BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

No.

Curt Schilling's body was NOT ABLE TO PERFORM because his ankle was too sore.

How is that not his "natural physiology"?

As I said, it's an artificial distinction.

If, as you claim, it's an artificial distinction, why didn't Armstrong just take ibuprofen?

He would've avoided many economic and legal invonceniences.

[Monketey Ghost]

I assume those who support Armstrong are either re-evaluating their support or re-gearing their arguments, because I haven't seen any spirited defenses of him since this report came out. Popcorn, munching.

[Le Jab]

Do you understand pgwenthold, that if you take a headache tablet when you dont have a headache, that nothing will happen?
Assume the default postition of an athlete is 'fit'. A cortisone shot or ibuprofen tab cannot make you perform better than your default 'fit' positon. If you are injured, then all those drugs will do, is help you perform to your natural physiological limits by treating inflammation.
Whereas EPO/Testosterone/Transfusions take a fit athletes beyond natural physiological limits.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

Do you understand pgwenthold, that if you take a headache tablet when you dont have a headache, that nothing will happen?
Assume the default postition of an athlete is 'fit'. A cortisone shot or ibuprofen tab cannot make you perform better than your default 'fit' positon. If you are injured, then all those drugs will do, is help you perform to your natural physiological limits by treating inflammation.
Whereas EPO/Testosterone/Transfusions take a fit athletes beyond natural physiological limits.

EPO and transfusions give the same results as an athlete (or, at least, some athetes) can achieve by altitude and other training, so it's saving time and effort (though it's easier to overdo it with the artificial methods; I'm not sure if it's possible to get dangerously high haematocrit just from training).

[qayak]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

EPO and transfusions give the same results as an athlete (or, at least, some athetes) can achieve by altitude and other training, so it's saving time and effort (though it's easier to overdo it with the artificial methods; I'm not sure if it's possible to get dangerously high haematocrit just from training).

EPO also has a huge impact on recovery times which you cannot train to achieve. This becomes very important in an event like the Tour. It effectively means that an athlete can perform at 100% day after day which would otherwise be impossible. Add to that the performance increase and you have athletes performing at 100+% everyday.

As well, these substances have serious health risks which is contrary to everything sporting events claim to be about.

So, they aren't banned because of some arbitrary rules. They are banned for very good reasons in the context of "sport," and the rules are a reflection of those reasons.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

EPO and transfusions give the same results as an athlete (or, at least, some athetes) can achieve by altitude and other training, so it's saving time and effort (though it's easier to overdo it with the artificial methods; I'm not sure if it's possible to get dangerously high haematocrit just from training).

Actually, no. if an athlete trains at altitude they will achieve certain results. If they then start taking EPO and transfusing, their performance increases again. It isn't that they are a short cut, they offer free performance increases.

[Rolfe]

Are you sure? I thought the effects weren't additive, or not directly so anyway.

Rolfe.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by bruto

...

I was something of a Lance holdout, hoping he had somehow managed to do his thing clean, or to be so smart that he found performance enhancers that were at least not technically illegal. Doesn't look so good now. Too bad, 'twas a long shot anyway.

My situation exactly. My son-in-law who's a very bright guy and a big fan of bicycle racing told me he was sure Armstrong had used PED's. Still, in the absence of proof, and with Armstrong's categorical denials I wondered.

The leaked EPO test results discussed earlier in this thread were enough to convince me. I haven't read the USADA report but I've read what people have had to say about it, here and in a few articles and it looks like the evidence is approaching the practical certainty level, Armstrong used PED's regularly and over a long period of time.

My sympathy for the guy has waned considerably. It sounds like he not only doped but he coerced his team riders into doping. And most disgusting of all, based on how I see the world, he won a lawsuit against the London Sunday Times for essentially reporting the truth, that he was using performance enhancing drugs.

I was one that thought the USADA was implementing a self aggrandizing vendetta against Armstrong, even when I was sure he had used PED's. Now I'm not so sure that USADA's actions weren't justified. Armstrong was a major jerk and some of the pain coming his way is beginning to look long over due.

ETA: link to article about London Times considering law suit against Armstrong to recover money they paid out in anti-defamation case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1962965.html

[Woolgatherer]

I was a Lance holdout too. I read this thread with an open mind and came to the conclusion that Lance really was doping. I think I need to go back and reread some of the things Greg LeMond has said. It must be terrible to shout "Ferrari" and have only a few that will listen.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by davefoc

My situation exactly. My son-in-law who's a very bright guy and a big fan of bicycle racing told me he was sure Armstrong had used PED's. Still, in the absence of proof, and with Armstrong's categorical denials I wondered.

