The Reasoned Decision is the United States Anti-Doping Agency, (USADA) summary of testimony from former teammates of disgraced seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong. Other testimonies from involved persons connected to the U.S. Postal Service Professional Cycling Team, Astana, and the Discovery Channel Cycling Team doping scandals are also included. Along with a large volume of doping-related financial records. Of utmost importance to USADA was the financial arrangements between Lance Armstrong and the convicted doping doctor Michele Ferrari. USADA contends that Lance Armstrong paid Michele Ferrari money in exchange for dope and medical expertise. This arrangement between Lance Armstrong and Michele Ferrari would expand into an organized doping conspiracy involving select cycling team riders, team doctors, and team trainers. The doping conspiracy would extend from 1999-2010, or for most of Lance Armstrong's professional cycling career.*
Background
Floyd Landis wrote USA cycling president Steve Johnson a letter describing past doping offenses Lance Armstrong had engaged in. Many of these Lance Armstrong doping offenses Floyd Landis had personally witnessed and/or participated in. Jeff Novitsky opened a criminal probe, convened a federal grand jury, subpoenaed witnesses, and began to record testimony to discern whether taxpayer money had been used to fund a doping conspiracy within the United States Postal Service Professional Cycling Team. But, suddenly the criminal probe ended. Why Jeff Novitsky ended the criminal probe remains a mystery. But due to the serious charges alleged by Floyd Landis, USADA had no choice but to investigate the case.
Ground Rules: The "Non-Analytical" Positive
In any investigation it is necessary to establish some ground rules. USADA had no laboratory tests to extract evidence from to establish a doping violation. Lance Armstrong never failed a dope test. USADA would have to utilize the "non-analytical" positive. People would be asked or compelled to testify about their participation in, or knowledge of, doping offenses Lance Armstrong had engaged in. The accumulated testimony would prove the "non-analytical" positive case. The response to this appeal for information concerning the Lance Armstrong doping conspiracy produced a bonanza of informants. Former cycling teammates, former team support staff, businessmen, people who Lance Armstrong had abused with accusations and slander, all came forward. Frankie and Betsy Andreu were praised for their courageous whistleblowing. Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton provided devastating eye witness facts. USADA had an open and shut case.
The one holdout, the man who refused to testify? Lance Armstrong. But USADA had an answer for Mr. Armstrong.
The Reasoned Decision states;
Weight to be given to Lance Armstrong's refusal to testify
Article 3.2.4 of the [USADA] Code provides for the adverse inference to be imposed against an individual [if he or she] fails or refuses to testify on any relevant matter on which USADA seeks to question him. Long before Article 3.2.4 was adopted in the 2009 version of the Code, Court of Arbitration for Sport, (CAS) Panels recognized the propriety of imposing an adverse inference against a respondent in an anti-doping case who invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying or otherwise failed to appear and respond to the charges against the respondent. For instance, in the case of Lazutina v. IOC an athlete failed to appear, and, as a result, the panel drew the adverse inference that she had intentionally ingested the prohibited substance found in her blood.
The panel held: "Ms. Lazutina did not give evidence and there has been no explanation from her as to how that prohibited substance came to be in her blood. In the light of that failure to explain, the Panel concludes that the prohibited substance was in Ms. Lazutina's blood as a result of the intentional exogenous ingestion by her.
Lazutina v. IOC, CAS 2002/A/370 Paragraph 9.10.
In addition to the overwhelming evidence of Lance Armstrong's doping it should not be forgotten that Lance Armstrong refused to confront the evidence against him and in-person appearing in front of neutral arbitrators. Armstrong's refusal to confront the evidence against him in-person in a hearing, leads to a strong inference that Armstrong doped exactly as charged by USADA. PP. 87-88.
