Lance Armstrong has been humiliated, stripped of all of his titles and will probably face criminal action for perjury. Yes, his results were tainted through the use of performance assistance drugs. He didn’t cheat by putting batteries in his bicycle; he used these drugs to get an edge, probably taking a number of years off his life.
When I reflect on the damage to the world’s economy caused by various politicians, public servants, international organisations, and some businesses, I think Armstrong’s crime is by far the lesser. His punishment seems out of proportion in this context.
What of the politicians that have cheated by, for example, accepting a tainted vote? Or tried to suppress the course of justice for political ends? Or who couldn’t resist using taxpayers’ money, or union money, to line their own pockets?
We need some panel, perhaps run by Catallaxy regulars, to strip away all the honours from those politicians, public servants, union leaders and business leaders who have crossed the line and cheated.
My initial nominations for those to have their honours stripped:
- Kevin Rudd, for assuring the people that he would be responsible with their money
- Wayne Swan for stealing the wealth of Australia
- Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper for perversions
- Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor for cheating their electorates
- Julia Gillard for cheating to obtain the prime ministership in an unfair fight
- Nicola Roxon for using the office of the Attorney-General for political purposes
I’ll guarantee everyone else Armstrong competed against was doped to the eyeballs, so I can’t see what the problem is.
Infidel Tiger
23 Oct 12 at 4:15 pm
Ken Henry for selling out the independence of the Treasury
val majkus
23 Oct 12 at 4:16 pm
all the Labor women for shrieking ‘sexism’ and ‘misogony’ when not called for
val majkus
23 Oct 12 at 4:17 pm
I would like to see Lance Armstrong charged, whether for perjury or some other form of dishonesty. At least then the “prosecution” would have to prove its case without hearsay. Due process, it’s called.
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 4:27 pm
Kevin Rudd for re-enabling people smuggling and consequent deaths.
Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard for creating an industrial minefield and the destruction of productivity.
Julia Gillard for thieving votes based on a false commitment not to introduce a carbon tax.
Andrew Leigh for massive scare campaign about PS job cuts at the last election.
Keith
23 Oct 12 at 4:30 pm
Paul Howes for lying to his union and the nation.
Cold-Hands
23 Oct 12 at 4:30 pm
Albanese must get the gong the greatest sleaze.
amcoz
23 Oct 12 at 4:31 pm
Nobel Peace Laureates who don’t actually do anything peacey?
ar
23 Oct 12 at 4:34 pm
This entire matter is patently absurd.
Professional cycling has been an utterly discredited farce for decades.
In a ‘sport’ where 99.9% of the competitors are juiced up, doesn’t that mean that Armstrong was still the best?
They went after him as a high profile sacrificial lamb, not because he was one of only a few using the gear.
Go after the lot of them, you fucking cowards.
Rabz
23 Oct 12 at 4:34 pm
Armstrong had to avoid crashing out 7 years in a row – no mean feat. Crashes take out a lot of contenders. Cadel Evans was assisted when Vinokourov (another druggo) broke his collar bone.
ar
23 Oct 12 at 4:39 pm
Stephen Conroy; for pretending to believe in democracy and free speech while actively subverting the latter to steal the former.
Brett
23 Oct 12 at 4:45 pm
That’s a pretty stupid question. If it can be proved, they usually go to gaol (Brian Burke, David Parker, Ray O’Connor, Rex Jackson). I’ll be surprised if some of the recent NSW ALP government ministers don’t go to gaol. Of course there are famous exceptions, like Richard Nixon.
SteveC
23 Oct 12 at 4:45 pm
The clowns in marrickville council who tried to implement that BDS against Israel – it’s a local council, FFS – no need for a foreign policy on ratepayers’ money.
Just collect the garbage, mow the lawns, kill the rats, fill the potholes and dispose of the dumped cars, you malignant marxist morons.
Rabz
23 Oct 12 at 4:48 pm
Hey, don’t associate Lance with those scum. At least he started with some natural ability.
Pedro
23 Oct 12 at 4:50 pm
I don’t see the logic behind us giving up on standards in sport, just because of external political corruption that always has existed and always will exist.
We want to believe in exceptional people doing exceptional things, not because of what chemical they’re using, but because of their ability to reach down deep inside and bring forth brilliance that only the truly great and ardently practiced can achieve.
