Around the beginning of March 2012, the story of Lance Armstrong’s fight against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and their accusations of doping throughout his seven Tour de France victories was released. With this, Armstrong basically relinquished his seven titles and permanently stained the Live Strong reputation that he had worked for many years to create.
Now whether a person is on the side of “he did it” or “he is innocent” is not the point of this commentary. I completely support the sporting world in its efforts to punished cheaters to the fullest extent of the law, whether it is federal or within their specific sport. However, what I cannot support are the cases of allegation have begun because of a “he said/she said” situation instead of having hard evidence to back the accusations.
Armstrong has never refused to participate in drug testing; in fact he has passed hundreds of drug test over the years. He has faced claims of cheating ever since he began to have success in the cycling world back in 1999. A fierce competitor and defender of his integrity, Armstrong has never backed down from the doping accusations and has fought them any way he could. And now, at this point in his life he feels it is not worth the fight anymore.
The way I see it, I know he won those seven Tour de France titles. The people he raced against know they were watching the back of his jersey as he crossed the finish line. If he cheated to accomplish these victories, then he should be persecuted for his actions. Yet, there are no records of failed drug tests throughout his entire career. If there is solid evidence of doping then his accusers should present the proof and he will have to face the consequences. But the bottom line is that the American judicial system is based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. It does not sit well with me that Lance Armstrong’s legacy is being tarnished when there is absolutely no solid evidence.
Sadly that is the way of the world now. It seems as if the motto of the courts, innocent until proven guilty, no longer means anything. It only takes one person to get into the media and say that he/she is doing something wrong then every other media outlet runs with it. The problem is that news stations are always trying to “break” the news, so the hard evidence does not mean anything anymore to them. No longer to journalist get a tip and investigate, it seems as if their profession has turned into get the news out now, if it is wrong ask for forgiveness later. I am with you I still have not seen one shred of hard evidence to prove that he is guilty of anything.
ReplyDelete