Lance Armstrong to be stripped of titles

[pendell]

I know nuthin' about cycling, so I wonder if there's anyone here who has thoughts on this development (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/24/thanks-a-lot-usada-lance-armstrong-faces-the-loss-of-his-seven-tour-de-france-titles/comment-page-2/#comments).

Seems Lance Armstrong won the Tour De France 7 times and is now facing disqualification on charges of doping, despite the fact that he has not failed any drug tests.

From the cheap seats, I thought cycling was a contest between hormone-enhanced supermen and the robots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nd13ARuvVE). I imagine there is an honest rider somewhere -- probably way at the back of the pack.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

I know nuthin' about cycling, so I wonder if there's anyone here who has thoughts on this development (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/24/thanks-a-lot-usada-lance-armstrong-faces-the-loss-of-his-seven-tour-de-france-titles/comment-page-2/#comments).
There is only one thing to know about professional cycling, and that is that everyone in the top tier is doped up to their chin and all trainers and physicans are in it as well.

All of them have been accused multiple times, and I think almost every time the charges were eventually dropped before the evidence was properly processed.

So it is quite suprising that any trial ever got so far. Though if I understand it corectly, Armstrong could still appeal and drag things out forever until enough bribes have been made for the entire thing to be dropped, but somehow he doesn't.

[pendell]

So it is quite suprising that any trial ever got so far. Though if I understand it corectly, Armstrong could still appeal and drag things out forever until enough bribes have been made for the entire thing to be dropped, but somehow he doesn't.


Possibly because he'd rather keep the money he has than go bankrupt fighting legal proceedings. Is it better to be found guilty and keep your money, or to prove your innocence and live in a homeless shelter?

Of course, the alternative answer is that he knew he would lose.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Glyphstone]

He knows he'll 'lose' only because they won't stop charging him, if the article is correct. He's been proven innocent of the accusations before, but they've pursued the issue for 17 years, ignoring their own 8-year statute of limitations on such things - it's just obvious to him that they will never give up until he's taken down.

[Yora]

The strange thing is, that it's not just Armstrong who is a cheat. It's an established system that has been institutionalized in top-level cycling for decades with probably everyone from the athletes, trainers, physicans to the officials, sponsors, and gambling companies being neck deep in criminal fraud that makes them huge loads of money. And of course they need to get all the expensive drugs from somewhere, so organized crime probably is involved as well.
Everyone knows it and it has been going on for decades, and it worked because everyone was in on it. How is it possible that drug tests are done constantly and it only becomes known that one cyclist was doped after he won the most prestigious tournament seven times? Not because the tests always resulted in negative results. And in recent years, there have been quite a number of people involved who quit and confessed and spilled the beans about others they had personally seen doping and overheared talking about it. Yet still, investigations where halted and charges dropped all the time. Because the officials who would regulate such things are in it as well.

When you suddenly start judging the most decorated athlete guilty and revoke all his titles, the whole house of cards in seriously in danger or comming down entirely. And there's a lot of drug smuggling and gambling fraud being part of this, which could become quite ugly for many of the players involved.

[Renegade Paladin]

It didn't become known. He never failed a test. The French just have their backs up that an American had the temerity to win their race a few times, and have been baselessly trying to nail him for cheating for over a decade.

[Asta Kask]

Do they have any hard evidence to back up the case?

[pendell]

The evidence (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/lance_armstrong/index.html) appears to be eyewitness statements by fellow cyclists.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Succubus]

The sad thing is that he is an inspiration to young people looking to get into cycling and that he has done some good work for testicular cancer charities.

To publicly strip him of all his achievements, even if it is fully justified is going to hurt a lot of people's hopes and dreams.

[The Glyphstone]

The evidence (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/lance_armstrong/index.html) appears to be eyewitness statements by fellow cyclists.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

And they certainly wouldn't benefit from taking down the guy who beat them in seven races...nope, nosirree.:smallamused:

[Spiryt]

It's downright scary that some bunch of bureaucrats can basically erase carrier of a guy who had won it in another country on top of all things.... :smallconfused:

Those crooks know that everybody and their mom roids to hell and back in pro sports of that caliber.

Silly.

[TheFallenOne]

He knows he'll 'lose' only because they won't stop charging him, if the article is correct.

There you have it.


It didn't become known. He never failed a test. The French just have their backs up that an American had the temerity to win their race a few times, and have been baselessly trying to nail him for cheating for over a decade.

Curious then that so many people outside France share their view, isn't it. And the people jumping to his defence happen to be American so very often. Perhaps you got who is biased exactly the wrong way around?

It is likely he used EPO in '99, for which there was no test at the time. Quite tellingly, Armstrong refused to have the stored B samples retested later on.


The sad thing is that he is an inspiration to young people looking to get into cycling and that he has done some good work for testicular cancer charities.

On the very contrary. Speaking for Germany, public interest in cycling competitions went way downhill over the years when more and more people realized how prevalent doping is in that sport(though I don't want to single out Armstrong here, he's but one of many). The public broadcasters even stopped giving live coverage of the Tour.

[Renegade Paladin]

It doesn't work that way. No one's proved a thing. The evidence brought would never hold up in a court of law, but that isn't the standard used by the USADA. Put simply, if you wish to accuse him of doping, you must prove it. All I see here is insinuation and unbased accusations against the whole sport (which would, incidentally, rather undermine the credibility of the witnesses, would it not?), rather than actual, you know, evidence. It is not biased to say that the innocent until proven guilty standard hasn't been met, because it has not.

[TheFallenOne]

It doesn't work that way. No one's proved a thing. The evidence brought would never hold up in a court of law

Really. People don't get convicted based on eyewitness accounts. Not just from competing drivers, but also teammates and members of the team's staff. And they can just decline to have old samples used as evidence.

But well, I've never been in an American court and TV and movies are known to be inaccurate in their portrayals. So maybe the testimony of witnesses is indeed no evidence of anything.

[Renegade Paladin]

Really. People don't get convicted based on eyewitness accounts. Not just from competing drivers, but also teammates and members of the team's staff. And they can just decline to have old samples used as evidence.

But well, I've never been in an American court and TV and movies are known to be inaccurate in their portrayals. So maybe the testimony of witnesses is indeed no evidence of anything.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and eyewitness accounts of people who stand to gain from what they're saying (i.e. those who would move up in the standings if Armstrong was removed) even more so. Any case built solely on eyewitness accounts rather than physical evidence is very weak indeed, and basically depends on the defendant having no substantive defense and an incompetent attorney.

[pendell]

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and eyewitness accounts of people who stand to gain from what they're saying (i.e. those who would move up in the standings if Armstrong was removed) even more so. Any case built solely on eyewitness accounts rather than physical evidence is very weak indeed, and basically depends on the defendant having no substantive defense and an incompetent attorney.


IIRC, eyewitness testimony is admissible but you need multiple eyewitnesses and they must survive cross-examination and challenges to their credibility.

The prosecution has more than ten.

It occurs to me that, if the charges are unfounded, it would be prohibitively expensive in attorney's fees and private investigation to shred each and every one of them. And even then, there's no guarantee a jury would accept your argument. More likely your 12 angry men would say "10 witnesses. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Guilty. ".

So if innocent his decision to cut his losses is understandable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

On the very contrary. Speaking for Germany, public interest in cycling competitions went way downhill over the years when more and more people realized how prevalent doping is in that sport(though I don't want to single out Armstrong here, he's but one of many). The public broadcasters even stopped giving live coverage of the Tour.
Not because of declining add revenue, but because they have to protect their own reputation.

We Germans get crazy about every sport every time it appears that a German athlete could become champion, and it wasn't any different when Jan Ulrich was one of the top cyclists. And there's still a number of German cyclist quite high up in the world ranking, but even with this in mind, I think most Germans belive cycling to be the most dirty and currupt professional sport there is. And German TV stations don't want to appear as if they were treating cycling tournaments as actual contests of athletes abilities.

[Adlan]

If you like at past results, you'll actually see a measurable decrease in performance, times and human muscle power output that indicates the sport overall has cleaned up a lot.

[teratorn]

Only the international cycling union can strip him from the titles, and they are likely to take the issue into the sports courts if USADA insists on taking things on their own hands. That information is unreliable at this time.

I used to be a big cycling fan when I was younger, it was the only sport that went close to very small villages lost in the middle of hills and mountains, and people used to gather by the roads to watch them go by. Lost interest when the doping scandals became rampant. We're probably reaching the limit humans can achieve even with doping, next step might be genetic enhancement.

[TheEmerged]

Possibly because he'd rather keep the money he has than go bankrupt fighting legal proceedings. Is it better to be found guilty and keep your money, or to prove your innocence and live in a homeless shelter?

Of course, the alternative answer is that he knew he would lose.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

In the immortal words of my mortal father... "Son, there are some questions that, if you have to ask them, there's a good chance you wouldn't understand the answer."

This is one of them, in my opinion.

[Winter_Wolf]

My thoughts on the matter: The man is a cancer survivor. From speaking with people who have/had cancer, it's draining in every way. Wears you down in ways that people who don't have cancer simply cannot understand. One of my classmates--happiest and kindest person I know, by the way--has this dark cloud hovering around her. Every time she gets sick, or if there's an abnormality in her blood test results, ANY abnormality, she's visibly strained until there's confirmation that it's not a recurrence. If cancer were a person, it would be that sociopathic A-hole that goes around stalking people and sometimes pops up to kill them later on. xkcd has a comic (http://xkcd.com/931/) that sums up cancer's "personality" pretty nicely.

Regardless of innocence or guilt, and I say until it's proven I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, Lance Armstrong is probably tired, and just wants some peace. Everyone I've spoken with who's been in long legal battles has said--surprise, surprise--they're incredibly draining and wear you down. Maybe Armstrong is just choosing what will lead to the longest life, even if it means giving up cycling competitively and possibly previous titles.

[MonkeyBusiness]

Regardless of innocence or guilt, and I say until it's proven I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, Lance Armstrong is probably tired, and just wants some peace. Everyone I've spoken with who's been in long legal battles has said--surprise, surprise--they're incredibly draining and wear you down. Maybe Armstrong is just choosing what will lead to the longest life, even if it means giving up cycling competitively and possibly previous titles.

That is exactly what I thought when I read the article in the newspaper this morning. I figured, the man's won the battles that were important to him.

.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I'm pretty sure I heard them say on NPR that he would counter-sue if they stopped him from competing competitively, even if they did take his current titles.

[Gwynfrid]

It didn't become known. He never failed a test. The French just have their backs up that an American had the temerity to win their race a few times, and have been baselessly trying to nail him for cheating for over a decade.

A couple of fun (well, not so fun) facts:

- Every single winner of the Tour between 1996 and 2007 has been caught doping at some point in his career.

- Among the 7 runner-ups to Amstrong's 7 Tours, number of people who have been caught doping, have admitted to doping, or otherwise involved in doping scandals: 7. Yep. Every single one of them.

- Average life expectancy of Tour de France winners before WWI: 74. Since WWII: 60.

So, yeah, maybe the French have something against the American winner. But then again, a more likely explanation is that this sport is rotten to the core, no one can win without cheating, and therefore all the top guys (not just Armstrong) are cheating.

