The Lance Armstrong Saga...

Last night's news included a report that Lance Armstrong has decided not to respond to USADA allegations that he used performance enhancing drugs during his cycling career.  As a result, he will be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and his Olympic gold medal. People's responses have been all over the board, from celebration to anger to feigned apathy...what is my response?

I'm not surprised. Mr. Armstrong fought desperately to have the case dismissed for legal reasons...none of his arguments and lawsuits had no mention of the pursuit of truth but everything to do with jurisdiction and due process...when all were dismissed he had one way to go: no-contest and a statement of innocence.

Let me say that in all probability, Mr. Armstrong participated in dangerous "blood-doping" practices.  The era in which he rode was filled with riders who sought competitive edges, and you either doped or became insignificant.  Trying to find and equitably punish every individual who used PEDs may be impossible and may render the entire era a forgotten asterisk in the history of sport...

So why Armstrong? Why take on the biggest name, who did so much for the sport, the industry, and single-handedly raised crazy money for cancer research?  Why grant immunity or insignificant punishment for people who doped to bring testimony against Armstrong?

I think there is something stinky in Denmark...

Ultimately, I think that Armstrong has become a pawn in a battle between the World Anti-Doping Administration (WADA) and the UCI, which governs international cycle-sports.  USADA, the organization which has brought the allegations, is a part of WADA.  Much of their proof involves evidence that UCI not only knew Armstrong and others were using illegal practices, it often overlooked evidence and actively covered up positive tests. I believe that when the smoke clears, we will see that all along, the real target in these cases has been the UCI.  After all, how can you work against illegal doping practices when the sport governance will not unilaterally and evenly implement the recommended practices?

Which brings us back to Mr. Armstrong.  Nobody likes to see a hero cut-down...yet through the years, evidence and stories of a man who is overly-competitive and narcissistic emerge. Maybe for him, this will allow him to settle down and really put his time and effort into helping the cancer community.  He did manage to fight through and survive cancer; he'll probably survive this.  Maybe through philanthropic activity, a different Lance Armstrong will emerge.  Maybe someday, we will hear the whole story.

Maybe, but until then, all we have is the court of public opinion; and if read the general response of that court, the verdict is one of sadness.