Tonight on Close Up ` what next for disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong? Are the lawyers circling? Somebody within the Obama Administration made a decision, and as a result of that he will never go to jail. Fail to predict an earthquake, off to jail. Could the Italian reaction happen here? And the boffin pushing substitute alcohol ` all the fun; no downside. You go to a party, have a couple of cocktails, have a good time; take the antidote, you'll be perfectly safe to drive home. Due to the live nature of Close Up, captions for some items may be incomplete. ONE News captions by Virginia Philp and John Ling. Close Up captions by Richard Edmunds and Angela Alice. According to the cycling record books, Lance Armstrong doesn't exist. Once the most feted man in his sport, and celebrated across the world for his charity work, his fall has been swift, mighty and permanent. But why did it take so long? After all, the rumours have been circling for years. And could Lance Armstrong face worse than disgrace ` does jail beckon? We've got a legal expert in the States on that. But first, the fall. Cheers, France! Once again, the day belonged to Lance Armstrong. 'THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER' PLAYS This was the moment history was made. Lance Armstrong. This race never dims for Lance Armstrong. I'm a true competitor at heart. Lance is an inspiration. He's the greatest athlete living at the moment, period. I love to win. One of your former teammates, Stephen Swart ` he was riding with you; he's a Kiwi ` he has told ESPN on the record and on camera that back in '95, you announced to the team that you were going to begin doping, and you were encouraging other teammates to do the same. No. Again, complete nonsense. She visited a cancer-stricken Armstrong in 1996. Lance, hanging on to his IV, rattled off EPO, testosterone, cortisone, growth hormone and steroids. MAN: Do you deny the statements that Ms Andreu attributed to you in the Indiana University Hospital? 100%. UCI will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling, and UCI will strip him of his seven Tour de France titles. Obviously it's been an interesting and at times very difficult few weeks. Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. What of the cycling fans? We read the book. We wore the bracelet. Have we been taken for a ride? Mark Crysell hit the streets to find out what you think of Lance Armstrong now, and opinion is mixed. You think he's a cheat? I don't think he is. No one would build a career up that much and then ruin it so publicly. My opinion of him has drastically dropped. If he's a cheat, then he deserves to be stripped. If he did front up to it, it would be better off for him. I read it's not about the bike. I liked him, but really if he was up to dirty sticks, he should come clean. < Are you disappointed? Yeah, I am, cos he was kinda like a hero of mine. You know, I thought he was, like, awesome. He'd won, what, 17 times or something, the Tour de France. And then it turns out he just cheated. So what does the future hold for Lance Armstrong? Earlier, I spoke to Lester Munster, an investigative sports journalist who is now the legal expert for ESPN sports channel. He's been covering Lance Armstrong for 20-odd years. So how does this rate in terms of sporting scandals? The Armstrong story is easily the most disappointing and the most discouraging of all of these stories that I've worked on. The fall from grace of an icon is a crushing disappointment for his fans; it's a crushing disappointment for those of us in the media who have reported on him over the years. And it's just, all things considered, very discouraging. Did his work for cancer ` and no one doubts the work he did ` shield him from closer investigation? I think it did. We are reluctant to admit that, but I most certainly think it did. I think that many people who, as they were looking at the world of sports and they knew there was something wrong with Armstrong, they would then consider what he had done for cancer research, and then they would work on a different story. And so he was allowed to just, kind of, glide along, doping and doping and winning and winning, without the real, genuine, laser-like scrutiny that we should have given to him. He must have known, though. He must have known that, sooner or later, he was gonna get found out. It has been interesting for me, as I've worked on all of these scandals involving performance-enhancing drugs, that those who use these drugs always think they will never get caught. Somehow, as they are planning and engineering their use of drugs, they reach the conclusion that they are smarter than the people who are testing; smarter than the people who are investigating. And they somehow think they're gonna get away with it; that they're bulletproof and won't get caught. What is the future for Lance Armstrong now? I mean, could he do jail time? There was a criminal case against him. He could have gone to jail. But the United States attorney in Los Angeles, who was appointed by President Obama, he decided not to pursue Lance Armstrong. It's a baffling decision. Is it a political decision? Do they not want to tackle this in an election year? I believe that that is the case. Very few people in the United States want to talk about that. But it is an election year. Armstrong has a constituency of millions of cancer survivors. He remains a hero to many people. And somebody, at some level within the Obama Administration, made a decision to avoid this particular problem. And, as a result of that, he will never go to jail. There was always the theory that he had people in high places who were always protecting him. Does that bear this out? Yes. The investigation by the United States Anti-Doping Agency shows conclusively that he had the International Cycling Union in his corner for a long period of time. In 2002 he tested positive, and in 2002 he went to the Cycling Union, made a donation of $100,000 for 'developing cycling', and at that point the Cycling Union covered up and supressed the positive test. So he