Communication and Information Studies
A Rhetorical Analysis of the Documentary
THE ARMSTRONG LIE
A research into the rhetorical construction of a tempered perspective
on the Armstrong scandal
Picture 1: sequence 7 – 00:14:20
BACHELOR THESIS
Of Laura Osswald
4009843
Under the guidance of Andrea Meuzelaar
Year of Study 2014/2015
Period 4
Delivery date 22nd of July 2015
Abstract
This thesis researches THE ARMSTRONG LIE – a documentary concerned with Lance
Armstrong, a former professional cyclist who had lied in the past to millions of fans
to cover up his use of performance enhancing drugs during the Tour de France. The
thesis will research into the question: ‘Which perspective does the documentary THE
ARMSTRONG LIE give on the Lance Armstrong scandal and how is this perspective
constructed?’ This question arose after watching the documentary myself. My
perception is that Lance Armstrong came out of the documentary in a more positive
light, whereas THE ARMSTRONG LIE is aimed at Lance’s misbehavior in the past.
To be able to analyze which perspective is conveyed on the Armstrong
scandal I based my analysis on the theory of Bill Nichols, an expert and key player in
the field of documentaries. The theorist claims that the voice of a documentary
involves not only the representation of an historical world, but also how a filmmaker
wants to speak about it through the use of rhetorical strategies like editing, music or
voice-overs. Based on this theory, and by applying three of Nichols described
departments, (Invention, Arrangement and Style) it will be possible to answer the
main question at hand, to reveal the documentary’s true intentions towards the
Armstrong scandal. Further, the theory put forward by Garry Whannel about the
representation of sport stars in the media, will help me to identify if heroic or positive
stages of Lance’s life, like positive accomplishments or the overcoming of hardships,
are highlighted to encourage a more positive view of Lance Armstrong, which could
justify Lance’s misbehavior in the past.
The analysis ultimately shows that THE ARMSTRONG LIE creates the
perspective that even though Lance Armstrong had cheated in the past, the scandal
should be viewed in context without rushing to conclusions. The filmmaker Alex
Gibney applies several rhetorical strategies to do so and to convince the audience of
the perspective that the Armstrong scandal wasn’t as bad as it seemed. This was
shown through the perspective that in context, cyclists need to dope to be able to keep
up with others, which is known as being common within the cycling world. Rhetorical
strategies did not only seem to play an important role in the construction of this
perspective, but the emphasis on positive aspects of Lance’s career seemed to have a
big influence in how a more positive perspective towards Lance was created.
2
Table Of Contents
Abstract
Introduction 4
Chapter 1: The Representation of a Sports Hero 7
Chapter 2: Rhetorical strategies 10
§ 2.1 Modes of Representation 10
§ 2.2 Rhetoric in Documentaries 11
§ 2.2.1 Invention 12
§ 2.2.2 Arrangement 13
§ 2.2.3 Style 14
§ 2.2.4 Memory and Delivery 15
Chapter 3: Methodological Approach 16
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Analysis of THE ARMSTRONG LIE 17
§ 4.1 Synopsis 17
§ 4.2 Documentary’s Modes of Representation 18
§ 4.3 Arrangement 21
§ 4.4 Style 26
§ 4.4.1 Editing and voice-over 26
§ 4.4.2 Musical accompaniment
Conclusion 30
References 32
Appendix 1 – Sequence Analysis 33
Appendix 2 – Documentary participants 62
3
28
Introduction
The Lance Armstrong scandal is possibly the best known case of drug cheating in
sporting history, but as Lance himself states in the opening scene to Alex Gibney’s
documentary THE ARMSTRONG LIE, there is more to the story of him only being a
drug cheat and liar as he is widely known.1 In 2009 Gibney started a documentary
called THE ROAD BACK about Lance’s return to cycling and his riding ‘clean’ in the
Tour de France, which he unfortunately had to abandon when the undeniable proof
emerged that Lance was a drug cheat. In 2013 however, Lance finally came clean and
admitted to everything he had done in a live interview with Oprah Winfrey. This
urged filmmaker Gibney to pick up his previous film and demand Lance explain
himself on camera one last time.
THE ARMSTRONG LIE shows a detailed representation of Lance’s past in
which the construction of the documentary and its emphasis on certain aspects of
Lance’s career seem to be fundamental in the creation of a tempered perspective
towards the Armstrong scandal. After watching the documentary myself, I can agree
that my perspective towards Lance had changed. My sympathy towards Lance created
by the film caused me to wonder how it was possible for someone portrayed by the
media as a monster, a lying villain and a bully, to come out of the documentary in a
more positive light. This thesis aims at revealing the perspective the documentary
creates on the Armstrong scandal, which leads me to the main question: Which
perspective does the documentary THE ARMSTRONG LIE give on the Lance
Armstrong scandal and how is it constructed?
First I looked into the theory of the representation of sport stars in the media
and identified with the opinions of specialist in the field, Garry Whannel, who gave
insight into how sports stars are represented in the media by problematizing its
mediation. The author explains that even though the media lure the public to believe
that everything they show is the truth and a glimpse ‘behind the scenes’, the ultimate
power still resides with the media, who have the possibility to select, frame and focus
on whatever story they think sells best.2 Whannel takes this thought a step further by
claiming that biographies, which are supposed to tell the truth about a person, are also
Alex Gibney, “The Armstrong Lie,” Kennedy/Marshall Productions, directed by Alex Gibney
(United States, Sony Pictures Classics, 2013), DVD.
2
Whannel, Media Sport Stars 51.
1
4
mediated and can never be trusted in their neutral representation of a sport star. 3
When transferring the content of biographies to documentaries, which have a broad
reputation of being accurate and neutral as well, THE ARSMTRONG LIE can be
analyzed in the light of Whannel’s theory, that one can never have unmediated
contact to a star.4
Even though there seems to be plenty of research into the representation of
sport stars in the media, the representation of a sports star in a documentary could
show a completely different angle, and therefore offers a great opportunity to look
into how the Armstrong scandal is constructed, as the documentary is originally
aimed at telling the truth about Lance’s former lies with regards to his doping scandal.
Because how does a documentary, whose origin and focus lies in the accurate
representation of Lance’s mendacious past, end up representing Lance in a more
positive light?
Secondly, to take a step further in the analysis of THE ARMSTRONG LIE I
researched into the theory of documentaries itself. I identified myself with the theory
of one of the key theorists Bill Nichols, to perform a rhetorical analysis, which he
originally extracts from the classical rhetoric. The theorist claims that every
documentary has a voice of its own that conveys a certain perspective of a subject
through various rhetorical strategies.
5
The voice, according to Nichols, is a
representation of the world in the way the filmmaker intends to construct it. Nichols
says that “[e]verything we see and hear [in documentaries] represents […] the
historical world, but also how the film’s maker wants to speak about that word.”6 This
coincides with my view of the immense power a documentary has in transferring a
perspective on a subject, even subliminally. Based on this theory I will analyze how
possibly heroic features of Armstrong may be transferred through the means of
editing, voice-over and music to emphasize Armstrong’s positive accomplishments.
Chapter 1 will provide a theoretical framework on the representation of sports
stars in the media. Chapter 2 will provide a theory to answer three sub-questions, by
which the first sub-chapter will provide a theory to answer the first sub-question: ‘To
what extent, and how intensely is the filmmaker himself involved with this
3
Whannel, Media Sport Stars, 49.
Ibidem.
5
Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2010), 67.
6
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 67.
4
5
documentary?’ which aims at identifying the intensity of the connection between the
filmmaker and his subject, and how the filmmaker’s documentary is actually
constructed as a filmmaker’s relationship to the subject could alter the outcome of the
documentary. The second sub-chapter will provide a theory to identify more specific
rhetorical strategies that can be used in a documentary to transfer a certain
perspective, and will provide a theory to give answers to the second sub-question:
‘How does the narrative structure of the documentary contribute to the construction of
the viewer’s perspective?’ and the third sub-question, ‘How are style elements
implemented in the documentary to ultimately help construct the created
perspective?’ Chapter 3 will operationalize the provided theory into a usable analysismodel and Chapter 4 follows with the actual analysis. The conclusion will answer the
main question, reflect on the analysis-model, and make recommendations for future
research.
I expect to be able to conclude that the documentary contains a voice of its
own that leaves the Armstrong scandal in a slightly tempered light. I also expect the
documentary to put emphasis towards the positive aspects of Armstrong’s career to
possibly persuade the viewers positively and encourage empathy toward Armstrong.
6
Chapter 1: The Representation of a Sports Hero
To reveal how a viewer could possibly be persuaded to a more positive view of Lance
Armstrong it is primarily relevant to research into what experts in the field of the
representation of sport stars in the media have already concluded. The expert in the
field, Garry Whannel, who specializes in the representation of sport stars in the
media, traces back the emergence of sports heroes and the way in which the lives of
sports stars are narrated in the media.7 The author explains that the aim of the media is
not simply to win and hold the viewer’s “[…] attention by linking sporting
achievement and personality […]” together, 8 but also by producing a great desire
within the audience to know the ‘real person’ behind these achievements.9 Whannel
problematizes the desire to get to know the ‘real person’, as this is never fully
possible. The construction and production of a star, according to him, will always go
through a process of selection, framing and focusing on specific aspects of a sports
star’s career.10 Whannel explains:
The comparison of image and reality, of represented star and real person, becomes
problematic when all we are dealing with is layer upon layer of mediation.11
Whannel’s thought, that one can never be sure of the accurate representation of a
sport star’s life, supports my theory about THE ARMSTRONG LIE that certain aspects
of Lance’s career have possibly been accentuated and emphasized more than others,
which could influence a viewers perception on Lance. Whannel backs up this fact by
problematizing a quote of the expert in the field of stars Richard Dyer, who says that:
Star biographies are devoted to the notion of showing us the star as he or she really is. [To be]
taken ‘behind the scenes’, ‘beneath the surface’, ‘beyond the image’, […]. 12
Whannel criticizes the trustworthiness of a biography, which claims to be ‘telling the
truth’, as according to him it is impossible to ever have unmediated contact to a star. 13
7
Whannel, Media Sport Stars, Abstract.
Idem, 49.
9
Idem, 56.
10
Idem, 51.
11
Ibidem.
12
Idem, 49.
8
7
May it be in a biography or in this case a documentary, which also has the common
designation in the public mind of being neutral and uninfluenced, both will always be
mediated in some way, which will help me to be critical in the rhetorical analysis of
THE ARMSTRONG LIE in Chapter 4.
Throughout the book Whannel explains that sports stars are commonly
portrayed as role models “and the tendency of some to fail at this task and instead set
a bad or negative example for young people.”14 This makes clear that a role model
can also fail as Lance did too. Armstrong was viewed as a role model by millions of
people all over the world, but he let everyone down when the drug scandal came out
and his entire life looked like a big lie. As THE ARMSTRONG LIE is officially and
mainly focused on Lance’s lies and failures in the past, which can be connected to his
failure as a role model, it is now of importance to come to an understanding of what it
entails to actually be a role model. By researching into this matter it will be possible
to identify if Lance’s years as a role model are represented in the documentary. If an
emphasis on his portrayal as a role model is highlighted it could have an affect on the
perception of how people interpret his misbehavior discussed in the documentary.
Theory focused on the representation of sports stars in movies seems to
provide a more specific definition on what can be understood as a role model in
sports. The authors Markus Bülles and Markus Kaminski did further research in the
representation of sports heroes in film, in which they researched the representation of
the sports hero Rocky Balboa. Besides Whannel, the authors Bülles and Kaminski
explain that a sports hero is almost always represented as some sort of role model.
The authors describe Rocky Balboa, the role model, as a person who despite losing
everything and hitting rock bottom, then has the drive to fight his way back to the top
despite great obstacles, and thereby inspires the viewer with his journey.15
Stories like these are examples in which a sports star seems to be the perfect
role model by pushing through personal hardships to ultimately come out of them
even stronger. The accentuation of this narrative, when applied in the documentary,
could make a viewer reconsider the shame Lance brought onto the cycling sport, as he
had to fight so much in his life (his suffering from cancer), which could justify his
misbehavior in the past.
13
Ibidem.
Whannel, Media Sport Stars, 223.
15
Markus Bülles and Markus Kaminski, “Helden des Sports in Literatur und Film,“ Mythosmagazin
n.d.: 39.
14
8
When reflecting on the previously described theory, about the representation
of sporting heroes in television and fiction, it will be interesting to determine if
alongside the negative storyline of the documentary, positive aspects of Lance’s life
are overly highlighted. If it is the case that positive aspects of Lance’s career are
highlighted, it could possibly have an affect on the perception of the Armstrong
scandal.
9
Chapter 2: Rhetorical strategies
§ 2.1 Modes of Representation
To answer the first sub-question: ‘To what extent and how intensely is the filmmaker
himself involved with this documentary?’ I will use Bill Nicholls’ identified modes of
representation, which can help reveal in which ways Alex Gibney interacts with his
subject, and how the documentary has been constructed. Nichols distinguishes
between six modes: Poetic, Expository, Observational, Participatory, Reflexive and
Performative modes of representation, 16 by which a documentary can contain
multiple modes, as Nichols doesn’t present the modes as “strictly-defined categories
with clear boundaries.”17
In the poetic mode the documentary maker mainly focuses on the artistic
image instead of an actual representation.
18
The mode “emphasizes visual
associations, tonal or rhythmic qualities, descriptive passages, and formal
organization,” which can benefit a filmmaker’s story.19
The expository mode, “[…] is the mode that most people associate
documentary in general” with.20 Another specialist in the field of documentaries, Carl
Plantinga, describes the mode as a “’Voice-of-God’ commentary,” 21 which is
dangerous for a documentary as it can create the illusion of an objective
representation guided by a narrator.22
The observational mode, “stresses the nonintervention of the filmmaker” in a
documentary. 23 Nichols explains that this mode “emphasizes a direct engagement
with the everyday life of subjects as observed by an unobtrusive camera,” which is
referred to as fly on the wall documentaries.24
In the participatory mode the filmmaker interacts with the subject.25 Nichols
explains that this mode is based on the means of “interviews or other forms of direct
16
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 31.
Carl R. Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), 101.
18
Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 105.
19
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary Second Edition, 31.
20
Ibidem.
21
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 101.
22
Bill Nichols, Representing Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34.
23
Ibidem.
24
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 31.
25
Ibidem.
17
10
involvement from conversations to provocations,” in which the filmmaker engages
with situations and encounters them.26
The reflexive mode acknowledges and actively exposes and flaunts the
documentary’s construction, which withholds to inform people that what they are
watching is not fundamentally the reality, which can make a viewer realize that an
accurate representation of the historical world is impossible.27
In the performative mode the filmmaker interacts with the audience and we
learn about his or her attitude and opinions towards the subject. Nichols explains that
the filmmaker actively emphasizes his or her involvement with a subject, which is
shared with the audience.28
§ 2.2 Rhetoric in Documentaries
In this sub-chapter a theoretical framework will be provided to help answer the two
last sub-questions concerned with the influence of a narrative structure on a
documentary, and the influence of its style elements on a perspective. To do so this
thesis will make use of Bill Nicholls theory on rhetorical strategies, which he
originally extracts from the classical rhetoric. According to the classical rhetoric, an
orator can persuade his audience in a seemingly natural way, by making use of
emotions, gestures and good argumentation. 29 Taking this a step further, Nichols
makes it clear that in the filmic rhetoric the physical speaker is absent, and the
filmmaker uses his movie to transfer his or her perspective on the subject to the
viewer.30 Nichols calls these rhetorical strategies of persuasion, voice. He explains:
“The voice of documentary is each film’s specific way of expressing its way of seeing
the world. The same topic and perspective on it can be expressed in different ways,”
which implies that two documentaries about the same subject might have the same
storyline, but different voices. 31 To analyze the voice of a documentary Nichols
categorizes five departments: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory and Delivery.32
26
Ibidem.
Idem, 31-32.
28
Ibidem.
29
University of Groningen, “Retorica: de kunst van het overtuigen. Klassieke en modern retorica,”
Rug.nl, accessed May 8, 2015.
http://www.rug.nl/education/scholierenacademie/studieondersteuning/profielwerkstuk/alfasteunpunt/su
bjects/onderwerpen/klassieketalen/retorica
30
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 67.
31
Idem, 68.
32
Idem, 78.
27
11
§ 2.2.1 Invention
Invention helps with “the discovery of evidence or ‘proofs’ in support of a position or
argument” in a documentary.33 In the classic rhetoric, the Greek philosopher Aristotle
divides between two types of evidence, the inartistic proof and the artistic proof.34
The inartistic proof is concerned not only with “ideas and beliefs, but also
facts and evidence […] that lie beyond dispute” which are supportive in making an
argument. Nichols names examples like witnesses, documents, fingerprints or DNA
which, according to him, “lies outside the right of the orator or filmmaker to invent or
create”, as they are fixed and cannot be constructed.35 Still Nichols warns that even
though this evidence is unalterable, one has to be careful as the evidence can be
presented in the way a filmmaker wants to.36
Artistic proof often relies “[…] on the techniques to generate the impression of
conclusiveness or proof,” which helps building a framework in which evidence can be
interpreted.37 Nichols explains artistic proof as a filmmaker’s product of creativeness
and distinguishes between: ethos, pathos and logos.38
Ethos is described as “credible or ethical” evidence, in which the “character
and credibility” of a filmmaker or witnesses is shown. 39 According to Willem
Hesling, theorist in the field of documentaries, a filmmaker’s image is of high
importance, whereas his reputation, competence, reliability and sympathy are
paramount in how a filmmaker is accepted.40
Pathos is known as the “compelling or emotional” type of evidence, which
Nichols describes as:
Appealing to the audience’s emotions to produce the desired disposition; putting the audience
in the right mood or establishing a frame of mind favorable to a particular view […]. 41
Through the use of this type of artistic evidence the filmmaker tries to arouse the
audience’s emotions and also “elicit pre-existing feelings and attach them to a given
33
Ibidem.
Ibidem.
35
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary, 78.
36
Ibidem.
37
Ibidem.
38
Ibidem.
39
Idem, 79.
40
Willem Hesling, Audiovisuele Retoriek (Leuven: Centrum voor Communicatiewetenschappen,
1985), 27.
41
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 79.
34
12
argument.”42 In THE ARMSTRONG LIE this type of proof will show if an emotional
connection to the audience is created to support the filmmakers perspective.