Armstrong created a negative team environment that made drug use not just tolerated, it became mandatory. There is no excuse for that and I’m glad he’s being taken down for it.
MichaelM
23 Oct 12 at 4:51 pm
No fuckwit, it is eyewitness testimony when a team member says that he was there when Armstrong took drugs.
Hearsay is when the team member tells his wife who then makes a statement.
There is no difference between what Armstrong’s team mates have done,and eyewitnesses who give evidence in a murder trial. Both parties have directly witnessed the illegal activity and have given their statements as evidence.
When there is a lack of corroborating evidence, it is then up to the agency (or Jury) to determine the veracity of the eyewitness statements. If sufficient weight can be given to these accounts ie: The character of the witness, the number of witnesses etc, then a verdict of guilty is the right and proper verdict.
Just like SfB, I can’t believe how wrong you are all of the time.
Huckleberry Chunkwot
23 Oct 12 at 4:56 pm
Go read (www.michaelsmithnews.com) and there is far more you can indict Ms Julia Eileen Gillard for, let me say!
Jazza
23 Oct 12 at 4:59 pm
Anna Bligh for the SEQ Water Grid and the Solar Bonus Scheme. She should be in jail. Lance, on the other hand, was in a fair fight. Ask yourself this – who would you give those 7 vacant titles too? Second place? (on drugs). Third place? (on drugs). Lance lied for a long time – bad. But, he competed in a fair fight.
Joe Branigan
23 Oct 12 at 5:01 pm
The ‘List’ of the Korruptocracy will be quite long and may well need a few sub-committees of Catallaxy readers to get through them in justice-time. I am happy to offer my services.
There are many in the current government and its various non-government arms that are also part of Gal-Q’aida, Roxon and Gillard being just two.
Amfortas
23 Oct 12 at 5:22 pm
There has been no judicial hearing re Armstrong. He declined to attend a hearing by USADA because he would not be allowed to have a lawyer cross-examine his accusers. No due process there. The whole thing is a massive frame-up.
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 5:24 pm
Hammy, do you understand the difference between hearsay and eyewitness?
Huckleberry Chunkwot
23 Oct 12 at 5:27 pm
Also, why does there need to be a judicial hearing? The authorities that are responsible for the administration of the sport in which he cheated are the ones that have made the decision.
Any claims for perjury or claims from prize givers and sponsors will be heard in a court.
Huckleberry Chunkwot
23 Oct 12 at 5:30 pm
I nominate academics who urge that “nothing of note” happened in Nazi Germany before 1938.
.
23 Oct 12 at 5:31 pm
I actually feel a bit sorry for Armstrong. As Rabz says above, he was still the best.
The fact is that all professional athletes take performance enhancing substances; not just the cyclists. The time at the top is too short and the rewards too great.
Top athletes have medical teams behind them with research which is typically years ahead of the drug testers. Even if a substance becomes recognised as “performance-enhancing”, it takes many years to develop reliable testing so positive samples can stand up in court. The hormone EPO, which was instrumental in the Armstrong case, was being used in the early nineties, and yet it took more than 10 years before its use could be reliably detected.
Armstrong’s biggest problem was that he was unable to just quietly retire. Instead, he missed the limelight and attempted a comeback, which made many people question his motives. He also made many enemies by threatening to sue everyone who even mentioned he may have taken EPO. Now they’ve got back at him and he’s been turned into a scapegoat.
Regardless, winning 7 TdF events is an unbelievable feat. This is after recovering from a very serious case of cancer, which makes it even more astonishing.
The guy also contributes substantial sums of money into cancer research and does a lot good with his wealth.
I knew him personally in the early 90s, when his career was just taking off, and while he had later become a bit arrogant, to now turn him into a virtual criminal is pathetic.
Just like with recreational drugs, the only way to treat this issue is just to let them take whatever they want. They will do that anyway, and you can be sure the guys who will now have been crowned as TdF winners in Lance’s place, have not achieved that by sticking to Vitamin C tablets.
It just is not right.
John Bayley
23 Oct 12 at 5:32 pm
Prosecuters, juries, judges, executioners – the same people. Some process!
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 5:35 pm
Hammy is a troll or an idiot, no other explanation for the comments above.
