Lance Armstrong Admits Using PEDs

In the News
On Monday, Lance Armstrong, the former U.S. cycling legend who was recently stripped of his seven Tour de France victories and banned for life from the sport, sat down with Oprah Winfrey and admitted that he'd used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and had pressured others racing on his teams to do so as well. This came after years of strong denials and attacks by Armstrong against those who insisted he had doped throughout his bicycle-racing career, during which he dominated the sport.
Editor's note: Because of our publishing deadline, we are writing based on news reports about the Armstrong interview as well as on comments from Oprah Winfrey on CBS This Morning the day following her meeting with Armstrong. The full interview will air in two parts on Thursday and Friday, January 17 and 18, on the OWN channel.
The cyclist's confession came just days after voters in the Baseball Hall of Fame induction process gave no ballplayer -- not Barry Bonds, not Roger Clemens, not Sammy Sosa and not any other -- sufficient votes to be inducted into the Cooperstown HOF, due to suspicions that those players had used PEDs.
Speaking Tuesday on CBS This Morning, about her two-and-a-half-hour interview with Armstrong, Winfrey said, "We were mesmerized and riveted by some of his answers. I feel that he answered the questions in a way that he was ready."
Armstrong's decision to admit to doping is a stunning reversal of his long practice not only of denying PED use, but also of ruthlessly intimidating doubters, blacklisting skeptical reporters, bullying critics and attacking the reputations of people in the professional cycling world who insisted he wasn't racing "clean."
While the doping charges swirled around Armstrong for years, and while several other riders had been found guilty of using PEDs and served suspensions as a result, Armstrong maintained that he never used them. He often defended himself against claims to the contrary by saying that he had not failed even one of some 500 drug tests administered throughout his career. (In reality, there were fewer than 300 administered.)
All of that, along with Armstrong's impressive cycling-race victories, came crashing down in late August when the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged him with both doping and leading a doping conspiracy inside the sport. When Armstrong declined to meet with USADA to address the charges, that agency stripped him of his seven Tour wins and all other titles and awards from August 1998 forward, and it banned him for life from participating in any sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the world governing body for international competitive cycling events, subsequently supported the USADA ruling, making it final.
Initially, many who had not followed the case closely questioned on what basis USADA could "attack" an American "hero" and continued to believe Armstrong. But then in October, USADA released its "Reasoned Decision," a 202-page document that outlined its case against the cyclist, including never-before-published analyses of Armstrong's 2009 and 2010 blood profiles, as well as testimony from 26 witnesses. Along with supporting documents, the whole dossier came to more than 1,000 pages. It detailed, among other things, how Armstrong and those on his teams were able to beat the drug testing.
The report portrayed Armstrong as a ruthless competitor, willing to go to any lengths to win. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart labeled the doping regimen employed by the team Armstrong led as "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."
Given the overwhelming weight of USADA's evidence, almost all support for Armstrong, including that of his commercial sponsors, evaporated after the report was made public. He also stepped down from his position with the Livestrong cancer charity he started to keep it from being affected by his fallen status.
While most welcome Armstrong's confession, many observers see the admission as coming too late to gain him any sympathy or warrant a reduction in the lifetime ban.
The admission of guilt may have legal consequences for Armstrong as well. For one thing, former teammate Floyd Landis has filed a whistleblower suit on the grounds that public money was used to buy doping products while Armstrong raced for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service, and it’s possible the Department of Justice will join that suit. The penalty against Armstrong could be as much as $90 million, three times what the Postal Service paid the team.
For another, the Sunday Times of London is suing Armstrong for $1.6 million to recover an amount it paid him to settle a libel lawsuit over a 2004 article they ran that included allegations that he had used PEDs.
For still another, in 2005, SCA Promotions, based in Dallas, had tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win because of doping allegations, but were forced to pay in an out-of-court settlement. After the USADA report was released, SCA threatened to bring suit to recover the more than $7.5 million from that settlement.
