The Armstrong Lie

THE ARMSTRONG LIE is a fascinating documentary. Shot over a period of four years, it purports to investigate the oft-repeated claim that cyclist Lance Armstrong was a cheat, and that every single one of his Tour de France wins were achieved by taking drugs. Alex Gibney's narrative begins as a defense of Armstrong's behavior, but as different elements of the truth emerge, so the filmmaker has to keep readjusting his position. Gibney is obviously a fan of Armstrong (as many people still are), but as the seamy details of what the cyclist did in order to win his races gradually emerge, so the filmmaker gradually understands how wrong-headed he has been give his unquestioning support. Armstrong emerges as a thoroughly unsavory character, pathologically unwilling to acknowledge the truth about himself, and always looking to manipulate the media so that he emerges in a positive light. Even his so-called 'confessional' interview with Oprah looks like a deliberate attempt to rescue his reputation. As the narrative unfolds, so Gibney gradually comes to understand the truth about his subject, and realizes to his cost that much of the film has unwittingly helped to obfuscate that truth, portraying Armstrong instead as a man more sinned against than sinning. It is only right at the end that Gibney admits the truth of Armstrong's motives, and how Armstrong himself has deliberately duped the filmmaker. As a result THE ARMSTRONG LIE is a film that is more about media manipulation than anything else, revealing just how persuasive - and dangerous - a person Armstrong actually is. There's no guarantee that he might not manage to clear his reputation in the future, despite what he has done.

This movie - and the situation it chronicles - forces us to consider

to what extent we can expect an even playing field - literally - when we watch sports. The athletes say, "Every one else was doing it."

When fans watch NASCAR races, I hope they understand that it's a team sport. The people who built the car, the people who maintain it, the guys who change the tires, the spotters and others contribute as much or more to the win as does the driver. However, when we see an individual athlete - biker, runner, skier, etc. - compete, do we see that the "best man" wins or the performer with the best doctor, the best chemist and research department and the cleverest lawyer to get around the system, as one of the interviewees in this movie suggests.

Should we accept that performance enhancements are now a part of sports, athletes and their supporters will continue to find ways to counter efforts to limit them and accept that? The destructive qualities of steroids - including their potential for violent behavior and the process Armstrong admitted using raise doubt. The drug Amstrong took and the use of blood transfusions to short-cut the body's process for communicating and responding to muscle fatigue surely must be physically destructive. However, I have long had questions about the long-term effects of professional football tackles, questions now being answered, at least in terms of head injuries. Players and fans continue to accept this.

This movie may be more interesting to people who are not cycling fans but is a good exploration of a range of observers and participants.

In 2009 Alex Gibney set out to make a documentary about Lance Armstrong's return to the racing circuit. Armstrong had won the Tour De France seven times and had beaten cancer. He was a winner in every respect until finally the allegations that had dogged him for years, that he had used performance enhancing drugs, caught up with him and on Oprah Winfrey's television show he finally admitted to cheating and Gibney's film, originally designed to celebrate Armstrong, became "The Armstrong Lie", as Gibney searched for reasons for his behaviour. Could it be that he simply had to become a winner whatever the cost? Gibney felt that Armstrong owed him since Armstrong had lied to him in 2009 when Gibney set out to celebrate Armstrong's career, so he continued with his film forcing Armstrong to confront his duplicitous past, (though even now Armstrong is holding some things back), and the result is this extraordinary film. "The Armstrong Lie" is the kind of film that pays tribute, not just to its subject, (though, perhaps, tribute isn't quite the right word in this case), but to the genre itself, (it's as exciting as any fictional thriller). Gibney already has an Oscar under his belt; in a just world he would have added another for this brilliant movie.

When everyone cheats, it becomes a different contest. The powerful friends, money (125 million plus), risk and pain tolerance, influential scientists, compelling story, performance enhancing drugs, viciousness, ambition to win at all costs, willingness to bully others, . . . Armstrong has all this and more. The documentary is a powerful and gripping indictment not just of Armstrong and cycling, but of sports and humanity in general. Armstrong's doping is bad, but his abuse of power is worse. The film shows how willing people are to be fooled, or to trample on others. Despite its two-hour length, the film held my interest throughout. There are so many parallels in a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne, wherein he writes, "There is something truer and more real, than what we can see with the eyes, and touch with the finger." So too with Armstrong, cycling, sports, and all of us. This brilliant documentary helps bring such truths to the surface.

To judge something in terms of how it's executed is all well and good but in a documentary such as this the message takes precedence. It seeks the truth and all the arguments aren't displayed for that to emerge. If it it simply allowed the viewer to make up his own mind then that would be o.k but the film displays a bias thereby becoming a vehicle and a misleading one at that.

The fact that doping was prevalent in cycling and still plays a large factor is obvious. If Armstrong was racing on a level playing field of dopers then that to me would also have been acceptable. However this was far from the case.

Non of Lance's team mates were caught doping whilst they were in his team. Meanwhile all his major competitors were absent from the start line at various points in time due to suspensions and had some key teammates missing from every tour for the same reason. Throughout all the disruptions, devastation, controversy and even a suicide Armstrong was always there with a full strength squad.

The film touches on the importance of team mates and how on all of his wins Armstrong rode alone for only minutes at a time, but fails to take the next step and look at how the various disqualifications imposed on all other teams (apart from his own during his winning years) affected his competitors. Had the film done this Armstrong would never have agreed to be in it because he's still pushing the lie that he won those seven Tours fair and square once we accept as fact that they were all doping.

The UCI had invested in him and were being invested in by a lot of the same sponsors, they allowed many cyclists to burn whilst protecting this man. The film doesn't touch on those aspects and the film maker remains a fan.

I gave the film five stars because it is well shot and well put together. I am a cycling fan and it's view of the race was a pleasure to watch. There is stock footage obviously but the film does follow Armstrong and films the 2009 race independently. The film gives an insight into what it takes to be a professional rider and rider's relationships with one another and their team officials.

Some of the people interviewed I've never seen interviewed i.e doctor Ferrari, which added another point of interest for me.

The 2009 and other pre-'outed' interviews were interesting, giving an insight into Armstrong's mentality at the time and although there is marked contrast to his post-confessional ones it's by no means a transformation and a true repentance. His approach to people seems outwardly very different now, but his attitude towards his legacy and the morality of his actions remain to all intents and purposes unchanged. The exclusions of Paul Kimmage and Greg Lemond from the documentary also indicate this.

I'd say watch the film but bear the other stuff in mind too.