"As a person, as a teammate, he was the best there is" - Former teammate states he never knew of Lance Armstrong's doping scheme
Cycling
José Azevedo has been involved in cycling for many years, some of them spent as the right-hand man of one of the most controversial cyclists of all time: Lance Armstrong. In a recent interview he has discussed the doping topic within the US Postal team.
Lance Armstrong admitted to being part of a doping network of which he was the main beneficiary, lost all his Tour de France titles and descended from heaven to hell in no time. With his descent into hell he dragged the whole sport down with him, discrediting it, driving away sponsors and was one of the main culprits in the destruction of cycling in his own country.
Even today there are those who argue that "back then everyone doped and yet he was the best", something that was considered a general rule, a habit and a common practice in the professional peloton.
José Azevedo doesn't see it that way and explains: "I don't know. But it doesn't worry me. I'm proud of my career as a cyclist. I'm proud to have ridden for ONCE, led by Manolo Sainz, who also had problems. And to have raced for US Postal and Discovery, to be Armstrong's teammate, to have Johan Bruyneel as my sports director. These are people from whom I learned a lot about cycling. In terms of structural organization, programming, planning, behaviour with the riders, even the psychological part," he says in a conversation with O Jogo.
Azevedo was part of teams that have a history of doping and nowadays nobody forgets those times and speaks ill of those teams. "It's logical that they say it, even Armstrong was involved in a big doping problem. The project had that side to it, it wasn't just Armstrong. But if I know today that Armstrong used banned substances, it's because he said so," he explains.
"Because I've never seen it. I was never harassed within the team to use doping products. It was something that completely passed me by. I had my mission in the team, my schedule, my responsibilities, I went to the races and I knew what my place was and what was required of me, to help Armstrong win. That was all I cared about."
Asked if he had ever been asked about Armstrong, Azevedo said. "I repeat what I said: I've never seen it, I've never been harassed. I did my job, I'm proud of what I did in my career. What happened, happened to him. The riders are at home, that's where they train. I don't know what goes on in other people's homes. I can speak for myself."
"And I'm not going to say anything bad about him, because as a person, as a teammate, he was the best there is. He never acted like a star, he was never disrespectful to us, he always valued our work. And we weren't there out of obligation, we were paid to work for him. And he always had a word of thanks."
The image that the American cyclist gave off was completely different from what passed on to the outside: "When we were in the hotel, on the bus, or on stages, we were all the same. When he got off the bus, he gave off an image of distance, perhaps to protect himself."
Azevedo revealed what he admired most about Armstrong: "I remember once, in the California area, it was raining. It was a 15-day stage and we knew it would be sunny the next day. He had already won the Tour six times and we all went to train anyway. That dedication and effort were examples to be set," he concluded.
It may very well be true, but the cynic in me thinks that it is a form of sportwashing whose aim is to rehabilitate Armstong's negative reputation.
Don’t doubt your cynical side ;-) It’s hardly likely to be true either and he is hardly in a position to judge for others who is best this or that. If he’d just said, he was always good to ME that would have been more truthful and then everyone could draw their own conclusion, now he’s basically shot himself in the foot for nothing (as far as we know).
What is the purpose of this article? Why is whatever Jose has to say relevant right now? Why is anyone continuing to write articles about Lance when this current generation of cyclists deserves much more time and respect? There are hundreds of articles, books, recorded testimonies that contradict everything he says about Lance’s demeanor within the team and the doping program within Postal. I actually feel sorry for Jose if he believes what he’s saying, though that depth of ignorance must be bliss.
Look at the comment section, these articles help get more traction for he site. nothing wrong with them. Everyone knows that Lance and company did drugs to help them win, so did everyone else. It's not a mystery and no need to get upset about them.
And they do tend to pick out articles and info that they hope will lead to that ;-)
I'm surprised that Jose's nickname isn't Pinocchio, with a ridiculous story like that.