It's also conceivable that Livestrong donors may demand compensation after Armstrong's confession. The foundation has raised more than $500 million since he founded it in 1997.
Estimates are that Armstrong's net worth is about $100 million. It's possible that his lawyers secured an out-of-court agreement with the government before he talked with Oprah, but CBS News reported on Tuesday night that government officials rejected an Armstrong offer to repay $5 million in restitution and cooperate with investigators as a witness. In any case, the confession increases the likelihood that he will be in legal jeopardy on more than one front for some time.
So why has Armstrong decided to confess now?
One reason may be to help Livestrong. Even though the cyclist has severed his connection with the charity, it's still associated with him in the public mind. Shortly before his meeting with Oprah, Armstrong visited the Livestrong Foundation headquarters for a private meeting with the staff during which he apologized to them for the stress they'd endured because of him. According to a foundation spokesperson, Armstrong also urged them "to keep up their great work fighting for people affected by cancer."
He has expressed a desire to be allowed to compete in marathon and triathlon events, a pursuit he started after retiring from bicycle racing. Most of those events are under the World Anti-Doping Code and, thus, are now closed to him. Under the code, it's possible for the lifetime ban to be reduced to eight years, although, since Armstrong is already 41, even that term could effectively preclude his participation except in age-group events. However, if Armstrong is able to give USADA further information, possibly testifying against others who knew about or facilitated doping, a shorter negotiated term might be possible. People familiar with his plans say Armstrong will not testify against other riders.
David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which also has a voice in lifting any lifetime ban, said on Tuesday that Armstrong's confession on TV is not sufficient. He must confess to doping under oath and aid the fight against cheating in the sport if he hopes to mitigate the ban.
One of the most intriguing pieces of information Armstrong might be able to clarify is a charge that he actually did fail a doping test in 2001 but "bought" his way out of it by making a $100,000 donation to UCI. That organization's president, Pat McQuaid, acknowledged that Armstrong made the donation but says it was "to help develop the sport." McQuaid said further that Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to the governing body and that in hindsight, the decision to accept the money while the cyclist was still racing was regrettable.
There are also claims that UCI allowed other drug-cheating riders to go unpunished.
One other possible reason for Armstrong's confession is that since there are others in the doping conspiracy whose cases are yet to be heard by USADA -- most notably Johan Bruyneel, the director of the teams on which Armstrong won his Tour titles -- Armstrong could be subpoenaed in their cases, and the confession frees him to testify without lying under oath. Doing the latter, or even "taking the Fifth," could have unpleasant legal consequences for him.
Regardless of what may have prompted Armstrong to finally confess, Winfrey described him as "forthcoming" in the interview and said she was "satisfied by the answers." On CBS, she was asked if Armstrong was emotional. She said he was "a couple of times," and added, "But that doesn't describe the intensity at times. ... I would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Armstrong Tells Oprah He Doped to Win. CBS News
Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify. New York Times
Analysis: The Ever-Shifting Ground Beneath Lance. VeloNews
Armstrong Apologies to Livestrong Staff Before Oprah Interview. VeloNews
A Decade of Denials for Armstrong. VeloNews
USADA's Reasoned Decision (full text)
To Forgive? (Will Armstrong Be Forgiven?) Bicycling
The Big Questions
1. Does a person have to actually be contrite for an admission of guilt to "count" with God? Why or why not? (In your answer, explain what you mean by "contrite.") What is the relationship between confession and repentance? Was there ever an occasion when you apologized because you thought you had to, but did not feel sorry in your heart? When have you apologized and truly felt sorry for what you have done? Were there occasions when another apologized to you and you questioned that person's sincerity? How did that make you feel?
2. Define these four words: confession, forgiveness, restitution, redemption. How are they related?
3. Is there a difference between admitting a wrongdoing and confessing a wrongdoing? If so, what is it?
4. Does confession carry the same weight and significance when it results in some benefit or payback to the one who confesses, as opposed to when it doesn't? Does it have the same significance when the one confessing seems to have been backed into a corner by compelling evidence and has few other options but to confess? Explain your answer.
