BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped.

[Vortigern99]

Whatever creams your twinkie.

Meanwhile, here in Austin there are no plans to re-name the Lance Armstrong Bikeway, a six-mile strip along a major highway. However, local news reports like this one are beginning to call into question the matter of Lance's $3.5 million in earnings from his TdF victories: namely, will he have to give it back? Through it all the efforts of his Cancer foundation, Livestrong, which has raised half a billion dollars, continue.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by lionking

There's been a lot of borderline CT posts in this thread. I'd like to know the motive for USADA acting like this if it doesn't have credible evidence.

So would I but that doesn't mean I'm just going to take their word for it. The argument you are making is the same one that gets made every single time there's a specious prosecution - "there is no way that prosecutor would be going after those Duke players if they didn't have good evidence".

Originally Posted by qayak

More concerning, from a skeptic perspective, is the automatic rejection of evidence, and witnesses, without knowing what it shows, or they say.

Actually automatic rejection or embrace without knowing what it shows, is concerning. However there is no automatic rejection of "evidence" here since we haven't even seen the evidence.

That said I do tend to agree with you and think it likely he would have contested the charges to the ends of the earth if false. But that's just a guess. There is a point at which a human being, even a champion, can reach a point where they just don't want to fight something any more.

One thing that I find a little questionable is that there would be 10 different witnesses as they claim. As smart as this guy is, and the fact that he was either clean or beat 500+ tests, I'd think the number of people that would have been in on it would be counted on one hand.

Anyhow, my guess is he did it, and it's disappointing to me.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

He said, she said. Not credible.

Esp. since they all had motivations to enhance the truth.

[LTC8K6]

I guess Bolt is doping then, because he was sure outrunning the competition, especially in that one race.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I guess Bolt is doping then, because he was sure outrunning the competition, especially in that one race.

They've tried again and again to hurl suspicions at Bolt, yet there is not a SHRED of evidence that he's doping. It's sort of sad that anyone that does well is now accused of steroids or doping. It's gotta be incredibly painful to endure that if you're legit.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

They've tried again and again to hurl suspicions at Bolt, yet there is not a SHRED of evidence that he's doping. It's sort of sad that anyone that does well is now accused of steroids or doping. It's gotta be incredibly painful to endure that if you're legit.

That fault is at the feet of the dopers.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by tsig

Esp. since they all had motivations to enhance the truth.

Not all of them.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

So would I but that doesn't mean I'm just going to take their word for it. The argument you are making is the same one that gets made every single time there's a specious prosecution - "there is no way that prosecutor would be going after those Duke players if they didn't have good evidence".



Actually automatic rejection or embrace without knowing what it shows, is concerning. However there is no automatic rejection of "evidence" here since we haven't even seen the evidence.

That said I do tend to agree with you and think it likely he would have contested the charges to the ends of the earth if false. But that's just a guess. There is a point at which a human being, even a champion, can reach a point where they just don't want to fight something any more.

One thing that I find a little questionable is that there would be 10 different witnesses as they claim. As smart as this guy is, and the fact that he was either clean or beat 500+ tests, I'd think the number of people that would have been in on it would be counted on one hand.

Anyhow, my guess is he did it, and it's disappointing to me.

Oh, beating drug tests has become a minor league industry in professional sports. I give you Barry Bonds as an example.
Thing is,the tests are becoming better,and it is no longer so easy to beat them.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

No Australians in any of the TdF's Gunderson won?

Really? I mean, if you're in the race, and you're from Australia, and Lance Gunderson wins, he beat you, I don't care what color your jersey is. You may be racing for the points, but what everyone wants is the overall win. That's why it's called the overall.

I admit, I don't know or care to know anything about bicycling. Far as I'm concerned, it became irrelevant the minute the motorcycle was invented.

That explains what you just said then. In any given tour, only about 10% of the field are going for the overall time. The other 90% are either leaders interested in other jerseys (Climbers and Sprinters, King Of The Mountains contenders historically are happy to lose a lot of time on a few stages so when they go on the attack to get their points they won't be chased, sprinters are usually incompetent climbers and so lose a lot of time there), riders going for opportunistic stage wins or team helpers. Many of the riders couldn't care less about their own overall time.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Resume

That fault is at the feet of the dopers.

