Nike Drops Lance Armstrong

Citing the “seemingly insurmountable” evidence suggesting that Lance Armstrong used drugs, and coerced his teammates into doing likewise, in his quest to win the Tour de France, Nike has severed ties with the embattled athlete.

I don’t know the quality of the evidence against Armstrong, though on the surface it doesn’t look good. I don’t side with, and in fact I don’t even understand, libertarians who consider this type of thing a witch hunt. People are interested in a contest to see who is the best athlete, which in turn is reducible to natural talent and a huge investment of time and preparation. I don’t think they’re quite so interested in seeing who can give himself the best chemical-induced boost. And if the rules forbid this to boot, well, rules are rules, and that ought to settle it. Am I missing something?

UPDATE: Ben Eng writes:

Things you are missing:

The organization conducting the witchhunt is USADA. USADA has no authority over professional cycling, and yet it pronounces its ruling that Armstrong is banned for life from the sport of cycling, and titles he has won are null and void.

The offences for which they are investigating took place so long ago that according to the rules of the sport the statute of limitations has passed.

The methodology of the USADA investigation, prosecution, and sentencing do not resemble anything that exhibits due process of law. Armstrong has defended himself successfully on two prior occasions against bodies with actual jurisdiction and due process. These organizations are the UCI, which governs professional cycling, and US Federal prosecutors. On both occasions Armstrong prevailed, because the evidence was not strong enough to overcome the defense.

Something to note is the manner in which USADA disclosed their findings and punishment in public without providing an opportunity for Armstrong to review the material, formulate a defense, and appeal to an authority for which a fair determination can be arrived at. USADA operated as Judge, Jury, and Executioner without any authority or jurisdiction, and with Armstrong in absentia. How fair is that?

Finally with regard to the integrity of the sport of professional cycling, we have to consider the context. Throughout the history of the sport in the modern era doping has been near universal in the sport. The very testimonies that USADA is using against Armstrong very strongly support this view. Given that virtually every cyclist was doping, and Armstrong won his titles probably by also doping, there was no obvious competitive advantage. There was a violation of the rules of the sport, which apparently virtually every competitor also violated.

UPDATE II: Taylor Smallwood adds:

As far as occupational licensing goes, though, USA Cycling is not a government established entity. It’s a non-profit and it’s not the only cycling sanctioning organization in the US (American Bicycle Racing is another). USADA is also a private organization, although it does get some federal funds, mainly to pay for testing of US Olympic athletes. It is not as though a rider couldn’t join another sanctioning organization that adhered to a different doping code or legal process. Of course, the only racing organization in the US that UCI (the main international governing body in cycling) recognizes is USA Cycling, but you are still free to race a bike without having to be part of any of these organizations.

In some ways the Armstrong case is actually an excellent example of private justice. Athletes voluntarily join an organization to race. That organization voluntarily implements an anti-doping regime for various reasons (rider health, public perception, sponsor demands) and establishes a private legal process for adjudicating disputes. Riders who violate the rules are punished and publicly scorned. It isn’t always perfect or pretty, but it can certainly be done without government. On the other hand only one of these US riders who testified against Armstrong broke their silence voluntarily without coercion from the Justice Dept. (Floyd Landis), so it’s not a great example from that perspective.

http://www.facebook.com/jackiefiest Jackie Fiest

No, you’re dead on. It’s been my experience a lot of people always want a way to half ass things so they are willing to cut a little slack to others that do. Prevents them from looking like hypocrites.
http://www.facebook.com/joshua.mcallister Joshua McAllister

I’m right with you, Tom, however he is being forced into Congressional hearings over the matter. What does this have to do with government?
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

OK, on that count I certainly agree. I should have guessed Congress would get involved.
Anonymous

Rules are rules, but I don’t care if athletes want to use performance enhancing drugs, so I don’t care about these rules either.

Armstrong had testicular cancer, so he was testosterone limited. What about the Olympic runners with artificial feet? Should they be ruled out of competition for “the best athlete” too? Why is working out for years with all sorts of artificial training equipment not “cheating”? Doesn’t the training equipment give athletes an advantage over athletes training without equipment?

No amount of working out makes a top athlete. A certain genetic endowment is a prerequisite. At some point, genetic engineers might find a way to endow a person with athletic genes, so people born with these genes won’t be the only people with the genes. Will people obtaining the genes after birth then be cheaters? If the rulers rule them cheaters, I suppose they are cheaters, but I don’t see the point.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Martin, some of this is well taken. But suppose we are having a memory competition, and I take super-duper memory-enhancing drugs. Is this what the audience is interested in seeing? Whose brain can be manipulated with the swallow of a drug, or whose brain has the natural ability plus natural training to do the job?
E. Lee MacFall

The “witch hunt” thing is regarding the actions of government about this; not the way private organizations choose to deal with it. No sports organization ever burned someone at the stake as far as I know. Governments have.
Ben Eng

Things you are missing:

The organization conducting the witchhunt is USADA. USADA has no authority over professional cycling, and yet it pronounces its ruling that Armstrong is banned for life from the sport of cycling, and titles he has won are null and void.

The offences for which they are investigating took place so long ago that according to the rules of the sport the statute of limitations has passed.

The methodology of the USADA investigation, prosecution, and sentencing do not resemble anything that exhibits due process of law. Armstrong has defended himself successfully on two prior occasions against bodies with actual jurisdiction and due process. These organizations are the UCI, which governs professional cycling, and US Federal prosecutors. On both occasions Armstrong prevailed, because the evidence was not strong enough to overcome the defense.

Something to note is the manner in which USADA disclosed their findings and punishment in public without providing an opportunity for Armstrong to review the material, formulate a defense, and appeal to an authority for which a fair determination can be arrived at. USADA operated as Judge, Jury, and Executioner without any authority or jurisdiction, and with Armstrong in absentia. How fair is that?

Finally with regard to the integrity of the sport of professional cycling, we have to consider the context. Throughout the history of the sport in the modern era doping has been near universal in the sport. The very testimonies that USADA is using against Armstrong very strongly support this view. Given that virtually every cyclist was doping, and Armstrong won his titles probably by also doping, there was no obvious competitive advantage. There was a violation of the rules of the sport, which apparently virtually every competitor also violated.
Robbie Clark

I’m not clear on all of the evidence either, but has actual hard evidence been submitted or is it all testimony from his teammates who were likely threatened or offered deals for their testimony against Lance Armstrong?
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

I’m glad I asked! Will update the post.
http://twitter.com/Jake_Collin Jake Collin Simpson

Maybe some of us consider it a witch hunt because he hasn’t tested positive once for steroids in a sport where almost every single one of the athletes, especially at the top, have. Or the fact that the USADA is trying to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles when 1) they don’t have the power to do so, and 2) the agency overlooking the Tour’s doping policies disagrees with the USADA’s assessment of Armstrong.
Scott Weisman

I also don’t know the specifics. But government has its fingerprints all over this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency

Here is what the Wikipedia entry on Armstrong says:

In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged Armstrong with having used illicit performance enhancing drugs,[4] and in August they announced a lifetime ban from competition as well as the stripping of all titles. This sanction however has yet to be ratified by the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the sports governing body.

Shouldn’t a sport competition (1) be private and (2) its rules be privately enforced?
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

These British papers write it as Usada, so it doesn’t even look like an acronym. Good thing I have intelligent readers who can make up for my ignorance.
English Bob

Jake, have you read any of USADA’s report? Your reference to steroids, and apparent ignorance of how Armstrong (and many others who have now admitted to doping) were able to pass tests would suggest you have not.

The report can be found here:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/usadas-armstrong-reasoned-decision-full-text_256618
English Bob

USADA has no power to subpoena and did not have access to the grand jury testimony that was part of the separate federal case. The testimony was voluntary.
Hincapie and Barry chose to retire this year. Leipheimer has just been fired by his team. Great deal.
English Bob

Armstrong had little to fear from the UCI, perhaps not unrelated to his donation to that organisation and the fact that he had Hein Verbruggen on speed-dial.
The USADA’s case is really the first time he has to face any serious music – which is why he and his army of lawyers chose not to contest the evidence.
I do rather the resent the oft-repeated claim that what he did was no big deal because “everyone was doing it”. It seems that no other team had such a well-organised doping programme as the one administered by Michele Ferrari – and perhaps no other DS had such good contacts as Johan “testers are coming in one hour, boys!” Bruyneel. One also has to consider the many, many talented cyclists who were forced out of the sport because they were not willing to dope.
Anonymous

I suppose people watching a memory competition want to see amazing feats of memory, and I’d love to have a super-duper memory-enhancing drug, not to mention a gene transplant from Einstein.

I doubt that Baywatch fans love Pamela Anderson less because she had a boob job, but people with a fetish for the natural should have options too.
Taylor

The organization that issues racing licenses for international competition in the US is USA Cycling. They and their riders agree to be governed by the USADA protocol. The USADA is a signatory to the World Anti Doping Code, which is headed by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). USA Cycling agrees to implement sanctions against riders after a violations reported through USADA. The USADA cannot strip Lance Armstrong or any other rider of a title, but it can tell USA Cycling to do so, and they will.

The claim that virtually every other competitor during Armstrong’s TDF wins was also doping is not without merit, but that does not make a level playing field. Doping and possession of doping products is illegal in France and now Spain. French riders spent time in jail during the 1998 Festina drug scandal at the Tour, so you can certainly argue that riders from certain nations faced a greater deterrent than others. Most of the alleged doping leading up to the Armstrong’s TDF wins took place in Spain, where the elite US cyclists lived and trained during the season. Doping was not a crime in Spain until 2006, so those riders did not have to worry about a criminal threat for their actions, until their French counterparts.

Additionally, blood doping affects each person differently. Your hematocrit level (percentage of oxygen-carrying red blood cells in your blood) is essentially genetic. In some it is naturally higher (high 40s) and in some it is lower (mid 30s). During most of Armstrong’s TDF wins an arbitrary cap of a 50% hematocrit level was established as the threshold for competing. Anyone testing higher than 50% was assumed to be doping and was suspended for a period of time. A rider with a naturally lower level would benefit far more from the blood doping drug EPO. A rider with a naturally high level would receive comparatively less benefit.