I'm calling bullshit on this entire story and Jose. In a face-to-face conversation with a world class rider that I trained and raced with for decades, he relayed to me the story of Lance's doping through a teammate that was briefly on US Postal. To be on the team, to be able to contribute to Armstrong's cheating and fraud REQUIRED that teammates also dope. Jose's results don't come from just bread and water. Remember Armstrong never tested 'positive'.
Yup, pretty much the entire team has admitted to communal use. He must have said this to save face to his family
A lot of Portuguese can say the same about Salazar, he was always good to me, I never heard or saw anything. You don’t hear too many publically defending him.
Garbage journalism continuing to give air to a massive drug cheat.
Just in
Play for FREE! Fantasy Tour of Flanders
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
Popular news
Latest comments
- Whatever happens tomorrow... it'll be a hell of a raceslappers6605-04-2025
- Exactly Tadej, the cancer of modern society. Full of good-for-nothing people who gain visibility and importance on social media mocking, humiliating (and worse things) to earn money. But it's the follower's fault, no followers, no "influencers".
maria2024202405-04-2025 - Great commentCaralladas05-04-2025
- i’m such a sucker for those group-hug, happy ending moments between competitors, largely because it’s so WASN’T that way in my younger, stronger days. (on that note, i have this hope that somewhere down the road, maybe fifteen or twenty years, a middle aged wout and mathieu will go for a pleasure ride together in flanders, and reminisce about the days when they were the young, strong monsters that stalked the cobbles.)OCexile05-04-2025
- Just like Dwars door Vlaanderen, the Ronde van Vlaanderen was/is NOT on MAX. Get your facts straight.Ben04-04-2025
- You might bounce more for the same power, but not the same speed. Sending 20 kgs over a jump at 20 kph will fly just as far as 10 kgs at the same speed. Again, Galileo demonstrated this.acem8204-04-2025
- So, you're saying that doing a bunch of small hops on a bike is easier if you're heavier? Why do people buy lighter bikes, then? Why do they generally feel better and faster? An appeal to "rhythm" is not helpful either, as the right "rhythm" might be on the lighter or heavier side of things, and as it varies, it's likely a wash either way. Then we are left with the physics truth that it takes less power to lift lighter things than heavier things.acem8204-04-2025
- No, weight doesn't affect the ability to go into the wind at all. It's all CdA vs power at that point. For example, it's "obvious" that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. But, absent wind resistance, it's not true (Galileo demonstrated this). An appeal to "obviousness" doesn't matter when the physics is clear. And yes, you have to be able to hold everything else constant, or you can't determine anything! So, imagine a 300 watt rider at 80 kgs with a CdA of 2.0, then imagine that same rider at 70 kgs with a CdA of 2.0. (Assume ideal tire pressure for both, same bike.) Which one can ride over a bumpy road fastest? The lighter one, as he doesn't have to lift as much. That's also why when they test bikes on 5 star cobbled sectors, the MTB goes faster than even a cobble-build road bike. Even though rolling resistance is higher on a flat road, and the CdA is junk, it smooths out the cobbles, allowing the person to not lift as much as they otherwise would.acem8204-04-2025
- I disagree. If you have lower weight, you will bounce more at the same speed, meaning that you will spend more time in the air and shorter time on the ground, as a consequence, when you are on the ground you have to produce more force for the same speedvappaxbipmv04-04-2025
- That’s not quite true, even steep climbs and sudden gradient changes can be considered as remaining tangential to the wheel whereas the occasional dip between cobbles a wheel drops into cannot, as such riding over cobbles can become like a permanent surmounting of small obstacles that hit back into your wheel slowing you drastically if you don’t have the right rhythm to “fly” on the mounds, here again the greater the momentum the less these obstacles reduce your speed. But, it is but one factor, you cannot decide on this alone. Like with natural surface ripple formation on desert tracks used by vehicles, there is an optimal speed range to efficiently pass over such surfaces, too fast or slow and your car gets shaken to pieces from the “harmonics” in the vibrations caused. Pretty sure the same applies to riding on cobbles.Mistermaumau04-04-2025