Lance Armstrong. They done him wrong

Recently, the sports editor of this paper, Jeff Kuehn, who also just happens to be my boss, penned an article about Lance Armstrong and his alleged doping while competing in the Tour de France years ago.

Kuehn made no bones about it. His opening words were, "Lance Armstrong cheated". While he is certainly entitled to his opinion, at the risk of incurring his wrath, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion.

Why? Because we just don't know for sure. Like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others that have been accused of similar things during recent years, after all the ballyhoo there was never a definitive answer. People will think what they think, but they don't really know. Not me, not you, and not even sports editors.

Kuehn said Armstrong as much as admitted cheating by accepting the penalty handed down by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which included a lifetime ban from professional cycling and being stripped of his 7 Tour de France titles. I see it quite differently. Armstrong said no such thing -- in fact he once again adamantly denied ever having used performance enhancing drugs, which he has steadfastly maintained all along.

Further, Armstrong didn't exactly accept the penalty. He didn't have any choice. His last recourse offered by the USADA was to go before an arbitration panel, which is overseen by -- guess who -- the USADA. That would likely be akin to going to tax court in a dispute with the IRS, where all the judges are former IRS agents. Chances are they've already decided you're guilty before you even get there, so the only thing left for them to do is to make it official in a written judgement. One is between a rock and a hard place. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Such is the nature of what are commonly referred to as "show trials", which are held in "kangaroo courts".

The article said, "the USADA decided Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs". That may be good enough for some folks, but it's not even close for me. Prosecutors decide people committed crimes every day, and charge them accordingly, but that doesn't mean they're all guilty. Some of them turn out to be totally innocent after having been run through the grinding wheels of justice, but at least that's done in a "real" court, which is most times impartial. Armstrong didn't get that chance.

Kuehn said Armstrong got caught. Really? By what? Accusations? Here's a novel idea.... How about the prosecutors (USADA)  showing some evidence of his guilt?  They haven't done that. The evidence that has never been heard yet would supposedly come from more than a dozen witnesses who "agreed to testify and provide evidence about their firsthand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity...". Guess who said that? Yep, the same USADA. In the real world, Armstrong's attorney(s) would be able to depose these witnesses before all the parties actually wound up in a courtroom. They get to find out who these witnesses are, and ask them what they will be prepared to testify to under oath in a trial. The prosecutor(s) gets the same privilege with any potential witnesses for the defense. That's the way it works.

In Armstrong's case, these "unidentified" witnesses for the USADA were supposedly prepared to say Armstrong himself told them he had not only used a vast array of PED's over the years, but encouraged others to do the same while providing them with the goodies. Evidently, they not only think he was a user, but a drug dealer (pusher) as well.

Kuehn asked why Armstrong would give up the fight. Well, we don't know that either because we haven't walked all those miles in Armstrong's shoes. Besides looking at a kangaroo court where he has no chance to win anyway, how much money has it cost him over the years to pay atttorneys, and how much mental strain does a scenario like this put on an individual and/or his family? Probably a lot. The USADA has no such worries. As yet another faceless government entity, they've made their unsubstantiated conclusions and have an infinite budget to back them up, also known as taxpayer dollars. I don't blame Armstrong one bit for finally saying "no mas" to a fight he could never win, but that certainly doesn't amount to an admission of guilt. Far from it.

Yes, some people have come to Armstrong's defense, saying that after beating testicular cancer, he created a foundation which has raised over $500 million to help others with similar problems. This is a very noteworthy and admirable achievement -- but it's also totally irrelevant as to whether Lance once took PED's. Apples and oranges. The "everybody else did it" thing doesn't hold water either. Either Armstrong did it or he didn't, and we don't know. What sticks out to me are the over 500 drug tests that were administered to Armstrong and him never failing a single one. As he was winning Tour after Tour, he was likely tested constantly. If he was so "dirty", how can that be? Years ago, it was rumored Armstrong slept in an oxygen deprived tent at night during the course of the Tour. This would deplete his red blood cells. When he awoke and got out into the regular atmosphere, his body would compensate by recharging his red blood cells with oxygen in a large way. If so, was it illegal as to what sort of air he breathed?

What irks me to no end is people having already jumped to conclusions, without having any hard IMPARTIAL and OBJECTIVE evidence to base them on. They've already moved on to asking questions like -- were all Lance's Tour de France titles worth the cheating? They've not only rendered a verdict, but passed sentence, and some even go on to lecture about doing things the right way in sports.

These people have locked up Armstrong and thrown away the key in their minds. But wait a minute.... Lance never got his day in court where all the evidence, or lack thereof, would come to light. Last time I looked in this country, a person was still presumed innocent until being found guilty. The only venues Lance Armstrong has been found guilty in is in the minds of some people that either ARE the prosecutors, or those that automatically agree with them as soon as a charge has been made. To which I say -- if it was happening to them or a member of their family -- they'd get a whole new perspective on things, and change their tune in a heartbeat. It's always easy to play armchair judge, juror, and executioner when it's somebody else going through the meat grinder.

Did Armstrong really cheat? Personally, I don't think he did, because given the scrutiny he was no doubt under while he dominated the Tour de France for 7 years, including the over 500 drug tests that came back clean -- I just can't see how he could have pulled it off if he was cheating for that long. It doesn't make sense.

The kangaroo court can ban him and strip him of his titles on some piece of paper somewhere, but until they come up with something even remotely resembling credible evidence, I'm not buying it.

The latest issue of Sports Illustrated has a feature article about this very thing. In it, they showed the results of a poll they conducted asking people whether they thought Armstrong had used PED's. It came back 60% said no.

Guess I'm not the only one.