<
Sports Illustrated has just published their recent investigation into the swelling rumors and testimony regarding Lance Armstrong’s alleged doping throughout his career, The Case Against Lance Armstrong.
If you haven’t heard, a new wave of interest in Lance’s alleged doping past has gained serious steam in the past year or so, with it now at the point where Lance may find himself on the stand in front of a Federal Grand Jury faster than he wishes. This could be the new BALCO scandal that more or less blew the doors of off the systematic doping in baseball and certain Olympic level athletes, with much of the same team turning the screws. While we don’t typically cover much from the realm of the pro ranks here, for anyone interested in what I personally believe to be widespread, systematic doping at the top of all sports it is not unreasonable to think that this investigation could be the one to grow beyond cycling and have a wider reach. The greatest sports scandal and cover up ever? Perhaps.
The case against LA is a bit complex but certain evidence already exists that show the US Postal Team and it’s management sold team bicycles in order to pay for banned substances such as EPO – riders such as Frankie Andreu already admitted to using EPO in 1999 – which was LA 1st TdF victory.
So the legal case against the US Postal Team is that it took federal sponsorship money under false pretenses (selling bikes to buy drugs and using doping to enhance results to garner more sponsorship money).
Frankie already admitted that he saw LA using EPO in his hotel room during the Tour but later recanted the story after being black-listed as a reporter for Discovery Channel (now Versus).
Too many people inside know so when this goes to trial and people get subpoenaed and put on the stand under oath – there’s no telling what can happen.
@Ted…
What are your sources? Are you familiar with the ‘legal case’ you cite? Is there anything in what you write beyond mere speculation?
Apparently it has also launched a new career for Landis, registered federal whistle blower. That brings to mind the very last line in the movie Gung Ho, “Good ruck in your new job!”
Seems like using resources for current drug testing would be a better use of money than spending oodles on the past.
A guy keeps winning in a field of dopers. Maybe the complicated answer is the truth: he has the VO2 max of a god, more discipline than any other professional athletes, he has such integrity he’d never take the easy way even when so many others did, and he had trainers who have discovered a programme nobody can duplicate… Me, I subscribe to Occam’s Razor: “the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one”.
@Terry:
I disagree: like other pro sports franchises, pro cycling is big business and keeping races ‘clean’ is an investment toward their public image. Maintaining prestige of past events happens in tandem with developing better doping tests for future events.
I tend to agree w/ Terry. lets look ahead, not behind. Seems we are trying to catch them after the fact. I think an investment in prevention is better. but then again, we are a society that waits till there is a reason to react and not prevent the event from happening. pro sports in the usa is a prime example, we have the player unions dictate the terms of drug testing. just a thought, if a team/individual is a winner, test ‘em. or they are a loser. these guys are paid millions and they complain of the costs of testing. test them all and test them for everything. i’m just sayin”……..
I agree with Andy – if LA was dirty, prosecute him no matter if it’s in the past. He stole the right to compete fairly from (the admittedly few) riders who chose to compete cleanly. Shouldn’t we have pursued the case against Marion Jones as well? At the risk of sounding like a pollyanna, dopers in any sport ruin the whole point of competition. If they cheated, they no longer get to claim they won. If we don’t choose to pursue Lance, then all the current riders who cheat can justify it by saying “as long as I don’t get caught, I’m okay”.
skeptical: how much evidence do you need? How about that positive drug test that he later produced a postdated scrip for? To treat saddle sores even his massage therapist said he didn’t have? Even if you don’t believe Landis, how about Frankie Andreu’s wife? What was her motive for revealing she overheard Lance admit to drug use? Even though much is circumstantial, if enough of it accumulates, you have to admit that something is there. Occam’s Razor, indeed – Lance’s explanation is that everyone is lying, even people who have nothing to gain from it, so they just must be natural conspirators. His motive is simpler – he wanted to win in a dirty sport, and to do so, he needed to dope as well.
As far as testing goes, the drug cheats are way ahead. Testing doesn’t work – the sophisticated dopers never get caught that way. Even LA says the fact that he never failed a test means nothing. All but a few riders who’ve gotten caught in the past ten years or so were snared in criminal stings, like Operation Puerto.
I wonder if he gave himself cancer by doping, but I agree the present and future deserve what resources there are to fight cheating. The problem with any cheating in competition is it degenerates into a contest of cheating, like who can dope the most before they croak. What kind of desperate sucker takes that on?
In all this hullabaloo, you have to think is it really worth it. I’m referring to the hype around doping. Face it, aside from some physical/genetic predispositions on the part of some athletes, all sports are dirty to varying degrees. Does it pay to be clean? Likely not. So the sport is dirty, and LA is likely dirty right along with it. Bonds still has his record, LA still has his. Aside from a potential smudge mark on it if the allegations prove true, that will still be the case. As much as I’d like to believe all sports can be cleaned up, it ain’t gonna happen so long as there’s the desire to be #1.
Wendell,
“how much evidence do you need”? Beyond reasonable doubt, just like with every other serious offence.
“What was her [Andreu's wife's] motive”? Who knows? Petty jealousy? Anger than her husband has been labeled a doper, and his former boss hasn’t? Spite, because she overheard Lance saying something nasty about someone? Talented, successful people have many enemies, and absence of personal gain does not equal unselfishness: people will go out of their way to put someone down.
I guess, my point is this: Lance Armstrong will ALREADY go down in history as a suspected doper, even if he is 100% clean. This is wrong. The evidence against him is circumstantial, and his influence on the sport of cycling, and his work in cancer survivor community are very much real. The man deserves the benefit of doubt.
There was an article in Outside magazine a few months back concerning an FBI agent who is trying to convict Armstrong. The article talks about the FBI agent using any means necessary (legal or not) to bust Armstrong. It is very interesting, but I can’t find it online.
@Terry,
try searching for “Novitsky” on the Outside Online site:
http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-ta-201010-jeff-novitzky-doping-sidwcmdev_151848.html
It is always important to remember one thing when you discuss Lance and doping. He won a nasty fight against testicular cancer but that means he lost something a lot of guys hold tightly and dearly. As a result, any fool can say he is taking steroids because, yes, he obviously is taking testerone replacements. When I hear these stories about him doping, I hear a lot of people telling half-lies right up front…and I generally don’t believe liars.
For example, 56 hematocrit can get you in trouble but you can turn in that after hard training and fluid loss. I have hit 56 without any doping (I don’t have that much cash).
Lets get get some honesty first.
That is all.
Peace.
Now the investigation has been dropped it’s safe to say that Lance is an absolute genius hiring Fabiani who certainly won’t have been cheap but whose influence on those in positions of power is well admired.
As NPR are currently alleging that that charges were close to being brought against a number of individuals, which included fraud, witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution. Even going so far as to claim there were ‘no weaknesses in the case’