FINAL: Lance Armstrong and Political Manipulation 1, Fairness and the Sport of Cycling 0

[wtmusic]

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post titled, "Did Lance Armstrong buy his freedom with a $100K donation to Planned Parenthood?". This got some panties in a knot because it discussed the possibility Obama's DOJ dropped a criminal investigation for political reasons: the president would rather let an accused criminal go free than risk alienating voters in an election year (the case was dropped the same day Dubya-buddy-and-darling-of-the-political-right Lance made the donation).

An article published in the NYT today, In a Tight Race, Obama Draws on the Levers of His Power lends credence to that conclusion:

"Every president lives at the intersection of policy and politics, never more so than during a campaign season. Locked in a tight race with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama and his team have been pulling every lever of the federal government within reach, announcing initiatives aimed at critical constituencies, dispatching cabinet secretaries to competitive areas, coordinating campaign events to match popular government actions and forestalling or even reversing other government decisions that could hurt the president’s chances of a second term."

<>

"While announcing new initiatives during campaign season is standard practice, Mr. Obama’s team also seems focused on stopping policies that may be politically hazardous. In June, the Interior Department rejected their own plans to designate a lizard known as the dunes sagebrush as endangered by oil and gas activities. After analysis, the department declared that “the lizard is no longer in danger of extinction.”

“The administration did not want to face criticism from the oil and gas industry during an election year,” said Taylor McKinnon, a public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/politics/obama-exploits-familiar-junction-of-policy-and-politics.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Proving any kind of deal is probably impossible, and ultimately pointless. In truth, it was probably the best decision for Obama to make: there are bigger fish to fry. But as someone who follows the sport closely, I'm pissed on behalf of talented, ethical cyclists like Andy Hampsten, Scott Mercier and thousands of others who quit rather than adopt the cheating ethic which Lance represents.

Never heard of Andy or Scott? There's a reason.

[Curtland1015]

1. I dunno... I really don't think Obama would have been putting himself in any danger...

...putting Lance Armstrong on trial. I don't know if the American public at large REALLY cares all that much him or cycling (no offense).

Plus, dropping the case the SAME DAY the donation to planned parenthood was made? If you were really doing it because of that, wouldn't you intentionally NOT do that the same day to avoid suspicion?

I'm not saying Obama wouldn't pander to voters, but in this case I don't really see the benefit. Plus, this isn't just pandering, it's pretty much accusing the President of taking a bribe.

[wtmusic]

3. No offense taken

I realize not too many people care about cycling, but Lance was an American hero. People who know nothing else about cycling know his name and his charity (which, incidentally, donates almost nothing to research and which some feel is mostly a vehicle to promote himself).

I think it's entirely possible Lance and his lawyers (which include Karl Rove's legal team) let the DOJ know they were displeased with the investigation, then started donating money to liberal causes. And if the investigation were to continue, there was plenty more money where that came from.

[MercutioATC]

2. I don't know if Lance doped.

What I do know is that, after taking hundreds of drug tests, he's tested clean for his races.

If there is a procedure for detecting doping and any given person passes the required tests, I think it's wrong to ruin their reputation based on anything other than a legitimately failed test. The presumption of innocence might not be a legal requirement in these situations, but especially in light of the fact this this is a highly regulated sport I believe that if somebody passes the tests, the governing body should have to actually PROVE a violation rather than resorting to having the matter tried in the court of public opinion.

[wtmusic]

4. Not according to those who raced with him.

According to Tyler Hamilton and others who have admitted to doping Lance donated $125,000 to the UCI - cycling's governing body - after he failed a test and the result "disappeared". Tyler's book The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs

http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Race-Cover-ups-Winning/dp/0345530411/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348154565&sr=8-1&keywords=the+secret+race

is an excellent read. But if you're not that interested in cycling just read the reviews on Amazon - very few are unconvinced he's telling the truth.

IMO Lance is the one who used millions of dollars and the court of public opinion to sway justice.

[MercutioATC]

5. An unsubstantiated claim made by somebody riding in a shadow.

Hamilton would have liked to have Armstrong's success, I'm sure. The fact is that there are no recorded violations of doping rules. With all of the testing that goes on in bicycle racing, do you really believe it's possible that one man could cover up EVERY test?

[wtmusic]

6. Google "lance epo 1999" and you'll see that's really not the case

1. Other cyclists have corroborated Tyler's account.
2. To my knowledge, not one other cyclist has come to Lance's defense. Are they all just jealous?
3. Cyclists who dope (virtually all of them) since 1995 have created a science out of testing clean. Their careers are on the line, and it's not that hard.

Again, I think you would find the book fascinating and convincing.

[MercutioATC]

7. Again, second-hand reports and conjecture.

I don't know that Armstrong didn't dope. I do know that there's nothing but anecdotal reports (from competitors) and conjecture that say he did.

If it was me, I'd want my accuser to have actual evidence, not suppositions and theory.

[wtmusic]

9. Plenty of first hand reports, and evidence.

Tyler saw Lance getting transfused, borrowed EPO from him, heard Lance admit he got "popped" for EPO, claim it was "taken care of". None of this has been disputed by anyone - besides Lance - on US Postal.

Eyewitness reports from George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, and many others are the reason Lance chose not to arbitrate the USADA case.

[MercutioATC]

10. Your first paragraph: unsubstianted statements from competitors

Your second: conjecture


I realize this isn't a court of law, but you seriously don't believe that the presumption of innocence should apply in this case?

[wtmusic]

12. An eyewitness is subtantial and admissible.

Floyd Landis:

"According to the newspaper, Landis claimed the blood extractions took place in Armstrong's apartment. He said blood bags belonging to Armstrong and then-teammate George Hincapie were kept in a refrigerator in Armstrong's closet and Landis was asked to check the temperature of the blood daily.

When Armstrong left for a few weeks, he asked Landis to "make sure the electricity didn't go off and ruin the blood," according to the e-mail quoted by the Journal."

Jonathan Vaughters:

"Vaughters said he was told he wouldn’t cut it as a pro unless he doped — that cheating was the final “2 percent” that could keep a dream alive in the eyes of those “who couldn’t see your heart.”

The lie was brutal, and even though success was possible for a clean athlete, it was only attainable when the rules were enforced, he wrote. Vaughters chose to keep his dream alive by cheating — a hard call, he said, because when regulations aren’t enforced, making the right choice, walking away and refusing to dope meant “deciding to end your dream, because you could not be competitive.”

“When I was racing in the 1990s and early 2000s, the rules were easily circumvented by any and all — and if you wanted to be competitive, you first had to keep up. This environment is what we must continuously work to prevent from ever surfacing again. It destroys dreams. It destroys people. It destroys our finest athletes,” he wrote in the Times."

Where are the cyclists rushing to Lance's defense?

In USADA's investigation there was indeed a presumption of innocence. Lance chose not to fight, which in any court of law is known as an admission of guilt (I'm not sure why people don't see it that way, and instead sympathize with him for now being too "tired" to fight).

[MercutioATC]

14. And if the supposed witness is a competitor already disgraced for doping?

As for your last paragraph, Armstrong fought the allegations for years. He's certainly old enough to have lost his edge. I'd posit that it's equally possible that he's done riding competitively anyway and is sick of defending himself.

...but that's all conjecture and has nothing to do with the real issue. The only fact here is that Armstrong was tested hundreds of times and never failed a test.

[wtmusic]

18. Armstrong only fought allegations in the press, with Rovian smear tactics

but you're willing to accept the notion he "never failed a test" from someone who's not willing to defend it in arbitration? You're willing to accept that everyone is so jealous of Lance that they, regardless of their own past, would lie to drag him down? This is not the thing of which legit sports legends are made.

He's certainly done riding now, but his plans to make a comeback by riding in the Vuelta de España and the Ironman were what initiated the USADA investigation.

[MercutioATC]

19. The USADA confirms that he never failed a test.

I'm accepting THEIR word.

