Armstrong Again

I think Lance Armstrong is right to give up his fight. Regardless of whether he did or did not use PEDs, the USADA is bound and determined to hound him until they get some level of satisfaction. In my mind it is pretty simple: he has dozens if not hundreds of clean tests (scientific, factual evidence in his favor) versus the testimony of a few people who rode both with him and against him and many of whom are on record as hating Armstrong (circumstantial evidence from biased sources).

Even the judge in the case thinks there is bias. "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote.

I've mentioned my stance on this before, a couple of times (here and here). I'll simply sum up here:

1. Either Armstrong did not use PEDs and he was the superior rider over his rivals of the day, many of whom have been found to have used PEDs OR,
2. Armstrong did use PEDs and was the superior rider versus his rivals of the time, many of whom have been found also to have used PEDs.

Either way, Armstrong is the superior rider of his generation and deserves his wins and accolades.

This certainly feels like a witch hunt and I respect Armstrong more for stepping away from it after years and years of fighting. He is still an inspiration to Cancer survivors everywhere and hopefully he can focus more on raising money for that worthy endeavor.

And, hopefully, one of the groups like the UCI will continue to challenge this on the merits of the case. Hearsay should not overwhelm the tests. Now, if they were able to test his blood and urine again and this time, with today's technology, they found PEDs, I would be singing a slightly different tune (but, actually, not much). But unless or until that happens, I'm taking the dozens and hundreds of tests over the word of people who hate and envy Armstrong every day.

Banned?

Here is the thing I don't get: The NFL knew that a drug frequently used by players to make their team-dictated weights contained an ingredient that it a) had banned because it could be used to help mask steroid use and b) was not listed on the drug. They KNEW this, yet they did not issue any sort of directive to the Player's Association or the league doctors informing anyone of this fact.

Step in some players who, by all accounts, are pretty upstanding players. They have never tested positive for anything in the random and scheduled drug tests during their career to-date. By all accounts, they were simply trying to lose some water weight (the drug's primary use) and did everything right in doing so; they went to their team doctor and "verified" that the drug in question was okay to use. Since the ingredients list did not contain the banned drug and the NFL had not listed that drug on the suspect list, the team doctor said yes.

Those players then tested positive for that banned substance, can prove that they used it at the say-so of the league doctor as being okay, and, again, by all accounts, were only taking it to make their weight goals so they wouldn't be fined for being over weight (which is probably an entire other blog post). And the league wants to give them a four game automatic suspension for testing positive for a banned substance. The players, rightly so, have sued the league to clear their name and not be suspended (and lose four games worth of pay).

In my mind, this is an open and shut case in favor of the players. If the league knew something contained a banned substance and did nothing to alert players or league doctors (whom the players rely on for this sort of knowledge) to this substance, then the league is culpable for the misinformation. To me, this would be like if my company served poppy-seed muffins at a meeting, then made me take a urine test, which then tested positive for opiates, and then suspended me without pay. The business is definitely at fault for a) luring me into using/taking a banned substance, b) not taking that mitigating circumstance into account, and c) then compounding the issue by covering it up and suspending me without pay.

In this case, the NFL seems to be luring players into using a perfectly legitimate substance primarily used to lose water weight so players can make their team-designated weights so they don't get penalized/fined to catch the (hopefully) few who may be abusing steroids and are using the unmarked ingredient to mask that abuse. In essence, this is profiling; all those who want to lose weight are not necessarily steroid users. By not making any attempt to publish that this particular weight-loss drug has banned substances in it, they are catching the innocent along with the (potentially) guilty.

I'm not a big fan of the Minnesota Vikings, as they are in the same division as the Detroit Lions (my team). The Williams boys are also a big part of the Vikings front-line and, since the Lions play the Vikings within what would be the Williams boys four-game suspension, that loss would make it slightly more likely that Detroit would win that game. However, I think this case is unfair to the players (and one other whose name escapes me at the moment) who appear to be caught using a drug as intended and being duped by the league into testing positive for a banned substance. That is unfair to the players, is an unfair business practice, and we would not stand for this sort of behavior if it happened in any non-sports related business.

It is only because, at this point, all sports figures are presumed guilty until/unless proven innocent for steroid (and similar) abuse by most Americans that this case isn't getting a higher profile and greater outcry from the fan base. Again, how would you like if your boss/employer duped you into taking something that he/she knew would get you suspended or fired from your job?

The other question I have is why are they getting suspended for testing positive for a non-steroid/Performance Enhancing Drug (PED)? This drug is only used to mask potential use of PEDs, but has no performance enhancing abilities of its own. Shouldn't testing positive for a masking agent be a warning and immediate further tests, not a four-game suspension?

I'm all in favor of every league doing what it can to eliminate PED from sport. But, on the other hand, it must work WITH the players to educate them, provide all the data it can to the players, and should have various levels of response to alleged and confirmed abuse. This almost seems like if you are pulled over by the cops for erratic driving and they small Bubble Yum on your breath, they arrest you for drunk driving, because Bubble Yum is used to mask the smell of alcohol. Get real!

Hopefully, this case will make the NFL, and other sports league, reevaluate its PED policy and change it in ways that make sense. It can still be tough and no-nonsense about it, but not penalize players unduly. Common sense should always come into play in ruling on these matters.

We can hope.