Lance, Say It Isnt So

Almost indignantly, a federal judge tossed Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

Armstrong and his high priced legal team once again argued that the USADA deprived Armstrong of due process when it charged him and five of his ex-teammates and associates of doping. The seven time Tour de France winner is facing a stripping of his titles and a lifetime ban from competing in his now chosen field of triathlons.

Armstrong has long been under suspicion of doping since winning his first tour in 1999, after having successfully recovered from testicular cancer. Armstrong, who retired from competitive racing last year now has the opting of accepting any penalties the USADA may hand out or take them to arbitration where the USADA has a record of 58-2.

Without question, Armstrong was the most dominant rider of his era, long known as an era of doping. But in reality, when has there not been an era of doping? If not coffee, or caffeine pills, and later speed, riders have always looked for an advantage. The only difference now is technology has made it easier to dope without getting caught.

You can debate forever whether Armstrong doped or not. He accurately states that he has never failed a doping test. Over a nearly 20 year career, that is a lot of tests to have not failed. But considering his illness, and how dominant he became after it, questions about his being clean were bound to come.

In an era where nearly every dominant rider of the era either got caught or later admitted doping, what do you do with the seven jerseys Armstrong won? Winner, and four time runner-up Jan Ullrich was banned for doping. Do you award the yellow jersey to a known doper?

One also has to question the motives behind going after Armstrong after all of this time; what's the purpose? Something seems a bit unsavory that current riders George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer were offered deals to 'come clean' so to speak and rat out Armstrong while still being allowed to ride in this years tour, and to continue to ride the rest of the season. Apparently both have admitted to doping and Hincapie to having witnessed and participated with Armstrong.

Armstrong has built his brand and his organization 'Livestrong' on the back of his success in the Tour de France. He wouldn't have become the rich and powerful man that he is without what he accomplished on the bike.

In the long run does it really matter? In an era where everybody doped, one lone champion denies that he ever doped, beating, dominating a field of known dopers. If he doped, and I think he did, he was the most dominant rider of his era, beating other dopers. All Armstrong did was level the playing field and still kicked everybody's ass.

Will Armstrong's legacy be diminished should he finally admit (which he won't) that he doped, or cuts a deal with the USADA to admit to doping but keep his titles? I don't know the answers to that and am torn about how I feel about it. Part of me wants to believe he was the only clean rider in a field of known cheaters. Another part of me finds it hard to ignore the circumstantial evidence against him.

C'mon Lance, say it isn't so.