Lance Armstrong: The cheat and the questions we ask

In January 2013, live on TV, Lance Armstrong; cyclists' greatest became sports most unwanted athlete after admitting to one of the worlds biggest doping scandals. The anger, the upset, the backlash and the media turmoil that followed showed how one man could effect the thoughts, opinions and actions of others. There is no doubt that to hundreds and thousands of people, Armstrong was a role model - not just for what appeared to be his athletic greatness on a bike but his unbelievable recovery from cancer. It is this mix of hope and strength, yet poison and weakness that makes the story and this man so hard to understand. 

Armstrong was classified as winning the Tour de France a record-breaking 7 consecutive times; that was until, after years of speculation and tracking by officials, the US Anti-Doping Agency disqualified him for doping offences leading to a lifetime ban from cycling in 2012. Armstrong, rightly so, was additionally stripped of his race wins. It was decided by the cycling committee that these would not be redistributed to the worthy winner, which in itself, further strips those who performed and competed cleanly in those years of not just a medal, but of a lifetime goal. 

Cycling, in particular the Tour de France has never been short of drug and doping problems. It was this 'common factor' that Armstrong regularly referred to after admitting to his offence as a justification to his actions. Yet some athletes managed it, some managed to perform with their own body, through their own training and with no input from banned substances, so why couldn't he? 

Information about the fact it was not the actions of one man but more a whole team of people under Armstrong's control came out in the media following the revelations. For me, it showed how powerful, clever and manipulative Armstrong had been, but also that there were trained and professional people out there willing to put substances in athletes bodies, break rules and the sportsmanship of sport. Cycling along with other sports across the world have inputted strict and lengthily processes to stop the likes of Armstrong from ruining the race, games and competitive events for everyone else. Yet there is more to it than banning an athlete from their sport. The negative effects these media figures have is hard to quantify - their audiences often span generations, and so, does it teach those who aren't where they want to be in their career through training and hard work that there are other illegal options? Do scandals such as these take away from what sport should really be about?

There will always be conflicting views for both genders, of all ages in every sport for what the main purpose should be about. Is it competition, training and taking-part, or should it be win at all costs? The journey most professional athletes has to take is often filled with periods of triumph, defeat, injury and often questions; those of themselves, coaches and the media. There are often funding issues and sponsorship deals that come alongside competing. So was it these factors that spurred Armstrong on, was it his first tastes of victory that meant he wanted more, or was it his controlling personality that ultimately meant he couldn't stop until he had reached the top? 

If you have seen his interview with Oprah Winfrey where he admits to his lie, I think you will agree there was little compassion and regret in his voice. Two years later, 26th January 2015, Armstrong was interviewed again: "I'd change the man, not the decision to cheat". Take of this what you will. 

And so the question remains; will sport ever be drug free? 

Or is it more the questions that really come with this one: Are the punishments strong enough to deter those who think about cheating or re-offending following their bans? Is there enough evidence to show the physiological and psychological side-effects to an athlete from using drugs and doping in sport? Is there a rigorous enough process to cause athletes to worry about being caught and reconsider their actions? Finally, will there continue to be athletes who choose to live a sporting career on deceit and lies? I would personally answer ''No' to just one of these questions, why...because there is always someone out there who has to be the best. 

My final thought on Armstrong:

He Lived-Strong, Competed-Well, but Lied-Best. 

Bolt: The fastest man that's ever lived

Not many sportsmen or women can be recognised with the use of just their first or last name, but Usain Bolt is for one reason alone: he is the fastest man that has ever lived.

Although Bolt had previously been World Junior Champion, for many, the tall figure of this athlete stretching away from the rest of the 100 metre field in the Beijing 2008 Olympics was the first sight of his greatness. Bolt broke the world record clocking a time of 9.69 seconds. Yet what made this victory even more impressive was the fact he started to celebrate 10 metres before the finish line. Although Bolt was reported by some as being arrogant and disrespectful towards his fellow competitors, in my opinion he shocked himself at how far ahead he was, a lead like this was unthinkable for an Olympic 100m final. Things only got better for Bolt with the 200m to follow, which was his main event. He won the 200m final in similar record breaking style, making himself double Olympic Gold Champion, alongside making both a name and a pose for himself.

Following the Beijing Olympics, Bolt became the face of not only athletics, but adverts from sportswear to food products and broadband. As the fascination with his speed grew, so did the focus on this new sports personality. As with many stars, Bolt merchandise began to be produced and his name traveled to every town and city around the world. Questions into the reason for his speed, his training and whether he could run any faster began to capture sport scientists and the media.

Unlike many other top sprinters, Bolt standing at 6ft 5 inches is taller than the average sprinter, meaning his starting speed was often slower than the rest of the field. So is it his stride length? The fact he can maintain his maximum speed whilst others start to slow towards the end of the race? Or was it in fact that he ate a box of chicken nuggets the night before the final that propelled him to the gold? This may have been a frustrating for the hundreds of athletes that follow rigorous diets, but for the public, it added to his charm.

A year later and the World Championships in Berlin were upon us. As Bolt stood on the start line, he nodded to the camera as if to say 'you're about to see something special', which was, an understatement. 9.58 seconds. Unbelievable. What could make this even more extraordinary was his time of 19.19 seconds for the 200m. And with the surname Bolt, the puns were hitting every newspaper... lightning can strike twice. He had proved he wasn't a one trick pony and that he was to stay in this sport and inspire children and athletes around the world. Now Bolt could call himself a legend, surely?