[MonkeyBusiness]

FYI:
According to what I read in the Washington Post, Lance Armstrong is retired, so banning him from competitions isn't an issue. Taking his titles is: both prestige and money are involved.

[AtlanteanTroll]

FYI:
According to what I read in the Washington Post, Lance Armstrong is retired, so banning him from competitions isn't an issue. Taking his titles is: both prestige and money are involved.

Hmm, I must remember something wrong. I know they said there was some aspect he wouldn't fight, but if something happened he'd counter-sue. It may have had to do with who took his titles.

[factotum]

So, yeah, maybe the French have something against the American winner. But then again, a more likely explanation is that this sport is rotten to the core, no one can win without cheating, and therefore all the top guys (not just Armstrong) are cheating.

Or at least, it was that way up until 2007, since that's where your doping data appears to stop. I remember a lot of the doping scandals from the mid-2000s and they made a concerted effort to clean things up back then, so I would hope it's not as bad now.

[Maelstrom]

It didn't become known. He never failed a test. The French just have their backs up that an American had the temerity to win their race a few times, and have been baselessly trying to nail him for cheating for over a decade.

Hmm, never realized all this time the USADA was a French agency...

[TheFallenOne]

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and eyewitness accounts of people who stand to gain from what they're saying (i.e. those who would move up in the standings if Armstrong was removed) even more so. Any case built solely on eyewitness accounts rather than physical evidence is very weak indeed, and basically depends on the defendant having no substantive defense and an incompetent attorney.

I know the studies about reliability of eyewitness accounts. That's not the point. You claimed the evidence would never hold in a court of law, and far as I'm concerned that's an outrageous claim. So you better give a good citation for this or admit your wrongness.


Regardless of innocence or guilt, and I say until it's proven I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, Lance Armstrong is probably tired, and just wants some peace. Everyone I've spoken with who's been in long legal battles has said--surprise, surprise--they're incredibly draining and wear you down. Maybe Armstrong is just choosing what will lead to the longest life, even if it means giving up cycling competitively and possibly previous titles.

If he wants his peace he should have agreed to have the 1999 samples tested, if they were negative there'd be a lot less accusations. But he refused claiming the samples weren't properly preserved - an assessment based on what, exactly? The scientists certainly didn't think so.
I don't quite get how he's even allowed to refuse the test. They'd've their evidence then and there, I have little doubt about the outcome of the test.


Hmm, never realized all this time the USADA was a French agency...

Those cheesemongers are sneaky, aren't they?

[Yora]

I don't quite get how he's even allowed to refuse the test. They'd've their evidence then and there, I have little doubt about the outcome of the test.
Which shows that he is just a pawn in a much bigger thing. It's the International Cyclist Union that set up all the rules with all their loopholes, statues of limitations, and ability to drop charges and abort trials.
One time they decided to not release the results of one of Armstrongs tests and shortly after he made a donation of $125,000 to the organization. Most likely either a bribe or blackmail.

However, there are also national cycling organizations who regulate their own members and apparently the US cycling organization is controlled by the US Anti Doping Agency. And its investigators are not part of any cycling organization, so they don't care what the UCI could do to them when they keep asking questions. The national cycling organizations most probably have very close ties with the UCI and they also have great interest in keeping up the appearance that there is no curruption in professional cycling.
The athletes probably don't matter much. They are lured with fame and money and all they have to do is get on their bikes, take their injections, and keep their mouths shut.
Can you imagine an athlete going to his trainer or his boss and asking "Could you get me some illegal substances to enhance my performance?". On the other hand "You're really doing great, but I am afraid you're not able to make it all the way to the top with your current training. However, I have something I want to try that might help you to realize your full potential, but you must never tell anyone" sounds much more likely.

That is exactly what I thought when I read the article in the newspaper this morning. I figured, the man's won the battles that were important to him.
If he gives up now there would be no trial and nobody ever learns the truth. He could still say that he's an innocent victim of a conspiracy and there are still lots of people who believe him.
When a trial starts, all the details are revealed and all doubts in his guilt are gone.
Better be an innocent victim that a proven fraud.

Hmm, I must remember something wrong. I know they said there was some aspect he wouldn't fight, but if something happened he'd counter-sue. It may have had to do with who took his titles.
However, he is just only one out of four athletes who have been accused and the other three have not backed down and are going to trial. So there will still be more investigations and examinations of the evidence and testimonies, and it's very unlikely that Armstrong will not be named a lot.

[teratorn]

Those cheesemongers are sneaky, aren't they?

Whatever antagonism Europeans may feel towards Americans it pales in comparison to intra-european rivalry. An Englishman won the tour this year, now that's something.

[Yora]

Intra-european rivalries can be summed up as "England vs. Everyone else". Including Scotland and Wales. :smallbiggrin:

[teratorn]

There are cultural issues here. I have trouble with a process involving plea bargains, they are illegal here. Those kind of testimonies are invalid, and if there were any suspicion of arranging such a thing the whole trial could be annulled. The entire process seems to hang on the prosecution doing something that in my country is a crime. Here if the equivalent of USADA tried to do that they'd face a trial, not Armstrong.

I'm not sure about other European countries.


Intra-european rivalries can be summed up as "England vs. Everyone else". Including Scotland and Wales. :smallbiggrin:

Germany isn't very popular in Southern Europe these days. :smallwink:

[Gwynfrid]

If you want to know why the case rests on indirect evidence and witnesses: The reason why is it's pretty damn hard to nail someone just on the basis of tests (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/sports/cycling/antidoping-officials-move-to-wipe-out-armstrongs-titles.html?pagewanted=1).

Nevertheless, the case against Armstrong, has to be very, very compelling, or he would not have quit the fight - he's a guy who prides himself on never giving up. You can find a possible, specific explanation here (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/08/lance_armstrong_doping_usada_is_taking_away_his_se ven_tour_de_france_titles_but_he_s_keeping_what_he _prizes_most_his_righteous_indignation_.html).

[Renegade Paladin]

I know the studies about reliability of eyewitness accounts. That's not the point. You claimed the evidence would never hold in a court of law, and far as I'm concerned that's an outrageous claim. So you better give a good citation for this or admit your wrongness.
I won't, because I'm not wrong, because that's not what I said. I didn't say it was inadmissible; I said it doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard in a court of law.

[MonkeyBusiness]

I have something to say about this. I started to say it last night, and after I wrote it I chickened out and deleted it. Part of the reason why I did that is because what I have to say strays close to the realm of real world politics. But it still bothers me, so I am going to give it a careful go.

This issue is not about Lance Armstrong, nor is it about drug use. The real issue at stake is due process of the law.

I have no doubt that there is rampant use of performance-enhancing drugs in all sports, and certainly in bicycle racing, which is one of the most gruelling sports ever devised. That is why the science of drug testing was developed.

I also admit that drug-testing is not perfect and can be fudged. That is why drug tests are performed so often, using blood and urine.

In his entire career, Lance Armstrong has never failed a drug test. Never. During competitions, and at random out of competitions. How many tests is that? 500? And we are going to throw out those test results - science - on the basis that "people saw him doping".

If we are going to base a case on testimony that contradicts scientific findings, the witnesses and their testimonies must be impeccable.

What have we got? Fellow athletes who did not speak up at the time, but (for undiscolosed reasons) have chosen to do so now.

It is important, which considering the testimony of those accusing Armstrong to remember this as well:

The United States Anti-Doping Agency is *not* a government agency. It is private. And it has the power to punish athletes who it determines are guilty of doping. It also may be lenient to athletes who doped but "cooperate" with investigations into other athletes.

So the testimony seems potentially questionable ... certainly far less substantial than the results of Armstrong's drug tests, which have consistently shown no drug use whatever.

The idea of basing a case on this troubles me. It smacks of McCarthyism. I am also deeply disturbed that a private agency - not a federal court - is in charge of this investigation. I am not clear what the USADA's interest in this case might be: but it seems clear to me that it is not a disinterested party, which makes a fair trial hopeless. I am also appalled that such an important decision - which could ruin a person's finances and reputation - is in the hands of a private agency. The USADA, in my opinion, should hand over any information they have to the United States court system and let qualified (and disinterested) judges handle it.

One more thing I have to add. *takes a deep breath* I have read many comments about how rampant doping is in cycling as a competitive sport. I have no doubt that is true. But it is not logical to conclude, or even imply, that because "everyone seems to do it" that Armstrong did as well. If that were true, then *all* cyclists dope, and we should simply outlaw competitive bicycle races, everywhere, for all time.

Ridiculous? No more than assuming one man must beguilty because he is a stellar performer in a challenging sport where drug abuse is common.

The whole point I am trying to make is this: while I admire Lance Armstrong in a vague sort of way, I don't really have strong feelings about whether he keeps his titles. I do, however, have strong feelings about due process. Even if Armstrong used drugs, he should receive a fair trial, and this is not what is happening. Instead, we have a witch hunt.

And I suspect this is why Armstrong has refused to battle the USADA. He is like Giles Corey, who refused to testify against his neighbors during the infamous Salemwitch trials. He refused, indeed, to speak at all, and was pressed to death.

I see Armstrong's refusal to play along with this situation not an admission of guilt, but a new challenge. He's not relinquishing his titles: he's admitting that, if they can be taken away at random, without real proof - indeed, when the majority of the evidence says otherwise - then they never meant much in the first place.

That's how I see it.






.

[teratorn]

In his entire career, Lance Armstrong has never failed a drug test. Never. During competitions, and at random out of competitions. How many tests is that? 500? And we are going to throw out those test results - science - on the basis that "people saw him doping".


You should check Virenque, the best climber in the history of the tour, he was caught indirectly, when someone from his team was caught with a large stash of EPO and other drugs. He was French and even so the French tried to ban him from the tour (so much for conspiracy theories). UCI forced them to accept him because he had never been caught on a test. He later confessed. I was living in France at the time, and still remember the jokes. Got a 6 month suspension, and after that got back in business with a similar performance as he had before.

[MonkeyBusiness]

I'd like to correct myself. As I try to learn more about this case, I discovered that the USAD is not in charge of the trail. The CAS is. But from what I've learned of the CAS, I am even more appalled.

Teratorn, thanks for the additional information about athletes who abuse the system. But my concern is with the system abusing the system. To me, that is far more important that whether Lance Armstrong keeps his titles.


.

[TheFallenOne]

Intra-european rivalries can be summed up as "England vs. Everyone else". Including Scotland and Wales. :smallbiggrin:

That's more a tiny excerpt than a summary :smalltongue:


I won't, because I'm not wrong, because that's not what I said. I didn't say it was inadmissible; I said it doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard in a court of law.

So you are saying people aren't convicted because of eyewitness testimony. Still looks very much wrong to me.


If we are going to base a case on testimony that contradicts scientific findings, the witnesses and their testimonies must be impeccable.

...

So the testimony seems potentially questionable ... certainly far less substantial than the results of Armstrong's drug tests, which have consistently shown no drug use whatever.

There's your error. A negative test doesn't prove no doping took place. Just like they won't let a suspect walk free because his fingerprints don't happen to be on the murder weapon.

