adieu, monsieur L. Armstrong

[Killer Angel]

Do you remember this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253712) thread?

Well, now (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/lance-armstrong-stripped-of-medals-banned-from-cycling_n_1999965.html) it's official.

I think that soon, we'll have more revoked titles than approved winners...

[Morph Bark]

Whelp.

At least he can see he fought off testicle cancer.

[Kindablue]

Sacrebleu. :smallfrown:

[Aedilred]

I still don't know what to make of it. The evidence against him seems weighty, but it hasn't been challenged or scrutinised in any meaningful way. It's difficult to come up with any conclusive opinion on a "no comment" case.

I can understand why Armstrong wouldn't want to challenge the decision even if innocent. That doesn't, of course, mean that he is.

In any case, I'm generally opposed to retrospective editing of the record books. In exceptional cases, sure, but when you start stripping out whole swathes of them they become worthless. Better I think to leave the records intact, but mark them as dishonest. That way, too, a sport that's been damaged in such a way can never forget the price of cheating. Erasing the records seems uncomfortably like cycling is trying to forget the long-term damage done by doping, rather than facing up to it.

[Killer Angel]

In any case, I'm generally opposed to retrospective editing of the record books.

Pretty much. 2-3 years back? it's possible, but I wouldn't go further back in time...
In the years after WWII, a sort of epic, legendary and golden age of cycling, there wasn't the concept of "antidoping", and the use of drugs that removed the feeling of fatigue was almost common (altought not abused for various reasons) and confirmed in various interviews.
What should we do? cancel 20 years of historical classifications?

[Aedilred]

There does come a point where keeping records at all seems pretty pointless. Particularly when the records were set in direct competition - I just don't think it's really fair to disqualify a winning cheat and then credit the overall win to the highest-finishing honest competitor as if the cheats were never in the competition. They were, and their performance will have had an effect on everyone else. Better to leave it blank, although as you say if taken to its full logical extent it would basically erase all the meaningful records.

Even if done contemporaneously it still makes a mess of things. In F1 racing, for instance, the record for largest winning margin in the team constructor's championship was set by Ferrari in 2007. However, the only reason that record is so large is that their closest competitor, McLaren, was disqualified from the constructor's championship over an issue largely unrelated to their actual performance. In reality, where it mattered on the track, both championships that season were the most closely contested for years. But that's not what the record book suggests.

But in a few years' time, that'll probably be largely forgotten, because people will just look at the overall record and not investigate the circumstances. It creates a false impression of the history of the sport.

[Zdrak]

What a cheater. I bet he never went to the moon either.

sarcasm

[Asta Kask]

What a cheater. I bet he never went to the moon either.

sarcasm

That was Louis Armstrong.

[Crow]

I've been saying it for years.

So many members of his team were mixed up in doping, and yet he was the best one of the lot...

Big surprise. [/sarcasm]

I don't think they should change the record books. But an asterisk is in order.

[Kindablue]

That was Louis Armstrong.

I thought Louis was the one who sparkled every time he flexed his muscles. :smallconfused:

[Yora]

Well, it is an open secret that all profesionals are doing the same. If this all is going to have any lasting impact, they now need to keep on getting after the next two or three high profile offenders. The number of people also accused in this investigation is huge, as is the number of high profile witnesses who talked. If you keep on pushing the issue, the whole house of card may finally come down and expose the system of fraud and drug abuse.
After all, the teams and the organizers are getting huge amounts of money from private sponsors and goverment subsidies, which keep on comming for as long as it seems a worthy investment. Which so far meant showing superior performances, but this seems to be an opportunity to change that to being trustworthy and honest. If you lose your funding when you get overwhelmed by acusations of cheating, but get more money by convincingly proving that there is no officially sanctioned or organized fraud, then things could look quite different very quickly.

[Traab]

I thought Louis was the one who sparkled every time he flexed his muscles. :smallconfused:

Thats ALEX Louis Armstrong

[Maelstrom]

That was Louis Armstrong.

Er, Neil, you mean...Louis was a brass blower ;)

[Spiryt]

What the hell is with stripped titles or whatever anyway?

NFL players are getting suspended for like 10 matches or something, other dudes are getting year at worst...

[Totally Guy]

I hear the anti-doping agency is looking to take away those "golden record" music sales prizes next.

[Trixie]

Even if done contemporaneously it still makes a mess of things. In F1 racing, for instance, the record for largest winning margin in the team constructor's championship was set by Ferrari in 2007. However, the only reason that record is so large is that their closest competitor, McLaren, was disqualified from the constructor's championship over an issue largely unrelated to their actual performance. In reality, where it mattered on the track, both championships that season were the most closely contested for years. But that's not what the record book suggests.

Yeah, industrial espionage, bribery, stealing of technical secrets and lying under oath have 'nothing' to do with race performance...

McLaren should have gotten season ban, not go to closely contest WDC with illegal car.

What I find saddest in reading comments on Lance's case are all 'unconvinced' people who never bothered to read coverage of this story, especially these who think he was pursued by foreigners (USADA is American) for decades (it was created in 2001 and started test in 2010...), or that Armstrong's teammates who he personally pushed into doping had any interest in testifying against him... :smallsigh:

Especially these who claim he is not a cheat, when less bright details about his attempts to blackmail and court bully people came to light - yeah, someone who claims he will destroy your life with trials for speaking the truth isn't cheat, nope, especially now that we learned exactly how he dodged tests :smallannoyed:

[Aedilred]

Yeah, industrial espionage, bribery, stealing of technical secrets and lying under oath have 'nothing' to do with race performance...
The thing is, it didn't. There was never any evidence that any of the information acquired was used by McLaren in their car, nor that the espionage was sanctioned or even in the knowledge of the team authorities until well after the fact. The concerns were largely over whether any of the information had found its way into the 2008 car, not the one they were running while the business came to light.

I don't wish to condone the behaviour of McLaren (inasmuch as it was a collective offence) because the conduct of some individuals was disgraceful. Including Fernando Alonso, for that matter. However, the sanctions were completely politically motivated and excessive, rather than proportionate to the nature or extent of the offence.

Moreover, other teams involved, most notably Renault, who seem to have been in it up to their eyeballs, got away scot free.

I don't know about lying under oath but I don't recall anything about that, nor, since legal proceedings were dropped before anything came to trial, can't see where it could have occurred, nor can I find any reference to it. Max Mosley later retracted his allegation that Ron Dennis had lied to him privately. It's also the first I've heard of any allegations of bribery in relation to the espionage scandal.

What was also totally forgotten in all the furore was that Ferrari ran the first two races that season (which were crucial in clinching the drivers' title, and, had McLaren not been disqualified, possibly the constructors' as well) with a design that was specifically and deliberately illegal, and they kept all the points from that. But they're Ferrari, so they were allowed to get away with it.

But that's enough of that.

[Killer Angel]

I don't think they should change the record books. But an asterisk is in order.

"Gotcha!"
Yeah, that would be a nice idea.

[Emperor Ing]

:smallconfused: is winning the Tour De France even allowed?

[willpell]

That was Louis Armstrong.

dies laughing

[Klose_the_Sith]

Cadel Evans has had his mum come out and testify that he's drug-free. So lets just give all the Tours to him :smalltongue:

[Trixie]

The thing is, it didn't. There was never any evidence that any of the information acquired was used by McLaren in their car, nor that the espionage was sanctioned or even in the knowledge of the team authorities until well after the fact. The concerns were largely over whether any of the information had found its way into the 2008 car, not the one they were running while the business came to light.

And just how do you propose it was 'proven' McLaren used any of the info? By putting gun to the head of everyone concerned and grilling them until they confess? :smallconfused:

Same with Armstrong - we can't prove doping helped him one bit, but the case is clear - both broke rules they swore to upheld, both lied under oath, therefore, case is clear - immediate bans, not deliberating if their misdeeds helped them any. If they were so good they didn't needed them, gee, maybe they shouldn't have that. Do any less than ban and sport turns into farce, and F1 nearly did with McL coming that close to WDC and basically getting no punishment whatsoever, not even financial one, when in the past teams got multiple race bans for much less.