Well there are several issues here. Apparently, the CAS and USADA have determined that the right not to be compelled to admit a criminal act against one's self in a civil or criminal case, the right against self-incrimination, no longer applies in sport doping arbitration. Federal judge Sam Sparks should have considered Code 3.2.4 before issuing his ruling dismissing Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against USADA. Apparently, the CAS thinks the rights afforded to defendants in the United States do not apply in sports arbitration, and the American Constitution is nothing more than exotic toilet paper. Perhaps the CAS decision against Ms. Lazutina was written in the Republic of North Korea. The second problem here is the definition of exogenous. An exogenous substance is not found naturally in the body. An endogenous substance is found naturally in the body. There is no such thing as "exogenous ingestion". The statement should read, "willful ingestion of an exogenous
substance". The third problem here is the endless narrative provided by the prosecutor who wrote this summary. "Armstrong's refusal to confront the evidence against him, in-person, in a hearing, leads to a strong inference that Armstrong doped exactly as charged by USADA". An irrelevant fanciful opinion. A fantasy. No factual evidence to support this assertion. The reader will encounter this narrative many times on "evidence" that amounts to hearsay. "Evidence" that would never be admitted into a court of law.
The writing style of The Reasoned Decision.
Complete and utter garbage.
The Reasoned Decision proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that cyclists are not doctors. The medical conclusions reached by former teammates of Lance Armstrong are preposterous. Most of the incoherent summary presented in
The Reasoned Decision is based on hearsay, conjecture, press releases, innuendo, surmise, everything but hard evidence to prove Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs. The narrator obviously has no concept of cycling history, and the tapestry he weaves of circumstantial evidence is far from convincing; even under the "comfortable satisfaction" standard. Sam Sparks, the judge who castigated Lance Armstrong for "vilifying" the anti-doping process, obviously chose to censure the wrong party. Judge Sam Sparks should have reprimanded USADA for this sleazy character assassination of Lance Armstrong. Travis T. Tygart should have been ashamed to affix his signature to this summary.
The Reasoned Decision reads like a blog; full of inaccurate statements and factual errors.
Mistakes
It would be impossible to list every mistake in
The Reasoned Decision without going insane. I will mention a couple of glaring examples. Kristen Armstrong is savaged with libelous accusations when ex-teammates of Lance Armstrong claimed that Kristen Armstrong distributed cortisone tablets to the riders, in brown paper lunch sacks, at the request of Lance Armstrong. Kristen Armstrong was "rolling joints." Inadmissible hearsay. Kristen Armstrong may have distributed harmless placebos or vitamin supplements. Was Kristen Armstrong a chemist? Was Kristen Armstrong a doctor? Did someone chemically analyze the contents of those sacks? Will USADA produce a sample as evidence? Did Kristen Armstrong have any first-hand knowledge of the contents of those sacks? A defense attorney would have a field day cross-examining these idiotic accusers! No court in the world would accept or admit this nonsense as evidence.
Then Emma O' Reilly makes the preposterous statement that the blood of the 1999 Tour de France Lance Armstrong cortisone "positive" test came from a cortisone injection administered to Lance Armstrong "weeks earlier," during the Route de Sud. The half-life for cortisone is six hours. Total elimination from the body 20-24 hours. A stored blood bag containing cortisone may account for the positive test result, but why would anyone draw oxygen-depleted blood during an exhausting race. Insane conjecture is totally unsupported by scientific facts or common sense reasoning. The cortisone did not come from the Route de Sud. You would think with a budget of 15 million taxpayer-funded dollars a year, USADA could have hired an editor to proofread the document before publishing the damn thing. Yet the narrative drones on about the accumulation of "facts" that support the case. Absurd. Voodoo science does not generate facts.
The Reasoned Decision reads like an outline of David Walsh's,
Seven Deadly Sins. I might suggest
The Reasoned Decision is a masterwork of plagiarism, but most of the facts presented in the report are common knowledge. The author engages in infuriating circumlocutions, selectively grasping quotes without providing any context. USADA should have published the witness statements instead of publishing this incoherent rambling mess. I could not believe
The Reasoned Decision was written by a legally trained professional writer.
David Zabriskie
One gem I found, though. The story of David Zabriskie. David Zabriskie raced to escape a broken home and a drug-addicted parent. David Zabriskie wanted to find solace and sanctuary in cycling. David Zabriskie was reluctant to embrace the doping culture in cycling. David Zabriskie was concerned about the side-effects of EPO. What impact would EPO have on his health, on his body, would EPO cause genetic mutations in his children? David Zabriskie joined the peloton to escape from his own chaotic family situation. Cycling was a cathartic escape, a panacea. Then, according to USADA, Johan Bruyneel sent Jose "Pepe" Marti and Dr. Luis del Moral, under the direct orders of Lance Armstrong, to inject David Zabriskie and teammate Michael Barry with EPO as a part of an illicit team doping program. David Zabriskie was so upset at this misfortune he cried bitter tears. P. 111-112
Betsy Andreu.
I made some notations about Betsy Andreu; but suffice to say; Betsy Andreu is a true anti-doping crusader and not a hypocrite, like her husband Frankie Andreu. I was surprised to learn that Frankie Andreu used performance-enhancing drugs in
multiple races, not in just
one stage of the Tour de France. Frankie Andreu said he "wouldn't put that shit in my body" meaning dope. But when Betsy Andreu saw Frankie Andreu breaking wind for Lance Armstrong up the col, in the lead group, on television, during a stage of the Tour de France, she flipped out! "What is Frankie
doing?" "He's juiced!" Besty laid down the law. Besty told Frankie, "choose, EPO or me"! Betsy Andreu told Frankie Andreu she would not marry him unless he stopped doping. Frankie obeyed Betsy and became an outspoken anti-doping crusader himself. The way Lance Armstrong treated Betsy Andreu was disgusting. Betsy Andreu claimed she heard Lance Armstrong confess to a group of doctors that he used a large number of performance-enhancing drugs as a professional cyclist. Betsy and Frankie Andreu, and Lance Armstrong, were all together in a hospital room, in Indiana, where Lance Armstrong was being treated for testicular cancer. This room is where the "drug confession" occurred. Lance Armstrong called Betsy Andreu "a crazy bitch, with a personal vendetta.". The cycling world was split right down the middle about Betsy Andreu. Some people loved Betsy, some people hated Betsy. The haters have probably forgiven her. So, Betsy Andreu, you get a special mention, and many thanks, for helping to expose "cycling's greatest fraud".
Conclusion
The Reasoned Decision is a morass of disconnected statements, poorly organized, badly written, seemingly without aim or purpose. "Non-analytical" positives lower the bar so low that a simple smear could destroy the career of an athlete. USADA is so arrogant and smug that they don't even seen to care about the image they are projecting to anti-doping professionals, or to the cycling community. USADA seems to take no pride in their work. Refusal to incriminate yourself is not a doping violation. The fact that Lance Armstrong quit without firing a shot, or contesting your accusations, does not justify your slovenliness USADA! Results are not all that matter! Damn the torpedoes!
Addendum:
Why did I bother to write this review, you might ask? I was looking for Paul Kimmage's classic book,
Rough Ride, but I found this sorry excuse of a report instead. The report is dated, having no real value or interest to anyone today except for cycling doping historians. Without a doubt, USADA created the greatest eyesore in the history of the anti-doping crusade, and USADA should be ashamed of themselves.
The Reasoned Decision will forever serve as a model of how not to report a doping violation. Athletes shouldn't need to worry about being humiliated by an anti-doping agency that makes a pretense to unbiased professionalism.
*These allegations include all seven of Lance Armstrong's Tour de France victories, (1999-2005) plus two comeback years, (2009-2010). The Motorola years are not included even though Lance Armstrong won the World Championship. Doping allegations during the Motorola years were dealt with in other litigation.
