33. Travis Tygart Is Coming for Cheaters — Just Ask Lance Armstrong

**Stephen Levitt** (0:04)
My guest today, Travis Tygart, is the CEO of Usada, the United States Anti-Doping Agency. And if it weren't for Travis, this infamous exchange never would have happened.

**Oprah Winfrey** (0:14)
Yes or no, did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling performance?

**Travis Tygart** (0:19)
Yes.

**Oprah Winfrey** (0:22)
Yes or no, was one of those banned substances EPO?

**Travis Tygart** (0:26)
Yes.

**Stephen Levitt** (0:27)
That, of course, is Lance Armstrong's infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey from 2013, the one where he called his cycling career one big lie, publicly acknowledging that he had doped to win his seven Tour de France titles.
Lance didn't come forth voluntarily. For over a decade, he had vehemently denied that he had used the drug erythropoietin, better known as EPO, aggressively suing those who suggested he had doped. It looked like Lance had finally put the rumors to rest once and for all, when in 2012, Usada, Travis' organization, published a 1,000-plus page report, what they called their reason decision, that detailed evidence of the quote, most sophisticated, professionalized, and successful doping program that sport has ever seen, unquote. It included testimony from 11 of Lance's teammates. He was stripped of his cycling titles and received a lifetime ban from all sports that follow the World Anti-Doping Code, including cycling.

**SPEAKER_5** (1:23)
Welcome to People I Mostly Admire with Steve Levitt.

**Stephen Levitt** (1:28)
This episode is airing the week that Tour de France starts. But despite this, Lance Armstrong isn't actually the main reason I wanted to talk with Travis today.
I've devoted a good chunk of the last 25 years to trying to catch cheaters. Everything from crooked sumo wrestlers to terrorists. So for me to get to talk with probably the world's foremost expert on cheating in sports, that's like a dream come true. I'm sure we could talk all day about Lance, but there are a half dozen other topics I want to hit as well. So I'll have to use my time wisely.
Travis Tygart, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today. Your job is to catch athletes who are using prohibited performance-enhancing drugs, and it seems to me that's a thankless job because, first off, the people you catch, they're sometimes national heroes, beloved champions, and my hunch is that you're not always welcomed when you're finding these people are guilty.

**Travis Tygart** (2:29)
While I understand the characterization of we're here to catch athletes, we look at it entirely different than that. I think the majority, the overwhelming majority of athletes who are playing by the rules, they appreciate the fact that we're protecting their right to compete on a level playing field, because there's really no bigger injustice in sport than if someone is cheated or robbed of their sacrifice to be the best that they can be under the rules that they agree to. So yes, that means we have to catch those who are not deterred from cheating. And of course, many times those individuals don't like us or appreciate the fact that they've been caught. One journalist described us as the union for clean athletes, and that may be exactly how we see it, probably the biggest compliment that we ever could be given. We do the right thing for the right reasons, not because of popular opinion or what people think of us, quite honestly.

**Stephen Levitt** (3:16)
The second reason that I suspect your job is pretty thankless is the nature of doping and the limits of the testing technology and legal limits on what you can do. Does that not mean that most cheaters get away with it if they're smart enough, sophisticated enough and don't make mistakes? Does that not make it almost impossible to catch them?

**Travis Tygart** (3:37)
I don't think so. The idea of being a winner here in the United States, every kid grows up on a playground knowing that winners never cheat and cheaters never win. And so there's this moral community and I think moral ethic that many of our athletes have that they want to be the best they can be. And yes, they're uber competitive and hyper competitive. They don't get to the elite level without being that and willing to sacrifice sometimes their own health, their education and career opportunities. But they know that they can't look themselves in the mirror if they cheat to win. Wonderful example back in 2003, Kelly White won in the World Championships track and field the 100 meter and 200 meter. And she was doping at the time. And you look at her face, and she testified about this later to us, but you look at her face in front of 70,000 plus fans in Paris. And she has this look of kind of disgust and shame in herself for knowing what she did. I really start with the premise that no athlete, no true athlete, particularly in the Olympic movement, where you're representing your country, you're doing it for national pride and to be the hero that many kids around the world need you to be. That's not where you want to start. Certainly, we want to continue to be innovative and have research and funds devoted to testing and developing scientific methods to ensure that, hey, the risk of getting caught is entirely too high, and it's not worth taking that risk. Even if you were otherwise inclined to go against your moral ethic, you're going to get caught, you're going to have, unfortunately, a cloud that will live over you for the rest of your life as being a cheater at the highest levels in sport, and that's an incredible deterrent that further enforces that moral code and makes it an untenable decision to cheat in the Olympic movement in the United States.