Same Old Song and Dance

by Rant on July 25, 2013 · 17 comments

in Baseball, Lance Armstrong, Ryan Braun

With the Tour de France ended, Chris Froome donning his final maillot jaune, the royal baby being born (Prince George? really? they couldn’t have gone with something more unusual like Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F’tang-F’tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel [see Python, M., Election Night Special]?), we still haven’t heard a peep about any cyclists coming up positive during the big race. There is, however, a steady drip as the names of riders who tested positive at both the 1998 and 1999 Tours seem to be slowly leaking out. So there’s that.

Never fear, fans of doping scandals, the All-American pastime — that’s right, Major League Baseball — will provide us with a bit of that old doping schadenfreude. After all, what’s sports without a doping scandal or two?

So right on cue, Monday brought the announcement that Ryan Braun, the Milwaukee Brewers’ big hitter, accepted a 65-game suspension related to his connection to the Biogenesis Lab in Florida. Braun’s name, apparently, was on a list of customers. As were the names of a number of other MLB players who have yet to take their medicine or publicly fight back against whatever charges the MLB home office might level.

In accepting the ban, Braun issued a statement that didn’t really acknowledge the specifics of why he was being suspended. As The New York Times reports:

“As I have acknowledged in the past, I am not perfect,” Braun’s statement said. “I realize now that I have made some mistakes. I am willing to accept the consequences of those actions. This situation has taken a toll on me and my entire family, and it has been a distraction to my teammates and the Brewers’ organization.”

The Times’ Steve Eder also reminds us of a couple of other stories:

Three of the top track sprinters in the world, including the American Tyson Gay, recently revealed that they had tested positive for banned substances, the latest in a long line of doping violations in that sport. The Tour de France, professional cycling’s showcase event, ended on Sunday under a cloud of suspicion because of revelations this year of an elaborate doping program conducted over several years by Lance Armstrong, who won the Tour seven times.

Because, of course, no doping story is really ever complete without a reference to professional cycling or Lance Armstrong. Let’s take apart that sentence about the Tour, just for grins.

I’ll begin by asking whether The Times still employs copy editors. I have a hard time believing that they do. What the hell does this sentence even mean? Was Eder not following the Tour? Did he not talk to — I don’t know — James Dao or Juliet Macur? These are his colleagues at the paper. They’ve both covered professional cycling. Macur, especially, as she’s reported on both the racing aspect and the doping aspect for a number of years now.

I’ll grant you that the Tour may have finished under a cloud of suspicion (and when, in recent memory, hasn’t it?). But Armstrong was only minimally connected to that cloud, which follows the sport of cycling around the same way that the cloud of dust follows Pig Pen in the Charlie Brown comics. No, for those who are inclined to suspicion, it was Chris Froome’s performances — some of which harken back to the good old days of rampant EPO/blood doping.

Armstrong’s doping program was elaborate, as USADA documented in their “Reasoned Decision” last year.  But Lance’s last Tour victory was eight years ago. And his comeback tour (pun intended) ended a couple of years ago. So tying Lance into the current Tour is a bit of a stretch. While USADA’s case finally brought the downfall of pro cycling’s 800-pound gorilla, it wasn’t much of a shock to anyone I know that Armstrong might have been doping all those years.

Rumors dogged him from 1999 onwards, after all. Aside from some collateral damage, and some minimal suspensions offered to those who assisted USADA’s investigation, Armstrong’s past only serves to reinforce the notion that all top cyclists are on the juice. The revelations over the past several days about positive test results from 1998, the year before Armstrong’s streak of victories began, only adds to that impression. At least for riders of that era.

Particularly rich is Stuart O’Grady’s admission, given what he said about Floyd Landis back in 2006 after Landis’ infamous failed drug screening. Kind of reminds me of the old taunt, “It takes one to know one, and you’re the one it takes to know.”

What with the release of the 1998 results, CyclingNews.com tracked down Armstrong for his reaction.

“My initial reaction is that I am not surprised. As I have said, it was an unfortunate era for all of us and virtually all of us broke the rules, and lied about it,” he told Cyclingnews.

On Twitter, I saw some references to 1999 positive results being released, but at this point, I don’t have a link to an article that contains many details. When I find out more on that, I’ll add an update.

Meanwhile, getting back to Braun, at least one pundit makes him out to be … wait for it … “the Lance Armstrong of baseball.” That’s overstating it a bit. Yes, Braun publicly proclaimed his innocence. He fought the 2011 positive test result and won on a technicality. And somewhere along the way, he and his lawyers took a pretty nasty swipe at the reputation of the guy who collected the sample that came up positive. All part of the Lance Armstrong playbook, to be sure.

But not on the scale of Lance. At most, we’re talking about two years of lying and character assassination. Armstrong was doing that for the better part of 15 or 20 years. He and his lawyers wreaked havoc upon many more people that Braun. Just ask Greg LeMond, Betsy and Frankie Andreu, Emma O’Reilly, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, and on and on and on. Getting on the bad side of Lance could be dangerous to your professional health. Getting on the bad side of Braun? Not so much.

In terms of magnitude of their “crimes” against the sport, Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or Jose Canseco might deserve the title “the Lance Armstrong of baseball,” but Ryan Braun is the palest of imitations of Lance at his worst. I’ll give Braun some credit, though. Even though his statement is vague about why he’s being suspended, he saw the writing on the wall and decided that taking the rest of the year off was preferable to getting into a protracted legal battle that could bleed his bank account dry. That is definitely not out of the Armstrong playbook (at least, not until last year).

And speaking of bleeding bank accounts, it turns out that some of the people who donated money to LiveStrong may file a lawsuit to recover their donations. So the fallout of Lance’s fall from grace continues.

Watching the Tour’s closing ceremonies, one couldn’t help notice that Miguel Indurain and Eddy Merckx, both of whom experienced positive drug tests during their professional careers, accompanied Chris Froome to the podium on Sunday, while Lance Armstrong was a million miles away. Armstrong seems to almost accept his current pariah status within cycling, if not all of professional sports. As he told CyclingNews.com:

It is what it is. It’s popular now to make me the whipping boy. I get it, I understand it, and I will live it. After all, I brought it on myself.

That’s pretty darn adult of you, Mr. Armstrong. Good to know you understand the impact of what you’ve done.

As for Ryan Braun, Buster Olney’s comparison of Braun to the tarnished cyclist is not warranted. Ryan Braun hasn’t earned the “privilege” of being called the Lance Armstrong of baseball. Yet.

William Schart July 29, 2013 at 6:01 am

Armstrong has been an iconic figure in cycling, and probably because of that status, remains an iconic figure, only now for his doping. Before his downfall, it was not unknown for journals to refer to some up and coming cyclist as the “next Armstrong”. I think for a while this will continue in the context of doping.

It’s like the “-gate” suffix attached to various words to label some political scandle, regardless of the extent of any wrong-doing of the main figure.

MattC July 30, 2013 at 5:33 am

Saw an interesting new bit this morning (@ 2:30am as I was getting ready for work) about this baseball doping. The gentleman being interviewed was focused on ARod, and he was saying he hopes ARod fights it, as ‘they’ shouldn’t be going after the users, but the supply lines and such…to find the scope of the problem. An interesting thought…but he was inferring that ARod and Braun shouldn’t necessarily be banned/targeted. Don’t know the name of the man talking, but it was Dish Network channel 12, “Up to the Minute” is the name of the news show. Somewhere in the discussion it was said that ‘they’ have way more evidence on ARod than Braun. Not to jump on the bandwagon, but will ARod be the “LA” of baseball? They love to get the big stars I guess…maybe if nothing else than to prove that nobody is above the law?

And then an article last week in Velo News about the winners of various TDF’s by dopers/suspected dopers…the gist was that there are currently 7 that are listed with no winner, yet other dopers have kept their names in the record books. Was an interesting read, definetly food for thought.

Here’s the link:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/analysis/from-the-pages-of-velo-lances-void_297017

William Schart July 30, 2013 at 1:03 pm

Am I wrong, or isn’t true that they did indeed go after Biogenesis itself. In fact, if my understanding is correct, the main guy is providing information by way of a deal.

Could this be a chicken and egg thing? Do athletes dope because there are people out there supplying the stuff, or do suppliers exist because the dopers create a demand?

And certainly there are some winners, still credited as such, of the TdF who we know doped. Anquetil pretty much admitted to it, and Riis flat out confessed a few years back, but then there is that pesky statute of limitations. USADA did some creative reasoning to get around this for Armstrong (and it may well be that they are perfectly correct in their reasoning) but I don’t see that the same logic would hold for Anquetil or Riis. And what would be the point of stripping them of their titles? Anquetil rode fall a century ago and currently is competing in the big race in the sky, and Riis, although of more recent vintage and still alive and kicking, still is from the last century.

MattC July 31, 2013 at 3:42 pm

I guess the question is “are known dopers still to be considered winners?” So far the answer is “sometimes”.

William Schart August 1, 2013 at 6:27 am

Well, certainly when the SOL is involved, it may be difficult or impossible to sanction a doper. We have had the TdF winners from 1999 through 2006 DQed as well as the 2010 winner. This means that anyone who was from the last century is covered by the SOL, unless there is something to use to circumvent the SOL, a la Armstrong. The next question here is whether it is worth the trouble.

There has been some speculation as to whether any of the more recent winners have doped, but I don’t think that at this time, any of them can be classified as “known dopers”.

There’s always the proverbial asterisk. We can leave Riis etc. as winners, with the notation that they later confessed.

Liggett junkie August 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm

Hi, but what does SOL mean? I’m guessing, Shit out of Luck? because, as everyone knows, Statute of Limitations means absolutely nothing once the clowns who run cycling (or, who think they should be) get revved up ….

William Schart August 2, 2013 at 6:34 am

Probably true enough, but then the question becomes one of just what does it take to rev’em up? I just don’t see UCI or WADA getting all worked up over the pre-Armstrong era.

