Conviction - without proof

Many people would consider Lance Armstrong one of this world's top athletes.   Despite fighting a life threatening bout of cancer, he won an amazing seven Tour de France titles and holds an Olympic bronze medal.   Like all athletes, he has been consistently tested for the presence of performance enhancing drugs - and has never failed any of these tests.

It seems strange that the US Anti-Doping agency ( USADA ) has suddenly charged him with the use of illegal drugs and seems set to strip him of all his cycling titles and ban him from ever competing in any sports activities for the rest of his life - without being put before a court and convicted of these supposed charges.

It seems to be a matter of putting the cart before the horse.  USADA is declaring Armstrong guilty and will proceed to impose title loss and a ban on competition, unless Armstrong  takes action to prove himself innocent.    That is a complete reversal of the usual legal process.

In recent years, blood and urine samples from anti-doping tests are retained and can be re-tested as anti-doping technology advances.  USADA is not claiming that they now have laboratory proof of past drug involvement.  Their claim seems to be entirely based on the testimony of Armstrong's competitors, some of whom now claim that they saw him using drugs.   It seems that much of this is " hear say evidence ", and that is not admissible in court proceedings.

There is a suspicion that these claims of Armstrong's drug use may be tainted.  It is usual for the authorities to offer concessions in exchange for evidence when they seek to prove a difficult case and perhaps these charges are part of a vendetta to bring down " a tall poppy ".   The proper procedure would certainly be to put Armstrong before a court and secure a conviction before making any attempt to impose sanctions.

Lance Armstrong has indicated that he does not intend to waste his money and put himself to the stress of fighting these accusations.   The authorities have seized on this as an admission of guilt, but perhaps Armstrong is sick and tired of the innuendo that seems to stick to all successful sports people.  To take up this fight would involve months - and perhaps years - of litigation and he would need to hire a legal team with costs probably running into millions.

Armstrong is within his rights to make a statement declaring his innocence - and leave it at that.   The ball is back in the USADA's court to go to trial and prove it's case, even though no accused in sitting in the dock.  In such a case, it is possible that those with interests in sport may choose to present a legal team to test the evidence offered.   The way this matter is being handled is a huge departure from the normal sporting disciplinary procedures.

Guilty or innocent - the facts need to be paraded before an impartial judge who will decide the outcome !