One can imagine the cheers from critics and skeptics that cyclist Lance Armstrong is being stripped of his seven consecutive Tour de France wins, and his 2000 Olympic Bronze Medal.
In face of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) erasing his name from record books, Armstrong himself has said he's no longer going to fight these guys, as he's done for years, and is simply going to get on with his life.
The almost universal reaction is that by no longer being willing to defend himself against what he calls a continuing "witch-hunt," it automatically proves his guilt. In fact it does no such thing. Nor does it make him a quitter. Perhaps it means he's had a bellyful of accusations, allegations, but little evidence of breaking the rules.
By winning every Tour de France race from 1999 to 2005, Armstrong alleges that no athlete in the world has been tested so regularly and relentlessly for banned substances -- and nothing was ever found. In most -- of those seven Tour de France triumphs -- cyclists who shared the podium with him tested positive and were subsequently banned or suspended. But not Armstrong. He passed every test.
A gaggle of cylists and others -- some of questionable character -- have testified that they knew he used banned substances. Sorry fellas -- that's not good enough. Or shouldn't be good enough to ban him. Without tangible proof, someone saying something detrimental is (or should be) insufficient to get a conviction. If someone alleges Armstrong used substance "X," and Armstrong is tested for substance "X," and no substance "X" is found, how in the name of justice can he be found guilty? It reeks of witch-hunt.
Armstrong has been out of Tour de France racing for some five years -- and has raised $500 million for cancer research. Yes, he's controversial, he has enemies in the sport, resentment from some cyclists, envy from others.
Cycling is notorious for banned substances being used. Fair enough to suspect Armstrong, and since 1999 he'd been put through the hoops time and time again. Yet, nothing. Other cyclists tested positive -- not Armstrong. Allegations now are that his own blood was collected, and saved, and transfused into him during races, which is difficult to detect. This the far end of doping, and was never authenticated.
"I played by the rules," Armstrong has repeatedly said. If he was cheating, he was never caught while others were. Again, you can bet your last euro that for the seven Tours de France that Armstrong won, every French antenna was tuned to catching him cheating.
In his biography, he makes a big deal of recovering from the testicular cancer that reached into his brain and should have killed him. It didn't. It inspired him to work harder. After recovering from supposedly lethal cancer, he said he was determined never to put anything into his bloodstream that might bring on the cancer again.
That observation made sense to me. Of course, I haven't a clue if Armstrong was, or was not, using banned substances. All I know is that it has never been proven. If you can't prove something, you can't convict him.
Apparently Armstrong's lactic acid count is such that his body has super endurance. He's not the only athlete with this trait, but he's the most famous one. One can sympathize with Armstrong's frustration of endless denying, coupled with endless witch-hunting with then USADA waging a vendetta to get him -- not unusual in the American prosecutorial system.
Although expunged from the record book, Lance Armstrong remains the greatest athlete in the history of cycling.
This coming from a guy who spent his entire life convicting in print, anyone who dared to disagree with his rather weird ideas.
i see his point and understand completely where he's coming from, like anyone who has had to try to clear his name can attest to. there comes a point when, regardless of the circumstance, you just get tired of putting up the fight, it's draining on you emotionally and financially. and unlike a physical fight, the stress never goes away. people can say what they want, in my opinion, giving up this fight doesn't tarnish his reputation in my books.
The agency had 10-12 witnesses lined up to testify against Lance (including his best buddy) and re-done blood tests (with newer technology). Armstrong knew what they had and said, "I'm not going to participate in this." Smart move, Lance.
If an athlete fails to appear at a WADA or USADA hearing to address charges for doping they ARE guilty - there is no supposition. You may disagree with the process but that is the process for athletes.
Passing hundreds of tests means nothing. remember Marion Jones & Tim Mongomery? Caught in the Balco investigation. Never tested positive - ever.
in 10 years, none of you could prove Sh#t.
Now why is that?
As for "better things to do"..... I thought this was the invinceable LA?
As for why he didn't contest them.......Occam's Razor
Either way, it’s sad, even sadder for him if he is innocent. One good thing comes out of this, all the money he has helped raise for cancer.
Focus on the part that states: "are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process"
"As noted above, Mr. Armstrong challenged the arbitration process in federal court. In response, the court found that " “the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process.” "
USADA’s rules provide that where an athlete or other person is sanctioned because they fail to contest USADA’s charges in arbitration, the sanction shall not be reopened or subject to appeal unless the athlete or other person can demonstrate that he did not receive actual or constructive notice of the opportunity to contest the sanction. Because Mr. Armstrong could have had a hearing before neutral arbitrators to contest USADA’s evidence and sanction and he voluntarily chose not to do so, USADA’s sanction is final."
