The New York Times is reporting that Lance Armstrong "has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career."
We'll have to wait and see what happens.
In other news, I highly recommend reading this VeloNews interview with doping historian Dr. John Hoberman.
Dr. Hoberman offers some excellent insights into the institutional
problems in anti-doping: "No one is more powerful than sports officials
in positions of
responsibility who decide to keep their foot on the brake and do as
little as they can get away with to catch dopers. This quiet sabotaging
of anti-doping efforts was an unofficial, but very effective, policy
during the IOC presidency of Juan Antonio Samaranch (1980-2001)."
Further, Hoberman notes "For what all the little emperors — Samaranch, Nebiolo, Blatter, and
others — have understood is that doping can be managed as a
public-relations problem. Going through the motions of drug testing can
I also recommend a piece by Frank Rich on fallen "heroes" (e.g., Lance Armstrong) for New York Magazine, which includes commentary on the role of the media: "There are various motives for press complicity
in some of these ill-fated heroic narratives, starting with hunger for
access to newsmakers [...] Some of us just can’t resist a great story, so much
so that we forget to ask the Journalism 101 question of whether it might
be too good to be true."