The Armstrong Lie

Synopsis: In 2009, Alex Gibney made a film charting Lance Armstrong’s return to the Tour De France. It was ready to release when rumours about Armstrong’s doping resurfaced. When the truth came out, Gibney returned to Amstrong looking for answers.

By the sounds of it, professional cycling is a thoroughly crooked business. Consider this fact: across the seven years that Lance Armstrong won the Tour De France, only one of the men on the podium with him didn’t end up getting busted for doping. How that was allowed to happen is the most interesting part of this documentary, one that tells a story of collusion between sports officials and competitors to manufacture heroes and protect the reputation of a sport viewed with suspicion after a series of doping scandals.

Lance Armstrong’s fall from grace was spectacular, and, it seems partly self-inflicted. Having won seven consecutive Tours De France, running a successful cancer charity and inspiring millions despite a fairly constant undercurrent of suspicion, nobody could really understand why he’d put himself under scrutiny by competing again in 2009. By the end of this documentary I don’t know we’re any closer to understanding why he did it.  Maybe he thought he couldn’t be caught. He wouldn't be the first to be blinded by the spotlight of fame.

From Alex Gibney’s film we do understand how competitive Armstrong is, and how aggressive, combative and somewhat manipulative. We do get a good potted history of Armstrong’s life, the doping and the people behind his wins. There are interviews with people who tried to call out his lies, and we’re shown the violence of his response to them. Gibney uses the loaded word of omerta, the code of silence, and it sounds like the word is commonly used in cycling. The fact that a word more closely associated with the Mafia is in common usage in cycling tells you a good deal. The sport takes on a darker tone as you learn how ruthless the pursuit of the win can be. But then Gibney does something interesting, he uses these facts to put Armstrong’s seven wins in context. The argument is made, pretty convincingly, that while Armstrong cheated, he cheated on a level playing field of cheaters. So the proposition is put that maybe he did kind of win those medals. I admire the film for daring to make the suggestion.

I’m a bit torn on Alex Gibney these days. He’s made some amazing documentaries, but his last effort, We Steal Secrets dealing with Julian Assange, felt a bit lazy. The Armstrong Lie continues that trend I feel. It’s not that it doesn’t paint an interesting portrait, but Gibney had Armstrong in the hot-seat after he confessed to doping and he doesn’t push him hard on some of the more disturbing aspects of the affair. Armstrong ruined people who called him out, and you’d think that his vindictiveness would make for some interesting questioning. We’re told about it, but Armstrong himself isn’t really challenged over it. Possibly Gibney just couldn’t get it out of him, but it leaves you wanting more and convinced that there’s still more lies to uncover.

 

 

Want more about this film?

    

Want something different?