Not IMO. Accusations without evidence are at the feet of the people making the accusations without evidence. In fact I'd say that argument is almost like the justification of doping and roids - "everyone's doing it". Or in this case writers go with "hey it's OK for me to write an article theorizing that Bolt is on roids and it's not my fault if I don't have evidence, it's the fault of all those guys using roids creating this atmosphere of suspicion".

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Not IMO. Accusations without evidence are at the feet of the people making the accusations without evidence. In fact I'd say that argument is almost like the justification of doping and roids - "everyone's doing it". Or in this case writers go with "hey it's OK for me to write an article theorizing that Bolt is on roids and it's not my fault if I don't have evidence, it's the fault of all those guys using roids creating this atmosphere of suspicion".

Where does the idea of athletes cheating with PEDs come from? Fiction, or reality?

Sorry but as long as these guys dope, there will be the suspicion, unfounded or not. Fair or not.

Worse yet, the technology the cheaters use almost keeps them one step ahead. Almost.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Resume

Where does the idea of athletes cheating with PEDs come from? Fiction, or reality?

Sorry but as long as these guys dope, there will be the suspicion, unfounded or not. Fair or not.

Worse yet, the technology the cheaters use almost keeps them one step ahead. Almost.

Suspicion is to be expected, but what I'm arguing is that I don't think that justifies expressing such suspicions in the media (if I were a journalist or sports writer), without strong evidence. Just how I feel about it. Sadly our media now feels it's OK to report almost anything and as long as they identify it as a "suspicion" or "rumor" they are protected from slander/libel. Heck, they even like to further destroy people by saying things like "many people believe Bolt's performances are impossible without steroids". No fact, no evidence, just suspicion and "many people believe"....which of course results in many people believing it .

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The Onions take on it . http://www.theonion.com/articles/lan...o-still,29313/

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Not IMO. Accusations without evidence are at the feet of the people making the accusations without evidence. In fact I'd say that argument is almost like the justification of doping and roids - "everyone's doing it". Or in this case writers go with "hey it's OK for me to write an article theorizing that Bolt is on roids and it's not my fault if I don't have evidence, it's the fault of all those guys using roids creating this atmosphere of suspicion".

There are also indicators. The 40 year old athlete suddenly belting out 3 home runs a game. The runner who does nothing their whole career and shatters the world record at the Olympics. Clean runners who run faster now than the dirtiest runners ran before they were caught.

It raises suspicions, as it should.

[jj]

Maybe he'll change his name to Lance Armstrong Dagny Taggart.

It kind of seems fitting.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by qayak

There are also indicators. The 40 year old athlete suddenly belting out 3 home runs a game. The runner who does nothing their whole career and shatters the world record at the Olympics. Clean runners who run faster now than the dirtiest runners ran before they were caught.

It raises suspicions, as it should.

Well again , I've got no issues with people having suspicions, my stance is that it's wrong to suggest that people are using steroids with no evidence. Do you disagree? If so I'm not sure why you're quoting me and responding as you are?

Let's look at your examples above and compare them to a few in history:
1. Bob Beaman shattered the long jump record by 2 feet in one of the most incredible feats in Olympic history (in 1968). Do you think he was doping or on steroids ? If he achieved that today do you think it would be OK to repeatedly suggest he's on steroids with no evidence and him passing all drug tests?

2. I suspect there have been quite a few cases ion history of athletes performing better later in their career without roids. So while your example is legit it's certainly been done without roids.

3. I'm not even sure your example of a runner doing nothing their entire career and then suddenly shattering the world record even exists? Care to give an example?


4. Your last example applies to Usain Bolt who has been tested extensively using all the latest techniques and has invited testers to test him anytime anywhere. Do you think it's OK to write articles suggesting he's on steroids?

I'm just not sure what we're debating here. It's perfectly natural to have suspicions, but absent evidence I don't think it appropriate to suggest people are on steroids. Are you disagreeing?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Well again , I've got no issues with people having suspicions, my stance is that it's wrong to suggest that people are using steroids with no evidence. Do you disagree? If so I'm not sure why you're quoting me and responding as you are?

Let's look at your examples above and compare them to a few in history:
1. Bob Beaman shattered the long jump record by 2 feet in one of the most incredible feats in Olympic history (in 1968). Do you think he was doping or on steroids ? If he achieved that today do you think it would be OK to repeatedly suggest he's on steroids with no evidence and him passing all drug tests?

2. I suspect there have been quite a few cases ion history of athletes performing better later in their career without roids. So while your example is legit it's certainly been done without roids.

