Note: I have a feeling that tonight’s rant is going to go on some interesting tangents, so be prepared. And although this may venture off into some distant territory, fear not Landis fans, there will be cycling-related content.
While walking by Lake Michigan on a darn-near perfect early autumn afternoon, I got to thinking about how toxic public debate has become. Back in the day, when I was a young pup, it seemed like conversation between people of differing opinions was much more civilized.
Today it’s much more polarized. Authors like Ann Coulter write books that openly question the patriotism of people who don’t agree with her point of view. Political discourse seems to go to the extremes, liberal or conservative. Both words — “liberal” and “conservative” — now have extraordinarily negative connotations. Now, the word “liberal” is used as a code-word for people who are somehow against all that the United States was founded upon. And “conservative” has become a code-word for a radical, right-wing reactionary. The political equivalent of a religious fundamentalist.
What got me to thinking about all this was some time I spent perusing posts on this thread at Topix.net. (Seems to me that perhaps it should be renamed “Toxic.net.”) The individuals there are “discussing” some issues in the Floyd Landis case. I’ve put the word in quotes, because it appeared to me that people posting there are divided between two camps. You’re either of the ilk that believes Landis is guilty and got busted, or you’re of the ilk that is in “denial.” There’s no middle ground (from what I could see) where real discussion could be held. Mostly, it seems like various individuals are talking past each other rather than to each other. (Though, to be fair, TBV and one or two others were trying to generate a real discussion.)
It makes me sad to see everything devolve in this way. There are some real issues to be examined in the Landis case, and it seems that many people are unwilling to give enough ground to reach a common understanding.
Fair play is a huge ideal in sport. The whole idea of performance-enhancing drugs goes directly against that ideal. And the question is: What can be done about it? Or maybe better put, can anything be done about it?
Fair play has to extend not only to the playing field, but also whatever institutions and processes are put into place to enforce that ideal in sporting events. Some of the people in the pro-Landis camp (I’d be one of them) question whether the current process is fair to both the athletes accused and sport as a whole. And they question whether the science behind the testing is really able to discern whether athletes have doped. The lab in question here, LNDD, has had several cases overturned due to problems with their data and/or problems with their testing procedures.
And LNDD even drew criticism from the independent investigator looking into last year’s scandal — the one involving alleged test results that “showed” that Lance Armstrong had taken EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. One suggestion from that report was that the lab be sanctioned. My own suggestion would be that they should lose their accreditation.
On the other side, some say, “well, it may not be perfect, but it’s the only system we’ve got.” Perhaps, but can’t it be improved upon? And, given the questionable nature of the data against Landis (I’ll save that for another rant), shouldn’t we be very cautious about convicting him and destroying his good name and reputation? Shouldn’t someone have thought about that before releasing the info that Landis had an adverse analytical finding, as that’s already happened regardless of the ultimate outcome.
And some of those people point out that doping is unfair to the athletes who try to play clean. True enough. But let’s be certain that the people we condemn as dopers really are.
What concerns me about both sides is how entrenched people become in their beliefs. Landis’ A and B samples provided identical results (no surprise — if you test the same material using the same techniques it would be more surprising if they didn’t match). On the anti-Landis side, it seems like there’s a very dogmatic belief that “science” is never wrong, therefore Landis is guilty. End of story.
Problem is, real science isn’t like that. In real science there’s plenty of gray areas — especially in the biological or physiological sciences. Much is not yet understood. And test methods may be far from perfect.
Fair play has to extend to the anti-doping procedures and process. To do otherwise is hypocritical. In the current process the athlete can’t question the science behind the tests, the tests are assumed to be correct. But the science behind some of these tests is far from perfect, and the procedures are far from perfect, so shouldn’t the athlete have the right to challenge those who are condemning him?
Not allowing the accused to delve into the methods and procedures that led to those accusations is a bit like sending Muhammad Ali into a fight with one of his hands tied behind his back. Not really sporting, is it?
Given that the athlete’s name is at stake, and so is the athlete’s ability to make a living, shouldn’t that person be allowed a chance to truly defend himself/herself?
And this whole trial by media thing is far from fair play. Releasing information about Landis’ A sample results to the media before the process has run its course inevitably set trial by media in motion. Problem is, once the media get hold of this kind of story, they sensationalize it and any rational discussion is thrown out the window. It’s the rare reporter or columnist who actually looks at and presents both sides of an issue anymore.
