Lance : half a story

So what have we learnt from Lance Armstrong's heartfelt chat with Oprah. He can't remember who he sues, he's not going to talk about others involved and he's a little bit sorry but not a cheat. This seems a half hearted apology which will surely fail to find the redemption he wants. Nothing short of a full open account is likely to inspire any kind of public sympathy.

Being a professional cyclist was no easy place to be in the 90's. From the accounts of Tyler Hamilton, David Millar and others it is clear you came to the point in your career where you came to the crossroads, to dope or not to dope. Starting with a few tablets to pop for recovery which were borderline, the gradual move to the stronger stuff, EPO and worse was inevitable for many. To ride clean meant you were extremely unlikely to be good enough to lead a team and so your career would stall.

We all would like to think that we would have made the right decision in the same situation, but sportsman don't like being left behind. It is not surprising that so many took the easy decision of doping encouraged by little chance of being court and short bans. So why was Lance Armstrong different?

It wasn't just because he was a winner that Armstrong became a target but more to do with his arrogance and continual self-belief of invincibility that meant people like David Walsh et al would not let it lie. The intimidation of those telling the truth and the increasing number of enemies he built up meant that the House of Prescriptions was going to fall down.

Now Lance, your invincibility has gone, break a habit of a lifetime open up and tell the full story. The UCI link is key and until the silence of this relationship is broken cycling will remain in the shadows.