3. I'm not even sure your example of a runner doing nothing their entire career and then suddenly shattering the world record even exists? Care to give an example?


4. Your last example applies to Usain Bolt who has been tested extensively using all the latest techniques and has invited testers to test him anytime anywhere. Do you think it's OK to write articles suggesting he's on steroids?

I'm just not sure what we're debating here. It's perfectly natural to have suspicions, but absent evidence I don't think it appropriate to suggest people are on steroids. Are you disagreeing?

You are cherry picking evidence. You ignore all the times the indicators turn out to be right.

And I wasn't talking about Usain Bolt. I was talking about Carl Lewis who beat Ben Johnson's record in the 100m supposedly clean, in the last race of his career when he was thirty years old. All those years he claimed to be clean and yet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003...s.duncanmackay

Quote:

Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

Now, when Sports Illustrated stated they knew Ben Johnson was doping they were asked why they didn't say anything and they said "because we would have to tell on everyone, including Carl Lewis."

They were pooh-poohed and the US team stated it wasn't true that their athletes were clean and yet, it comes out:

Quote:

The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.

It would seem that the "rumours" you despise are usually started by someone who actually has some evidence that gets labelled as a mere rumour by people who don't want to listen. This mentality protected Armstrong for 15 years.

I think the USADA has put cheaters on notice.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by qayak

So then you have to reinstate all the titles from all the other athletes who were stripped of theirs. Why is it that Armstrong should get a special pass on wrongdoing?

Because, as has been raised a number of times, who do you give the title to? He won the tour, as did others since doping has been going on for years outwith his reign, during the doping era.

In the end he was not tested positive during the races and so passed the rules at the time. I see that as the best of a bad bunch.

Now we are seeing cycling without drugs and have entered a new era.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by qayak

You are cherry picking evidence. You ignore all the times the indicators turn out to be right.

You're the one cherry picking, I acknowledged yours points and simply pointed out that there are going to be situations in which your examples indict innocent people.

Quote:

It would seem that the "rumours" you despise are usually started by someone who actually has some evidence that gets labelled as a mere rumour by people who don't want to listen.

You ignored actually answering my questions so let's see if I can get some direct answers out of you:

1. Would you care to give an example of a runner who did nothing his entire career and than shattered records at the Olympics? Because I'm just trying to determine how informed you are about this subject or if you just made that up.

2. Is your position that it's OK for the media to write articles suggesting that people are on steroids because of rumors, with NO evidence? Because that's ALL I've maintained. Again, we're not talking about the Armstrong case, he was under investigation and this was clearly a news event. If you're fine with it don't dodge with silly suggestions that "protects cheaters", just say you're OK with accusing people of things with no evidence and be done with it.

Quote:

It would seem that the "rumours" you despise are usually started by someone who actually has some evidence that gets labelled as a mere rumour by people who don't want to listen.

So if I believe it's unethical to accuse someone of something without evidence, it's because I "don't want to listen"?! BTW, the claims in your last sentence are completely non-quantifiable.

Quote:

This mentality protected Armstrong for 15 years.

Actually the fact that he passed all his tests and that they couldn't make a case against him is what protected him. Not that the media didn't report the rumors, in fact I believe that they did in fact report about them, didn't they ?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

No Australians in any of the TdF's Gunderson won?

Really? I mean, if you're in the race, and you're from Australia, and Lance Gunderson wins, he beat you, I don't care what color your jersey is. You may be racing for the points, but what everyone wants is the overall win. That's why it's called the overall.

I admit, I don't know or care to know anything about bicycling.

You don't say? [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis:

Removed uncivil comment

[icerat]

Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by icerat

Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth

Thank you, and it's scary stuff. A small clip:

"MA: There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could've gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the '99 Tour, and we've since found out that there were teammates from US Postal in that '99 Tour that have since admitted using EPO while riding for US Postal in that Tour. The other way it could've got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. <snip>
However, Lance Armstrong made that claim. <snip> We know the laboratory could not have known which samples belonged to Lance Armstrong. And we also know from the results, how many of Lance Armstrong's samples had EPO in them <snip>. Now the odds of the laboratory randomly selecting Lance Armstrong's samples out of those 87 samples, <snip> the odds of that occurring are at least 1 in 300."


My bolding, and snipping for brevity.

[malicus]

Originally Posted by icerat

Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth

Thanks for the link, a captivating read.

[Bikewer]

Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."

