This side of Barry Bonds, has there ever been a bigger witch-hunt than that which follows Lance Armstrong? Yet another doping allegation has been filed against the 7-time Tour de France champion. No one can say for sure what Lance is guilty of, if anything. I tend to keep my distance from forming opinions on such matters until all information comes to light. In this case I feel I have enough evidence to draw one specific conclusion. Before I can get to what I believe Lance is guilty of, it’s only fair to review the statements presented by his accusers.

The most recent accusation took place just this week. A lady by the name of Betsey Andreu, who happens to be the wife of  a former teammate of Lance’s, (Frankie Andreu) came forward with new information regarding his rumors of doping.  The couple claims that Armstrong confessed to physicians about using EPO, HGH, and other drugs including steroids, prior to brain surgery for cancer in 1996. No records of a confession exist on any medical forms filed by Lance’s doctors.

Last year Lance was brought back into the media spotlight when a French sports newspaper, L’Equipe, claimed that blood samples he had provided for the Tour de France in 1999 had tested positive for EPO. (For clarity, EPO boosts the capacity of red blood cells to carry more oxygen.) Lance was cleared of the accusation as it was impossible to prove the samples had not been tampered with.

In 2004, as Lance prepared to go for his 6^th straight tour de France win, a French-language book titled L.A. Confidential: The secrets of Lance Armstrong, was released by authors David Walsh and Pierre Ballester. They had interviewed many people and put together a damning case against Armstrong. Obviously the timed release of the book sought to discredit Armstrong’s quest and of course make money. The authors were willing to explain that their book did not contain proof, just circumstantial evidence.

 Also in 2004, fellow American and former 3-time Tour de France champion Greg Lemond accused Lance of cheating by using performance enhancers. LeMond was publicly quoted as saying, “Lance is ready to do anything to keep his secret. I don’t know how he can continue to convince everybody of his innocence. Lemond also claims that Armstrong threatened him by saying he could find 10 people willing to claim that Greg had taken EPO himself. This qualifies as no more than one man’s word against another’s.

A former employee named Emma O’Reilly also levied accusations against Armstrong. She served as his masseur, physical the#### and personal assistant in the late 1990s. O’Reilly claims that Lance had her dispose of used syringes during the Tour of the Netherlands in 1998. She also stated that Lance asked her for makeup to hide syringe marks on his body during the 1999 Tour de France.  It’s possible that she is looking to slander him since he chose not to keep her on staff. For the record O’Reilly admitted that she had no idea what was in the syringes.

Lance was openly linked with Michele Ferrari, an Italian man who helped to train many top cyclists. Ferrari was convicted in October of 2004 for sporting fraud and illegally acting as a pharmacist. He was banned from practicing medicine. His experience with performance enhancers and blood doping goes back to 1984 before any regulations against them were put into place. In regard to Armstrong, Ferrari was acquitted of distributing sports doping products, which legally got Lance off the hook as well.

Daniel Croyle, another former teammate of Armstrong has written a book titled Lance Armstrong’s War.  I read an excerpt that I feel is ultimately relevant to my personal conclusions about Lance. The excerpt is as follows.

Booknoise: What’s our biggest misconception about Armstrong?

Daniel Coyle: That he’s a nice guy. Lance is smart, charismatic, incredibly hardworking, and he does a lot of good works, especially within the cancer community. All that has led most of us to the misimpression that he’s saintlike or even cuddly. He’s not, by a long shot. Like DiMaggio, like Sinatra, like Babe Ruth, Armstrong is one of those who lives life all the way up. When it comes to his sport, and especially winning the Tour, niceness is just not part of his decision-making.

So what’s he really like? Let’s put it like this: He’s the kid from nowhere who became best in the world at a sport that is very difficult, painful, and dangerous. He’s the proof that Darwinism works. As his best friend, John Korioth, says, Lance is animalistic, the ultimate alpha wolf. On the bike, and often off the bike, he’s a competitive beast. It’s what makes him a fearsome competitor—it also makes him a complicated human being to deal with.

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html

I don’t know for sure what Lance may or may not be guilty of. As with Bonds, we are talking about perhaps the greatest ever at what he does. Strikingly both have faced similar allegations looking to bring them down and dishonor all of their accomplishments. Both should benefit from the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra that our nation is based on. (At least legally in court, if not always in the court of public opinion.)

 What does all the information tell me? Assuming Lance never doped, until proven evidence is provided, what is it that he can be really guilty of?  Just like Bonds he’s probably guilty of being a first class ####. If he did cheat by using performance enhancers he loses all respect and credibility. If he is “clean” as he says, then he must really be one hell of a jerk. That is the only way to explain why former teammates, cycling legends, and employees have all taken a turn at bat trying to bring him down.

Lance’s recovery from cancer, his Live Strong campaign and donations to cancer research are all fine things. These facts make for a great story all by themselves. However, surviving cancer does not make it OK to cheat (if he did) or make the lives of those who work with/for you uncomfortable.

I once had the utmost admiration for Armstrong, but as I weigh the entire story something just tells me that Lance is not truly the person he wants everyone to think he is. Pick a cliché. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, regarding doping or Be careful who you step on, regarding his ambition. Either way, one of these labels has to fit. I’ll hold off on my final judgment until later, but his stock is slowly starting to sink in my eyes.

Whatever happens, if anything, I'll still remember the good he has done too.