It’s a bit late, but I still want to share my thoughts about one of my great idols - Lance Armstrong:
We have been told by the Dutch press (Telegraaf, NRC-Handelsblad, etc.) and then the American media that the following people are testifying that Lance Armstrong has engaged in doping: Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie, George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton and Jonathan Vaughters. Five of these men did this year’s Tour de France - the first four as competitors, Vaughters as a team director.
My sympathies remain with Armstrong. I agree with Buzz Bissinger in the Sept. 3 issue of Newsweek: “I Still Believe in Lance Armstrong. To hell with the doping charges. Lance Armstrong performed miracles. Stop tearing down our idols.”
I realize that the argument “what’s the big deal? They all do it anyway” doesn’t hold water.
But that’s not my (only) argument. I am also struck by the following aspects of this case:
1. All the testimonies against Armstrong are plea bargains. The witnesses are making deals with the prosecution (The United States Anti-Doping Agency). They are all guilty of doping themselves. In exchange for their testimony, they got to finish this year’s Tour de France, and they are banned from racing for only 6 months - a slap on the wrist. The Cui Bono principle applies. Who benefits? These “witnesses” are all suspect from the very outset.
2. All testimony against Armstrong is either hearsay or eye-witness evidence. There has never been a single piece of physical evidence against him.
I know, I know. He probably did cheat. I am not that naive. Still, isn’t there something in the Bill of Rights about being innocent until proven guilty? Armstrong does not belong in the same category as Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, all proven criminals.
3. The intensity, severity and length of the Armstrong investigations are unparalleled. Lance is the most drug tested athlete in the history of the world. He has passed over 500 drug tests and failed none. He has been hounded by the authorities for over thirteen years. The persecution and the prosecution are selective and arbitrary. It brings into question the prosecutors’ motives. Clearly, hauling in the big fish would be a tremendous personal success. This is called discrimination. The action has become a witch hunt.
4. Armstrong’s decision to stop defending himself has been interpreted as an admission of guilt. That’s not necessarily so. He is probably just sick and tired of spending his entire life on this.
5. Both doping and the detection of doping have become high sciences in the last fifteen years. Earlier, professional cyclists also cheated - just more primitively. Many of the great ones from my childhood died prematurely of cancer and other diseases that were probably related to their use of performance-enhancing substances, including the Frenchmen Bobet and Anquetil. In 1967, the British cyclist Tom Simpson died while riding the Tour de France, as a result of the methamphetamines he had taken to improve his performance. Did the great Eddy Merckx cheat? Greg Lemond? Fausto Coppi? We’ll never know.
But all these men’s careers and places in history are safe. No one will tamper with them.
And then came Lance Armstrong, winning an astronomical seven Tour de Frances from 1999 through 2005. His achievement was miraculous, unprecedented, and probably impossible to ever surpass. But unfortunately, Armstrong came too late. Doping and its detection are now allegedly “scientific,”standards have changed, and new quasi-juridical bureaucracies have emerged, needing to justify their existence. Armstrong is being taken down because (1) he was too good, a giant among giants, and (2) his achievements came at the wrong time. Bad luck.
If history ends up being rewritten the way the USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) intends to re-write it, we have a tragedy on our hands. However, many of us can continue to believe in Lance Armstrong. Hopefully, he will remain the greatest athlete of all times in the hearts and memories of future generations, regardless of the petty bureaucrats’ efforts to assassinate his reputation.
7 comments:
I didn't get to the end of your post, because the first few points are so stuck in the "trying to adapt reality to an unreality" methodology.
The evidence is stacked so high... and I know you have an internet connect, so get out there and see what it is. You're pre-bias is getting in the way of finding out the truth.
Also did not get to the end of your article.
I stopped at your 'hearsay' comment. Clearly, you don't know what hearsay is.
Testimony from other riders is DIRECT EYE-WITNESS testimony from co-conspirators, not just some innocent bystander. It's NOT hearsay.
Stop elevating Lance when he should be vilified.
Ouch!
The cost of unpopular views is criticism.
Oops, I made a mistake using the word “hearsay.” But the difference between “hearsay” and “eye-witness” is perfectly clear to me.
Incidentally, if you want to be technical, eye-witness testimony has long been known to be among the most unreliable sources of evidence, sending many innocent people to prison.
But I digress. Don’t go all crazy on me. I am not suggesting that all of that eye-witness testimony is false. I already admit in my post that in all likelihood Lance has occasionally taken performance-enhancing drugs, especially early in his career.
The point of my post was not to distort truth and reality. It was to express a personal preference, and also to generate a conversation that is more interesting than the sanctimonious near-unanimous condemnation of someone with unparalleled achievements.
Buzz Bissinger’s September 3 Newsweek cover story makes exactly the same point, perhaps better than I do. You should check it out - but then again, reading seems to be a real challenge to you...
I didn't get further than point 1 of this blog. Hamilton et al. are all 'whistle blowers'. It is a usual for whistleblowers to first be part of the crime in an organization, and thus share in the guilt for it. But that doesn't make the eyewitness testimonies any less credible - especially not when it's not one person but a couple of them.
It is a crime finally revealed - except for those who didn't want to see in the first place.
I agree with you Tom. I also wouldn't argue that he is innocent, but the process used against him is counter to any reasonable notion of justice.
The cyclists who would testify against him are either cyclists who have been found guilty of doping and want to sell books, or are currently with the ProTour. The guys in the ProTour were only told that there is evidence against them, and so if charges were filed they would immediately be off the bike, without income, but if they'd testify against Lance, they'd get 6 months off the bike, served in the off season. That they succumbed to that pressure is not proof that they doped and it is not proof that Lance doped.
The names of these cycilsts were leaked by USADA, which engages in strategic leaking, to help make their case in the press. The leader of USADA, which would hold the hearing had Lance subjected himself to it, speaks in the press like a prosecutor engaging in pretrial publicity. But he's in charge of USADA, which would hear the case, making his behavior outrageous.
My opinion can be dismissed because I am a cancer survivor, and Lance has been an inspiration to me.
Why are the federal prosecutor and USADA (which derives most of its money from the federal government) falling all over themselves to bring down someone who has done so much that is positive for our country, and for cancer survivors around the world? I understand why people are feeling betrayed by Lance, but we should also feel betrayed that our government spends its money (reported to be $40 million on the investigation) on such expensive witch hunts.
The USADA is a typical absurd set up - they move the rules after the fact. So Armstrong is being judged by rules after they did a series of investigations contemporaneously. I am not sure whether Armstrong cheated but I think this is silly. This would not hold up in a court of law with rules of evidence.
Scott and Jonathan:
Thank you for your comments.
Yes, trial by the press is one more ugly feature of this ugly case, where everyone seems to be misbehaving, including the accusers, the witnesses and the accused.
I share your ambivalence. I am also a cancer survivor, which also increases my sympathy for Lance Armstrong.
At the same time, I also feel betrayed by Armstrong, as does Scott. I would have to be very naive to believe that he is totally clean.
So it's a complicated mess.Who knows how bad things will get. Other bodies (the International Cycling Union, UCI, and the World Anti Doping Agency, WADA) are still waiting before they strip Armstrong of all his titles, which they are highly likely to do.
When Floyd Landis was first accused of cheating, I also bent over backwards to believe him rather than his accusers, and then it turned out that he WAS guilty, and in fact sleazy.
Who knows...
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!