Lance Could Be Innocent

[All Thumbs]

I'd like to know why our government feels it's important to punish entertainers (sports are entertainment) for drug use. Let the sports' governing bodies, who get their money from consumers' discretionary spending, deal with it, don't waste my compulsory tax money! I really could care less who is using what. It reminds me of McCarthyism. Drag them in, run them through the mud, drag them through the mud again, in the end accomplishing nothing.

Would you legalize all drug use?

[Tom Slick]

Would you legalize all drug use?

No, but why does congress or a special gov't funded group hold hearings and make athletes testify? Why not the sports' governing bodies and court system. Why are sports different than other drug users? Why isn't Charlie Sheen brought before congress?

Let me put it another way: Of all the issues our nation is dealing with, budgets, unemployment, wars, security, why are we are adding a the health of tiny group of entertainers to worry about and spend money on? They are fully aware of their choices and can medicate themselves to death for all I care.

[Cochese]

Let's see what Indurain has to say.

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=8302179

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[pelligrini]

I don't like our govt getting involved either. Its not as bad as congressional committees on ball players, doping, gambling etc., at least they aren't still looking at game shows.

Maybe lance is figuring that life is too short, and he's tired of fighting it. He knows what he's done or hasn't done. Maybe he doesn't care what people think anymore.

[mpc]

It may simply be a way to get some privacy now that he has a family. As long as the debate rages somebody will be hounding him... and as his child gets older the hounds may start pestering her for "information." How many times have you seen/heard of tabloid photos of movie/TV/music star's kids - their childhood is often times too public simply because of their parents?

The fact that this type of stuff gets so much continuous media attention is a sad commentary on society in general... news and many government agencies are more concerned with real-or-perceived scandals of any celebrity rather than solving real issues, promoting ongoing science/research for health, education issues, etc. Stupid grandstanding.

mpc

[Black wallnut]

Two reasons Lance would do what he did:
1) He is guilty. If this is the case what would he gain by going to arbitration?
2) He is innocent. He has put up with this for years, has denied it over and over and does not believe that they will ever believe him or let it rest.

The end result as we can see is the same. It is sad for him sad for cycling, and sad for fans because there will always be the question. Lance won but my cycling heroes are Eddy Merckx and Greg Lemond, Jens Voigt as well. My hero for humanitarians is Lance Armstrong.

[Bruce Cohen]

my cycling heroes are Eddy Merckx and Greg Lemond, Jens Voigt as well.

Amen to that

[JimD]

Did anybody else read the article by the Washington Post writer? I am in an airport and forgot to bring it with me or I would give more specifics. The point it makes is that nobody gets aquited by this appeal board which is Lance's only option. The have ruled guilty in 58 of 60 cases or something like that. It gave the specifics of one poor guy who mistakenly took a very small quantity of something, too small to have affected his performance and still got a 2 year suspension. The board admitted it was not intentional and too small to have an effect but punished him severely anyway. It also quotes the judge who denyed Lance's request for an injunction saying very unflattering things about the case against him. But he just did not have the power to block it.

The case against Lance seems to be that there was no effective way to test against what they say he did at the time they say he did it. So now you have a bunch of people, for whatever reason, who will say he did something he shouldn't have and there is no way for Lance to defend himself. And the appeal board has a long-standing history of convicting in essentially all the cases. No wonder he did not fight it.

I would abolish the board. We do not need athletes doping but we also do not need governmentally funded boards who go on witch hunts financed with taxpayer money. The French have been trying to strip Lance for decades and now a U. S. agency, funded by tax dollars, does it for them. There has to be accountability with power and this board seems to have none - except if it is defunded. The process must be fair and reasonable and it seems clear that this board is not either. Lance may be guilty but that should be decided in a fair manner and not effectively decreed by a quasi-governmental agency.

Jim

[JR]

There are four options for attacking drug use in sports:

1. Have the sports police themselves. This would enable sporting federations representing track and field, cycling, rowing, etc. to make rules appropriate for those acitivites. It also implies there would be inconsistent sets of rules, which at furst blush might not be bad. In the past, before the advent of WADA, it was found that some federations were not interested at all in punishing drug use. The biggest reason being that it brought their sport into disrepute.Some journalists have accused Armstrong of having a sweetheart deal with UCI.
2. Make laws against the use of drugs by athletes. This is a very complicated proposition. Some countries have done this with some success, notably France, Germany, and Italy. Spain has a similar law, but it has caused some really strange infighting between the courts and the Spanish sporting federations as they fight for jurisdiction. The main problem with this approach is that it would require all governments to have similar laws or else athletes and promoters of races would tend to migrate to those places with lax laws.
3. Trust a third-party agency to establish a protocol for all sports, all atheletes, and all countries must comply with. This is the WADA/USADA model being discussed in this thread. It's clearly not perfect. As JimD wrote, successfully fighting a positive finding is extremely rare, which makes on wonder how fair it is. OTOH, it establishes a set of drugs to be barred and the amounts of those drugs that would constitute a positive finding. The labs are certified by the global body to be able to find consistent results. It should also be pointed out that there have been expamples of national agencies refuesing sanction an obviusly guilty athlete because he's famous and a good embasador for his country. This is the reverse the "vendetta against Lance" theory that has been mentioned.
4. Do nothing. I've discussed this earlier in the thread, and think it's not a good solution at all.