Why all this worry about drugs, there's no pill you can take that will suddenly transform everyman into superman. It looks like we're giving drugs some magical ability.

Let them do what they want and let the mountains sort them out.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by tsig

Why all this worry about drugs, there's no pill you can take that will suddenly transform everyman into superman. It looks like we're giving drugs some magical ability.

Let them do what they want and let the mountains sort them out.

Like Mont Ventoux sorted out Tommy Simpson?

[Monketey Ghost]

Either they all enhance or none of them. Otherwise it ain't equal competition, which is why there's public opposition to using.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by icerat

Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth

Thanks. This is the one that convinced me, up until that time a lot of us were inclined to believe Lances story that the samples must have been spiked, it was a French lab after all.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."

It was the '50s and Jacques Anquetil

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Seems to me that the ultimate end of this is that it will be the default position that it's not possible to win the TDF without doping.

Way back in the thirties, one of the multiple winners (I forget who...) said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."

Incidentally if you type that quote into Google this thread is the second result.

Closest quote I can find is from Jaques Anquetil.

Personally I'd be very surprised if the last few grand tour winners, Scarponi, Evans, Cobo, Hesjedal and Wiggins were shown to have been on drugs at the time. The performance level compared to previous years and all the current anti-doping measures are enough to satisfy me that these were pretty clean races, apart from of course Alberto Contadors presence, but he'd have to have been really stupid to have been on drugs for those races, since he already had a case pending at the time of the 2011 Giro and Tour.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Thanks. This is the one that convinced me, up until that time a lot of us were inclined to believe Lances story that the samples must have been spiked, it was a French lab after all.

Assuming that the Ashenden's information is correct there is not only definitive proof that Armstrong used EPO for the 1999 TDF, the use by his competitors of EPO was much less common than most of us had surmised. Armstrong also showed a willingness to commit fraud to gain a payout by contending he didn't use PED's although it sounds like the case was eventually settled based on a theory that payment could not be withheld whether Armstrong did or did not use PED's.

My view up to this time was that some kind of drug cheating was rampant and Armstrong was just particularly skillful at masking it and as such he won the by the rules and the testing that was available at the time which is all that was significant. It sounds like the use of PED's was very common in 1998 but had been very significantly reduced by 1999. It also sounds like a rider in an environment where most people weren't using EPO was going to have a significant advantage.

Was Armstrong cheating from a moral standpoint? I'm still a little unclear on that. If all your competitors are willing to use PED's if they don't get caught and you just happen to be the one that figure's out how to do it, it seems like you're playing by the same rules as your competitors and as such maybe what Armstrong did was not exactly cheating in the moral sense. But it also seems like that wasn't exactly the case in 1999. It sounds like most of the competitors made the decision to follow the rules perhaps based on the theory that racing authorities were going to even the playing field by successfully enforcing the rules and Armstrong just decided to exploit the naivety of his opponents and used PED's when he knew that most had decided not to.

[Marcus]

As much as I hate to see Lance go down, I was pulling for him every moment of every TDF, this could be the event that convinces everyone to race clean. Perhaps it was clean this year, I don't see any reason to believe that Wiggins was taking anything, but you don't have to look any farther than last year to see a lot of drug use. Most of Lances competitors have been implicated one way or another, not just by blood tests, so I still don't believe he gained any great advantage.

There have just been so many prominent riders busted it makes the sport look farcical. Perhaps now the feeling in the peloton will be that not only is drug use too risky, but that it is also not required to keep up.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Resume

Where does the idea of athletes cheating with PEDs come from? Fiction, or reality?

Sorry but as long as these guys dope, there will be the suspicion, unfounded or not. Fair or not.

Worse yet, the technology the cheaters use almost keeps them one step ahead. Almost.

I had always supposed that Armstrong, while doping as much as many, was using his huge influence, money and position to find ways he could stay one step ahead of the legalities, using substances that had not yet become illegal, etc. Now I'm not so sure, and it sounds more as if he was an odds-playing jerk like so many others, beating the rap mostly by care and luck. Anyway, I'm surprised he gave up, being the sort of person he is, and I suspect it's because he knows the jig is up. Too bad. I had hoped he found a way to stay at least technically clean even if he cheated in the moral sense.

Either that or he still has some ace up his sleeve whereby he'll end up discrediting the whole doping agency, but it's looking more as if he's guilty than clever.