The leaked EPO test results discussed earlier in this thread were enough to convince me. I haven't read the USADA report but I've read what people have had to say about it, here and in a few articles and it looks like the evidence is approaching the practical certainty level, Armstrong used PED's regularly and over a long period of time.

My sympathy for the guy has waned considerably. It sounds like he not only doped but he coerced his team riders into doping. And most disgusting of all, based on how I see the world, he won a lawsuit against the London Sunday Times for essentially reporting the truth, that he was using performance enhancing drugs.

I was one that thought the USADA was implementing a self aggrandizing vendetta against Armstrong, even when I was sure he had used PED's. Now I'm not so sure that USADA's actions weren't justified. Armstrong was a major jerk and some of the pain coming his way is beginning to look long over due.

ETA: link to article about London Times considering law suit against Armstrong to recover money they paid out in anti-defamation case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1962965.html

Very few of the commentors in that article have the first clue about cycling.

[RedRatSnake]

The guy peddled a bike like no one else, Drugs or not i don't care cause he used his fame for good and helps people. Maybe that's all he cared about all along.

Tim

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

I assume those who support Armstrong are either re-evaluating their support or re-gearing their arguments, because I haven't seen any spirited defenses of him since this report came out. Popcorn, munching.

My only defense is..... Who do you give them to? IMO, so many of these guys are doing, I don't think you could crack the top 20 riding clean.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Slocie's

The guy peddled a bike like no one else, Drugs or not i don't care cause he used his fame for good and helps people. Maybe that's all he cared about all along.

Tim

You don't care he cheated? Do you apply this to all sports?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by lionking

You don't care he cheated? Do you apply this to all sports?

I don't care that he cheated. Everyone else was cheating, that makes it ok.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by lionking

You don't care he cheated? Do you apply this to all sports?

I just don't think he is a total Schmuck.

I don't think you can cheat playing Hockey, The rest i ain't so sure.


Tim

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Very few of the commentors in that article have the first clue about cycling.

I don't quite get what you meant with this comment. What does a knowledge of cycling have to do with the issue of the defamation suit?

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Caper

My only defense is..... Who do you give them to? IMO, so many of these guys are doing, I don't think you could crack the top 20 riding clean.

The answer to that is quite simple. You strip them, and award them to no one, just like the 2007 and 2009 National Rugby League premierships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ership_winners

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I don't quite get what you meant with this comment. What does a knowledge of cycling have to do with the issue of the defamation suit?

Read the comments at the bottom. Most of them are pretty stupid.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Slocie's

The guy peddled pedalled a bike like no one else, Drugs or not i don't care cause he used his fame for good and helps people. Maybe that's all he cared about all along.

Maybe? Do you know anything about him? More than the people earlier in the thread who characterised him as "an insanely competitive jerk"?

Many people who are deeply corrupt go in for conspicuous philanthropy. q.v. Jimmy Savile.

Rolfe.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Caper

My only defense is..... Who do you give them to? IMO, so many of these guys are doing, I don't think you could crack the top 20 riding clean.

It's not really a defense unless you think Armstrong shouldn't be stripped of his titles. And according to some reports I've read, if they strip Armstrong of his titles, they are not going to give them to any other cyclists.

ETA: Oops. I see Damien Evans already addressed this.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't care that he cheated. Everyone else was cheating, that makes it ok.

What do you mean by "everyone else"?

Is it "everyone else at the Tour de France"?
Is it "everyone else at professional cycling"?

If it's only about the Tour de France, the burden of proof lies on you anyway. If I remember correctly, Tyler Hamilton said that more than half of the cyclists at the Tour de France were doping (I think he said 40 out of 70), not "everyone else". Even in the TDF, to say that everyone else was cheating is an extraordinary claim. So where's your evidence?

But in fact it's not really about the Tour de France only, because there is no "exclusivity contract" regarding participation in this tournament. It's, again, all about performance. Professional cyclists need to excel in order to have a chance to participate in the TDF. It's fairly reasonable to assume that among all the professional cyclists who could potentially compete at the TDF, there were many that didn't dope, don't you think?

But anyway, even if it were "everyone else"... really? In that case, I imagine you watching the film Serpico and complaining "why, Serpico, why? They're all doing this, they're all corrupt, so it must be ok to be corrupt".

[Dani]

Interesting article on Scott Mercier, the US Postal rider who refused to dope... and quit professional cycling:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514

Quote:

Mercier had tried doing the training programme without using drugs, but found it impossible. "I could do the first two days, but by about the fifth hour on the third day I couldn't do the efforts, I was getting fatigue and had to take a recovery day."

He also found he couldn't keep up with riders he had beaten easily a few months earlier on tours in North America and Asia.

But it must be ok that he had to quit because he was honest.

If only he had taken Ibuprofen...

