Mar 14, 2015 3 min read

For all too many years, he was St. Lance, an athletic hero beyond reproach.

In his capacity as a kind of secular saint, Lance Armstrong overcame testicular cancer, despite being given little chance to survive at first diagnosis, and went on to win not one Tour de France, which is perhaps the most grueling sporting event in the world, but seven of them. In a row. Sure, sometimes Armstrong could seem a little standoffish and cocksure, but what a story he had, what an example he set. If someone who survived such a close call with mortality could brush himself off, get back in the saddle and navigate a bicycle through the Pyrenees, what’s preventing anyone from overcoming any physical infirmity, or simple lassitude, and getting in shape or reaching some other personal goal?

In the last couple of years, however, we’ve been able to peek behind the curtain, and what’s been revealed is an Armstrong who is all too human, and an unscrupulous one at that. Despite vehement denials year after year, it turns out Armstrong’s wins were powered by copious amounts of doping. In a feeble attempt to rationalize his blatant disregard for cycling’s rules, Armstrong later said everyone was doping, and so the playing field was level.

Well, maybe not.

A report released last week by the Cycling Independent Reform Commission found Armstrong had plenty of enablers within cycling’s governing body, who were willing to cover their eyes and turn up the volume on the TV set whenever someone mentioned Armstrong might be doping.

The report by the commission, which was established by the International Cycling Union (UCI) in the wake of revelations surrounding Armstrong, found the group’s members had a “special relationship” with him, and Armstrong performed various favors for members of the UCI during his time in the spotlight, from financial assistance to smaller favors like sending letters of support to cancer patients, making hospital visits or sending gifts.

Perhaps more importantly, Armstrong was seen as a potent salesman for cycling around the world.

The International Cycling Union “saw Lance Armstrong as the perfect choice to lead the sport’s renaissance,” the report states. That Armstrong was also an American “opened up a new continent for the sport.” Furthermore, “he had beaten cancer and the media quickly made him into a global star. Numerous examples have been identified showing that UCI leadership ‘defended’ or ‘protected’ Lance Armstrong and took decisions because they were favorable to him. This was in circumstances where there was strong reason to suspect him of doping, which should have led UCI to be more circumspect in its dealings with him.”

It all seems a little reminiscent of Major League Baseball in the early part of the last decade, when officials were less than eager to ask awkward questions when sluggers like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds were suddenly as pumped up as the Incredible Hulk and effortlessly hammering home runs into the stands. Some people had their suspicions, but who wanted to probe too deeply when so many breathless headlines were being printed and so much revenue was being generated?

The report on Armstrong is part of a long process of expiation for cycling, which has also come with promises to more adequately police doping. Only by doing that will cycling be able to restore its pre-Armstrong luster, and regain the interest of an increasingly cynical public.