Is anti-doping in sport proving to be more dopey as they sound?

Lance Armstrong (image: myhero.com)

If you thought the three stories that I have written today were slightly barbarically scandalous, the final story which is to be analysed tops this list. It is sport related and while David Beckham has to ignore stories regarding him and Katherine Jenkins, this person has to deal with the fact that his career has potentially gone to waste. Cyclist Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. The reason is complicated - he has been accused of taking performance-enhanced drugs in the 1999-2005 period. The American, who before those years was a sufferer of various cancers including testicular, lung, abdomen and brain, has backed out of a legal process which would have revealed if he'd taken such drugs.

Again, like the Beckham story, the Armstrong case is an allegation but regardless, losing his titles after all his efforts in one of sport's toughest competitions is devastating. However, backing out of this legal process leaves more questions needing to answer. Is he actually guilty? Did he not want to go through the legal process because of the amount of media coverage involved? Does he know he's innocent and feels he doesn't need this court case?

To me, he should have gone ahead with the legal process. It will then give everyone a peace of mind that he was guilty or not. I'm guessing these performance-enhanced drugs were something to do with the process of recovering from his cancers. That's when the anti-doping agencies in the US have to be clear which drugs aren't permitted when competing. Are Vitamin tablets allowed? Aren't caffeine tablets allowed? Perhaps not but as long as you are prescribed to them, you'll be given the thumbs up, that's my understanding. It's all about clarification.

My main concern about this case is the timeliness. It's taken the anti-doping agency so long to decide that legal proceedings go ahead. They haven't considered Armstrong's fan base and cancer foundation where on other occasions, they cannot wait to disqualify athletes in cycling, athletics and so on. So why Lance Armstrong, and why now?

Comments

Now isn't the time to choose a favourite baddie

Donald Trump and Benyamin Netanyahu (Image: Financial Times) I have been rather reflective of late. The global news agenda is dominated by powerful people doing unimaginably awful things, or at least capable of doing so - and they are seemingly given a free pass, having their evil justified, trying to find a reason why their actions aren't that bad compared to the 'other side'. And this is driving me absolutely mad. The less I hear from Benyamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and others, the better this world will be. Here we have, at least three cunning maniacs, at it for their personal gain to dominate countries, nationalities and ideologies. Farage has no power, but he is being tipped to be the next UK Prime Minister , for no good reason at all. He gets a few votes from those bored of a Labour government, and critics start getting giddy. Trump thinks of himself as a puppet master, and through his crippling tariffs and mafia-like tactics, is sending his country an...

The 'cancel culture' myth

Let's cancel the term 'cancel culture' once and for all (Image: Fox News) In recent months, we have seen the UK's Supreme Court declare ' what a woman is ', the rise of the 'far right' in the United States and larger parts of Europe and the centre-left being accused of echoing words which were deemed unacceptable the day before. These stories as isolated items don't seem a big deal but, through their individual merits, have become significant societal shifts. That's largely thanks to the campaign groups who led them. For a long time, they have been playing cry wolf, sharing viral sop stories about how their 'plight' has resulted them being on the verge of 'losing everything', including relevance. With victories heading their way, and their crocodile tears turning into money eyes, it is fair to say that 'cancel culture' is officially over. Let's be honest, 'cancel culture' never existed. The myth has brainwashe...

Done right, digital IDs can save lives

Sir Keir Starmer has a challenge to convince people over digital ID plans (Image: The Guardian) If we're to treat survey results as gospel, I find myself in the minority on a big debate. It appears I am one of the very few in support of a 'digital ID' . It had taken me a while to come to this conclusion as, since the idea was explored under Tony Blair's government in 2005, I really wasn't sure what the point of the concept was. But 18 years later, I feel that an identification of some digital kind is necessary, and potentially lifesaving, as I'll explain here. The digital ID has been brought into the British political limelight again thanks to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He wants to bring them in on a mandatory basis, as a way of proving we have a right to work in the UK. It forms part of his cunning plan to halt illegal migration and illegal labour - similar schemes are already in place abroad and are said to be doing well. According to a government pres...

The JSPrice Perception

Search This Blog