I reject the theory of a vendetta against Armstrong by USADA. These people are serious scientists with little to be gained by bringing down big names. Those who suggest they are a quasi-governmental agency with deep pockets are just not accommodating the facts. Yes, USADA gets most of their funds from the US Government, but do not report to agency in the government. Even if they fell under the control of the government, what would be the government's reason for bringing down Armstrong? Some insidious plot by heart reasearchers to gain funding that would otherwise go to cancer research?

It also has to be noted that USADA's paltry $13M buidget is quickly spent on the number of tests they do and on research in their field. A man with Armstrong's resources could easily out-spend them in arbitration.

Those who suggest that USADA is unknown and trying to make name for themselves are just plain wrong. USADA is very well known by all who follow sports that comply with WADA protocols and their scientists are very well regarded in the fight against doping.

There are some things about the current situation that are still to play out. The cycling federation has contested the standing of USADA to define the sanction against Armstrong. I believe cycling will be proven correct. It's the job of USADA to make a finding of doped or not doped, and the cycling federation to determine the penalty, albiet with penalties prescribed by the WADA protocol. This would be Armstrong's first offense, for which the penalty is two years suspension, not life. Also there is a "statue of limitations" clause of eight years. So reversing his wins all the way back to 1998 will not stand, IMHO, unless USADA makes public their evidence and it convinces cycling that the sanctions are appropriate.

It's an imperfect system, but way better than having the sports police themselves. Just take a look at baseball and football for the wrong way to do it.

JR

[jseklund]

Tell that to Tom Simpson's widow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...=5tGJsxGFhxg#!

Don't get me wrong JR - you can cause problems on steroids and at worst, die. This isn't really the rule as much as people think though - it's rather a relatively small number and normally coupled with abuse. One of the problems with steroids is it is attractive to abuse them. People use them to get stronger, they get stronger, and they don't want to stop when they need a break. Then they think, a little worked well, a lot should work better. These are problems with all drugs.

It was asked if we should legalize drugs and I don't know how we can have ANY drugs be illegal when nicotine and alcohol are legal. Name any drug that ruins more lives and kill more people than those two and I'd be suprised (althought many people fool themselves and refuse to believe this fact).

Alcohol and tobacco are a much larger cost to society than even cocain, steroids, you name it - but yet they are completely legal. It makes little sense.

Not sure what the real answer is, I don't think that it's to make more laws though.

[Cochese]

There are some things about the current situation that are still to play out. The cycling federation has contested the standing of USADA to define the sanction against Armstrong. I believe cycling will be proven correct. It's the job of USADA to make a finding of doped or not doped, and the cycling federation to determine the penalty, albiet with penalties prescribed by the WADA protocol. This would be Armstrong's first offense, for which the penalty is two years suspension, not life. Also there is a "statue of limitations" clause of eight years. So reversing his wins all the way back to 1998 will not stand, IMHO, unless USADA makes public their evidence and it convinces cycling that the sanctions are appropriate.



JR

You look at the discrepancies between USADA's prescribed penalties (the two years for first-time) and the ones imposed on Armstrong and I don't think you can fault some people for feeling this is a vendetta.

[All Thumbs]

The have ruled guilty in 58 of 60 cases or something like that.

One of the first things you learn in criminal justice 101 is that most prosecutors win the vast majority of their cases (about 95%!). If they don't think they're going to win (at least strike a deal), the case doesn't proceed. Basically, they only prosecute the guilty.

The fact that they are 58 for 60 when they have jurisdiction over what I imagine is at least thousands of athletes, should come as no surprise.

I'm sympathetic to the argument many of you have made that we shouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on this. OTOH, that is the deal we made with other nations, and this is the way it works. To now refuse to prosecute the cases would basically be telling the world "we will allow our athletes to use performance enhancing drugs with immunity."

[Black wallnut]

Lets keep the discussion on Lance and the USADA's claims against him please. Topic drift into other subjects or even somewhat related subjects edges into the political realm.

[JimD]

I feel a bit outgunned by JR, he clearly understands what is going on better than I do. But I think the data of USADA exceeding their own guidelines in their punishment of Lance serves to illustrate why many of us worry about a vindetta. If their are just "doing their job" then why does the punishment exceed both the suspension they suggest and extend beyond the 8 year limitation? Seems to be clear evidence that they do have a goal of punishing Lance severely, possibly despite weak evidence (as the federal judge said).

My point about governmental funding is just that it is quite a different thing to spend your own money on legal fees and to spend other peoples money. It's easy for me to argue we need to hire lawyers at work but much harder to decide to do this myself. USADA is spending taxpayer money to persue Lance. Lance has to spend his money to defend himself, in a court where he has essentially no realistic chance of success.

I also do not think that 58 of 60 is a realistic conviction rate in a fair procedure. I would challenge any court that convicts at this rate as biased. The prosector must believe he has a case to bring it but their should be a process that allows an unbiased decision on whether his is right. There seems to be no real second review of USADA actions.

Jim

[cabinetman]

This is quite a dilemma. Lance might be just tired of continuing to defend himself, or he's guilty. I still think for the image he has created, it would be important to prove his innocence and remove all doubt. As for paying for it, there would likely be many contributors to help him. I'm wondering if proven innocent, would he have recourse to sue for all his costs and the attempted defamation of his character?

.