The Inevitable
So the big news is that USADA is finally charging Lance Armstrong with doping—really and for true! Let’s consider this for a moment: nearly two full years after one of cycling’s greatest practically washed out of the 2010 Tour, Travis Tygart is going after Armstrong for what he claims is clear evidence of doping. Among the penalties Armstrong is said to face is the possibility that he could be stripped of all seven of his Tour de France victories. While there is some doubt that could take place, what is very real is that Armstrong’s nascent triathlon career has been encased in carbonite.
It’s an event more problematic than whether or not Los Angeles will behave itself for the Stanley-cup-winning Kings parade, but a good deal less important than, say, the civil war in Syria.
Why problematic? This will prove to be a lengthy, costly case. Armstrong has already begun to remind the public that these are tax dollars at work. The argument that this is a bad use of tax dollars is a red herring. The moment we question whether doping cases should be prosecuted with tax dollars, the whole of USADA’s mission enters the blades of the combine. The more appropriate question is what good can come of this?
Several outspoken cyclists have commented that we should pursue the case because if you gradually clear away all the dopers you will, at some point, end up with a clean rider. It’s an idiotic assertion. What you eventually end up with is a rider who just never got tested. If every rider were tested at the end of each race or each stage of a stage race, it would be another matter, but it has been possible for riders to go weeks or more without being tested. Clear away doper upon doper from the ’90s and what you are left with is a guy you just can’t prove is clean, nor can you prove he doped. What kind of improvement is that?
The problem isn’t that Armstrong is innocent. If you’re reading this, it’s highly unlikely that you believe he’s innocent. Lance Armstrong is Santa Claus for grownups. Sorta. The world can be divided into those who believe Armstrong is innocent of doping and those who believe his innocence is as possible as the elimination of the student loan debt.
Armstrong has even been called the cancer Jesus. It’s a rich vein of irony, waiting for a pickaxe. There’s the obvious miracle of his seven straight Tour wins—statistically, it’s a stunner. The miracle that no accusation could stick. The messianic quality he has in giving those on death’s door hope. And then the wry fact that Armstrong himself is an atheist. But I’m not here to poke fun at religion, or at Armstrong, for that matter.
Armstrong has not one, but two dilemmas. In a tweet earlier today I used the hashtag #roadrunnerandcoyote to point out the inevitability of Travis Tygart’s pursuit of Armstrong. Tygart and USADA are his front-burner problem. He’s got to deal with this and he has to deal with it convincingly for everyone who still puts out cookies and milk on Christmas eve. History suggests that with his batting record, he will find a way out. He has on every previous occasion. The odds seem to favor him even now.
But Armstrong has a bigger problem. Competition is his raison d’etre. He nearly spelled that out when he came out of retirement by telling the world that he was most useful to the LiveStrong foundation as a competitor. As a competitor, he’s an example of clean living (try not to snicker), and that’s what gives hope to millions. When he’s hanging out on the beach with Matthew McConaughey or dating one of the Olsen twins (which one was it?), he’s just a playboy, which is to say a rich slacker. Not exactly role model stuff.
So, to continue his role as “the cancer Jesus” he needs to stay in the public eye as a competitor, whether as a cyclist, triathlete or marathoner. It’s a tough part to play. After all, there’s a shelf-life for everyone who plays at the most elite of levels. And unless Tygart gets taken out by a band of ronin, he’s not going to tire of playing Javert.
Which brings us to Tygart’s problem. And yes, Tygart has a problem. He’s beginning to seem like Inspector Javert chasing Jean Valjean. Armstrong stands accused of much more than Valjean was, but the great tragedy of Hugo’s Les Miserables is that Javert pursues Valjean relentlessly, showing a capacity for cruelty and spite that suggests he’s more of a villain than Valjean ever was.
And that is Tygart’s problem. He risks looking like a tyrant and losing public support for his efforts. He could make Armstrong look like a victim.
The other oft-asked question is why Armstrong won’t just come clean (pun intended). The reason is Tygart. Armstrong still has much to lose. LiveStrong isn’t worth much without Armstrong, no matter what the foundation says. They need him because he is the brand, their best advertising.