5. Some cancer survivors who have been helped by the Livestrong Foundation couldn’t care less about whether Armstrong doped. And the fact is, there would be no Livestrong without Armstrong's victories on the bike. So how are they helped, if at all, by a confession from Armstrong? Should Armstrong's character matter to those helped by the foundation he established? Why or why not? How might Romans 8:28 ("We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose") fit into your answer?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Numbers 5:6-7
When a man or a woman wrongs another, breaking faith with the LORD, that person incurs guilt and shall confess the sin that has been committed. The person shall make full restitution for the wrong, adding one-fifth to it, and giving it to the one who was wronged. (For context, read 5:5-10.)
In the law God gave the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, he included provisions about confession and restitution. Note that this instruction says that when one person wrongs another person, he or she is thereby "breaking faith with the Lord." The implication is that all sins, even those committed against fellow humans, are ultimately against the law of God, who wills for us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (as God said elsewhere in the law -- see Leviticus 19:18).
Under the law God gave Israel, there were arrangements to square such wrongdoing: The wrongdoer was to confess the sin to God (and presumably, to the one wronged) and make restitution.
The idea of restitution makes clear that while confession brings forgiveness, it is to be linked with whatever can be done by the wrongdoer to set things right.
Questions: In what ways is doing something wrong to one's neighbor a sin against God? What are we to do when making restitution is not possible?
Psalm 51:4
Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment. (For context, read 51:1-17.)
According to the superscription on this psalm, it was written by King David after being confronted about his adultery with Bathsheba. Since David sought her out and eventually had her husband killed, his sin was directly against both of them as well as his own wives. Yet in the verse above, David confesses that his sin was against God alone. Ultimately, all sin is against God, whose holiness and moral laws define good and evil.
Questions: What else besides praying this prayer do you think David needed to do to be restored in his faith? In what ways can Psalm 51 be a model prayer for confessing and repenting? How is forgiveness possible when certain consequences of an action, in this case the death of Uriah, cannot be undone? Are you amazed, intrigued or appalled by those who forgive the murderer of a loved one?
Proverbs 28:13
No one who conceals transgressions will prosper, but one who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy. (No context needed.)
We might want to argue with the first phrase of this proverb; it seems that many who conceal transgression do in fact prosper, at least in this life. But in the thinking of the wisdom teachers who wrote Proverbs, real prosperity was linked to righteousness before God, which is implied by the second phrase above. The "mercy" obtained by the one who "confesses and forsakes" transgressions is from God. Those who do not confess and forsake do not obtain it.
Questions: Besides not obtaining God's mercy, what are the dangers of concealing your transgressions? Are there any sins that should be confessed only to God but be concealed from others? Why? What are the results within us that others may not see when there is no attempt to confess transgressions to God?
Luke 18:13
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (For context, read 18:9-14.)
This is from Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, who both went to the temple to pray. The Pharisee's prayer was self-congratulatory while the tax collector's prayer was confessional. He didn't state specific wrong deeds, but admitted plainly that he was a sinner. And Jesus said that of the two, only the tax collector went home justified (made right with God).
Questions: This parable was originally addressed to "some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt" (v. 9). Is that whom it is addressed to now, or is it addressed to others? In what ways do you hear it as addressed to you? In addition to responding as individuals to this parable, can you think of ways that we as a congregation, as the church at large or as a nation should receive and respond to this parable?
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (For context, read 1:5-9.)
The "he who is faithful" in this verse is God, whose very character is faithfulness and justice, as well as love. John is saying that our sins separate us from God, but that God wants no "pound of flesh" from us. He'd rather have our confession, which opens the channel for his mercy and forgiveness to flow to us.