Logos, also known as the “convincing and demonstrative” type of evidence, is
used to create the impression that evidence shown in the documentary is in true or in
logical sequence. According to Hesling demonstrative evidence consists of a
structural argumentation with the help of which a specific position is defended, 43
which also implies to the knowledge and reasoning that the audience already has.44
§ 2.2.2 Arrangement
Arrangement is concerned with the organization and planning of evidence collected in
Invention. According to Hesling this department focuses on the structure and
composition of the argument made in the documentary.45 Both, Hesling and Nichols,
describe the structure of a documentary with the help of a five-act.46
First the “[…] opening catches the audience’s attention.” 47 According to
theorist Carl Plantinga this is one of the main moments of a documentary as: “[the
beginning […] functions as exposition, creating a frame of reference by which the
events of the narrative may be understood.”48 What Plantinga is trying to make clear
is the immense impact an opening can have, as the start of a documentary has the
possibility to offer frames that the audience can make use of to understand the
upcoming text. 49 In the second act the documentary will clarify and explain the
subject, which involves explaining: “what is already agreed as factual and what
remains in dispute, or an elaboration of the issue itself.”50 Thirdly, the documentary
argues with all facts accompanying the case. Nichols sums it up as “[a] concrete
argument in support of one’s case from a particular viewpoint.”51 In the fourth act of a
documentary’s structure counter arguments are shown and disproved at the same
time, whereas in the fifth and last act the documentary summarizes the case, which
“stirs the audience and predisposes it to a particular course of action,” which sums up
42
Nichols, Representing Reality, 156.
Hesling, Audiovisuele Retoriek, 27.
44
Willem Hesling, “Retoriek van de film,” Filmkunde: Een Inleiding (Nijmegen: Sun, 1991), 235.
45
Hesling, Audiovisuele Retoriek, 27.
46
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 86.
47
Ibidem.
48
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 130.
49
Idem, 126.
50
Nichols Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 86.
51
Ibidem.
43
13
the endings having the opportunity to give a final appeal on the feelings of the
viewer.52 Plantinga also claims that endings play a crucial role in how the audience
closes with the subject of a film. Endings, according to him, redirect the viewer’s
attention so they understand the film from the filmmaker’s perspective.53
§ 2.2.3 Style
Style can be understood as a filmmaker’s repertoire to achieve a specific tone in a
documentary.54 Central in Style is the way the two previously described department’s
Invention and Arrangement are implemented within the documentary. Nichols
explains how it is possible for the filmmaker to express the way he or she wishes to
portray a subject in the documentary through the means of “camera angle,
composition, and editing.”55 This department therefore has the power to determine a
specific perspective within the documentary, which possibly leads a viewer into the
direction the filmmaker intended.56 Plantinga sums up:
Style in the formal voice serves the rhetorical project of the film; it transmits information
about the projected world; it helps develop the films perspective; it elicits the desired
perceptual and emotional effects in the spectator.57
Plantinga makes clear that through the means of Style a certain perspective on a
subject can be created. Editing for example is used to compare, contrast or infer
causality, but also to create a rhythmical or maybe unrhythmical pace in a narrative.58
Voice-overs help with the “coupling of images and sound,” in which Plantinga makes
clear, that a “picture bears multiple possible meanings”, but that the voice-over can
carry “authority over the meanings gleaned from the images.”59 And last, for example
the musical accompaniment, which does not provide “factual information as images
can” and neither conveys “propositions or conceptual information about the projected
world, as a voice-over can”, but, according to Plantinga, helps with the support of the
52
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 86
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 131.
54
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 89.
55
Ibidem.
56
Ibidem.
57
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 146.
58
Idem, 152-153.
59
Idem, 159.
53
14
preferred interpretation of the film’s voice.60 With these three types of styles in the
back of my head it will be possible to reveal how these filmic techniques convey a
tempered perspective of the Armstrong case.
§ 2.2.4 Memory and Delivery
Nichols distinguishes two further departments: Memory and Delivery, which are key
components in the convictions of a viewer. Memory serves to understand that what a
viewer sees in a documentary contributes to the ‘popular memory’ of the general
public and further gives the opportunity to connect new gained information from a
documentary with what is already known from earlier viewing experiences, which
therefore plays a key role in how the viewer interprets newly gained information.61
The department Delivery is mainly concerned with how rhetorical strategies are
conveyed in film and how a message is delivered.62
Even though all five aforementioned departments are of importance for the
transfer of a certain perspective, I will only focus on Invention, Arrangement and
Style and set aside Memory and Delivery. This results from the author Willem
Hesling’s notion that Memory and Delivery have nothing to do with the physical
speaker or in this case the documentary and therefore doesn’t address the questions I
am raising in this thesis.63
60
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 166.
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 91.
62
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 92.
63
Hesling, “Retoriek van de film,” 232-233.
61
15
Chapter 3: Methodological Approach
This chapter will explain how the theory provided in the previous two chapters will be
operationalized for the analysis of THE ARMSTRONG LIE, by which a usable
analysis-model will be provided to help reveal possible subliminal strategies used in
the documentary.
The analysis will start with a short synopsis that gives a global description on
what the documentary is about, and will continue with the first part of the analysis by
investigating the mode(s) of representation used in the documentary, which will help
reveal in what ways the filmmaker may or may not interact with its subject and
documentary. The modes applied in THE ARMSTRONG LIE will be explained with
scenes that support the identified modes.
In the second part of the rhetorical analysis I will investigate how THE
ARMSTRONG LIE constructs a tempered perspective on the Armstrong scandal based
on the departments Invention, Arrangement and Style. Arrangement and Style will be
analyzed separately, whereas Invention will be integrated in the analysis, as
arguments receive their persuasiveness through the structure and style of a
documentary.64 I will do so by describing in both departments what kind of evidence
is being used and what meaning is connected to it. Further through the analysis I will
constantly resort to the theory provided in Chapter 1 to reveal what elements of
Lance’s life are being accentuated.
In Arrangement I examine the narrative structure of the documentary through
which I can find out how the filmmaker built the narrative and how this structure
serves as evidence. Within Style I will focus on several notable scenes that help
support the created perspective on Lance stylistically. I will show through which
stylistic means the story is visualized and how the evidence is being portrayed. As
THE ARMSTRONG LIE mainly consists of a juxtaposition of archival footage and
interviews with journalists, friends, colleagues and Lance himself, Gibney’s own
recordings don’t seem to be of importance. Style will only focus on the collaboration
of editing, voice-over and musical accompaniment, as setting, camera movement or
lighting are not central stylistic elements to create a tempered perspective on the
Armstrong scandal.
64
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 86-88.
16
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Analysis of THE ARMSTRONG LIE
In this chapter the rhetorical analysis of THE ARMSTRONG LIE will take place with
the help of the analysis-model created in Chapter 3 to answer the three sub-questions
and ultimately the main question at hand. During the analysis I will constantly refer to
the sequence-analysis of the documentary, which can be found in Appendix 1.
§ 4.1 Synopsis
THE ARMSTRONG LIE starts with Lance Armstrong in an interview with the
filmmaker Alex Gibney three hours after his confession with Oprah, in which
Armstrong went back to set the record straight about his career. Lance claims in this
interview that only he can explain the true narrative of the story, which captures the
viewers attention and leaves the viewer with interest in what is about to come.
In the narrative all aspects that revolve around the scandal seem to be dealt
with: the start of his career, his struggle with cancer, his comeback in 1999, the
continuous drug allegations, his relationship to doctor and doping specialist Michele
Ferrari (Appendix 2), his comeback in 2009, him being banned from cycling and
finally his admission of doping in 2013.
A significant part of the documentary is that the filmmaker swaps between
footage from 2009 of his originally planned movie THE ROAD BACK to television
footage of Lance’s career and interviews in 2013 with former teammates, experts and
Lance himself. By intertwining this footage, Gibney constantly manages to swap
between Lances past, his continuous lying throughout 2009, and Lance’s reflective
explanations on what actually happened.
17
§ 4.2 Documentary’s Modes of Representation
Throughout the documentary Gibney engages with his subject and the documentary
itself on three different levels: (1) he creates a personal and emotional connection
with the audience, (2) he interacts directly with the subject Lance Armstrong and (3)
gives overarching and explaining commentary on the occurring events of the
documentary in some sort of ‘Voice-of-God’ commentary. These will be illustrated
in the following paragraphs.
Gibney expresses his feelings towards the Armstrong scandal multiple times,
which indicates the performative mode, in which he actively expresses his opinions
and attitude. 65 Gibney took the fact that Lance had lied to him in 2009 very
personally, which he shares with the audience right at the beginning. 66 In addition his
doubts as to whether Lance was finally telling the truth in the interviews in 2013 are
shared, which builds up his trustworthiness towards the viewer and functions as the
credibility evidence, ethos. Gibney from this point on would be very critical in what
to believe, as he had been lied to by Armstrong before.67 By sharing his feelings with
the audience the filmmaker presents himself as vulnerable and within reach to the
viewer. By creating this vulnerable and honest relationship with the viewer, in which
he explains how he thinks now and thought (in 2009) about certain aspects, the viewer
sympathizes with the filmmaker and may easily adopt Gibney’s perception and
remarks on the case.
Besides Gibney’s doubts towards Lance and his honesty, he still shares
empathy and expresses his opinion towards the nonprofit organization Livestrong
established by Lance, which was continuously associated with as just a front to hide
Lance’s doping. The filmmaker “didn’t see it that way” and attributes this positive
accomplishment to Lance.68 Gibney literally ‘rescues’ the Livestrong-organization’s
reputation that it didn’t just serve as a front to hide Lance’s doping, but had made
over 300 million dollars profit for cancer patients. This rescue serves as an example of
where the filmmaker himself accentuates Lance’s positive accomplishments in the
past as a role model, and that Lance was a good person at heart, who was a cancer
survivor himself, and despite this obstacle grew stronger to help many other cancer
sufferers.
65
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 32.
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney, sequence 7 (scene 1).
67
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney, sequence 30 (scene 3).
68
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney, sequence 22 (scene 1).
66
18
Gibney interacts with the subject Lance many times directly, which indicates
the participatory mode.69 In the documentary both meet after every stage of the Tour
de France in a hotel room to discuss what had happened (picture 2, 3).
Picture 2: sequence 26 – 01:14:56
Picture 3: sequence 26 – 01:15:01
In these interactions the filmmaker and Lance share more personal conversations as
for example:
Lance: “Gibney, we gotta win this fucking Tour de France.”
Gibney: “Yeah, I'm counting on you for the movie. This is all about me.” 70
Through conversations like this and Gibney’s active choice to put this part of the
2009 documentary into THE ARMSTRONG LIE shows a very personal connection
between Gibney and Armstrong. This, in the interplay with the performative mode,
creates the impression of a fully involved filmmaker, who honestly expresses his
opinion and attitude on the case.71 Scenes like these show a very intimate connection
between Gibney and Lance in which they interact in a very relaxed environment. The
viewer experience being taken ‘behind the scenes’ – something biographies and
documentaries promise to do.72 Even though this footage is from 2009 the filmmaker
actively chose to show a very concerned and stressed Lance Armstrong who is
struggling to keep up with the competition, which could again justify his use of
performance enhancing drugs.
69
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 31.
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney and Lance Armstrong, sequence 29 (scene 4).
71
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 32.
72
Whannel, Media Sport Stars, 49.
70
19
In some parts of THE ARSMTRONG LIE the expository mode emerges in
which Gibney talks in an explanatory commentary voice.73 One time Gibney explains
that doping has always been present in the Tour de France, by which the filmmaker
actively takes away some of the negativity of doping. 74 When the filmmaker himself
decides to explain to the audience that cyclists had always had pressure to keep up
with others, in an almost inhuman competition, and first compensated with a bottle of
beer to ease the pain, it gives the audience a first realization of how hard this sport
actually is, and might leave the audience less critical towards Lance’s misbehavior of
doping.
In the documentary all three modes seem to merge into each other, by which a
strict distinction is impossible. All three modes in combination can very quickly
create the impression of Gibney’s opinion being an actual fact instead of just his
thoughts. This could influence a viewer’s perspective, as he or she might experience
the filmmaker’s doubts or trust towards Lance as a given fact. Gibney’s
inconspicuously seeming sympathy towards Lance highlights some of his most
significant and appreciated deeds, which when compared to the representation of
sports stars in the media, makes it clear that Gibney actively boosts Lance’s good
deeds as a role model in the past.
73
74
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition, 31.
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney, sequence 13 (scene 1).
20
§ 4.3 Arrangement
THE ARMSTRONG LIE starts with a relatively calm and sincere scene of Armstrong
three hours after his doping confession on Oprah, in which he positions himself as
still being wronged after all this time, and that just he himself is able to tell the true
story of what had happened in the past (picture 4).75
Picture 4: sequence 26 – 00:00:48
By giving Lance the first word of the documentary, the filmmaker chose to let Lance
build up the suspense and a frame of reference in which the upcoming events of the
narrative may be understood. 76 This has influence on how the audience might
perceive Lance’s misbehavior, but also might build up an uncertainty into how to
interpret the upcoming events. By letting Lance start the interview saying that only he
could tell the truth, Gibney choses to build up trust towards himself, because who
would believe Lance Armstrong, a man who had lied many times before.
Only minutes after Gibney explains his relationship towards the Armstrong
case: how he had started the documentary in 2009 for Lance’s comeback, but had to
put the film aside due to Lance’s doping charges, and to now find himself picking it
up again after he had finally confessed. Gibney’s guilt at having been fooled the first
time in 2009, creates the impression that he would now finally try to get the truth of
what had actually happened. This seems to add to the filmmaker’s credibility to have
the willingness and eagerness to do so, which functions as ethical evidence. By
building up this trust towards the filmmaker, the audience will more easily believe
how Gibney interprets facts and information later in the course of the narrative (as
described in sub-chapter 4.2, when refuting the negative rumors about the Livestrongorganization).
75
76
Appendix 1: Lance Armstrong, sequence 1 (scene 1).
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 130.
21
Gibney continues showing footage of Lance’s bald head when suffering from
cancer and the subsequent commentary of Lance comparing “losing with death”
(picture 5).77
Picture 5: sequence 3 – 00:02:50
By appealing to the audience’s emotions, that Lance was literally fighting for his life,
and by making the viewer feel compassion about Lance’s suffering, Gibney makes
use of the emotional evidence pathos. By mentioning the cancer in the first minutes of
the documentary, the viewer is reminded of the hardship Lance must have gone
through to overcome the disease, which makes the viewer emotionally drawn to the
cyclist and therefore has the ability to make his future actions justifiable.
What follows is a sequence in which Gibney appeals to the emotional(pathos), but also convincing- and demonstrative (logos) evidence while at the same
time telling of Lance’s heroic path as a role model in his early life. Gibney again
recaps showing Lance at the lowest point of his life, suffering from testicular cancer
and accentuates how much pain he had to go through (picture 6). By showing this
footage the filmmaker appeals to the emotions of the audience and thereby sets a
framework into how to interpret what is about to follow.
Picture 6: sequence 10 – 00:17:27
77
Appendix 1: Lance Armstrong, sequence 3 (scene 1).
22
After creating a compassionate connection between the audience and Lance, Gibney
throws the viewer even further back in time. The filmmaker shows a convincing and
demonstrative string of facts from Lance’s past: his beginnings in Plano, Texas
(picture 7), raised by his single mother (picture 8) fighting his way to the top of
cycling (picture 9), only to have everything taken from him by cancer, which throws
the viewer back to the imagery of pictures 5 and 6.
Picture 7: sequence 10 – 00:19:04
Picture 8: sequence 10 – 00:19:17
Picture 9: sequence 10 – 00:20:26
This string of convincing evidence and the narrative of Lance as a role model who
will come back even stronger after surviving the cancer, serves to show the audience
how much Lance had to fight in his life. Coming from a little town in the US and
suffering from cancer, to become the greatest cyclist of them all. Just like a sports
hero in the movies fighting his way back to the top from rock bottom, Lance beats his
cancer and despite everyone thinking he is damaged goods he becomes stronger than
ever before and wins his first Tour de France in 1999 (picture 10).
23
Picture 10: sequence 10 – 00:21:09
When reflecting on the structure of this sequence and the emphasis Gibney places on
this specific part of Lance’s past – his early career and his obstacle of having to fight
cancer – it is clear that Gibney uses Lance’s role model like behavior in the past as
demonstrative evidence to convince the audience of Lance’s strength and
assertiveness to be able to push through all hardships.78 The filmmaker reminds the
audience of this accomplishment and suffering throughout the whole documentary
every time something bad is said about Lance, which continuously takes the viewer
back to the imagery described above.79
What follows is a lining up of arguments that doping has always had a place in
cycling. The filmmaker constantly swaps between the bad sides of doping and
arguments justifying why cyclists begin doping.80 When Lance explains himself that
he almost got caught doping in 2005 as steroids showed in his urine, Gibney instantly
swaps to very old footage of the Tour de France (even before Lance’s career) 81 in
which a voice-over (Phil Liggett: Appendix 2) explains that doping has always been
present in the Tour de France, just in the form of alcohol.82 By making this radical cut
of Lance first talking about his life as a drug using cyclist, and then the immediate
justification that drugs have always been present, Gibney chooses to disempower the
negativity of Lance’s previous misbehavior. This leaves the audience to conclude that
what Lance had done was not that bad after all as it had always happened. Again
Gibney used the convincing and demonstrative evidence logos to give the impression
of proving the point that doping has always been an obvious thing to do within the
cycling industry, which again takes power away from the main allegation.
Bülles and Kaminski, “Helden des Sports,“ 39.
Appendix 1: sequence 3, (scene 2), 10 (scene 2), 11 (scene 1), 12 (scene 1), 14 (scene 2, 3), 22
(scene 1).
80
Appendix 1: sequence 16 (scene 2).
81
Appendix 1: sequence 12 (scene 2).
82
Appendix 1: sequence 13 (scene 1).
78
79
24
Many anti-doping agencies controlled Lance in the past, whereas Gibney
chose to show one special time when the agencies came into his home in Plano,
Texas.83 In the footage Lance is first visited by the anti-doping station UCI and an
hour later by the American anti-doping organization USADA.84 The display of these
images, in which even Lance’s children appear asking questions what their dad was
doing (giving urine and blood), function as emotional proof (pathos) in which the
anti-doping agency’s continuous controls become actively associated with the
immense emotional affect this had on Lance’s family’s daily life. The filmmaker
actively chose to show Lance being tested in a home situation and not one of his
controls during the Tour de France itself. This makes the doping agencies seem as
intruders in Lance’s home, which shows how negatively this affected Lance’s private
life. By connecting the sincere and innocent moment of Lance at home with his
family with the ‘bad’ anti-doping agencies that were out to get him, aiming to catch
him, the viewer’s compassion towards Lance grows, which again might affect how
the viewer sympathizes with Lance.
