The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer

A very interesting comment: "Cycling is better served with having a peloton full of dopers than even one miscarriage of justice this severe."

I'm not sure I agree that the sport is better off with substantially more lax doping controls then with today's aggressive anti-doping controls which have, in the case of Hamilton, produced a controversial banning. In the 1990's the sport was virtually destroyed because the sport was "full of dopers." The Tour was almost cancelled in mid-race in 1998 because of doping allegations. Professional riders today like Greg LeMond who raced during that time speak about how in the 1990's EPO use skyrocketed and non doping riders were seriously marginalized. The sport’s credibility was seriously diminished.

Today, a rider like Hamilton has been banned, but not without due process. He is still appealing the decision, and the decision has already been reviewed by a 3-judge panel twice. At this point the preponderance of the evidence suggests he did perform blood doping, while I would agree that the evidence is subject to some valid criticism.

My point is that doping came very close to destroying the sport, in a similar way to how rigged matches and unfair ranking systems destroyed what used to be the #1 most popular US sport, boxing. Competitive integrity is fundamental to the life of a sport, and given cycling's recent crisis of doping, I believe the aggressive anti-doping procedures currently in place are essential to preserving this amazing sport. I hate what happened to Hamilton, but have to be honest that the evidence against him (including in the 2 years prior to his Olympic and Tour of Spain infractions) is pretty strong. Ultimately, I believe that a peloton full of dopers undermines cycling much more than an aggressive banning of a popular athlete who was found guilty of blood doping, even if the tests and procedures are cutting edge and subject to some criticism.

(The preceding comment had been accidentally removed in a flurry of comment-spam deletion. Sorry. I resurrected it, partly because I don't believe in deliberately deleting comments - spam ones aside - and because it's interesting. And when I get a few minutes, hopefully before NEXT year's Tour de France, I hope to respond.)

Wow. I found a few minutes. And nary a stage was raced before it...

To some extent I made the statement as a hyperbole to indicate just how severe I think the injustice that has befallen Hamilton is. On the other hand, I think there's an argument to be made for it, and it's one I've made before in somewhat similar contexts, when the desire for a cure turns out to be worse than the disease.

It does not mean that I endorse doping, or think it doesn't harm the sport. But I think lynch mobs harm the sport as well, and potentially even as much. If we are to care about the competition and all the things that make it magnificent, if we are to require that when we watch a race that it be nothing less than athleticism pitted against athleticism, "may the best man win," then we also require that the best men be in the race. If we drum them out in the course of our inquisitions – which may often be correct in their conclusions but certainly aren't always – the sport suffers. There is an argument that could be made that even drumming out an actual doper might also harm the sport (would we be better off without Virenque? did what happened to Pantani really serve the interests of cycling?). But surely there's no question that drumming out an innocent man most definitely harms the sport, and I think it harms it even more than any purported benefit the "aggressive banning" might bring.

Even this year, with Armstrong competing for his record seventh win and Julich on the rise (again), I find it hard to be engaged. If doping sacrifices the sport's innocence, so does what happened to Hamilton. (I can't help but feel that if I watch it I'm somehow enabling these tactics.)

Because what happened to Hamilton is a travesty. And I don't buy that whole "he had due process" thing. That's like the police arresting people on bogus charges, and then us patting ourselves on the back because at least they had a fair trial. The whole inquiry was flawed at the outset, because the accusation itself was based on a supposition that went beyond anything reasonably inferable. The only thing we know is that Hamilton's blood was unusual. The test does not indicate why, and there are too many possible explanations for officials to pretend there is any certainty to any one of them. Yet that's what happened, despite appalling methodology and bad science. Note that I'm not saying not to test at all. But don't presume to label what's essentially conjecture as an incontrovertible truth. The need for testing does not excuse bad tests.

What happened to Hamilton is what happens to many accused people: the heinousness of the accusation takes the place of actual proof. BECAUSE he was accused of doping, and because doping is such a bad thing, the supposition of his innocence decreased in inverse proportion to the badness of his accused act.

So thank goodness Hamilton at least gets due process, but he's not going to get this year back. Even if the decision gets reversed he's still not going to get his whole career and amazing potential back. Nor will the sport itself, and I just can't see how that makes it any better off.