Travis Tygart: Out Of Bounds

Travis Tygart is pounding the drum for Lance Armstrong to come forward, complete with confession in hand, to implicate the duplicitous nefarious scoundrels that comprise the UCI leadership, who allegedly accept bribes in return for favorable suppression of positive dope tests.  Hein Verbruggen allegedly stuffed his pockets on numerous occasions from desperate cyclists who would rather continue to "unduly enrich" themselves rather than face arbitration hearings, suspensions, disgrace, and lack of income.  It has also been alleged that the current president of the UCI Pat McQuaid along with the current UCI executive committee endeavored to cover up this bribery scheme.

Of course, all of these issues were to be rectified by an investigation by an independent committee of highly qualified people who were expected to leave no stone unturned to arrive at the truth.  There was a question as to the true nature of the independence of the committee, however, when it was revealed that some of the committee members had affiliation with the International Olympic Committee that by implication would infer a covert effort to protect the World Anti-Doping Agency from any culpability.  Also one would wonder if the committee composed of such people would have a motive for revenge against the UCI for past skirmishes and lawsuits that were filed between the UCI and WADA during the Hein Verbruggen administration.

Nevertheless, the lack of cooperation of Lance Armstrong to come forward and blow the whistle on the UCI is troublesome considering the fact that the independent committee was disbanded before considering the bribery issue and considering the fact that the UCI executive committee has refused to take any action.  Travis Tygart is convinced that the independent committee was abandoned so that the blinders and handcuffs would remain on in order to leave the truth opaque.  Perhaps Lance Armstrong would be more forthcoming if Travis Tygart would be more diplomatic and compromise by reducing the lifetime ban he imposed with a more reasonable suspension.  However, this is unlikely to happen because then cycling fanatics could accuse USADA of employing the same sort of duplicitous tactics that Hein Verbruggen employed only in a opposite sense, bribery for information, instead of bribery for suppression of information.  This USADA method was quite successful when applied to cyclists who were more than willing to provide affidavits to implicate Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, Michele Ferrari, et al, during the steroid era of rampant doping that allegedly occurred on the United States Postal Service Professional Cycling Team.  Indeed, USADA was not loath to bribe riders with sweetheart deals to extract "truth."  So why would USADA be reluctant to continue the trend of deals for information with Lance Armstrong, the man who could settle the issue once and for all?  Is it because Lance Armstrong refused to come forward and admit under oath that the entire contents of the Reasoned Decision was truth not statements based upon envious people with an axe to grind or upon imaginary embellishments contrived through an excess of prosecutorial zeal?  Lance Armstrong did admit to using performance enhancing drugs, but he never suggested that the contents of the Reasoned Decision reflected an accurate depiction of events.  Most people came to the conclusion that the contents of the Reasoned Decision reflected truthful accounts of events by default not through an a posteriori examination of the evidence preferably by an independent committee.  It would be reasonable to conclude that USADA had in mind verification of the Reasoned Decision by the chief culprit himself, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that Lance Armstrong would be baited into implicating himself into some sort of criminal case by careful legal maneuvering that would be revenge for the lack of a criminal indictment by the Federal Grand Jury probe.

Nevertheless, Lance Armstrong refused to accept a barren hook devoid of the worm on the advice of his attorney who scented out the trap.  After all,  Lance Armstrong would have to confirm the conclusions of the Reasoned Decision, if he refused to confirm every conclusion, USADA would call him an outright liar, deceiver, and cheat, as they have done with his denials of using performance enhancing drugs after riding with Discovery Channel in 2005.  Lance Armstrong claims to have ridden clean in 2009 and 2010, but USADA claims UCI Biological Passport data that proves doping, even though in the absence of a failed anti-doping test the UCI Biological Passport data is nothing more than a statement of probability.  Perhaps USADA was counting upon Lance Armstrong to confirm under oath that the UCI Biological Passport data that USADA had in their possession was a factual record of doping in spite of his formal denials during the Oprah Winfrey "confession," more  icing on the cake.  For years the UCI Biological Passport has been criticized as an expensive boondoggle that exposes nothing more than wishful thinking, but an admission by Lance Armstrong would be the final coup de grace to all of the critics forevermore who have the audacity to question the UCI Biological Passport and would set in stone another atrocity against the fundamental rights of athletes.

Clearly Travis Tygart should focus on his own concerns and refrain from trying to police the entire cycling community.  We all know that the UCI is a corrupt organization that should be placed under adult supervision and that the elements that promote corruption should be eradicated without constantly being reminded of this fact by USADA.  We realize that the UCI needs immediate reform and replacement of certain undesirable elements and a new refreshing approach, but we are also cynical enough not to expect miracles.  But then again intransigence, obstinacy, and a refusal to make concessions in expectation of future rewards is also the wrong approach to the problem and ensures nothing more than continual failure to achieve stated goals.  But can you reason with grandiose madmen to make them discern reason from folly?  Good luck with that.