In the end the documentary returns to the same interview setting as in the
opening scene (picture 11), which seems to round off everything that has been
recapped and discussed in the course of the documentary.85
Picture 11: sequence 30 – 02:00:48
As according to Plantinga the ending plays a crucial role in how a viewer closes with
the subject of a film,86 Gibney’s active choice to give Lance the last words in what is
said in the documentary is fundamental in how the viewer may understand the film.
Lance’s words that Gibney chooses to finish the movie with go as follows:
83
Appendix 1: sequence 24 (scene 3).
The UCI, also Union Cycliste Internationale, is the international organization for the sport of cycling.
USADA, also US Anti-Doping Agency, is a non-profit, non-governmental organization and the
national anti-doping organization for the United States.
85
Appendix 1: Lance Armstrong, sequence 30 (scene 3).
86
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 131.
84
25
Is the record book still gonna be blank for seven years? I guess it will be. I don't know. Or do
people go... They look at this thing, in the context that it is and say: “Well, yeah. He won the
Tour de France seven times."87
With these last words, Gibney chooses to create quite a thoughtful disposition at the
end, in which the viewer may go in any direction towards Lance and his deeds –
maybe to still see him as a bully and liar, or to choose to show more compassion
towards what Lance had done, and that his use of performance enhancing drugs was a
fact all cyclists have to live with in this period of cycling history. This two-sided
disposition could make the audience doubt their previous prejudices and view the
scandal in a new light, which could ultimately result in Lance being viewed more
positively.
§ 4.4 Style
§ 4.4.1 Editing and voice-over
During the inquiry into THE ARMSTRONG LIE the interaction between editing and
voice-over seems to be a very convincing tool to convey a tempered perspective on
the Armstrong case. As images support the voice-overs, the interplay between them
can be of immense influence in bringing across an argument. 88 By editing footage
together the filmmaker can prove a point or simply emphasize a contrast.
The first type of collaboration was done quite often in the course of the
documentary, in which the filmmaker for example explains that doping has always
been a thing on the Tour de France, just in the form of alcohol instead of actual drugs
(picture 12, 13). He explains how excruciatingly painful this type of sport can be:
That inhuman suffering carves the body in unnatural ways and leaves riders to search for
doping methods that can dull pain and push human limits. 89
87
Appendix 1: Lance Armstrong, sequence 30 (scene 3).
Plantinga, Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film, 159.
89
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney, sequence 13 (scene 1).
88
26
Picture 12: sequence 24 – 00:29:51
Picture 13: sequence 24 – 00:30:03
This collaboration of voice-over and images serves as a type of convincing and
demonstrative proof, referred to as logos. The impression is created that it has always
been normal to use dope in the Tour de France, which plays down the negative
aspects of Lance’s doping. This sequence serves to persuade the viewer to rethink the
cyclist’s charges of cheating, as right from beginning cyclists used some form of
doping, which again shifts Lance’s negative image towards a more positive one.
Furthermore, the collaboration of editing and voice-over was used to
emphasize contrast. Many times the negative voice-over of the filmmaker, an expert
or former teammate was contrasted against footage of Lance’s positive
accomplishments. Through the use of this, the filmmaker constantly speaks of
Lance’s misbehavior in the past whilst still portraying him as a hero. A specific
example can be extracted from the end of the movie, in which Gibney recaps in just a
few words his ‘official’ message of the documentary:
That is a bitter truth. It pays to believe in winning at all costs. And the cruelty Lance showed
his enemies off the bike was the very thing that allowed him to win on the bike. 90
Picture 14: sequence 30 – 01:59:52
90
Picture 15: sequence 30 – 02:00:01
Appendix 1: Alex Gibney, sequence 30 (scene 3).
27
By contrasting this voice-over with heroic imagery (picture 14, 15) the filmmaker
manages to convey in words a message he possibly felt was expected from the critics,
but to still subliminally promote a heroic image of Lance. The contrast created in this
moment of the documentary leaves the audience guided by Gibney’s words, but more
likely influenced by the imagery.
§ 4.4.2 Musical accompaniment
Sound plays a fundamental role in THE ARMSTRONG LIE. The musical
accompaniment is continuously present, and ranges from discrete background music
to actively used music tracks to support images. The documentary distinguishes
between roughly three types of background music that run through the movie and
seem to repeat accordingly. Firstly guitar music is used, which seems to always
support Lance’s positive accomplishments or heroic deeds. 91 Secondly, xylophone
sounds to hint towards suspicion, as for example Lance’s relationship to doping
specialist Michele Ferrari or the filmmaker’s relationship to the documentary itself,
when doubting his objectivity towards the case.92 And thirdly violin music is applied
to the negative deeds of Lance, such as not being able to fully confess in regards to
the people he had harmed, or Lance’s relationship with doctor Ferrari. 93 With the use
of repeatedly occurring accompanying music, Gibney subliminally reminds viewers
of previous scenes, which can affect how later scenes might be interpreted.
The filmmaker also makes use of actual songs, which he uses for the support
of his narrative.94 “Cumin’ atcha live” by the band Tesla describes Lance’s eagerness
in his youth to make something of himself:
I'm a mean machine, I'm the kind you don't wanna meet
My middle name is trouble, I'm a danger in the street
My motor's in overdrive, I got my pedal to the floor
Never get enough, always comin' back for more 95
91
Appendix 1: sequence 3 (scene 1-2), 26 (scene 1), 29 (scene 7).
Appendix 1: sequence 2 (scene 1), 14 (scene 1-4).
93
Appendix 1: sequence 30 (scene 3), 14 (scene 1).
94
Appendix 1: sequence 10 (scene 1, 2), 20 (scene 5), 29 (scene 5).
95
Tesla Lyrics, “Cumin’ atcha live,” azlyrics.com, accessed June 15, 2015.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tesla/cuminatchalive.html
92
28
His eagerness and desire to win and succeed is reflected in this song through the
means not only of its lyrics, but also its fast rhythm. The filmmaker uses this kind of
aggressive song to put the viewer in the desired disposition of Lance being a man who
had to fight all his life: fighting to get out of Plano, Texas; fighting the cancer; or
fighting to win the Tour de France. The music supports the footage, in which the start
of Lance’s career is shown and accompanies the viewer in the perception of Lance as
a fighter who would win at any cost.
29
Conclusion
This thesis researched into which perspective THE ARMSTRONG LIE documentary
gives on the Lance Armstrong scandal and how its construction took place. In order to
answer the main question in it’s entirety I will answer the sub- questions with the help
of the conducted rhetorical analysis.
The analysis showed that the filmmaker’s involvement with his documentary
and his subject played a crucial role in how evidence was interpreted and how footage
was explained. As Gibney interacts with the documentary on several levels:
expressing his feelings towards Lance and the case, and his direct engagement with
the subject itself, showed a fully involved filmmaker who must have had a hard time
in presenting neutral footage. This, in combination with the structure of the
documentary, build up a narrative in which Gibney many times chose to show footage
in which he defends Lance and his misbehavior and creates sympathy towards the as
villain condemned Lance Armstrong. This sympathy is on the one hand created
through the means of accentuating Lance’s positive accomplishments in the past and
his former portrayal as a role model in which is constantly referred to him as a cancer
survivor; and on the other hand through the means of cinematic elements in which the
filmmaker uses the power a documentary has to give meaning to imagery.
When returning to the main question, it is clear that the interplay of all
aspects: the filmmaker’s very intense involvement, the chosen narrative structure and
its stylistic elements as editing, voice-overs or music, contributed to a subliminal
persuasion of the audience that Lance’s misbehavior was not bad after all. Throughout
THE ARMSTRONG LIE it becomes clearer and clearer that the documentary is mainly
concerned with justifying the actions of cyclists in this period of cycling history. Even
though Lance had lied so many times, it seems to be justified that he had doped in the
past, as it was a common thing to do among cyclists, and in the end Lance got stuck in
this never-ending lie that he started at the beginning of his career in his young life in
an environment in which everyone doped. With the help of intertwining filmic
elements it was possible for Gibney to convey the message that even though Lance
had lied in the past and had done things that are perceived as unacceptable and
morally wrong in today’s society, he had still done good things and his behavior
seemed justifiable to the viewer. THE ARMSTRONG LIE certainly gives context to the
30
story, but especially fishes Lance out of a net of negativity, which in the end might
not leave Lance in a positive light, but definitely in a less negative one.
With the help of the applied analysis-model it was possible for me to reveal
the documentary’s subliminal perspective on the Armstrong scandal. The model
therefore helped me to structure my analysis, whereas the distinctions between the
departments sometimes prevented me in my analysis. Concerns of future research
include to see if a same or different perspective is created on the scandal, when the
filmmaker himself is not fully involved. Therefore it would be interesting to look into
the representation of the Armstrong scandal in another documentary like STOP AT
NOTHING: THE LANCE ARMSTRONG STORY.96
“Stop at Nothing: The Armstrong Story,” imdb.com, accessed July 16, 2015.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3511812/
96
31
References
Bibliography
Bülles, Markus and Markus Kamisnki. “Helden des Sports in Literatur und Film.”
Mythosmagazin n.d.
As requested by the publisher:
http://www.mythos-magazin.de/mythosforschung/mb-mk_sporthelden.pdf
Hesling, Willem. “Retoriek van de film.” Filmkunde: Een Inleiding. Nijmegen: Sun,
1991: 225-240.
Hesling, Willem. Audiovisuele Retoriek. Leuven: Centrum voor
communicatiewetenschappen, 1985.
Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2001.
Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 2010.
Nichols, Bill. Representing Reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Plantinga, Carl R. Rhetoric and Representation in nonfiction Film. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
“Stop at Nothing: The Armstrong Story.” Imdb.com. Accessed July 16, 2015.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3511812/
Tesla Lyrics. “Cumin’ atcha live.” Azlyrics.com. Accessed June 15, 2015.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tesla/cuminatchalive.html
University of Groningen. “Retorica: de kunst van het overtuigen. Klassieke en
modern retorica.” Rug.nl. Accessed May 8, 2015.
http://www.rug.nl/education/scholierenacademie/studieondersteuning/profielw
erkstuk/alfasteunpunt/subjects/onderwerpen/klassieketalen/retorica
Whannel, Garry. Media Sport Stars: Masculinities and Moralities. London:
Routledge, 2002.
Filmography
Gibney, Alex. “The Armstrong Lie.” Kennedy/Marshall Productions. Directed by
Alex Gibney (United States, Sony Pictures Classics, 2013), DVD.
32
Appendix 1 – Sequence Analysis
SEQUENCE
IMAGE/SCENE
1.
1. Fixed camera: The
documentary starts with
Lance Armstrong
explaining himself 3
hours after the Oprah
interview. It’s in a
conversation with the
filmmaker.
1. Moving camera:
Lance, filmmaker and
crew in the car.
2. Scene of the festivities
at stage 1 in Monaco.
3. At Lance’s bike camp.
Him warming up on a
bike. And later at the
start of the Tour.
0.00
Opening of
documentary.
Lance in an
interview with
the filmmaker.
2.
1.09
This sequence
is concerned
with Lance’s
comeback in
2009.
3.
2.38
This sequence
is a flashback
on Lance
struggling
with cancer,
then the start
of his career
and ultimately
the
accusations of
critics that he
was using
performance
enhancing
drugs.
1. Private footage of
Lance on a standing bike
without hair after his
chemotherapy treatment.
His voice over turns into
an interview moment.
2. TV footage of Lance
in 2000 on the Tour de
France Stage 10. Also
Footage is shown of
Armstong repeatedly
claiming of not having
used drugs to enhance
his performance.
3. Many quick pictures
appear, like the
filmmaker rewinds, to be
able to start from the
FORM/
STYLE
1. Interview
setting.
TEXT
OUTSTANDING
1. Armstrong: You know it’s interesting, I am thinking about it like this: Living a lie. I didn’t live a lot of
lies, but I lived a big one. You know that’s different. I guess, but maybe it’s not.
Text in picture: January 14, 2013. Three hours after taping the Oprah interview.
And what I said in there in how the story just was all over the place and there are these just complete
opposite narratives. You know? The only person that can actually start to make understand what the true
narrative is, is me. And you (the filmmaker) should know that more then anybody. The real nature and the
real detail of the story. Cause we haven’t heard it yet. It’s the truth.
Armstrong comes across very
honest.
3. Voice over of
filmmaker.
1. Maker (not as voice over, but as car passenger): Lance how are you feeling?
Lance: Good.
Text in picture: Three years earlier. July 4, 2009.
Nervous, but that’s good.
Text in picture: Tour de France Stage 1.
Always nervous for this. Not a lot room for air. So makes it interesting. Welcome to the party.
2. Text in picture: Monaco. Start of 2009 Tour de France
3. Maker: In 2009 I set out to make a film about Lance Armstrong’s comeback year. It seemed like a great
ride. Retired champion with a contentious past comes back to cycling to show them all. Then his doping
scandal interrupted and I had to put the film aside. When I picked the film back up I faced the same
question that haunted me in 2009: Why did he come back? He’d won the Tour de France 7 times. I
wondered what I had been witnessed to in 2009 and what did it mean now, with the truth about Lance was
known? In making my new film all roads seem to lead back to the past.
1. Lance: I viewed my battle with cancer like an athletic competition. But in that you either win or you
loose. If you loose you die. So I took that perspective, which is a little dark, and I put it into everything I
had done since then. I like to win, but more then anything I cant stand the idea of loosing, because to me
that equals death.
2. First commentator: He has torn the field apart
First voice: The mythic nature of his essential comeback. Getting cancer and coming back and being a
great athlete is an astonishing story
Second voice: If it’s clean he has got his comeback, if its not then its fraud.
Second commentator: What a great bike rider. I have never seen this before. This is incredible. Armstong
is such a star.
Third voice: There are people that really have been ruined because of Armstrong’s aggressive attempts to
keep them quiet.
Forth voice: He was an immensely intimidating person.
Third commentator: Armstong is now one of the world’s most recognized athletes/Lance Armstong is
cycling superman.
Fifth voice: In any generation of professional sportsmen, there will be guys who cheat and there will be
guys that don’t cheat. This is a guy who is going to succeed, no matter what.
Armstrong: Its very hard to conceal the truth forever, so this has been my downfall.
In this sequence a connection is
built up between the viewer and
the filmmaker and Lance. The
viewer is hanging from his every
word.
1. Starts off as
voice over then
changes to
interview
sequence.
2. Voice overs
of TV
commentators
and
commentators
who appear
later in
interviews in
the
documentary.
33
1. Guitar music playing (the kind
your hear at the start of a Rock
concert, before it takes off)
2. Guitar music picking up.
4.
5.34
The official
start of the
doc. The title
THE
ARMSTONG
LIE appears.
This sequence
shows Lance
at the Oprah
interview. And
also
repeatedly the
moments in
which he says
he is not
involved in
doping.
Followed by
talk shows
making fun of
him.
beginning.
1. You can see the crew
of the documentary
filming behind the
scenes of the Oprah
interview and later
pictures of the news in
the past concerned with
drug allegations.
2. Interview scene with
Floyd Landis and Tyler
Hamilton (former team
mate).
Press conference with
UCI president McQuaid.
3. Back to Oprah
interview footage.
4. Interview setting with
Bill Strickland.
Supported with footage
of Lance denying the
doping affairs. Even
scenes of a Southpark
episode are shown, as
they thematise the issue.
5. Back to the Oprah
interview.
6. Voice over of the
maker over some part of
the Oprah interview.
1. Starts with
filmmakers
voice over
2. Interview
setting.
3. Footage from
Oprah
interview:
Interview
setting.
4. Voice over
and later turn
into an
interview with
Bill Strickland
5. Interview
talk.
1. Text in picture: January 14, 2013
Maker: This is where I came back into the story. I was in Austin, when Lance decided for an interview
with Oprah, to adress charges of doping in the press that had become impossible to deny.
Some news reporter: Did Lance cheat?
Maker: Lance had been subject for the criminal investigation. He has also been probed by the US Anti
Doping Investigation. Many ex-teammates testified against Lance Armstrong.
2. Text in picture: Nightline July 24, 2010. Floyd Landis (Former Teammate)
Interviewer: Did you see Armstong using performance enhancing drugs?
Landis: At times yeah.
Text in picture: 60 minutes May 22, 2014. Tyler Hamilton (Former Teammate)
Hamilton: There was EPO, testosterone, and transfusion.
Landis: At some point people have to tell their kids that Santa Claus is not real.
Interviewer: Your saying Lance Armstrong is a liar?
Landis: Yes.
Maker: The Anti Cancer crusader was now portrayed as a cheater. Ran a doping ring and used his power as
a celebrity to cover it up.
Text in picture: Pat McQuaid. President, UCI. October, 2012.
McQuaid: UCI will band Lance Armstrong of cycling and UCI will strip him of his seven Tour de France
titles. Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling.
3. Oprah: So lets start with the question that people all around the world have been waiting for you to
answer. And for now I just like a Yes or No. Did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling
performance?
Lance: Yes.
Oprah: Yes or No? Was one of those banned substances EPO?
Lance: Yes.
Oprah: Did you ever blood dope or use blood transfusion to enhance your cycling performance?
Lance: Yes.
Oprah: Did you ever use any other banned substances, like testosterone, cortisone or human growth
hormone?
Lance: Yes.
Oprah: Yes or No? In all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned substances or
blood dope?
Lane: Yes.
4. Strickland: The first view minutes of Oprah was riveting.
Text in picture: Bill Strickland. Editor-at-large, Bicycling
To finally witness him saying that he doped. After the years and years of just the most amazing denial.
Lance in interviews: I am not on drugs./ Neither I nor any member of my team did or took anything illegal.
/ I had nothing to hide. We know that / And they call somebody a cheater, a looser. And to call him that
has to be followed up with extraordinary proof. And we have never seen it.
Strickland: Its cliche he looked me in the eyes and told me he didn’t dope. But when he does that he has a
power. He comes a long way.
5. Oprah: Was it a big deal to you. Did it feel wrong?
Lance: At the time? No.
34
5.
9.48
This sequence
is concerned
with Lance
preparing for
his comeback
in 2009.
Accompanied
with an
interview of
Lance with
Gibney in
2009 to talk
about his
comeback.
6.
12.19
This sequence
is again
concerned
with the
contradictions
Armstrong got
himself in.
1. Lance cycling through
his neighborhood with
the filmmaker filming
from a car and
interviewing.
2. Lance in an interview
with the filmmaker.
Followed by TV footage
of Lance’s come back
3. Footage from the
filmmaker of filming in
2008. Team-members
and Lance in a meeting.
1. Voice over of
Gibney.
2. Gibney
talking directly
to Lance.
3. Conference
setting.
1. Footage of the
newspaper article ‘Le
mensonge Armstrong’
2. Footage of Armstrong
in the CNN news
maintaining his position.
3. Interview with Steve
Madden. Supported by
footage of Lance
winning the yellow
jersey. Also comments
of Daniel Coyle.
4. Pictures of Lance are
shown on the first place.
1. Voice over of
the filmmaker.
2. Lance talking
in the CNN
interview.
4. Voice over of
filmmaker.
Oprah: It did not even feel wrong?
Lance: No.
6. Maker: The prime time confession turned out to be a bumpy ride for Lance. But it might never have
happened if he wouldn’t have taken a victory lap in 2009.
Oprah: And your comeback? Do you regret now coming back?
Lance: I do. We wouldn’t be sitting here if I didn’t come back.
1. Text in the picture: Austin, TX. January, 2009.
Maker: The comeback. What was he thinking? I kept wondering about that question throughout the years I
followed him.
Text in picture: 6 moths before the Tour de France.
Maker (not as voice over): It’s been a long time. Are you ready for the tour?
Lance: I’m coming. I’ll be there July 4th.
Few weeks ago when he first came up with the idea of a possible comeback I was really surprised.
Text in picture: Johan Bruyneel 2009, Armstrong’s Team Director, 1999-2005
Bruyneel: I remember I sent him a message back and I said: Are you in a party? Are you sober?
Maker: Johan Bruyneel, Lance’s team director for all seven of Lance’s tour wins was now running team
Astana. He reunited with Lance to help guide his comeback.
2. Maker: So, is there a motivator? Is this a way to say to all the critics, you know F*** you?
Text in picture: 2009.
Lance: You know it’s been an interesting reaction with the comeback. You know some people are curious,
some people are pissed and some people are ecstatic.
TV commentator on footage: […] The fairy tale is just that: incredible, but hard to believe.
Maker: Yet so many wanted to believe. Wherever Lance went he moved the needle. More fans, more
money for sponsors and promoters. Even so the organization that ran the Tour de France was reluctant to
invite him back. Ten months before the race a comeback was in jeopardy.
3. Text in picture: August, 2008.
Team-members talking about the comeback. They are talking about Lance and the headlines in
newspapers, claiming that these accusations were wrong. Lots of talking, where one team member ends up
asking: What was the big headline?
And another one answers: Le grand mensonge, Le mensonge Armstrong. The Armstrong lie.
1.Maker: Long before Oprah, the Armstrong lie article offered proof that his first tour win had not been
clean. Through clever detective work the author discovered that many of Armstrong’s urine samples from
1999 contained a doping drug, called EPO.
2. Lance: If you consider my situation, a guy who comes back from, arguably a death sentence. Why
would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again, that’s crazy. I would never do
that. No, no way.
Maker: It was a bold claim considering how many riders around him had been busted. And even after
Lance’s 7 Tour win pro-cycling continued to suffer from doping scandals.
3. Text in picture: Steve Madden, Former Editor Bicycling.
Madden: There were a lot of us who wanted this to be a clean sport, a clean effort and a clean victory and
everything. But there is just too much swirl around constantly.
Text in picture: Daniel Coyle, Co-Author, The secret race.
Coyle: Shortly after Armstrong retired there was this huge, huge bust called operation Puerto, in which
most of his rivals got popped. You know if it was the NBA Allstar Game, it would have been every player
35
3. Private setting. Behind the
scenes of the come back. A
feeling of irony comes up, as we
(the viewers) now know that
everyone was lying in the
meeting.
With his rivals blurred
out, which had been
busted of doping.
7.
14.19
This sequence
is concerned
with the fact,
that
Armstrong
lied to the
filmmakers
face and how
the filmmaker
claims an
interview,
which he gets.
8.
15.34
This sequence
is concerned
with how
ironic his
career is. Him
always
claiming he
never took
drugs to the
irony that he
always has.
9.
16.26
on both teams got busted for doping, except that one guy who just retired.
4. Maker: Throughout Lance’s Tour win all but one of the cyclists who finished on the podium with
Armstrong were implicated in doping scandals.
Lance: And finally the last thing I say for the people that don’t believe in cycling. Cynics and the skeptics:
I’m sorry you can’t dream big and I’m sorry you dot believe in miracles.
Coyle: After winning in 2005, what better moment to walk away. What better moment to stay away. Why
couldn’t he have just said: Thank you, I had a nice career and now its over. Thank you. But that’s not in
him. And that urge to crush, that urge to push back, that urge to dominate, not just to be contempt with the
winning, but that urge to dominate is what ended up bringing him down.
1. Maker: Lance tried to dominate my film too. He had lied to me, straight in my face, all throughout
2009. When the truth came out I told him he owed me an explanation on camera, whether he wanted to
make things right or whether he still wanted to influence my story. He agreed to sit down one more time.
2. Maker: You vigorously defended your reputation. Do you feel in retrospect that you were protecting it
to essentially. I mean did the lie become too big? Did it get out of control for you?
Lance: Yeah. That’s the biggest regret of my life.
Text in picture: May 24, 2013. 5 moths after Oprah.
You know I’m a fighter. I grew up a fighter. I was a fighter on the bike, I was a fighter off the bike, and if
your in the race I was competitive and I was fighting. I forgot to turn that off when ‘I get off the bike’,
whether its on a press conference, whether it’s on a team setting, whether it’s in personal relationship, I
continued to fight. And I wanted to defend myself; I wanted to defend the sport, the team, my foundation. I
was defending all of these things and I was prepared to say anything.
1. Images of the
interview of Lance and
the filmmaker, which
took place after the
doping scandal came out.
2. Actual interview.
1. Voice over of
the filmmaker.
2. The
filmmaker asks
Lance
questions.
1. Images of Lance’s
book published in 2000:
‘Its not about the bike:
My journey back to life.’
With the following text
written on it:
- Winner of the Tour de
France
- Cancer survivor
- husband
- father
- son
- human being
During the voice over
the picture changes to
the interview setting
with Coyle.
2. Scenes of Lance at
Clintons Global
Initiative event.
1. Picture of Lance’s
1. Voice over.
2. When lance
talks its from
the actual
footage of 2008.
1. Coyle: The gift that he has that gets overlooked is his gift of a storyteller. His gift as a manager of his
own storyline. A guy at deaths door comes back to the toughest event on the planet. The story brought
more money, brought more attention, brought more sponsorship, brought more inspiration. He became this
international cultural icon.
2. Text in picture: Comeback announcement. September, 2008.
Coyle: And he had to keep the story going. He could have been around the world to raise money for
cancer. There a lot of things he could have done. But the best story is to go back to the tour.
Lance: I’ve been racing the bicycle over the world. I’ve been in Australia, in France. It is the best way to
promote this initiative; it is the best way to get the word out.
Coyle: He understood the power of that story and he used it.
2. Interview
1. Lance: The disease testicular cancer travels up a young mans body, so next stop is the abdomen, next
36
1. The filmmaker makes this
sequence very personal. One feels
very connected to the filmmaker.
3. Very sad music!!!
This sequence
is concerned
with Lance
talking about
the cancer.
10.
18.52
This sequence
is concerned
with where
Lance comes
from and how
his eagerness
to win and his
career started.
scan, showing cancer.
Then interview setting
then footage of Lance as
a bicyclist not knowing
yet that he had cancer.
2. Throwback into May
2000.
3. Footage of Lance
being checked by the
doctors. Very emotional
pictures of Lance
suffering from the
disease.
4. Moment of only
pictures of Lance
without any words
showing his big scar on
the head.
5. Back to footage of
Lance bald training on a
bike inside the house.
setting.
1. Old footage of Lance
after surviving the
cancer. On a bike. (Loud
rock music). First with
Lance explaining himself
as a young boy and later
just pictures of him
young and winning, with
rock music.
2. Back to his comeback
after the cancer survivor.
3. After winning the
prolog in 1999. Actual
footage of him in an
interview after he just
had won.
2. Strong
images of Lance
on the Tour de
France. Him
winning (old
footage).
Also private
footage of
Lance after
winning the
Tour.
stop is the lung and the last stop is the brain. My dumbass just ignored symptoms and and obvious glaring
dirty symptoms for a long time and it travelled all the way up.
2. Text in picture: May, 2000
Lance: Severe headaches, the blurry vision, coughing up blood, extreme pain downstairs
Interviewer: People say you had a testicle in the size of an orange!
Lance: That’s an exaggeration.
Interviewer: Lemon?
Lance: Good size lemon.
3. Maker: In 1996 Lance had the cancer testicles removed and flew to Indiana University for en
experimental treatment. The doctors there thought Lances chances of survival were less then 50%. Lance
underwent brain surgery to remove cancerous legions(17:31) then began a special chemo therapy program
that would not scar his lungs. The immediate side effects would be brutal. If he would survive the
treatment would protect his career.
Lance: Whatever I do in cycling, whatever I do in Tour de France, whatever I do in training, I never
suffered like I did then 4. (Moment of silence)
5. Lance: That initial surgery to remove that primary tumor in the testicle, is a big surgery, it’s a big cut.
The cut was probably 6 inches long. Right up at the waist, very physically painful. So I just got on the bike
and I just gently rode around my neighborhood that was a big day for me. I mean that was half a mile but I
did it in tennis shoes and I did it on a mountain bike. But I was on the bike was peddling like I was…All
the things that the feelings that are associated with that. The wind in the hair, that initial sense of freedom
that a bicycles gives a child. Kids love bikes, because it’s the first time in their life that they are free. It’s
the first time they are not in mums car, they are not in mums living room, they are not in mums backyard
they get on a bike and take a right they take a left, nobody sees them. Completely free.
1. Maker: Lance Armstrong grew up in Plano Texas. Raised by a young mother who worked as a
receptionist. He never met his father.
Someone: He comes out of Plano Texas and he comes out angry. He comes out ready to take on the
world. With his mum on his side and needing no one else.
Lance: My mum, she doesn’t really have that much money, so…I mean I can probably get money from
somebody but I don’t want that. So there is pressure to make the money.
Some Anchor (commenting on old footage of Armstrong): You see in the yellow helmet the young
professional in the field from Plano, Texas. 16 year old Lance Armstong.
Lance: I just like to compete with the best. I mean I like beating those guys, I like beating these people.
Someone: he got in a fight with one of his coaches earlier on. The thing he kept saying is ‘Your not my
dad’, and I think that statement is something he has been telling everyone since then. You know kids in
highschool, you know ‘Hey your not in charge of me’. European cyclist ‘Hey I take you all on and Im
gonna take you all on and show you who has balls.’
Lance: I was content with my career. I mean in 93,94,95 I was a young kind, one of the best one-day racers
in the world. Made plenty of money. I thought this’s cool, I’m young, I make some decent money here. I’ll
just do this for a few years and find something else to do. Then the disease came along…took all of that
away. Just gone. And when I came back I thought, you know, nobody thinks I’m gonna do anything. I’m
just washed up, damaged goods here. Which is really what the view of the sport was. I thought, “Okay,
fuck it, I’m gonna try to win the Tour de France.”
2. Anchor: He has the fastest time in half distance. He is flying. He looks so good. What a comeback this
could be. There is only two men behind him now. Armstrong is the leader. That is astonishing.
37
4. Still very sad pictures, one
feels bad for Lance.
1. Rock music “Cumin’ atcha
live” with flickering pictures of
Lances spectacular career. It is
intimidating.
2. And again a new pick up on
impressive strong music. Rock
music: Red Hot Chili Peppers
‘Easily’. Associated with Lance’s
strong come back. The private
footage shows an adorable Lance
Armstrong. One feels like he is a
nice guy.
11.
24.06
This sequence
is concerned
with Lance’s
comeback.
1. These scenes are put
together switching
between the interview
setting with Walsh and
footage of Lance coming
back in 1999.
1. Continuous
switch between
footage and
interview
setting. Pictorial
evidence is
strong.
(private footage)
Maker: After his fight with cancer Lance returned to the tour in 1999, racing for the US Postal Service.
George Hincapie: Lance, … we were just the bad news bears. No one was really expecting us to do well.
Bill Strikeland: Them guys were so young, they had a lot of optimism and this kind of youthful
carelessness.
(again private footage)
Bill Strikeland: They would just go over there and dominate the Tour and change the way cycling is run.
Speaker ????: Postal, this tiny team from an unlikely place. They didn’t have a team bus. They just had
team campers. Like a family going on vacation. The innocence of 99, it’s a fantastic moment in history. It
really started with this spectacular prolog. Armstrong won by a hand full of seconds. He put on the yellow
jersey and he is clueless about how to feel what to say or who to hug.
3. Lance: I mean yeah, right now I’m so surprised, but yet I am so pleased. So happy for the team
George Hincapie:
Text in picture: George Hincapie, 1999 Teammate
This is the moment that Lance crossed the boundaries. The full confidence he had before he had cancer,
you can see that building as the Tour was going on. Towards the mountain stage, everyone new, okay this
the moment he is gonna lose his jersey. And that really fueled him, fueled the team and pushed us to limits
of what we thought were not capable of doing.
Jonathan Vaughters:
Text in picture: Jonathan Vaughters 1999 Teammate
It was an American team, bringing an American captain to the Tour de France and finishing potentially on
the podium. That was impressive.
George Hincapie: We were hoping podium or Top 10, so to win was kind of beyond our comprehension.
Maker: The power of the story was growing every day, but so were the suspicions amongst seasoned
observers that it may have been too good to be true.
1. David Walsh:
Text in picture: David Walsh, Author, from Lance to Landis
In 1999 the Tour de France organizers were desperate for what they called a Tour of Renewal. Where they
could renew the public’s faith in their race. You have got to go back to 1998 when Lance was just coming
back into racing after his cancer recovery. We had this extraordinary Tour de France, the world No.1 team,
at the time, Festina. Had their massuese travelling to the race and he was stopped by French customs and
they found a huge cargo of drugs inside. The police then came and investigated other teams. Pretty much
where ever were they looked they found drugs. So that was 1998. A year later Lance Armstrong comes
back. He was sensational and Everybody who was out there in terms of a journalist, when Lance made his
big attack in the mountains, I was in the press room that day and saw the reaction people were laughing.
They didn’t believe this, because here we had a guy who came back from cancer, supposedly riding the
race clean, riding more effortlessly, at a greater power, at a greater speed then all the Tours that had been
done before. So it just didn’t make sense.
Daniel Coyle: We have to remember this is a guy who is not thought of as somebody who could
potentially win the Tour de France. He had always been stronger in short races, but never over the long. He
had never been a climber.
Lance: You know whenever you start the Tour they make you fill out those forms. How many tours have
you done, how many have completed. And I remember in 99 I had to write down 4 and 1. I was thinking
that’s not a great record.
38
12.
26.12
This sequence
is concerned
with the
advertising
potential
Lances success
brought along.
13.
28.54
This sequence
explains the
history of the
1. Here they talk about
the huge amount of
advertising and money to
be made.
2. Here they talk about
how in 1999 Lance
almost got caught due to
steroids in his urine.
3. Lance in interview
setting.
1. Very old footage
(black and white
pictures) of the Tour de
France. Old footage of
bikers collecting beer
1. A kind of
summing up of
all the
companies
Lance has ever
worked with.
2. Voice over of
filmmaker and
actual footage
of Lance in an
interview after
the race.
3. The reporter
talking is back
in 1999. A
screenshot is
shown of Hein
Verbruggen the
President of
UCI.
David Walsh: Lance Armstrong winning at one level, created a problem because the organization actually
said before the race: “We want that race to be slower” then those races of previous years. And they moved
to the public that these guys were using less drugs, but it was the fastest ever tour. But on the other hand
they had a winner who was the most romantic figure that sport maybe had ever known.
Lance: A cancer survivor overcoming this disease comes back and wins. The Tour yeah, sure they liked
that.
1. Reed Albergotti:
Text in picture: Reed Albergotti, Co-Author, Wheelmen
With Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France, that opened up this huge market in the US. Oakley,
Nike and Trek and Bristol-Mayer Squibb, you name it. There was a long list of companies that were just
getting in line to sign Armstrong. Because they know who Lance was as a cancers survivor and as a
person. And as an advocate for the cancer surviving community.
Unidentified speaker: When he first won in 99 that was the last time he was just a bike racer and after that
he became a celebrity. That celebrity is what gave him some immense power. This is not a story about
doping; this is a story about power. And Lance got the power in 99 and the story kept hanging onto that
power.
2. Maker: Even in 1999 Lance came close to getting caught, when steroids showed up in a urine test.
Lance (in footage in 1999): It turns out I was using some cream for a saddle- sore and it was, I mean that’s
something we all use, cortisone cream for a crash or for a boil, or any sort of skin infection and the traces
were so small… I mean they were ridiculous…
3. Lance: I mean I was always on my heels. Right away from 99. And of course there were plenty of
supporters and cheerleaders in the press.
Reporter: Lance Armstrong is again forced to defend himself there which is becoming a depressingly
familiar sight here on this tour, but tonight he has some very high level help, because the UCI, the world
government of cycling, have just released their press communiqué, it goes against all their commitment to
medical secrecy they say. They want to do it to clarify this situation and stop it from getting further out of
hand. They say that the rider used an ointment and they give the brand name, and they also offered them a
medical prescription for his test.
Text in picture: Hein Verbruggen, president, UCI 1991-2005 (screenshot)
Lance: It showed up in the text and Verbruggen just said ‘Look you gotta give us a reason for this being in
your system”. So the guys scoured (18:14) the internet looking for this particular type of cortisone and we
found one that is indeed a cream and that was the one for saddle-sores.
Maker (active in the interview): How do you say, you say Verbruggen came up to you like ‘Give us some
excuse so we don’t need to make an issue.
Lance: He didn’t come to me, he went to Johan. (sounds like his words were edited together)
Maker (voiceover again): Johan told me that he did speak to Verbruggen about Lance’s positive test.
Verbruggen, the head of the UCI, denies that the conversation ever took place.
Lance (in old footage): I have proven my class I have shown my class. From day one. There is no secrets
here. We have the oldest secrets in the book, hard work.
1. Anchor of old footage: The 9th day of the Tour de France, a world famous bike race brings the greatest
challenge yet. The lasting hill of the [Maratime] Alps. This is the acid test of stamina and durance.