MattC August 2, 2013 at 3:47 pm

Was Marion Jones w/in the SOL when she fessed up? Cuz didn’t they take away her medals and re-award them to the next place? Or maybe I’m getting all these cases mixed up…same question for Tyler Hamilton…was he still in the SOL when he was stripped of his Olympic Gold? Just can’t remember…

William Schart August 3, 2013 at 7:53 am

Jones won in the 2000 Olympics and fessed up in 2007. Hamilton won in 2004, dodged a positive because the B sample was frozen and thus not suitable for testing, and ultimated confessed in 2011. So both of these appear to be within the SOL. And remember, it (usually) is the date that proceedings are started and not when the final disposition is reached that applies. Unless, of course, the SOL is tolled in some way, as was the determination with Armstrong.

William Schart August 4, 2013 at 8:18 am

Here’s an editorial opining that MLB shouldn’t make deals with A-Rod et al.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9529522/mlb-cut-deals-cheaters

Since the subject of possible deals has come up several times in cycling cases, and it seems that a number of riders got deals for their testimony against Armstrong, the piece has some relevance to cycling as well as other sports.

My own opinion is that the idea of a deal has a place in the arsenal that sports organizations can use.

William Schart August 4, 2013 at 3:07 pm

To change things up a bit, here’s an interesting bit about a woman who ran the route of the Tour. Hopefully, not drug related.

http://espn.go.com/espnw/athletes-life/article/9532125/zoe-romano-values-life-lessons-finishing-tour-de-france-route-foot

MattC August 5, 2013 at 5:36 am

Thanks for the links William…and for the info on Jones and Hamilton…I thought Hamilton’s was w/in the SOL, but for some reason I thought Jones was past it.

And today we find out what’s gonna happen to A-rod (or should I say “ArmRod”? (just kidding…well, maybe)…we shall see if they really HAMMER him like Armstrong ( cuz he’s the biggest fish yet caught). Any bets? Does he get a lifetime ban or a slap on the wrist? I saw a blurb from him on the news this morning that he’s waiting until the time is right to ‘tell his story’. Oh right…we’re going to hear how ‘sorry’ he is for what he did, and how he now realizes how wrong it was…yada yada yada…I think it’s been said here before, but pretty much the ONLY thing most of these athletes are truly sorry for is getting caught.

William Schart August 5, 2013 at 7:27 am

I’ve been doing a lot of traveling of late and hence, listening to radio a lot. I’ve heard several things about A-Rod.

One idea I’ve heard is that it is in both sides interest to cut some sort of deal. A-Rod doesn’t want all the evidence that MLB has on him to get out in the public record, and if he were to appeal, his strategy would be to attempt to bring down everyone around him. The guy who discussed this idea seemed to be implying that perhaps he would try to implicate the Yankees and MLB as perhaps being involved in some way, but he didn’t elaborate.

The other thing I heard, which rather runs counter to the above, is that the commissioner could unilaterally deny any appeal “in the best interests of baseball”. Whether or not he does have such powers, I don’t know. But if he does and A-Rod still wanted to spill some dirt, it is possible he could take things to the courts, or at the vary least, the proverbial court of public opinion.

Mostly what I’ve been hearing is he will be banned through the end of the 2014 season. Meanwhile, it is reported that the Yankees are planning to play him tonight.

We will see.

William Schart August 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm

Well, here’s the decision:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9540755/mlb-bans-13-including-alex-rodriguez-new-york-yankees-2014

A-Rod is suspended through 2014, others get 50 games, and A-Rod says he’ll appeal. Pending the appeal, he can continue to play.

William Schart August 6, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Today I heard on the radio that an arbitrator has been chosen. The name didn’t mean anything to me, so I forget it, but he’s an experienced one. The prediction is that the hearing will take place in September with a decision sometime after that. In the meantime he is free to play and even if found guilty, no consequence to either him or NYY for these games played.

MattC August 7, 2013 at 11:28 am

I’m admitting I don’t know all the facts here, but using my ‘you SUCK doper’ mentality, I’m kind’a hoping they (whoever ‘they’ are in this case, and that means whoever dishes out the punishment) are able to INCREASE the penalty rather than decrease it…(kind of like what the CAS did to Floyd). You know…give him something extra tacked on for wasting everybody’s time and money when (and again I say that not knowing the evidence they have on him) he is drop-dead guilty. I heard on the news this morning that nobody else is fighting it, only A-Rod. Guess he think’s he’s too big to fail (maybe he should talk to Lance). If they reduce his penalty I’ll be pretty ticked.

William Schart August 8, 2013 at 4:53 am

I think that’s hard to predict what might happen as to punishment. The original 211 games seems to be basically “the rest of this season and all of next”. But this season will be over by the time a decision comes down. Ignoring the question if this is excessive, one could argue several ways: the intent was to ban him until the 2015 season, so let’s just go with one season; the intent was to ban him fr 2 seasons, but part of this season is gone; or even that the specific number was the intention. We will see.

Meanwhile, here’s a piece on why MLB takes a lot of heat about PEDs, compared to say the NFL or NBA. To some extent, some of what he says seems to apply to cycling.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9544690/off-base-wonders-why-mlb-takes-more-heat-peds-other-pro-sports

Previous post:

Next post: