Sign up FAST! Login

USADA hypocrisy evidence lance armstrong


Stashed in: Lawyers!, Cycling!, Ethics, Lance Armstrong

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test? Whether Armstrong is innocent or guilty, that question should give all of us pause. How is it that an American agency can decide to invalidate somebody’s results achieved in Europe, in a sport it doesn’t control? Better question, how is it that an American taxpayer-funded organization can participate in an adjudication system in which you get a two-year ban because “there is no reason to exonerate” you? At what point is such an organization shut down and defunded?

In his decision last week, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks declined to intervene in USADA’s case against Armstrong because to do so would “turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little.” But in the next breath Sparks expressed an opinion on certain matters he does know about. “The deficiency of USADA’s charging document is of serious constitutional concern,” he wrote. “Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA’s charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder.” Among other things, he was disturbed by USADA’s “apparent single-minded determination” to go after Armstrong and force him before CAS.

All of which I find far more worrisome than the question of whether he may have transfused his own blood in trying to climb a mountain on a bike. It wasn’t a judge’s job to intervene with USADA. But it most certainly would seem to be the job of Congress. The WADA-USADA system is simply incompatible with the U.S. legal system.

//

Written before USADA report came out, but still presents some interesting insights.

For any aspiring professional athlete, it must be somewhat concerning how little these folks allegedly respect laws, rules, or regulations as they go "big game hunting."

If USADA is incompatible with the US legal system, why isn't someone suing them out of existence?

I'm not sure; nobody has the resources, it seems, except big-name athletes. While Mr. Armstrong would have liked to, he's obviously not in a position to do so. Other athletes are either in sports where they are protected from USADA (e.g. NFL, MLB, MBA, NHL, NASCAR, Golf) Congress intended to fight the egregious nature of the organization via some legislation, but I'm not sure that passed.

Since USADA and similar organizations mostly target athletes from non-major Olympic sports (e.g. Track and Field, Cycling, Skiing) most of the folks who are subject to them simply don't have the resources for the fight.

I think the article is fair because it points out other known clean athletes who complain about the system, due process, and the unwillingness of those agencies to treat athletes it accusing within its own rules.

Re-read the article and what you say makes sense.

Nice title change too -- I now find this page when googling for "USADA hypocrisy". :)

:) I've been around the block for a while...

The media picked up on the fact that Armstrong didn't continue to fight the charges as if it were an admission but actually, he stated early on that it was getting too expensive. And time consuming.

That's the system we have now. Sucks.

Yes, if you don't want to spend the money or time to defend yourself, the court of public opinion thinks you're guilty. Not good!

 We are better off with Lance. 

You May Also Like: