More on Armstrong
There was a little more than a week in the spa. There was a race to the truth. But I return gladly to the story of Lance Armstrong, thanks to the urging of my friend, Quattropalle.
I wouldn't bet on the Texan. Since the time of Ben Johnson (and it has been almost a quarter of a century!), I wouldn't bet on anyone when it comes to doping.
I don't like Lance's attitude. Pantani on Ventoux behaved terribly. Simeoni, years later, was even worse.
And in general I found his... style, let's call it, worthy of a mafia boss.
When I talk about a possible “posthumous vendetta,” I am basing this on facts and feelings.
Facts:
For years, the FBI has spent a mountain of dollars to force the now ex-cyclist into a criminal trial. Unhesitatingly, the judges dismissed the case, not considering the collected evidence sufficient for a trial.
So the FBI passed its cards to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency convinced numerous ex-colleagues of Armstrong, some of whom are still active, to testify against the winner of seven Tours. They were guaranteed immunity — that is, they would not suffer disqualification for the admissions of doping that directly concerned them.
Even in F1, there is a famous case of a fellow who had immunity for providing evidence against third parties. Ahem. I had never considered it a thrilling precedent. Good.
As Gimondi and Merckx say, while he was active, Armstrong passed all the anti-doping tests to which he was subjected. They say there are two cases that could demonstrate his guilt, but they were not “confirmed.”
Here end the facts; now come the feelings.
I don't believe that Armstrong is clean at all. I don't think he ever has been.
I think, as the New York Times wrote today, that he has been the strongest cyclist in the dirtiest era of cycling. As for the rest, it's enough to look at the list of the placegetters on his shoulders in the seven Tours. All doped, all were disqualified.
My doubts concern the legitimacy of the manner in which this has proceeded.
If I pass the anti-doping tests “in real time,” as it were, can one claim that I was out of line years and years later? Was I out of line, or was the inadequate testing out of line? Should we do a DNA test on the remains of Jesse Owens to find out whether he humiliated Hitler by swallowing a miraculous potion at Berlin in 1936?
Can we rewrite sporting history in this way?
I don't know. Everyone everywhere seems to think so. We live in a world in which the statute of limitations is denied to practically no one, not even thieves or rapists. But to athletes? No way. Meh, must be right.
More, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, as it immediately notified the International Federation of Cycling, has no right to revoke anything. It has no jurisdiction outside of the United States.
But these are legal trifles.
I won't defend Armstrong; I admired his story of surviving a tumor without ever imagining he was “clean” in the middle of a group of dopers. Please.
But I find it curious how ferociously insistent these eager American officials are to prove that in 1999, as it were, a cyclist dressed in yellow cheated. There it is.
I wouldn't bet on the Texan. Since the time of Ben Johnson (and it has been almost a quarter of a century!), I wouldn't bet on anyone when it comes to doping.
I don't like Lance's attitude. Pantani on Ventoux behaved terribly. Simeoni, years later, was even worse.
And in general I found his... style, let's call it, worthy of a mafia boss.
When I talk about a possible “posthumous vendetta,” I am basing this on facts and feelings.
Facts:
For years, the FBI has spent a mountain of dollars to force the now ex-cyclist into a criminal trial. Unhesitatingly, the judges dismissed the case, not considering the collected evidence sufficient for a trial.
So the FBI passed its cards to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency convinced numerous ex-colleagues of Armstrong, some of whom are still active, to testify against the winner of seven Tours. They were guaranteed immunity — that is, they would not suffer disqualification for the admissions of doping that directly concerned them.
Even in F1, there is a famous case of a fellow who had immunity for providing evidence against third parties. Ahem. I had never considered it a thrilling precedent. Good.
As Gimondi and Merckx say, while he was active, Armstrong passed all the anti-doping tests to which he was subjected. They say there are two cases that could demonstrate his guilt, but they were not “confirmed.”
Here end the facts; now come the feelings.
I don't believe that Armstrong is clean at all. I don't think he ever has been.
I think, as the New York Times wrote today, that he has been the strongest cyclist in the dirtiest era of cycling. As for the rest, it's enough to look at the list of the placegetters on his shoulders in the seven Tours. All doped, all were disqualified.
My doubts concern the legitimacy of the manner in which this has proceeded.
If I pass the anti-doping tests “in real time,” as it were, can one claim that I was out of line years and years later? Was I out of line, or was the inadequate testing out of line? Should we do a DNA test on the remains of Jesse Owens to find out whether he humiliated Hitler by swallowing a miraculous potion at Berlin in 1936?
Can we rewrite sporting history in this way?
I don't know. Everyone everywhere seems to think so. We live in a world in which the statute of limitations is denied to practically no one, not even thieves or rapists. But to athletes? No way. Meh, must be right.
More, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, as it immediately notified the International Federation of Cycling, has no right to revoke anything. It has no jurisdiction outside of the United States.
But these are legal trifles.
I won't defend Armstrong; I admired his story of surviving a tumor without ever imagining he was “clean” in the middle of a group of dopers. Please.
But I find it curious how ferociously insistent these eager American officials are to prove that in 1999, as it were, a cyclist dressed in yellow cheated. There it is.