The Case Against Lance Armstrong

Scott Alexander

Some highlights of the recent doping "witch hunt" by FDA Agent Jeff Novitzky:

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art.../index.htm

penlynwilson

Science of Sport also has a blog on this issue:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/01/drug-of-2011-hemassist-and-armstrong.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/cJKs+(The+Science+of+Sport)

Not sure if it is a "witch hunt" if the evidence is there. . . . But, we haven't see the evidence. . . yet. . . .

Paul Hough

I read a short on it today and it's a whole lot of nothing. I am neither a Lance fan, nor a Lance hater. I would suspect that he's used steroids of some sort just based on the history of the sport. But he's got a history of clean drug tests and this Novitsky twit is just wasting taxpayer dollars for no purpose. I'm rooting for Lance on this one because Novitsky needs to go back to the minors.

mgraffeo

With all due respect, Paul, if that's what you got out of the short you read, the short may have been too short. Even a brief review of what is presented in the SI article is eyebrow raising at the least. Then, when you consider that SI has absolutely no desire to find themselves in court losing a Libel or defamation suit, I'm sure they've fact-checked everything a hundred times.

Don't get me wrong, i would prefer to believe that LA did everything clean. But this one feels diffent.

And Nowitzky is the guy who brought down BALCO, isn't he? I'm sure he's not doing this on a whim just to ruin his reputation...

Paul Hough

@ Mike - I read a brief on either XTRI or Slowtwitch. It was enough to suggest some guilt in the 90s, and I will not be surprised in the least if Lance is found guilty. Just about everyone they've caught has lied through their teeth until ultimately fessing up in the face of mounting evidence. That said, I don't believe Novitsky is serving any public good on this endless investigation. I, for one, would feel better about my tax expenditures if Novitsky were re-assigned to food safety inspections - he does work for FDA doesn't he? Suppose he does find Lance used steroids or some such back in the 90s...does that make my meat purchases safer, ensure the integrity of the vitamins I buy, etc? But it would probably result in reduced contributions to Lance's cancer foundation, further damage the sport of cycling (can it go lower?), and of course put Lance on the same page as a host of other fallen athletes. Doesn't really help the public cause or further the mission of FDA as I see it. So, I will continue to root for Lance and hope that in the end it is Novitsky who's career falters.

tuckerm

I have to agree with Paul here. Read the article and it's all hearsay. I wasn't impressed at all by the "new evidence". LA has never tested positive that we know of. What is the point of spending all this time and money investigating this stuff from the 90s? Do I think he did some stuff? Sure they all did. BFD.
Small point though Paul. Yes he works for the FDA, but they have nothing to do with food safety. That's the USDA no?

mgraffeo

I think you may be missing a few things here. One, Novitsky is a federal investigator. He doesn't work for the FDA.

Two, the allegations that Armstrong was involved with Baxter and getting access to HemAssist go way past the 90's. A cyclist was busted with HemAssist in 2003-4. Others were clearly trying to get their hands on the stuff in that same timeframe. So, yes, the FDA has every right to investigate whether or not Baxter was illegally allowing an un-approved product to be distributed, and the government has issues related to interstate commerce and import/export of contraband. Not just with LA, but also with a large pharma/diagnostic company. If they were actually profiting off of this, people are going to jail.

Three, federal investigators don't seek an indictment unless they are confident that they can win the case. It is generally bad form to convene a grand jury and drag someone's name through the mud, only to later say "my bad". Novitsky waited years to do it with Bonds, even though he knew what they guy was up to. There is absolutely no way that this investigation is exploratory. They think that they can blow up a big ring of stuff here, that happens to contain Armstrong, who they probably have a strong distaste for if they believe that he has been lying all this time.

Four, SI is a highly reputable magazine, that seldom dips their toes in controversy. Now, you might argue that magazine sale are dropping through the floor right now, and they desperately need a splash. However, no libel suit would be worth it. Story goes that what got printed was ruthlessly fact checked, and anything that didn't stand up to the highest level of scrutiny was cut from the piece. If that's the case, there probably a lot more that the authors know that they couldn't say, due to issues with anonymous sources, etc.

Sorry guys, but this is fundamentally different from David Walsh's books, or Landis' accusations, or the annual witch hunt by the French authorities. It's easy to lump in the same category, but there is no way that this gets as far as it has and doesn't go further.

Oh, and by the way, I'm sure that Novitsky is not qualified to go inspect broccoli farms for e coli, so all this talk about what you'd rather have him doing with your tax money has no bearing on the discussion of the evidence presented.

tuckerm

@Mike, Novitsky does indeed work for the FDA. He was an investigator for the IRS previously. From the NY Times: In April 2008, Novitzky left the I.R.S. to become an agent for the Food and Drug Administration. The change allowed him to focus directly on the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs but did not change his status as the lead investigator on the Balco case.

I do agree that the Feds rarely bring cases unless they know they can win them.

I also must confess, I read the story on SI.com and just went back and looked and now there are like 7 pages. At first there was just a summary and that did not impress me one bit. I must read the full article now when I get a chance.

As for what this guy should be doing I won't speak to that but I do know that he is a trophy hunter. Whatever lance did or did not do is far outweighed by the good he has done for cancer. Dragging him through the mud could ruin his efforts. And yes, I know, people shouldn't get free passes just because they do good charitable work, but the guy is done racing and has never tested positive. Let him go. Go after all of the supplement companies.

Scott Alexander

More articles to feed the 'fire':

velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/new...ns_156407#

(each blue headline is another article)

www.cyclingnews.com/news/experts-ca...n-unlikely

Michele Cellai

I read an opinion piece comparing LA to Barry Bonds. According to the piece, Bonds got in trouble for perjury but still has never admitted use. That there was too much evidence and other folks testifying against him to believe his "I didn't know" story. Betting that LA takes the same tact. And yes, I am a fan of LA and the good he has done. I do think this is pointless, but if it upholds the law, isn't that what we want in all cases, not just rape or murder cases?

Paul Hough

No matter how much hearsay and other "evidence" they bring, if it goes to court Lance is going to say, I was tested X times and came up positive ZERO times following the protocol. A positive first test without a confirmation is still a ZERO. For a criminal trial, Novitsky has to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't believe he can get a jury together that can't find reasonable doubt in the face of all the tests Lance has passed. Novitsky can't prove drug use so he'll go the perjury route, tax route, or some other path. Regardless, if Lance doesn't blink and take any kind of plea bargain, he'll win in court and all the money on this investigation will have been wasted.

@ Tucker - My bad about FDA vs USDA, but retraining is always a solution!

Spokane_Al

My latest blog posting discusses my thoughts on Lance.  Of course, my discussion is purely emotional rather than technical and did he/didn't he.

http://spokaneal.blogspot.com/

mgraffeo

Paul, Lance did fail a drug test in 1999, for a corticosteroid he didn't have a prescription for. The prescription was written retroactively after he failed the test, and the UCI gave him a pass for it. This is well documented, and even LA admits it. So, the whole 'he has never failed a test' argument is slightly weakened.

In addition, if he was taking HemAssist as part of an illegal distribution of un-approved pharmaceuticals, that's a big frickin' deal, for the pharma company as well as LA (conspiring to illegally transport drugs across state lines and out of the country). Oh, and by the way, HemAssist was basically undetectable in drug testing, so never testing positive for it doesn't mean he didn't take it.

Armstrong may not be convicted here. I'm not convinced one way or the other, and try to keep an open mind. But if Novitsky is convinced that this illegal distribution of a drug that was never approved was actually taking place, I'm sure he's not going to give up on this. And as someone who works in FDA-regulated industry, I wouldn't want him to.