Seven Deadly Sins: My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong (35 page)

Tillotson: Did you discuss with him the statements attributed to you in the Indiana University Hospital room?

As well as calling up Frankie Andreu before he testified, Lance had also been speaking to Stephanie McIlvain.

Tillotson: Did you speak with Stephanie McIlvain before her deposition?

Armstrong: Yes.

Tillotson: When did you talk to her?

Armstrong: I don’t recall. She called me about her neighbour.

Tillotson: Was this a neighbour that needed some help, or was this the neighbour that has cancer?

Armstrong: Correct.

Tillotson: Okay. What did you talk with her about, other than the personal things related to her neighbour?

Armstrong: That’s it.

Tillotson: Did you talk about her upcoming deposition?

Armstrong: No.

Tillotson: Did you talk about any of the testimony from Kathy LeMond, Greg LeMond or the Andreus?

Armstrong: No.

Greg LeMond had testified that he had received a series of calls from Armstrong associates. He said John Burke, president of Trek bikes, where both cyclists had contracts, told him that he was being pressured by Armstrong’s associates to get LeMond to retract his words about Ferrari: ‘For me, it was Lance was trying to extort me, trying to threaten me.’

As for Kathy LeMond, she had broken down during her deposition. ‘Public opinion is very pro-Lance Armstrong, and we take a lot of flak if we say anything negative about him, and it’s difficult for our kids.’

Now compared to so many other details in his testimony, where Lance’s memory was poor to the point of being treacherous, about this one thing he was pinpoint sharp. Little wonder Kathy had broken down. Lance had news for her about her husband. Armstrong clearly recollected the call he put into Greg after I broke the Ferrari story. Poor Greg. He has big problems apparently.

Armstrong: So I called him up and said, ‘What’s up with that?’

Tillotson: What did he respond, as you recall?

Armstrong: I’ve heard his recollection of the conversation, which is completely opposite from my recollection, because Greg, who I know has serious drinking and drug problems, is – was – clearly intoxicated: yelling, screaming. I had to practically keep the phone about a foot away. I then knew I was dealing with a wild man, and just— just tried to get through the conversation.

Tillotson: Okay.

Armstrong: But it was an assault on the other end, which is obviously opposite of what we’ve all read and seen.

Tillotson: Let me ask about that. You did call him? He didn’t call you? Is that right?

Armstrong: I called him.

Tillotson: Okay.

Armstrong: . . . at the Four Seasons in New York.

Tillotson: Okay. To—

Armstrong: His cell phone.

Tillotson: Okay. From your cell phone?

Armstrong: No. To his cell phone. I called from the LAN line.

Tillotson: Okay. To get some explanation for why is he saying these things? Is that fair to say?

Armstrong: I think more just to— because it came through Walsh. Obviously, I don’t trust much of anything that David Walsh says. So just to . . . just to clarify that it was, in fact, what he said.

Tillotson: You said that Mr LeMond has serious drinking and drug problems?

Armstrong: I mean . . . you know, I don’t go drinking with him, so I don’t know for a fact, but I think that’s pretty much common knowledge.

Tillotson: And is it your testimony you could tell that he was intoxicated on the phone when you talked to him?

Armstrong: Aggressive, agitated, angry, belligerent, like a drunk.

Tillotson: Okay. Were his words slurring, or was he irrational in some sense?

Armstrong: I think his words always pretty much slur.

Jeff Tillotson put it to Armstrong that in response to Greg LeMond he had said everyone dopes or everyone does it: ‘Oh come on, Greg, you know we all do it.’

Tillotson: Is that untrue?

Armstrong: That’s absolutely not true. Why would I call somebody to criticise them for saying I dope, and then say we all dope? That’s ridiculous.

After a brief digression pointing out how LeMond’s recollection of the conversation was entirely a drink-fuelled fantasy, Armstrong returned for another quick splash of battery acid:

Armstrong: You know, the most interesting part of that conversation, and this is going to sound incredibly juvenile, but I said, ‘Dude, I thought we were friends, you know, we’ve been good with each other.’ And he continued to scream, and say, ‘Friends, what do you mean friends? You didn’t even invite me to the Ride for the Roses this year.’ I’m like, ‘Wait a minute. Is that the issue here?’ I said, ‘Well, we didn’t invite you because last year you were drunk the whole time. You set up competing autograph sessions when we were trying to do good things for the fight against cancer.’ I said, ‘We invited you to the gala when we were going to introduce everybody that was there – Miguel Indurain, Eddy Merckx, the greatest of all time. You showed up literally sixty seconds before you were going to be introduced. Of course, we didn’t invite you back.’

All this was a fascinating glimpse inside a world which we all thought was closing as we watched. If nothing came of the SCA case, and that looked to be the likely outcome, the bottom line of the contract between the insurance company and Tailwind Sports was that SCA had to pay up if Lance was the official winner of the 2004 Tour de France. If Lance didn’t reverse his decision to retire then he would be riding off into a golden sunset, celebrated for ever as the man who had conquered cancer and France in that order, the guy who had made the world safe from little trolls.

It was odd to discern the various weights of his concerns. I thought Betsy’s evidence was compelling but that Emma offered a more detailed forensic insight into life inside the US Postal team. And I had been hugely impressed with Stephen Swart during our time together in New Zealand in 2003.

