Lance Armstrong hasn't been accused of doping in AT LEAST a year, so it seems appropriate that the annual witch hunt should reconvene just in time for summer. This time around, the US Anti-Doping Agency decided to get SERIOUS with its witch hunt and notified Armstrong he was being formally charged with possessing testosterone and using blood-doping products during his unprecedented seven consecutive Tour de France victories.
Armstrong, for his part, denied the claims, just as he has the previous thousand or so times someone has accused him of cheating. His argument, which he posted on his website, is fairly compelling:
"These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation. These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity. Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. 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.
"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. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence."
Armstrong is right about one thing: The USADA continue to pursue a bizarre vendetta against him, one of uncertain origins and even more uncertain evidence. How exactly would the USADA benefit from successfully prosecuting Armstrong seven years after his last Tour de France win?
On the other hand, the USADA is probably correct; Armstrong probably doped. To save me some trouble writing about how little this matters now, I'll just reprint what I wrote the last time evidence against Lance surfaced, which was backed up by former teammate Tyler Hamilton:
Which seems more plausible: Lance Armstrong won one of the most grueling races in all of sports seven times in a row without any aid from substances, despite the fact that PEDs were (and are) widely used by other cyclists; OR, that he took performance enhancing drugs at some point in his career? I say the latter. And personally, I couldn't care less. I want these guys to take PEDs, and I'm tired of everyone getting on his high horse about it. Dr. Ferrari could give Lance horse lungs for all I care; I just want to see incredible feats of strength and daring in sports at every opportunity. If it takes drugs to accomplish that, so be it.
Some arbitrary notion of what the body should and should not be able to accomplish dictates an absurd set of anti-doping rules that a) Don't seem to prevent anyone from doping, and b) Prosecute offenders unfairly. Sure, Lance Armstrong probably doped, but does that make his body, his willpower, and his competitiveness any less impressive? I say no, and if the USADA has failed in their efforts to ruin his life thus far, they should probably just give it up and focus on something more relevant.
--
Do you think the USADA is on a witch hunt to destroy Lance Armstrong?
Follow SportsOlogy on Twitter: @OlogySports
[ESPN]
Comments (2)