I'm repeating myself here, and it's quite striking the defenders here all choose to ignore this point: the 1999 samples. Back then they had no test for EPO. Now they do. And Armstrong refused a new test.
So no, the accusations don't contradict scientific findings as I've now conclusively demonstrated unless you challenge my claim EPO couldn't be traced 13 years ago.
But Armstrong could have a test that scientifically contradicts the EPO accusations. And he doesn't want the test. Fancy that, huh?

[pffh]

In his entire career, Lance Armstrong has never failed a drug test. Never. During competitions, and at random out of competitions. How many tests is that? 500? And we are going to throw out those test results - science - on the basis that "people saw him doping".


If I remember it correctly he did fail a test in '99.

[teratorn]

thefallenone, Armstrong doesn't need to prove he's innocent, by default he must be assumed as such. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, if they can.

[Yora]

Germany isn't very popular in Southern Europe these days. :smallwink:
Correction!

One German isn't very popular in Southern Europe. And we probably hate her even much in Germany. :smallbiggrin:

[TheFallenOne]

thefallenone, Armstrong doesn't need to prove he's innocent, by default he must be assumed as such. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, if they can.

And he's denying them the chance to do so. He refused a test that might prove his guilt. He stopped the USADA case before they could prove his guilt.

You're citing a legal principle, and a very important one. But you are forgetting in court the defendant doesn't have these luxuries, and for good reason. Good luck getting convictions if people could just say "Nuh uh" on giving a damning DNA sample, fingerprints, etc.

[Gnoman]

They can, actually. You cannot be compelled to give DNA or fingerprints without a warrant. The accusations against Armstrong would be very slim for getting one, depending on the judge.

[Starwulf]

I know nuthin' about cycling, so I wonder if there's anyone here who has thoughts on this development (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/24/thanks-a-lot-usada-lance-armstrong-faces-the-loss-of-his-seven-tour-de-france-titles/comment-page-2/#comments).

Seems Lance Armstrong won the Tour De France 7 times and is now facing disqualification on charges of doping, despite the fact that he has not failed any drug tests.

From the cheap seats, I thought cycling was a contest between hormone-enhanced supermen and the robots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nd13ARuvVE). I imagine there is an honest rider somewhere -- probably way at the back of the pack.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

From what I've read, Armstrong has passed dozens and dozens of tests, has been proven innocent multiple times, yet these *******s keep coming back after him, and he has finally decided he's fed up with it, and refuses to fight back, which is, apparently, enough for them to strip him of his 7 titles and claim that he's a horrible person ><


The strange thing is, that it's not just Armstrong who is a cheat.

Uhh, he's not a cheat. He's passed multiple tests, these guys that are after him just keep coming after him, for whatever reason, intent on making him look bad.



I'm repeating myself here, and it's quite striking the defenders here all choose to ignore this point: the 1999 samples. Back then they had no test for EPO. Now they do. And Armstrong refused a new test.
So no, the accusations don't contradict scientific findings as I've now conclusively demonstrated unless you challenge my claim EPO couldn't be traced 13 years ago.
But Armstrong could have a test that scientifically contradicts the EPO accusations. And he doesn't want the test. Fancy that, huh?

Or maybe he's just sick and freaking tired of proving his innocence OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Tell me, if you were in his situation, and you have gone through dozens and dozens of tests to prove your innocence, and you have passed every single solitary one of them(well, with the exclusion of the one time he failed but was proven that it was because of his cancer treatment at the time(mentioning that because someone mentioned he failed one, and I do specifically remember that), and yet some group of jackoffs were STILL bugging you, going around trying to make you look like some kind of horrible person, and they demand that you take yet ANOTHER TEST, wouldn't you eventually reach a breaking point where you say "No, I'm done proving my innocence, I'm not taking another test, I'm not allowing another test"? Because I know I sure as hell would eventually reach that point. Sooner or later EVERYONE's patience runs out when dealing with idiots and *******s.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Due process, innocent until proven guilty and the like apply to the legal system, to the authorities. For better or for worse, they don't apply to the institutions that govern professional sport, because they happen to be private clubs. They have their own charters, rules and regulations, and if they break them themselves, or if they make up bad rules, they answer to no one.

In short, professional sport may look like it belongs to the public sphere (therefore it should be accountable to the public), but in reality it's nothing of the sort. Which means, realistically, that you can do nothing to change these institutions. You can't demand reform (they're private, they do as they please), or take officials to court for not doing their duty (they're not breaking any law), or cite constitutional concerns (they're not the government, they don't send people to jail, they just decide who competes in their own sport events).

The Olympic Committee could say tomorrow "Our new doping test is called Does The Athlete Weigh As Much As A Duck. Those found guilty won't be accepted in the Olympic Games." - and no one would be able to do a thing about it. Because it's not a public institution, none of them is. Maybe they should be (that's another can of worms I wouldn't like to open), but they certainly aren't.

Doping is not a crime by law, unless the substance in question is illegal. And conversely, doping agencies and sports organizers may very well decide that a substance constitutes doping, even if it's otherwise legal in every single country. Remember the BALCO scandal? Marion Jones and others? Huge hubbub, disqualifications, awards and medals taken back, the works. But the federal investigation was about two things: illegal distribution of steroids, and check fraud. Sport had nothing to do with it. How could it?


...I don't like professional sport. Between advertising, gambling, doping, bribery, and ridiculous amount of money flying around, actual sport matters so little that it's not even worth it. The unsung majority of professional athletes still have good motives and good methods. But professional sport (at least the high-end version, with world records and medals the like) is just... bad. :smalleek:

I wish the media, and all the relevant institutions, both public and private, would give LESS attention to the winners and record-holders. For gods' sake, don't glorify them so much, it does HARM. It pushes kids to "win at all costs", starting with the cost of their own health (never mind their integrity). This mentality undoes all the good that comes from sports in the first place, dammit...

