Whipped Cream Difficulties

Nick Gillespie has a somewhat interesting piece over at Reason‘s “Hit and Run” blog, “What to Wear on Your Wrist Now That Lance Armstrong is Being Stripped of His Tour de France Titles”. Among other points, Gillespie makes an argument that echos mine from the comments in the previous post:

Steroids, goes this line of thought, turn an authentic competition into something less…real? But if any of that is true, why not ban, say, weight training or off-season workouts? Or special nutritional regimens that stop short of including certain banned supplements? What should be done about Lasik and other interventions that result in better than 20/20 vision? Or reconstructive surgeries that let pitchers throw faster than before undergoing the knife (just ask Chicago Cubs’ hurler Kerry Wood)? All of these things muddy that wholly mythical level playing field….

The flip side of this question is: do we really want people taking drugs that may have negative side effects, or undergoing surgery, or any of these other things, for our entertainment? How far do we go down this road before we turn into Rome? Are you not entertained?

Gillespie also links to this Outside article, which I missed: “Lance Armstrong: Victim?” Brian Alexander makes what I think is a very good argument that USADA

 …which participated in the federal investigation, isn’t part of the U.S. government and isn’t a judicial body. Newspaper stories tend to shorthand it as a “quasi-governmental” entity, but that’s not accurate. USADA is a private non-profit corporation hired to manage the anti-doping program for American athletes who hope to participate in the Olympics as well as various local, regional, national, and international competitions. And it’s gotten out of control.

More:

USADA says it has direct authority over thousands of citizens, with the ability to deprive them of property rights, ruin their reputations, and even conduct warrantless searches and seizures. It argues that it can use the courts to compel people who have nothing to do with sports to testify in its private proceedings under threat of perjury, to surrender evidence or other documents, and to name names. It insists that it doesn’t have to follow the usual rules of justice guaranteed by the Constitution. What’s more, it has been actively expanding its powers.

I’ve never met Lance Armstrong. He isn’t someone I idolize. I’ve never done the Ride for the Roses, though I know people who have.

But I used to bicycle regularly (and I need to get back on the bike, now that I’ve finished school). I bought a couple of replica Tour de France jerseys to wear when I rode, which I alternated with my “Old Guys Who Get Fat In the Winter” team jersey and my vintage Aeroflot jersey.

I pulled hard for Armstrong when he was racing in the tour the first few times. I was elated when he won the 2003 tour: “Now,” I thought to myself, “he can be counted as among the best ever.”  When he won in 2004, I was less excited, and I began to lose interest by 2005. It felt like he was piling on, and there just wasn’t anything at stake. After that, there came a lot of things that made me perceive him as possibly being sort of dickish – though again, I’ve never met him, and he could be the nicest person in the world, but there were things that tarnished his public image in my mind.

But I never believed he doped. I wanted one of these posters for a long time. “What am I on? I’m on my bike busting my ass six hours a day.” I wanted to believe in the Lance Armstrong from the New Yorker profile: “Give me my rain jacket—I’m riding back.”

I’m not the kind of person who buries their head in the sand and ignores inconvenient facts, though. I have a lot of trouble accepting the whole “I’m tired of fighting” line. Not from Lance Armstrong; that stuff don’t fly. “The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. “ What kind of toll is giving in going to have on your family, Lance, when everyone is saying to your kids “Dad’s a doper”? What do you think this is going to do to the foundation; do you think it is too big to fail? The Komen folks would beg to differ.

But I’m also having a hard time buying the idea that Lance is folding up his tent and going into the night because USADA has anything on him. As he’s said repeatedly, Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in history. None of those tests have showed up positive. Which is more plausible?

1. Lance Armstrong never used any performance enhancing substance in violation of the rules.
2. Lance Armstrong doped, but was so far ahead of the curve that his doping was undetectable by the most sophisticated labs in the world.

My money has always been on number 1. In spite of Armstrong folding, it still is.

And what is the evidence against him? As far as I can tell, USADA’s case is based on eyewitness testimony from people like Landis and Hamilton, both of whom are convicted dopers. Isn’t this kind of like relying on the testimony of an accomplice as the sole evidence to convict someone of a crime, without other collaborating evidence? If their testimony is that the eyewitnesses saw Armstrong getting injections, then either:

1. They knew what was being injected, should be able to provide evidence to that effect, and there should be collaborating evidence (such as blood/urine tests) to prove their assertions. Or
2. They didn’t know what was being injected, and it could have been something perfectly legal; in that case, their testimony is meaningless.

Right now, I don’t know what to make out of this. I think I need some time to sort through my own feelings, and the things that are still coming out in the press.