I the Tour De Technoscience: Lance Armstrong and the Sociology of The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Tour de Technoscience: Lance Armstrong and the Sociology of the Techno-Athlete By Samuel Quinn Haraway B.A. (Coe College) 2009 M.A. (University of California, Davis) 2013 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: –––––––––––––– Patrick Carroll, Chair –––––––––––––– John R. Hall –––––––––––––– Hélène Mialet –––––––––––––– Committee in Charge 2018 i Copyright by SAMUEL QUINN HARAWAY 2018 ii Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………….v Introduction……………………………………………………………………..……………..1 Chapter 1: Assembling LANCE …...………………………………………………………...11 Chapter 2: Techno-Sport in Action…………………………………………………………..33 Chapter 3: Enacting Lance-the-Hero…………………………………………………..…….54 Chapter 4: It’s All About the Blood…………………………………………………..………89 Chapter 5: Armstrong Dissolved……………………………………………………………..131 References……………………………………………………………………………………...151 iii Abstract This dissertation is a socio-historical study of the “techno-athlete” that treats Lance Armstrong’s seven-consecutive Tour de France victories (1999-2005) and subsequent doping controversy as a case with which to reexamine questions concerning technoscience, bodies, and doping in high- performance sport. I reconstruct sport as “trials of strength” (Latour, 1988) through which heterogeneous actor-networks engage in struggles to produce advantages over one another. Far from competitions between human individuals or symbolic representations of the “pure” body, what I call “techno-sport” is anchored in assemblages of laboratories, materials, bodies, knowledge, institutions, and sponsorships. Techno-sport is about power. I then explore Armstrong’s preparations for the Tour de France, reassembling “LANCE” as an “extended body” (Mialet, 2012) composed of teammates, coaches, aerodynamic science, clothing and equipment designs, periodized training methods, blood-boosting techniques, the media, and more. I argue that Armstrong’s bodily abilities and management of his doping controversy was a material-collective and relational achievement of LANCE. By understanding how techno- athletes are at once distributed and centered by heterogeneous networks, we can escape the myth of the pure body around which the biopolitics of anti-doping expands today. iv Acknowledgements I owe immeasurable thanks to the many people who have helped me along the path of completing a dissertation in sociology. The members of my dissertation committee have each provided incredible support and inspiration. Patrick Carroll introduced me to much of the scholarship I now consider central to my own work and guided me throughout the conception and execution of this project. John Hall provided excellent feedback and encouragement on my writing, and also provided valuable mentorship throughout the early stages of graduate school. Finally, Hélène Mialet’s work has strongly shaped this project. Thank you so much for your involvement. I hope this project is at least on its way to doing your book justice. Thank you to everyone else who provided me with feedback in the various stages of my writing. Zeke Baker, in particular, generously read some very rough drafts and always provided exceptional comments and criticisms. Robin Rae, too, gave me helpful feedback during our many international FaceTime calls – and put up with my poor internet connection! I am also grateful to the many professors at Coe College who transformed me from a “No Child Left Behind” cookie-cutter kid into an intellectually curious and engaged student. Bill Flanagan, Al Fisher, Lisa Barnett, Rachael Neal, Edmund Burke, Kim Lanegran, and Derek Buckaloo, to name a few, all taught me the power of critical thinking and inspired me to seek to make a similar difference to others. I would not have made it here without you. At the University of California, Davis, I received institutional support from the Department of Sociology and its Power/Inequalities Workshop, as well as the Institute for Social Sciences. I want to thank the Society for Social Studies of Science that hosted several v presentations of earlier drafts, allowed Robin and me to organize a panel, and provided me with financial support as well. Finally, thank you to everyone outside of the University who provided me with support, friendship, and love throughout this process. Andrea, Fox, Ellie, and Queen B, I love you all. vi Introduction For just a moment, let us remember the final day of the 2005 Tour de France.1 Lance Armstrong stood atop the podium of professional cycling’s pinnacle event for the seventh consecutive year. The national anthem of the United States, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” rang down the Champs- Élysées, and Armstrong proclaimed his love of cycling against the backdrop of l’Arc de Triomphe: “Vive le Tour. Forever.” The usual accolades from the press followed. “Paris salutes its American hero… a man whose single-minded will to win has made him a cycling legend.” – BBC News (Wyatt, 2005) “He’s superhuman, a genetic freak, the one person on the planet so perfectly made to ride the Tour de France that competitors don’t have a chance.” – New York Times (Kolata, 2005) “Armstrong’s new record of seven wins confirmed him as one of the greatest cyclists ever, and capped a career where he came back from cancer to dominate cycling’s most prestigious and taxing race.” – CBS News (Smith, 2005) In this moment – atop the podium, drenched in applause – Armstrong incarnated the cultural figure of the heroic athlete, an individual whose talent and work ethic explain his achievement in sport. That he overcame stage four cancer to become the winningest Tour de France rider in history only underscored his legend. Throughout his triumphs, however, Armstrong faced continuous accusations that his victories were tainted. He became a symbol for the crisis of modern sport, in which the 1 The Tour de France is the longest and most prestigious professional road cycling race in the world. It has been held every year since 1903, with the exception of ten years during the world wars. In its current format, the race covers approximately 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) in three weeks though the exact route changes every year. 1 performances of “pure” bodies are threatened by the “unnatural” advantages provided by performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).2 Celebration aside, the 2005 podium was another opportunity to fulfill the socio-historical requirement that Tour de France winners publicly manage their status as “clean” athletes, that is, to insist that they have not used PEDs to win the race. Armstrong rebuffed “the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics, the skeptics… You should believe in these athletes… There are no secrets. This is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.” Fast forward to 2013, through eight more years of accusations, two additional (but unsuccessful) Tour de France attempts, and federal investigations by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA),3 and Armstrong publicly confessed to using PEDs. In a nationally-televised interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong admitted to using testosterone, human growth hormone, anabolic steroids, Erythropoietin (EPO), and blood transfusions, during each of his seven victories. Then, as if laid bare on a scaffold, he was stripped of his titles and banned for life from professional sport.4 USADA CEO Travis Tygart called Armstrong’s “the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen” (Tygart, 2012: 1), whilst Union Cycliste 2 Recent events that highlight the salience of this “crisis” include allegations of state-sponsored doping in Russia, the suspension of anti-doping laboratories in Brazil, Maria Sharapova’s positive test for Meldonium, the creation of an independent anti-doping program in UFC, and the introduction of nighttime drug testing to the Tour de France, and more. 3 USADA’s “Reasoned Decision” report relied on the testimony of 26 former teammates and personnel from Lance Armstrong’s cycling team that also participated in the doping program. Whereas drug tests are crucial to everyday enactment of the anti-doping apparatus in professional cycling, the accumulation of testimonies against him constituted the final nail in the coffin. The period is often dubbed the “EPO era” for the prevalence of the blood-boosting substance Erythropoietin (EPO). 4 In a press release, USADA clarified that “a lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the [World Anti- Doping Code] prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory” (USADA, 2012b: 4). That is, Armstrong was banned from all sports operating under the World Anti-Doping Agency, which includes all Olympic sports and most professional sports. 2 Internationale (UCI) President Pat McQuaid declared that “Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling.” This is the modernist problematic through which sport is understood today: defined as competition between human individuals, sport is a meaningful event in which the accomplishments of professional athletes exemplify the extraordinary potential of the “pure” body (Waddington, 2000; Waddington et al., 2013; Møller and Dimeo, 2014; Coakley, 2015). Against the backdrop of a tumultuous personal history it was Armstrong’s talent and hard work that explained