Telling the truth even when it's inconvenient

MPs are too busy to be honest [View this email in your browser]( May 19, 2021 [Mail & Guardian]( [Mail & Guardian]( [Twitter]( [Facebook]( [Instagram]( [YouTube]( Hi there, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” the Sagan standard states. Basically the more unlikely a claim is, given existing evidence on the subject, the greater the standard of proof that is expected of it. Journalist [David Walsh]( can attest to this. His investigations bled his newspaper, Britain’s The Sunday Times, of $1.6-million in legal costs and positioned him as the subject of vilification by both sports fans and officials. How dare he hound a global sporting icon who had survived cancer? At the end of the 1999 Tour de France, Walsh wrote, “Please don't applaud this guy [Lance] Armstrong. He's winning the Tour de France today, he's just come back from cancer but I don't believe it's authentic and I encourage you not to applaud.” Not once did [Walsh]( waver in his quest to unveil the truth about Armstrong and his doping deception, despite the almost insurmountable obstacles placed in his way. On 30 April 2010, professional cyclist Floyd Landis pressed send on what would later become the most significant email of his life. Addressed to Steve Johnson, then the chief executive of USA Cycling, the email bore the subject line “Nobody is copied on this one so it’s up to you to demonstrate your true colours ...” It detailed how, for years, Landis and others in the United States Postal Service team had used illegal performance-enhancing drugs and methods to dominate cycling and claim victories at the Tour de France. The email, later included in Landis’s 2012 affidavit for a United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) investigation, implicated many of his former teammates, including Armstrong. In 2004, Armstrong used the phrase "extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence" to discredit allegations of doping. Armstrong was later asked, "What is it about you that makes ordinary proof insufficient to bring you down? For murderers, we're not looking for extraordinary proof, we're looking for proof. But you're saying it must be extraordinary. Why?" Armstrong would confess to the doping claims in 2013. At the time of sending that email, Landis was at a low point. A year after his 2006 win, Landis became the first man in the Tour de France’s 103-year history to be stripped of his title for doping. Armstrong had demanded to know the identity of his 26 primary accusers. It turned out that [11 of them were his teammates](. This may seem like justice, righteous men exposing the corrupt. But do recall that for close to two decades those around the aerodynamic cyclist had silently watched as Armstrong cheated. Countless people went in and out of his caravan while he had who knows what injected to cheat the system. Part of the reason this carried on was that it was in no one’s interest to speak out; the ubiquity of drug use in cycling an open secret. (If you’re interested in what the former hero is doing with his life nowadays, check out [Where the bad men go: Disgraced Armstrong finds his niche]( We can't help but draw parallels about another group that seemingly doesn’t understand the concept of integrity. Parliament did not have the time, resources or capacity to investigate the early “noise” and “rumours” about the coordinated and wholesale looting of South Africa’s public coffers, Baleka Mbete told the state capture commission on Tuesday night. As the Mail & Guardian reported, [the former National Assembly speaker was appearing]( before Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and his eponymous inquiry to testify about parliamentary oversight, or lack thereof, during the administration of former president Jacob Zuma. Mbete, early on in her parliamentary career, was acting as Speaker when a document containing the arms deal corruption claims was slid under her door. Recounting what happened she told Zondo,“That document had no signature, had no author, but it contained scary things. I had to apply my mind for hours and I took a decision. Parliament is very busy … and I just did not act on it. “I just did not act on it. If another opportunity like that happened I would still decide that.” It’s on public record that Patricia de Lille, who at that time was a Pan-Africanist Congress MP, spoke under parliamentary privilege on the memo in the House in September 1999. Mbete and her parliamentary peers have been criticised for not sooner initiating investigations into allegations of state capture, and the alleged role that Zuma, his patronage network and the infamous Gupta brothers played therein. “There was a lot of noise [about state capture] in the fifth term that was scattered among portfolio [committees],” Mbete offered early in the sitting. Evidence leader Alec Freund later put it to her that there was “overwhelming evidence” and “enormous public concern” by at least March 2016 about allegations of state capture and corruption, and yet “not one portfolio committee saw fit to investigate the allegations”. MPs were busy Mbete said, “although I wouldn’t be able to say with what. But it cannot be said they were sitting around. “There came a time at a certain point where in fact those issues – you are right, in 2016, we were hearing noises and seeing reports, hearing rumours. At that time, when individual public representatives are hearing these matters, they are not sitting around idly. So when you say they didn’t go around and do oversight, maybe sitting here where we are, with hindsight, we are better off than those MPs were. “Some of those issues started receiving attention portfolio by portfolio. I am seeking to correct a [narrative] that when MPs had all the knowledge and power, they didn’t do anything. Probably they didn’t know as much as we do now,” she offered. Prior to March 2016, it had been alleged that former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas was offered a hefty bribe — [later revealed to be R600-million]( — by Ajay Gupta in 2015, as well as the post of finance minister, providing he swung business the way of the Guptas. That meeting was allegedly set up by Zuma’s son, Duduzane, and controversial 1999 arms deal middleman Fana Hlongwane. On 16 March 2016, Jonas released a statement in his official capacity confirming the alleged bribe, although he did not mention the amount. In September 2016, the ANC voted against a Democratic Alliance motion that an ad hoc committee be established to investigate rampant allegations and reports of state capture, including those made by long-time ANC member Jonas. The following month, Thuli Madonsela, then the public protector, released her damning State of Capture report, which contained the allegations made by Jonas, among others. Mbete told Freund that there had been no need to establish an ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations. And there you have it. The state capture commission was not initiated by a sudden attack of conscience or integrity in the ANC’s ranks. It’s just that “noise” from the media, civil society groups and whistleblowers was getting louder and increasingly more difficult to ignore. Until tomorrow, Kiri Rupiah & Luke Feltham [Subscribe now]( Enjoy The Ampersand? Share it with your friends [Share]( [Share]( [Tweet]( [Tweet]( [Forward]( [Forward]( [Share]( [Share]( Copyright © 2021 Mail & Guardian Media LTD, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in to receive communications from the Mail & Guardian either at our website or by taking out a print subscription. Our mailing address is: Mail & Guardian Media LTD 25 Owl St BraamfonteinJohannesburg, Gauteng 2001 South Africa [Add us to your address book]( Want to change how you receive these emails? You can [update your preferences or unsubscribe here.]( This email was sent to {EMAIL} [why did I get this?]( [unsubscribe from this list]( [update subscription preferences]( Mail & Guardian Media LTD · 25 Owl St · Braamfontein · Johannesburg, Gauteng 2001 · South Africa