Opinion The Armstrong cloud

No matter how peripheral cycling may have been to your interests,Armstrong’s heroism had made itself known far outside his discipline — his comeback from a tough cancer treatment to consecutive defences of the Tour de France,among the most gruelling and demanding of athletic efforts,raised the profile of his sport. The self-belief of his sport is now shrivelling,to the extent that the Tour de France’s race director feels that the runners-up in the Armstrong years,1999-2005,not be elevated on account of the widespread use then of illegal means to enhance performance.

In fact,the memory of Armstrong’s deceit will,depressingly,interrogate the next heroic performance anywhere in the world by an athlete,whether on track,on the field or in the pool. That interrogation is already rampant,of course. When Ye Shiwen,the Chinese 16-year-old,swam the final 50m of the women’s individual medley at the London Olympics faster than the winner in the men’s final,Ryan Lochte,questions freely flowed about the cleanliness of her achievement. Those questions naturally invited charges of racism,but the greats were already facing them too. Upon winning the 200m gold at London,at the immediate post-race press conference,Usain Bolt too was asked whether he and his Jamaican mates were “drug-free”. The reply: “Without a doubt.”

But each time doping investigations net a catch of the stature of Armstrong,such doubts will be inflicted on anyone else who does well. So,no,it’s not just cycling that will not forget Armstrong — so corrosive is the damage done by a sustained cover-up of acts like his that men and women in assorted fields and in diverse levels of achievement will work under a cloud. It will take a long while for achievements to look to be cleanly won.

That is a horrible legacy.

And even as Armstrong braces for possible legal battles to have him repay prize money,endorsements,even out-of-court settlements he won against publications suggesting doping,his fans will wonder at another question: why’d he do this?

That question needs to be posed because what great athletes do is that they push against physical and personal boundaries in ways that enhance our sense of our own possibilities. That is why cleanliness (in the sense of being clear of banned performance enhancing substances and procedures) is not simply about creating a level-playing field for contestants. If that were it,then the fringe arguments that come each time there is a doping scandal would make some sense,that let athletes consume whatever they want and let’s be done with this pervasive,ever more complex anti-doping regime. Such debates are sure to get a brief airing post-Armstrong.

However,if sport is about more than the contest and if it is indeed to be about possibilities,about a deeper compact,then Armstrong — before his fall — naturally nominated himself as an ambassador. And be sure,his record must have given sustenance to countless folks struggling with not just cancer,but even minor,daily lethargies. Of course,his fund-raising will remain a laudable effort. Did this inspiring narrative — of the unlikely survivor — consume him? Did it cloud his judgement?

We may never know. We may not even care,but for cycling the question won’t go away.

For those of us of a certain age,Armstrong’s fall from grace will bring memories of another doping scandal and the still difficult task of actually forgetting a feat achieved with the aid of a banned substance. I was physically present just yards from the finish line at the Bird’s Nest in Beijing (2008) when Usain Bolt steamed in with a 100m world record. It was like watching time stand still. But that experience still did not match the awe that detained me while watching television footage from Seoul (1988) of Ben Johnson taking the 100m away from Carl Lewis in world record time. It was a summons to rethink what achievement meant,it was electrifying.

And then just as suddenly as it had arrived that summons was withdrawn — Johnson stood disgraced. The terms of that disgrace were never quite worked out. Recently,reading Simon Barnes’s essay (in A Book of Heroes) on why Johnson is among his 50 sporting heroes helped make sense of this difficult appraisal: “It seems to me that there was an overwhelming desire to punish Johnson for our own too-great faith: for our own too-great love of sport. It was this love of ours that inspired Johnson to take the drugs to improve his performance. Because we didn’t want to see a man doing his best: we wanted to see a man at the far edge of the possible,amazing us with things we never thought a human being could do.”

So,no,Mr McQuaid,cycling will not forget Armstrong. It will have to find a way to get the right measure of him while remembering him.

The writer is contributing editor,‘The Indian Express’