By Jennifer Eisenbart
Sports Editor
As we wind down to the start of the London Olympics – and work our way through the Tour de France – two rather prominent athletes are in the news.
First, U.S. women’s soccer goalie Hope Solo made the news for receiving a public warning from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for testing positive for Canrenone – a drug that Solo admitted was in a prescribed medication that she took inadvertently for a medical condition.
The drug falls on the USADA’s “specified” list of prohibited drugs. The salient point there is that a drug on that list can lead to significantly less sanctions, or in Solo’s case, a warning.
On the flip side of things, Lance Armstrong’s attempt to file a lawsuit to stop the USADA from punishing him for alleged doping violations was dismissed by a federal judge in Texas. The judge essentially told Armstrong to sit down, shut up and take what was coming after an 80-page brief was found to have little to no relevancy to the case at hand.
The lawsuit was filed because, in essence, Armstrong feels he is considered a “big fish” and the agency, by punishing him, can make itself more legit.
Three of Armstrong’s former associates were handed lifetime bans last week by the USADA, and concerns about possible doping have run long and deep with Armstrong over the last 10 years. If Armstrong is found guilty, he will not only face a lifetime ban, but would have to forfeit his Tour de France titles and any money and awards.
At the heart of both cases is an organization that seems to be either a villain or a hero, depending on the week. The USADA has a clear set of policies, testing regulations, and also a clear list of banned drugs. Whether that is clear enough – or mistakes happen regardless – is the question du jour.
Case in point: Ryan Braun. Yes, that USADA, the same agency Braun said screwed up his test and won an appeal so he wouldn’t be suspended for 50 games by Major League Baseball. Even months later, a cloud of doubt surrounds Braun and his case.
Did he or didn’t he? We’ll never know for sure, I suppose. I refuse to take a side – either in his case or other controversial ones where each side claims the other is wrong.
In the two current cases, though, I think things are a little clearer. Solo deserves to be competing in London. She self-reported a prescription medication that was given to her for pre-menstrual purposes. She didn’t know it contained a diuretic – AKA a drug that can be used to flush the system of performance-enhancing drugs.
In Solo’s case, the USADA took a strong look at the evidence – and made a judgment call. It did the same with Jessica Hardy (a U.S. swimmer) in 2009 when it reduced her suspension to one year after she proved the drug found came from a tainted supplement the company swore was clean.
It cost Hardy an Olympic dream in 2008, of course, but now she is headed to London – along with Solo. In both cases, the athletes had been clean before and seem to be clean now.
But when you look at Armstrong, the question of clean vs. not clean still begs to be asked. While Armstrong passed tests, there were suspicions swirling around him for years.
Suspicions are not proof, but the court case going forward now offers a chance to present evidence and make a final ruling on whether or not Armstrong cheated as much as some people thought, or is as clean as he claims to be.
In all the cases here, due process has been given a chance to play out. Hopefully, it has played out in a way – and will continue to play out in a way – that is fair to everyone involved.
Because like it or not, in this day and age, drugs will be a forever-present specter in sports. No test will be 100 percent foolproof, and as NASCAR fans love to say about various rules violations regarding cars, it’s only cheating if you get caught.
-
-
-
-
-