According to sources, Ramirez tested positive for HCG — human chorionic gonadotropin — a woman’s fertility drug used by athletes to restart the body’s testosterone production after a steroid cycle. While the drug only amounts to circumstantial proof of steroid use, it was enough to suspend Ramirez under the collective bargaining agreement’s “just cause” provision, meaning that he could be “penalized for use, sale or distribution of banned substances, even where the agreement doesn’t specify a particular penalty, such as for a positive test.”

Ramirez withdrew his appeal almost immediately, instead choosing to serve his suspension right away.

In a statement, Ramirez blamed himself for the suspension, saying that the illegal substance in his system was given to him by his personal doctor for a legitimate health issue. Given the quality of MLB’s health care, it is highly suspect that a player would take a drug like this on a personal doctor’s recommendation and not seek the medical advice of his team’s doctor.

Manny’s statement, via the LA Times:

“Recently I saw a physician for a personal health issue. He gave me a medication, not a steroid, which he thought was okay to give me. Unfortunately, the medication was banned under our drug policy. Under the policy that mistake is now my responsibility. I have been advised not to say anything more for now. I do want to say one other thing; I’ve taken and passed about 15 drug tests over the past five seasons.

“I want to apologize to Mr. McCourt, Mrs. McCourt, Mr. Torre, my teammates, the Dodger organization, and to the Dodger fans. LA is a special place to me and I know everybody is disappointed. So am I. I’m sorry about this whole situation.”

While other stars have been named in steroid scandals, notably Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and Jason Giambi (among many others), Ramirez instantly becomes the highest profile player to have actually been suspended by the league for a violation of the drug policy.

Ramirez will be eligible to return to the first-place Dodgers on July 3. During his suspension, Ramirez will forfeit about $7.7 million of his $25 million salary.

The trial was set to begin on Monday March 2, and now may be delayed for several months.

Among the other issues that the prosecution is dealing with is the news that Bonds’ former trainer, Greg Anderson, will not testify at the trial. Anderson’s lawyer made it clear that Anderson won’t answer questions, which has led to specific evidence being inadmissible, as it was only of value if Anderson testified to its authenticity. This included alleged failed drug tests, schedules and notebooks that were said to chronicle Bonds’ steroid use. Anderson was told that he will face prison time for refusing to testify, but he vows to stay silent.

From Bloomberg, quoting Judge Susan Illston:

“I will order you to testify, and if you refuse to testify you will be in contempt of my order and I will send you into custody until you” decide otherwise, Illston told Anderson at today’s hearing in San Francisco. She ordered him back to court March 3, when jury selection is to start.

The problem that the prosecution faces is that Judge Illston has ruled that the physical evidence they have may have no value and no meaning without Anderson’s corresponding testimony.

From SFGate.com:

In her ruling last week, Illston said the evidence is inadmissible hearsay unless the government can persuade Anderson to testify. Without testimony from the man who prosecutors believe supervised the steroid tests and created the documents, the evidence cannot be presented to the jury, she ruled.

The prosecution is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to have them reinstate some of the evidence she disallowed, including three alleged failed drug tests from 2000-2001.

Some experts are saying that the prosecution is making a big mistake by trying to get the judge’s ruling overturned, and that they are hurting their case by doing so. From ESPN.com:

“That’s a stupid move that they’re appealing,” said Peter Keane, a professor at Golden Gate law school who has been following the case closely. “There is absolutely no chance that an appellate court prior to trial is going to overrule a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

“It’s a foolish move on the part of the government. They’re on eve of the trial, they’ve got the momentum going, witnesses lined up, to call timeout at this point is foolish. It lets the air out of the balloon. They should be putting all their time and effort and energy into preparing for trial based on the evidence they have, rather than some futile effort to get in this evidence. The judge made a legitimate call.”

Illston’s only other options would have been to force the prosecution to move forward or to dismiss the case, but legal experts say that anything less than allowing this appeal would have been unusual.

According to reports, Yuri-Rod is not welcome anywhere the team congregates, including stadiums and team hotels, for both spring training and the regular season.

No word on how A-Rod will get home after games.

When asked about Yuri-Rod giving A-Rod a ride after the Yankees spring training opener, Brian Cashman only said, “It’s been addressed. And, no further comment.”

Selig told Newsday that Major League Baseball accomplished more than anyone thought was possible. Really? That’s your official view on this?

