Armstrong confession represents new beginning for local attorney

January 16, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Though he’s about as close to the Lance Armstrong situation as anyone outside the cyclist’s inner circles, Indianapolis attorney Bill Bock has no idea what the disgraced athlete will say during his interview airing Thursday and Friday on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Bock, a partner at Kroger Gardis & Regas and the lead counsel for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, isn’t sure why Armstrong chose to speak on Winfrey’s show, and he doesn’t know why Armstrong is coming forward now.

Is Armstrong merely trying to repair his image? Does he hope to get his lifetime ban from nearly all organized competition in Olympic sports reduced? Did Armstrong grow a conscience? Is he afraid of what he will someday have to tell his five children?

Right now, Bock is with the rest of us in the dark.

And while he’s not about to speculate about Armstrong’s motives, he did offer this: “He’s a human being.”

Many times over in the last year, while investigating performance-enhancing drugs in professional cycling, Bock and USADA CEO Travis Tygart have implored Armstrong “to get on the right side of the truth.”

It appears now, at least to some degree, Armstrong has heeded.

While many questions remain unanswered, Bock knows this: The war on performance-enhancing drugs is a long way from over. In fact, in some ways, it’s just beginning.

Bock said he could “neither confirm nor deny” that Armstrong has come to USADA officials offering to give them information on others involved in doping in cycling. He did confirm on Tuesday that Armstrong had met with USADA officials in person in December, adding that the meeting "was civil on both sides."

Clearly, Bock hopes the disgraced cyclist will draw back the curtain on the doping underworld. If Armstrong has any hope of returning to cycling, running or triathlon events, he will.

Bock was disappointed Armstrong chose Oprah’s show as a platform to come clean, noting that the talk show host has often provided a forum where “soft confessions” are accepted and “hard questions” are not asked.

Bock hopes Armstrong tells the whole story.

“I hope he doesn’t make a limited, unspecified confession, but rather a full acceptance of the responsibility of his part in this,” Bock said.

Bock believes Armstrong’s Oprah appearance opens “a window of opportunity” to rid cycling of its pervasive problem with performance-enhancing drugs.

“I’m hopeful at some point that [Armstrong] makes a full disclosure to USADA about what he did and who he did it with to help clean up the sport,” Bock said.

It’s clear that if Armstrong wants his lifetime ban from organized sports reduced, he’s going to have to help USADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency with information that will lead them to other offenders. Bock pointed out that the stipulation for getting Armstrong’s sentence reduced would require “substantial assistance,” adding that even if the former cyclist did so, he’d likely still be facing an eight-year ban.

There will also have to be some “reconciliation to undo some of the wrongs to people hurt” by Armstrong, Bock said.

Any sentence reduction would have to be approved by USADA, WADA and cycling’s international governing body.

But it’s clear that this battle Bock and Tygart have fought goes beyond Armstrong. Bock bristles at the 1998-2010 time frame being called the “Lance Armstrong era.”

“We need to move beyond Lance Armstrong and the U.S. Postal and Discovery [Channel] team and better understand doping in the entire European pro peloton and why it was allowed to occur,” Bock said.

Bock appears ready to turn the page to a new chapter of this saga. He’s poised to walk through the next door—no matter how ugly the landscape is on the other side.

More than a few have whispered that cycling’s caretakers—not only the international governing body but USA Cycling—could have known about or even facilitated doping within the sport.

Bock and USADA are just now starting to work with other countries' anti-doping agencies and trying to ferret out some of the longtime doping facilitators still within the sport.

“I don’t think the sport truly cleans itself up unless it comes to grips with the degree of doping that has occurred in the past,” Bock said. “This is just the first step.”

The criticism Bock and Tygart have received for going after past transgressions instead of current dopers has mostly died down now. But not so long ago, those cries were at a deafening pitch.

Bock seemed to realize from the outset of this months-long investigation that the sport could only go forward by first looking back.

To read about how Bock originally became involved with the Armstrong case, click here. To read about Bock's motivation in pursuing Armstrong, click here.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Finally
    The greatest american cyclist Greg LeMond, was ostracized and financially damaged by lance Armstrong during his fight to keep cheating. Armstrong ruined many people during his legal fights, and went out of his way to agressively damage people who publicly questioned him. Then, when it was obvious to all that he was doping, he and his cohorts started the meme that "everyone was doing it", thereby sullying the accomplishments of non doping riders. Count me among those who won't be happy until he and his enablers make whole all the people he has damaged.
  • Thanks for the truth Bill
    I agree with Luther, LeMond was portrayed as jealous of Lance's accomplishments...people are going to be coming for Lance now, and he has at least some of that coming, karma can be tought to take sometimes...as Mr. Bock said, he had opportunities to come clean about this and chose not to. His denials and the mantra about he had "taken hundreds of tests and never failed one" now just adds up to a whole lot of hypocrisy...and that makes it worse than if he just "cheated". Nice article about the search for the truth, and the truth includes that Lance did cheat, and it was not a "witch hunt"...nice article Anthony!

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT