For Lance Armstrong, The Fat Lady Has Sung

Posted by joseph bahgat on October 22, 2012

lance at interbike.jpg

Today, it seems, is the end of the line for Lance Armstrong. I remember what I said—here, here, and here, on Twitter, and probably elsewhere too—that despite all the news reports and controversy surrounding USADA's indictment of Lance Armstrong for engaging in a systematic pattern doping, he was still a 7-time Tour de France winner. Now, not so much.

Earlier today, Patrick McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union (aka UCI) announced that the UCI was adopting USADA's findings and imposing their recommended sanctions (strip all 7 #TdF victories, plus lifetime ban from cycling). McQuaid is the most senior administrative individual in all of cycling, thus, he and his organization were the only ones with jurisdiction or authority to take the action that USADA threatened. In a press conference from Geneva, Switzerland, McQuaid said this:

Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling, and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling.

So is this post my personal mea culpa? You could say that. But for the record, I never said that Armstrong never doped. He did. So did a lot of other cyclists. Some of them got caught; some didn't. In spite of all the terrible things we're learning about the 15+ year conspiracy led by Lance Armstrong, I still don't believe that it was fair or just to go back in time and take away his #TdF titles. We set a very bad precedent when we turn back the clock to try and change something that is already done and decided. What's done is done, and hindsight is always 20/20. If, when it's all said and done, it's brutally obvious that the guy was a scumbag, so be it.

Photo credit: Richard Masoner, Flickr

In Every Other Country but the U.S.A. Lance is Still THE Champion

Posted by joseph bahgat on October 11, 2012

lances 7th tdf victory.jpg

At the risk of beating a dead horse I'm going on record as saying that yesterday's "breaking news," also known as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's 200-page report detailing the so-called hard evidence that Lance Armstrong cheated to win his 7 Tour de France titles, doesn't change anything. Although headlines of USADA's report focus on the testimony against Armstrong by 11 of his former cycling teammates, if you read on, you'll see that the "new" report does nothing but rehash vague, unreliable, or unverifiable facts and allegations that were already known.

In a letter sent to USADA attorneys on Tuesday, Armstrong's attorney, Tim Herman, called the report:

[A] one-sided hatchet job—a taxpayer funded tabloid piece rehashing old, disproved, unreliable allegations based largely on axe-grinders, serial perjurers, coerced testimony, sweetheart deals and threat-induced stories.

Herman also pointed out that two of the key witnesses—Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton—are "serial perjurers and have told diametrically contradictory stories under oath."

Admittedly, I haven't taken the time to read the whole report, and unless it becomes my job to do so, I won't, because I consider it to be merely propaganda. It doesn't appear that there is anything in there that we didn't already know…or at least suspect. Essentially, it lays out a pattern of circumstantial evidence, mostly testimonial, which shows how Armstrong (and his teammates) could have been doping all along—that is, all along, during those years when he was probably the most tested professional athlete in the world.

Let us not forget that doping has been around in professional cycling for over 100 years. In fact, doping allegations have plagued the #Tdf since 1903.

The one new piece of evidence in this week's USADA report was a statement by Armstrong's longtime friend and teammate George Hincapie, who is distinguishable as the only cyclist to have assisted Armstrong in all 7 of his #TdF victories. Regardless of what impact, if any, Hincapie's contribution had on the totality of USADA's damning evidence against Armstrong, Hincapie's statement doesn't even mention Armstrong by name.

Something that occurred to me after reading several news accounts of USADA's latest propaganda report is that its CEO Travis Tygart wasn't able to garner the testimony of any unbiased witness. What I mean by that is that all of the people who gave testimony to USADA had something to gain in exchange for doing so—they were all U.S. cyclists, or in one way or another were in a position such that they could find themselves on the wrong side of what limited authority USADA actually has. For example, Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin Richard—who is implicated throughout the report as a key accomplice to Lance's alleged doping regime—did not participate in any part of the investigation. Why? Because USADA couldn't force her to.

This brings me to my final (and, sorry, more or less my only) point: USADA doesn't have the authority or jurisdiction to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 #TdF victories. As of today (11 OCT 2012), he still has the world record for most #TdF wins, and remains the only cyclist to have won the event seven times! That's a fact.

Earlier:

Armstrong's Yellow Jerseys Haven't Gone Anywhere...Yet
Deja Vu All Over Again: USADA Launches New Assault on Lance Armstrong
Latest on Blood Doping in Pro Cycling

Photo credit: Judi Oyama

Armstrong's Yellow Jerseys Haven't Gone Anywhere...Yet

Posted by joseph bahgat on August 27, 2012

armstrong_tour of cali.jpgThe big news over the weekend was that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) supposedly stripped Lance Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France (TdF) titles, after Armstrong announced that he would not enter into arbitration to decide whether he won those events with help from banned substances. Pittsburgh sports attorney Jay Reisinger (@jayreisinger) wrote an accurate account of how we got to this point, and I've seen and heard several other descriptions that are also accurate, so I won't bother recapitulating.

What surprises me is that nobody seems to be questioning USADA's authority (or lack thereof) to take away something that was bestowed upon Armstrong by the International Cycling Union (UCI). USADA is a private, non-profit corporation. Despite its name, USADA isn't a government agency, nor does it have any governmental or police power, or judicial authority. USADA was created to do one thing: To oversee U.S. Olympians and Olympic hopefuls, and to monitor and regulate their use of performance-enhancing drugs. The Tour is sanctioned by UCI. They award the yellow jersey. They are the only body that can take it away. 

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours.