So back to that earlier, unanswered question of what good can come of this prosecution. I’m going to assert that nothing good can be achieved. We can’t really change the results, not at this point. Armstrong will forever be remembered as the winner of seven Tours de France. Try and strip them away and soon enough that asterisk that says “stripped of victory” will be forgotten, the exact details washed away from the public consciousness the way no one remembers Oliver North’s specific misdeeds. Let’s bear in mind: There is doping going on today, doping that needs to be stopped and chasing the past will really do nothing to help us in today’s fight. And frankly, I know a bunch of racers who are angry enough about facing doping in masters races they are ready to do some back-alley ass whooping. A full-court prosecution of Armstrong will take a lot of human capital that could be devoted otherwise.
It seems unlikely that these proceedings will result in anything that pleases anyone. And that means we are left with a decision. How do we want to remember Armstrong? There are plenty of cyclists out there who despise big Tex. It seems that some of the dislike for him comes from his alpha-male demeanor. Others dislike him for simply dominating the Tour for seven years. And I suppose some are angry that he seems to have gotten away with stuff that sank other riders. But the most surprising group are those who have told me they feel betrayed by Armstrong, that they believed he was innocent and now they see those years of his wins as a bushel of lies. I wonder if maybe this isn’t mostly embarrassment at having been naive enough to drink the Kool-Aid.
Armstrong won in a dirty time. Stripping him of his victories won’t fix that. And unless WADA is prepared to go after every cyclist who rode at that time, the pursuit of Armstrong will be perceived as unjust because it is an unequal enforcement effort. Forgetting for a moment all the foreign riders who will never be pursued—the Spaniards especially—what of other American riders? What of George Hincapie? Does anyone really think he was clean? Is the only reason to leave his meager legacy intact just that—because it was meager?
Some of the bitterness for Armstrong smacks of the “I never loved her anyway” that follows high school breakups, which is my way of insulting some of the anger directed at him as being childish.
And so now I’m going to say something I suspect will be wildly unpopular: I cherish those years. I loved watching Armstrong win. I recall sitting near the top of the Col du Glandon in 2004 and watching le train bleu come by at the speed of freeway traffic and hearing the guys chatting and laughing within the pack—laughing! I walked back to our van with a stupid grin on my face, knowing I’d seem something special. I’d have to stop to think about all the stages that I watched with the same breathless anxiety that school girls reserved for the Beatles. I loved every minute of it.
Lance doped. He’s not gonna confess. We can’t fix the past, but we can police the present. So unless you’re prepared to see all of cycling burned down like Dresden, let’s leave it alone.
*slow clap*
Thank you for expressing my thoughts in a better way than I was able to: http://aerochick.com/2012/06/did-lance-dope/
Some good points there if a little long winded.
I especially liked your idea that punishing Lance does nothing for clean riders today, whom we should be most worried about. I liked it, but I didn’t agree.
Dollars must be spent on convicting dopers. If Lance is a doper, then there is not a single athlete alive that is more worthy of spending those dollars to convict. Expensive as it may be, pointless as it may seem, you CAN NOT just say it’s more than 5 years ago, leave it be.
That’s the whole point of retroactive testing. You can’t tell cyclists they only have to test clean… They have to BE clean.
Good to see someone willing to put their opinion on the line.
Thanks
There is no way to go back and undo the excesses of the EPO era but that does not mean they you should allow a record 7 TDF wins to be recorded in the history books as a record of athletic achievement. If the evidence exists and now it looks like it finally does it should be acted on.
It’s not just Lance, it’s the doctors and managers who are still active -and the UCI- who are in the crosshairs. That is not in any way shape or form old news. That effects the sport today.
Nicely argued. The key issue is not if Lance doped (that answer is already known) but is there any good to come from a public acknowledgement of that fact. There is no reason to strip Lance of his 7 wins. Who would be awarded those titles? Nearly everyone who stood on the podium with him was also a doper.
So what good comes if Travis Javert “takes Lance down?” Leaving aside the egos involved, simply this; a public admission that the entire era, from the 90s to the mid-2000s, were a massive fraud.
Then, we move on.
I’d add another thing about Tygart. The entire LA media and PR machine will now be brought to bear to vilify and slander him. Make the cheat the victim and the guy who had the gall to call him out the bad guy. I would not want to be in Tygart’s shoes. This article seems to get the ball rolling, intimating some twisted excessive behavior to Tygart while making the case that unlike very other cyclist who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar that Armstrong needs special treatment. For the good of the sport or for the good of cancer research or whatever.
