Innocent Until Strong Armed into Court?

The dust has settled and the cycles are long gone but there still remains a fog over the polarizing figure, Lance Armstrong.

It has been almost a week since Armstrong has decided to drop his fight against the United Stated Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA") and there has already been screams of constitutional violations and injustice. One yahoo contributor called Armstrong the modern day "Robin Hood," and called the whole situation a "travesty of justice."

I think she's completely right. This reminds me of when the Sheriff of Nottingham stripped Robin Hood of his archery trophies because of his alleged doping. There was absolutely no proof that the witch concocted the testosterone steroid and supplied it to Robin of Loxley. And the testimony of Little John against Robin Hood was completely motivated by his desire to smear Robin's name. Obviously I jest. Robin Hood fought the allegations till the end and ultimately proved his innocence.

Lance Armstrong is undeniably an inspiring figure. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a young man and beat it. His charity does great work and helps individuals live a more healthy lifestyle. But, this does not change the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that he cheated. Armstrong's courage and success against a horrible disease does not mean a successful argument can be made that he has been denied his due process rights.

USADA, in accordance with authority given to it through various treaties ratified by the United States Congress, moved to sanction Armstrong when a number of people came forward willingly to testify against him. The list of adverse testimony was credible and long. The list's length may have rivaled the Tour de France route.

Instead of vindicating his claims of innocence with an adversarial proceeding that would have given him the opportunity to cross-examine his teammates, present exculpatory evidence, and present his own witnesses, Armstrong elected to drop the fight. He issued a statement later in the week that said we should not cry for him. Don't worry, I won't.

The AAA-CAS, the alternative dispute resolution organization, that would have been the impartial determiner of Armstrong's guilt is not a perfect judicial proceeding. But that does not mean it is insufficient, obsolete, or unfair. One could make the argument that it is on par with most judicial courts in the United States.

A case in arbitration still has an equitable process. It is not a sham proceeding. Thousands of people use arbitration every year and receive an award or a favorable result. Furthermore, Armstrong would have been able to appeal in the event that he was found guilty of doping.

It is unfortunate to see people vilify USADA when it was simply doing what it was formed to do - keeping international sports free from doping. Of course, there may be some ways to improve the independence of the proceedings for the athletes accused of doping. Armstrong's case could have moved that conversation forward.

Armstrong made the decision to forego the arbitration yet still claim his innocence and victories. He does this despite the federal court's dismissal of his suit against USADA and determination that the AAA-CAS is a capable fact finder. It makes one wonder whether he has simply ran out of steam. Or maybe the performance enhancing drugs have no effect on his ability to present a case. I'll have to ask Robin Hood.