The return of the seven-time Tour de France winner has sharply divided opinion, reports Shane Stokes

FOR SOME he’s a comeback champion, a heroic humanitarian, a guy who gave up the easy life of a retired sportsman to raise awareness of cancer. For his critics, Lance Armstrong is a rider who may have doped his way to seven Tour de France victories and who simply couldn’t walk away.

The 37-year-old Texan is a hugely polarising figure. The announcement last September that he was returning to the sport elicited all sorts of responses. Some riders, such as Ivan Basso, called him a great champion, and pronounced it good for the sport and a move likely to boost ratings. Others, such as Linus Gerdemann, said it was “not positive for the credibility of cycling”.

The German is known for his anti-doping stance and was referring to allegations against Armstrong. These included a 2005 L’Equipe article which claimed retests of urine samples from his 1999 victory showed traces of EPO, a report disputed at the time by cycling’s world governing body, the UCI.

Armstrong wasn’t impressed by Gerdemann’s statement. He said that he, “better hope he doesn’t get in a breakaway with me, because I can still ride hard”.

Feelings were similarly mixed in the media and also within the ranks of fans around the world. Some wished he’d stayed retired, others said it rekindled their interest in the sport and pointed to the larger crowds as proof. And many cancer survivors embraced it as a powerful message.

The American originally hung up his wheels at the end of the 2005 Tour, being the only rider to take seven victories. But, following several years away from the sport, he stunned the cycling world when he revealed he was returning, saying that his big goal was to raise awareness about the fight against cancer and of his Livestrong foundation.

He also said he wanted to prove he could win clean, and would undergo a voluntary, independent testing programme supervised by anti-doping scientist Don Catlin.

Those two factors ensured his acceptance back to the sport, just three years after the then Tour de France director, Jean Marie LeBlanc, said Armstrong had “serious questions to answer” about the EPO allegations.

But the latter project proved to be short-lived. The Catlin programme was expected to start soon after he returned to training but, by the time he resumed racing in January, no tests had been done.

“There is a witch hunt against him, but the fuel behind this opposition is self-generated,” said Myles McCorry of the Bike Pure anti-doping movement. “He hired Don Catlin, the best anti-doping expert in the business in order to make his return to racing open and not dogged with the shadow that hung over his previous incarnation, but then abandoned that before the results were to be published.”

Armstrong and Catlin cited logistical and financial complications as why the programme didn’t get off the ground, although Catlin does run a similar anti-doping monitoring of the Columbia HTC and Garmin Slipstream teams.

Armstrong has been subjected to a large number of other anti-doping controls run by the UCI and the US Anti-Doping Agency since his return.

THE GOAL of boosting the profile of his Livestrong foundation has proven more successful. Armstrong’s return has generated huge publicity in the US, enticing many to resume following the sport and prompting new fans. Awareness has also been raised in other countries, with commendable anti-cancer drives being held in Australia and Italy when he raced the Tour Down Under and Giro d’Italia.

His expected participation in the Tour of Ireland will be followed by the Livestrong Global Cancer summit in Dublin and, globally, huge numbers of fellow cancer survivors have applauded his return. The logo “Hope Rides Again” has been used on posters of Armstrong in the US and elsewhere, reinforcing the message that this comeback combats the disease.

So, the fight against cancer has undoubtedly been highlighted. Yet there has also been some criticism. Just over a year ago the Livestrong.com website was set up by the social networking company Demand Media and is a for-profit venture, funded by advertising.

It joined the previously existing not-for-profit Livestrong.org of his cancer foundation. Armstrong has pushed the brand name without clearly distinguishing between the two; in addition, putting video blogs and other messages on the first website has driven many to it and seen its membership rocket to well over one million users.

Demand Media is valued at between two and three billion euro. In return for his association with health and fitness site Livestrong.com, Armstrong was given equity stakes in the company.

Requests by The Irish Times for an interview with Demand Media about that relationship have gone unanswered, but it does appear to jar with his initial statements that his comeback was “for free”.

BUT LOOKING at the sporting aspect alone, can he win this year’s Tour?

Even with seven triumphs, that much is uncertain; a straw poll of those within the sport led many to declare that the 2007 winner, his Astana team-mate Alberto Contador, would be the likely victor.

As for Armstrong, most said he’d be prominent, would most likely finish in the top-10, maybe in the first five. Not many are predicting an eighth Tour victory.

As for the mixed feelings? Getting all the critics onside is probably a bigger battle again.