Armstrong vs. USADA

My blog posts are usually about things that affect me directly, but today this is out of sheer frustration over an issue that I really don’t have much connection with, just empathy.
This morning’s major news story, especially in Texas, is Lance Armstrong’s attempt to end his decade long ordeal with the USADA. With no interest in cycling, no respect for chemically altered athletes, but admiration for the work Armstrong has done in recent years with his Live Strong Foundation, my initial reaction was that is probably best that the issue be laid to rest and Armstrong move on rather than continue to deplete his time and energy in what seems destined to be a lost cause.

I was still incensed that an organization with only contractual authority (many forget that the USADA is NOT federal agency) could take away awards given by a foreign entity on the hearsay of other competitors. That smacks of what is now called McCarthyism, which plagued such notables as Charlie Chaplin, Dashiell Hammet, Lena Horne, Robert Oppenheimer, Paul Robeson and countless other who did not survive the unfounded public slander of Joseph McCarthy.

Then, when less distracted, a few more issues came to mind. I ditched the social commentary and abridged newscasts and sought more information….. the judge’s actual ruling on the case that brought about Armstrong’s resignation. By the time I finished reading it, I had a whole new perspective on the issues at hand.

While it is a well founded suspicion that the USADA will strip him of his medals, the hearing on the charges have not happened. The court case was to nullify the agreement signed to submit such issues to arbitration. Once again someone is facing impending damages because they either unwittingly or when left with no other choice, agreed to binding arbitration. If you have never been through that process, let me enlighten you. Binding arbitration is a tool of companies to avoid legal expense and public exposure when there is a disagreement between parties. Due process is loosely abided by, if at all, and the odds are always in the company’s favor, not the individual’s. The court case was predominately about Armstrong trying to even the playing field by having the court nullify the agreement. And as no surprise to most people, the agreement was upheld. What was surprising was the judge’s admission that the expense of further court costs was a factor in that decision. The USADA has been spending funds as if there was no limit on anyone’s financing, but the judge was concerned about more tax dollars being on spent on a judicial hearing instead of a closed arbitration hearing.

The other issue at hand was one of jurisdiction. At the time of the competitions, the USADA did not govern American cyclists competing in anything other than the Olympics and Para-Olympics. Since that time agreements between the organizations have overlapped authority in regard to eligibility. The court ruling pointed out that the governing bodies for this sport have not settled on how to handle this issue, and given that the case is already declined due to the arbitration issue, there was no reason to proceed further.

Now that is my totally laymen’s explanation, and you can read through all the legal technicalities cited in the ruling, but for me it is clear why Armstrong has decided to step back and let things proceed.

First, he doesn’t have much choice until the arbitration hearings take place. Then if the USADA proves to be as unethical as their track record hints at, he can take action. But the point is there has to be proof of infractions committed by the USADA before legal action can be taken. You cannot sue someone because you know in their heart they are about to screw you over.

Secondly, while Armstrong’s retreat from the conflict this morning fueled those already convince of his guilt, it also garnered sympathy from others for an individual who accepted that sometimes there is more to be lost in continuing a battle than by taking a chance with surrender. Sometimes you have to reconsider the cost, even when you thought you picked your battle wisely.



Aside from whether or not Lance Armstrong used drugs he shouldn’t have while competing, aside from whether or not the USADA is pursuing this because they need to reinforce their mandate to stop doping, there is another issue that I think needs to be considered.

Why do we fault athletes for human flaws more than we honor them for what they can do far better than we could ever dream of doing ourselves?
Jim Thorpe was destroyed over having played SEMI-pro ball in an era when it was doubtful he could have earned a living any other way and he certainly was not getting assistance or training that anyone would have considered to be on a professional level.

Michael Phelps is under fire for someone else prematurely publishing an advertisement he made.

I know many a competitive swimmer that has asked why they can work as a Life Guard at a pool and retain their amateur status, but not teach a kid to swim so they won’t need a Life Guard to rescue them.

In none of these cases was the athlete given an unusually unfair advantage over their competitors, which SHOULD be the issue at hand. Even if Armstrong did everything he is accused of doing while competing in the Tour de France, it was an even playing field because, as the witnesses themselves have repeatedly stated, “EVERYONE was doing it.” Which, to me, means that the medals were not given to the wrong person; if anything, the race itself was a farce.