USADA: The Reasoned Report

Count Leo Tolstoy asked a pertinent question in his novel Resurrection.  "If the laws can be changed at random and applied arbitrarily, then of what use are the courts?"  This reflection could equally applied to the current Lance Armstrong doing investigation.  If USADA can be allowed to change the World Anti-Doping Code at random and impose these changes arbitrarily, then what use is arbitration?  USADA has waived the statute of limitations against Lance Armstrong not based upon an established precedent of perjury, but upon a newly invented notion of intimation of potential witnesses, who according to USADA would have flocked with potentially damaging information to USADA while a massive doping conspiracy was in progress, not years later when they had been convicted of multiple doping violations, denials, and attempted cover ups of their own behavior and subsequently banned, retired, and left with nothing to lose but the desire for revenge.  This idiot logic on behalf of the USADA would not be so alarming for athletes in all sport profession if not for the fact that this newly established precedent, "suppression of potential evidence through intimidation of potential witness whistle blowing," will be arrived at not through "thorough due process" but by administrative fiat, not through an arbitration award, but from a single declaration of USADA dictated by a megalomaniac prosecutor who thinks that he is Idi Amin, and thus is exempt from International Law.

Of course, the statute of limitations problem is only one of the ever expanding redefinitions that undermines the World Anti-Doping Code.  There are multiple assertion by USADA contained in an reasoned report that attempts further modifications of the World Anti-Doping Code by attempting to include "scientific proofs" that have no bases in reality, to supplement witness testimony that cannot be corroborated by a single clear and conclusive positive test result.  This adventurism by USADA was first successfully attempted in the Floyd Landis doping arbitration when USADA introduced the concept of additional carbon isotope testing in irrelevant stages of the 2006 Tour de France that could not result in additional adverse analytical findings because the test results could not be confirmed in compliance with the World Anti-Doping code; but could be used by the arbitration panel by as supplemental evidence of doping by Mr. Landis.  This concept, using unverified test results as a bases to support USADA's witness testimony, thus establishing "scientific proof " has expanded to include the 2004 research tests conducted by the WADA accredited laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry France that claims to have found perfect isoforms of recombinant EPO in several of  Lance Armstrong's 1999 Tour de France urine samples.  Even under the most dismissive argument, the research samples tested at Chatenay-Malabry France cannot be considered evidence under the existing World Anti-Doping Code because there were no existing "A" samples available for testing.  To accept these tests as valid scientific supplemental evidence to support witness testimony is unjustified, illegal, and is not supported by the World Anti-Doping code, and the Code is not subject to manipulation by USADA to establish an adverse analytical finding where none could possibly exist in reality.

This would be bad enough but USADA is attempting to undermine the therapeutic use exemption.  USADA claims that Lance Armstrong illegally used a topical cortisone cream to treat saddle sores, even though Lance Armstrong has argued that he had a doctor approved therapeutic use exemption to use the cream.  This issue is rife with controversy because some have claimed that on the initial medical declaration that riders are required to file, Lance Armstrong listed legally prescribed prohibited substances that are allowed under the therapeutic use exemption as "none."  It is alleged that the therapeutic use exemption was issued only after Lance Armstrong tested positive for trace amounts of corticosteroids.  But USADA claims that the unresolved issue of if and when Lance Armstrong obtained an therapeutic use exemption for corticosteroids has been suddenly resolved through witness testimony and therefore these witness statements constitute a validated  scientific proof of doping by Lance Armstrong.  In my opinion, this issue should have been resolved years ago, if there were any questions as to the validity of the therapeutic use exemption, then the UCI should have taken some action to resolve the issue.  Since nothing was done it is safe to assume that there was nothing inappropriate with the therapeutic use exemption and that USADA is grasping for straws.

There are other equally preposterous examples of supplemental "scientific proofs."  UCI biological passport data that cannot be explained away by any other variable except "micro dosing" with rEPO.  But I simply don't have the space to list everything.  Let us just say that there are some very curious conclusions contained within the "reasoned report" that deserve comment and perhaps at some future date I will discuss them all.

Attention dopers!  You want the shortest, sweetest suspension in history? [Even though this is in violation of the World Anti-Doping Code, that calls for a two year suspension for the first doping violation]  Sing against your teammates, baby!  You don't have to accept any responsibility for your behavior, you blame the bad guy Lance.  You learned that trick when your mother caught you with your hands in the cookie jar, you plead your mea culpa: I didn't want to take the cookie, but mean old Lance made me do it.  George Hincapie sounded the most pathetic in his confession:  Lance made me do it, he was the team leader, and if you didn't toe the line then you were not going to be a part of the team.  But then George Hincapie goes on to say that he stopped doping six years ago [what didn't you feel intimidated then George?]  It would be an interesting study to examine the power output and weight ratios of George Hincapie during all the years he rode, the doping years and the "clean" years to see if we could measure any discernible difference.  If I recall the only stage George Hincapie won during the Tour de France was when he was riding for Discovery Channel, and that would imply an increase in performance during the "clean" years, not a decrease, but then again I am thinking like a USADA prosecutor. 

Will the UCI allow USADA to dictate terms to them?  Will the UCI accept the "reasoned report" as is or will they demand that USADA turn over the entire case file?  Will the UCI appeal the USADA "reasoned report" to the Court of Arbitration of Sport? Will the UCI accept the six month sweetheart sanctions?  Will USA Cycling strip George Hincapie and David Zabriskie of their national championships?  Come on people, David Zabriskie was living with Floyd Landis, they both rode for U.S. Postal, David Zabriskie must have known that Floyd Landis was doping.

But then again nobody cares about Floyd Landis unless he is blowing the whistle.