[wtmusic]

20. Have a link? nt

[DanTex]

21. The USADA confirms that Armstrong is a doper. About that "never failed a test" meme....

1) It's not true. At the very least, he tested positive for corticosteroid in the 99 tour, and five of his urine samples later tested positive for EPO.

2) It proves nothing. A lot of dopers never tested positive (e.g. Ullrich, Basso, Marion Jones, etc.) and only got caught based on other evidence. Also, there was no test for EPO during part of Armstrong's career, and there was no test for autologous blood doping for his entire career. That means he could have done all the blood transfusions he wanted without testing positive.

Why people think that the lack of a positive test proves anything at all about whether Armstrong was blood doping is a mystery to me. It's either staggering ignorance or staggering denial.

[tinrobot]

8. Just look at who he raced against

Disregarding any tests (which can be beat), look at the other riders who raced against Lance.

Every year Lance won, all of the other riders who stood next to him on on the podium (plus a lot more in the top 10-20) were later busted for doping. It's hard to imagine that Lance is such a Superman that he could beat a peloton full of dopers.

But... if you want to use your imagination to keep him as your hero, you're free to do that.

[MercutioATC]

11. So your argument is that since his competitors doped and he still won, he must have doped, too?

To be clear, he's not my "hero". I honestly don't care whether he doped or not.

...but I believe that he is innocent until actually proven guilty.

[DanTex]

13. He was presumed innocent.

If you are charged with a crime, and you plead no contest, you don't get to then whine about the presumption of innocence. He had the choice to contest the charges, in which case there would have been an arbitration and all of the witnesses and evidence against him would have been made public. He chose to accept the sanctions instead.

[MercutioATC]

15. He's fought these allegations for years.

See post #14 for more.

[DanTex]

17. So?

The fact that he fought the allegations for years doesn't mean he was actually innocent. Everyone who gets caught for doping fights the allegations.

He had a chance to have a hearing and he declined. In so doing so, he forfeited the presumption of innocence.

There is no doubt that Armstrong was dirty. Pretty much everyone who follows cycling and knows the first thing about EPO and blood doping has known this for years. All that was missing was enough conclusive evidence to get him sanctioned. But now USADA has that evidence, and rather then have it all presented to the public, Armstrong chose instead to accept sanctions. THat's his choice.

[MercutioATC]

22. Armstrong competitively cycled for 20 years.

He's been an extremely successful rider and has been accused of doping. He has not failed a doping test (24 of them just between late 2008 and early 2009). Hell, the Feds even investigated him for nearly two years and declined to file charges.

Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't. It's not right, however, to be a regulating body and claim that somebody is guilty but you can't prove it because you failed to implement sufficient testing.

[DanTex]

24. USADA can prove it. They just didn't get a chance to because Armstrong declined arbitration.

Positive tests are not the only way that people get caught for doping. Particularly for blood doping because there was no test for blood doping for all of Armstrong's career. Another way is if, for example, the eyewitness testimony of ten former teammates and team assistants. If you have ten eyewitnesses for, say, a theft, but you don't have fingerprints, that's still a pretty strong case.

[MercutioATC]

25. With a theft, at least, you have proof that something is missing.

There's nothing "missing" here. There's absolutely no proof of wrongdoing. Even the Feds couldn't find any.

[wtmusic]

26. What basis do you have for your assertion that the Feds didn't have rock-solid proof

and the case wasn't dropped for political reasons?

[DanTex]

16. I don't think the planned parenthood donation had anything to do with it.

But I do think that the decision to drop the case against him was political. Armstrong's PR team had been pushing the "waste of taxpayer money angle" for a while. Armstrong is a popular figure, and it would have been a high-profile and potentially unpopular prosecution.

[wtmusic]

23. I think it probably was a shot across the bow

"You want to come after me? I have tens of millions of ways I can make your campaign more difficult..."

[DanTex]

27. That's a good point.

While a direct quid-pro-quo is unlikely, it definitely served as a reminder that he was widely perceived as a good guy and had funds to spend on PR.