had control. He had leverage. He had what we call in Chicago clout over this organisation to make it do whatever he wanted them to do. If he can't be touched ` so he's not gonna do jail time; there's no political will to pursue him ` what about the sponsors? The people who have given him money? Won't the lawyers be circling, saying 'we want it back'? I would think that, if any level of wisdom were to prevail, those companies would now drop that attempt. His legacy is gone. Nobody has any good feelings about him. I'm not sure why it would be a good idea to pile on him further. I would hope that these big companies would just take their loss and move on to something else. The Cycling Union said we should just forget his name; erase him from memory. Shouldn't he be left there as an example to others that you cannot cheat with drugs? I think that he will live on in exactly that capacity ` perhaps not at the Cycling Union, but among all Olympic athletes, all athletes who perform at the elite level, there will always be conversation ` 'Here we had one of the great competitors in any sport in history, 'and he was brought down because he cheated by using these drugs.' You would hope that this would be an example to other elite athletes that they should not be even considering this, much less doing it. Six scientists in Italy have been found guilty of multiple manslaughter after making reassuring statements ahead of a deadly earthquake. The defence argument that there's no way to predict a quake didn't wash. Would it here? And what does it mean if seismologists are held to account for the way they communicate risk? We've seen people here heading to the beach to see what a tsunami looks like. Joining me now from Christchurch is structural engineer Stefano Pampanin, who specialises in natural disasters. He works in Christchurch, but knows some of the men now facing prison in Italy. Stefano, thanks for joining us. The scientists are being threatened with jail in Italy, are you colleagues can start getting nervous? We started getting nervous a few months ago when this was initiated and not stopped due to lack of evidence. There were thousands of signatures from all around the world on a petition. If you really want to do something, you should do something other than mixing politics with science. Yyou think they shouldn't have even been charged, let alone found guilty? Absolutely. The job of the scientist is to collect information and pass on findings. They should not have to go to jail for not being able to predict such an event. Is what they were charged with not so much predicting, but how they quantified the risk? Apparently that is the case. The predictability of the earthquake was the initial issue. Then the problem became quantification of the risk. It was about whether the scientists should have suggested evacuating the city. The allocation of responsibility of evacuation of the city is an issue here. Is this going to make scientists overly cautious? Will they not say anything? That is something we can't just keep in our brain. If we didn't pass on our findings, we would not be doing our job. This is personal to you ` you know some of the scientists involved. These are internationally known scientists, so I don't only know them because they come from my country. They have been working hard all their careers. This attack is offensive and is going to destroy their professional reputation. this is not what our community should do. Thanks for your time. So what do you think? Should scientists here be held to account over what they say ` for example before the February Christchurch quake. Coming up next, the maverick scientist who reckons he's got the antidote to alcohol. People would be intoxicated, just like they're drunk, and some people will find it very pleasant. And a fixture on the Auckland landscape for four years disappears. We know the downsides, but like it or not, alcohol is part of many of our lives. So what if there was an alternative that tasted as good, gave that same tipsy feeling, but didn't have the drawbacks? Not only that, but it came with an antidote to immediately reverse its effects? You could even drive home safely. It is the holy grail for a top scientist in the UK. And he's not just any scientist; he was the chief advisor to the UK government on alcohol and drugs, even if he did get sacked for his controversial views. Professor David Nutt from London's Imperial College told Gill Higgins about his radical idea. How'd you get here? If we can't stop alcohol killing people, which is actually quite different, why don't we use neuroscience to make a substitute alcohol. Wouldn't that be sensible? We could make an alternative to alcohol which was safe, which wasn't addictive and also, you could have antidote, so you could go to party, have couple of cocktails, have a good time, take antidote, be perfectly safe to drive home. Professor David Nutt ` a maverick scientist on a mission. He believes he can change the drinking world for the better starting in his lab. It is such a logical thing to do. You know, science has got on top of most things. In the old days, I'd have been talking to five people. Now I'm talking to millions in NZ on this wonderful electronic medium. You know, science` Every aspect of life, science moved us on, with the one exception ` how we intoxicate ourselves. And I think it's time for science to do something there as well. It wouldn't replace fine wines or boutique beers, and it definitely wouldn't be pill popping. My view is that we would want to make cocktails. I don't want people taking pills. I mean, that's completely against the principle. One of nice things about alcohol ` well, most alcohol ` is there's a pleasantness to the drinking. So how far has he got? I can mimic alcohol using substances we already have, like benzodiazepines, like lorazepam. But aren't they dangerous anyway? > Well, they're less dangerous than alcohol, because they don't cause cirrhosis. They can cause of amnesia and can cause tolerance and withdrawal, so, yeah, I don't want to use those, but I only use them to show the