Good turn or dirty The return of Lance Armstrong on the Tour of France, who will be leaving Saturday in Monaco, raises many questions. Sixfold Texas cyclist winner of the great loop, but suspected of doping, will be allowed in heroes or pariah "This is an exciting Tour, journey, for his conduct, for the return of Armstrong," said Christian Prudhomme, Director of the test, adding: "the features in the Tower, it is first the France Tower." A way of the future. Because it is its status as epic of the modern times through the landscapes of the deep France that saved the competition after multiple doping Affairs that it has known since 1998. Pierre Ballester, co-author of "l. a. confidential" (La Martinière), the book laid the first shadows on the legend Armstrong, said last year in the "world" that "85 of the winners of the Tour since 1968 were involved in doping cases." Some names are sufficient to accredit this thesis: Danish Bjarne Riis, winner in 1996, admitted in 2007 to be doped with EPO. Italian Marco Pantani, arrived first in 1998, was suspended six months in 2001, before succumbing to an overdose of cocaine. In 2006, the American Floyd Landis was decommissioned a few days after his victory, controlled positive to testosterone. Only a few days ago the French Laurent Fignon, double winner in 1983 and 1984, acknowledged taking amphetamines during his career even though he made public his cancer of the digestive tract.
It therefore ranger Lance Armstrong, the absolute record of victories in the Tower (far to Anquetil, Merckx and Hinault legends) in the category of impostors This is the question.
The hardest sport test
The answer divides experts. On the one hand, there is the Legalists who remind us that the Texan has never been convinced of doping. "It has never been positive and, since the beginning of the season, he suffered more than 30 controls, all negative," said Yann Le Moënner, Director General of Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the organiser of the Tour a few weeks ago. It was the speech that the runner held Sunday before millions of viewers of "Strongly next Sunday", the issuance of Michel Drucker. This speech in addition, there are still another: "The Tower of France is the hardest sport event", he still said. The rhetoric will be understood: I am not doped, and even if I was, this could apologize in view of the difficulties of the discipline. Generally, it is accompanied by a chapter on the need for cyclists to cure their sore bodies. Regular care of doping, the border is tenuous in the minds of those who speak of "medical preparation... Last argument of the pro-Armstrong: are doping cases in cycling because the controls are more frequent and more efficient than in other sports.
Skeptics, they argue that there is a genuine culture of doping, conversely if the drug in the platoon. The first cases date back to the late 19th century: amphetamine, arsenic, coal, anabolic, not to mention the famous "Belgian pot", the list is long (see-below). The testimonies are also numerous on the use of euphoriants by cyclists recreational evenings. The early mortality of great champions as Anquetil, calls also. On Armstrong himself, a beam of consistent evidence exists. August 23, 2005, journalist Damien Ressiot published in "The team" an inspiring investigation. Châtenay-Malabry laboratory tests a new method for the detection of EPO on samples taken from the 1999 Tour, first victory for Armstrong. The samples are anonymous, just numbered. Journalist persuades a pretext the runner giving permission to the headquarters of the International Cycling Union (UCI) slips of controls he suffered this year. He noted numbers, intersects with those of the lab and finds that 6 positive samples can be attributed to Armstrong! With regard to a test, the American incurred no penalty.
"Stakeholders".
But doubt was born. He began to forge under the pen of Pierre Ballester and David Walsh in 2004 with "l. a. confidential." The same return in "The Sale Tour" (threshold) on the trial which has opposed Armstrong to the SCA Promotions insurer refused to pay the premiums due for his victories. Several witnesses say heard Lance Armstrong, in 1996 at the Hospital of Indianapolis, while he is suffering from testicular cancer, said his doctors that he had taken doping substances. Others will certify the contrary. Armstrong will win the part. In "The great deception" (Hugo & Cie), Jean-Pierre de Mondenard list him too, the elements which support what he calls "legitimate suspicion".
Force is to recognize that the pro-Armstrong first are the "stakeholders" of the cycling: UCI, ASO, runners themselves, or even sponsors and media. A year ago, group Amaury made peace with the UCI, with the creation of the Pro Tour, trying to focus on the commercial rights of the Tower (wholesale, Pro Tour brings together major global racing and UCI plans to market its rights in a comprehensive manner in the year; to escape this uptake, the organizers of the large towers requested to be entered on a calendar to share). For some, its leaders have accepted consideration Armstrong return, sign of the closure of the grand unpacking parenthesis opened in 1998. They were, in any case, not used against the American clause of their regulations which allow to exclude of how discretion any runner who would undermine their image...
What are the risks of liquidity and creditThese are the middle class who pay the invoiceRenault presents its accounts with a line cost of risk NonCost synergies should appear as early as next year2 billion years back to the first proteinsUnemployed people are not counted as suchAnd if it is Finance Here it is more complicatedWe base our strategy on a multifranchisésNotaries have difficulty cleaning at homeWe have globalized the problem and not the solution
