s former trainer Dr Michele Ferrari, who has been convicted on
doping charges in an Italian court.
“Both athletes can say they have never tested positive,” wrote Knapp,
“although Bonds can say it more convincingly. Traces of a banned
corticosteroid turned up in Armstrong’s 1999 tests. He then produced a
medical certificate, saying that he was allowed to use the substance to
treat saddle sores . . .
“The thing that definitely separates Armstrong and Bonds has nothing to do
with science or law. It’s a popularity contest and Armstrong can’t lose. As
the cancer survivor who launched 50m yellow bracelets, he has an aura that
transcends sports. Bonds, cranky and condescending, may be the most disliked
of athletes. As a cyclist, Armstrong never threatened any records held dear
by Americans.”
Armstrong himself is aware of the damage caused by L’Equipe’s story and how it
will affect how he is perceived. “It’s always going to be a case of did he
or didn’t he?” he said. “But it has always been a case of did he or didn’t
he? I mean, this is not the first time somebody’s come along and said, ‘Ah,
he’s doped. Ah, he rode too fast. Ah, his story’s too miraculous — no way,
he’s doped’. This has been going on for seven years. And I suspect it will
continue.”
