Lance Armstrong accused of “pervasive pattern of doping”
The case launched Wednesday by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency against Lance Armstrong is notable not just because it’s Lance Armstrong, and because, well — finally.
It promises to highlight the role of the entourage in elite cycling and, by extension, Olympic and international sport.
It could well crack the code of silence in cycling, once and for all. Testimony under oath can be a powerful thing.
Moreover, assuming this case against Armstrong moves as far as a hearing, and if that hearing is public, the opportunity would at long present itself to test evidence in cross-examination for all to see. Armstrong is an immensely polarizing figure. Those who see Armstrong as hero, as well as those who allege he had to have been taking something to win and keep winning, would get the chance to see evidence put to the test.
Process may not seem sexy. But process is critically important, to Armstrong and, as well, to USADA, the quasi-governmental organization that oversees the anti-doping campaign in Olympic sports in the United States. That is the American way.
As is this: Armstrong is innocent until proven otherwise.
This, too: USADA surely would not have brought a case against a figure of Armstrong’s stature unless it had confidence it could deliver. There are budgets and reputations at stake amid what is likely to be an enormous variety of pressures.
“We do not choose whether or not we do our job based on outside pressures, intimidation or for any reason other than the evidence,” USADA chief executive Travis Tygart said in a statement. ”Our duty on behalf of clean athletes and those that value the integrity of sport is to fairly and thoroughly evaluate all the evidence available and when there is credible evidence of doping, take action under the established rules.”
Much of the media will want this to be about soundbites and first impressions and an instant rush to judgment. It can’t be. We don’t yet know what we don’t know.
The 15-page USADA “notice letter” describes — but does not name — “more than 10 … cyclists as well as cycling team employees.” That is a substantial number of witnesses. Further, it declares that “numerous riders, team personnel and others will testify based on personal knowledge acquired either through observing Armstrong dope or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them” that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone from before 1998 through 2005, and that he previously used EPO, testosterone and human growth hormone through 1996.
It further alleges Armstrong’s doping will be “evidenced by the data from blood collections obtained by the UCI,” cycling’s international federation, taken from Armstrong, in 2009 and 2010, numbers “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”
The letter, dated Tuesday, alleges that Armstrong and five others engaged in a conspiracy, a “pervasive pattern of doping,” that started in 1998.
Named along with Armstrong were: team manager Johan Bruyneel, the team director; Dr. Pedro Celaya, a team doctor; Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, a team doctor; Dr. Michele Ferrari, an Italian physician well-known in cycling circles described here as a “consulting doctor”; Jose Pepe Marti, a team trainer.
To read that notice letter is to understand immediately that the evidence at hand is not everything. It is, as the letter says, a “portion” of what USADA has. Further, it is apparently not evidence that USADA just scooped up in the wake of the federal investigation that ended in February, when the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles announced abruptly that it would not — after a nearly two-year criminal probe — charge Armstrong or other members of his riding teams.
Armstrong rode for the U.S. Postal Service and then Discovery Channel teams from 1998-2005. In 2009 he rode for the Astana Cycling team. In 2010-11, he rode for the RadioShack team.
Again: this case would appear to be built without whatever USADA might, or might not, have in hand from the Feds. One wonders whether there is more, and whether it might ever emerge.
Armstrong is of course a seven-time winner of the Tour de France, from 1999-2005. He retired from cycling in early 2011 and took up triathlon, which he had done before turning to cycling. The letter Wednesday means he is immediately banned from competing in triathlon. USADA is not empowered to bring criminal charges.
Armstrong, who has repeatedly maintained he is innocent of any wrongdoing, issued a statement Wednesday that said, in part, ”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.”
To pass so many drug tests, though, means virtually nothing. Marion Jones, the U.S. sprinter, passed more than 160 drug tests. She ultimately was revealed as a chronic drug cheat who would give back the five Olympic medals she won in Sydney in 2000.
This is, among other reasons, why the process element is so important.
Floyd Landis protested mightily when he was charged. Indeed, he even wrote a 2007 book, “Positively False,” in which he said, on pages 196 and 197, “I did not use performance-enhancing drugs in the 2006 Tour de France or any other time in my career.”
Evidence at a 2007 arbitration panel hearing proved that wrong.
Subsequently — in May, 2010 — Landis sent e-mails to cycling officials admitting that he was a serial doper. He has since accused Armstrong.
Armstrong, as his competitors and others who have encountered him know, can be fantastically combative. He has done great things for cancer survivors and along the way he has made powerful friends, some in Washington. Some of those friends doubtlessly will wonder why he is being subject to these accusations.