Bolt continued to add to his medal tally and by London 2012 remained the favourite to win the Olympic triple; 100m, 200m and 4x100m relay. Yet leading up to the Olympics, the gap between Bolt and his competitors was narrowing. Bolt had admitted himself that he doesn't train as hard as the others in the Jamacian camp but that he had focused on his start, the 'weakest' part of his race. At London 2012, Bolt ran the second fastest time ever run over 100m (just behind his own world record) and became one of few athletes to successfully defend both their 100m and 200m Olympic golds. Yet it wasn't until this year, following his double win at the Moscow World Championships that admitted this legendary status, and rightly so.

So the question remains, can Usain Bolt be beaten? Can the fastest man in the world go any faster? Usain Bolt, the fastest man that's ever lived, the athlete, the showman. When will he be stopped, or when will he decide to stop?

Heading back to the Olympic Stadium: One Year On

By chance more than anything, I had recently started following The National Lottery on Twitter. I have been buying lottery tickets for years, not quite realising that, along with millions of others, we were helping the athletes we watch and cheer for on their path to greatness. Many of the athletes at the Olympics and Paralympics thanked the players of the Lottery for their contribution, however small and insignificant it may have been on their journey. As a 'thank you' some of these Lottery funded athletes agreed to take part in the National Lottery Anniversary Run, which was to be held in the newly named Queen Elizabeth Park. This was one event I was not going to miss out on!

The website to apply for tickets opened at 9 am. The website crashed not long after. However, there had been just enough time for my sisters and I to enter, and I was parading around the house as if I myself had just won Olympic gold. Soon after 10,000 people had their places in this momentous run, news of Chris Hoy starting the race was released, along with Paula Radcliffe and Victoria Pendleton who would be running it. I was now feeling like a double Olympic champion. The athletes I had watched, cheered for, cried at one year before, would not only have previously been where I was to soon be running, but they were actually going to be there with me.

The words Inspire and Legacy were at the forefront of the London 2012 Olympics. The aim, not only to show the world what matters to Britain but to increase participation and the country's interest in sport as a whole. This Anniversary Run was one of many events to be held in the wake of the games to bring the Olympic stadium and park to life again. The event itself was as amazing as I had hoped, crossing that finish line to then spot the first female Olympian Boxer Nicola Adams felt very surreal. Where hundreds of world class athletes had made themselves, there I was crossing the same line, with not quite as much style (or speed). Yet as it says on the back of my medal, 'I followed in the footsteps of legends' - something I will never forget. A part of London 2012 I can say I was involved in. 

The real question one year on is: Did the Olympics inspire a generation? For me, the fact that previously unknown London 2012 athletes were now household names showed how powerful they had actually been. The fact that paralympians were being recognised for their ability, rather than their disability was one of the best things to come from the games. London 2012 showed the power of sport in bringing people together, showing the world how the dedication and talent of athletes can lead to greatness. Proud to be British? Within minutes of the final firework at the Opening Ceremony, those 4 words were trending on Twitter and continued to be said for the following 2 weeks. In the words of Lord Coe, these Olympics were "Made in Britain", something we should be proud of. Whatever public opinion may be, one year on we all have the memories of London 2012 and the pictures of the stars that made that summer. 

Andy Murray – miserable or misunderstood?

It’s the time of year again when you feel it is both reasonable and necessary to spend 2 weeks watching the TV –Wimbledon is back. The luscious green lawns, the all familiar purple and green surroundings and of course the strawberries, Pimms and cream. Or, if you’re not that optimistic about Wimbledon… a sea of umbrellas on Henman Hill and another year of disappointment for the British.  

Yet in recent years it’s felt like all of this could change,

and I’m not talking about the roof over centre court. Andy Murray, the Scot (so he tells us). Miserable or Misunderstood? We all have our own opinions and as with many sport stars, the media has fuelled many of these opinions.

Is it his open mouth and aggressive face or his monotone post-match interview that has made him, some might say one of the least popular sports stars? Was it his comment about ‘supporting any team that was playing England in the World Cup’ that caused eyebrows to raise and his support to fall? Or is it in fact the media, focussing on his every miss-spoken word and printing photos of him when he has just lost a vital point, or is trailing in an important match?

The recent BBC documentary ‘The Man Behind the Racket’ gave a much needed insight to the man who we believe we know. For once it felt like the media were giving both sides to the story as opposed to one. Just like the summer of 2012, where Murray lost to Federer in a 5 set Wimbledon final, his tears at describing the Dunblane disaster showed how, underneath his steely exterior is an emotional and compassionate human being. What touched me most about this documentary was his friend Ross Hutchins describing how, when Murray found out Ross had Hodgkin's lymphoma, he researched into causes, treatment and emphasised to Ross the other athletes that had both suffered from this disease, but also recovered from it. Surely this isn’t something a supposed arrogant, selfless Andy Murray would do?

In my opinion, Murray is focussed and he knows the public’s and his own expectations. This can, and has come across at times, as aggressive and arrogant, but no one can take away from him that he is one of Britain’s most successful tennis players. After all, if Murray were to win Wimbledon, whether he call himself a Scot or a Brit, I feel the general public would embrace his achievement and perhaps misjudged opinions would change.

Andy Murray plays for a place in Wimbledon’s 2013 final tomorrow. So, which side of him will be shown in the media? And more importantly, which side will you see?