Even though every news outlet has reported that USADA stripped Lance Armstrong of his TdF victories, it hasn't actually happened. What has happened is that USADA sent a report of its "findings" to the UCI, which will examine the report, and then make its determination. Could the UCI strip Lance Armstrong of his titles? Sure. But it hasn't happened yet, and it may not happen at all. So don't buy into the hype, and don't buy Travis Tygart's propaganda.

Earlier:

Deja Vu All Over Again: USADA Launches New Assault on Lance Armstrong

Latest on Blood Doping in Pro Cycling

Also read:

ESPN News, Lance Armstrong won't fight charges

Brian Alexander, How Armstrong Could ‘Get Away With Stuff With Everybody Looking'

Photo credit: jdegenhardt

Deja Vu All Over Again: USADA Launches New Assault on Lance Armstrong

Posted by joseph bahgat on June 14, 2012

DoubleJeopardy.jpgThe Double Jeopardy Clause in the U.S. Constitution says that no man "shall...be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." In (modern) English, that means that a person should not be prosecuted twice for committing the same crime or bad deed. Seems reasonable, right? The founders of this country put it in the Constitution for a reason. Unfortunately, however, the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause (DJC) has significant limitations, one of which is that it only "attaches" (i.e. applies) once a jury is empaneled at a trial, or if there's no jury, once the first witness is sworn in.

Since Lance Armstrong was never put on trial for the doping allegations that resurfaced yesterday, the DJC won't help him. But that doesn't mean that its underlying principles can't. For example, the legal doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata are both based on the principle that you cannot re-litigate an issue that's already been decided by a court. In Armstrong's case, he's been tested for doping/performance-enhancing drugs more than 500 times, and not a single test has been positive. He's already been cleared of doping charges/allegations by cycling's governing body, the International Cycling Union, and the World Anti-Doping Agency. Earlier this year, the U.S. Justice Department dropped its two-year investigation of Armstrong's alleged doping. Now, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is going after Armstrong.

[N]umerous 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 Lance Armstrong used EPO, bloodtransfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996.

Whether Armstrong did it or not isn't, and shouldn't be the issue. The issue is whether it's fair, reasonable, or a fastidious use of taxpayer money (USADA is funded by the U.S. Olympic Committee and the federal government) to rehash these allegations. Armstrong was tested 500 times by various anti-doping agencies, and never had a positive test result. These allegations have been circling for more than a decade, yet numerous agencies have either exonerated him, or determined that there wasn't enough real evidence to proceed.

But hold the presses, USADA has people with personal knowledge who are going to testify against Armstrong! Seriously?? Personal knowledge is sufficient for a search warrant—not a conviction, which would be the professional athlete's version of capital punishment. If I were Armstrong's attorney, I would file a libel lawsuit against USADA, and an emergency motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin them from proceeding with this witch hunt.

More ArticlLance.jpges:

Latest News on Blood Doping in Pro Cycling

From CNN:

Lance Armstrong banned from world Ironman events over doping probe

Ex-teammate: I saw Lance Armstrong inject banned substances

Latest News on Blood Doping in Pro Cycling

Posted by joseph bahgat on November 28, 2011

Lance_Pelotonia_JB chase.jpgLast week, attorney Lee Davis aptly noted a French court's decision handing down a 12-month suspended sentence to cyclist Floyd Landis for his 2006 in attempt to steal documents from a French drug-testing laboratory. The documents in question related to Landis's 2006 Tour de France victory, which was stripped from him after drug tests revealed an unusually high level of testosterone in Landis's blood. Although Landis vehemently denied using performance enhancing drugs, after all hope of reclaiming his Tour victory was dead, he admitted using PEDs, and at the same time, implicated fellow former U.S. Postal Service teammate Lance Armstrong of blood doping as well.

Landis's accusations have gone quiet recently, but now that the French case is over, it's likely that he will go back on the offensive. A California grand jury is still investigating, but given the statute of limitations for the crimes he is accused of, it's unlikely that Armstrong will be formally charged, much less convicted.

Also credit to Lee Davis for reporting that 3-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador gave testimony last week in the investigation of his alleged doping during the 2010 Tour. I had thought that this issue was dead, so I am glad that Davis reported on it as well. Apparently the Spanish Cycling Federation acquitted Contador (a Spaniard) of the doping charges, but WADA and UCI (the two organizations that matter) have yet to render a decision. If found guilty, Contador will forfeit his 2010 Tour de France victory, and will be banned from professional cycling for two years.

I am an avid cycling fan — I was more of an avid cyclist before going into private practice — so one of the legal issues I follow closely (but don't often write about) is the ongoing blood doping saga in professional cycling. For those who don't know, doping is a process of using PEDs to increase the number of red blood cells (and oxygen), which boosts an endurance athlete's cardiovascular stamina. Doping is different from traditional steroid use.

I'm a huge fan of Lance Armstrong, I even had the opportunity to ride with him in a charity ride benefitting cancer research in 2009 (see above photo), and because I'm a fan, I'd like to believe that he's always been clean. But having been around professional and semi-pro cyclists for years, common sense tells me otherwise.

In this photo, Lance Armstrong (in the Livestrong kit, of course), is shown at the helm of the lead group of Pelotonia 2009. I am riding in the third position behind Armstrong, white jersey with black sleeves, head is cut out of the picture. I eventually caught up to Armstrong, and rode alongside him for about 10 miles, before dropping back to catch my breath. Unfortunately I spent everything I had, to catch up to Armstrong — I fell out of the peloton short of the halfway point of the 110-mile ride.