“The reason I’m so frustrated is, if you look at our whole body of work, I think we’ve come farther than anyone ever dreamed possible,” he told Newsday. “I honestly don’t know how anyone could have done more than we’ve already done.”

To compare Selig’s words with reality, I’ll step aside and let The Big Lead give you four examples of much bigger projects that were accomplished in less time than it took for Bud Selig to put real steroid rules into MLB:

Landing on the Moon: On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy challenged NASA to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth.  The Apollo Space Program began in 1963 and landed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon in July 20, 1969.  NASA did not need to be called before Congress to explain themselves.

Winning the Second World War: Whether you date from the beginning of the Second Sino-Japenese War on July 7, 1937, Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939 or the bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the Allied victory in World War II took less time than the steroid policy.  (Nazi Germany + Imperial Japan > Donald Fehr and Gene Orza)

Paradise Lost: John Milton began Paradise Lost in 1658.  His epic was published in 1667.  Blind by this point, Milton dictated the entire ten-book, blank verse poem to his daughters and assistants.  This took less time than it took baseball to implement a steroid policy.

Sistene Chapel Ceiling: Between 1508 and 1512, legendary artist Michaelangelo painted over 300 figures on 12,000 square feet of ceiling in the Sistene Chapel.  One of mankind’s greatest artistic endeavors in scale and in skill, it took less than half as long as the steroid policy.

Selig continued by saying, “I’m not sure I would have done anything differently.” Really? Nothing different? Huh.

“A lot of people say we should have done this or that, and I understand that,” he also told Newsday. “They ask me, ‘How could you not know?’ and I guess in the retrospect of history, that’s not an unfair question. But we learned and we’ve done something about it. When I look back at where we were in ‘98 and where we are today, I’m proud of the progress we’ve made.”

So in 11 years, you had an entire era take place that will forever be known as the “Steroid Era,” and all of it happened on Selig’s watch — and he’s proud of his accomplishments. In fact, for the first few years, he couldn’t celebrate the accomplishments of Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire enough. It wasn’t until a guy like Barry Bonds came alone, who Selig clearly despises, that he was driven to do something, anything to tarnish Bonds’ name.

That is the story of how we got steroid testing in baseball. Selig tried his hardest to not make it happen. If it weren’t for the BALCO scandal and the government’s Bonds witch hunt, we’d never have seen any progress. Nobody was calling for steroid testing when McGwire was King of the Long Ball. Nobody questioned when Roger Clemens‘ career was magically revived after being left for dead in Toronto. But when Bonds hit 73 and set his sights on Ruth, then people wanted to fix the problem.

If there were no Barry Bonds, there’d still be no steroid testing. Fact.

Selig also says he tried to put steroid testing in in 1995, but the union fought him on it, so he didn’t do it. See Bud, that’s why you are going to be remembered as the commissioner who ruined baseball. A real commissioner would have been willing to fight the union on this — or anything for that matter. Selig essentially let the inmates run the asylum. Baseball for the last 15 years has been run by the Player’s Association, and that alone is one of Selig’s biggest failures. The steroid era is just a product of Selig’s refusal to put his foot down with the union.

It’s the same reason that there is no salary cap, despite there being a clear need for it. Selig is afraid of the most powerful union in the world. And that’s okay to admit, as long as you know it’s true and try to remedy that problem. But to use your fear of the union as a scapegoat excuse for your own personal failures is unacceptable. Selig has allowed himself to be pushed around by the players, and that is the reason that salaries are what they are today, steroids tarnished a generation, and families can’t afford to go watch the game he ruined.

Go ahead and be proud, Mr. Selig. It fits right in with your other misguided failures.

First off, Selena Roberts is to be commended on getting this story, sourcing it, and having enough information to break the news and then back all of her information up. She was vindicated when A-Rod took a mere 36 hours to confirm her story.

So what does A-Rod do when it is time to admit your guilt? Hit up the Worldwide Leader and play a little softball with Peter Gammons.

The New York Daily News was especially forward with their criticism of Gammons’ “journalism.”

From Bob Raissman, sports media columnist:

Gammons, clearly handpicked by Rodriguez, Scott Boras or both, didn’t even try. His mouth appeared to be moving, but he must have not heard A-Rod’s replies. He let A-Rod con viewers into believing he didn’t know what illegal drugs he was taking while a member of the Texas Rangers. Rodriguez also claimed he never knew he had actually failed a drug test until SI reporter Selena Roberts told him last week.

Raissman wondered where the follow ups were, noting that Gammons let A-Rod say what he wanted to say, unchallenged. What would Raissman do if he were in Gammons’ chair?

Still, if he had a skeptical bone in his body, he might have asked a follow-up that went something like this: Alex, you said you didn’t know what you were taking, you didn’t know you failed a six-year-old drug test until a reporter told you last week, you say you didn’t even know who turned you on to the drugs – and now you are saying you didn’t know you were lying on national television. Why should anyone in their right mind believe you?

Gammons never asked that question. He never even came close to trying to probe in an effort to get one straight answer. After A-Rod immediately admitted he had taken performance-enhancing drugs in Texas, confirming SI’s story, ESPN could have shut off its cameras. The rest of the interview was garbage.

The criticisms of Gammons’ interview are dead on, as he allowed this to be a Rodriguez/Boras propaganda interview, even letting A-Rod’s outrageous claims about Roberts being a “stalker” go unchallenged.

From Filip Bondy, of the Daily Blahg:

Gammons couldn’t carry Roberts’ laptop, when it comes to real journalism. He is a pitchman who has the trust of the sport’s insiders for all the wrong reasons. She is a real reporter who broke this major story, one that had nothing to do with some contract minutia.

One thing I do know: Gammons was completely wrong about steroids from Day 1. He tried to bury the story, because he wasn’t comfortable with it wrecking his vision of baseball. And there was certainly something ironic about watching him question Rodriguez the other day, while the world watched.

Because according to Gammons, this was never going to be a big story.

Bondy is right on about this point. A-Rod flat out accused Roberts of stalking him, without so much as a single follow up question from Gammons about the accusations. Luckily, there are other journalists and media types who are actually looking for answers, not just ratings.

Roberts told Dan Patrick on his show that the meetings Rodriguez was referring to were grossly mischaracterized.

“I can tell you that long list of things he alleged were a complete fabrication,” Roberts said.

A-Rod said that she was kicked out of a gym by the University of Miami police for trespassing. Roberts said she talked to a University of Miami official before entering the weight room. She then approached A-Rod and gave him a chance to respond to her story. Rodriguez said he wouldn’t talk. Roberts said she then tried to hand him her card and left. Roberts said the university police were not involved and it was not a contentious situation.

Roberts also explained the situation when the police came to talk to her near Alex Rodriguez’s property. She said the police were called to answer a guard’s question about whether the island A-Rod’s home is on was public or private property. Roberts said it turned out to be public. It was a non-incident. Totally benign, even though there is a report because the police file paperwork on all their activity. She said A-Rod’s claims that she tried to break into his house were ridiculous.

“I never rang his doorbell,” Roberts said. “I never stepped on his driveway. I was never anywhere near his house.”

Gammons got a chance to chime in on the discussion after former colleague at ESPN Jeff Pearlman referred to him as the “Larry King of sports” for the way he let A-Rod get away with the Roberts accusations.

Pearlman said:

The reason Gammons scored the interview with Rocker a decade back is the same reason he scored one with A-Rod today: He’s the Larry King of sports television. Softball questions, limited inquisitiveness, an easy time for all involved. I’m not sure if Gammons was jealous of Selena for scoring a huge story, but he had to—absolutely had to—follow up Rodriguez’s presumably ludicrous accusations with a question or two or three or 10. “Alex, are you saying Selena Roberts literally broke into your building? Alex, can I see the paper you’re referring to? Alex, you rip Selena Roberts’ reporting? But wasn’t she, ahem, correct?”

After hearing what Pearlman said, Gammons replied in an email to deadspin.com that read:

“I think in retrospect, I should have interrupted the Arod rant. My first question asked if Selena’s story were true, he essentially admitted it was, and I believed she was therefore vindicated. I usually don’t get into grudges, and felt he was promoting her book, which will be her response. I was trying to get Alex in his own words, but Jeff’s criticism has merit that I accept.”

And of course the rest of the New York media isn’t about to give Rodriguez a free ride on this one. Between Newsday, the Daily News, and the New York Times, they all either question A-Rod’s honesty , see holes in his story, or don’t believe his selective memory.

This weekend was not just a lesson in steroids in baseball (anyone may be guilty), but it was a solid lesson in journalism.

Selena Roberts was a superstar. Peter Gammons was a puppet.

