The Dope

"Lance Armstrong is Cleared of Doping Charges", screams the headline of this NY Times article. "A Dutch investigator appointed by the International Cycling Union cleared Lance Armstrong today on charges of doping during the 1999 Tour de France".

Since most people don't read very far past the headline, and the mainstream press knows this, the NY Times has definitively stated that Lance isn't a doper. But let's look at this a bit more critically than the well-financed, well-connected and powerful NY Times did.

First, this so-called investigator offers up no proof that repudiates the testing that showed Lance Armstrong's blood contained traces of the banned performance-enhancing drug EPO. His basic objection is that the lab that performed the tests did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that test results were kept private. Whether or not the lab violated confidentiality rules has very little to do with the fact that Lance's blood contained an illegal substance. The investigator wants this to be one of those technicality items that allow criminals to roam freely.

This investigator is not a chemical analysis expert, he is a lawyer. And essentially, this lawyer is asking that Armstrong's name be cleared because he, the lawyer, is upset that the information regarding Armstrong's failed blood test was leaked to the press (that, and as a doper defense lawyer this is what he does, more on that in a bit). I guess asking the NY Times to clear the name of a friend of the NY Times is good enough.

Lots of people are asking that VP Dick Cheney be cleared of any wrong doing in the silly, waste-of-time-because-it-doesn't-matter Valerie Plame incident but at every turn the Times is critical of Cheney and continues to call for a full investigation. Full investigation? Where's is that cry over Armstrong and his failed drug test? The goings-on in Washington may be more important in some circles than cycling, but shouldn't the NY Times be consistent in how they approach every matter, at least from a journalistic standpoint? If they insist on asking whether or not Cheney released Plame's name shouldn't they similarly be asking whether or not Armstrong's blood contained dope?

Back to Armstrong - even the investigator/lawyer's employers are upset with him and his report and state that they, "Firmly deplore the behaviour of Mr. Vrijman (the investigator/lawyer), who has prematurely voiced, offending the agreements that foresaw that all parties implied would be informed before any public comment on the report content would be done". Prematurely, as in, he hasn't a fricking clue. Offending agreements, as in, scoffing at rules and regulations. Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what he was charged to do? Look into rule and regulation violations? And here he is doing it himself. Do as I say, not as I do, or, now we shouldn't believe anything that he says because he is a liar. Didn't this matter to the Times?

Oh, and one minor point that the Times is quick to ignore; the investigator/lawyer has spent the past few years defending athletes accused of doping. Nothing beats a non-partial, fair and open-minded investigation. I'm quite sure that Johnny Cochran was convinced of O.J.'s innocence too. If you can't pay me more than Lance, then a report calling him a doper has no chance.

The investigator does not have the authority to clear Armstrong, he was assigned to review the manner in which the leak occurred. So the very first sentence of the Times article (reprinted as sentence number two of this post) is false and misleading. And I suspect that the Times knows it. Just where the investigator and the Times get off making such bold lies I'll never understand.

So there you have it; a rogue investigator who doesn't have the support of his employers, without any expertise in chemical analysis, who is simply unhappy about a leak to the press (being sanctimonious about press leaks is certainly something that the Times can appreciate), who is a known liar and who makes a living defending dopers - asks that Armstrong be cleared, and the high and mighty NY Times complies without taking even the most cursory look at the facts or circumstances surrounding the issue. Nowhere in the Times article or anywhere else will you find that Armstrong's blood, which showed traces of an illegal substance, was re-tested and found to be dope free. And isn't that the real issue?

Note: The Times article was written by Samuel Abt, a cycling hanger-on if there ever was one. His entire career has been based upon access. If you look at his resume you'll see that access to Lance Armstrong has enriched Abt well beyond where his talent would have taken him. He's not going to be too keen on bashing Lance, is he?



What does Lance have to say about the report (which he says he has not had the time to study but doesn't let that stop him from making sweeping statements)? Not surprisingly, this;

"Although I am not surprised by the report's findings, I am pleased that they confirm what I have been saying since this witch-hunt began: Dick Pound, WADA, the French laboratory, the French Ministry of Sport, L'Equipe, and the Tour de France organizers (ASO) have been out to discredit and target me without any basis and falsely accused me of taking performance enhancing drugs in 1999".

That's right Lance, it's a witch-hunt and the world is out to get you. Poor Lance.