The UCI and working managers and doctors are part of this investigation. This is in no way shape or form old news. The UCI in it’s current corrupt inept form is probably a bigger threat to cycling then doping. This investigation could change that. LA may be the most public piece but he may not be the most important piece.
Well said Padraig. I have reached more or less the same conclusions in my own thinking about the whole mess. I would add that the thing that really irks me is that this story is just one more justification for the “cycling is the dirtiest sport in the history of the World” bromide, even though you could pick up a hand full off speed in a lot of MLB lockerooms until just a couple of years ago.
MLB & NFL testing & penalties are still a joke compared to cycling. Where do you think all those 300 lb highschool linemen are getting all that mass, Wheaties? Testing in the major college sports is haphazard, if it happens at all. It’s not just a case of unequal prosecution of LA, it’s another unequal publicity seeking slam job on our sport.
The irony is that one of the reasons cycling has been it the drug spotlight is because it has been far more rIgorous in testing than the major pro sports for many years. Want a sports drug conspiracy that has defrauded the public for decades? Check out Major League baseball.
LA is obviously the most high-profile person named in this. But there’s much more to it — the charges are about a team conspiracy (USADA’s term) of organized doping. It’s clear teams have done this — never mind Festina, but much more recently with Telekom, and surely many others. Up until now, it’s been all about punishing individuals for positive tests, though Puerto sort of reached further. I don’t consider riders as purely innocent pawns doped and played by teams, but never before have charges reached beyond the individual. And for that, I think this case is spot-on.
This doping investigation stuff is tiresome. Doping is wrong and they were all doing it. Moving on.
I’d rather leave the Armstrong legacy in place. Not only was it fun to watch, it also popularized American cycling and is a major brand in cancer-awareness. This may be one of those rare cases where the end is so good that I don’t care how he got there.
Alan C
If there is no statute of limitations in these cases as USADA contends, where is the prosecution of Telecom? When will Riis be stripped of his title? I dont see anything in the rules that says if you admit your guilt, its a get out if jail free card. What happened to equal justice under the law?
Very good essay, Padraig. I too loved those years, and to some degree suspended disbelief.
Perhaps we should simply put an asterisk on the results of those years of racing, with the phrase “* final standings as recorded. as far as we know, they probably all doped”
Good point about amateur racing. I’d prefer to know I lost because I am fat, old, and too lazy to train. Not because the guy pinning up a number along side me is sponsored by a major pharmaceutical company.
I agree with everything you said with respect to 1999-2005. It was a lot of fun while it happened, even if I started to have my doubts about Lance toward the end of the run. I’m ready to leave it in the past and move on. However, I read that there was something in the accusations about inconsistent blood values during the 2009-2010 comeback. That’s something I do want to hear about. It appears the introduction of the blood passport in 2008 was a real turning point for cycling, and if Lance came back and tried to beat that system, I want to know about it, and I want Lance to face the consequences if it’s true. That does have a bearing on professional racing right now.
Letting Lance get away with a decade of fraud helps no one but Lance. Setting the record straight, publicly bringing the truth to light, and making all aware of how he and others cheated will help bring up a new generation of cyclists and racers that will hopefully learn a less or two and keep their careers clean.
I have very mixed feelings about this whole issue, but I guess I agree with SteveP more than with other opinions.
People will talk about an exemplary punishment that will make guys who cheat the system think twice about it, and whatever else.
I wonder: Suppose you declare him guilty, he gets stripped of his titles. Then what? A lot of people will be satisfied and will claim that justice have been made and now we can hold hands and sing together in harmony.
But, who will be awarded the vacant spots in the results sheets? Will the same scrutinity be practised to ensure that whoever is declared the winner is a worthy winner? Is the resulting mess good for the sport?
I understand the point when people talk about justice. But if you balance justice on one side, and its practical consequences on the other, it might not be worth it.
People talk about justice, honor, morale, truth, but I think that we all should focus on the present and the future. So now Armstrong might be burned down in green timber. Will that do any good to the future of the sport? If so, then let’s go on with Eddy Merckx. He already got busted a couple times, so there must be more to find. How about Jaques Anquetil? He confessed before dying, maybe we can unbury his bones and test them with today’s technology, so we can also strip him of his 5 Tours. Then we could go on to Maurice Garin….
It’s never to right condone something if it inspires you or entertains you, or allows you to profit, if that something is wrong. The sport has rules, and if you say here in your text that Lance doped, then you are saying he cheated, and that’s wrong. It’s a black and white issue. Also – comparing the state of things in cycling to what happened in Dresden is frivolous; though any loss of life is tragic, the net result of that military decision helped end WW II. If we need to let the sport continue because it’s “too big to fail”, or because too many mouths are fed by it, I’d rather go hungry.
Regardless of the aura, the cult of personality, or any ripple effects, if you are caught breaking the rules you must accept the penalties. Patrick, don’t allow anyone a hall pass simply because you were left breathless watching them win or cherished the era in which these races were held. It’s not a moral issue as much as it is a legal one. Rules were broken.
The USADA has no accountability, no leadership, and thru its stupidity thinks the Federal Tax Dollars to subsidize their agency are endless. This doping conspiracy against Lance Armstrong would be completely within reason if every other bicyclist that raced during the last twelve years was also tested. But, because the dollars funding the USADA are not theirs and their wasting the U.S. Taxpayers hard earned money I think that Travis Tygert should be fired immediately. Equal Justice under the Law doesn’t apply here because Tygert thinks he’s an independent untouchable God. He has no fear of accountability, consequences, and or responsibility for the money he wastes. As the USADA is closed due to incompetency it would be a wise decision to forward all this specific funding straight to Cancer Research. Lastly, remember if you weren’t caught doping while racing competitively that’s a clear indication you must be guilty. Guilty, until proven innocent… Right, Travis Tygert you piece of S _ _ _!
I feel like I have been sold a bill of goods by LA and the purveyors of the cleansed cycling coverage that is disseminated here in the US. I want the future competitors of cycling to know, that If you dope you will get caught.
I took the Dresden comment differently. Dresden was firebombed (February, 1945), with massive loss of life, long after the war was pretty much decided. It had some strategic value, but was packed with innocents fleeing the Eastern Front. So bombing Dresden may or may not have shortened the war perceptibly, but caused massive additional suffering. Did the ends justify the means? Tons has been written pro and con, such as A.C. Grayling’s “Among the Dead Cities”.
Comparing the bicycling dope fiasco with the tragedy of Dresden is a bit over the top, but I think the point is that this prosecution is largely irrelevant to the present and will have little effect on present day doping enforcement. It may finally hold Armstrong accountable, but does little to change history. The cyclists of that era are already tarred with the doping brush. This would be, for a few select individuals, the coup d’ grace.
Hey Jesus, eventually we’ll have to reassign titles to spectators, but they were probably doping too…
I think people are missing the point. It’s not about Lance. It’s about shining a light on the rotten, corrupt UCI, team managers and medical staff that have corrupted and continue to corrupt the sport. A lot of the names in that letter are still active and very influential in pro cycling.
Lance has a lot of people convinced that he is cycling and if he goes down cycling is finished. This ain’t North Korea and Lance isn’t the indispensable great leader. Cycling will continue without him and his enablers.
Wsquared:
Ideally there would be equal justice. But when you have a pile of testimonies detailing organizing doping, do you pass that over in the name of equality because other teams did the same, but no witnesses will speak?
This is first (high profile) case pursuing not a rider who tripped a control, but facilitators of doping. Which is where a substantial part of the blame should rest.
Patrick, I think you made a lot of valid points about how messy and ugly this whole affair has been. And I, too, reveled in those years, watching Lance and the US Postal/Discovery squad flatten the competition.
Where I disagree strongly is the notion that we should let this issue slide. It, in my mind, sets a dangerous precedent. Win enough in a doped enough era, and we’ll let you walk free, because the resolution will be too messy and ugly for all involved. Or, if you’re a marginal rider, we’ll pop you for doping, but we won’t if you’re really, really successful (and by extension, presumably, really good at doping).
That, to my mind, just re-opens the door for rampant cheating and a further bifurcation of haves and have-nots in the pro ranks.
Is Lance being unfairly targeted? Possibly. But if the most successful rider of that era — when other, lesser riders were caught — engaged in a wide-ranging, systematic doping program, I don’t see how we can let it go, simply because the consequences might be tough for all involved in the sport to bear.
Everyone: Thanks for your comments. And while there’s plenty I could respond to, I’m going to focus on e-Richie’s response.