[Om]

It's worth remembering that Armstrong has not just been charged with doping but with the transportation and distribution of banned substances. In effect, he was a drugs trafficker. This should not surprise anyone: it's becoming increasingly clear that there was systematic doping in US Postal. One by one Armstrong's chief lieutenants have been found guilt: Heras, Landis, Hamilton. Now that they're fingering the boss we're supposed to believe that Armstrong was untouched by this? The lone honest man in a team full of crooks and quacks (and Armstrong still defends the likes of Ferrari)? Pull the other one

Outside of the team his influence was even more corrosive. The true face of Lance Armstrong wasn't to be found in Nike ads but in how he bullied other riders (http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/armstrong-hunts-down-rider) who he perceived to have broken the dopers' omerta. He directly contributed to cheating at the highest levels of the sport, a sport that was supposed to have cleaned itself up after 1998


From what I've read, Armstrong has passed dozens and dozens of tests, has been proven innocent multiple times, yet these *******s keep coming back after him, and he has finally decided he's fed up with it, and refuses to fight back, which is, apparently, enough for them to strip him of his 7 titles and claim that he's a horrible person ><Fun fact: Marion Jones was never found guilty by failed blood test. Yet I don't see anyone making witch-hunt accusations and suggesting that she be returned 'her' medals...

And, actually, there are strong arguments as to whether Armstrong has failed at least three tests (1999, 2009 and 2010). We'll probably never be given a satisfactory explanation as to the results of these tests because, well, Armstrong suddenly doesn't want to challenge them in court. The latter can of course only be construed as an admission of guilt: you can't just walk away from court and say, 'Yeah, I don't care what you think, I'm innocent'. That's not how the world works


Or maybe he's just sick and freaking tired of proving his innocence OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Except that this has not gone away not due to any witch-hunt (some grand Franco-American pan-Atlantic conspiracy) but because the evidence has been steadily mounting for the past ten years. New revelations have emerged - old tests questioned and new witnesses coming forward. The idea that we should ignore these, and continue to turn a blind eye to doping in our sport, is absurd

Incidentally, it's quite odd that a man so famed for his willpower and fighting to the bitter end has suddenly decided to throw in the towel when a) a new raft of testimony emerges and b) his latest legal attempt to stop proceedings fails. That is of course if he really has given up, I'm guessing that he'll just try to shift the legal fight to different terrain

[MonkeyBusiness]

...I don't like professional sport. Between advertising, gambling, doping, bribery, and ridiculous amount of money flying around, actual sport matters so little that it's not even worth it. The unsung majority of professional athletes still have good motives and good methods. But professional sport (at least the high-end version, with world records and medals the like) is just... bad. :smalleek:

I wish the media, and all the relevant institutions, both public and private, would give LESS attention to the winners and record-holders. For gods' sake, don't glorify them so much, it does HARM. It pushes kids to "win at all costs", starting with the cost of their own health (never mind their integrity). This mentality undoes all the good that comes from sports in the first place, dammit...

Well said, Headless. You have a good head on your -- nevermind.

Let me reiterate: I am not necessarily defending Lance Armstrong. I do not have a crystal ball that allows me to see his past. For all I know, he could be guilty of the charges.

What I object to is the witch hunt this has become. If doping damages sport .... so does faulty accusation.

For example, the 1999 tests were brought up. In the initial test, traces of the ointment he (understandably) used for his saddlesore were detected, but were deemed within the acceptable limit. Then, years later, frozen samples of his urine were retested using a new process to detect EPO. The news was leaked (no pun intended) to the press, and the accusations began to fly, prompting a demand for an independent investigation. In this investigation, Lance Armstrong wasexonerated (http://web.archive.org/web/2.0071230103550/http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9932.0.html).

Again, the real importance of this case is not whether Lance Armstrong doped. If he is guilty, I think he should lose the titles. But even while a federal judge turned down Armstrong's request to have the investigation blocked, he said that the methods of the USADA are unconstitutional, and that the single-minded pursuit of Armstrong by the USADA seems suspect: "The deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern."

It is important that athletes not dope. It is far more important, however, that the investigations and the legal proceedings be free of taint as well, and performing in accordance with the legal system .... and I do not perceive that is the case.

.

[teratorn]

UCI can not decide unilaterally the rules on doping, they need to make a series of agreements with civil authorities in order to get their competitions licensed. Same thing happened with football (soccer), they were very soft when dealing with doping, tests were few and punishments risible. FIFA (regulates world soccer) and national football federations were forced to accept a much more rigorous set of rules, and their rulings can be challenged. Our doping agency went against them a couple of times when it thought they were being lenient, taking the issues to the international sports court (and it always won).

As I said before my major shock is cultural, plea bargains in exchange for testimony aren't valid here, they are considered as buying a testimony, and I have some trouble adjusting to a system which accepts that kind of stuff. People in the USA probably don't see anything wrong with that, and this is very close to dealing with real world politics, so I'm not really interested in discussing if it's right or wrong, just stressing that my unease with this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It just looks incredibly alien to a country whose legal system is based in civil law and not on common law.

[Juggling Goth]

...I don't like professional sport. Between advertising, gambling, doping, bribery, and ridiculous amount of money flying around, actual sport matters so little that it's not even worth it. The unsung majority of professional athletes still have good motives and good methods. But professional sport (at least the high-end version, with world records and medals the like) is just... bad. :smalleek:


Mmm. I play roller derby, and there's an increasing divide between those who want the sport to go professional (or at least professionalish) and those who don't. And I just feel like, if I wanted to do a sport where professionalism was an option, there are so many to choose from. I could've picked any sport that was school PE class writ large with too much money flying around. I didn't choose those. I chose my freaky grassroots family-of-my-heart, thanks.

