A World of Lies — Evidence about Lance Armstrong’s Multi-Year Tour de France Doping Operation Is Saddening — Not So Much because of the Cheating, but because of His Apparent Witness Intimidations

© 2012 Peter Free

 

11 October 2012

 

 

Citations — to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency decision that this essay refers to

 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong: Reasoned Decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency on Disqualification and Ineligibility, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (10 October 2012) (PDF file)

 

Decision of USADA on disqualification and ineligibility of Lance Armstrong — USADA says it has 'conclusive and undeniable proof' of Lance Armstrong doping conspiracy, Washington Post (10 October 2012)

 

Cindy Boren, Lance Armstrong was at center of doping program, USADA says, Washington Post (10 October 2012)

 

 

The point — orchestrated moral rot is everywhere, and Lance Armstrong gains some refuge in that, but with one exception

 

Grossly unethical behavior and lying are so common that they are only comment-worthy when they trap someone, whom we thought we admired.

 

Yesterday, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency published its convincing “reasoned decision” about Lance Armstrong’s multi-year Tour de France doping operation.

 

The evidence appears to be convincing.

 

Note — read the 202-page decision for corroboration

 

The report is thorough, surprisingly complete for such a synopsis, and contains citations to the pertinent supporting evidence that is reportedly contained in sworn affidavits submitted by the witnesses against Mr. Armstrong.

 

This evidentiary magnitude explains why the USADA singled Lance out.

 

Armstrong was apparently not simply guilty of doing what cyclists of his era often did, he also took the art of cheating to scientific and team levels.  He was, it seems, a kingpin of systematized doping in cycling.

 

Armstrong’s manipulation of the system apparently even extended to “donating” $100,000 to the International Cycling Union, so that they would implicitly quid pro quo away a positive doping test that had been done on him.  (See pages 51-52 of the Reasoned Decision.)  The UCI (its French acronym) has denied this, of course.

 

 

Sometimes the truth comes out — and even the wrong-doers recognize that the closet is finally open

 

Given that Mr. Armstrong has decided not to contest USADA’s evidence (by using the arbitration procedures that lawfully govern the process), he has tacitly admitted that there is truth to USADA’s allegations.

 

Armstrong and his attorneys will (most probably) continue to “pedal” the Big Lie, in hopes that he can escape most of the reputational consequences of his past actions.

 

The irony is that most of us familiar with cycling are not going to condemn Lance for having cheated in a sport where doping was almost de rigueur.

 

But some us will find him wanting for having:

 

(a) (apparently) tried to bribe his way out of being caught on one test — thereby contributing to corruption in the sport

 

(b) intimidated witnesses, who were only cooperating in trying to clean cycling up

 

(c) slandered truthful people, by nastily labeling them as jealous liars

 

and

 

(d) telling the Big Lie, himself, over and over again.

 

 

The moral? — Not all is lost for Lance, but enough is gone to sadden us

 

Lance will always be a 7-time Tour de France champion for me and millions of others.

 

It would be hard, I suspect, to find someone on the Tour podium in those years, who had not cheated to get there.  That Lance and his team were better at rule-breaking than others is only questionably indictable, given the standards of the times.

 

But the lying, intimidation, and the possible attempt to corrupt are morally damaging to Lance’s reputation.  Barring surprises, he seems smaller and less admirable now.

 

If there is a lesson in this, it is simply that rule-breaking usually leads to more of the same.  At some, usually unrecognized point, we find ourselves gaining speed on the slope to an unworthy place that we never intended to go.

 

I am sad for and about Lance Armstrong.  But equally heartened (barring more revelations) that the truth-tellers, whom he besmirched, are vindicated.

 

The ex-cop in me is glad that someone had the verve to go after a determined wrong-doer, even in the face of the apathy that dominated other regulatory bodies.  The UCI, for example, looks both inept and ethically corrupt in the USADA report.