Indeed, you could see him working the angles Wednesday in that statement. It starts this way: “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.”
It goes on to say that these are the “very same charges and the same witnesses” the Justice Department “chose not to pursue” — though no one outside the Department knows why — and, a few words later, alleges that 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.”
Reality check: if the conduct USADA alleges can be proven, under oath, then Armstrong and the others should be held accountable. That’s our ideal of fairness and fair play.
That’s process, and it should play itself out, and no amount of pressure — financial, emotional or otherwise — from Armstrong or his friends, no matter how high up in Washington or elsewhere, should deter that. That’s fairness and fair play, too.
But to start, there’s this: Armstrong is innocent until proven otherwise.
Related Posts
UCI’s belated preemptive strike →
The IOC presidency Top-10 list →
Armstrong’s 2001 Swiss Tour: no cover-up, “suspicious” tests →
For compelling background, p[articularly about Armstrong’s first Tour victory in 1999, read the interview with EPO-test pioneer Michael Ashenden at http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
If he is currently innocent then he should be allowed to compete in triathlon.
If he is innocent until proven otherwise, why can’t he continue to compete in tri like any else who is innocent?
So if Armstrong is innocent until proven guilty then he should not be prevented from participating in triathlon events during the course of the investigation. Why is this not the case?
Lets not speculate on the eventual verdict of this case but take a step back and run this in reverse. The MANY former champions that have not only been accused of but openly admitted drug use on a career long basis, do you ban them and discredit their victories?
We must agree that in reality many riders some gone some still with us used drugs also so why not wipe the complete record clean and forget our heroes I DONT THINK SO.
The best way forwards is to clean up now by best practice the abuse but leave the past and all the effort, sometimes death and life effort then move on.
I wonder what people would think about Fausto Coppi and our own Tom being dragged through all this.
In the beginning the baying crowds wanted massive mileage and superhuman feats in the tour to entertain them, how do they think this need for abuse started.
Difficult to ascertain whether he has doped or he has unusually high levels of RBC’s. One thing I will point out is that his high performance levels continued long into his 30′s, after most athletes would see a steady or even steep decline, which some would argue is suspicious.
The fact that USADA sees fit to charge Armstrong and his team is a positive step forward however.
I would again suggest that the past is left in the past as this case is political (in sport) and Armstrong is in a position that he may have considered running for some governmental post of sorts, you could not want that a tainted person in a high powered job. Presidents, world leaders, royalty and the like they are all perfect people?
The facts may never be known of this case but it looks bad with so many testimonies from his fellow pro’s that only spoke out after THEY had been caught.
I again say this will not serve the sport or the mighty amount of good work done by him well and you just have to look at the rules of consistency to see ALL previous champions and domestiques who took banned substances would need the same treatment.
There is a clear case of a vendetta against Lance Armstrong from very high up for whatever purpose that must go beyond the sport to justify this level of zeal.
Again we should start from now with a good regime using modern methods or burn All previous world records held by abusers, tour victories and countless other races shame our heroes and not expect people to ride for three weeks up and down mountains risking their lives to entertain us.
We the fans and the very press that sells print on the effort of these people created the need to abuse/push harder, its a weak argument to say we need to have this rider outed (if he is guilty) for the better of the sport.
Personally I think many riders know who is and isn’t taking stimulants/drugs but it is clear you cannot go on like this, but why push so hard on Lance Armstrong?
Cycling will be better without drugs but you must admit the very nature of drugs is they evolve so what is next, what is legal.
I think making an example of such a high level pro is necessary if he has doped, it sends a strong message out that no-one is immune from the authorities.
Drugs do evolve yes, and they are difficult to detect as scientists never know exactly what they’re looking for.
However, if a drug is not listed in the WADA code, this does not make it legal. The drug only has to be chemically or pharmacologically related to a banned substance for an anti-doping agency to convict an athlete of doping.
I cannot argue with your view but why just Lance Armstrong? Many more have been outed but have not seen the intense and constant vigor shown here.
I agree the abuse must stop but the past be it 2 years or 50 is the past so could you not agree current pro cyclists have to be given the same vigorous scrutiny and high level of attack as Armstrong.
My views must appear to be in support of him but it is a case for a fair review of every rider from the past.
I would very much prefer to have a clean sport but it must be fairly done and not just cycling, you could pick any endurance based sport and find issues.
What is your honest opinion on the past greats as nobody seems to put forward a view on the known abuse by many?
Looking at last years tour the results from day to day where very difficult to predict which is a good sign but the dopers train on it then clean up for the big events historically so time will tell.
What is your view of the former riders who have been outed riding again? I have read David Millar’s book and it is very open and honest. My opinion is he should not only ride again but play a big part in the education of sportsmen against doping (he is doing this already and is working closely with the governing bodies).
I do not know if you have been on some of the big continental rides I have several times and would say at my lowly level it is daunting, the doping game arose from the hardship and expectation of the fans/press then snowballed consuming virtually all in its path in their need to keep up/survive the races.
I again must agree that this must stop but at what cost? if the press found other older riders that would tell their stories for money where will this end. No one is looking anywhere else but him.
Regards Noel
I’m sure Armstrong will feel like this is a vendetta against him personally but I believe they are using him as a figurehead to attract attention. If they targeted a lesser-known cyclist the average man in the street wouldn’t care and if found guilty the relevant authorities would hastily sweep it under the carpet and claim it was an isolated incident.
But this is Lance Armstrong. He’s been the face of cycling for a long-time. If he’s found guilty there will be public uproar and the authorities would be pressured into conducting large-scale investigations. If he’s toppled there will be a domino effect where the media go digging for more.
In terms of past greats it would be impossible to convict them without evidence. Yes they use periodisation to avoid detection, but scientists are beginning to discover small chronic changes in physiology that can identify whether or not someone has doped in the past. I wrote an article on the long-term benefits of anabolic steroids which can be found here:
http://michaelviggars.com/2012/06/07/the-war-on-drugs/
If research like this keeps coming through, bans will be dependent on the type or ergogenic aid used. Blood doping for instance involves removing blood from your body, allowing recovery and then injecting it back in as competition approaches. This means you have more blood to carry more oxygen etc. However a red blood cell has a life cycle of approximately 100 days, so the effects wear off. A ban of two years would be effective here. If the research on anabolic steroids is to be believed, athletes should be banned for life as the effects may never completely go away.
As you said, many convicted athletes act as ambassadors for anti-doping agencies to educate younger athletes, Dwaine Chambers is another example.
The only thing the authorities can do at this moment is use the media to identify others, it’s easier and cheaper that way. The press will do the leg work and then anti-doping agencies can test suspected athletes.
You give a new to the world of sport argument if I may say, that being so what about the history and champions and records it must be stopped at any cost.
I would say this is unbalanced due to the lack of consistency across the known/proved sometimes current riders who abused. You appear to be approaching the end solution in a clinical way that will take down a lot with collateral damage.
Just get good at detection then catch abusers on the spot not try to dig up with what some legal people say is biased and tainted evidence (motive). Astma medicine can get you in trouble is this too far.
The overview is abuse almost certainly took place and was/is wide spread but be careful what you wish for, the cycling world could fall flat on its rump.
Rugby had blood gate, boxing decisions have been swayed by gloves being cut in the corner, horse racing had doping issues, cricket has betting scandals, nothing is immune in this world. Personally I think having british athletes fast tracked through passport controls so they can represent this country in the Olympics is worse (I am not a racist in any way) as it may deprive an athlete black or white from a place.
Finally would it be fair to say the history of the sport will never taint your opinion bearing in mind riders have died entertaining us?
Good arguments Michael
Regards Noel
Hi Michael
Look at the daily results in the tour and watch for riders coming back from very bad days, that is really suspicious (Floyd Landis comes to mind). The close edge between legal and illegal stimulants/treatments is something I know little about but it would be really useful to understand the critical areas.
No excuse but to be consistently good must mean you are better, like the 5 times winners and looking at the vo2 test results shows no big changes in the top men over their careers.
A rider I respect as highly as any is Greg Lemond he has had an even lung capacity rating
throughout his career and has most certainly never taken anything, how did he do this?
It must be pure talent and physiology as Hinault seems the same type of beast and he never failed a test.
It can be done clean winning big tours but the fine line is blurred to a layman like myself so we tend to support our heroes as long as no test is found positive.
Could you give a clear plain language line on this I for one would really appreciate it.
Best regards Noel
Hi Michael
This years tour looks clean so the threat may be having the desired effect.
I would bet against anyone doping in the worst sense of the word this year
what do you think?
Regards Noel
Oops that is a bad sign…
He may be not guilty but why that in his system?
Hi Michael
It would seem he is accepting guilt by pulling out of the fight, can you suggest the next action to be taken with the rest of the sporting world.
The cycling world is clearly being slammed hard but you could easily catch other sports with ease so why not?
All of the previous tour winners that have taken or suspected must be shaking now or maybe not as some of them work in the higher echelons of the governing body handing out the flowers to the winners so safe. Armstrong’s face did not fit and he did not give enough respect to the machine of the tour.
As a final note his foundation has raised a reputed .5 billion dollars has anyone else?
Regards Noel