[Le Jab]

The fact that everyone else was doping, just puts the issue into context. By constantly denying the fact he was doing drugs devalues Armstrong as a human being.

Cycling is (apparently) a lot cleaner now. According to the attached article, the speed of the front of the peloton is down at 10% from the 'bad old days.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

[icerat]

Some sponsors are still standing by Mr. Armstrong. An easy decision to cross Nike off my shopping list for some new joggers.

Change.org petition -

Nike, Anheuser-Busch, Trek and others: Quit corporate support for Lance Armstrong

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't care that he cheated. Everyone else was cheating, that makes it ok.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Armstrong has long contended he was squeaky clean, and based much of his reputation and his actions on this characterization. Cheating is cheating, and it's bad enough, but he has acted badly in addition, with defamation and lawsuits, and even now he chooses to pretend he is something apart from the rest. Of course he has his charity, and that's nice, but it would not be entirely out of character if he ran the whole thing simply in order to look better while he cheated. Sure, if all the team were cheating, then he was still the best cyclist of the bunch. So he's a really talented creep.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Dani

Interesting article on Scott Mercier, the US Postal rider who refused to dope... and quit professional cycling:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514

But it must be ok that he had to quit because he was honest.

That is an extraordinarily important point, and thank you for making it.

If the top riders were all doing erythropoietin, then what about the people who refused? How many potentially better riders were squeezed out and denied their chance to compete, never mind to win, because they wouldn't cheat?

Rolfe.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by bruto

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Armstrong has long contended he was squeaky clean, and based much of his reputation and his actions on this characterization. Cheating is cheating, and it's bad enough, but he has acted badly in addition, with defamation and lawsuits, and even now he chooses to pretend he is something apart from the rest. Of course he has his charity, and that's nice, but it would not be entirely out of character if he ran the whole thing simply in order to look better while he cheated. Sure, if all the team were cheating, then he was still the best cyclist of the bunch. So he's a really talented creep.

I think it's hypocritical to single out any one cyclist for blame. The system forced anyone who wanted to compete to dope.

I've heard people arguing that Armstrong should be stripped of his prize money. I think I'd be willing to entertain that idea if the people who ran international cycling and profited from it were stripped of their profits from the entire EPO doping era first.

It was a corrupt system, and lots of people profited from it. Armstrong is just the most visible.

[lionking]

A very interesting article by former professional cyclist Phil Anderson, who counted Armstrong as a friend.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/10/15...-to-from-here/

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The system forced anyone who wanted to compete to dope.

No, it didn't. It allowed cheaters to win by doping.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think it's hypocritical to single out any one cyclist for blame. The system forced anyone who wanted to compete to dope.

I've heard people arguing that Armstrong should be stripped of his prize money. I think I'd be willing to entertain that idea if the people who ran international cycling and profited from it were stripped of their profits from the entire EPO doping era first.

It was a corrupt system, and lots of people profited from it. Armstrong is just the most visible.

This is a fair point. Not only Armstrong, but all the riders who cheated and some people at the UCI were also responsible of what happened.

ETA: I don't think the post you were responding to was singling out Armstrong. I agree with him, and at the same time agree with your observation.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think it's hypocritical to single out any one cyclist for blame. The system forced anyone who wanted to compete to dope.

I've heard people arguing that Armstrong should be stripped of his prize money. I think I'd be willing to entertain that idea if the people who ran international cycling and profited from it were stripped of their profits from the entire EPO doping era first.

It was a corrupt system, and lots of people profited from it. Armstrong is just the most visible.

My exact feelings initially. What was the point of digging through long ago races to selectively prosecute a single rider?

Now, the USADA's actions seem a lot more reasonable to me.
1. Armstrong won money in a civil suit by fraud. I think providing evidence to the defrauded party for the purposes of undoing the wrong feels right to me.
2. As has been pointed out, there were people who didn't go along with the doping and for them the USADA has provided some well deserved recognition.
3. Armstrong wasn't just an innocent bystander here swept along with the tide of doping in professional biking. He was one of the leaders in the implementation of the practice of doping. It is reasonable to me that the person that leads the cheating should be dealt with more harshly than those that just went along.
4. Even when the sport had made significant efforts to eliminate the doping practices, Armstrong worked to undermine the reforms by instituting the practices that he had used previously in a more open period. This undermines any kind of claim that Armstrong might make that he was forced to dope because everybody was doing it.
5. Armstrong won some of his prize money based on his claim that he wasn't using PED's. He lied and other parties were harmed as a result. Those other parties should have the right to recover their losses that resulted from Armstrong's actions.
6. Given the penchant that Armstrong demonstrated for the use of illegal drugs it is reasonable that he should be banned from further involvement in sporting events that proscribe the use of PED's.

I'd like to see some sort of compromise worked out with respect to all this, but that is probably impossible.