Armstrong seemed most shaken by Betsy, though. Not that this stopped him applying the boot elsewhere.

Tillotson: She [Emma O’Reilly] has identified or said either to Mr Walsh or to others that, at one point in time during a Tour de France race, you asked her to dispose of some syringes.

Armstrong: Uh-huh.

Tillotson: Are you familiar with her statement regarding that?

Armstrong: I’m familiar with that statement.

Tillotson: Is there any truth to that statement?

Armstrong: Absolutely not.

Tillotson: Would you ever use syringes during a race – I mean, for any reason legitimate?

Armstrong: You would use IVs for, like, replenishment of fluids. Just like any – like every – sport.

Tillotson: Sure. But I’ve heard, for example, some professional athletes or cyclists would do injections of vitamins, hence the need for syringes.

Armstrong: Yeah, sure. Yeah. And in Europe I think that’s much more accepted than the States. I mean, in Europe I think doctors are— the medical field would use a syringe, whereas here in the States, we would do it orally.

Tillotson: Okay.

Armstrong: There’s not the stigma around: I mean, in America, we see a syringe, you think, ‘Oh, no, is he a junkie?’ Whereas in Europe that’s fairly common.

Tillotson: So I guess my question is, first of all, you never asked her to dispose of any syringes?

Armstrong: Correct.

Tillotson: But would you ever have had syringes on you to be disposed [of] in connection with any race?

Armstrong: Me?

Tillotson: Yes.

Armstrong: No.

Stephen Swart’s story about race-fixing was put to Lance. Was there any truth to Stephen’s statements that his team was offered $50, 000 in connection with attempting to fix the outcome of some races in which Lance was involved?

Tillotson: Do you know why Mr Swart would say these things?

Armstrong: As I said earlier, I have no idea why, other than perhaps, like Emma O’Reilly, he was paid for his testimony and needed the money.

Tillotson: Do you believe that’s why Ms O’Reilly said these things about you?

Armstrong: Absolutely.

Tillotson: That she needed money?

Armstrong: I’m not her financial advisor, but I think—

Tillotson: Well, you have—

Armstrong: We now know that Walsh paid his sources. Which he denied in the beginning – now admits. I don’t think any respected journalist would find that to be kosher.

Tillotson: But other than that, do you have any other evidence to suggest that Ms O’Reilly was making up this in exchange for money, other than the fact that—

Armstrong: I—

Tillotson: . . . she received some compensation?

Armstrong: Emma or Stephen?

Tillotson: Emma. Oh, sorry . . .

Armstrong: Pissed. Pissed at me, pissed at Johan. Really pissed at Johan. Pissed at the team. Afraid that we were going to out her as a – and all these things she said – as a whore, or whatever. I don’t know. But primarily, I have to confess, I think it was a major issue with Johan . . . And it wouldn’t have been a very good book if it was J.B. Confidentiel. There would not have been a lot of sales.

There was other stuff, of course. All fascinating. Hein Verbruggen of the UCI had furnished a letter telling us about all the drug tests which Lance had passed and how great the laboratories were. On occasion the unfortunate timelines of events threatened to ambush even Armstrong.

Dr Craig Nichols, one of the doctors who had supervised Armstrong’s care and who was now chief of haematology–oncology at Oregon Health & Science University, said in a sworn affidavit that he had ‘no recollection’ of any statement by Armstrong while in treatment confessing to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He added, ‘Lance Armstrong never admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs.’

Betsy and Frankie Andreu’s depositions were taken on 25 October 2005 in Michigan. On 27 October, Indiana University announced that the Lance Armstrong Foundation had funded a $1.5 million endowed chair in oncology. Craig Nichols’ affidavit was signed on 8 December.

Naturally, Lance Armstrong didn’t like the implication when these dates were pointed out: ‘It was a million and a half dollars, and I understand that’s a lot of money. But to suggest that I funded that chair to get an affidavit or to get some clean medical records or some sanitised records is completely ridiculous.’

More entertaining, if you liked this sort of thing, was the issue of Lance’s two unsolicited donations to the UCI, the governing body of world cycling. He had thrown $25,000 into the pot a few years previously and, according to the UCI, had recently pledged another $100,000. This seemed most generous for a man with such little respect for institutions or the blazers who run them.

Tillotson: Now, we were talking about WADA and the UCI. You have made a contribution or donation to the UCI, have you not?

Armstrong: I have, yeah.

Tillotson: Do you know when that was made?

Armstrong: Some years ago. I don’t recall exactly.

Tillotson: Well, 2000, for example?

Armstrong: I don’t know.

Tillotson: Was there anything that occasioned that, that you recall? Like, I’m doing it because of X or Y or Z?

Armstrong: I’m doing it to fund the fight against doping.

Tillotson: And what made you— what triggered that? I mean, was there any particular event?

Armstrong: The only event, or in support of that fight, just like I’ve done on other occasions.

Tillotson: Why the UCI? I mean, why give the money to UCI?

Armstrong: Because they’re our governing body.

Tillotson: Okay. How much did you give?

Armstrong: I think twenty-five thousand dollars.

Tillotson: You say you think . . .

Armstrong: Yeah, I say I think because I’m not one hundred per cent sure.

Tillotson: Would it be within a range of that, though, if you’re . . . I mean, it wouldn’t be like—

Armstrong: Well, it wouldn’t be—