Friday, August 24, 2012

The Lance Decision


Lance Armstrong has announced he will not fight the latest charges being brought against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). USADA is accusing Armstrong of using performance enhancing drugs during his Tour de France winning streak from 1999-2005. Is this an indication that Lance is guilty of these charges, since he's decided not to contest them? Is Lance really tired of the fight? Or, was this the smartest play that Lance could make? It's a very, very convoluted topic, and what follows is the official take of The Junes.

First, I don't believe for a second that Lance is tired of the fight--he never tires of any fight. He's just very smart about which battles he takes on, and which he walks away from. His decision to not contest the charges has more to do with the end result. Lance had two options: he could go to arbitration, which could last for weeks, which would mean that every day in the news there would be a report about another former teammate testifying that Lance used PED's, or another report about a possible failed drug test--it would be a daily badgering of his reputation. Or, he could choose to not fight, claim that USADA is on a witch hunt and that the charges are baseless, and not have to go through a nasty process. Either way, Lance knew that the end result would be the same: USADA was going to find him guilty. In a criminal case or Federal case, they need to prove that the accused cheated beyond a (reasonable) shadow of a doubt, but USADA only needs a semi-high level of suspicion to find someone guilty. Armstrong was willing to fight the Feds because he had a much better chance of winning, since there is no hard evidence that would help lead to a guilty ruling. But USADA doesn't need a smoking gun.

The USADA process is not a trial, so Lance can now claim that he never had his day in court. He can claim that they've unfairly targeted him since he's never officially failed a drug test. He knows he's got millions of supporters who will back him. He also knows that USADA doesn't have the power to strip him of his seven Tour de France victories. That decision would have to be made by either the UCI (the governing body of world cycling) or by the Tour de France itself. The UCI has always been in Lance's corner, so they won't push to strip him. The Tour has a tough call to make--if they decide to strip Lance of his wins, do they promote the second place finishers in each of those seven races? If so, they would would have to promote Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich, Joseba Beloki, Andreas Kloden and Ivan Basso--all of whom have tested positive for doping or admitted to using PED's. What about elevating the third place finishers in those years? The problem is the same, as you have guys like Vinokourov and Rumsas who also have tested positive for PED's who were on the podium for those races. Or, the Tour could just leave those seven years empty. But for a race which has such a rich history and markets that rich history to its full advantage, that would leave an ugly, gaping hole to have to stare at each time you looked at the list of winners. Plus, the Tour still lists the likes of Ullrich, Bjarne Riis, Marco Pantani and Alberto Contador as past winners--all of whom have tested positive or admitted to doping. So if they wipe Lance off the books, don't they have to wipe almost 20 years of their race history off the books as well? I can't see the Tour ever deciding to do that. I think they just want to move forward and hope it all goes away. Yes, the Tour has always had a strained relationship with Lance, and they could decide to strip him, but I think that decision would open a can of worms that the Tour would rather not deal with.

USADA is now preventing Lance from competing, even though he's retired. They can prevent him from racing in the Ironman triathlon series, which he had been doing this year as a professional, but I think Lance can live without that. I hate it, because I couldn't wait to see how he would have fared against the best in the Ironman--he had already won two Half-Ironman races this spring. Lance can, however, continue to compete in other events such as the Xterra off-road triathlon series, other world-wide triathlon events, or races like the Leadville 100 mountain bike race, or marathons, etc.

In the end, Lance had two roads to take, and both ended with USADA finding him guilty of doping. He knew that USADA was 58-2 in arbitration cases. He knew his best course of action was to basically ignore USADA. Instead of going to arbitration and losing, he knew that he would be better off by ignoring USADA and maintaining his innocence. It would have been very damaging for Lance to fight, and then to have USADA trot out former teammates who are creditable (not Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton, but guys like George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer, who have never failed drug tests and who were set to testify) who would have testified that they saw Lance doping, or knew of him doping. The Lance camp would argue that these witnesses either have no credibility or were blackmailed. Either way, it's to Lance's benefit that whatever evidence or testimony USADA had on their side never come out. This way, it never will.

Do I think Lance doped? I think he's a true freak of nature, and stronger in the mind than most athletes I've ever covered--yet, it's hard to believe that he won cleanly when everyone else was doping. I believe he was better than everyone, but not that much better. However, the playing field was level--practically everyone in the 90's and 00's in the pro peloton was doping, therefore, Lance was the strongest. If the entire peloton, including Lance, had been clean, I believe Lance still wins. So, while I think it was highly probably that Lance doped, I don't think it gave him an unfair advantage since everyone else was doping, too. It doesn't make what any of them did right, it's just (as Dan McDowell might say) the way it was.

I feel bad for Lance in that this is clearly a witch hunt. He is correct in that he's never failed a drug test (it should be noted that in 1999 at the Tour de France he did test positive for cortisone use, but it was dismissed after his doctors presented the Tour with a note of explanation, and that there is heavy speculation that in 2001 at the Tour of Switzerland he tested positive for EPO and that the result of that test was covered up by the UCI). So why, then, would USADA go after Lance? And why would they go after him seven years after his last Tour win? It's pretty obvious that USADA has it out for Lance, and I believe that his recent dalliance with the Ironman was too much for them to take--that they couldn't stand to see him compete again. And, when the Feds dropped their case against Lance, USADA saw this as a chance to make a big name for their organization by going after the biggest fish in the pond.