I always though lance was probably blood doping at least, but the scale surprised me because I figured the testing was better than it was. Hamilton’s book is very interesting. I think lance won fairish and squarish given the widespread problem.
But the story is now out and there is no other fair way of dealing with it. Think about those who refused to dope and had dud careers as a consequence.
Pedro
23 Oct 12 at 5:36 pm
…and I should have added – no defence allowed (no cross-examination)
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 5:45 pm
Samuel, I wasn’t aware that Lance Armstrong had been proven guilty if anything. Surely it’s a bit harsh to accept all of the accusations made against him (some of which can be considered quite tainted) as proven and move to punishment mode (as the UCI and sponsors such as Nike have done) before a fair trial has even commenced, let alone run its course? Otherwise, a rather frightening precedent for the course of justice is set, don’t you think? Regardless, I liked Phil Ligget’s observation that these drugs can’t turn a donkey into a race horse. Lance Armstrong is an was a man of real talent and ability regardless of the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against him.
Sun Deep
23 Oct 12 at 5:48 pm
Gareth is right.
There’s no fair process. Sports bodies have an increasing tendency to act as a law unto themselves, and we should decry this trend.
Current sports policy effectively amounts to trial by scientists. There are lots of reasons why that’s not desirable.
Also, the haphazard way that drug policies are enforced in sport makes it worse than having no policy at all, because it basically targets athletes at random. Was the guy who came second using performance enhancing drugs? What about the guy who came thirty third? This matters. You can’t retrospectively apply drug policy after the fact just to the winner.
The sport of cycling is completely awash with performance enhancing drugs. In such a circumstance, legal enforcement is a bit like the strike of lightning in a storm.
dd
23 Oct 12 at 6:04 pm
Hammy-troll, I will ask you again, do you understand the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence?
Huckleberry Chunkwot
23 Oct 12 at 6:10 pm
HC, do you have an idea of the difference between fair process and a kangaroo court. Obviously not!
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 6:23 pm
I’ve always said “may the user of the best drug win”, but just tell me which it is.
Tim Curtin
23 Oct 12 at 6:24 pm
Thank you dd and Sun Deep. HC calls me a troll – pot, kettle, black.
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 6:25 pm
just answer my question Hammy. Your initial comment was that Armstrong was hard done by because of hearsay. This is clearly not the case as he has been banned based on 20+ eyewitness accounts.
If Armstrong wants to duspute the findings of the relevant authorities, the courts ate always open to him.
Huckleberry Chunkwot
23 Oct 12 at 6:34 pm
I haven’t been following this story but I didn’t think he ever returned a positive drug test did he? Given the way the lap-dog media hate him I’m thinking he is probably innocent.
Chris M
23 Oct 12 at 6:50 pm
I think HC is either JC or C.L. trolling. The standard of his abuse is about the same. He thinks he knows the law, but knows zip about due process and “Innocent until proven guilty”.
Gareth Hamilton
23 Oct 12 at 7:44 pm
In addition to Rudd’s many other sins; being up to his eyeballs in the despicable Heiner Affair (along with Barbie Bryce) and then standing up in Parliament and bleating on and on about the unforgiveable outrages the rest of us have perpetrated against indigenous Australians.
Tracey
23 Oct 12 at 7:49 pm
Is Armstrong a crook? Seriously it looks like he is a racketeer. Intimidation to keep an illegal business or at least one based on deception and fraud going.
.
23 Oct 12 at 8:01 pm
Oakeshott and Windsor will always be lumps in Australia’s democratic carpet.
The voters will have their revenge however. I still expect Windsor to have a sudden urge to spend more time with his family some time in the next 12 months.
H B Bear
23 Oct 12 at 8:05 pm
I thought you were going to say, “Wayne Swan for impersonating a treasurer”.
But seriously though, Craig Thomson is absolutely welcome to any perversions he likes in my books, so is Peter Slipper for that matter. I’m no prude. All I ask is that they do it on their own time, with consenting partners and spend their own money. Those are the rules I’m expected to follow. Not that I have any perversions of course.
By the way, fighting fair is not actually fighting — it is generally known as “sport”.
And I was somehow under the impression that office of the Attorney-General was using Nicola Roxon for political purposes. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.
Tel
23 Oct 12 at 8:24 pm