Maker: The Tour de France has always been a brutal event. For a few dollars from sponsors looking for
human billboards, working-class riders were willing to suffer. An ascent in the mountains can mean
climbing steep grades for 20 miles, lifting a man and its bicycle up a rising road to mans furious release of
39
1. Dramatic and emotional music,
which makes one emotionally
connected to the suffering of the
cyclists.
Tour de
France and
that doping
had been
normal all
along.
bottles to drink them on
the tour to dope
themselves.
14.
1. Scenery change. Over
to Ferrara, Italy. Former
teammate talks about
Lance’s doctor. Michele
Ferrari. Old pictures of
Ferrari are shown.
2. Footage (2009) of
Michele Ferrari comes
into the picture, in which
he trains a cyclist.
Constant switch between
Ferraris interview scene
and footage of
Armstrong training with
Ferrari.
3. Every time here you
hear the filmmaker or
Ferrari talk in
combination of the Tour
de France footage of
Lance about to win.
30.30
Switch over to
Italy where all
the doping
‘apparently’
started. In
this sequence
it is talked
about how the
connection
between the
cyclists and
Ferrari came
along.
energy higher than any animal on earth, except a hummingbird. That inhuman suffering carves the body in
unnatural ways and leaves riders to search for doping methods that can dull pain and push human limits.
Phil Liggett:
Text in picture: Phil Liggett, Cycling Commentator.
There has always been a form of doping, in any form of endurance of sport and in the Tour de France
originally it was alcohol. You’d be passed a bottle of beer by a monk on a mountaintop and you’d drink it.
And then of course the clever doctors came on board and said to athletes ‘We can prepare you properly for
the Tour. Not just dope, but tell you about the correct diet, how to train and then the [que de gra] is to give
you the needle of EPO and your gonna be 10% better then your rival. That is enormous. And that became
apparent in the 1990. Firstly with the Italians.
3. When George
Hincapie talks
there is a
picture of the
Tour de France
family on
screen, which
gets zoomed in
regarding on
who George is
currently
talking about.
1. Text in picture: Ferrara, Italy.
Maker: This ancient walled city in Northern Italy became a center for a group of doctors determent to find
a way to boost cycling performance. The most notorious of these was Lance Armstrong’s trainer Michele
Ferrari.
Frankie Andreu:
Text in picture: Frankie Andreu, Former Teammate.
He was a doctor who gave a training program, a full medical program. He would boost your career. And
make you into the king of the road.
2. Daniel Coyle: He had a very bad reputation of being a doctor that could just come up with a whole
doping program. If you took all the rumors, smoke and the stories of the dark side of cycling and condense
them into one human being, that would be Michele Ferrari. But he turns out to be a very delightful,
communicative expressive scientist. That’s where it gets lost a little bit, I think he comes across as a cloak
and dagger enabler. Whereas in fact his whole story, the way he educated himself is essentially scientific.
Maker: Michela Ferrari was obsessed with pushing the limits of athletic performance . If cyclists saw
themselves as biological racing machines, Ferrari was one of their greatest mechanics.
Ferrari: This is one of the first pictures of the relationship with Lance. Probably he was already with
cancer. Nobody knew.
Maker (voice-over): Surprisingly in 2009 Lance and his team gave me permission to talk to Ferrari, a man
who barely gave interviews to outsiders.
Maker (in interview with Ferrari): So in 95 you saw Lance and you thought he had enormous potential.
Ferrari: He was able to develop a lot of power, absolute power, a lot of watts. His potential was
impressive. His engine, you can say his heart, his legs is big, huge.
Maker: After Lance survived cancer Ferrari found a way to turn his weakness into strength.
Ferrari: He was definitely lighter, he lost a lot of muscles. The whole body, upper and also in the legs. He
lost a lot of power in terms of strength.
Maker: To make up for the loss of strength he had Lance shift to a lower gear and peddle faster.
Daniel Coyle: So he essentially was shifting the load from the muscles to the heart and the lungs and the
blood. And if you can have the aerobic engine to sustain a higher cadence you can go farther faster longer.
3. Maker: Ferrari also included a secret ingredient, drugs to boost oxygen in the blood. It had a special
impact with the new cadence.
Sport commentator: This amazing new cadence that he has been adopting since the testicular cancer is
allowed him to be one of the best climbers in the world.
Ferrari: Utilizing a higher cadence in beginning we had to do this choice and then because this choice paid
40
1-4. Violin music in the
background.
in terms of results we continued.
Daniel Coyle: Ferrari is unremarkably very unromantic. I remember one particular conversation we had
just finished a training ride and I asked ‘Am I watching sort of the human potential, the human limit here’
and Ferrari almost laughed, he said ‘We are nowhere near the limits, no there are ways to push the limits’.
George Hincapie: Amongst the two other guys during the Tour de France they were like ‘Oh you are
working with Ferrari, respect’. He knew that everyone there was doping and he was like ‘Look you can’t
do this stuff on your own the guys aren’t doctors. You have no idea what all this stuff is, so here is what
I’m gonna do. You can still dope a little bit, I’ll tell you what to do. The minimum amount of doping, the
maximum amount of training, nutrition, lifestyle, everything that goes in to being a good cyclist I’ll help
you with’. And doping was just a small piece of that
Maker: Ferrari was careful with doping for another reason. He wanted to avoid detection. He had sources
in Anti Doping Labs who kept him updated on the latest tests. And Ferrari’s whole program was cloaked
in secrecy.
Betsy Andreu:
Text in picture: Betsy Andreu, Wife of Former Teammate
In 1999 Lance said I need to see Michele, I need to do some testing. We met Michelle Ferrari, Lance’s
doctor, we travelled in a campervan, to a parking lot, outside of Milano, along a highway by a hotel gas
station. I don’t know about you but I don’t see my doctor that way.
15.
35.20
In this
sequence it is
central on how
Lance defends
himself about
his partner
Michelle
Ferrari.
1. Old footage of him
after a race at a quick
interview.
2. Old press conference
in which David Walsh
asks a question to Lance.
This scene swaps with an
interview setting
between filmmaker and
Lance. The editing
happens a couple of
times.
2. In the
interview
scenes the
filmmaker is
actively talking
with Lance.
1. Lance: Its best to use the most knowledgeable people, regardless of the reputation. It’s a great mind in
cycling and somebody that my team considers to be an honest man and a fair man.
David Walsh: The guy was a liar. Not only did he dope, but he doped with the best expertise available,
doctor Ferarri provides that. And he doped in the most professional and efficient way, perhaps in the
history of sport.
2. (at press conference)
David Walsh What kind of message do you think that your working-relationship with Michelle Ferrari
sends out to the general s… 36.00.
Lance: Well there it is. I am glad you showed up finally. Its good to see you finally here. Good question.
Again I think that people are not stupid, people will look at the facts, they will say, okay this is Lance
Armstrong, here is a relationship, is that questionable? Perhaps. But people are smart. Do they say, has
Lance Armstrong ever tested positive? No. Has Lance Armstrong been tested? A lot.
(at interview setting with filmmaker):
Maker: Is it fairly easy to prepare for a test, like does it discipline your system really quickly?
Lance: The half life of EPO is 4 hours so you can back it up from there and figure out when your in
trouble.
(at press conference)
Lance: Will he pass every test because he does not take EPO? Yes he will!
(at interview setting with filmmaker):
Lance: My defense was that I have passed every control you’ve given me and that true. The samples that
were given were clean.
Maker (at interview setting with filmmaker): And you never ever stopped there. You always went one stop
further.
Lance: I mean if David Walsh wanted to put on boxing gloves then I would have done it right there, lets
go.
41
1. piano is playing.
16.
37.53
In this
sequence the
trail and bust
of Michelle
Ferrari is
central. Also
what EPO
actually is.
1. Footage of the trial
and an interview setting
with Filippo Simeoni.
2. Voice-over of
interview setting which
switches between old
footage and the
interview scenery.
2. Filmmaker
gets involved in
the interview
with Frankie
Andreu.
(at press conference)
David Walsh: You present yourself as the king of all riders.
Lance: And I’ve got the proof, which you refuse to believe.
David Walsh: Let me finish the question. You present yourself as the king of the riders and your associated
with someone who’s reputation is incredibly targeted. And that person is going to be on trail in two months
time, would you not think it would be in the interest of cycling to suspend your relationship with Ferrari
until he has answered the charges of which he has been accused.
Lance: You have a point. It’s my choice. I think he’s innocent. He is a clean man in my opinion. Let there
be a trail.
1. Maker: There was a trail. The star witness was an Italian cyclist Filippo Simeoni.
Filippo Simeoni
Text in picture: Filippo Simeoni, former cyclist
[talks Italinan]
Maker: In October 2004 the Italian court convicted doctor Ferrai of sporting fraud, forcing Armstrong to
publicly end their relationship. However Ferrari’s conviction would be overturned two years later.
Ferrari: In the end I was absorbed. Probably we need a movie to explain the whole story with Simeoni, but
in relationship with EPO, the generational riders used that drug in competition, that’s historic true.
Maker: EPO or synthetic EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells to transfer oxygen to the
muscles. Originally developed to treat anemia cyclists began using it in the 1990s to boost performance
and recovery.
Jonathan Vaughters: It doesn’t make your muscle stronger it doesn’t gives you energy. Its nothing that
you feel its just simply that it allows your body to deliver more oxygen from your longs to your muscles.
That burning sensation that for …..39:30 that you can’t go any further happens later.
2. Lance: You know it began in the late 80s into the early 90s and our frustration really came into our head
in 1995. But leading up to that, specifically 1994, I was the world champion I was wearing the world
champion rainbow striped jersey and competing clean and we were just getting annihilated.
There was a group of us primarily living in Italy and we either have to play ball here or go home.
Maker: Were you pissed off that you had to do it or was it just you had to do what you had to do and
wanted to be able to compete?
Lance: The latter (Lance is laughing). Maybe I’d approach the decision different today, but at the time I
didn’t even sleep over.
Jonathan Vaughters: One time I went in Lance’s room to borrow his laptop and he is brushing his teeth in
his boxer shorts and he decides to give himself a shot of EPO, right in front of me. That was an attempt by
him just saying ‘Listen buddy you stepped over the line, your in the club. There is no going back’.
[little sequence of Lance in the past]
Jonathan Vaughters: His perspective was listen ‘Doping has been in the place for hundreds of years in this
sport and I came into the system and the system was already in place and I just have to play by the rules.
George Hincapie: You were not trying to beat the system you were trying to be in the system. You know,
nobody made me dope. I know I had to dope to do the sport that I loved to do
Frankie Andreu: I was a good bike racer and then all of a sudden guys who could only sprint could get
over big climbs in front of me and did things that they could never do before. I was getting dropped and
struggle so I lived with that for a wile, but after a while I cracked, I ended up taking EPO. And admitting
to it doesn’t make it justifiable or any better. It was something that was very prevalent at that time.
Maker: in 99 when you were on Lances team was there a team program?
42
17.
41.47
In this
sequence it is
talked about
how the EPO
was smuggled.
18.
43.25
In this
sequence it is
talked about
how they
started doing
blood
transfusions.
1. Interview settings
supported by old
footage.
1. Most scenes are
screened in interview
settings. The image is
repeatedly supported by
old footage.
Frankie Andreu: I am not gonna go all the way into that.
1. Jonathan Vaughters: Going into 99 there were massive risks regarding doping. I was really scared. You
go to jail for having this stuff.
Lance: The big fear was basically holding. The Festina affair was not an entire team testing positive. The
Festina was this one [one guy (unidentified word?)…] 42:06 crossing the border and this agent going
‘Hang on a second.’
Daniel Coyle: 1999 was the year they cracked the code. It was the year they figured out how to win the
race. They hit on a plan and it was really Lance that hit on the plan. Hire a guy, he was Lance’s gardener
and he was also a mechanic. They called him motorman, he had a fast red motorcycle. He was fearless.
Lance: Motorman basically did the Tour de France on a motorcycle and he would meet up with a staff
member and do a subtle hand off in some restaurant and the next thing you know he’s back at the hotel and
the doctor would administer it.
(at a press conference)
Reporter: A lot of people have seen your illness and have seen you winning now, I think its nothing shorter
than a miracle, do you see it that way?
Lance: It is a miracle.
Daniel Coyle: At that time he had recently delivered an EPO from motorman, he was involved in all
manners of doping.
Maker (asks Coyle directly): If they were using this drug, why didn’t they get caught?
Daniel Coyle: Well there was no test for EPO at the time
Lance: All these years people say ‘Why didn’t they do more, why didn’t they do more?’ They could not do
many more! You couldn’t find it.
Daniel Coyle: In 2000 they developed a test for EPO. So the smart guys, Ferrari being one of them, went
back to an older technology, which was you take out bags of blood before the race, during the race you put
them back in.
Maker: During the race the body, in need of oxygen is thirsty for red blood cells. A transfusion boosts the
number of red blood cells and unlike EPO transfusions are almost impossible to detect but still against the
rules, but hard to stop unless detectors can find the blood bags.
Steve Madden:
Text in picture: Steven Madden, Former Editor, Bicycling
My initial reaction was how gross this was that you wanna win this race so bad that you would take your
blood, put it in a bag, put it in a cooler with ice and all your stuff and eventually you put it back in. On the
other hand, if it is what they thought it took to win, but they thought everybody else was doing it
Maker: Is that an argument you buy?
Steve Madden: No I don’t buy it but I think when I think about this stuff there is more relativism to the
whole thing.
Lance: 2000 it was a time when we were trying to implement the test. They didn’t know exactly what was
positive and what was negative yet, the science was not ready yet. My suspicion was that everybody used
it at the tour. Michele came up to me and said ‘You shouldn’t use EPO at the tour. I don’t feel good with
that. They are getting close on getting that test ready’. He knew when the test was gonna be ready and he
said ‘Its not worth the risk’, he said ‘Lets just do one transfusion’. I agreed and so we did only one
transfusion in the middle of the tour. But he made that call and we all questioned that call
Maker: Because you thought it wasn’t gonna be enough?
Lance: I thought that this was not gonna be enough.
43
19.
46.27
Here the
connection is
made of how
doping is
connected to
money, taking
risk and
having power.
20.
48.13
Now it is time
to talk about
why Lance did
his comeback
in 2009.
Also an
extract of a
press
conference in
which he
publicly
humiliates a
reporter.
1. This scene has a
voice-over and shows
the footage of Lance and
his team in his private
jet.
2. Lance in an air tunnel
testing the dynamics of
his positioning on the
bike.
1. Private interview
setting.
2. Footage of the team
training in Santa Rosa,
California in February
2009.
3. At a press conference
in which Paul Kimmage
asked Lance unpleasant
questions.
4. Back to an interview
setting with George
Hincapie talking about
the previous conference.
5. Footage of the Tour of
California. 5 months
before the Tour de
France. Cyclists riding
2. Maker talks
as voice-over.
Lance talks here
in 2009 in an
Interview
setting.
5. Music starts
playing.
Daniel Coyle: Each year the bar got nudged a little higher. The innovation demands grew. You had to keep
up with the challenges or fall behind. It became this game of hide and seek. And the best place to hide can
be plain sight and that’s what they choose to do in 2004. They faced a mechanical breakdown, pulled the
bus over to the die of the road and administered blood bags to the whole team in front of everybody, in
front of the police in front of the fans.
George Hincapie: This was odd, but it made sense, I mean we were gonna do it eventually so why not nock
it out in the bus before we got to the hotel, you know, and be done with it.
1. Daniel Coyle: When everyone cheats then it becomes hugely distorted, it becomes a different contest of
the test who has got the best doctor and the most money. Who’ s got the biggest risk tolerance. And the
guy who was, for this era, was Lance. That’s where it becomes a game of power. When you can say ‘I am
signing up Ferrari as my exclusive doctor’ when you can say ‘I’m gonna use a private jet to travel around’
to avoid detection.
Lance: Life for me at the time was moving fast. Look at 2005 I won 7 tours in a row, I was engaged to a
beautiful rockstar, but that all just felt all normal to me. I certainly was very confident, that I would never
gonna be caught.
2. Daniel Coyle: Armstrong rather enjoyed this, he embraced it I think he had the attitude ‘If you cheat
your not gonna cheat halfway, you go all the way, you bring everything.’
Unidentified: You know if your training its 100%, if its equipment its 100%, if its doping its 100%. So
once he crossed that line he had overcome his moral border it was two feet in for him.
Unidentified: Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. I think he thougt the Tour de France was a gunfight and
why show up with a knife if everyone else has guns?
Daniel Coyle: When you take that killer mentality and put it into sport where there are no regulations,
where there are no rules, and people are transfusing bags of blood and are taking all kinds of drugs. Using
their power to awoid being detected, that’s where it stops being sport and it starts being something much
darker.
3. Darkness.
Maker: Why did you come back in 2009? Did you think this was an opportunity to actually convince
people you have never doped?
Lance: I don’t think so. They were never gonna shut their mouths, but I did intend to go back and win and
do it clean.
Maker: Did you have any concern about going back and opening up about some of the questions that had
been raised in the past?
Lance: Of course.
2. Maker: So Lance knew the risk he was taking coming back. With new doping controls in place in 2009,
maybe he had a chance to ride clean. I thought that coming back might have been a way of proving his
critics and himself, that it didn’t matter if he had doped in the past.
Lance (2009): I know what I did and didn't do, so therefore, I sleep at night. Um...And I'm one of the
greatest riders of all time. If you look at the books and you look at the records, you won seven Tours in a
period where everybody thought everybody was dirty. If I win again, they can't say that. They cannot.
Well, you can, but...There'd be a few dickheads that say that, trust me, but...No way.
Maker: Lance, you've spoken recently about the return of Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis after their
suspensions and that they should be welcomed back. What is it about these dopers that you seem to admire
so much?
Lance: So I'm driving to the press conference. And George Hincapie texts me. And he says, "Kimmage is
44
3. For 7 seconds a black screen is
shown to create a turn in the
documentary.
5. Song plays Tom Waits ‘Long
Way Home’: Well I stumbled in
the darkness. Im lost and alone.
Though I said I'd go before us.
And show the way back home.
There a light up ahead. I can't
hold onto her arm. Forgive me
pretty baby but I always take the
long way home. Money's just
something you throw. Off the
back of a train. Got a head full of
lightning. A hat full of rain.
Watch your back if I should tell
you. Love's the only thing. I've
ever known.
through the rain.
21.
53.38
In this
sequence
Lance’s
colleague
Landis, who
was busted for
doping, is
discussed.
1. The scene is started
with Johan in a car
giving instructions
through a walky-talky to
his riders. Then Reeds
voice-over and changing
to an interview setting.
Old footage of Floyd
Landis training is shown
2. People being happy
for Lance’s comeback.