Another good example of trial by media is the brouhaha over Operation Puerto. It now appears that the whole “case” is quietly — at least in the US media –unravelling. The repercussions and damage to so many before it fell apart might not have occured were it not for the trial by media of those alleged to be involved.
By stirring people up, the media actively participate in the destruction of people’s lives, reputations, and even their ability to earn a living. They owe us better. They are supposed to be our eyes and ears — the people who present us with the information we need so that we can understand what’s going on in the world.
Once upon a time a regulation existed called “The Fairness Doctrine.” In a nutshell, it required broadcasters to balance their coverage of controversial topics so that both sides would be presented. Not a bad thing, actually, as it kept news — especially radio and television news — honest.
But the Fairness Doctrine went out the window in 1987 during Ronald Reagan’s administration. And over the years, news outlets have sprung up that consistently tout one particular world view. Fox News, which is clearly a conservative outlet, comes to mind.
Nowadays many people get their news from outlets (both print and broadcast) that reinforce their own particular point of view. Opposing viewpoints are savaged and disparaged with the same ferocity that I’d imagine the lions displayed towards their victims in the Roman Coliseum a couple of thousand years back.
The Landis case, I’m afraid, is merely indicative of how divisive public discourse has become in this country. Once upon a time, people of differing opinions could actually talk to each other, and occasionally sway each other’s positions — at least a little. But now, it seems, just to be heard the tone has to be shrill and bombastic. Certainly that’s the case on American television and in the media.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think we’d all be better off if the tone of our public debate could be taken down a notch or two, and we spoke to each other — and treated each other — with more respect. And it’s time to end our obsession with trial by media.
Exactly. I have stopped visiting the topix forum because of this.
Dear Rant,
It amazes me that people who are so disillusioned by our government (and other entities) believe every comma printed in a newspaper and every broadcast on TV as if it were gospel truth. I don’t understand that disconnect: you trust nothing of your leaders, and everything you see in the media. I do know, as a former librarian, that teachers were trying desperately to follow a mandate in our state to teach critical thinking skills. I’m not sure that it’s working — the ability to analyze and ask questions seems lost. But that is another topic for another day.
I don’t know if you or your readers have listened to the Howard Jacobs interview (link from our trusty TBV site — let me know if you need it and I’ll try to hunt it down Ranter’s Note: Thanks for mentioning this, I’ve put the link into your comment). My husband and I listened to it last night and what he shared was pretty shocking. He is Landis’ lawyer and talked about, among other things, how the sports agencies can pretty much refuse to supply athletes and their lawyers documents they need to make a reasonable defense. His discussion of what he went through with Tyler Hamilton’s case — having to fly to Switzerland because the lab wouldn’t or couldn’t print and mail copies of documents, and then produced notebooks they supposedly didn’t have — was just a travesty of justice. There’s enough rant-worthy material in there for months.
I’m new to this whole procedure of how athletes are charged and can appeal their cases, but it seems to me that from what Jacobs said, there is no accountability on the side of the labs or agencies to cooperate in these cases. Perhaps it is because we are dealing with European entities that do not have the same laws/rules that we do — they seem to work on guilty until proven innocent and are not required to turn over requested information as would be demanded in the US. (Please listen to interview in case I have this wrong).
Getting back to your point, I know all this only because I spend time daily looking at various blogs and news sources digging down for information on Landis’ case. That gives me a very different picture than the one held by those who take the five-minute soundbites off of the TV and then argue them without “owning” the knowledge. Unfortunately, those are often the people who shout the loudest and don’t seem to want to hear your side, or consider what you have to say. How sad to miss the opportunity to learn from each other, especially when a man’s reputation is at stake. I talk to my friends about this case, who are not interested in the details of cycling news, and only know what they hear on the TV. When I tell them (or email them) new information, they are often surprised and wonder why this is not discussed on the news. Nowhere did it resonate better than when an acquaintance of an acquaintance commented, “I know about false positive tests. My doctor told me my baby would be born with Down’s Syndrome. We worried for nothing — it was normal and healthy.”
A lot of women understood Floyd’s case much better that day.
Thanks for all you do.
{ 2 trackbacks }