MLB Network won credibilty. ESPN continued to support favorites.

Being right and having all of the information once again prevailed over timeliness and a “big score.” Sure, ESPN got the interview with the guy, and their ratings were likely fantastic, but in the end, Roberts was right, MLB Network was better and ESPN failed.

Finally, there is some competition to the Worldwide Leader, even if it is only in baseball.

UPDATE: A-Rod called after the interview to apologize to Roberts. He sure is good at truth-telling.

UPDATE II: ESPN’s Ombudsman takes on the Gammons/A-Rod interview. As per usual, her coverage of the coverage is better than the rest, and her access to the major players gives her a unique perspective. We’re going to miss her when she’s gone, since she is arguably the best things that ESPN currently has on its payroll.

In that time, A-Rod produced two of his top three, and three of his top five home run seasons. In his defense, those were the only three years he spent in the very hitter-friendly confines of Texas’ Ballpark at Arlington. The final season, 2003, Rodriguez won the MVP for the first of three times in his career.

Rodriguez says that after 2003, he got clean and that all of his Yankee seasons have been legitimate. In his five seasons in New York, A-Rod has had two MVP years, which were statistically dominant, and three years that most players would call great, but for Rodriguez were less than stellar.

Rodriguez told ESPN’s Peter Gammons:

“When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure, I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day.”

Here’s the video of A-Rod confessing:

I can see the enormous amount of pressure, as he had just signed a record-setting contract, but what I don’t get is that if he was clean prior to going to Texas, how did he think he earned that contract? At what point do you put up the kind of numbers he was putting up in Seattle, and think you need to do more to justify your contract?

Being a .300/41/120-ish hitter AT SHORTSTOP means you don’t have to do anything to justify your $252 million contract. If he earned that contract clean, then he shouldn’t have had any reason to feel pressured to get on the juice.

Additionally, A-Rod turned 26 in his first year in Texas. With seven seasons in Seattle under his belt, that’s a bit old to be playing the “young and naïve” card, telling Gammons:

“I was young, I was stupid, I was naïve. And I wanted to prove to everyone that I was worth being one of the greatest players of all time. I did take a banned substance. And for that, I am very sorry and deeply regretful.”

I’ve defended Barry Bonds before, and I’ll offer some of the same defenses to Rodriguez. What they were doing at the time was not against the rules of baseball. With Bonds, there is more leeway than with Rodriguez, since Bonds was using compounds that technically didn’t fall under the steroid umbrella by most definitions. Bonds can legitimately claim that he was taking substances that were not against the rules of baseball, nor were they illegal. Since A-Rod claims to not know what he was taking, we can’t give him that benefit of the doubt.

Staying on the juice in 2003 is where he went wrong. In 2001 and 2002, baseball thought it may have a problem, but it wasn’t being addressed. By 2003, the survey testing was put in because they knew that something was amiss. You have to blame anyone who thought they were twisting the interpretation of the rules in 2001, 2002 or prior, but to still be juicing when the Steroid Era was under investigation is just stupid.

So is A-Rod right to admit that he took the PEDs? If you look at Andy Pettitte and Jason Giambi, as opposed to Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, then yes, he did the right thing.

The guys that have admitted to taking steroids or HGH have been, for the most part, welcomed back with open arms. The guys who denied using them or stayed silent have been villianized by the fans of the game. Despite the crime being the drug taking, judgment is almost completely based on admissions of guilt. In that sense, A-Rod did the only thing he could to win backs some fans. Perhaps if he changes his contract to eliminate the home run bonuses, he’ll be even more accepted.

Rodriguez is competing with Bonds for several all-time records, most notably the home run record. For the last few years, everyone wanted to put an asterisk next to Bonds’ name and couldn’t wait for the poster child A-Rod to replace him at the top of the list. An admission of guilt here may bring A-Rod a similar asterisk, but people will have a reason to still root for him to top the “evil” Bonds.

Once again, I’ll offer A-Rod the same defense I offer Bonds when it comes to historical standing: They were both Hall of Fame players without the juice, and should be first-ballot Hall of Famers when their time comes. Perhaps the steroids helped with some home runs and helped keep them healthier, but the steroids alone can’t make someone the best hitter of all-time, which Bonds is. What A-Rod did in Seattle was enough to earn him a $252 million contract, and he did it playing shortstop. These two men proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are Hall of Famers, with or without PEDs.