I would suggest the following:
1. Armstrong refund the money he won as a result of his defamation suit against the UK Sunday Times.
2. Armstrong refunds any winning bonuses that had clear cut stipulations in them that he didn't use PED's.
3. At least some of the earlier Tour de France victories be left to stand. The technicality used to avoid the statute of limitations issue seems a little dodgy to me and that coupled with the nature of PED usage at the time of the early Tour de France victories seem like mitigating factors to me.
4. Armstrong makes a complete statement about his use of PED's.
5. Armstrong is allowed to compete in sporting events after a few years.

I think Armstrong might have been able to get a deal like that if he had been willing to come clean with the USADA. As it is, his team of lawyers probably advised him to shut up, because if he didn't he was going to be found guilty of perjury if he lied under oath in a USADA hearing or if he came clean his lawyers advised him that there would be significant financial consequences from the people he had defrauded with his bogus claims that he wasn't using PED's.

A public relations person may have also advised him that if he just shut up at this point, there would still be about a third of the people who give a crap about professional bicycle racing or Armstrong that would remain fans (see comments that Daniel Evans alluded to for a sample of this) regardless of the evidence against him. And he might hold onto some sponsorships if he just shut up at this point.

[Rolfe]

I guess when I do my metabolic biochemistry lectures this term, and explain that a dairy cow at peak lactation is performing at the same level as Lance Armstrong, I'd better change that to Bradley Wiggins.

Rolfe.

[Korren]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It was a corrupt system, and lots of people profited from it. Armstrong is just the most visible.

Which gives him symbol value and is why it's important to apply the rules to Armstrong in particular.

[lionking]

I'm watching a documentary (BBC I think) right now, "The World According to Lance". Not only is he a cheat and a liar, he's prepared to drop everyone else in the crap to hide his duplicity.

To me he is the most disgraceful sportsman of all time. Even Mike Tyson expressed remorse.

[lionking]

The inaction of the ICU is extremely telling.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Korren

Which gives him symbol value and is why it's important to apply the rules to Armstrong in particular.

Unless everyone else gets punished too he's the particular kind of symbol we refer to as a scapegoat. I'm not too fond of that sort of symbol.

[Korren]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Unless everyone else gets punished too he's the particular kind of symbol we refer to as a scapegoat. I'm not too fond of that sort of symbol.

It's not like Armstrong is the only or even the first cyclist that's been brought down on doping charges.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't care that he cheated. Everyone else was cheating, that makes it ok.

That's a very strong claim, and thus far not borne out by the evidence. If you look at the re-testing done on the 1999 Tour de France samples (see the previously linked interview with Dr. Ashenden), then there were:

- 87 samples in total, 13 tested positive
of which:
- 14 samples of Lance Armstrong, 6 tested positive and 2 more positive on "visual inspection" (>40% positive)
- 73 samples of others, 7 tested positive (<10% positive)

To me, that doesn't say at all that "everyone else was cheating". Only a minority used EPO, that's what these numbers tell me. Admittedly, this was the Tour immediately after the disastrous 1998 Tour, so the picture may have been different in the subsequent ones.

Some have argued in this thread that the 8 year statute of limitations of the USADA is too long. I'd argue the converse, as EPO shows: at the time it became popular in sports, it was not detectable. It may take some years before an adequate test to a novel PED is developed. I think the statute of limitations should be at least until an adequate test is dveloped, and that retesting of stored samples should carry legal weight (contrary to the 2005 retestings of the 1999 TdF samples, which could not be used as evidence of doping). But why have a statute of limitations at all? Sports is supposed to be about fairness, isn't it, so I don't see a problem with outing a sportman as a cheat when he's 80.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Unless everyone else gets punished too he's the particular kind of symbol we refer to as a scapegoat. I'm not too fond of that sort of symbol.

I think that might be true if there were really a policy of not punishing or not testing that amounted to a normal free pass for dopers. As far as I can see, though, this is not the case. Many have been caught, many punished. It's known that testing is often random and not terribly reliable, but simply being better at guessing how to get around it and getting away with it for many years does not make you a scapegoat now. If you know there's a rule and know that it's enforced, then you take a chance when you break it, even if it's not enforced as well as it might be.

How much dope testing should a sport require, and how much is possible before it becomes such a drag that nobody will care to watch it?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Unless everyone else gets punished too he's the particular kind of symbol we refer to as a scapegoat. I'm not too fond of that sort of symbol.

Many other riders have been punished for using doping. A number of Armstrong's former team mates have been punished for their testimony against Armstrong, though more leniently than Armstrong. His punishment is like that for the Mafia boss who gets convicted (partly) on testimony of his former underlings, who get reduced sentences for the crimes they confess to.

I don't see the problem, frankly.