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

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

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

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 Articles:

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

Last week, the League fired longtime grievance arbitrator Shyam Das (the guy who cast the deciding vote that overturned National League MVP Ryan Braun's 50-game suspension for testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs last month) after allowing a second player to use the so-called chain-of-custody defense. The League was certainly within its right to remove Das, who "served at the pleasure of" both MLB and the Players' Association—either side was free to remove Das, at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice. But is the League's action a sign of something more significant?

 What's happened here is that MLB removed a judge from the bench because of a philosophical disagreement—i.e. the League believes that their "independent arbitrator" should take a more relaxed view of pillars of the American justice system like the Rules of Evidence.

Alfonzo's grievance challenging his suspension raised issues that were nearly identical to those resolved in the arbitration involving Ryan Braun. It is not anticipated that any other future cases will be impacted by the circumstances raised in the grievances of these two players.

That was MLB's statement, after announcing Das's termination, and the fact that they'd reached "an agreement" with the Players' Association regarding Eliezer Alfonzo's alleged second positive drug test. Whether or not Alfonzo is suspended makes little, if any difference—he was designated for assignment by the Colorado Rockies (effectively cut from their roster) and sent to Triple-A. What's troubling, however, is the League's declaration, that the evidence issues in Braun's and Alfonzo's arbitration hearings will never be at issue again.

This type of situation is precisely why the founders of our country—in the U.S. Constitution—gave federal judges life tenure. The underlying theory of life tenure is that judges will be true to their own consciences and moral convictions, without fear of reprisal for rendering an unpopular decision. Baseball's collective bargaining agreement also had a provision with the same intent (described by attorney Craig Calcaterra in his NBC Sports blog Hardball Talk), but it seems that it failed in this case.

Although the effect of Das's removal is limited to baseball, it represents a microcosm of judicial politics in the United States, which has been a hot-button issue in states such as Mississippi, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio, and subject of the realistic fiction in books by John Grisham. N.B. read Grisham's The Appeal for a creepy tale about a tort reform group's influence on judicial elections, which results in…sorry, you'll have to read the book to find out how it ends (or just read the Wiki-spoiler review).

Earlier:

Braun Decision Affirms Fact that Appeals are Crucial to our System of Justice

Ryan Braun just became the first major league baseball player to successfully overturn a positive drug test result on appeal, and based on the immediate reactions in the press and Major League Baseball itself, you'd think the Berlin Wall had just crumbled. But before everyone jumps to the conclusion that baseball's drug policy is flawed, or that this outcome will somehow open up the proverbial floodgates to players wanting to challenge their positive drug test results, let's put it in perspective.

Prior to Braun's appeal of his October 2011 test result, twelve other positive drug test results were upheld on appeal. In terms of batting average, that's .077. By comparison, in our civil justice system, somewhere between ten and twenty percent of cases are reversed on appeal (in batting average that's .100 to .200). And according to this NY Times report, two-thirds of all death sentences are overturned on appeal (.666). So if you're José Canseco planning a comeback, don't get your size small jockstrap out of retirement yet.

If you want to be upset about something here, it should be the comments by Rob Manfred, MLB's Executive Vice-President for Labor Relations & Human Resources, who is an attorney (Hahh-vaad educated) and was one of the three attorneys that presided as arbitrators of the appeal:

Major League Baseball considers the obligations of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program essential to the integrity of our game, our Clubs[,] and all of the players who take the field. It has always been Major League Baseball’s position that no matter who tests positive, we will exhaust all avenues in pursuit of the appropriate discipline. We have been true to that position in every instance, because baseball fans deserve nothing less.

As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das.

The reason that Braun's positive test result was thrown out was that after the tester collected the urine sample, he kept it in his refrigerator over the weekend, and it wasn't actually examined until days later when it was received by the lab in Montreal. Some call that a technicality, but in reality, once a urine sample is 24-hours old its clinical significance is worthless by medical standards.

As attorneys, we are sworn to advocate for truth, justice, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, but based on Manfred's comments, his only concern is imposing punishment, rather than making sure that punishment is first warranted or justified. Moreover, the fact that Manfred called out his colleague, for essentially voting in a manner consistent with well-established legal doctrine, casts serious doubt on his integrity. 

Ironically, baseball analyst Tim Kurkjian (@Kurkjian_ESPN), who by the way is not an attorney, hit the ball on the screws in this interview:

Just like in a court of law, both sides had a chance to present evidence, and in this case the evidence went in Ryan Braun's favor.

Did the National League's 2011 Most Valuable Player use banned substances during last season's playoffs? We don't know. After learning about the positive test result from the MLB collection, Braun had a second test performed by an independent laboratory, and that test revealed normal levels of testosterone. Braun also tested negative for banned substances on three other occasions during the 2011 season. That doesn't mean that he was clean when he was tested in early October, but given the circumstances of the first drug test, the results are clinically unreliable, and so punishment would be unjust.

Photo credit: Steve Paluch