2. In 2009.
Pictures of
Lance racing,
pictures of
people suffering
from cancer and
starting to see
purpose in life
again, because
of Lance.
here. He's asking all kinds of crazy questions." I knew the name, but I didn't really know what he looked
like. I knew he was Irish, obviously. And so I said, "Okay. It's on. Today's the day. "He's gonna ask
something. He's gonna say something stupid."
3. Lance: Excuse me. What is your name again?
Paul Kimmage: My name is Paul Kimmage. I work for Sunday Times. I asked for an interview, but I didn't
get one.
Lance: Right. And just as a little preface, I might just clear up one thing. The reason you didn't get it,
Paul...I wanted to make sure that was you 'cause I don't know what you look like. When I decided to come
back, for what I think is a very noble reason, you said, "Folks, the cancer has been in remission for four
years, "but our cancer has now returned." Meaning me. I am here to fight this disease. I am here so that I
don't have to deal with it, you don't have to deal with it, none of us have to deal with it, my children don't
have to deal with it. But yet you said that I am the cancer, and the cancer is out of remission. So I think it
goes without saying, no, we're not gonna sit down and do an interview. And I don't think anybody in this
room would sit down for that interview. You are not worth the chair that you're sitting on with a statement
like that, with a disease that touches everybody around the world.
4. George Hincapie: Lance was threatened there, and the only thing he knows what to do is to fight back.
Maker: I have to say, at least in the footage, you look a little bit uncomfortable.
George Hincapie: Yeah, you think? That's one of those moments where you're thinking, "Why the hell did
you come back to this sport? "Why do you want to deal with this stuff?" I mean, here he was, a successful,
retired athlete, and had everything he wanted in the world. Why would you want to come back and suffer
with us? This sport is not glamorous at all. I mean, you go out, ride in 30 degrees in pouring rain. You just
suffer on the bike all the time. And yet he wanted to come back to it and prove a point, send a message.
Let's go, Lance!
5. [Song is playing]
Maker [music continues in background]: The misery of the rain stung one rider more than most. Lance's
old teammate, Floyd Landis. Floyd had ridden with Lance for three Tour wins. He'd also won the Tour on
his own, only to be busted for doping. In the middle of the pack, he wondered, why should he be treated as
a cheater while his old teammate, Lance Armstrong, was welcomed back as a hero?
1. Johan Bruyneel: Great job, boys. Congratulations.
Reed Albergotti:
Text in Picture: Reed Albergotti, Co-Author Wheelman
Floyd actually contacted Johan Bruyneel, and he said, "Can I just get a spot on your team?" And Bruyneel
said, "Look. You're radioactive in cycling. We can't have you on our team. We're trying to portray
ourselves as this clean cycling team and you're a convicted doper."
Text in Picture: Floyd Landis, Former Teammate
Landis was enraged about the hypocrisy there, right? Here's Johan Bruyneel talking about a clean team
with Lance Armstrong as its biggest star. Of course, Floyd knows all the details of the truth. It was pretty
tough for him to swallow that.
Maker: The undertow of Floyd's resentment would, in the end, lead to the downfall of Lance Armstrong.
2. Frankie Andreu: There was a huge energy at Tour of California. It was almost like he's a movie star.
There were people there that know nothing about cycling, and they were just screaming, reaching over the
barriers, trying to touch the great hope.
[people in the crowd screaming] “My grandpa loves you.” “Will you sign this for my mom? She's a cancer
survivor.”
45
22.
54.59
This sequence
is concerned
with all the
hope he gave
to the people
around him.
23.
57.27
This sequence
is concerned
with Lance
preparing in
Italy to come
back clean.
24.
59.36
This sequence
is concerned
with Lance
being
continuously
1. Lance in a hospital
with children diseased
with cancer, in march
2009.
2. Nike advertisement.
1. Footage of cyclists
preparing on an Italian
Tour for the Tour de
France. When Johan
talks the pictures switch
over to a private meeting
in the tour bus.
2. Footage of the final
climb.
1. This takes place in
Lances home. Detectives
come to take samples
from Lance.
2. Lance goes cycling
with his kids.
3. The next day some
Lance (after the Tour of California, 2009): This is a special year. I wanted to come back, and I wanted to
tell this Livestrong message around the world.
1. Maker: Some mock Livestrong as nothing more than a front to hide Lance's doping. But I didn't see it
that way. Livestrong had raised over $300 million to support cancer victims. And 70 million people around
the world proudly wore those yellow wristbands.
Text in Picture: Children’s hospital Los Angeles, March 2009.
[children talking in the hospital]
Lance: The ones who always stick with you are kids. There's nothing like seeing a kid with cancer. Visibly
with cancer. And at the same time, there's nothing like seeing the parents of a child with cancer. So, while
I've been that patient, now I'm a parent. And I can't imagine being that mom or that dad in that hospital
room, looking down on a 5-year-old that's weak, that doesn't want to eat.
Bill Strickland: I've seen him with kids in the cancer wards. And I also know people he's reached out to,
and that's real. It's as genuine as sort of that fury he has on the bike.
Steve Madden: We heard lots of different things about Lance. "Maybe he's doping." "He's not a nice guy."
But all of a sudden, there are wards full of people who think, "Not only can I beat this disease, I can be
better than I was." Ultimately, the chasm between being this hero and the reality of it just bothered people
hugely. He thought that, "Because I raised so much money and I gave so many people hope, "it allows me
to do what I did." No, it doesn't.
2. Lance: The critics say I'm arrogant.A doper. Washed up. A fraud. That I couldn't let it go. They can say
whatever they want. I'm not back on my bike for them. [Just do it]
1. Maker:
Text in Picture: Giro d’Italia, May 2009.
The Tour of Italy would be Lance's vital warm-up for the Tour de France. He was determined to see how
he would fare riding clean against the best riders in the world.
Lance: I look to have some good days. If I left the Tour of Italy, and I didn't win a stage and I wasn't a
factor on some of the difficult days, I'd be disappointed, and I think I have to do that.
Maker: To challenge his critics, Lance started to post his blood values during the Giro. Based on those
findings, even the most skeptical observers concluded that Lance was riding clean. The big question was,
"Could he still compete?"
Johan Bruyneel: Anytime you see him, if he's in trouble, he can never be alone. So, Dani, Jani and Chechu,
on the climb, you guys look for Lance. And if there's a problem, he needs guys to stay with him and pace
him up the climb.
2. Maker: On this day's final climb, Lance cracked and dropped way behind all the top racers. His
supporting riders slowed down to stay with him.
Lance: It's tough because I put pressure on myself and expect to... In my mind, I think back to what it used
to be like. And you forget that you've been away for a few years. It's hard, man. It's not easy to be away.
And you can feel that...
1. Text in picture: Aspen, Colorado. June 2009.
Lance: Blood, urine, both?
Detectives: Both.
Lance: Both, cool.
Lance (in interview setting 2009): Yesterday was number 31, I believe. Blood and urine. More than
anybody else.
Detectives: While I do the blood, I don't want that the cameras will film it. And also when we go to...
46
1. Dramatic music
1. When Lances daughter Bella
comes into the picture you feel
some kind of warmth and
innocence.
tested for
doping. With
urine and
blood samples,
which they
took from
him.
other detectives come to
test Lance. His daughter
jumps in front of the
camera.
25.
1. One month to the Tour
01.03.14
2. The maker
Lance: Whose blood is it?
Detectives: It's a Doping control station, and it's not public.
Lance: We've had this... Yeah, you can call PWC or the UCI. I know it's not comfortable for you, but it's
my right, so... We're gonna film it. It's my blood and my urine.
Detectives: Yeah, but...
Lance: Go ahead and call the UCI.
Detectives: Nobody else than you and I, we are going to the toilet.
Lance: Yeah, that's obvious.
(Bella, daughter of Lance, comes into the picture)
Bella: Hello.
Lance: Hi, Bella.
Lance (as voice-over from interview setting): The biggest dilemma gets to be that your home is your home.
You're there and you're eating breakfast with your kids, and they're getting ready for day camp and you're
thinking about your day, and then these people just kind of come into your world, and it could take close
to an hour. If you can't go to the bathroom, it could take longer than that. They sit there and wait with you.
(Back to the scenery in which Lances blood gets taken)
Lance: Is this the biggest audience you've ever had?
Detective: Yes.
Lance (voice-over from interview setting): Nobody thinks that’s normal. We're used to it. A few of the
haters in the press and these people that are just on this whole anti-doping frenzy, which I think we need...
There's a place for that, but there are people that are obsessed with it. They think that's absolutely normal.
That's not normal.
Bella: Why are you taking blood, Dad?
Lance: For my job.
Other daughter: His job is to take blood.
Lance: No, her job is to take blood.
Detective: My job is to take blood.
Lance: My job is to give blood.
Daughters: Oh.
2. Daughters: Bye-bye, cameraman. Bye-bye, cameraman and funny, skinny man.
3. Lance (in his own house the next day):
Text in picture: The next day.
Let me tell you something. I'm all for a clean game, but this is fucking ridiculous. Now here we are.
Yesterday, we had a surprise UCI control, the 31st of the season. Now, this morning, again. See you pull
up. Fine, no problem. 32nd control. Then, Higgs, look. USADA walks in. Talk about a broken system.
Stupid.How can there not be any communication? It's 2009. You guys look like fools.
Lance (in interview setting): When I'm in the bathroom, going to the bathroom, I look outside, another car
pulls up. And it's the American Anti-Doping Agency. So 10 minutes before, the International Cycling
Federation shows up, and then the American Olympic Federation shows up.
Lance (back at his house): And I've got to get dressed to ride. So I gotta go up and change and everybody's
gonna escort me up there? In front of my girlfriend, who's breastfeeding? Is that the way it's gonna work?
Okay. No. So I gotta walk in where you can't see me, and you say, "No, that's a violation"? That's stupid.
Anyways, off we go. Six hours on the bike today. See you.
Maker: After his poor performance in Italy, Lance had to find some way to get better. With only a month
47
Here Lance
trains at
altitude to
prepare for
the Tour.
26.
01.07.10
This sequence
is concerned
with Lances
first stages of
the Tour de
France in
de France. The crew
filming Lance training.
2. Switched back to the
interview with Michelle
Ferrari. Bank statements
were shown in which
Lance transferred
money.
1. Pictures of Lance on
Stage 1 on the Tour de
France.
2. Back at the hotel after
Stage 1 looking at all the
other participants.
3. Also some time after a
Stage. Lance and
actively asks the
questions.
before the Tour de France, Lance trained in Aspen with his Astana teammate, Levi Leipheimer. For both
men, riding in the Rockies was all about the altitude. Training in the thin air causes the body to produce
more red blood cells, the exact same effect as EPO. I learned that altitude training also played a role in
doping. To prepare for competition, riders would often train in the mountains to boost their red blood cells,
take out a bag or two, and then be ready to transfuse them during a tour. At the time, I wondered, "Was
that what Lance was doing in Aspen?" I watched Lance and Levi do a series of 1K tests, timed runs up a
one-kilometer hill with a blood test at the top of each climb. They measure lactic acid levels, which
indicate fitness and the ability of a rider's leg muscles to deliver sustained power over time. It's a test that
was developed and refined in Italy by Michele Ferrari.
2. Maker: You still pass on a suggestion or two from time to time to Lance?
Michelle Ferrari: Yes, not so many as in the past. But probably, he doesn't need so many. But sometimes I
give him some inputs. May be useful.
Maker: They were useful. Lance had told everyone that he had stopped working with Ferrari in 2004, but
an investigation by Italian police revealed that Armstrong kept contact with Ferrari through his son
Stefano. In e-mails, Papa Ferrari was known by his nickname, Schumi. Bank records and e-mails
confirmed Armstrong's payments to Ferrari.
Lance (interview setting back in 2013): In 2009, I wasn't honest about my relationship with him, but I
didn't know who else to trust when it came to training and advice. And to his credit, he was the first to say,
"You cannot take any risk. They are coming for you. They want you."
Maker: From Italy, Ferrari monitored Lance's progress. He compared his performance from a month earlier
and concluded that Lance had improved by 10% in his power output number, watts per kilogram.
Lance (interview in 2009): The watts-per-kilo number now is just a hair under 6.5. 6.5 might be good
enough to win the Tour. I've seen higher. I've been higher.
Ferrari: The best Lance with 1K tests was 7. More than 7. The best Lance was the year of the last Tour
win.
Maker: 2005.
Ferrari: He won the Tour like this. It was impressive. Lance took it easy, because... if you win by too
much... everybody blah, blah, blah...
Lance (in 2009): The other seven Tours... In late June, you know, the last test before the Tour based on
power output, we sat down and said, "Okay. We win. "If we don't fall off the bike, if you don't get sick, "if
you don't have any kind of terrible strategic error, "you win easy." it was amazing.
(back training in Aspen)
[Lance and collogues talking technical numbers of the tests]
Lance: I'm strong. Quite honestly, I think... I mean, if you want a prediction, I think I'll win the Tour.
Maker: How could Lance be so confident? He hadn't performed well all year. What did he know that I
didn't?
1. Commentator: We are close to the moment when big Lance returns to the sport of cycling. And when he
left in 2005, he wouldn't be back, he said. There he is. He's back.
Text in Picture: Tour de France, Stage 1.
Johan Bruyneel (in the car. On the walkie-talkie with Lance): Going good. Going good. Going good.
Demand it. Accelerate your body. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on.
Maker: In the first stage, a short time trial, Lance wanted to make a statement. In the past, he had always
dominated time trials. An impressive performance here would show everyone he was back.
Johan Bruyneel (in the car. On the walkie-talkie with Lance): He doesn't look good to me. Come on,
48
1. Electric guitar is playing to
possibly support the spectacular
comeback. It does not stop
playing.
4. It seems very familiar Lance
and the filmmaker together.
2009. This
sequence is
also concerned
with how the
rest of the
Tour went.
filmmaker in some
private setting in a hotel
room.
4. In these pictures you
actually see how the
filmmaker is in Lances
hotel room and walks out
after an interview.
5. interview setting.
Lance. Come on, come on. Pick it up. Come on, come on. Go! Go! Go! Go! Go! One kilometer.
Commentator: Look at his face. Lance Armstrong, seven times the winner of Tour de France. He's headed
for the best time.
2. Maker: Lance's time put him in first place by 30 seconds, but with all the best riders still to come.
Commentator (on the TV): Cancellara pushes on for the finish. He's looking to beat the time of Bradley
Wiggins of 19:51. He's sprinting for the line and the best time.
Maker: One by one, the best riders in the world, including his Astana teammate, Alberto Contador, beat
his time.
Commentator (on the TV): A great ride by Alberto Contador, who won the Tour in 2007. Contador is
second. Is he now the leader of Astana? He certainly laid claim to that.
Maker: Lance finished the first stage in 10th place, 40 seconds behind the leader, and 22 seconds behind
his teammate, Alberto Contador.
Text in picture: Alberto Contador, 2009 Teammate.
From the start, I watched Lance's comeback hopes collide with a ferocious rider who bore an eerie
resemblance to Armstrong 10 years earlier.
Frankie Andreu: These guys never talked to each other. They came out of the bus, I never once saw them
look at each other, make eye contact. They would walk right past each other. It was the weirdest thing.
Lance (at the Tour de France in 2009): The honest truth is that there's a little tension at the dinner table.
Alberto Contador: [Talks something in Spanish outside the van]
Lance (inside the van watching Contador giving the interviews outside): He's got the gunslinger hat on.
Journalists behind... That would drive me nuts. This guy's gonna fall in the fucking water. That would
drive me nuts, people behind me.
Maker: The Tour de France is the world's most demanding sporting event. It covers 2,200 miles over three
weeks. The 21 daily stages combine flat roads, brutal climbs and time trials. Each day, among the entire
group of cyclists, known as the "peloton," the rider with the fastest overall time wears the yellow jersey, or
the maillot jaune. While each team on the Tour has nine riders, usually just one, the team leader, is riding
for the yellow jersey. On Astana, Armstrong and Contador are dueling for the right to lead. The other
cyclists were known as "domestiques" French for servants.
[Moment in which Johan Bruyneel gives one rider food and drinks out of the car]
Maker: Another job of the domestiques is to shelter team leaders from the wind. When riding at high
speeds on flat roads, the effects of wind resistance are huge. Riders in front have to work as much as 30%
harder than those sheltering behind. At high speeds, you can see the domestiques, often from different
teams, sharing the work of fighting the wind.
Daniel Coyle: For Lance's victories, there were some where he rode in front by himself only a matter of
minutes, like three to five minutes for the entire Tour, because he essentially is using the muscle of his
team as an extension of himself to drive forward and to burn other people off.
Maker: Relying on a group of domestiques, Lance found a way to use the wind when the cyclists rode near
the ocean and sea breezes whipped into the peloton.
3. Lance (his comment on the race after the Stage): We were coming into that corner, and I was about 40
guys back. And I was kind of like, "I better move up."
Maker (voice-over): The crosswinds caused a split in the peloton. Lance and two of his domestiques made
it to the front group. The rest of his Astana teammates, including Contador, were left behind. In this
situation, Lance reached out to an old teammate now on a different team, George Hincapie.
Lance (his comment on the race after the Stage): I had to call in some favors, George and those guys. I
49
27.
01.16.42
This sequence
is concerned
1. Switch between
interview scenes and
actual footage.
2. Old pictures of
4. Interview
setting.
said, "George, you keep riding. Hard." Just like I would do in the old days when he was on the same team.
George Hincapie: I just remember Lance being all fired up that he was in the first group and asking us to
go harder, and we're like, "Dude, we're doing our own thing here. "Sure, you're here, but we're not really
doing this for you."
Commentator: They could be putting Lance Armstrong in yellow in the next 24 hours. Little bit further
back down the road, that is Alberto Contador. He got caught out, but he's keeping at the front end of the
main field. But I wonder what he's thinking about the presence of Lance Armstrong in that little group.
Maker (asking Lance directly): French radio was like, "This is a betrayal."
Lance: Betrayal?
Maker (asking Lance directly): It's like, "Why is he riding out front? "Why is he pulling? Why don't they
wait for Alberto?"
Lance: Because I won the fucking Tour de France seven times. That's why we're out there riding. That's
not... That's stupid. If you can take advantage of the wind you win bike races. We were in the right place
at the right time, and I deserved to have those guys ride. That's what I told Johan. "You better start getting
used to this again because..."
Maker (voice-over): The breakaway finished 41 seconds ahead of the peloton, enough to move Lance from
10th to third, nineteen seconds ahead of Contador. Suddenly, Lance's comeback was looking pretty good.
Lance: If everything goes right, I mean, if it goes perfectly for us and not that great for the others, we take
the yellow jersey. It would be...
Maker (asking Lance directly): You don't wanna take the yellow jersey this early in the Tour, do you?
Lance: Sure. I'd take it. Hell yeah. Four years later, why not? I'd totally take it. I'm pedaling tomorrow for
that.
4. Maker (voice-over): Looking back on that moment now, I admit that I was caught up. I wasn't naive
about past doping allegations, but I couldn't help but root for the old pro, and he promised he was doing it
clean. But my presence at the Tour and my access to Lance was mystifying to Lance's longtime critics.
Betsy Andreu: It was perceived that you were making the puff piece on Lance.
Bill Strickland: I thought it was odd that you were doing a movie about the comeback, because it seemed
like it was going to be an inspirational movie.
Betsy Andreu: The fear was that you would buy into the bullshit.
Maker: I was afraid I was starting to buy into the bullshit, too, so I sought out Jonathan Vaughters. He was
running Team Garmin, the so-called anti-doping team. But he wouldn't agree to talk to me. Back then, he
had not yet made public what he knew about Lance's doping.
Jonathan Vaughters: People have to realize that the truth in all this was hard. Such a huge number of
people wanted to believe so bad that they hated anyone who didn't believe and hated anyone who
questioned it. As a team manager, imagine what the reaction would've been had I said something about
Lance. Lose the team Lose the riders. You know, lose the whole thing.
Maker: As it happened, Vaughters had a dog in the hunt in 2009, Bradley Wiggins was one of the leaders
and Lance's team was worried about him.
Johan Bruyneel (out of his car during the Tour): We want to get rid of Wiggins. You, too? I know that
ultimately you want to get rid of us, too, but that's another story.
Maker: Everyone at the Tour was playing angles. winner and longtime Lance critic, paid for a video crew
to tail Lance's comeback. Their mission, according to the cameraman in the straw cowboy hat, was to
make the anti-Gibney film. I was caught in the middle of a battle between the myth-makers and the mythbusters. One of the strangest subplots was Lance's interview strategy. He insisted that the only American to
50
with how
Lance uses his
power to
dominate
people as for
example
former
teammates.
Frankie, Betsy and
Lance still friends.
3. Old footage from the
trial against Lance in
October 25, 2005.
4. Back to 2013.
5. Back in the judge
room in 2005.
6. Footage of Lance in
two live interviews
(June, 2006)
7. Now Betsy comes out
and tells people the truth.
Footage of her on a tv
show.
be able to interview him would be Frankie Andrea, an ex-teammate he had feuded with for years.
Bill Strickland: Lance has multiple motivations. One of them was sort of to show Frankie that he could
still make Frankie do whatever he wanted. One of them was to show everyone that, "Hey, I can accept
Frankie back. I'm not the jerk." Another one was to control who had access to him. So all that was going
on.
Maker: Months before, I was with Lance when he hatched his plan to make Frankie wait outside the bus
every day to interview him. Johan begged him not to do it, but Lance couldn't contain himself. When I
asked him later about the Frankie plot, Lance was back on message.
5. Maker (directly to Lance): But there wasn't anything mischievous about it like, "Frankie's gonna have to
come to me now after those days."
Lance: Absolutely not.
(Swop to one scene in which Frankie interviewed Lance)
Betsy Andreu: The kids had been watching the Tour on TV, and they said, "Mom, Dad's interviewing
Lance." Frankie called me right after and he said, "Lance wanted me, and only me, to interview him." I
said, "Frankie, you should spit on that guy. After everything he's done to you, done to me, done to us?"
Frankie Andreu: And to say the least, I was shocked because for four or five years before that, we just
walked right past each other. No eye contact with me. Wouldn't say a word to me.
2. Maker: Lance, Frankie and his wife Betsy had once been good friends. Frankie had been on three US
Postal teams, but in 2000, Lance's second Tour win, Frankie wouldn't dope. He asked for a raise, but the
team director, Johan, told him he'd have to take a steep pay cut.
Betsy Andreu: When Frankie was looking at other teams, he had two other offers. He was on the phone
with Johan who asked him, "Which teams are you looking at?" And Frankie told him the two teams. Offers
rescinded.
Maker: In late 2005, Frankie and Betsy were served with subpoenas to testify in a lawsuit involving Lance.
At issue was doping and a conversation between Lance and his doctor while he was being treated for
cancer.
3. Judge: Let's talk about the Indiana hospital room. Tell us what was said during this conversation.
Frankie Andreu (in 2004): A group of us were inside of a room where Lance had mentioned that he had
taken certain drugs when a doctor asked him about it.
Betsy Andreu: The doctor came in. I said to Lance, "I think we should leave to give you your privacy."
And Lance said, "No, that's okay. You can stay.”
Judge (asking Frankie): Were you present when that conversation or statement took place?
Frankie Andreu: Yes.
Betsy Andreu: The doctor asked him a couple of questions. And then came the question, "Have you ever
taken any performance-enhancing drugs?" Lance's response was that he had taken... EPO, growth
hormone... Cortisone... Steroids and testosterone.
Judge (asking Lance): Do you deny the statements that Ms. Andreu attributed to you in the Indiana
University Hospital?
Lance: 100%. Absolutely.
Judge (asking Lance): Do you also deny what Mr. Andreu said regarding those statements?
Lance: 100%. How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs?
Judge: That was my point. It's not just simply you don't recall?
Lance: How many times do I have to say it? If you have a doping offense or you test positive, it goes
without saying that you're fired from all of your contracts. Not just the team, but there's numerous
51
contracts that I have that would all go away.
Judge: Sponsorship agreements, for example.
Lance: All of them. And the faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do off of
the bike would go away, too. And don't think for a second I don't understand that.
4. Lance: Honestly, it's embarrassing to hear. It's humiliating. That was going too far. I know that now. I
didn't at the time.
5. Judge: Were you surprised when Mr. Armstrong said he had taken those various performance-enhancing
drugs?
Frankie Andreu: Yeah, I was surprised.
Frankie Andreu (Frabkie in 2013): From that point on, trying to do announcing gigs or commentary or
work, I was too controversial. And I was told that a lot. I was shunned, banned, from everybody, and a lot
of people wouldn't look at me, shake my hand. I was the outsider.
Betsy Andreu: Lance wanted to humiliate Frankie, and he wanted to get back at me.
6. (First show:)
Anchor: She swore to this, and Frankie, your former teammate and former friend also swore to this. They
had to be compelled to testify. They did not want to testify. Why would they say this?
Lance: You know, I was present for Betsy's deposition and we asked her that question. We said something
to the effect of, "What do you think of Lance Armstrong?" And, Bob, I've never been in a room where
somebody looks straight across the table at you right in the eye, and she goes, "I hate him."
(Second show:)
Anchor: There's some allegations being made by the wife of a former teammate of yours, again accusing
you of using performance-enhancing drugs.
Lance: The things they don't report is what happened under cross-examination when the person who made
the accusation couldn't remember anything about the room. Couldn't remember if the doctor was a man or
a woman. Couldn't remember if they had a lab coat on or not. Couldn't remember if they had a clipboard.
Couldn't remember anything.
Anchor: No facts, no figures, no evidence. Just a mouth.
Guest in the show: Aren't you sick of it?
Maker: Beyond the media, Lance had many supporters who helped him sustain the myth. One of those was
Stephanie McIlvain. She worked for Oakley, one of Armstrong's sponsors. She had also been in the
hospital room. According to Betsy, in their conversations, Stephanie confirmed Betsy's story. But in
Stephanie's deposition, she took Lance's side.
Back to the court room in 2005.
Judge (to Stephanie McIlvain): Were you ever in a hospital room or other part of the hospital with Mr.
Armstrong, where he said anything about performance-enhancing drugs?
Stephanie McIlvain: No.
Maker: After the deposition, she left a message on Betsy's answering machine.
Stephanie McIlvain (on to Betsy’s voice recoder): I HOPE SOMEBODY BREAKS A BASEBALL BAT
OVER YOUR HEAD BUT I ALSO HOPE THAT ONE DAY YOU HAVE ADVERSITY IN YOUR
LIFE AND YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF TRAGEDY THAT WILL HIT YOUR FAMILY AND MAKE
YOU REALIZE WHAT LIFE IS ABOUT OTHER THAN GOING AFTER PEOPLE THAT YOU
ACTUALLY HATE. IT'S PATHETIC BETSY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE A BETTER PERSON THAN
THAT. I AM SO SADDENED THAT YOU'RE NOT. YOU ARE SUCH A SHALLOW BITCH!
7. Betsy Andreu: It didn't matter if the world thought I was a liar, as long as the people close to me knew I
52
28.
01.26.00
In this
sequence they
discuss how
this power
lead to earning
loads of
money.
1. Cover of the book LA.
Confidentiel and
interview scene with
David Walsh (one of the
authors of the book).
Picture showing the
relationship between
Verbruggen and Lance.
1. Loads of
evidence is
shown of
reports with
sentences
highlighted.
was telling the truth. However, when it affected Frankie's ability to work in the sport, that's when I put my
foot down and I said, "I'm going to be obsessed with getting the truth out there."
(At a show:)
Some anchor: This is the first time Andreu has spoken about it on television.
Betsy Andreu: He replied, "Growth hormone, steroids, testosterone, EPO, cortisone."
Maker: From the moment Betsy started speaking out, Frankie was confronted by an old teammate, George
Hincapie.
George Hincapie: Frankie was my mentor, and the first time I ever saw dope was in Frankie's refrigerator.
And that's when I realized, "Well, fuck, I have to dope." So for me, that really bothered me that all of a
sudden he changed, and he wasn't racing anymore and said, "Well, Lance is doping." Well, I mean, you
taught me how to dope. How could you stand by when you know that you did what you did? Lance never
sat there and said, "You're gonna dope or you're out or I'm firing you." That's just not true, and they made
it seem like that was the case.
Frankie Andreu: You're either on his side, or you're off his side. If you crossed him, you were doomed.
You were thrown out very quickly, cast aside, and then you could sit there waiting for the revenge to be
sent upon you.
Daniel Coyle: That desire to bully. That desire to crush people. He tried to wreck their lives.
Maker: Armstrong used his fame to undermine the credibility of his critics like Greg LeMond.
Lance (back in the court room): Greg, who I know has serious drinking and drug problems, was clearly
intoxicated.
Maker (voice-over): Emma O'Reilly, part of Postal's team support staff, had helped Lance hide his doping.
After she left the team, she told a reporter about it.
Lance (back in the court room): Emma. Afraid that we were gonna out her as a, you know, all these things
she said, as a whore or whatever. I don't know.
Maker (voice-over): Lance's lawyers pressured Emma to change her tune, but she was determined to tell
the truth and refused to back down. Lance's counsel sued for libel in Britain and France.
Betsy Andreu: One of his many modus operandi was "just sue." The financial drain, the emotional drain,
the mental drain...
Steve Madden: It's a pretty effective legal strategy when you think about it. It's like, "I've got deeper
pockets, "and I can fight this war of attrition and you can't."
Lance (2013): It just built one upon another, and the denials became more defiant, and the arguments
became more heated. I should have just backed away.
1. Maker: In 2004, Armstrong launched lawsuits over L.A. Confidentiel, the first book to air doping
charges against him. He stopped its publication in America, forced an apology and won a judgment worth
$1.5 million that tarnished the reputation of the co-author, David Walsh.
David Walsh: How can this guy dope so much and not get caught? That tells us about how cycling was
run. It tells us about the attitudes of the UCI, which is the world governing body for cycling. Its president
for most of the Lance Armstrong years was Hein Verbruggen. Hein Verbruggen and Lance Armstrong
have always been friends.
Reed Albergotti: The UCI denies that they ever covered up a drug test for Lance Armstrong, but they do
say that when Lance and other top riders tested with suspicious levels, they would go and talk to those
riders and they would say, "Listen, you're flying a little too close to the sun. "We're going to be watching
you. "You better stop what you're doing."
Lance: There were dozens, if not hundreds, of those conversations going, "Hey, this is close." But the truth
53
29.
01.29.47
In this
sequence it is
focused again
on Lances
Tour de
France race.
1. Switch between
footage and interview
scenes.
2. Old footage of 2004.
Quick interview of
Lance with a reporter.
Then back to interview
with Mr. Andreu in
2013.
3. Footage of the
filmmaker of people on
the streets celebrating.
4. Back in the hotel
is that everybody was making money. Everybody. And I mean everybody. Trek Bicycles, in 1998, does
$100 million in revenue. Now they're pushing a billion. We all made money. Some made a lot more than
others.
Maker: Some of Verbruggen's money was managed in an appearance of conflict of interest by an
investment firm owned by the man who bank-rolled Armstrong's team. As head of the UCI, Verbruggen
knew how much money and popularity Lance had brought to the sport. So when L'Equipe published
evidence of doping by Armstrong, cycling had a problem.
Lance: It was in his interest for the sport to continue to grow and grow controversy-free. A thing we
weren't very good at. I mean, it was controversies every year. Every year. Big ones.
Maker: Verbruggen asked an acquaintance, Emile Vrijman, to conduct an investigation into the newspaper
allegations.
Emile Vrijman
Text in picture: Emile Vrijman, Lawyer, The Vrijman Report.
In the conversations with Hein Verbruggen, clearly was the focus point on saying find out what kind of
research did they do is this a positive test according to our definitions and if yes, should we do something
about it.
Maker: Oddly, the Vrijman Report didn't focus on whether Lance had doped. Instead, it looked at technical
details, lab protocols, and attacked the World Anti-Doping Agency. Without examining samples for drug
use, the report concluded that Lance was completely exonerated.
Lance (in June 2006): The 130-page Vrijman Report that came out, he was the independent investigator
hired by our international federation, it outlined, very clearly, what happened. What Lance didn't say then,
but what he told me years later, was that he and his team had input on the report and were delighted with
the result. Based on further talks with Lance, I had more questions.
Maker (asking Vrijman directly): Did you or your law firm receive any payments from Lance Armstrong
or his representatives?
Emile Vrijman: Not at all. As far as I know, not at all.
Maker: Vrijman's denial led me to an odd coincidence. In 2007, the UCI paid the final bill for the report,
approximately $100,000. Earlier that year, Lance had made a donation to the UCI. The amount? $100,000.
The reason, says the UCI, to pay for a blood-testing machine purchased in 2005.
Lance (in June 2006): Listen, nobody believes in doping controls more than me. I've submitted to all of
them, whether in competition or out of competition.
1. Maker: On the road, Lance was able to protect his lie by enforcing the power of omerté, a code of
silence among riders about doping.
Unidentified: [speaks Italian]
Commentator:
Text in picture: 2004 Tour de France, Stage 18.
What happened was that Filippo Simeoni tried to attack to join the six-man breakaway that had built up a
bit of a lead on the peloton. The trouble is that Lance doesn't like Simeoni, who is actually suing him for
slander in Italy after Armstrong called him a liar.
Maker (asking George Hincapie): Was that all about Ferrari?
George Hincapie: Hahaha.
Frankie Andreu: Simeoni had testified at a trial against Ferrari, and Lance was working with Michele
Ferrari and considered Ferrari a good friend. So, in the race, Simeoni attacked, and Lance, who had the
yellow jersey on, followed the move, which is unheard of, 'cause normally you just let your team do all the
54
3. Trumpet music in the
background of an orchestra
playing on the streets.
5. When Contador overtakes
Armstrong the music ‘El Viento’
of Manu Chao plays. Music keeps
playing.
6. Lance is devastated about the
loss. You can see it on his face.
One feels connected to him.
7. Electronic guitar is back on.
room.
5. Back at the Tour de
France.
6. Back at the hotel
room.
7. Back at the Tour.
Some footage from a
camera on lance’s bike
as you experience his
view.
8. Back at the hotel
room. Pictures of
newspaper headlines.
chasing for you. But he went up to Simeoni, and Simeoni was trying to win the stage, and, pretty much,
Lance said, "No way."
George Hincapie: It was kind of wrong of him to do that, but the peloton was happy about it because they
didn't appreciate what Simeoni was doing at that point.
Maker (asking George): You mean sort of outing the secret?
George Hincapie: Yeah, outing the secret. They were all probably doing the same thing.
Commentator: The result was that Simeoni returned to the field having apparently been told by Lancet o sit
at the back and shut up. That's the kind of authority the patron of the peloton has, and Lance is not afraid to
wield it.
2. Reporter: Lance, can I ask just what went on between you and Simeoni today in the race?
Lance: I was just following the wheels.
Frankie Andreu (at interview setting with maker): He can be revengeful and vindictive, but then at the
same time, very, very loyal and supportive, and I've been on both sides.
Frankie Andreu (as a reporter at the Tour): What do you expect at the finish for yourself?
Lance: Honestly, I don't know. If Cancellara's dropped, and the climb isn't as hard as we all think and I
stay with the leaders, then I can take the jersey.
Frankie Andreu: And what would that mean to you?
Lance: It'd be great. It'd be a trip.
3. [celebrating people] [scenes in which the normal Tour de France is represented]
Maker: After the first week, the Tour moved to the Pyrenees. Mountain stages are where the best riders
make their moves and where Lance had dominated in the past. But unlike previous Tours, Lance didn't
look like he was in control.
Bill Strickland: He sure rode like he was clean. He was struggling physically. He looked beaten for a lot of
those stages.
Jonathan Vaughters: He was not anywhere close to as fast as where he was in 2001 or '99, but he was also
almost 40 years old.
Maker (asking Jonathan): Is it conceivable to think that he was racing clean in 2009?
Jonathan Vaughters: It's possible. You know, he knows the answer to that.
Lance ( in 2013): Not that the sport was harder, but I found it harder. And I don't know if it was being
older, or if it was being clean, or if it was... I want to believe that the rest of the group was clean in '09. I
can't speak for them, but I like to believe that we all were basically clean.
[Moment in which you hear the bikers breathing intensively]
4. Lance: Gibney, we gotta win this fucking Tour de France.
Maker (talks to Lance directly: Yeah, I'm counting on you for the movie. This is all about me.
Lance: Trust me, this will not be the same if I don't. Gonna be hard. Harder than I thought. Harder than I
thought a week ago.
5. Maker (voice-over):
Text in picture: Stage 15.
Lance had lost ground, but he was still close to the lead and only two seconds behind his rival, Contador,
going into the biggest climb of the Tour. I figured that if Lance was gonna manage his mythic comeback,
he would have to beat Contador here. But would that be enough to put an end to all the questions about the
past?