“Alternatively, even if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong’s remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation’s courts.”
“This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him.”
So even if the USADA is biased or has a vendetta - which I am not sure they do - Armstrong would get a fair hearing & due process.
The question is whether he is guilty not whether it is beyond the USADA's jurisdiction.
Personally, I am glad they (& others) go after dopers like LA. The game is to not get caught before you get millions, then claim ignorance, or a false test or some other nonsense excuse or....
Like LA just walk away when one knows that one cannot win based on the evidence the finally have & one might lose all one's endorsements or more importantly..... image.
1. The title: "If You Can't Prove Armstrong Doped, How Can You Convict Him?" The way you prove he doped is to have arbitration to weight the evidence -- the eyewitness testimony, the blood/urine test results, incriminating emails, incriminating wire transfers, secretly recorded discussions, etc. Without attending the arbitration, the public may never know the evidence USADA collected.
2. "Without tangible proof, someone saying something detrimental is (or should be) insufficient to get a conviction" Marion Jones was convicted without ever failing a test, i.e., doping control logs, eyewitness testimony of Victor Conte and others. Especially compelling in Lance's case is that some of the eyewitnesses were his best friends, people who he had absolutely no beef with (Hincapie, Zabriskie, Vande Velde, Leipheimer). Looks bad when your best friends are gonna testify against you.
3. "He passed every test". Lots of cyclists who never tested positive later came forward and admitted it, i.e., Bjarin Riis and Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters and lots of others. And many riders caught for the first time have openly discussed how they cheated for years without being caught. Not rocket science, just need a good doping doctor and plenty of $$$. Also, Armstrong's testing record is less than stellar, i.e., 1993-1995 tests for high T/E, 1999 TdF tests for EPO and corticosteroids, 2009/2010 tests for blood manipulation.
Blood is kept for 8 years for testing because sometimes the science of cheating is years ahead of the science of detecting it, simply because of the huge amounts of money involved with winning.
Also Livestrong is not really about funding cancer research, http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=1
Lance has a VERY GOOD pr team that you seem to have boughten into hook line and sinker.
If this were a murder trail, and a witness fingered the defendant, but all the forensic evidence (DNA, blood, semen, fingerprints) pointed elsewhere, which is more credible? DNA evidence that points to someone else would be considered exculpatory evidence, and exculpatory scientific evidence (unlike, say, the best friend who provides an alibi) is something you take at face value, not try to explain away.
More importantly, every other athlete exposed to the tests Armstong took were caught at the time. How does one explain that Armstong wasn't? Every witness against Armstrong has himself been caught doping. That evidence alone reduces their credibility to that of a jailhouse snitch who says he heard the defendant confess, in order to curry favor with the guards.
You don't know much about US & world anti-doping laws do you? Perhaps before making such comments, you did a little research on the USADA or WADA sites. I refer you to the USADA preass release which alos would have been good place for you to start...
"Following the dismissal of Mr. Armstrong’s lawsuit on Monday, August 20, 2012, by the federal court in Austin, Texas, Mr. Armstrong had until midnight on Thursday, August 23, to contest the evidence against him in a full evidentiary hearing with neutral arbitrators as provided by U.S. law. However, when given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and with full knowledge of the consequences, Mr. Armstrong chose not to contest the fact that he engaged in doping violations from at least August 1, 1998 and participated in a conspiracy to cover up his actions. As a result of Mr. Armstrong’s decision, USADA is required under the applicable rules, including the World Anti-Doping Code under which he is accountable, to disqualify his competitive results and suspend him from all future competition."
Athletes are bound by the doping laws & rightly so given the financial benefit they gain from winning & risks inherent with doping substances.
LA filed a lawsuit in US Federal court to stop the USADA. He lost. The Federal court found the USADA process fair, stating "are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process" HE decided that he would not contest the charges against him by the USADA.
Under the WADA/USADA rules for athletes, by failing to contest the evidence, he received their ban.
As for the system being stacked against the althletes - hardly. WADA & USADA are fighting an uphill battle against chemists, scientists & trainers. Ones who gain tremendous financial gain from cheating.
Athletes SHOULD be accountable for testing & doping allegations. In order to protect the health of athletes of all ages & classifications.
Not sure why some people see LA as the victim here. With the amount of doping that is rampant with cycling it is even more ludicrous to suggest that he won all of those races WITHOUT cheating against so many who were.
Also, for those that think LA donated hundreds of millions of dollars to cancer research, should google that. You'd be surpised how little was ever donated since 2005 & has stopped funding ANY research.
What athlete, especially one that is so committed to fighting challenges, gives up like that?
Answer: