Sally Jenkins Notes Lack of Due Process Surrounding Lance Armstrong

Sally Jenkins is the co-author of Lance Armstrong's two best selling books. She also has come out swinging in defense of Armstrong noting the lack of due process. While I don't question whether or not Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs, as I have believed even when he was winning he was outsmarting the system knowing the entire professional peloton was probably guilty and if they weren't, it was just a few riders riding clean. I have questioned the federal government's witch hunt against Armstrong and other athletes when there appears to be no Constitutional authority for the feds to get involved, especially in Armstrong's case where there seems to be no instance of interstate activity consider he lived and raced in Europe for most of the year.

The federal government spent millions of our tax dollars investigating athletes like Armstrong--proof once again the federal bureaucracy is out of control as the national debt soars above $16 trillion. Finally, as many sports writers are labeling Armstrong an embarassment, Jenkins comes along and asks about due process in the Armstrong case.

While the USADA, who declared Armstrong's guilt isn't a federal bureaucracy and has nothing to do with the federal government except their report comes months after the federal government gave up their case against Armstrong never making a case of guilt against the cyclist, Jenkins does look at this very American idea of due process and the lack of it in the Armstrong case and she ties it back to the bigger case that apparently the federal government hasn't totally given up.

Maybe I’m not angry at him because after reading the USADA report and the affidavits of the riders who spoke with USADA, I have some common-sense questions that preclude anger. Such as: Shouldn’t an organization with the initials U.S. in front of it have to follow due process? And: According to the affidavits, the U.S. Postal Team had a highly organized “doping” system in place long before Lance became a member of it, so why is he the target of this report? Or: The affidavits taken by USADA make it clear that while Lance refused to use HGH, Floyd Landis introduced it to younger riders, so why is the federal government considering giving Landis whistle-blower protection?

Why is it just Lance Armstrong that needs to be made an example of? More than likely 95% or  more the professional peloton is guilty, and once again we see how being a snitch in America can make you a free man and cleanse you of all guilt. Let's face it, Floyd Landis isn't a saint in these matters, and while he has suffered, he hasn't been targeted like Armstrong. Why is that? Is the level of crime in America day dependent on the size of the trophy? Perhaps it's been that for a long time when, especially when you look at the careers of Elliot Ness and James Edgar Hoover and their trophy cases.

Jenkins has some real common sense questions she asks, especially when you consider all the sexual scandals and other issues dealing with other sporting leagues.

Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because for two decades now I’ve had serious questions about the wisdom and fairness of the “anti-doping” effort, which consists of criminalizing and demonizing athletes for what boils down to using medications without a prescription, as if they are heroin dealers. And I’m confused as to why using cortisone as an anti-inflammatory in a 2,000-mile race is cheating, and I wonder why putting your own blood back into your body is the crime of the century. And because there are offenses in sport that seem far, far worse to me. Like say, putting rapists on your college football team.

Who have these professional cyclists hurt? Look at the story of Ben Roethlisberger who settled rape allegations from 2008. Roethlisberger is a star player in the NFL who has accused of multiple times of inappropriate behavior, and even so, today we will watch the Steeler nation cheer on this clown forgetting any mental torment and emotional distress of these possible victims while the sports world continues to write about Armstrong as if he is the disease of the country. It really is a double standard.

While I am not advocating what Armstrong has done, it is important to note the countless and selfless hours he has donated in hopes of finding a cure for cancer. Of course the football player gets the pass and Armstrong's total life gets turned upside down.

Maybe that's the problem in America. The game is more important than life itself. Consider what Jenkins writes as she begins to close the piece.

Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because I don’t understand those people who are bitterly angry to discover that he is not Santa Claus, while ignoring the very real and useful presents he delivered. Not toys, not hagiography, but the simple yet critical lesson that a third medical opinion can save your life. Or that the more educated a sick person is about their disease, the greater their statistical chance of survival. Who not only preached those lessons, but built an organization through which anyone can get the information and education about cancer for free that he was fortunate enough to be able to afford. And who put his money and incalculable amounts of time where his mouth was, raising $500 million for research and donating $7 million of his own fortune.