[Yora]

I wish the media, and all the relevant institutions, both public and private, would give LESS attention to the winners and record-holders. For gods' sake, don't glorify them so much, it does HARM. It pushes kids to "win at all costs", starting with the cost of their own health (never mind their integrity). This mentality undoes all the good that comes from sports in the first place, dammit...
At least they now just compete for some metal around their neck instead of building the largest pile of heathen skulls.
It probably has been around forever, it just isn't aceptable to boast with your kills anymore, so people are finding substitutes.

[Gwynfrid]

Naturally, money is one of the causes of the problem. The prevalence of cheating in sports is proportional to two factors:
- Odds to get away with it (for example, at the beginning of Armstrong's career, EPO doping could not be detected, and it remains difficult even today since the drug disappears from the body in days, while its effects last for several weeks).
- Odds that it will make you win big.

The more money there is in a sport, the more likely doping is (unless doping does you no good). Case in point: Baseball.

Baron Pierre de Courbertin wanted no professionals at all in the Olympic Games. In the early Games, taking money, any money, got you kicked out. Sure it was based on a 19th century worldview. But it was also quite prescient.

[Juggling Goth]

Of course, I'm also aware of the downside to the no-professionals idea: it essentially means that beyond a certain level, sports are only available to those who are independently wealthy, since it's basically impossible to train full-time on top of working full-time. I was reading a book about fell-running, and however much the corruption of professional sports sucks, disqualifying someone from all the big races because he won a few shillings once sucks more.

*Sigh*

No answers here, just angst.

[Yora]

In Germany there's a debate if womens football should turn professional. There's lots of advantages from being an amateur sport, but on the other hand there are three teams that completely dominate because they are best funded and in turn make the most money and get all the best players and training without real competition.

I don't know anything about College Football in America, but all the players have to be unpaid amateurs while the management and trainers are professionals who make serious money. Which is just plain unfair.

I think the problem starts when a sport gets really competetive and you participate not just because you enjoy the activity. Getting together with a bunch of people who like to ride bike and see who is the first to reach the top of the hill is fun. When you start optimizing your nutrition and analyze telemetric data, I think things are going the wrong direction.

But then, I have the same view about art. With the easy access to materials and distribution channels, there is no need for art to make money to cover the costs of producing it. An Artist should produce art because he enjoys doing it and enjoys when it entertains the audience. When you start having to deal with negotiations about who has to share how much of the profits of exibiting the art, and what fees people have to pay to whom every time they show it to someone else, and all that, you also have to please your investors to make your product appeal to a large well paying audience. That just doesn't feel right.

[Ceric]

It is likely he used EPO in '99, for which there was no test at the time. Quite tellingly, Armstrong refused to have the stored B samples retested later on.

Wait, EPO? Wasn't that part of his cancer treatment? Illegal in sport, not so much when it's keeping him alive.

[Traab]

In Germany there's a debate if womens football should turn professional. There's lots of advantages from being an amateur sport, but on the other hand there are three teams that completely dominate because they are best funded and in turn make the most money and get all the best players and training without real competition.

I don't know anything about College Football in America, but all the players have to be unpaid amateurs while the management and trainers are professionals who make serious money. Which is just plain unfair.

I think the problem starts when a sport gets really competetive and you participate not just because you enjoy the activity. Getting together with a bunch of people who like to ride bike and see who is the first to reach the top of the hill is fun. When you start optimizing your nutrition and analyze telemetric data, I think things are going the wrong direction.

But then, I have the same view about art. With the easy access to materials and distribution channels, there is no need for art to make money to cover the costs of producing it. An Artist should produce art because he enjoys doing it and enjoys when it entertains the audience. When you start having to deal with negotiations about who has to share how much of the profits of exibiting the art, and what fees people have to pay to whom every time they show it to someone else, and all that, you also have to please your investors to make your product appeal to a large well paying audience. That just doesn't feel right.

As far as college sports is concerned, yes technically the players are unpaid and all that, so no Yankees offering huge globs of cash to anyone with talent, but there are ways, legal, semilegal, and not so legal, that the universities use to locate and attract the greatest talent that they can. I think Uconn just got their butts spanked over their college mens basketball team and coach calhoun. I believe he violated some of the guidelines for recruitment. I admit I may be wrong, I dont care enough to read up on them. But the basics work a lot like sports elsewhere, there are rules, and then there are rules that are only enforced when their faces are rubbed in it enough. Its just a bit less blatant than having the professional team with the biggest payroll offering obscene amounts of cash to get the new talent on their side than somewhere else.

[snoopy13a]

I won't, because I'm not wrong, because that's not what I said. I didn't say it was inadmissible; I said it doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard in a court of law.

That's the standard in criminal cases. This isn't a criminal case. Plus, eyewitness testimony, if credited by the finder-of-fact, can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyway, the main problem with eyewitness testimony is misidentification. For example, suppose a witness viewed a robbery. Afterwards, the witness mistakingly identifies Person A as the robber, when in fact, it was Person B. Or the police bring in an eyewitness who can't remember exactly what the robber looks like but after "coaching" "remembers" that it was Person A.

The Armstrong case is different. Here, the witnesses would like testify that they saw Lance dope. There's no chance of a misidentification as they are presumably ex-teammates or former employees of Lance's team and knew him quite well.

