Sigh… I wonder if the average person is as tired of these doping cases as I am.
Anyway, here’s the Washington Post story.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought formal doping charges against former cyclist Lance Armstrong in an action that could cost him his seven Tour de France titles, according to a letter sent to Armstrong and several others Tuesday.
As a result of the charges, Armstrong has been immediately banned from competition in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011.
In the 15-page charging letter obtained by The Post, USADA made previously unpublicized allegations against Armstrong, alleging it collected blood samples from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” Armstrong has never tested positive.
At some point I think there should be a statute of limitations on doping charges. If they can’t prove you were doping for a race wtihin, say, six months… then move on. If six months isn’t reasonable, then say two years… going back 20 years to rewrite history just strikes me as crazy.
10 users commented in " Armstrong facing new doping charges "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackArmstrong’s response to the new investigation:
AUSTIN, TX — June 13, 2012 — I have been notified that USADA, an organization largely funded by taxpayer dollars but governed only by self-written rules, intends to again dredge up discredited allegations dating back more than 16 years to prevent me from competing as a triathlete and try and strip me of the seven Tour de France victories I earned. These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation. These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity. Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.
I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence.
I stand with Lance on this one…
Dadman, you always stand with Lance.
In this case I do too.
Why do you suppose so many of the powers in cycling continue to try to shoot Lance down?
I’m an unabashed Armstrong fan.
Why they continue to go after Armstrong is a mystery to me. I believe some of it is jealousy and envy. It’s human nature to tear down those who are strong and popular. Tim Tebow is another case in point…
I guess that’s why so many people hate me…
I’ll just go ahead on and throw in my two cents.
I have ZERO idea why taxpayer money is wasted on junk like this. Honestly, I don’t care if somebody swallows an A-bomb so that they can hit a ball farther, or throw a pitch faster, or spin their legs longer and stronger.
So, to answer your question, YES, I am as tired of these doping cases as you are.
I mean…it’s just sports. It’s not like it really matters. Whether some guy got an advantage over the other guy by shooting up. I mean…it’s just sports.
It’s not real life.
There is a HOST of eyewitness testimony that Armstrong has been doping his entire career. Not one or two – and throughout his career.
Either we want or we don’t want our professional sports to be PED free or we don’t. That’s pretty dang simple.
I want it PED free so that winners and losers are determined solely on the ability of the contestants.
Cycling is widely believed to be one of the sports most rife with PED use. I’d sure like it to be cleaned up. (So, too, would those of earlier eras whose records are being broken, I would think.)
As to the “statute of limitations…”
The cheaters stay ahead of the testers. That’s the way of it. The whole industry of illegal PED’s is based on the inability of the testers to catch the cheaters with current testing technology.
But, eventually, the technology of today catches up with the cheaters of yesterday. So, I’m certainly okay with the storage of evidence along with later testing to determine whether or not the contestants cheated but were given a clean bill of health — at the time.
And, it’s not “just sports.” It’s a mentality which permeates our society that “it’s not cheating if you don’t get caught.” Or “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.” When members of our society see A-Rod ADMIT to cheating (while being rewarded with a multi-hundred-million dollar contrace) and, thereafter, be allowed to keep his job and continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars – or an Armstrong win title after title and make millions upon millions as a result – then defended because he does “good work” in other parts of his life (no self-interest THERE, eh?) related to a search for a cure for cancer – what are the young members of our society to believe?
Well, I’m pretty sure what lesson they learn from the behavior as well as society’s REACTION to their behavior.
And, it ain’t good.
Drax, I see your argument too. But I also know that it is virtually impossible to win an argument that a urine or blood sample has been perfectly preserved and managed for 20 years. In most of the cases I’ve seen go to trial, I’ve seen the defense successfully cast doubt on the reliability of decade-old biological samples.
I don’t know if Lance Armstrong “cheated.” I don’t know if Babe Ruth “cheated.” At some point it becomes a legitimate question to ask “how much effort, time and expense do we have to commit to testing?”
Since the existing USADA charges are essentially identical to the ones that the US Federal Government just attempted to use unsuccessfully to prosecute Armstrong for PED use, I don’t see how they expect to win this, either scientifically or in the court of public opinion.
In my mind that makes this wasted time.
Well, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is entirely difference than a civilian “preponderance of the evidence.” Ask O.J.
Either cede the field to the cheaters or go after them. All of them. And, if the question is one of time, money, and effort in the chase, then all we’re doing is giving in to the GOOD cheaters and catching only the bad ones.
I’m not sure where the money is coming from for these charges or how the US ADA is funded, but, for me, I think this is professional sports and the bill should be met by the sport – not the taxpayers.
I do agree that there should be no taxpayer involvement in this, for, as Andy stated, It’s just sports. Baseball, basketball, hockey, and football all foot their own testing bills. Other sports should as well – dunno how it’s paid for in this instance.
Personally, I think that, maybe, there should be a no limits approach to the use of PEDs in professional sports – a completely level playing field. Who knows what kind of enhancing drugs could be made if the research and testing were not only legal but immensely profitable? (Dunno how much I believe in this thought – but, at least as the beginnings of a thought I don’t have a major issue with it…
The problem with a “no limits” approach to PEDs is what the NFL is now facing with concussion lawsuits. You cannot tell me that players were unaware that getting their bells rung was a health issue. But now they are suing because the NFL didn’t do enough to protect them from themselves. “The NFL didn’t tell us the danger of multiple concussions.” Um… do you have a doctor?
I suppose when I retire I can sue my employer for stress-related health issues. “My employer didn’t tell me that repeatedly having to meet impossible deadlines under threat of dismissal or sanction would lead to high blood pressure and heart disease!”
Did you know there is a significant movement to ban pads and helmets in the NFL and other sports? The argument is that far from reducing injuries, pads and helmets encourage players to take crazy risks which lead to not only more injuries, but far more serious ones.
Yes, I was aware of the movement as well as the fact that adding armor to professional athletes’ bodies would have two predictable effects – those athletes using them as a weapon and of the athletes believing that they are better protected from the effects of their violence.
I don’t know why any judge doesn’t summarily dismiss these cases. I mean there isn’t a single person even marginally aware who hasn’t heard of a “punch drunk” fighter or, for the past two decades or so, watched as Ali disintegrated before our eyes.
But, judges tend to want to “let the jury decide” tough political issues when it is a LEGAL issue rather than a FACTUAL issue. The first should be decided by those who understand the LAW. The second to be decided by a jury who has to find the facts and FOLLOW the law.
Leave A Reply