Richard, I don’t think Armstrong should get a pass just because I was wowed by his performances. That’s not at all what I’ve said. My point is that if we only prosecute one rider from that time, justice is not being served. Morality is not just the domain of cheating, there’s a component of how the law is applied. Chasing only Armstrong isn’t moral. If we’re not going to prosecute all cases equally, then the enforcement apparatus is a joke. Think of all the other dirty wins. Is the Tour the only race Riis won on EPO? Why aren’t we pursuing Hincapie?
Yes, rules were broken. A lot of rules, by a lot of people.
Alan C
In other cases witnesses have in fact spoken and perpetraters have admitted guilt, but no punishment was exacted.
Well written, Padraig.
I was 12 years old when Lance “won” his first TdF. Throughout every summer off from school between 6th and 12th grades I watched Lance and his team with awe. Even though I sat a home most days playing video games, during the summer the TdF motovatived me to get active and kept my weight gain from being as bad as it could have been. After finishing school I bought a real road bike, lost 65lbs, and started racing.
Could I be bitter with the person who inspired me. Yes. But I’m not. Because of watching the TdF because of Lance I was motivated to better my life and get healthy. If thousands of people who took up cycling stop because Lance finally got caught then what does that say about there reasons for being a cyclist in the first place.
I firmly believe Lance should be given his day in court and if proved guilty (remember its “innocent until proven guilty” no matter what our personal opinion is) should have his results vacated and the TdF’s between 99-05 have no victor declared by leaving 1st place blank. As for me I’m going to continue riding no matter what the person who inspired me to start did (I personally believe he doped). I’m a fan of cycling and how I feel when I’m riding. I won’t let one persons actions take away from that.
Bicycles and bicycle races don’t dope. People dope.
I tend to view this as a black a white issue too. If he cheated, go after him. Other riders from that era have been pursued. What makes it interesting and challenging is that the entire era was characterized by cheating. One wonders where and when it makes sense to stop digging, consign the era to the dustbin, and move on. The challenge, at least for me, is that so many of the accused (and seemingly guilty) are still embedded in the fabric of the sport- Bruyneel et al. It’s for that reason that I think the investigation needs to be pursued. A cheating athlete is relatively easy to push out of the sport. Rooting out doping infrastructure isn’t, but surely a worthwhile effort.
This will be painful for the cycling community in the U.S. I said on Twitter, and I will say here: stand by for a slew of anti-cycling op-ed pieces in sports publications across this great land. But, from my perspective, the truth matters.
I think that we all want to move on with a minimum of pain, but we also want wrongs to be righted, or at least revealed. That’s the tension at play between, to use broad strokes, arguments like Padraig’s, and arguments like the one I would make: that we have a duty to uncover the truth and, if appropriate, mete out penalties if the truth is that our heroes are guilty.
My objection is that I don’t think we can actually win by letting it go. We can’t just “focus on the future,” because the past isn’t going to stop hanging over our heads. Not prosecuting Lance doesn’t remove the questions and doesn’t end the debate. It might be different if Lance weren’t such an oversized presence in cycling, in sports at large and in popular culture. As long as he is out there, this is going to continue to chase him around. It isn’t going to go away because Lance isn’t going away.
So I don’t think we actually can reduce the pain. It’s going to hurt, no matter what. Given that we can’t avoid it, I say – let’s pursue the truth. I welcome formal doping charges against Lance. It seems like a much better deal than the years of recriminations in the press and in civil courts without any formal declaration one way or another. If he’s found guilty of doping, it won’t end the debate, but it will be something definitive.
I think everyone is forgetting that Lance is still/was currently competing at the highest level of the sport of triathlon. Do you think that this is okay? If you were a top level triathlete, would you think differently?
Also, that these charges aren’t only directly at Lance. It is at a whole ” doping machine ” that is still currently in the sport at the highest level. Should we just turn the other cheek and be “amazed” as their riders do supernatural feats?
Not me.
Padraig,
That may be one of the finest ever pieces written on the topic. Thank you.
The comparison to Les Mis is apt, while the issue may seem black and white, at what point does justice lose all humanity?
Grolby: I’m not against uncovering the truth; I’ve argued for that on many previous occasions. What I’m against is a half-assed, partisan vendetta, which is what most of this smells of. I’d love to see each of the national anti-doping agencies fully investigate the EPO era and find out exactly what went on. I do think it would be useful to some degree. That said, I think its use would be much more limited today than it would have in 2003.
