One of the bigger, nonpolitical stories of the summer has been the decision by Lance Armstrong to drop his fight to clear his name in proceedings before the US Anti-Doping Agency which accuses him of using “banned blood transfusions, the blood booster EPO, testosterone and other drugs” to help win his record seven straight Tour de France titles. The affair is in many ways a tragic one, since Armstrong, a cancer survivor who is doing admirable charity work via his own foundation, has been one of the most beloved and admired athletes of recent times–certainly the only cyclist to break through to popular adulation in the United States.
He was not repentant in announcing that he would no longer fight the charges that will lead to him being banned from the sport and stripped of his titles. He called the proceeding “an unconstitutional witch hunt” and said the process was “one-sided and unfair.” He did raise some legitimate questions about the process, and in particular about the lack of physical evidence and that belated nature of the proceedings, coming after his retirement and many years after the acts in question. But by all accounts the USADA had compiled overwhelming evidence of Armstrong’s infractions from among his own former teammates. All legal proceedings are subject to some doubts, but on the whole I believe the process is one that Americans can be proud of even if it brought down one of our sporting icons.
For the USADA is a non-government agency (although it does receive some money from the drug czar’s office) that is charged with policing our own athletic house. In other countries–say the old East Germany or today’s Communist China–the government is the primary culprit behind cheating and rule-bending to give national athletes a leg up on their competitors in the Olympics or other competitions. If the machinations of those athletes are exposed, it is inevitably done by the World Anti-Doping Agency or some other international body. There is scant hope of those countries policing themselves because they have a win-at-any-cost mentality and want to use international athletic glory to make up for the deficiencies of their country.
The U.S. has a very different–and more admirable–ethos, inherited from Britain, which can be exemplified by the old chestnut, “It’s not whether you win or lose…” Of course we love winners–athletes like Lance Armstrong. But not to the extent that we will connive in their cheating. It is very much to America’s credit that we are willing to police our own ranks and to mete out justice even to a beloved superstar athlete with vast resources to fight the charges against him. That sends an important signal of equality before the law that, even if we take it for granted, will resonate in countries such as China where the rule of law does not exist.
And it’s not as if our devotion to fair play hurts us in the end. After all, U.S. athletes–even without enjoying the benefits of state support for training, much less for rule-breaking–still won more medals than any other country at the London Olympics: 104 compared to 88 for China, which has turned medal production into a state-sponsored industry.
I've not followed the story but this struck me as odd: "He did raise some legitimate questions about the process, and in particular about the lack of physical evidence and that belated nature of the proceedings, coming after his retirement and many years after the acts in question. But by all accounts the USADA had compiled overwhelming evidence of Armstrong’s infractions from among his own former teammates." n nIf there is a *lack of physical evidence* then all they have is "overwhelming evidence…from his former teammates." Isn't that essentially hearsay and (according to TV legal shows
) inadmissable as evidence? In other words, they have nothing but gossip? And old gossip at that? n nDoesn't seem right somehow.
I have to agree with Grantmann. How can winners for those races now be declared when we and the USADA don't really know if the other finishers weren't using banned substances too? The tests showed Armstrong to be clean. The same tests showed the other racers to be clean. Just because no one came forward to implicate them in taking drugs doesn't mean they didn't. The results of the races should stand until a test is developed to show Armstrong did indeed take the drugs he is accused of taking.
Likely alot of podium finishers that finished second and third were doped also. There is precedence wrt how UCI might handle this. Bjarn Riis, the 1996 TdF winner, admitted (after he retired) he used EPO to win the tour. Because the ASO who owns/runs the TdF has final say if a rider is stripped or not, the UCI recommended to ASO that if they decided to strip him, that they should vacate the first place and not promote anyone. So if Lance is stripped, I'd expect the same to happen. The French Cycling Federation has already requested that be the case for Armstrong's titles, if stripped.
1. Allegedly physical evidence from 1999 TdF, 2001 ToS, and 2009/2010 TdF. He would have chance to contest evidence if he attended arbitration. n2. 10+ former cycling teammates, many of who were friendly with Armstrong. Plus a bike mechanic, a masseuse, a marketing rep, and a teammates ex-wife all as eyewitnesses. n3. People are convicted often for criminal offenses (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) on eyewitness testimony.
The whole thing is bullshit. nThey tested him like no one else has been tested. They produced nothing. Now a bunch of people come forward many years later, and that is sufficient? How many grudges got settled here? Where has the USDA been all of these years? n nBesides what authority do these bureaucrats have to strip medals? They do not run the Tour de France; they don't even govern cycling. The USDA is close to a Gestapo organization. They make their bones by "catching" druggers. If they don't expose problems, they have no reason to exist. They needed a high profile catch, so they found one. n nLet them play their games. Armstrong won those medals on the mountain. They can never undo that. But, if they want the medals (to do what?) I wonder how many thugs it will take to snatch them from him.
Very nice perspective on comparing U.S. self-policing anti-doping efforts versus the government sponsored doping programs of the old Eastern bloc. It's a refreshing point that not many have written about, but certainly is something we should be proud of as Americans.
A day late, a dollar short. USADA is a reflection of Obamanation "you didnt built that mantra" or "you got where you are today by lying, cheating your way to the top on the backs of the poor". nInstead of Armstrong training his butt off to get to the top, we now have USADA belatedly accused him of cheating his way to the top, nevermind that he passed 500+ drug tests administered by Tour De France. nThe science behind these USADA tests is to bend results to suit your premise that Armstrong cheated. nWhy waste time and money if you know USADA will and have bent their own rules to convict the accused.
1. Since when do Americans submit themselves to extrajudicial proceedings conducted an organization that has no legal or constitutional standards and does not subscribe to constitutional guarantees of due process. n n2. Who cares what Lance Armstrong or any other professional athlete did? It is not a concern of the United States government, only the governing bodies of the sports involved. I notice the international cycling federation is asking just where USADA comes off. n
The whole things is weird. USADA treats Armstrong's abandonment of his defense as, essentially, a please of "no contest", in other words, a guiltly plea in all but name. But "no contest" only really applies in a true legal system, where the courts have to have jurisdiction, where there are laws passed that are binding on everyone, where (in criminal cases) there is a grand jury indictment, and numerous other fundamental protections that are a minimum for fairness. USADA is not court, yet it is acting like a combination of court, executive office and legislature, but without the protections of any of those. For Max to speak of the "overwhelming evidence" (without, by the way, saying what it is or analyzing it) and not to note the deficiencies in this whole process seems very unfair. To put it another way, I don't feel confident USADA has gotten at the truth, yet it is acting as if it has.
Taking away Armstrong's medals is like unringing a bell.
Nice comparison of the self-policing nature of the U.S. anti-doping efforts versus the state sponsored doping of the old Eastern bloc countries. Not many journalists have picked up on that, and it is a refreshing perspective to consider as an American. Thanks for that insight.