Lack of Objectivity in Local Media: The Example of Lance Armstrong

Yesterday on my way home from walking my dog at Champoeg State Park I was listening to a sports talk show called The Bald Face Truth (BFT) hosted by John Canzano, a sports writer for the Oregonian newspaper.  A major topic on yesterday’s show was USADA’s decision to ban Lance Armstrong for life from competitive cycling and to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles.  While listening to the BFT Canzano ran a segment called the BFT Jury where Lance Armstrong was put on “trial.”  Canzano essentially asked a panel made up in part of local media personalities whether or not they thought Lance Armstrong got what he deserved.  Let me be clear that I have little interest in competitive cycling, have never attended or watched a competitive cycling event, and what ultimately happens to Lance Armstrong will have little impact on my life.  Even so the response of these media personalities to Canzano’s question yesterday left me wondering if they can be trusted to accurately provide information on newsworthy events.

The first, and probably the worst panelest, was Craig Birnbach, sports director at KATU TV in Portland, OR.  For several minutes Birnbach ranted negatively about Lance Armstrong emphatically stating that Armstrong got what he deserved that the suggestion that USADA was on a “witch hunt” was absurd.  I kept waiting for Birnbach to lay out a factual basis for his opinion but when all was said and done his opinion was nothing more that that….an opinion.  Certainly Birnbach is entitled to have an opinion, but when he participates in such a public forum and is represented as a member of the media shouldn’t we expect his positions to be built and based on responsible journalism?  As a side note maybe I expect too much from individuals in the realm of television media which perhaps is more about entertainment than true journalism.  Even so at the end of Birnbach’s rant my conclusion was that his “facts” came from the same source as mine…..the national media.  He really knew nothing about the true factual basis of the case against Lance Armstrong.  His very cliché conclusion that “where there is smoke there is fire” is one I wonder if he would be willing to apply to himself if he is ever exposed to public scrutiny. 

Lance Armstrong might indeed by guilty.  Yet again, based on what I have read he might not be guilty.  I haven’t a clue and don’t really care.  I am a scientist.  My successes and failures are centered on my ability to demonstrate natural events on the basis of indisputable facts.  My work must pass the scrutiny of my peers before it ever reaches the public eye.  Below I will look at what we actually know with regard to Lance Armstrong.  I hesitate to do this because I really didn’t want this blog to be about Lance Armstrong as much as how members of the local media had delivered the information, but it is important so here we go:

1.  Lance Armstrong is being sanctioned by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

I found it interesting that many sources I looked at referred to USADA as the “self-proclaimed” watchdog for doping violations in many high-level competitive sports the United States.  While they have been recognized by Congress in reality they are not overseen or managed by anyone.  When sanctioning athletes they serve in essence as the prosecution, judge, and jury.  This certainly makes it possible, if not highly likely, that evidence for or against an accused athlete will be biased by emotion and/or agenda.  Further, after so many years is it not understandable that Armstrong would decline to involve himself in an arbitration process run totally by the organization levying the sanctions?  This is strikingly different from professional baseball where at least the players union has say in arbitrator selection (although Major League Baseball fired Shyam Das the arbitrator who found in favor of Ryan Braun).

2.  USADA has 10 witnesses that will testify against Lance Armstrong

Birnbach seemed impressed by the fact that USADA claimed to have 10 witnesses.  I’m wondering if Birnbach has ever served on a real jury?  I have multiple time and I can say from experience that the term “witness” seems to have an incredibly broad definition.  No one but USADA knows what these “witnesses” actually observed.  For that matter based on what I know neither does Lance Armstrong (I admit that this might not be the case but I do not know otherwise).  I think back to the Roger Clemens trial where Andy Pettit, when put on the stand, clearly stated that what he knew about Clemons’s use of drugs could have an alternative explanation that was not favorable to the prosecutions case yet the prosecutors up to that point touted him as a star witness.  Guilty or not Clemons would never have survived USADA.  Finally, I can assure you that no real jury would ever believe Floyd Landis.

3.  Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test…..and he took many.

Sure, he could have been doping and been good at covering it up.  To emphatically state that he was on drugs and was good at covering it up is nothing more than an opinion based on unsupported assumption.  At the end of the day this is the only undisputable factual evidence we have.  Yes, there are examples of athletes who have never tested positive but later admitted they were taking performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), but Armstrong has never admitted to taking anything so it is not really fair to arbitrarily put him in this category.

My conclusion is that Craig Birnbach is no more qualified or competent to judge Lance Armstrong than I am.

I have picked on Craig Birnbach but in reality I find the ability of members of local TV and radio media to build an opinion around real facts often to be limited. A few years ago Isaac Ropp and Jason Scukanec of KFXX sports radio in Portland, OR were doing a piece on PEDs at a time when Barry Bonds was big in the news.  They engaged in a discussion involving the difference between steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) and gave information on the difficulties associated with testing for HGH that was simply wrong (they did not understand that HGH is a protein, not a steroid, and thus could not be excreted in urine).  As a physiologist this jumped out at me immediately but the average person was simply misinformed.  A 5-minute Google search would have made them more informed.  This bothered me so I wrote them an email and explained the fundamental difference between steroids and HGH.

I found it interesting that John Canzano was much more tempered in his opinion.  My take on Canzano is that he probably thinks Armstrong might have used PEDs but recognizes the weakness of the available information.  This is a reasonable perspective.  Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that he is a seasoned newspaper man who happens to host a radio show rather than someone born and bred into audio/visual media.  Perhaps this is why I listen to him rather than his 30+-year-old teenage competitors.  As I have thought about this I am convinced that reporters with a newspaper background are perhaps much closer to true journalists than those whose training is primarily in TV and radio.  Sadly, in this visual/audio age it is the latter that is shaping the opinion of America.

Cheers!