I have my doubts that there is sufficient will to fully investigate the past. And I’m relatively certain there isn’t the capital to do a thorough job of it.
The problem we face is that there is doping going on right now, today, that is being left untended. And learning how people used EPO won’t, I suspect, teach us much about the doping going on right now. We’ve moved beyond EPO and given the limited resources at hand, we really need to chase the problems we face today.
Now, that said, the one really helpful thing that may come from this investigation would be the revelation of any ongoing doping program on the part of del Moral and the other Spaniards named. If they are still involved in organized doping as part of a program within RadioShack/Nissan/Weneedmorecash, then yes, they should be hit, and hit hard. If Bruyneel is still running a dirty operation, then it’s time for him to go. And to me, that is the one real value that could come out of this.
Steve Tilford: First, thanks for stopping by. And no, I haven’t forgotten that Armstrong is still competing at the highest level of triathlon. Without the suspension in place, I think he should be watched like a parolee, that he should remain the most-tested athlete in ALL of sport. And if he’s part of a present-tense doping program, then we need to know about that. I’m not advocating that we turn the other cheek, not at all. But faced with limited resources and the limited benefit to be found with increasingly historic investigations, I’d like to focus on investigations that will make the sport cleaner going forward.
Adam: Jeez. Wow. Um. Okay, I’m gonna take my son to the park.
I’ll wager that, given the way their rules are written, it’s just about a 100% certainty that Armstrong will be found guilty by USADA. What happens in subsequent appeals and possible lawsuits will determine the final verdict. Despite what he has said, I doubt Armstrong will just sit back and accept any ruling USADA hands down.
Some thoughts:
Focusing on winners (any winner) for doping does serve as a deterrent above and beyond that of testing other cyclists. It’s not a stretch to say that guys who dope do so to win… if the chance of getting busted after a win is high, and – this is key – riders know they’ll get busted very soon after those wins, then eventually guys will realize the risk is too great and will opt not to dope.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that effective deterrents rely on there being a high chance of getting caught. Going after winners, hard, seems like a good use of limited resources. Knowing that winning while doped equals a near-enough-to-be-certain suspension will remove that pressure from the elites… which will hopefully lessen the pressure on the rest of the peloton.
(Though, wouldn’t it be funny to see the emergence of heavily-doped lead-out trains for clean sprinters?)
Personally, I support going after Lance if only to vindicate riders like Simeoni and Christophe Bassons… it’s one thing to say “cycling will be hurt” or “our image as a sport will be tarnished”, but we shouldn’t forget about the riders that *were* actually hurt by the excesses of the doping era.
I don’t get the mentality that if you can’t prosecute every doper you should not prosecute any. Lots of riders have been banned and had results vacated. As this goes forward watch it catch more riders, many still competing as well as management in the crap storm it generates. So I doubt it’s just Lance going down. But it is certainly appropriate to go after the biggest fish first.
As far as mis-allocation of resources. The money has been spent on the Federal investigation. It turned up proof of doping and implicated parties still active in the sport -maybe even the UCI. Why take all that effort and money and toss it in the trash?
Every elite athlete will look to Lance as proof that if you are smart enough you can get way with cheating at the highest levels for an entire career. The pay off is worth millions and would be a huge incentive to potential cheaters everywhere.
It’s only a “witch hunt” if Lance is innocent.
Is it just me coming up with conspiracy theories in my head that find it strange that this all came down on the same day the Hincapie announced his retirement?
To Patrick @8:49 above…
Why prosecute one person (only) at a time?
Well I’ll give you one reason for starters – Lance was a/the team owner during the period in question.
You wrote that he doped; his achievements inspired many.You also infer that the sport and industry profited from these achievements. If he doped, all of this means nothing. Those who were inspired we’re duped. He didn’t perform a card trick or produce a rabbit from his sleeve. He cheated. This case is about the cheating and the organization behind it. He may have inspired some, or many. But those same people who elevated this cat also expected the victories and all that he accomplished we’re done using training, willpower, and tactics and NOT the routine use of banned substances.
Note that I am not here saying he doped, but you did. And even if all who pinned on a number along with him doped, it doesn’t make it okay. But if his orgs through the years are shown to have had a system in place, especially when so many of his own team mates were testing positive, I think he has to go down too. That’s USADA’s task now as far as I can tell.