[Morrigan]

This may be a really dumb suggestion... but why not allow doping? Seems like they all do it anyway, and it's impossible to win without it, so might as well let them compete with it. You'd save the hassle of testing and find who the best athlete is among a bunch of dopers. *shrugs*

Some are saying that we are now entering an era of "clean cyclists"... uh, are you really that naive? Maybe the tests are improved now, but they'll just make a new drug that will pass the tests, until these get caught later on... and again and again.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by icerat

Couldn't see this discussed here yet, but this 2009 interview with Dr. Michael Ashenden is invaluable in understanding the Armstrong myth

Ditto to the other thanks - this was a fascinating interview, and devastating for Armstrong.

[Magyar]

I am not sure what I think of this as a whole.
I've been saying for years that this whole testing thing is a joke. What should be donw is this. Anyone and everyone should be able to take anything they want. BUT they have to declare that they took something! IF they win they win but it's noted that they took something. If you claim you did not but you did, 1st possitive you're banned for life period.

This is the only way that this will stop(or not). The amount of pressure put on people by the corp sponsors to win is ALWAYS (as things are) goignt outweigh the threat of getting caught especially with the joke of a a punishements handed out.


As far as the article
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

Quote:

AS: You were able to analyze the results, correct?

MA: I interpreted the results.

This is just outright pathatic! So in other words MA interpreted the rsults like 911 consiracy theorist interpret melted steal or like IDoits interpret the foscil records!

AFAIK Armsstrong has been the most tested athlete ever. Taking the same stuff, according to this article, that dozen of other riders have taken but were caught while armstrong hasn't. Call me synical, but something stinks.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Magyar

I am not sure what I think of this as a whole.
I've been saying for years that this whole testing thing is a joke. What should be donw is this. Anyone and everyone should be able to take anything they want. BUT they have to declare that they took something! IF they win they win but it's noted that they took something. If you claim you did not but you did, 1st possitive you're banned for life period.

This is the only way that this will stop(or not). The amount of pressure put on people by the corp sponsors to win is ALWAYS (as things are) goignt outweigh the threat of getting caught especially with the joke of a a punishements handed out.


As far as the article
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden


This is just outright pathatic! So in other words MA interpreted the rsults like 911 consiracy theorist interpret melted steal or like IDoits interpret the foscil records!

AFAIK Armsstrong has been the most tested athlete ever. Taking the same stuff, according to this article, that dozen of other riders have taken but were caught while armstrong hasn't. Call me synical, but something stinks.

Wow. Way to cherry pick one sentence from an incredibly long article.

Who says Armstrong is the most tested athlete ever? Oh yes, Armstrong does. Well, I guess it must be true then!

Don't worry, I won't call you "synical".

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

This may be a really dumb suggestion... but why not allow doping? Seems like they all do it anyway, and it's impossible to win without it, so might as well let them compete with it. You'd save the hassle of testing and find who the best athlete is among a bunch of dopers. *shrugs*

Some are saying that we are now entering an era of "clean cyclists"... uh, are you really that naive? Maybe the tests are improved now, but they'll just make a new drug that will pass the tests, until these get caught later on... and again and again.

Doping used to be allowed. There were even suggestions in official TDF publications. One year a rider died after his heart virtually exploded when cranked up on speed during a stage, IIRC that was what started the push to eliminate drugs from the sport.

It's not that it will ever be impossible to dope, it's more a matter of what will become sop among the riders. In years past, if you had any GC aspirations at all you didn't have much choice. That's the part that can change.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by tsig

Why all this worry about drugs, there's no pill you can take that will suddenly transform everyman into superman. It looks like we're giving drugs some magical ability.

Let them do what they want and let the mountains sort them out.

Drugs aren't magic but they do give you a 10-15% boost in performance.

The issue is that clean athletes get screwed. They get beat by cheaters. An athlete using PED no more wins a race than the athlete who trips all the competitors in the 1500 meters and raises his hand as he crosses the finish line.

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by qayak

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.

Yes, the flaw in the "let them do what they want" argument is that then drugs become almost mandatory. Then all your winning female shot-putters develop hairy chests and deep voices, meaning that big women who fancy a crack at that sport might as well not bother unless they want the hairy chest.*

In addition, an exceptional clean winner's performance is downgraded in the public mind as they are assumed to be doing drugs.

*this 'hairy chest' business might not be entirely accurate, but substitute "untoward physical and health effects" and you get the gist