And since neither of them tested positive after the league put real testing in place in 2004, then they can be frowned upon for their decisions, but forever included in baseball’s history and record books.

If the allegations are true with Bonds, I would still vote for he and Rodriguez on the first ballot of any Hall of Fame vote. When (apparently) the whole league is juicing, and you’re still that much better than everyone, you’re just that much better then them. Steroids can’t make you hit a curveball, and they can’t make you have the best hitting eye in the game. Bash their decisions all you want, but don’t let the Steroid Era deny us the privilege of having watched two of the greatest ballplayers to have ever walked on the diamond.

The transcript is quite long (PDF), but well worth the read. I thought I’d just skim it, but I couldn’t look away. Some of the passages almost seem scripted in their classic-ness. The sheer balls of this man to sit in front of Congress and answer the way he did makes you just shake your head.

Some samples:

The following back-and-forth took place after a simple question about the session being recorded:

Mr. Leviss. Are you or your attorneys recording this session today in any means, a tape-recording or in any other capacity?
Mr. McMahon. No, not that I’m aware of.
Mr. McDevitt. Are we allowed to?
Mr. Leviss. No.
Mr. McDevitt. I didn’t think so.
Mr. McMahon. You’re shaking your head. We are allowed to?
Mr. Cohen. No, you are not. We are asking the question to confirm that you are not.
Mr. Leviss. It’s not something that we discussed and I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. McDevitt. Why would you even think we would do that?
Mr. Leviss. I didn’t suggest that you would do it.
Mr. McDevitt. What good-faith basis would you even have to ask a question like that, whether we’re recording this? We know it’s against the rules.
Mr. Leviss. You asked me if it was against the rules, so maybe you didn’t know.
Mr. McDevitt. Well, no, I thought it was. That’s why I’m stunned by your question.
Mr. Leviss. I have a good-faith basis to ask all the questions that I’m asking here today.
Mr. McDevitt. What’s your good-faith basis to ask if we’re recording this?
Mr. Leviss It’s not something that we had discussed and I wanted to clarify that you understood that it’s not allowable.
Mr. McDevitt. You didn’t ask any of the other two witnesses that question.
Mr. Leviss. You’re right. And it didn’t occur to me until this afternoon that I hadn’t asked them, so I wanted to clarify that.
Mr. McMahon. Please go ahead.
Ms. Despres. If we may, we have asked other witnesses that question.
Mr. McDevitt. You didn’t ask Linda. You didn’t ask Stephanie.
Ms. Despres. No.

What is this, an Abbott and Costello routine?

Here’s Vince McMahon on his job:

Q What is your current position within the company?
A I’m the chairman.
Do we have to go through this rigamarole?  Why don’t you just get to the meat of it?You know who I am, you know what my position is.  Why don’t we just get to it?

Rigamarole, or rigmarole: confused or meaningless talk.

McMahon proceeded to avoid answering any questions about whether or not he thinks steroids may be dangerous, answering logically that he is not a doctor. He refused to say if he had any beliefs on the issue, always yielding to the fact that he is a businessman, and not a doctor.

The most entertaining part of the whole transcript may be the lecturing way that Mr. McMahons’ counsel speaks to the Congressmen asking questions. It seemed to be a non-stop lecture in how to ask questions in a legal setting, and became quite comical at many points.

And of course, the highlight of the hearing, Vince McMahon on Frank Deford:

Q What about — some of his work received coverage in a number of other more mainstream outlets, for example, Sports Illustrated. I believe Frank Deford did a story on the Meltzer numbers. Are you familiar with that?
A Look, I’ve borrowed one of Frank Deford’s shoes one night. He doesn’t like me.
Q Are you familiar with his story?
A No. Other than Frank Deford wrote something derogatory. But, you know, he has no sense of humor and he doesn’t like me. We were bowling one night and I borrowed one of his shoes and he never found it. And so he had to walk home in a bowling shoe and one of his others, and he was upset about that I understand.
Mr. Leviss. I’m going to have to note that would be upsetting too.
Mr. O’Neil. Now we know the rest of the story.
Mr. McDevitt. You’re hearing something for the first time, too. I never heard that one.
Mr. McMahon. Well, actually I also borrowed one of his wife’s shoes, too.
Mr. McDevitt. That’s a whole different story.
Mr. McMahon. I left that part out.
Mr. Leviss. I take it she was not your size.