Tygart’s assertion that Lance is innocent untilproven guilty is a self serving lie. Lance is now prohibited from competing in triathlon. How is that for being innocent. At a time when the USADA has no real publicity despite an olympic year, they have chosen to atack Lance. Reading their letter of accusation all Lance had to do was to have a neelde of a blood oparameter measuring device or hsaver ANY COMPLICITY involving an ATTEMPT to violate an antidopiong rule. In other words proof of innocence will come at a great cost to Lance. Twenty years of negative tests, meaningless. USADA gave riders….” an opportunity to ba a part of the solution…by being truthful and honset……” REALLY?! So their past denials were not truthful? They cut deals for testimony? Is anyone besides me outraged at this strong arm tactic?
Let me elaborate, Lance doped. Or at least we think so. And even if he didn’t the fact that a good portion of fans are convinced that he did is the worst punishment.
Meanwhile not one of the other major sports in the US even pretends to care about drug enforcement. Can you even imagine if LeBron James was suspended two years, not for failing a test, but not filling out his wherabouts form on time?
In this enviroment you have thousands of high school and college football players on steroids. Young pitchers think cortisone in the shoulder is normal and a sign of commitment. Just last week the New York Times ran a story on the growing number of teens taking drugs to improve their SAT scores.
There is a serious problem of PEDs in the US. Going after Armstrong is doing nothing to address that even if it would make some people feel a great sense of justice mixed with schadenfreude.
I think some participants in this discussion are either not understanding or are choosing to ignore the concern that Padraig, I and others have with the arbitrary and selective prosecution of known or suspected offenders.
USADA keeps saying they are all about enforcing the doping rules and cleaning up sports. Ok, then every one who either admitted doping or has damning evidence against them in the Armstrong investigation should be charged under the letter of the law.
As USADA like to point out, this is not a civil court of law. Being a cooperating witness in an investigation does not let you off the hook for taking EPO. In the past, riders who have named names have had to to their punishment time if they are also guilty. If USADA is all about getting dopers, have at ‘em. Similarly, if the statute of limitations standard is being revised, then everyone who has admitted doping in the past should be stripped of their titles and sanctioned under the same rules accordingly.
When the supervising authority starts arbitrarily choosing to prosecute rider x, but not rider y, even though rider y is clearly guilty of significant violations, then you have a Star Chamber and not a fair and equitable system of adjudication. “I don’t like this guy, so I’m going to nail him to the wall. This other guy is guilty too but I kind of like him and my daughter thinks he’s cute so I’m going to let him off.” Not the kind of fickle system that any of us would like to consign our fate to. It’s a very slippery slope.
Saying that Armstrong is the most guilty of the bunch is beside the point. If there is evidence that people cheated, they should be pursued. The argument that you can’t get everybody who may have ever cheated is a red herring. We’re talking about known offenders. Otherwise, this is an arbitrary vendetta that undermines the overriding principle of fair and equal treatment.
Wsquared
Proceeding against Armstrong does not preclude other riders being pursued. It makes it a lot more likely as it becomes clear how corrupt the whole system is. Other riders like Basso, Vino, Pantani, Contador, etc, have been penalized. Armstrong is not the only major rider to have been caught and punished. The fact that Johan, The UCI and the doctors are named opens up all kinds of possibilities. Pro cycling has been been rotten at it’s head for a long time. This is long overdue. It does not solve everything and nail everyone in one fell swoop but it gets the ball rolling on something that should have happened long ago.
Hank, there is no evidence at all that the prosecutors are just “getting the ball rolling.” That is a baseless assumption on your part. USADA has said nothing to indicate they are going after everybody else involved in the alleged conspiracy. In fact, it looks like they are arbitrarily rewarding guilty partipants who cooperated by letting them off the hook. They are playing God.
