Is Lance Armstrong guilty?

One of the big stories of last week was that of the Tour de France organizers finding a sample given by Lance Armstrong in 1999 to be positive. The sample taken from Lance before the 1999 Tour was found to contain some substance called EPO. This substance increases the capacity of the blood to absorb oxygen and so, can clearly be of help to any athlete. The TDF organizers have come out only now with this news of the sample taken in 1999 being positive for EPO since there did not exist a test for detection of EPO back then. Incidentally, 1999 was the year in which Lance made his comeback to the Tour de France after surviving testicular cancer.

Armstrong has been hit with doping allegations several times in the past. He is associated with a doctor whose name I think is Michael Ferrari, who has been suspected of advocating steroid use. A few months back, one of Lance's former servants sued him claiming that he had been fired because he had found steroids in Armstrong's bathroom cabinet. But, this latest instance has been the most damning evidence found against him so far. Even this detection of EPO is not fully assured because every doping test requires the test to be positive on both the A and B samples, and in this case, I think only one of the samples had been retained since 1999.

As expected, the reaction to this news has been markedly different in the US and elsewhere. In France, the media has declared that Armstrong's lies are finally out and even the director of the Tour de France said that "we have all been fooled". In the US however, the media has been firmly in support of Armstrong and the reaction largely has been that it is a case of sour grapes that the French have not been able to produce anyone to match Armstrong. The organization of professional cyclists in the US (not sure what they call themselves!) has also released a statement saying that they back Armstrong. This was the same organization that had backed Tyler Hamilton last year when his doping test at the Athens Olympics was claimed to be positive, and once the positive test was confirmed, they immediately backed out and withdrew Hamilton's license! So, I don't think their backing counts for anything.

This controversy has not only hurt Armstrong's image but also thrown up interesting legal issues. Supposedly, whenever samples are taken from an athlete for a dope test, those samples should be disposed off within a few months. But, in this case, the TDF organizers retained Armstrong's samples for as long as 7 years. So, maybe Armstrong can sue them and actually make some money out of this :-)

Anyway, I am not really sure what to make of the whole episode. I take it that these doping tests are not reliable enough and hence, they need to be validated on an extra sample for certainty. But, still .... I would think the reliability of these tests is not so bad that when a sample turns out to be positive, the probability of that indeed being the case is less than say 75%. So, in my mind atleast, the image of Armstrong has been eroded. Giving him the benefit of the doubt (using the principle that innocent until proven guilty :-)), we still have no evidence of him using any illegal substances during the years 2000-2005. And even disregarding 1999, the achievement of winning 6 successive TDFs is unprecedented.

I only hope Armstrong is indeed innocent and he has not taken all of us for a ride ....

Cheers,
Harsha