Johan Bryneel (team meeting in the campervan): Today is a very important day. We have two weeks of
racing behind us. We have one very hard week ahead of us. And today could be a day where a lot of things
55
change. You know, everybody's always talking about Alberto, Lance, Lance, Alberto. We are here to win
the Tour de France. Of course, both of them are feeling good, and both of them want to try to win.
Bill Strickland: The start of that day, I'd been hanging out at the bus and Lance came out of the bus. And I
said, "Pretty big day." And he said, "Yeah, this one's for all the fucking marbles."
Maker: Just before the steepest climb, Contador looked back at Lance. Was that teamwork? Or a last "fuck
you"?
Commentator: But who's gonna stop Contador now? Well, I don't think anybody can stop him, because the
gap is opening. Twenty-three seconds to Schleck, 42 seconds to Armstrong, a minute, 22 to the yellow
jersey. Alberto Contador now is establishing himself as the leader of the Astana team. And, boy, when you
see him climb like this, who else could there be? There's the pistol shot. Alberto Contador's over the line.
He's the next maillot jaune of the Tour de France. Very fast at the bottom of the climb. Contador went
once and you went after him. And the second time he went, what were your thoughts there?
Lance (interview after the race): He showed he's the best rider in the race, certainly the best climber. When
everybody's on the limit and then you can accelerate again, I've been there, and it's...
Reporter (Frankie): Do you think your chances of winning the Tour now are over?
Lance: Um... Yeah. It'll be hard. You know, a day like this really shows who's the best, and I wasn't on par
with what's required to win the Tour, so, I mean, for me, that's the reality. That's not devastating news or
anything.
Reporter (Frankie): But are you disappointed with...
Frankie Andreu: The Lance Armstrong I know always is a fighter, always is one that is in attack mode.
And when I asked him that question, he was different. I think there was a lot of doubt in his head on what
he was gonna be able to accomplish at that Tour.
Bill Strickland: When Frankie was talking to him, it was such an honest exchange between those two
guys. When he was looking at this guy, who had been his friend for years as well as his teammate, and
who had doped, and he seemed to be admitting to Frankie more so than to the camera that, "I just don't
have it. I'm not good enough." He had lost time, and he showed himself to be the weaker rider.
6. Lance: I don't have that punch that I used to have.
Maker (talking directly with Lance): Uh-huh. No, but I mean, I.. I guess I'm... You know.. In terms of...
Lance: I know. It fucked up your documentary.
Maker: No, no. No. Nothing fucks up my documentary.
Lance: I'm sorry.
7. Maker: I don't think Lance's apology was just banter. Part of it was real. Saying he was sorry he couldn't
deliver, one more time, the perfect fairy tale that everyone had come to expect. Going forward, he was
looking for a way to salvage things. What meaning would his comeback have if he couldn't finish in the
top three? Now in second, he braced for attacks from Garmin's Bradley Wiggins and the Schleck brothers,
all determined to push him off the podium. Johan knew that Lance was not at his best. So he pursued a
delicate strategy, protecting Contador's yellow jersey and a spot on the podium for his old friend.
Bill Strickland: Without the podium, the comeback, it's not just a wash, but it's a disaster for him.
Maker: Johan didn't want Contador to attack, because he might push the Schlecks to a faster pace than they
would ride on their own. If they raced ahead, that could cost Lance a spot on the podium.
Commentator: What's happening here? Contador's moved. He's decided to go it alone. Now can there be a
reaction from Andy after all the work that man has done? Contador is now going for the top. He's allowed
himself just under two kilometers to the summit, and he's going for the win. Contador testing the waters
here this afternoon, but he hasn't got the gap on the two Schleck brothers.
56
Maker: Lance took dangerous chances on the descent. It was his only chance to get back in the game. By
following Contador's attack, the Schleck brothers were now second and third behind Contador. Lance was
in fourth, off the podium. I wondered what words were exchanged between Contador and the Schlecks.
Johan Bryneel: He doesn't care, he's going all alone on the podium, not with the team.
Frankie Andreu: I don't blame Contador one bit. He didn't trust anybody on that team, and he wanted to
make sure that he had that yellow jersey firmly on his shoulders. He learned this from Lance. When you
have a chance to seize the yellow jersey and take time out of your opponents, you do it. Alberto was doing
textbook Lance Armstrong. It just backfired on Lance.
Johan Bryneel: This guy is really unbelievable Why did he have to attack?
Maker: There was still one more mountain to climb, cycling's mythic Mont Ventoux. If Lance didn't do
well here, his whole comeback would backfire. Some people would say he lost precisely because he
couldn't win clean. It was a tough challenge. In years past, Lance had never won Ventoux.
Lance (in 2009): I've had such a long history with that fucking mountain.
Maker: Lance believed that a strong showing here might somehow extinguish the doubts that haunted his
legacy. Following a time trial, Contador was still safely in the lead, but Lance had clawed his way back to
third place, just a few seconds ahead of Wiggins and Frank Schleck and just over a minute behind Andy
Schleck. The Schlecks seemed determined to break Armstrong's will by attacking him again and again. But
this time, Armstrong would not be dropped.
Commentator: Look at the face of Armstrong there. He's just telling Frank, "You ain't going nowhere this
afternoon, mate, "because I'm going to stick all over your back wheel."
[Quick insight of Michelle Ferrari’s living room in which he follows the race]
Bill Strickland: Ventoux opens up, and you could see a very small group that included him. Against every
possible odd, he had managed to stay with that group and he was not gonna lose time. I was like, "He's
gonna do it! I can't believe it!" You know? The guy is amazing. To see him not just hanging on, but having
some aggression, not just surviving, but asserting, was the most dramatic moment of the Tour. He wasn't
gonna win. He was doing it for some other reason, some reason that was unfamiliar to him.
Maker: I was caught up, too. At that moment, on that fucking mountain, I was just a fan, rooting for Lance.
Just before the finish, Wiggins cracked, but Lance found another gear. He pedaled on with Contador and
the Schlecks.
8. Lance: It was a good day. I thought I'd be fine, but I felt better than I expected.
Maker (directly to Lance): Right.
Lance: Which was good. Although I came in here and wanted to win and thought I could win, thought I
could be close, that's not going to happen. I'm gonna get third. I can stand on the third step and still say that
I have won. And I've won because of all of the reasons I wanted to do this. My foundation has benefited.
Cancer survivors and their families all over the world have benefited because of this. I think I've answered
a lot of questions about the performances in the past.
Maker: It was incredible. No sooner was the race over than Lance was busy writing a new ending to his
story, one that even the French embraced. The headline in the paper that had once trumpeted "The
Armstrong Lie" now sang a different tune. "Chapeau, le Texan." "Hats off to Armstrong." This was the
perfect ending for the original movie I started to make. But four years later, investigations revealed
something strange about Lance's blood values in 2009. During the Tour, Lance should have seen a
decrease in the concentration of his red blood cells. Instead, there was an increase more than once. And
just before Ventoux, the day he saved his comeback.
Unidentified: What happened there with Ventoux is kind of what happened with his life. Just like when he
57
30.
01.49.54
This sequence
replays the
whole story.
1. Footage of Armstrong
trying to win in 2010.
2. Footage of his
colleagues accusing
Lance of taking drugs
(July, 2010)
3. Footage of Oprah.
was a kid and he couldn't do it clean, there came a point in 2009 when he couldn't do it clean. And I think
he'd made that deal again before Ventoux.
Lance: I know what I know, and I know that it was clean. We finished the Ventoux. It was a five or six
hour day. It was hot. It was hard, obviously. Immediately in the car, down to the hotel and the French guy
was there to take the blood draw. I've never in my career had blood taken at the end of a day, at the end of
a stage like that. It does not happen.
Maker: Why?
Lance: Because it's normal and natural that when the body goes through stress like that, the body is
obviously, if not very dehydrated, extremely dehydrated. It's not what they would call "steady state." And I
think that's common knowledge and common science. It's not a fair number.
Bill Strickland: You know, he still swears to me that he didn't. We've talked about this and I tell him,
"That's really a tough one to believe."
Maker: It was tough for me to believe, too, since Lance had lied to me so often. But he was adamant he did
not dope in 2009. Why was Lance hanging on to this one? Could it possibly be true? Or was the comeback
a new lie to replace the old one?
Daniel Coyle: Armstrong was in a position of saying, "Look, I'm gonna do what I did in '99. "I'm gonna
come in in the wake of this. "I'm gonna clean up my name. I'm gonna prove that I'm doing it clean." it's
like a bank robber breaking back into the bank again with everyone watching, feeling he would get away
with it.
Steve Madden: Feeling sure he would get away with it. Lance Armstrong! Maybe this is why they came
after you. It's almost like you were daring them to look under the hood. And they did.
1. Maker: We now know that the comeback was not a new beginning, but the beginning of the end. Yet at
the time, in the fading sun of Paris, Lance imagined the start of a new chapter to his mythic story.
Lance (in the hotel room): And I'll be back next year. And then maybe we'll really win.
Maker: In 2010, Lance did not win. He finished 23rd. Contador won the race and was busted for violating
doping regulations.
[swap to a TV show in which former team mates accuse Lance of doping]
Anchor: Did you see Lance Armstrong using performance-enhancing drugs?
Floyd Landis: I had, yeah.
Maker (voice-over): Armstrong's comeback brought all of his enemies out of the woodwork. The first to
come forward was Lance's old teammate Floyd Landis.
Floyd Landis: Yes. I saw Lance Armstrong using drugs.
Lance (to a reporter after the race in 2010): I'd remind everybody that this is a man that's been under oath
several times and had a very different version. This is a man that wrote a book for profit that had a
completely different version. If you said, "Give me one word to sum this all up." Credibility. And there's...
Floyd lost his credibility a long time ago.
Maker: In the hubbub over Landis, a new name surfaced. Jeff Novitzky. He had prosecuted Barry Bonds.
And now, as part of the FDA, he was looking at Armstrong.
Lance (to a reporter after the race in 2010): Why would Novitzky have anything to do with what an athlete
does in Europe?
Daniel Coyle: Armstrong's team was sponsored by a branch of the federal government, the US Postal
Service. It may have involved transfers of controlled substances. It may have money laundering, tax
evasion, bringing foreign officials.
Reed Albergotti: Doping is not illegal, but it's everything that happens around doping that federal
58
1. Music comes on ‘Set You
Free’ of The black keys.
2. Emotional music in the
background. Violin. Changes into
faster sort of heart beat.
investigators wanted to try and use to prosecute a crime.
Daniel Coyle: They started subpoenaing cyclists, one by one. Assistants, wives.
Bebsy Andreu: Jeff Novitzky called me. I said, "What's taken you so long to call me?" "Well, I... These
things take time." I said, "Do you have a pen and paper on hand?" And he said, "Yeah." I said, "Let's get to
work."
Maker: As the investigation continued, another cyclist who had been busted for doping, Tyler Hamilton,
began to consider his options. Tyler had been Lance's teammate in 1999.
Daniel Coyle: Tyler had been subpoenaed by the grand jury, and he had a realization. Number one was, all
this is gonna come out one way or the other. The lie is too big. And the second thing was that he wanted to
tell his story.
2. [To footage of a TV show]
Anchor: You saw Lance Armstrong inject EPO?
Tyler Hamilton: Yeah, like, we all did.
Daniel Coyle: And you see in that footage Tyler's intense discomfort at facing the truth, how hard that was.
Omerté is very real, the code of silence, which is why it took Tyler until he was talking to someone who
had a badge and a gun before he could fully start the process of telling the truth.
Maker (talking to Lance): It seemed like the dam broke when suddenly somebody shows up with a badge
and a gun.
Lanc e: Different ball game.
George Hincapie: That was never even a thought in my mind going, "Well, I'm just gonna go lie to "a
federal prosecutor." It's, like, no way.
Maker: Early in 2012, an election year, the Department of Justice made a surprising announcement. It
would not pursue charges against Armstrong. But USADA, the US Anti-Doping Agency, continued with
its own investigation.
Travis Tygart:
Text in picture: Travis Tygart, CEO, USADA
He was one of the ringleaders of this conspiracy that pulled off this grand heist using tens of millions of
taxpayer dollars, defrauded millions of sports fans and his fellow competitors.
Maker: Travis Tygart, with help from government investigators, pried detailed testimony from many of
Lance's former teammates. Landis, Vaughters, Hamilton, Andrea, and most damaging of all to Lance, his
loyal friend, George Hincapie.
George Hincapie: They said, "Cooperate, and you'll get six months."
Maker: Right. And don't cooperate?
George Hincapie And you're banned for life.
Maker: Through his lawyers, Lance attacked Tygart and USADA. USADA had said publicly that they had
offered Lance the same deal as everyone else. It's a claim Armstrong and his lawyers deny.
Lance: The message wasn't, "Hey, we gotta give you something. We gotta give you six months. We gotta
give you a penalty, a sanction." That did not happen. The call to me came and said, "You're screwed.
"Why don't you come on in here and confess?" But I don't understand then why go tell the world, every
opportunity you get today that we offered Lance the same deal that we offered everybody else? Just say,
"We wanted him. We got him. "Go dance on his grave."
Maker: USADA banned Armstrong for life. His sponsors and Livestrong cut all ties. The UCI stripped him
of all his Tour de France titles and his third-place finish in 2009. Armstrong responded with a defiant
tweet. [screenshot of Lance’s Twitter of him in front of all his yellow jerseys]
59
Lance: I know what it took to win those Tours. Okay, it was a little more detailed than we were told, or
you guys were told. But I know what it took, and my teammates know what it took. And those 200-strong
pelotons over seven years, they know what it took. And they know who won.
Frankie Andreu: Did Lance win it according to the rules of the road at that time? Yeah. But did Lance win
it according to the rules? No. He still broke the rules. Just because everybody's breaking the rules doesn't
mean it's okay.
Maker: Lance still refused to admit to doping, but his fans no longer believed in his denials. With his fairy
tale story in tatters, Lance reached out to friends and critics alike and began to wonder out loud if he
should at last admit to his lie.
Betsy Andreu: After 10 years of his tirade on me, he called to say he was sorry. I still get emotional. It
was... It took a lot of courage for him to say he was sorry and for him to tell me he's done a lot of bad
things to good people.
Frankie Andreu: I said you know this must have been a tough phone call for you to make, "and I'm sure
that these last two months have been hell for you." But I said, "You know what? You've put me through
hell for 10 years." I said, "You're going through nothing. "I hope you do the right thing."
Bill Strickland: He started calling me and we got to talk about how his secrets were gonna be given to the
world.
Maker: His decision to go on Oprah did not win back his fans, particularly those who had defended his lie.
(in interview setting): For the cycling crowd, it wasn't enough. They didn't hear enough. They wanted to
hear more. I didn't say enough. I didn't tell them enough. And for the general population, it was too much.
Which leads to everybody being pissed off.
Betsy Andreu: Because he had lied for so long and he was so vicious in protecting that lie, um... I don't
think people were... I really think that people said, "Okay, wait. Let's see what he does. "Just because he
says this stuff "does not mean everything is gonna be okay."
Bill Strickland: We understand now that if you wanted to win or if you wanted to help someone win or if
you wanted to make a good living, you had to dope in that era. We understand that now. And I think
people would give him that context, but it's the lie.
Betsy Andreu: The doping is bad, but Lance's abuse of power is worse.
3. Lance: I see the anger in people. And they have every right to feel betrayed. And it's my fault.
Maker: Yet after all the revelations, Lance would continue to hold onto one thing.
Oprah: Was Betsy telling the truth about the Indiana hospital?
Lance: I'm not gonna take that on I'm laying down on that one.
Oprah: Was Betsy lying? I'm just not...
Betsy Andreu: The hospital room is where it all began. It all started at that damn hospital room. And he
just...
Frankie Andreu: He was there. I know the truth. He knows the truth. If it's complicated for him to say that
it happened, then fine. I understand that. But at this point...
Bill Strickland: It doesn't really matter what happened in that hospital room. Doesn't matter at all anymore.
But its symbolic weight is enormous.
Frankie Andreu: It's not about doping anymore. That's out there. That's the least of his problems. He has a
support group that's around him that have protected him for years and years and years. And now, if he
comes out, he throws a lot of them under the bus.
Betsy Andreu: He's not ready. I don't think he's ready for the entire truth.
Bill Strickland He just can't stand to lose. He'll go to any length if he decides he's not gonna lose. I think
60
the stakes are enormous for him really coming to terms with what he did.
Oprah: Did you feel in any way that you were cheating?
Lance: No.
Oprah: You did not feel that you were cheating?
Lance: At the time, no.
Daniel Coyle: Psychologically, when you tell that lie for that long over and over and over and people are
believing it, it's very, very difficult, if not impossible, to fully reckon with that right away.
Lance (to Oprah): I kept hearing, you know, I'm a...
Oprah: That you're a cheat. I'm a drug cheat.
Lance: I'm a cheat. I'm a cheater. And I went and looked up the definition of "cheat." Yes? And the
definition of cheat is "to gain an advantage on a rival or foe." You know, that they don't have, or that, you
know... I didn't view it that way.
Maker: Another definition for cheat is "to deceive." That's why Lance is a cheater. He deceived his fans.
Yet it's also fair to say that they were willing to be fooled. So many people, from cancer survivors, to
reporters, to sponsors, to myself loved the beautiful lie more than the ugly truth. The story was a bestseller
for Lance, too. It made him a fortune of over $125 million. That is a bitter truth. It pays to believe in
winning at all costs. And the cruelty Lance showed his enemies off the bike was the very thing that
allowed him to win on the bike.
Lance (after the Oprah interview): People will forgive and forget and move on, or they won't. And there
will be plenty of the latter. You know, at some point people will say, "Okay, here's what happened." And
then judge for themselves. I mean, I don't know what people will think in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Is the record
book still gonna be blank for seven years? I guess it will be. I don't know. Or do people go... They look at
this thing, in the context that it is and say, "Well, yeah. "He won the Tour de France seven times."
Text in picture: In 2013, the US department of justice joined Floyd Landis in suing Lance Armstrong for
defrauding the US Postal Service. Armstrong faces damages of over $100 Million. For his lifetime,
Armstrong has been banned from competing any sport governed by the World Anti Doping Agency.
61
Appendix 2 – Documentary participants
George Hincapie
Jonathan Vaughters:
David Walsh:
Daniel Coyle:
Reed Albergotti:
Hein Verbruggen:
Phil Liggett
Frankie Andreu:
Dr. Michelle Ferrari
62
Betsy Andreu:
Steve Madden:
Johan Bruyneel:
Floyd Landis:
Alberto Contador:
Bill Strickland:
Emile Vrijman:
Tyler Hammilton:
Travis Tygart: 01.53.23
63