Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Lance Armstrong Filleted in Court Of Public Opinion


The United States Anti-Doping Agency released a 202-page report  confirming Lance Armstrong was involved in doping on a sophisticated scale as The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, Huffington Post, The Telegraph, Bicycling, The Washington Postcyclingnews, Daily Mail, Newsday, Aol Sporting News, NBC News, POLITICO, The Guardian, Voice of America, Slate and countless others report. 

While of all publications, Tuesday, USA Today published, up front, Lance Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman's written attack against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in a letter to USADA attorney Bill Bock, calling the agency's case a "farce" based on evidence from "serial perjurers" and those coerced through "threats and sweetheart deals." Names are named in the articles cited above. 

USADA responded it was handling the case properly. USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner said, "The rules require us to provide a reasoned decision in every case, and we are happy to let the evidence speak for itself." 
Armstrong lawyer Herman wrote, "This reasoned decision will be a farce, written by USADA with the significant assistance of lawyers from one of Big Tobacco's favorite law firms at a time when Lance Armstrong is one of America's leading anti-tobacco advocates. While USADA can put lipstick on a pig, it still remains a pig." And USA Today confirmed - One of USADA's law firms, Bryan Cave LLP, has represented tobacco interests. Armstrong earlier this year supported California's Proposition 29, a cigarette tax initiative rejected by voters in June.

USA Today continued - Herman repeated familiar arguments, even those that have been rejected in court. The attorney said Armstrong never failed a drug test, that USADA lacks jurisdiction over his client and that its charges exceed the eight-year statute of limitations. Many of the witnesses are fellow riders Herman called "serial perjurers." Also writing, "fair-minded people will see whatever USADA issues is far from a 'reasoned decision' and is instead further evidence of the vendetta by USADA and its talebearers seeking publicity by targeting Mr. Armstrong, his business relations and the Lance Armstrong Foundation."

Because of his lifetime ban, Armstrong has been unable to participate in sanctioned sporting events, and instead has participated in unsanctioned events, including triathlons won the past two weekends in Maryland and California.

When there's a celebrity to lynch it's assumed their crucifixion will send waves of adherence through society but does that packaging suffice? Are we really after cheaters or padding the integrity of officials whose careers aren't built on defining the nuances of an issue but just enforcing how serious they are about maintaining the sanctity of their positions?

When the fact is aids and enhancements have always been a part of sport and in the athletes minds, at that time, they perhaps logically thought they were operating on the margins of what was possible and inevitable when so many were getting away with it. But now on the losing end they can be destroyed by, for all practical purposes, the same ruthlessness with which our war torn world fights back no matter how many innocent lives are taken down with them. How did Lance pass all those drug tests without ever being caught once? That's the story. The rest of it is a bunch of lawyers and psuedo-lawyers paid a premium to perpetrate the idea we're all criminals until we're worthy of being caught and profited on ourselves.

I just don't care. I'd like to hear the truth and not just what the law can compel people to testify to, to save their skins. But just wait, much more will be soaked from this.

And one more thing. How did he get hold of such quality drugs when for so long the enhancers have been known to deteriorate the health of their abusers? Not to defend Lance, but wondering why all the questions aren't being asked?

Inaugural Webcast of The Soapbox View
_/__/2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Month Day - ..., 2017
TITLE

_/__/2012 concluded: ending
_________________________________________________________

TITLISH?