principle. This was a highly experimental drug. Only a few people had ever tried it. For research, the drug is in pill form. In this BBC documentary, a doctor puts them to the test. If we get the dose of those right, people will be intoxicated just like they're drunk, and some people will find it very pleasant. My mood is definitely much higher than it was this morning. Arrived a bit stressed, a long journey and it's rather nice now. If I compare this feeling to alcohol, I'd have to say that I'd vote for the three pills from Dr Nutt. There's something more smooth and pleasurable. And it's reversible. For experimental purposes, carried out by injection. So you're waking up now, are you? It worked, but not for long enough. The antidote wore off, and while not a hangover, it wasn't pleasant. There's a sort of discomfort and a slight edge of worry. So what you want is a short-acting drug so that the antidote will get rid of any further effects and there'll be no reoccurrence of them. It is a work in progress, but there's not as much progress as Professor Nutt would like. Yeah, I am stuck at present, actually, yes. His funding has dried up. The drinks industry could do it. I've approached them, and they've said, 'Yeah, well, when you've sorted it, we'll buy it, 'but we're not going to invest in it.' Because its threat to them. The pharmaceutical industry says, 'Well, we're not going to invest in this, 'because if we do go through all the development programme 'and spend millions of dollars getting the product to market, 'governments might say, "Oh, it's illegal cos it's drug."' He's not put off. One look at the damage alcohol's causing young people and his motivation gets fired up. Wouldn't it be fantastic if I could get it fashionable among children so that they didn't drink alcohol and didn't ruin their livers at an early age? That would be a fantastic goal. Could happen within two years if I had money. So will it happen? Yes, cos I've got a lot of will power, even if I'm not rich. So I'm gonna pursue this. I am pursuing this cos it is such logical thing to do. And tomorrow night Gill looks at how alcohol stacks up against other drugs. Just ahead, it's done Auckland's heavy lifting; where next for this massive roading workhorse? Traffic in Auckland's a shocker at the best of times. When there's road works, it's even worse. So the news that a massive gantry crane that's loomed over the motorway in the central city is going is cause for celebration, and who better to celebrate than Michael Holland who first checked out what was distracting him on his way to work two years ago? Back on the TV. Jim Niovara back on the tellie? Back on that tellie, yep, that's it. Reality TV, here we come. The reality, pure and simple ` he's saved us again. When the subject's an inanimate object, finding characters like Jim is like pennies from heaven. We've finished with the Big Blue now. Now we're going to make it the Little Blue, break it down, put it in little boxes, ship it away, and hopefully we've got a job after that. No surprises ` Big Blue's that big thing that's stood tall over the old ` and now the new ` Newmarket Viaduct for the last four years. It's been an experience. It's been a big job ` biggest job I've been on. Jim's job centred round the industrial equivalent of a gaming remote control, as we discovered... Mentally physical. It's all fingers, but up here is where it counts, mate. ...when we discovered Jim at the project's halfway stage two years ago. < They tell me you are the man? Oh no, there are many mans here. Nah, I'm only one of them. Lots of mans? Yeah. You kind of don't realise it now, but probably in a few more years, driving over it, you will be able to look back and think, you know, 'I had a bit to do with that.' Not that people will probably believe it. They'll be, like,... '(BLOWS RASPBERRY) You?!' but, yeah, nah. This has been the biggest challenge we've ever undertaken in terms of engineering complexity. It's taken a lot of brains and a lot of chin scratching to get us to where we are today. The construction of a seismically superior new viaduct in concert with the dismantling of the old was a logistical labyrinth. The constraints we've got in this area ` we've got the busiest stretch of motorway over one of the busiest shopping streets; we've got a railway line and we've got urban area around us, and we've had to replace one bridge with another. Jim's heavy-lift gantry hoisting and lowering more than 900 huge slabs of concrete, each weighing up to 100 tons. I was picking up a block, bringing it up and joining it together, making the new bridge. So it was just like, um,... Tetris. Tetris? < Or Lego? Lego. We've managed to get a dual use out of her, so she's been very effective. I think you've just confirmed what I have always wondered ` a he or a she. Definitely a she? I think she's a she. She works too hard to be a man. Definitely a guy. Definitely a guy? Definitely. But then when she plays up, it's a girl. When it does its job right, it's a guy. We only actually closed the motorway for two days, and we are very grateful to the travelling public for their patience while we have been doing it. Oh, it's a job well done. Look at it ` solid. Solid as a rock. This one's good for a one-in-2000-year earthquake event, so very robust. You going to miss Big Blue? Oh, I've got a few photos. I can stick them up next to the family portrait on the wall, but, nah, nah, it'll be` Yeah. Big Blue's dominance of the motorway skyline is now only days away from ending with the last of the work underneath the viaduct to be completed in December. Hopefully I'll be the last one here turning the light off, since I was the fist one here. Hopefully if the bosses are listening, they'll keep me here till last. We've all done a good job. Not` Yeah. Everyone's done a good job. Everyone can be proud of it. GENTLE MUSIC YEAH, KEEP HIM ON Feedback now, and on the Italian earthquake scientists facing jail, you are glad it hasn't happened here. And Krissie points out something a lot of you have picked up on. She writes... NO POINT SUING JIM. HE NEVER PAYS