I also feel bad for the sport of cycling. There is no doubt that the sport was filthy from about 1991 (when EPO hit the scene full-force) until about 2008, and of course there are still cheaters out there. But, it's getting better. The sport has always been way ahead of the curve in terms of how it deals with cheats, but that's also meant a lot of negative publicity. The sport should be lauded for it's crusade against doping, not chided for what it's uncovered. It's a beautiful sport, and always will be. And today, it's a cleaner sport that it's been in a long, long time. But there will always be cheaters, and in every sport.

Lance will survive. He has an army of supporters, and they will continue to support him. I don't believe that his decision to not fight the USADA charges will have any long-term impact on his legacy. Those millions who love Lance will still love him, and they'll agree with his reasons not to fight. Those millions that hate Lance will, of course, still hate him. I would be shocked if the Livestrong Foundation suffers at all--I'll predict that their donations may in fact increase now, much as Penn State saw donations increase following the Sandusky scandal.

Lance made the best call. It will be difficult for him, short term, to read the headlines that he's "guilty" or that he's "been stripped of his Tour wins." Ultimately, though, his life will go on. He'll keep his Tour wins (I think), and he won't go to jail. He's basically survived every accusation levelled against him over the last 15 years. His foundation will survive, as will his legacy, for the most part. It's the best possible outcome for Lance, considering he had to choose between two negative outcomes. He chose the lesser of two evils. Whether or not Lance Armstrong contested those races by virtue of evil means is up for everyone else to now decide on their own.

27 comments:

  1. It will be interesting to see whether the evidence that USADA says they gathered against Armstrong somehow accidentally leaks out. And if Armstrong is stripped of his titles, will he file suit in court, where the rules are clearer, to recover them? He has a better case under the legal rules of evidence than in USADA arbitration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks on Monday upheld the jurisdiction of USADA to pursue its case against Armstrong, noting that the agency's authorization stemmed from an act of Congress and that its arbitration process does not violate Armstrong's right to due process. He can't sue.

      Delete
    2. You can appeal anything, though it might not be successful.

      Delete
  2. As always Junior your right on the money. Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It may be possible that testimony gets out or is leaked out anyway through Johan Bruyneel's arbitration case, which he claims he will fight, coming up in the fall. I think, though, that Leipheimer and Hincapie, certainly credible witnesses are from the "old school" and will not rat out Lance unless they would commit perjury. And with Bruyneel's case not being against Lance, someone would have to have an ax to grind...but someone always does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe Hincapie and Leipheimer did implicate Lance. George wanted to be on the US Olympic team, yet withdrew consideration post testimony. I speculate he confessed to PEDs with Lance. USADA has a right of refusal concerning the Olympic team so he realized it was pointless.

      Delete
  4. Regarding various media reporting that Armstrong has been stripped of his tour victories, the USADA is the source of this because they believe they have this power.

    They say that UCI is bound to recognize their decision, see the 11th paragraph:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/usada-strip-lance-armstrong-7-tour-titles-031949504--spt.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's become a standard practice in our society to "get to the bottom" of things, especially when someone is a high level achiever. We tear down anyone who is successful, cast a curious eye at winning, and want to believe rumor and innuendo. Sure, there are cheaters in all walks of life and we seem to only "get" a few of them, but, more often than not, we accuse the innocent. There is NO WAY Lance could have just been a great athlete, right? Our culture's need for everyone to be equal and have no one succeed above anyone else, in all walks of life, is beginning to get annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there any thought to what happens when the USADA comes after him for the cash prizes that came with his wins? Do you think Lance may be biding his time and once they file suit for that to be relinquished, he will then make them prove in a court of law that there is proof of cheating? That would then be his "day in court" and not at the mercy of an arbitration board that is stacked against him?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great points Jr.

    I wonder if he truly retired after tour win # 7 if any further investigation would have taken place. No tour revivals, no triathalons, etc. NYC marathon is ok... His comebacks seemed to taunt Feds & USADA into launching their investigations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Roy. They were all great athletes, that's the enormous point that casual fans miss. Show up at a Cat 5 criterium in your hometown, these are the lowest rung on the racing ladder. They will light your ass on fire. The guys who race in Europe are all so incredible it's hard to conceive of it. The top .1% of cycling was bested by this guy every time and they were all doping, yet somehow he wasn't? That dog won't hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Junes, I am curious about who funds USADA? Do you have any info on this?

