David Walsh - Chief Sports Writer, Sunday Times, UK HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur. It's the job of the

journalist to speak truth to power but it can be a lonely place,

defying conventional wisdom and the powers that be forced up my guest

today has known that loneliness. Irish journalist David Walsh was

convinced that cycling's untouchable champion Lance Armstrong was a drugs

cheat long before the sport revealed the scale of his deceit. Armstrong

is now history of course but doping continues to devalue elite sport.

Maybe it's a problem that no amount of truth telling journalism can fix.

David Walsh, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Wonder if you could cast

your mind back to starting as a young journalist in Ireland, working

on sports. You regularly described yourself as a sickly Afghan with a

typewriter. The still regard yourself as a fan? -- as a fan. In a

general sense, no. I think a journalist has to leave out behind.

I think the predominant reason why people want to be sports were --

sports writers is because they love sport. In my case, I knew from a

very early stage wanted to be a sportswriter and it's because I

liked writing essays when I was in English class as a kid and I loved

sport and I put the two together and it equalled sport presenter --

reporter. We must talk about Lance Armstrong and your pursuit, and I

think that's the right word, used it as the subtitle of your book, Hume

and the seven deadly sins. He talked about your pursuit. -- him. Why did

you turn it into a crusade, omission, you against him? Well,

that is how it turned out. I don't know if I consciously decided, I'm

going to dedicate all this time to pursuing one guy. I mean, the sport

was dirty at the time. Lance was one of many riders who joked that they

all didn't, there were plenty of guys who were clean and they got

completely betrayed by their sport. The reason why Lance became such an

important figure is because he was an emblem on what we were told was

to change sport. He was this fantastically feelgood story. The

guy that came back from cancer. Young, he almost died from

testicular cancer. Then in 1999, he rode again in 1999, he went into

seven victories. It was perhaps the most heroic victory in sport that

anybody of my generation can ever remember. Yes. And you, more than

anyone else, burst that bubble. Greg LeMond, an American man who had won

seven times, said to me at the very early stage of this investigation I

was conducting into Armstrong, he said that if this comeback from

cancer is true, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sport and

it is not true, it's the greatest fraud. As a journalist, you are

thinking that if this is the greatest fraud and you believe it is

so, you have an absolute responsibility to go after it and

reveal it to be so. You came up against an extremely powerful set of

interests who did not want that story, your story, to be written. I

don't just talk about Lance Armstrong and his entourage but am

also thinking about the authorities in the sport because Lance Armstrong

brought to cycling a sort of profile, standing in the world of

sport which they couldn't find anywhere else so to trash his

reputation was too trashed the sport as a whole. Yes, it was. It was too

trashed at global icon as well. This is a guy he went on mountain bike

rides with President George W Bush. This is a guy who was best friends

with Matthew McConaghy, the Hollywood actor. This is a man who

went way beyond his sport. People around the world looked up to him as

some kind of saviour. He had come back from cancer, life-threatening

cancer, and people, every single person, no matter where you live,

you knew somebody with cancer, family, a relative, you are going

out and you are buying Lance's book and saying, with this and find

inspiration. Howl apprehensive for you about, and let's use this word

again, pursuit. The lawyers representing Armstrong were

consistently on your case and the case of your newspaper, the Sunday

Times. That went for about three years, 2004, 2005, 2006. They were

dominated by meetings with lawyers and discussing the case. A case that

we were always going to lose because of the UK's Draconian libel laws. He

could never sue us in America, he could never sue us in France is in

those countries, the burden of truth would have been on Armstrong to

prove that I was lying and I was never lying. But in this country, we

had to prove that Armstrong was doping and that was close to

impossible. You got other cyclists to talk and we now know that as you

said, the systematic doping was rife in many different teams, many top

cyclist were doing it. How did you break down the sort of Wall of

silence, that there was at the top of elite cycling? Because I tried

and when you try to... I believed it was the right thing. I exposed one

key bit of information that Armstrong worked with a doping

doctor. A simple question, why would a so-called clean rider work with a

doping doctor? Armstrong believed he was in a honest man and people

accepted that. The doctor was due to stand trial two months after

Armstrong was convicted of doping. When people see you trying to do the

right thing, you come forward -- they come forward. I had Lance's

long-time teammate, I had Emma O'Reilly who had been a personal

masseuse to Lance when he won his first Tour de France. They came to

me and told their story. A man from New Zealand who rode with him. He

said that Lance was the biggest advocate of doping in his team.

Three witnesses with evidence of Lance's doping. I put it all in a

book and I thought that was it that Armstrong was too powerful, even

with all the evidence in the world, you couldn't bring him down. And it

wasn't until five years ago that actually, the US cycling

authorities, and then it moved on to the world doping authorities, but

they finally revealed the truth of the scale of the doping that

Armstrong had been involved in and in the end he was banned from

cycling. In fact, banned from all professional sport. He is finished

and now he is way beyond the age where he could be a cyclist that if

you were to meet Lance Armstrong today, what would you say to him? --

but if you were to meet. It's a question I have often considered. I

think I would want the conversation to be incredibly private. I wouldn't

want it to be in any way used by Lancelot anyone else for a kind of

PR purpose. -- Lance, or anyone else. The people who have never been

revealed as can Spirit River in what was ... The relationship between you

and him and goodness knows, it is even a Hollywood movie, the

relationship between you and him is fascinating. When did you actually

last see him and swap words with him? The 2004 Tour de France at a

press conference at the book had just come out. I am sitting in the

front row. He asked about the book and looks down at me and says,

"Seeing as the esteemed author was here, I will answer him". These

extraordinary allegations must be followed with extraordinary proof.

The answer is why should it be extraordinary proof from Lance

Armstrong? He was right. Ordinary proof didn't touch him. In the end,

the United States anti- doping agency got 11 witnesses. They all

had first-hand accounts of Lance's doping. In a sense, it made your

career in a journalist, long to have that piece that made Hollywood

movies and you have that. You found your life consumed by this and at

one point, your daughter made a comment when she saw he won the B

about Lance and she said, I'm watching you on TV while the rest of

the family are having dinner, same old, same old. -- she saw you on a

TV. Was it worth it? I never saw it as a sacrifice. This was the most

fun I was ever going to have as a journalist. People are always

astounded. You were sued? He cost your newspaper million. And your

family? And I said actually, it wasn't horrible. I had a good time.

I never felt more journalistically alive as I was during those years. I

know it is a preposterous kind of comparison because what happened

with Bob Woodward and Watergate was violently bigger than Armstrong but

if you look at that movie, all the President's men, what she sees to

journalists on the case, having the time of their lives, knowing they

will be another story like this. On a much smaller scale, had that

feeling with Armstrong. I can see the excitement shining in your eyes

Right now. It forces me then to move the clock forward and talk about how

you have conducted some of your journalism in more recent years. You

haven't left sport and certainly you haven't left a cycling. You are

still a very influential cycling journalist. Why, having learnt the

lessons learned from the Armstrong case, did you decide in more recent

years to vouch for, in a really significant way, the honesty, the

credibility, of the dominant cycling team of recent years Team Sky when

other journalists are saying that you can't be sure they are cleaned

when the industry is still full of drugs. Why did you do that? I had

the opportunity to spend 13 weeks with Team Sky. Almost like a

military journalists go with the soldiers in the war. You ate with

them and you stayed with them but they were using them as a tool

because they wanted to convince people they were the new clean team.

I think it is right that they used to be that I believe that I think

about 70 or 80 people are working in the team. I believe if you took four

people out of that team and one of them is already gone that you would

have very clean team. I was to go into that team and there is no

question I was duped. Duped? Duped. He was knighted. If he had told me

at the time he invited me into the team, by the way, we gave a

therapeutic exemption to Bradley before the 2011 Tour de France. We

will have two hold up a little bit and explains of this for our

audience because it is quite consecrated to the therapeutic

exemption is important in the world of cyclist because substance is who

are banned for riders can be given as long as there is proof for a

medical need and now we are talking about Bradley Wiggins who won the

Tour de France in 2012 but it turns out and we didn't know at the time

and you didn't know when you are embedded with Team Sky, but it turns

out that in three of his most significant lifetime races, just

before those races, he got those therapeutic exemptions and he took a

drug which could, in theory, have significantly enhanced his

performance. Yes. The thing about it is you can say oh, you were duped,

you weren't told that he actually duped lots of people inside his own

team. Chris Broome who finished second -- Christopher. He had no

idea that Bradley Wigan 's was given these.

Because he got the exemption, it was not illegal or contrary to the

sport. I think it is more correct to say it may not have been illegal. If

you get an exemption by exaggerating your symptoms, that is not legal. We

do not know that. It may be that Bradley Wiggins was entitled. Would

it have been different if a Bradley Wiggins and the team had been

transparent at the time? He took it before the race because I had a

problem. Of course, that would have been much better but they would have

drawn criticism. People would say, why did he needed four days before

the race? They did not tell Chris Froome on any of the other riders,

they did not tell some of the doctors. We touched this earlier in

the conversation, the degree to which you as a journalist have the

right without it the most powerful evidence to trash the careers of

elite sports people. In the last six months, and very consciously trashed

Bradley Wiggins. You said you do not want to hear any more about the Tour

de France victory because it has been devalued, that as far as you

are concerned his reputation has been lost and yet, I come back to

the point, the man has done nothing wrong in terms of the rule of his

sport. In terms of the rule of the sport, he certainly has not in

sanction. I do not accept the point that it is not absolute that it not

commit a doping in fraction. There is an investigation about a

mysterious package that was delivered to him in 2011. Sky have

failed to say what was in that package. That could have been

something it was not legal. If not why didn't they tell us what was in

the package. It took them so long. The point is, you can say I trashing

him but Team Sky leading writer, three-time win of the Tour de France

has said that in his view what happened with Bradley Wiggins was

unethical and immoral. You are talking about Chris Froome. In a

way, this ethical and moral area is your decision to be so harsh on what

we know about Bradley Wiggins but still to maintain that as far as you

can on and your personal knowledge of the man that Chris Froome in your

view is a man you will always vouch for. You completely believe in his

credibility and you will not countenance any question of the

legitimacy of his race victories. Everybody has the right to question.

That is what I do for a living... But you co-authored his book, Hugh

have shaken hands with the man, you have said to him I believe in you.

What would you like me to do? Would you like me to say I believe in

Chris Froome but it would be prudent to sit on the fence? That is not my

nature. It is exactly what some of the most experienced people in the

business said you should have done. One said you have been naive. Why

did you not stay neutral? Why SA and out for the fact he is clean when at

some future point you may look stupid it turns out that he was not.

I do not see my reputation as being that relevant. If I believe somebody

is clean I am going to lie and sit on the fans. You look to that person

to say it. If I did not leave he was clean I would say the opposite top

for me the idea of sitting off the fence is totally... I understand

what you are saying but to pick away at Chris Froome stop he is the same

clause during a race. He got an exemption to take a drug on the land

leased only say it was fundamentally different from Bradley Wiggins and

you are partly convinced by the Chris Froome because you had a very

private one-on-one talk with him when he explained lots of things.

What did he say to you that convinced you so much of his

integrity? It was not just that but that was a moment and by the way, I

have never gone... Let me put that conversation first into the complex.

I in a hotel booking up the fire escape and he is coming down. It is

one of those staircases where nobody is going to come and he said to me,

I want to tell you one thing, I am telling you now that as long as I

live what I have achieved in this race, the perception of it, will

never be changed by anything that comes out. Lance Armstrong would

have looked you in the eye and said exactly the same thing. He did not.

I met Lance and spoke to him and I said to him, what about doping, this

sport has got so much bad press and he your winning the first Tour de

France, and he said, I will address this question once and once only and

I was saying, you have to fall in love with cycling again. He never

actually said, I will never do, he said I have tested positive and

passed all the controls. If you are covering the sport and you see lots

of this stuff you actually know how to read what people are saying and

saying I have passed all the tests is not the same as saying I do not

dope. I want to broaden the conversation because cycling has

been one of your key focus is but you are also look at wider sport and

drugs and professional athletes, how can it be that after decades of

focus on stamping out the illegal substances in sport, performance

enhancing drugs, that he had to date we probably can say there is more

systematic use of performance enhancing drugs in athletics, sites

links and other sports than ever before. I do not think you can say

that. Look at what we learnt about the Russians? Systematic doping in

Russia, the Russian systematic doping has been going on for at

least 40 years according to the report... You worked in the recent

past with the former Russian anti- doping executive who blew the

whistle plus his partner who did dope for a while, you have worked

with them and they have told you that it was on an industrial scale?

But going back for decades. In the very recent past, industrial scale.

The world anti- doping agency, the rate double a F, -- IAAF, have spent

years telling us they act cleaning it out. The reason why Russia were

able to get away with it was that it was state supported. If you have the

Ministry of Sport, the antique doping agency all conspiring to

cheat, that gives the advantages... Men who claimed to be on the side of

the good guys like Sebastian Coe, and indeed the world anti- doping

agency, you are saying they do not have the will capacity to take on

state programmes devoted to doping? Yes... And they definitely did not

have the resources... Do they have the will? I not sure. If they were

better resourced that would have eager staff they probably would have

better people and better protocols but the format director-general

David Holman once said, our annual budget is less than an annual wage.

The entire agency budget for one year is less than one footballer,

not even the highest, then his annual wages. That is what we think

of doping. In other words, we are not concerned enough about doping to

make a real impact. We are almost at the end, I want to start at the

beginning again, about being a fan. One person said when I watch cycling

I simply cannot bear to watch it any more, I cannot take it seriously,

you certainly cannot be a fan. How can you still be a fan knowing what

you know? That is my definition of cynicism. He called on realism. He

can and I call that cynicism stop what happens if somebody who is

clean wins the Tour de France and you brand him a cheap without having

any evidence, knowledge or inside or anything - that to me is that

cynicism stop I would fight against cynicism as I would against people

who dope. David Walsh, fascinating stuff, thank you for being on

HARDtalk. Thank