Two of the potential witnesses against Armstrong--Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton--are former cycling pros who: (1) tested positive for drugs, (2) denied using drugs, (3) fought their suspensions, (4) lost their legal battles, and (5) eventually admitted doping. Whether or not they would be credible witnesses is a bit questionable. The other eight witnesses are unknown. Here, Armstrong's only defense would be that the witnesses are fabricating testimony. If it was only Landis and Hamilton, he could win. But with eight other people? Probably not.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

It's the CAS that actually holds the "trial," and 58 of 60 U.S. athletes who have gone before the CAS have been found "Guilty as Charged." Not surprised that Lance chose to avoid that type of court.

"It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes," Tygart said in a written statement.
"This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition, but for clean athletes, it is a reassuring reminder that there is hope for future generations to compete on a level playing field without the use of performance-enhancing drugs."

Really? But there is no "Win at All Costs" culture in the USADA or CAS?
Mmm...:smallsigh:

Maybe I'm biased (I am), because after I survived cancer, I got into bicycle racing because of those little yellow wristbands.

Any given test can be beaten, but as many times as Lance was tested, and the randomness, type and frequency says probably not. I would like to see the USADA's evidence, see the prepared testimony, and the rest. It also seem to me that the USADA can only recommend Lance be stripped, it is up to the UCI (you know, the people who actually awarded Lance the medals and prizes) to actually strip him.

Travis Tygert came across to me as gloating, as if he gets to put Lance's TdF Medals in his own office trophy case... Win at All Cost Culture. Yeah, that cuts both ways, Mr. Tygert.

[willpell]

I despise all sport, and before this whole thing came down the pike I cared not one whit about Lance Armstrong. But nobody deserves this kind of public excoriation. Every time the media calls him a cheat, based on unfounded allegations by a shadowy agency which seemingly answers to no-one, and hear him throwing up his hands because the system is clearly rigged and he has no chance, I feel my scalp going Krakatoa. These are dark days in which we live, in which all justice has been made mockery of by ruthlessness and greed. I now regard Lance as symbolic of that status, and plan to ever after uphold him as a modern Prometheus being tormented for no crime.

[Om]

It also seem to me that the USADA can only recommend Lance be stripped, it is up to the UCI (you know, the people who actually awarded Lance the medals and prizes) to actually strip himWell, no. The UCI has signed up to WADA and is bound by its agreements. If USADA has declared all Armstrong's career wins to be forfeit then the UCI can't very well turn around and say 'bugger off, we think he's innocent'

I'm sure that the actual division of jurisdiction is complex but the USADA can certainly do more than just recommend sanctions


Travis Tygert came across to me as gloating, as if he gets to put Lance's TdF Medals in his own office trophy case... Win at All Cost Culture. Yeah, that cuts both ways, Mr. Tygert.Again, not really. One party here is trying to cheat their way to a yellow jersey/medal, the other is trying to rid sports of the scourge of doping. "Winning" for the anti-doping authorities is exposing and censuring the sport's doper-in-chief and they've gone about this via the established courts and channels. I don't really see much moral equivalence here


I now regard Lance as symbolic of that status, and plan to ever after uphold him as a modern Prometheus being tormented for no crime.I'm not sure if this is a joke

You say "unfounded allogations", I say, 'failed tests, eyewitness testimony and a decade of mounting circumstantial evidence'. You say "a shadowy agency which seemingly answers to no-one" and I say 'a non-profit organisation, established and largely funded by the USOC, that is recognised by Congress and draws its mandate from WADA'; the Illuminati it is not. You say "the system is clearly rigged" and I say 'the evidence against him keeps on mounting'. You say "he has no chance" and I say 'he's guilty as hell and he's walking away now because he knows that'

You might despise this sport but I love it. So really, I don't particularly care that you're working Armstrong into some perverse symbol of martyrdom; I'm just happy that the cheat has been exposed and that, hopefully, his malign influence can be purged from the sport. I'm fed up of him defending cheats, bullying his detractors and making it impossible for clean cyclists to compete in the sport

(Apart from Lance himself, obviously. Funny how he could just blow past (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ&feature=player_embedded) the doped up supermen like that. I should have known then)

[Yora]

Well, no. The UCI has signed up to WADA and is bound by its agreements. If USADA has declared all Armstrong's career wins to be forfeit then the UCI can't very well turn around and say 'bugger off, we think he's innocent'
UCI could declare that they no longer consider WADA to have authority over them.
But in result, that would probably mean immediatey termination of lots of sponsoring contracts and government subsidies.

If you want to get people to fund you, those people want to have some insurance that competition is fair. And by submitting to WADA supervision, you are giving such an insurance. If you don't it makes you look very suspicious.

[Om]

Definitely. But then the UCI has always been decidedly lukewarm about WADA and seriously tackling doping in the sport. They've only really attempted to clean things up (half-heartedly) when pressured to do so by sponsors and broadcasters

I'm very keen to learn, as I hope we will, just how complicit the UCI was in Armstrong's continued doping. Questions have been raised for years (with more rumours now emerging from France) and this is exactly why independent third parties (ie, WADA) are needed to police sport. If, for example, the UCI had evidence that Armstrong cheated in 1999 (the false dawn of the post-Festina error) then could it be relied upon to reveal this?

If anything positive comes from this whole affair it must be a structural reorganisation of the sport's governing body

[Yora]

It's not just the UCI but also the national organizations as well.

One problem is, that in many countries doping is only a violation of the rules of the sport, but not a criminal offense. Which results in the sports pretty much regulating themselves.

To really get the whole thing cracked up, one probably would have to get to the issue of corruption, bribery, fraud, and the smuggling and selling of illegal substances. Then you'd have a powerful outside party doing investigations that can not simply drop charges because they don't appear relevant and the judges feel things are not so bad that it justifies all the time and money for a trial.
As long as it is about "did the athlete cheat?", criminal courts are not getting involved bcause there is no crime.