Doping at a high level requires a certain amount logistical and financial support. Teams and riders with comparatively fewer resources would be at a significant disadvantage over their well staffed and financed competitors. Of course, this same argument applies to equipment and training as well, but if you read the medical studies on the effects of EPO in elite athletes you find that the advantages gained in doping on average would far out-weigh any advantages gained in lighter, stronger and more aerodynamic bikes and equipment.
Ben Eng

My point that virtually every cyclist was doping was to impeach the idea that there was any integrity in the sport of professional cycling during Armstrong’s career. Doping was clearly systemic throughout. But I do acknowledge it is not a good moral argument to justify doping, and it does ignore the harm to the opportunities lost to clean riders.
Ben Eng

All excellent points. Obviously as an opponent of occupational licensing, I certainly do not recognize such licensing as being legitimate.
Taylor

Thank you. As far as occupational licensing goes though, USA Cycling is not a government established entity. It’s a non-profit and it’s not the only cycling sanctioning organization in the US (American Bicycle Racing is another). USADA is also a private organization, although it does get some federal funds, mainly to pay for testing of US Olympic athletes. It is not as though a rider couldn’t join another sanctioning organization that adhered to a different doping code or legal process. Of course, the only racing organization in the US that UCI (the main international governing body in cycling) recognizes is USA Cycling, but you are still free to race a bike without having to be part of any of these organizations.

In some ways the Armstrong case is actually an excellent example of private justice. Athletes voluntarily join an organization to race. That organization voluntarily implements an anti-doping regime for various reasons (rider health, public perception, sponsor demands) and establishes a private legal process for adjudicating disputes. Riders who violate the rules are punished and publicly scorned. It isn’t always perfect or pretty, but it can certainly be done without government. On the other hand only one of these US riders who testified against Armstrong broke their silence voluntarily without coercion from the Justice Dept. (Floyd Landis), so it’s not a great example from that perspective.
Anonymous

How about hours in training? Aren’t the athlete’s hours in training a larger cost than either doping or equipment? How many people can afford to spend 60 hours a week training for athletic competitions? Shouldn’t we level the playing field for people who can’t by sanctioning athletes who train too much?
Anonymous

Armstrong hardly half-assed anything. He trained as hard as anyone could train, and he spent fortunes on equipment, and he competed in countless races, and he presumably doped as well, because he studied his craft enough to know that doping could be the margin of victory.

I dated a competitive cyclist once. While I dated her, she saw a nearly fatal injury, during training rather than competition, in which a cyclist racing down a hill at 50 miles per hour hit a fallen bike and flew over his handlebars. The injury might have been fatal ultimately. I don’t know.

If the health and safety of athletes is the point, why not ban the sport entirely? Isn’t the focus on doping hypocritical?
RobertvdL

Why people that rule the world are allowed to cheat without consequence but when a small man does the same he is a criminal.Is this the biggest problem the US has today?How many soldiers got killed or badly injured in wars that are unconstitutional ? How many die everyday because of laws to fight the non existing climate problem ? How many lost and lose everything because of the central banks’ money printing’ ? etc etc etc. And now this is our biggest problem ?
RobertvdL

Rabobank is to stop sponsoring professional cycling teams from the end of
this year following the latest doping scandal, the cooperative bank said in a statement
on Friday.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/10/rabobank_to_stop_sponsoring_pr.php
Anonymous

Nearly every assertion made by Mr. Eng is wrong.

USADA is the American arm of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the WADA code is the Code the governing body of cycling goes by. USADA has every right to sanction Armstrong. The UCI’s only option under the Code is to appeal the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

A federal judge ruled that USADA provided “robust due process” for Armstrong while throwing out Armstrong’s lawsuit in August. Armstrong has never “defended himself” against the Feds or the UCI. The federal case was dropped and never went to trial. The UCI has never charged Armstrong with anything.

Armstrong would have been given time to review the evidence and formulate a defense had he agreed to a hearing. By rule, he is not entitled to see the evidence prior just as discovery in a criminal proceeding doesn’t occur until a trial is agreed upon. He also would have been able to appeal an arbitration loss to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Also, USADA acted as prosecutor, not judge or jury. Had Armstrong agreed to a hearing, three arbiters from the American Arbitration Association would have ruled on his case.

The rules of the process are that if you are charged by USADA’s review board, you must decide if you want to contest in arbitration. Choosing not to means sanctions can be applied automatically. Incidentally, Armstrong’s own agent and business partner Bill Stapleton was in charge of creating USADA’s rules and protocols when he was the US Olympic Committee Chairman. Now Armstrong wants to pretend those protocols aren’t good enough for him.
Just Me

At least someone around here knows what they’re talking about! USA cycling can sanction a rider and strip titles from USA cycling sanctioned events, but I think the UCI is the only body that can strip Lance of his Tour titles.
RobervdL

http://youtu.be/RkrdqJHQHxs
Clarke and Dawe – Board Member of V.I.A.L.