    And I completely agree with you on this whole issue. Lance IS the best, whether he was clean and a super freak of nature or playing by the rest of the dopers' rules and just a regular freak of nature, he still beat them handily. It's sad and frustrating to see a US sport organization (?) rip its own superstar athletes to shreds for no good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that this is a witch hunt, he was just better than everyone else at the time. He should take them to court and sue for one billion dollars and see what would happen

    ReplyDelete
  11. “Pain is temporary … if I quit, however, it lasts forever. That surrender, even the smallest act of giving up, stays with me. So when I feel like quitting, I ask myself, which would I rather live with?” — Lance Armstrong, as written by Sally Jenkins, in his 2000 autobiography, It’s Not About The Bike.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would love to know more about this arbitration process. It just short circuits my mind that everyone assumes the USADA would win even though the have some obvious credibility issues. If this were a "regular" court case you could counter all the former guilty cyclists as being questionable sources. The only reasonable sources are people who have a valid reason to not anger the USADA.

    If this process really comes down to speculation then why is it universally assumed that Lance will end up on the losing end? Can't his lawyers be just as creative with their speculative evidence? And doesn't hard evidence like actually PASSING all the tests administered weigh more in arbitration?

    I just don't get it. The best I can see someone ruling on this is that it seems fishy because some people claim he doped. But weighed against the lack of real physical evidence, it has to be viewed by a reasonable person as at least questionable testimony. So just doubt ends up equaling guilt in this process? And a judge sees that as fair? I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not the guilt or innocence of the process it's the USADA conducting a witch hunt. Even the judge said the process seemed unfair but he then said he lacked the jurisdiction to intervene.

    My other issue is it seems obvious that some who admitted drug use got a free pass to rat on Lance. There were at least three riders in this years tour that gave evidence that the did illegal substances with Armstrong but where is the outrage toward them?

    The most disgusting part of this whole episode is it was spearheaded by an American group who took up the French torch and went after one of their own.

    The USADA is a scum bag organization run by an asshole. The end!

    ReplyDelete
  14. don't let the doping scandal distract all of you from real reason Lance is deplorable: Livestrong is a joke. http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

    ReplyDelete
  15. What I can't understand is how nobody is pointing out that the USADA has an obligation to protect clean athletes today. The USADA received tips that Lance doped and explored those tips only to find clear evidence of guilt.

    If the USADA did nothing, they lose credibility. By pursuing Lance, it gives me faith as an athlete they will stop at nothing to keep my sport clean from PAST, PRESENT, and future dopers.

    Because Lance kept competing beyond cycling, he brought this on himself even more. Lance's body has been built by drugs. His muscles are stronger, they breathe better because of the additional capillaries, and he recovers faster. It's not fair to any other athlete that he competes against today because of his past choices. Years of doping have allowed him to build a better machine than those non-dopers today. Why should those clean athletes lose price money, places and possible careers? The USADA HAD to do something once they received evidence. Props to the USADA for doing what was right for all athletes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If Lance doped, all that did was get him to the start line equal with all the other dopes. He then surrounded himself with the best team, and then kicks some booty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great article if you look at the top three from the past fifteen years full of chargers but the if you go back in time all the old champions have had positive drug tests have we finally evolved and seen a clean year?
      No mention or press exposure to Barcelona FC giving Messi growth hormones to increase his size,is this not a form of doping

      Delete
  17. Might want to check some of your facts.

    For example, when exactly did Andreas Kloden fail a drug test?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct in that Kloden has never tested positive. I should have clarified why I included him on the list: 1) He was a part of the Telekom squad, which was long suspected of having a systematic doping program of the highest order. 2) It is believed that in 2006 he used the Freiburg Clinic as his base for blood transfusions. 3) The German NADA is apparently about to open an investigation of Kloden for blood doping, and for using the Freiburg Clinic for those activities. Again, you are correct in that he has never tested positive, but I find it very difficult to make the argument that he's clean and would deserve a Tour title.

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good article Junes.......See the documentary BIGGER FASTER STRONGER. it details how everyone is taking PEDs. My brother a surgeon takes Inderol before microsurgery. Professional concert musicians do the same it allows them to play difficult pieces. Lance used PEDs .....so do baseball players. Tom Grieve mentioned on BADradio that he used uppers. Probably Nolan did to. Imagine sitting in the stands for all 9 innings of 162 games ...it could not be done without PEDs. How do players over 30 play 162 games?

    The Tour is not clean now and never will be. I have no problem with that. Here's my deal....Lance is a miserable Jerk of a human being(no law against it) . People wanna give him a free pass because of LIVESTRONG ..please. All professional athletes do whatever it takes thats fine by me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The guy is a miserable egg of a human being and almost no one denies that he's a cheater. Yet, the mouth breathing, jort clad, masses run to his defense because his name is on a yellow bracelet. It's insane to justify his cheating by saying everyone else was doing it. When has that argument ever been acceptable? Why is it permissible in LA's defense? He's not special. He deserves no quarter or exemption. This insane rhetoric is borne from the arduous zeal that only fans of a fringe sport can muster. To analyze and judge his moves as if he were navigating a road course instead of fleecing and lying to millions is deplorable Junior. Call a baby arm a baby arm.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fantastic read! I’ve saved your site…..,

    ReplyDelete