Three news stories caught my eye this morning:
• Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned from racing for two years. Sport’s Supreme Court (the Court for Arbitration in Sport) overturned the ruling of the Spanish cycling federation, which had previously overturned a one year ban on Contador, basically ruling that the lithe Spanish climber and time trialist supreme had used an illegal substance (Clenbuterol, a synthetic male steroid) and had possibly received a blood transfusion during the 2010 Tour, which he won. His ban will commence as of August 5, 2010, meaning he is eligible to race again this August 6. But all of his results since July, 2010, including the Tour win, will be nullified. He claims the Clenbuterol came from meat purchased in Spain tainted by the substance, which is used as a growth hormone (illegally, in Europe) in cattle. Given the incredibly small amount of steroid found in his urine, there may be truth in his claim. Nonetheless, any presence of the substance is illegal in sports adhering to the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) rules, so out he goes, according to the CAS. And Andy Schleck is declared the winner of that Tour; he’ll presumably have a better chance of winning this year, having one less time trial specialist to contend with (Andy’s basically a climber.)
• Federal prosecutors in the Justice Department announced on Friday they will not be seeking to press charges against Lance Armstrong for alleged conspiracy to defraud the government. The logic was: Armstrong used performing enhancing drugs during the time he was sponsored by the US Postal Service, despite representing himself and his team as being drug-free. In the eyes of the prosecutors, this amounted to fraud, taking money from a government funded agency under false pretenses. The case depended not on any proven drug use via urine or blood testing, but on the testimony of fellow riders and others close to the team. The prosecutors did not specify why they dropped the case. Some observers have theorized that Armstrong’s high profile fight against cancer thru his Livestrong Foundation weighed on their minds; there was more value in having him continue to be seen as a valuable leader in this arena than in having him dragged through a trial that might result in as muddled a decision as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have received.
• President Obama’s re-election campaign is due to announce tomorrow (February 7, 2012) that donors should feel free to contribute (unlimited amounts of) money to the “Super-PAC”, Priorities USA. This is somewhat of a turn-around for the Obama campaign, which in 2008 refused funding and support both from the federal campaign fund (the income tax check-off) and any outside non-affiliated groups. They nonetheless managed to accrue a substantial lead in contributions over John McCain, raising a reported $750,000,000. Their thinking seems to be, it’s disappointing, but these are the rules. “We’re not going to go into this fight with one hand tied behind our backs,” said the campaign manager. In a sense, it’s not unlike the challenge presented by an aggressive nation which insists on attacking its neighbors, such as Germany and Japan in the ’30s, and Iraq in Kuwait. Reluctantly, it seems, the only prudent response is greater force.
Both sports and politics have “rules” about their PEDs. In cycling, one has to identify his location at all times, make himself available for unannounced urine testing, and submit to testing after a race. It’s certainly possible within those rules for someone to still use performing enhancing drugs, Either through careful dosing, or by using something which is undetectable, such as donating blood to himself for future use during an arduous multi-day race, or a new drug which is not yet able to be detected in the lab.
Money is clearly viewed as a potent force in politics, able to alter outcomes of elections. Presumably, the more money a campaign has access to, the more it can communicate to the voting public via advertising, massive rallies, and even self-produced books and movies. While money cannot actually buy votes, it can buy exposure and quality propagandists. If it didn’t work, politicians would not seek it out so ardently.
And like PEDs in sports, it’s not clear where the moral line should actually be drawn. In our country, Congress and the Supreme Court have final say over whether and what rules should apply to the use of money in politics. It seems to me this would be like having the athletes write the rules and conduct the tests on themselves.
No matter who writes the rules, they are always purely arbitrary. One day, caffeine is legal; the next day it might not be. One day, there are limits on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign; the next, Super PACs are created, found to be legal, and allowed unfettered access to donations and forums of communication. Competitors, if they expect to have a chance to win, must be willing to use all the avenues available to them to achieve their desired outcome. For now, it appears, our political process is addicted to money, and the rule makers are unwilling to perform an intervention.