This post is going to be not only very informal, but could come off seeming as if it is a rant - which it partly is. Bear with me please, and understand that this is not me defending Lance Armstrong, but rather me defending due process, the legal system, and morality.
As we all know by now, Lance Armstrong has been stripped off all 7 of his Tour de France titles stretching from 1999-2005, as well as having his name removed from numerous record books, the face of Nike, and as the head of the Livestrong foundation.
I am not here to state whether or not I believe he cheated - as far as I am concerned that is not for me or the public to decide. That is for a blood, urine, or hair analysis test to decide. Unfortunately, there are people in many organizations throughout the world that have decided that hearsay and court statements are enough to indict and convict Armstrong of using Performance Enhancing Drugs.
I see one small problem with where these statements are coming from. Cyclists such as Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, and Alberto Contador are the ones coming out in the press and admonishing Lance Armstrong for using drugs. It is on their words, amongst others, that the International Cycling Union, the Tour de France, the American Anti-Doping Agency, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the kangaroo court that is public opinion have decided to label Lance "guilty as charged".
My problem with this is that it seems that the words of proven cheaters, known corrupted organizations *cough Nike cough*, and public hate (need I refer people to the HUNDREDS of hate articles the French media wrote about Lance during his amazing run of 7 straight TDF's?) are all it takes in today's society to determine that someone is a cheater. How is it possible that we, as a society, are completely fine with accepting the words of those who have cheated, and been caught, and then apologized as legitimate? I find it impossible to ignore the fact that Lance Armstrong has been tested thousands of times, has made himself available for more drug testing, and has let his drug testing record be public when considering his case. If athletes such as Contador have failed drug tests, would it not make sense that Lance, who has unquestionably been tested more than Contador has, fail a test as well? Drug tests don't lie, but people do. And I don't think it is out of the question that people who have been caught cheating and lying to cover up their cheating are capable of lying again.
My point isn't that Lance is clean or dirty. My point is that there is a due process to be followed, and the due process suggests that Lance Armstrong never took performance enhancing drugs. The drug tests are more valid to me than the statement of a convicted drug cheat.
Look at it this way. This would be like trying someone for capital murder with a jury that is comprised completely of men sitting on death row. The court of public opinion is taking science out of the equation and allowing testimony and hearsay to be all that is needed to convict him.
This is a major problem that could spell the end for athletes everywhere. Who is going to be targeted next? Allowing hearsay and testimony to win sets the stage for anyone to say whatever they want about whomever they want, and apparently we have to take that as true.
Give Lance a drug test. In fact go back and retest his old samples. The truth doesn't lie in a statement from George Hincapie. It lies in the results of those drug tests.
No comments:
Post a Comment