“Armstrong has already begun to remind the public that these are tax dollars at work”
The USADA is a ‘non-profit, non-governmental agency’. It is, however, mostly funded through a US grant. According to the 2009 budget, which was ~$13mil, 74% of it came through this grant.
http://www.usada.org/about
http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/press-kit.pdf
It’s a mess no matter what. USADA could have not even bothered; gotten evidence, then not pursued it; or done what it is doing. I think the chosen path is least objectionable (assuming the evidence constitutes a very strong case – for USADA’s sake the evidence better be compelling). USADA has a mission, which they pursued. Doesn’t it raise bigger problems to have to decide which potential cases to ignore? Or with evidence in hand, to decide which cases are pressed and which ignored? Also, as Padraig points out, there is a cohort of actors here, some still active in cycling; in a case this intertwined how can they pursue the MDs and DS (“the one real value that might come out of this”) and not the cyclist at the center? Anyway I will still watch those old videos on cold winter nights on the trainer and be awed and inspired…
wsquared
Absolutely nothing wrong with letting the little fish off the hook to get the guy at the top. How that constitutes playing “God” is beyond me. Lance was the highest profile cheat with the most sophisticated doping infrastructure who benefited more then any other cyclist from doping. That makes him the number one target of any cleanup. The edifice of corruption, omertà and cheating he built lives on in cycling. Love to see what comes out if Ferrari, Johan or one of the Spaniards decides to spill the beans.
e-Richie: Come on Richard, this is no time to be coy, to hide behind someone else’s accusations. Everyone who wants to vilify Armstrong should at least have the moxie to step up and say they believe he doped.
But the splitting behind your bigger point is what troubles me. “If he doped, all of this means nothing.” Are you willing to apply this black-or-white thinking to all of cycling? What are your feelings about Fausto Coppi? If we are meant to view cycling through such an all-or-nothing lens, wouldn’t it be easier just to burn the whole sport down now?
Well argued but I think you are the one falling for sentimentality Padraig. You seem to be the one who wants to keep his shiny little memories. So do I but I’ll get over it in the long run. The reason you go after people like Armstrong is because it sends a number of important messages.
1. Don’t cheat and think if you can just hide during your career you will be OK. You won’t. We will pursue you to the grave and beyond because that’s how we ensure today’s riders understand that there is nowhere to hide. Ever! Anywhere!
2. People commit their lives in posit of a noble goal and then cheats sully and taint everything. They trash the sport, they trash the nobility of those who race clean and they give the big finger to everyone who believed they might just have been honest champs instead of mean hearted, win at all costs sneak thieves.
3. And last but not least to send the message to everyone both inside and outside the sport we love that we CARE about our sport. We love it and dammit if you trash it from the inside as a trusted player, you trample on our sport for your own squalid, selfish need because your not man enough to play fair then if we find out you will get yours And don’t whine because the moment you decided to cross that line you had it comming
Shame on you. Not for your fond memories, as we are all entitled to those, but for wanting to ignore the truth. The truth is never inconvenient.
Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
Again I ask that you all read the letter sent to Lance.
The list from which they can choose to prosecute him is ambiguous at best. Complicity in an attempted violation is all they need! By their own admission they do not have lab data only witnesses that they virtually tell us they intimidated. Read their letter.
Patrick – This is your blog post. But if you want my opinion too, I think he doped. I always have. And I would be happy to see him, anyone connected with him, and the org that spawned him, found to be guilty as charged.
What do I think of Coppi? Heck, Patrick – you’re asking questions you know the answers to. I can’t separate out the players from the game, but as a fan and an observer, I have always believed cycling at that level was dirty (to use a word you introduced in your text). I have spent most of my adult life, when asked, comparing the sport to the protagonists in the film, “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?” The participants in the Depression-era dance marathons did all they could to remain upright in the hope of winning some spending money. I think the sport we watch is full of people who will bend and break rules in order to remain in the game. That characterization includes the riders as well as the staffs, and it doesn’t leave out the sponsors, the commentators, the sponsors, and all who profit from the notoriety machine. The particular notoriety machine now under the microscope spans almost two generations and many folks I know who were worked on the bicycles (racers…) or off them (the support crews…) have been hung out to dry while the suits at the top avoid prosecution or having their careers skid to a stop.
You ask about all-or-nothing and burning the whole sport down now. Patrick – yes, if that is exactly what it needs to be cleansed, sure – burn it down.
Mike: Just what truth do you think I’m ignoring? I think I’ve been pretty clear about what I believe the truth to be and I don’t think I’ve been generous.
e-Richie: This is a space meant for opinions (otherwise, what’s the point?) so thanks for leveling with us. I’m with you: I know the sport has been dirty since its inception, but I think we need to think long and hard about whether we want to toss out the whole of our history as we try to clean the sport up.