Regarding Revived Doping Allegations against Lance Armstrong — Given the Administrative Format, There May Be More Damaging Substance Here than One Might Suspect — which Takes this Go-Round Out of the Context of Poorly Founded Malicious Gossip

16 June 2012

In regard to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s accusations against 7-time Tour de France winner, Lance Armstrong — consciously switching perspectives may alter our (instinctive) wish to cut this investigation off at its knees

The Washington Post published the 12 June 2012 letter that the United States Anti-Doping Agency sent Armstrong and his alleged high-ranking team co-conspirators.

Were I one of Mr. Armstrong’s attorneys, I would be concerned. This does not appear to be an ill-considered effort on the part of an out-of-control administrative agency.

For the first time, I suspect that Lance’s customary retreat into blanket, detail-lacking denials is not going to work.

If the Agency has the evidence that it says it has, combined with a competent prosecutorial bent, Mr. Armstrong’s lawyers will have their work cut out for them.

What the letter says

The Agency’s accusations are directed at:

Lance Armstrong,

his most famous team manager — Johan Bruyneel

a team trainer — Pepi Marti

and three physicians — Pedro Celaya, Luis Garcia del Moral, and Michele Ferrari

Alleged doping substances include:

erythropoietin and blood transfusions — which increase oxygen transport by adding red blood cells

testosterone — with benefits of increased muscle mass, strength, and quickened fatigue recovery

human growth hormone — which has effects similar to testosterone under these circumstances

corticosteroids — which reduce inflammation, promote recovery, and increase energy

saline and plasma intravenous infusions — that volumetrically mask the proportional rise in red blood cells that accompanies the use of erythropoietin and blood transfusions

The letter says that teams Armstrong rode for intentionally promoted the use of these substances. Each alleged conspirator is individually listed with an overview of the allegations against him.

Armstrong is named as having been witnessed (or having confessed to) using all but human growth hormone during the Tour de France victory years:

With respect to Lance Armstrong, numerous 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 [erythropoietin], blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH [human growth hormone] through 1996.

Numerous riders will also testify that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and/or assisted them in using doping products and/or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005.

Furthermore, there are allegations that physical evidence supports some of these charges

Criminal court defense attorneys might be able to discount lab-based physical evidence of this kind in a battle of expert witnesses — but administrative and arbitration hearings only rarely will go that far:

Representatives of USADA [U.S. Anti-Doping Agency] have interviewed Dr. Martial Saugy, Director of the Lausanne Anti-Doping Laboratory which analyzed the urine samples from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

Dr. Saugy stated that Lance Armstrong’s urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use.

Multiple witnesses have also told USADA that Lance Armstrong told them he had tested positive in 2001 and that the test result had been covered up.

Lance Armstrong’s doping is further evidenced by the data from blood collections obtained by the UCI [Union Cycliste Internationale] from Lance Armstrong in 2009 and 2010. This data is fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusion.

Worst — alleged intimidation and retaliation

If true, the following is not appealing:

Beginning in 1999 and continuing through the present it has been an object of the Conspiracy to conceal and cover-up the doping conduct of the USPS [cycling team] Conspiracy.

Numerous witnesses will testify that as part of this cover-up Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya, Michele Ferrari, Lance Armstrong and other co-conspirators engaged in activities to conceal their conduct and mislead anti-doping authorities including false statements to the media, false statements and false testimony given under oath and in legal proceedings, and attempts to intimidate, discredit, silence and retaliate against witnesses.

Were I a public relations expert representing the accused, I would be wondering how to prevent a John Edwards-like fall from grace for them.

With these allegations in mind — throw in some sad common sense

From a statistical point of view — in a cycling era in which doping was essentially the standard — it is unlikely that Lance Armstrong would have won 7 Tours, without him and/or his team following suit.

From the “odds” perspective, the un-aided human body just has too many up and down days to be consistently outstanding at a multi-day athletic event that is so inordinately challenging.

I can see (maybe) winning one or two tours as a doping-free competitor in a doping-dominated era. But not seven. Statistically speaking, that outcome is so highly unlikely, as to be most probably preposterous.

Cycling writer Bill Griffin wrote a few days ago:

The bulk of Armstrong’s career—the years between the early 1990s and his 2005 retirement—coincided with a golden age for doping in the sport . . . .

When a test for EPO was introduced at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, they switched to blood transfusions, a time-honored (and banned) practice dating back decades.

Major scandals, including the massive Operation Puerto affair in Spain, not to mention Floyd Landis losing his 2006 Tour de France title, took out many of the top contenders of his day.

Armstrong’s contention that he’s being singled out is the exact opposite of the truth: Thus far, Lance is one of the few top riders from cycling’s doping era to remain unscathed.

The singled-out claim also doesn’t consider that USADA has charged key Armstrong staffers, from doctors to his longtime personal trainer Michele Ferrari . . . to his team director and confidante, Johan Bruyneel.

Doping in cycling is, or was, a structural problem, handed down from generation to generation and (on some teams) enforced by team management.

Why should we care?

I care for four reasons:

I don’t like liars — especially, those who benefit from other people’s sacrifices on their behalf.

I do not like losing sight of the truth — here, about the natural boundaries of human ability.

I detest people who cheat to win — at the financial and prestige-expense of honest athletes.

And, if it works out in Lance Armstrong’s favor, I will be happy that a genuine Super-Hero was not tarnished. I cannot count the times that Mr. Armstrong’s exploits lifted my spirits.

The moral? — Perhaps, this time around the air will finally clear

I hope that whatever is true comes out.

It would nice, for once, if the good guys — whoever they are — win.

PeteFree.com

Regarding Revived Doping Allegations against Lance Armstrong — Given the Administrative Format, There May Be More Damaging Substance Here than One Might Suspect — which Takes this Go-Round Out of the Context of Poorly Founded Malicious Gossip