Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Say It Ain’t So, Lance

The latest news about American Hero Lance Armstrong is not good. Anyone who has had a look at the report of the United States Anti-Doping Agency has to be left with some serious questions.

The first one for me is what kind of an agency is this? It is an ominous and official sounding title but it turns out this group is not a governmental body or agency. It is a private, non profit organization which serves as the police, prosecutor, judge, jury, and appellate court to root out the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes competing in the Olympics, Pan-American Games, Para-Olympics and, apparently, the Tour de France. On their website, the USADA says their vision is to be “The guardian of the values and life lessons learned through true sport.”  Wow, that’s some vision.  And I guess that’s why they have gone after Lance Armstrong with such zeal.

The report includes a number of sworn statements by Lance’s teammates, his competitors really, who freely admit they used banned substances when they lost to the seven time champion, but they say Lance did, too. The Report cites as evidence that there were “some tell tale signs” Armstrong was using EPO, “such as Lance carrying around a thermos.” Not that anyone saw or knew what was in thermos, mind you, but he did carry one around.

Of course, there are far more convincing statements from a host of his former teammates and others purporting to be eye witnesses to Armstrong’s use and distribution of banned substances and of his withdrawing and then transfusing his own blood in an effort to increase its oxygen content. These are difficult to explain away and probably are the reason Armstrong refused to defend himself against these new charges.

Most damning is the suggestion that the USADA has retest results of some blood samples that had previously been found to be clean and that now show evidence of doping. There is little explanation, however, as to why the first tests done within a short time after the blood was drawn were negative.

I admit the Report with all its flaws is fairly convincing. But it does not diminish my view that Armstrong is one of the great athletes of our time, not to mention all the good work he has done as a cancer survivor. His feats were superhuman as he prevailed time and again over other cyclists who apparently now admit using the same banned substances he is accused of using. And no self-appointed guardian of “true” sport’s values and lessons, whatever they may be, can take that away.


Does the author of this post have the same opinion of Barry Bonds, who was also doping in a sport rampant with cheating?

I'm surprised by this sort of reaction to Armstrong's cheating. As far as I can remember, he is the only athlete that has cheated who people still hold up as a beacon of amazing athletic achievement.

For me the worst part is that Armstrong continues to deny he doped while at the same time trying to destroy anyone who claims that he did.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 10/11/2012 3:42 PM  

Armstrong has indeed been an inspiration, but as to the "great athlete" claim, I wonder if the results of the races would have been the same if no one cheated as they were assuming all cheated. Athletes adapt to technology (even biological technology) differently. All Armstrong's victories prove is that he adapted best to the game as it existed.

Anonymous Jeff Standen -- 10/15/2012 2:50 PM  

"Adapting best to the game" is a comically poor distinction that many people simply call cheating. It is unconscionable to defend someone just because they cheated better than the other guys.

He cheated to create an image of himself that he then profited from, but also do some great things with Livestrong. I will never condemn his humanitarian work, but you can't base your argument hiding behind that later work.

He cheated. He was the leader of the cheating scheme. It's bizarre to me that this glaring fact is being disregarded because he was a great cheater

Anonymous Long -- 10/17/2012 3:16 PM  

My initial thoughts about the relentless prosecution concerned the USADA more the Lance Armstrong. As the article mentions, USADA is self regulating acting as the police and judge/jury. I do not see how organizations can justly operate when wielding so much power. There is essentially no sort of government regulation over it. This is the same in much respect to the NCAA and currently the NFL with Roger Goodell. Just as Goodell can hand out punishment and then review the appeals process himself, the USADA can do the same with Armstrong. The results of this process lead to extreme bias and leave the alleged offender with an uphill battle to prove his innocence. I am not arguing that Armstrong should get a pass for his alleged conduct, despite his heroic efforts in cancer research and the symbol of hope he represents. I am arguing for a change or check on the power and use of private institutions with such broad authority that publicly denounce and condemn these athletes.
- Jordan K.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 10/17/2012 10:23 PM  

Post a Comment