After we confess our sin, God's forgiveness makes us spiritually clean again, but often there is a great deal of emotional, psychological and relational damage (and, in some cases, legal and financial consequences as well) to be dealt with. God's forgiveness, however, given up front when we confess our sins, is the first and most important factor in our restoration.
One Greek word sometimes translated "confess" is homologeo, which basically means "to say the same thing" and then "agree, admit, acknowledge." In that usage, we confess our sin when we "say the same thing" God says about it. As long as we try to justify our self or pussyfoot around it, we have not yet truly confessed. We say, "What I did wasn't so bad" or "It wasn't any worse than what others did" or "I didn't really hurt anyone," but what does God say about our sin? "The person who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20). That sounds much more serious than when we speak about our sin.
On the human relations level, those we have sinned against don't experience our verbalization about our sin as confession unless we "say the same thing" about what we did that they would say about it. It takes empathy and a shift from self-focus to really see how our actions impacted others negatively. When that happens, our admission changes from begrudging confession of guilt because we got caught to grief over the hurt we caused God and others.
Questions: This verse could be described as "pure gospel." Why? There is an almost mathematical precision to it: If this takes place, then this other must happen. This may not be our actual experience, when apologies are not received or accepted, or when despite words of forgiveness, we do not feel that a relationship has been renewed and a clean slate adopted. Is this only possible with God? Can people operate in this way? Should it be this easy?
For Further Discussion
1. How do you think Armstrong's confession should be received by the general public? By those he raced against? By those whose reputations he impugned? By those whose careers he caused to stall or collapse? By donors to Livestrong?
2. In his book The Innovator, G. William Jones has a modern parable titled "Confession Is Good for the Cell." Read this summary of it to your class and then ask them to talk about what it might mean.
In the story a man, Hymie, is imprisoned despite his repeated protestations of his innocence. Hymie spends every day of the first year of his incarceration not only proclaiming his innocence to all around him, but also writing long letters to legislators about the injustice done to him and dreaming of how he was going to sue the state when the governor finally had his written apology and notice of release hand-delivered to Hymie's cell.
One day, however, Hymie looked out his cell window and noticed the greening grass, the buds opening and other signs of springtime. It was too much for him -- everything living, growing and changing but him. He felt like a bee trapped in amber, while the rest of the world went on around him. He collapsed onto his bunk, defeated. When his evening tray arrived, the turnkey joked, "Here you go, Mr. Innocent."
Here's the rest of the parable in Jones' own words:
"I'm not innocent," Hymie croaked, weary with it all. "I'm guilty. Guilty as hell."
"What did you say?" the turnkey asked, strangely excited, holding his breath to catch the soft answer.
"Guilty," sighed Hymie. "I'm guilty."
Immediately there was a rattling of the key in the lock, and when Hymie raised his head the door didn't look right. When he got up and gave the door a tentative push, it swung open broadly into the dusky, deserted corridor.
Peeping timidly down the corridor, Hymie saw that other gates were hanging open before him all the way to the front gate. There was still enough sunlight left to give him a glimpse of the greening grass and the bursting buds beyond.
3. Respond to this: Etymologically, the word "confess" differs little from the idea of "profess" -- to admit, acknowledge, own up to. It was long used in the sense of professing one's faith. Thus, summaries of key doctrines are sometimes termed "confessions of faith," as in the Westminster Confession, the Confession of Augsburg and others. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, we are confessing our faith.
In Roman Catholicism, the term "confessor" is used to describe a saint who did not die a martyr's death but whose life exemplified the Christian faith. Christian martyrs are those who confessed their faith even to the point of laying down their lives. Confession, as the word is more commonly used today, still means to profess, but in the sense of professing or owning up to one's wrong actions and guilt.
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves, in the words of 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Closing Prayer
O Lord, while it's all too easy for us to see the sins and failures of others, help us to see ourselves as you do, admit to you our sins, and receive your mercy. In Jesus' name. Amen.