I really would like to know what McMahon means when he says he borrowed on of Frank Deford’s wife’s shoes. I think we need to do a Real Sports investigation into this.

And McMahon’s counsel of course dropped this piece of awesome:

I’m not going to allow you to harass this man. How is that pertinent to anything about whether this wellness program works? And you came in here today professing you have an open mind and you’re telling me that you didn’t have this in mind when you rote this list? Bullshit.

I didn’t plan on reading this whole thing, but it really is a gift that just keeps on giving. If you have the time, I suggest flipping though it. You won’t be disappointed.

I find it best to picture McMahon in his full Armen-Keteyian-interview-rage-mode, and all of his lawyers to be played by variations of Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny. Read the whole transcript this way and you will have entertainment.

Canseco’s book, Juiced, may have very well started the Steroid Revolution, leading baseball to accept that it had a problem, and his naming of names which turned out to be pretty accurate gained him a certain amount of credibility. Then, he followed that up with a sequel, in which he named more names, most notably Alex Rodriguez.

Now that the paychecks have likely slowed down quite a bit, Canseco is saying that he regrets naming names in his books. Really? Do you think he’d give back the paychecks and the “fame” that he got as being the steroid “outer”? I don’t.

In an interview for an A&E documentary, Canseco said he “regrets mentioning players [as steroid users]. I never realized this was going to blow up and hurt so many people.”

How in the world did he think it wouldn’t hurt so many people. Did he write the book with the intention that no one would read it? Did he think no one would follow up on his allegations? Did he expect Rafael Palmiero and friends to just say, “oh yeah, I did ‘em, and it won’t hurt me at all for everyone to find out”?

Canseco is an idiot and an attention whore, plain and simple. Why else would agree to let Vai Sikahema beat his ass? He loves the spotlight, and will say and do anything to stay in the spotlight.

Don’t believe me? Canseco will fight Danny Bonaduce in January in a “Celebrity Boxing Federation” bout. Aren’t there already enough alphabet titles in boxing?

Please Jose, stop talking and writing and getting beat up for attention now.

Also not in the videos was former manager Joe Torre.

With Clemens, you have to assume that it’s the whole steroids-Congress thing that the Yankees don’t want to be associated with. Then how do you explain Jason Giambi starting at first base and Andy Pettitte being the final Yankee pitcher to take the mound? I can understand not allowing Clemens to pitch for you this season, but to ignore what he accomplished for the Yankees is pretty low.

Oh yeah, and Chuck Knoblauch (also of Mitchell Report fame) was in the video montage.

As for Torre, you can only assume that they now realize that they screwed up with him and are trying to pretend it never happened. They fired Torre because he didn’t do well enough with what they gave him, and proceed to miss the playoffs, while the Dodgers are likely going to coast right on into the post-season.

I can only assume that it was good ‘ol Hank Steinbrenner making these decisions, because really — who else would screw this all up this badly. Well done, Hank. Another part of the Yankee’s organization that you are incapable of running — remembering.

So now that Lance is returning to the “sport” he loves so much, it seems clear to me how he needs to handle this: SAVE EVERYTHING. No one is going to let Lance return to the Tour and win it again without some serious accusations. If I’m Lance Armstrong, I’m hiring an international team of doctors to draw blood and collect urine weekly, or even daily, for the next year.

Tour de France organizers are apparently not thrilled with the man they’ve been suspicious of for years returning to their race, and they say that he will be held to the strictest standards.

The right move, therefore, is for Lance to make a preemptive decision to have himself tested over and over again to remove all doubts of his cleanliness.

Winning the Tour de France unfortunately isn’t enough. He needs to win it and please even the most strenuous anti-dopers. Whether he was clean or not for the first seven wins, to me, is irrelevant. His legend for those first seven wins is secure. What matters now is that the gaze of the whole world will be on him in his comeback and he already carries some sort of presumption of guilt. He needs to prove the doubters wrong, and the only way to do that is to preserve his proof throughout the journey.

Armstrong needs to have a team of doctors with him throughout his training to document his regimen, as well as collect samples of him for testing in the present and the future. If he’d doing nothing wrong, this should be nothing more than a minor inconvenience. On the other hand, winning his eighth Tour de France, and doing it as cleanly as can be humanly proved, would not only win over his critics, it may vindicate his past performances and secure his legendary status.