Sports Illustrated vs Lance Armstrong, Floyd vs Floyd.

Where do we start? How about you read the full article to be published in Sports Illustrated on the 24th Jan HERE. Unless you've been hiding under Cadel Evans chin chances are you're already au fait with what it says anyway.

You know here at the Wagon we take a very dim view of doping in cycling (and other sports) and we also admire Lance for his remarkable TDF successes; we don't think there is anyone not aware of his cancer beating and conquering past and future quests, and how 28 million people now wear a yellow rubber band at the bottom of their arms. So to the article.

Landis, my oh my. Yet more accusations and lawsuits. The man who had everything and who now has nothing. At all. No friends in cycling, no wife whose shoulders must have been sodden by his tears of regret (for getting caught, and before she left him, obviously) no credibility, not many more loose screws to fall out of his head. We've talked about him before so we'll try not to bore you, or us, with too much more about him, but unfortunately it is relevant. Lets have a quote from SI:

After Armstrong's cancer diagnosis, former teammates say, even Ferrari questioned his methods. "I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that," says Landis.

Hang on a minute, Roid. Are you saying that Lance gave himself testicular cancer, that almost killed him, by taking too many banned substances? That is beyond the pale, really. Just imagine that. LA, heralded as the man who beat cancer before going on to conquer the TDF, gave himself the disease because he was cheating at the sport he went on to rule. This is more ridiculous than the plot of Inception. Roid needs serious help. It is obvious to any sane person that anything that comes out of his arse mouth holds less credibility than the chances of the Ricco family medicine cabinet only holding paracetamol.

Elsewhere in the article it is alleged that Lance took HemAssist, an EPO like blood booster but without the blood thickening EPO causes. This is a drug that was under research and never produced commercially. Why wasn't it released to the world? Because it failed in its purpose of helping people who needed transfusions. So how could Lance take this? It is feasible he took it, but who knows if it had a marked effect on his performance? Maybe this drug has the PowerBand placebo effect. Whilst we here like to believe LA is innocent until proven guilty, it isn't beyond our capabilities to see how he might have been taking substances to aid his pedalling that he shouldn't have taken. Drugs testing is all well and good when you know what to look for, but it unless you know what to test for then its also pretty useless.


Another point worth talking about is the list of banned substances allegedly spoken of to two doctors by LA, in a room with quite a few people in it. If this really happened, as the Andreus claimed under oath, then why not find the doctors who LA told and ask them about it? Check the medical notes. We know there are issues with patient confidentiality but if LA is innocent then lets see the evidence to support that too.

We here at the Wagon realise that with the amassing volume of dirt being flung LA's direction, it is unlikely the great unwashed will ever really understand the sport we love. To most, cycling is and always will be sullied by crimes committed and alleged in the past. And then we have the vultures, who love to see a hero downed. If LA is found to have taken illegal substances then many people will smugly proclaim they knew it all along, blah. If he is found innocent of all allegations against him, we think he'll never be quite able to wipe all that dirt off his impervious Texan face. Shame.