Armstrong must show cards
Will Buckley
Sunday August 28, 2005
Observer
In many respects the legal system resembles a game of Texas Hold 'Em. At
every stage of the process the parties to the action are required to invest
more to see if the monies already spent are good or bad. Nowhere is this
more the case than the lottery of libel. Libel is poker with wild and rogue
cards. A game in which, as happened in the Jonathan Aitken case, a card can
be produced towards the very end of proceedings and transform the outcome.
That card was found in a Swiss hotel where a dogged journalist uncovered
evidence that Mrs Aitken had not been where her husband had said on oath she
had been.
What may turn out to be a similar card was played somewhat earlier in
proceedings last Tuesday when l'Equipe published a four-page article under
the headline 'Le Mensonge Armstrong'. 'The Armstrong lie' being that,
according to documents in the newspaper's possession, the seven-times Tour
de France winner had tested positive for EPO. This will have a profound
effect on Armstrong. In particular, it is likely to affect the case he is
scheduled to bring against The Sunday Times, set down for the High Court in
November.
This centres on an article about the publication of the book LA
Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong written by Pierre Ballester and
David Walsh, the paper's chief sports writer. The authors contend that
suspicion surrounds the cyclist. Armstrong contends that he has never taken
performance-enhancing drugs and to air such suspicions is tantamount to
accusing him.
The l'Equipe card changes the balance of the game. 'I believe the contents
of LA Confidential show that as journalists our scepticism was justified,'
says Walsh. 'For those that haven't read the book, the l'Equipe story would
have given a sense of where our questions were coming from.'
Vitally, it marks the first time Armstrong has tested positive for EPO.
Previously, anyone wishing to allege that he had taken performance-enhancing
drugs had to overcome the evidence that hundreds of tests had said he had
not. Now the onus has shifted and Armstrong has to overcome evidence that
suggests he has.
'As a story, the l'Equipe piece is very difficult to refute,' says Walsh.
'This is going to be very significant in the ongoing debate about Lance
Armstrong. People will have real ambivalence about it as they don't like to
see their heroes tarnished. But before we applaud we must be sure of what we
are applauding. So many journalists are prepared to suspend their natural
disbelief because the glory, glory story is easier to write.'
Walsh's attitude to doping was influenced by a year spent in France in 1984.
While there, he and his family gave a home to the then amateur cyclist Paul
Kimmage, who stayed for five months. Kimmage became a pro, refused to take
drugs, and was vilified by the cycling community for writing a searingly
honest account of his life as a pro cyclist, Rough Ride. Walsh believes
Kimmage 'was one of countless athletes cheated by the system because he
wouldn't cheat'.
The picture presented by Kimmage was realised in 1998 when a team official
was caught transporting a cargo of drugs to the start of the Tour. 'The
world's so-called greatest race was a drug-ridden fraud,' says Walsh.
The following year's race was meant to be a Tour of Renewal. It was hoped
the race would go to the slow and probably clean rather than the swift and
possibly dirty. Armstrong recorded the fastest time in history.
'Immediately, I have a problem,' says Walsh. 'If you are naturally sceptical
you had to look at the winner of the 1999 Tour de France.' Yet in so doing
he was looking at a man who had defeated cancer and reinvigorated his sport.
Armstrong's supporters claimed such a man would never voluntarily put
foreign substances in his body. The doubters wondered if, for such a man,
the end might justify the means.
Since then Walsh has been reserving his applause and asking questions. Many
of which centred on the cyclist's relationship with Dr Michele Ferrari, from
whom Armstrong refused to dissociate himself - even as the evidence
mounted - until the doctor was eventually convicted.
Walsh kept asking questions, sometimes discomforting other practitioners.
'If we don't stand up for the guy playing by the rules who is being screwed
for playing by the rules we shouldn't exist, as it is our only true
purpose,' says Walsh. 'By and large, the American journalists who covered
this year's Tour have been the best educated, most steadfast cheerleaders
who ever set foot from one country to another.'
L'Equipe's story might stall those cheers. On Thursday, Armstrong appeared
on Larry King Live and asked: 'Since when did newspapers start governing
sports?'
They have never governed them, but they have always covered them. The
hitherto litigious Armstrong says he will not be suing l'Equipe for libel as
he is retired. Attention now shifts to the London case and whether, with the
cards that were dealt last week, the Texan will hold 'em or fold 'em.