Lance Armstrong Doping Campaign Exposes USADA’s Hypocrisy
Introduction
It is acknowledgeable that Lance Armstrong is an outstanding man and nothing short of murder, should change any individual’s opinion regarding that notion (Jenkins 1). It is not straightforward whether Armstrong is telling the truth by his insistence on not making use of the performance boosting drugs in the Tour de France, as it is not known to the majority of persons. In addition, Armstrong’s against and concurrence of cancer fair and square fight alongside the various proclamations by the Anti-Doping Agency in the U.S. that christen him as a criminal owing to his branding as the mastermind of the doping act, and his stripping of the title reeks is also without a doubt not certain to most persons. According to a federal judgment, the conduct of the Anti-Doping Agency raises eyebrows as the motives and the actual interest of the group is questionable. It consequently remains unclear as to what the judgment by the bench or the congress would entail regarding this case.
Consequently, regarding the motives, effectiveness and wisdom on the investigation of doping only serve to raise serious doubts about the allegations. This is because all the wrong persons were persecuted from the Balco affair. Furthermore, it is the solitary investigation on drug usage in which the distributors and manufacturers were offered deals of pleas in order to thrash the book at the consumers. As a result, the investigation turned out into a massive game of hunting rather than justice as careerist investigators attempted to pin the athletes on the wall. In the meantime, the Fourth Amendment transformed into a mucky, heavily treaded and kicked doormat. Accordingly, it emerges that Armstrong’s investigation and allegations does not have much that meets the eye, but the problem certainly lies with the Anti-Doping Agencies along with the sport’s court of arbitration that should always listen to the appeals by the athletes even though they never win. Consequently, it becomes difficult figuring out where to commence.
Any person who bears the thoughts that an athlete should have a fair shot hearing in front of a Court of Arbitration on Sports (CAS) should consider a review on the case of Contador for instance. Contador was a recipient of a two year ban for the perhaps unintentional usage of an insignificant minuscule amount of clenbuterol from his urine. In addition to the agreement that the ingestion of the substance was without a doubt, not intentional, the court acknowledged that the matter was too minute to have had any performance enhancement effects. In spite of everything, he was still charged guilty and consequently banned. Certainly there is not any individual who may want to appear before such a court. The rationale of this court is on the exoneration of an athlete by imposing a two year ban. The decision by the court was extremely shocking as the runner up in the tour, could not swallow and declined to accept the winner title.
Regarding the threads woven on the controversy of Lance Armstrong, there are some individuals who are undoubtedly assured that he is guilty as the athlete to them, is no different from the recent growing number of mortified heroes. As a result, in their point of view, Armstrong qualifies to be a member of the mortified Liars of the Hall of Disgrace. On the other hand, the saga of Armstrong comes out to be that of beleaguered hero combating odds, which are impossible. Armstrong’s status as an athlete who is extraordinary is bolstered through his recognition as a philanthropist and cancer survivor. Sally Jenkins in her article presents a quoted judgment from the proceedings in the case, from which she ponders over the actual motives behind the agency’s endeavor in bringing down Armstrong. Through his removal from more hearings, Armstrong has not settled the issue and has left the followers of the proceedings with the struggle of discovering the truth concerning his innocence or guilt.
Armstrong’s lose was in the law court but seems to be banking on the public opinion court for a triumph. The individuals who are fond and think highly of Armstrong have clanged to their faith in his innocence. Apparently the contributions towards the organization Armstrong live strong shot up on the day subsequent to the announcement. According to the news from CBS’ editor in charge of the Bicycling Magazine, the majority of the posts on the online edition of the magazine forums, ninety five percent of the posts are from pro-Lance people who convey their support for the athlete. However, the anti-Lance people also cling on just as compactly to their perceptions that Armstrong is just another of the win at whatever costs persons who has damaged the reputation alongside contaminating the wholesomeness of the sports.
Conclusion
Is Armstrong guilty? Is Armstrong innocent? It could be a situation of sensible doubt whereby an individual rises and says more concerning the individual conveying judgment compared to the accused individual. Struggling with doubt is by essentiality, a struggle with belief. Regarding this focal point, that belief exists in Lance Armstrong.
