I hate this sort of stuff…
Why can’t someone just frickin’ figure out if Lance Armstrong has been using performance-enhancing drugs?
I mean, how many times can we have this conversation?
The Washington Post reports on the latest development:
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 February, an investigation into Armstrong’s use of performance-enhancing drugs was concluded without bringing charges.
Despite the fact that Armstrong claims 25 years of competing (with no spikes or major changes in performance), as well as over 500 drug tests that have come out clean, there are still questions.
The USADA wrote a letter on June 12 that alleges a massive conspiracy to cover up Armstrong’s doping.
…three doctors including Italian physician Michele Ferrari, one trainer and team manager Johan Bruyneel— engaged in a massive doping conspiracy from 1998 to 2011, and that “the witnesses to the conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists . . .”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
The USADA also cites a Swiss doctor, Martial Saugy, found evidence of doping in a 2001 blood test. But the story isn’t so simple. The Post elaborates:
Saugy told The Post last year that Armstrong’s sample was merely “suspicious,” a designation that meant it could not be called positive. Further analysis with modern methods might bring clarity, Saugy said, but the sample no longer exists.
“We did not do the additional analysis. It will never be sufficient to say, in fact, it was positive,” Saugy said in an interview with The Post. “I will never go in front of a court with that type of thing.”
The question is this: At some point does the pursuit of Armstrong become harassment?
Or does athletic dominance like this simply not happen naturally?
Could a conspiracy of this size and duration (including 500 drug tests) possibly exist?
Why does Lance Armstrong matter so much to us?
For me, it seems we want to believe in the dream: That a man could survive cancer—that spread to his lungs and brain, of all places—and go on to become a hero. We want to believe that there are superheroes among us.
Of course, we also know that Armstrong isn’t perfect in his private life. He’s divorced from the mother of his children. He was engaged to Sheryl Crow and they broke up… He now has two other children from his current relationship.
But all of that seems somewhat par for the course for a celebrity, and certainly doesn’t qualify his as “bad” man…
What do you think?
AP Photo/ Reed Saxon
Lance Armstrong rose to prominence in cycling at a time when first EPO and later blood doping was readily available and no test were available to prove the use. As a result, the temptation was huge, and for a while the use of EPO was as widespread as to be near-universal. Also, Armstrong was able to consistently beat riders from teams that have later admitted systematic use of doping. For these reasons many have a hard time believing Armstrong was not among the users. Everyone did it, and there was very little risk. Why would he not do it? Armstrong… Read more »
When it comes to his cycling career, I’d like to see a lot more attention paid to the fact that he won as part of a *team* of cyclists, all of whom did their part to help him win. There’s a false impression out there that each Tour de France competitor is just a lone contestant competing against everyone else, when in fact cyclists like Armstrong win because a lot of people help him along the way. That’s not cheating, that’s just how the Tour de France works. He still has to pedal all those miles and be the fastest… Read more »
I mean, Marion Jones never tested positive either. Doesn’t matter, still busted.
I don’t know much about him, but there should probably be a statute of limitations on these things. I don’t see how it helps to revisit these things decades after the fact.
There IS a statute of limitations, actually. And it runs out soon. Which is why you’re seeing this happen now. If they don’t do it in the next 6 months or a year (I think), they can’t ever again. It was a big motivation behind the Fed case (which was dropped), too.
Of course Armstrong doped. Virtually every single teammate he ever had has either tested positive or subsequently admitted to doping. Many of them have also implicated Armstrong, as have others. At this point it’s an open-and-shut question. Given the detailed knowledge dopers had of how to time doping cycles to beat scheduled tests it’s not surprising Armstrong tested clean, particularly when you factor designer drugs that simply weren’t tested for and wouldn’t show up (even on unscheduled tests). He’s a fraud. End of story.