It should be noted, however, that this article does not argue the possibility of the allegations themselves. The point of this post is not to prove or disprove whether Lance Armstrong is guilty of blood doping, but instead discusses whether the repercussions of a guilty verdict (having titles revoked) are appropriate or not.
The argument against USADA litigation
Kiersten
Kiersten
Take this with a grain of salt, because I grew up watching Lance win. It was a big deal in my house, and it was exciting when he took charge and flattened the competition. I hold Lance in relatively high esteem, especially given Livestrong (his cancer awareness foundation). However, I do realize that it is not implausible he doped to win. It's possible, though greatly disappointing, that he did dope. The question at stake here is not whether he did or not, it's if he should be prosecuted for it. I'm going to argue that he should not be.
There are several factors to take into account here. The first is Armstrong's incredibly high profile. Obviously this would be something the USADA wants to grab onto, to give themselves a boost into the awareness spotlight. That would be a reason for them to litigate. However, along with his high profile comes a lot of people who truly consider him a hero, an amazing athlete and a champion of their cause. Livestrong is one of the most prominent and most widely recognized cancer foundations. If Lance loses this case, Livestrong will go down with him. Considering the percentage amount of donations likely garnered by Livestrong alone for all kinds of cancer, this would be an unnecessary blow to a good cause. Another point here is that Lance is a symbol of American cycling like no other. If he goes down (like so many others recently), any faith in the sport of cycling will disappear. Nothing good will come of this.
With that unhappy result in mind, the second part here is how long ago it was. Seven years is a very long time in sports. The drug rules in the sport of cycling alone have changed a dozen times since Armstrong was winning. Short term doping punishment I understand, as in revoking of the title within a couple months of the evidence. But years?? No one remembers who came in second. They won't suddenly find themselves with a title now, because that title is meaningless. Taking away titles years later makes the original event pointless, and therefore future events pointless, what is a contest without a winner? It's also important to note that any testing at the time (and he WAS tested) would have been done using older procedures. Is it fair to apply new technology to old drug test samples? You wouldn't bother for just anyone, it's a lot of extra work, and you have to go hunting for the maybe-still-existing samples. So, if you wouldn't go hunting for everyone's samples to retest, is it fair just to test the winners? The losers could be doing it too. Also, remember that doping has been a part of cycling since 1900 [See this wiki]. It is not new, and cycling itself has become an increasingly difficult sport because of it. The sport itself transcends anything an athlete can do to cheat. There is still so much more that has to be done than just giving yourself extra blood cells. They help, but they aren't even half the battle. Armstrong won those Tours with skill and amazing athleticism, cheating or not. No blood test from 5 years ago can disprove that. This is why instead of trying to prove this point, the USADA should put their resources into stopping doping at current and future events. Otherwise this cycle will never end, but cycling as a sport will.
I understand that punishing Armstrong will pose as an example for the rest of the possible dopers of the world that they could lose their titles even years afterwards as technology progresses. And that's a legitimate argument, but dopers know the consequences, and there's a whole lot of fame they can reap in between the time they win and the time they are found out. Not to mention that they still, for all intents and purposes, go down as the person who won whatever competition. Any verdict does not retroactively change the history of the sport. The fact remains that Armstrong won those races, and he did so by cycling well, blood doping or no. Plus, as the records indicate, everyone was doing it at the time. My father, who has been watching the tour religiously since 1985, has said that if they take away Lance's 7 titles it will be the last straw and he will stop watching. He says, "What's the point if two years later, the person who won has their title revoked?" A recent tour, on the record books, belongs to the person who finished in at least 5th, because of the titles revoked due to doping admissions or discoveries. No one knows who that was, and no one cares. In the end, taking down Lance Armstrong is like tearing down the last remaining pillar of the sport of cycling, and the strongest supporter of cancer research at the same time. Everything will come crashing down on your head, and no one will be happy.
The USADA should turn its focus towards the future, and fostering studies to prevent whatever new kind of undetectable doping they'll come up with, rather than digging up old evidence to bring down the old greats. It's a waste of time and money, and will do nothing but make a great number of people unhappy. Sure, justice may be served in the end, but it will have been a waste of resources and achieved nothing. I support the USADA's existence. I think they're a worth-while institution, but I also think they have a worthless vendetta and that they need to get the hell over it.
The second side of the argument, written by Dani, will be posted in a few days. The link will be posted here when it is available.
As usual, we always love to hear opinions on what the readers think! What are your thoughts on the allegations that Armstrong used blood doping techniques, and what do you think about the USADA's decision to revoke his titles if these allegations turn out to be true?
Lance didn't beat cancer! He used drugs to do it. So the USADA must now declare Lance Armstrong to be deceased, or at least diseased.
ReplyDelete