When enough just isn't enough

The Lance Armstrong affair is definitely becoming annoyingly the gift (not!) that keeps on giving. There's a large part of me that believes this should all have been put to bed when the US Justice Department dropped their case against Armstrong after almost two years of investigation, back in February.

Quite why they dropped the case when essentially they had the same evidence that the USADA has today is not totally clear. It may well be the case that even the public had no stomach for actual criminal charges being levied against a superstar athlete, and it was felt best left to a sporting authority to go after it citing their rules and regulations rather than actual criminal law. Did anyone really want to see Lance Armstrong put in jail for defrauding the American public?

This summer the USADA revitalized (for want of a better word) the case, and made it clear that not only did they have evidence "fully consistent with blood manipulation, including EPO use and/or blood transfusions", but also stated that they had proof of illicit use of EPO, testosterone, corticosteroids, as well as the use of masking agents. Armstrong came on strong, citing the Justice Department's withdrawal as part of his toolbox, and sued the USADA back claiming they were not in a position to come after him. He had two such countersuits thrown out, one in early July and the other around mid-August.

Notwithstanding the fact that a judge actually did question the ethics of the USADA, wondering whether it was politics and media attention that the USADA were pandering to, rather than any real pursuit of "justice", he sent the matter back to Armstrong's camp, saying that he had to now face arbitration. As we all know today (not least because I reported on it in an earlier blog!), Armstrong, facing perhaps the biggest fight of his career, simply walked away.

It was a shocking response, and one which definitely left a very sour taste in the mouth. A de facto admission of guilt, whether you are a fan or not. Now the fires were further stoked this week when the both the USADA and WADA came out and essentially accused Lance of essentially having led one of the most sophisticated doping/drug rings ever seen. WADA Director General David Howman even implied that the very people who were supposed to be monitoring/checking for such fraud were in on the act, and that is hardly surprising given how untouchable Armstrong seemed to be. 

“What seems to have happened in this particular scenario is that it went on for many years under the noses of those who were supposed to be detecting it and at times probably with their knowledge,” said Howman from WADA headquarters in Montreal.

Howman acknowledged that it was only now going to be possible to tackle the problem, because finally the code of silence, a cycling omerta, had now been broken by fellow riders, all of whom seem to be very keen indeed to spill the dirt on Armstrong. Tyler Hamilton, who has been on somewhat of a campaign against his former fellow rider, said recently on TV that he knew of at least one case where Armstrong had paid his way out of a positive test result. 

It's beginning to get really sleazy, and I imagine it will only get worse. One thing is certain: Armstrong is toast in terms of his Tour de France titles, and his reputation as superstar athlete will remain only for die-hard fans. Anyone who was on the fence or found him smug and arrogant in the face of serious charges will no doubt have made their minds up already. 

The damning details in the more than 200-page report compiled by the USADA are claimed to be definitive proof that Lance Armstrong was a "serial cheat" and "doping program ringleader" for basically his entire professional career. Underlining that fact is testimony from some 26 witnesses whose statements were included in the report. It is one thing to find out that he was apparently not innocent after all, but quite another to hear that he was considered a "ringleader" and "enforcer" of a team doping program! The USADA goes as far as to state that Armstrong bullied teammates into doping so that they could help him win, and if they refused they were sidelined. Quite shocking indeed. 

In typical fashion, Armstrong refused to respond to or face the more recent statements made by the USADA/WADA, instead claiming he is not going to discuss it any further and is focused entirely on his charity. Even if that charity was set up around his fame, which derived from his sporting success, which Howman translates today as "conspiracy to defraud the sport" of cycling. So even the fundamentals of that charity are based on lies and cheating, if you choose to believe what the USADA and WADA claim.

The almost laughable (I said almost!) aside to this is that when you go back and remind yourself of who were the runners up in the Tour between 1999 and 2006, it is nauseating to see that basically in each case that rider has already been either implicated in or banned due to doping. The total irony is that if Armstrong's titles were to be given to the runner up, it would simply be swapping one doper for another doper. If they have to find a clean rider to name as the new runner up? Well, somebody who came in at 64th place is going to have a real payday! It's ridiculous, sadly, but it's probably close to the truth. 

The sport is dirty, and everyone (now) knows it. It remains up to the ICU to formally come out and respond to or appeal the stripping of Armstrong's seven titles, and it really has to be them who do it. They got all the dirty work done for them, their hands were washed of it, but now they have been sideswiped by authorities who do get to shove this mess right back at them. The ICU is more or less boxed in, and will have to remove Armstrong's legacy, publicly.

It is a most shocking, sleazy and scandalous end to what had been a stellar superstar career. One can only imagine how Armstrong must have felt, after the Justice Department backed down, and he took a deep breath, only to see it all resurface mere months later. As much as his cocky arrogance to everyone he spoke to about it on TV was annoying (if you weren''t a fan) or proof he was innocent (if you were), one cannot help but feel for him. He was in a dirty sport, so he played dirty like everyone else. But as King of the Hill, your downfall is always gonna be more "delicious" than for the others. The rats come scurrying out of the hole, and they all want a piece of you.

In any case, his arrogance in outright denials of ever having been involved in any form of doping now appears to be either sheer stupidity or just typical of the man, or both. There is nothing joyous about what has happened or is coming next, because the world needs over-achieving superstars such as him, and the most tragic aspect of this entire sorry story is that on a level playing field he would still have beaten them all. Instead, he is now in the midst of being beaten by them all. Not on bikes on a hill, but by words of betrayal. Et tu, Brute? - Kevin Mc

PS In an aside, this story is very likely to keep on giving. Why? Well, show me the money! Let's not forget that in either a move of pure arrogance, or a strategic attempt to make him appear clean, Armstrong sued the prestigious Sunday Times over implications that he was a doper. The outcome? Armstrong won almost one million dollars as part of that settlement. Additionally, SCA Promotions refused to pay out as agreed after Armstrong's fifth Tour win in 2004, due to rumors that the wins were not clean. Guess what? Armstrong took legal action again, and won! SCA ended up paying out the $5M plus a further $2.5M in interest charges and legal fees. In total, the SCA paid him around $12M during his Tour years. 
Especially given the fact that Armstrong had the brass to sue to get that money, I can only imagine that it is just a matter of time till someone gets pissed off enough to want their money back. Ditto all sorts of sponsorship and advertising deals that involved Armstrong's champion athlete persona. It is inevitable that there is more to come, and I think that the LiveStrong Foundation may end up having to quietly separate themselves from their founder, if they wish to retain credibility as a legitimate charity, and not be seen as part of some elaborate drug money laundering scheme. 
I wonder how long it will take for all those business types in their crisp suits, including many talking heads on TV, to suddenly feel less "cool" with what appears to be their teenager's rubber wristband poking out of their shirt sleeve? Given that in many, many cases, they weren't worn for any other reason than wanting to look cool, I think that they will be going into the drawer in increasing numbers each week!