Lance and PED's

Ok, call me names here, but I think that the pursuit of Lance Armstrong with performance enhancing drugs (PED's) allegations is a misguided, mean spirited and frankly a stupid vendetta.

Here's my rationale - and it actually has little to do with whether Lance used PED's or not.  (I would be remiss if I also note that there has not been any hard evidence made public, and there is evidence in the form of the hundreds of test we had to do over the years that he was not found guilty, at the time).

The first part of this defence of Lance is that he's being singled out because he won.   Sure other riders have been found guilty, but that's because they tested positive at some point - Lance didn't get caught if I look at this in the worst possible light, and so he's been pursued and that equates to "presumed guilty".  Where I live, that's not how justice works.   We aren't going after the 2nd, 3rd, 9th place finishers as no one cares about how they achieved their results, provided they passed the tests at the time as Lance did.

The second aspect of the defense is the reality of professional competition, whether in the Tour de France, the Olympics or various World Championship forums.  The desire in all these situations is to win, and that carries incredible amounts of financial, patriotic and personal pressure.   Do we really think that the one person that wins is the only one using any kind of performance improvement ?  Are we really that naive ?  Every rider does something, every sprinter pushes the limits into the grey zone, and every weightlifter uses whatever it takes to win.  The key -like professional burglary- is to avoid getting caught.  To not 'use', and suffer the performance penalty has to be a worse option that winning and possibly getting caught.  Look at professional baseball losing two star players just this week to this 'scandal'.  Why do it ?  Well in the latter case I imagine it's to land greatly rewarding contracts.  For the athlete it's got to be easy to rationalise as doing what it takes to stay even.   If everyone does it, then are we still looking at the best athletic performance to win..yes.  If we test for the substances and practices, and don't find them, don't we have to assume that the race/competition was done on even grounds (as in with or without PED's) and the winner is actually the winner.  I think so.

The last aspect of my defense here is the timing.  Lance isn't competing any longer.  He's hung up his racing shoes.  So, the question begs why now ?  (Or even - why not pursue Mohammed Ali,  Carl Lewis, George Best or Eric Heiden)   What is it about Lance Armstrong that drives these sporting authorities to chase him ?  Is it his closely held political views or his potential to be a troublesome candidate from Texas. Perhaps.  These days we may still be naive about sport, but we aren't about politics, and this coordinated movement (now) against Lance smells like politics.  After all, the guy survived cancer, founded a very successful non-profit, dabbles in celebrity and seems squeaky clean - on top of being an American athletic legend.  He's a heck of a potential candidate for anyone, and without declaring red or blue...all need to fear him, and neutralise him.

I'd suggest that the man's accomplishment's are celebrated, because in the playing field at the time,  he won, then he won again and again and again and again and again and again.  That spells extraordinary achievement any way that you cook it.