Oh, and also funny you state there is no proof McL used any of the info, when all team drivers were openly talking in emails (http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/6219/787/) how useful the info is, yeah, no proof here, they must have been taking about weather, maybe. Same with Martin Whitmarsh admitting number of parts might have been 'influenced' by Ferrari parts, begging to not ban 2008 car too as they will address all problematic parts ASAP, but I guess he didn't knew what he was talking about, too.

[Socratov]

Too bad. I mean, sure winning while cheating is not ok, but to be honest this whole anti doping circus is quite looking like the spanish inquisition.

Besides, I could take a lot of doping, and still not come in second to last in the tour, doping is not everything, if anything it gives a slight advantage, a minimal edge. The boundaries of the body don't just disappear when doping enter the body.

I for one would love to see a tour where everyone uses doping openly. then it's all about strength of body again (how much doping can your body handle/are you willing to endure since it screws up your body so hard).

The reason why I don't like Lance is not because he used doping, but by buying an allstarsteam, having then ride him to voctory and thus disabeling any competition threat.

[Trixie]

Besides, I could take a lot of doping, and still not come in second to last in the tour, doping is not everything, if anything it gives a slight advantage, a minimal edge. The boundaries of the body don't just disappear when doping enter the body.

Um, that is not true. Scott Mercier (http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/scott-mercier-former-postal-rider-says-hamiltons-charges-ring-true_174876), US Olympic team cyclist, who was as good as Armstrong, but chose to quit sport instead of doping, claimed mere training of doped cyclists is impossibly hard for clean ones, and bursts of speed even on simple drugs are all but impossible to match.


I for one would love to see a tour where everyone uses doping openly. then it's all about strength of body again (how much doping can your body handle/are you willing to endure since it screws up your body so hard).

Problem with that is, doping cyclists have life expectancy 15-20 years shorter. So, ethically, we could have allowed real gladiator fights with swords as well. Plus, seeing how money buys best drugs, it would be simple auction with teams paying with millions of $ and years of life of entrants, not meaningful competition even if we allowed it.

[Aedilred]

And just how do you propose it was 'proven' McLaren used any of the info? By putting gun to the head of everyone concerned and grilling them until they confess? :smallconfused:

.... Do any less than ban and sport turns into farce, and F1 nearly did with McL coming that close to WDC and basically getting no punishment whatsoever, not even financial one, when in the past teams got multiple race bans for much less.
They got the largest fine in F1 history, as well as disqualification from the WCC. But in any case F1 is largely already a farce. Some jurisdictions don't even classify it as a sport. The favouritism shown to Ferrari by the FIA under Mosley was astonishing, extending to his doing everything in his power to ensure the succession of Jean Todt. The punishments doled out under Mosley were applied with extreme prejudice and intended to be exemplary rather than proportionate. Like I say, Renault were mixed up in the espionage scandal that year and received absolutely no punishment whatsoever. Ferrari were known to have raced with an illegal car and received no punishment for that. Recall also the Spa '08 fiasco with Massa being credited with the race win despite never holding the lead, thanks to a retrospective penalty applied to Hamilton for, effectively, having the temerity to race.

McLaren did deserve punishment, it's true, and disqualification from the WCC was probably fair under the circumstances. However, erasing all the points they earned from the record books gives a thoroughly misleading impression in retrospect as to what happened on the track that season.

Oh, and also funny you state there is no proof McL used any of the info, when all team drivers were openly talking in emails (http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/6219/787/) how useful the info is, yeah, no proof here, they must have been taking about weather, maybe. Same with Martin Whitmarsh admitting number of parts might have been 'influenced' by Ferrari parts, begging to not ban 2008 car too as they will address all problematic parts ASAP, but I guess he didn't knew what he was talking about, too.
Hence (one of the reasons) why I fingered Alonso as a culprit. De la Rosa too, I guess, although there was never a suggestion that Hamilton knew anything about it. That information seemed to be being used in preparation for the 2008 season for the most part, though, rather than in the contemporary 2007 one. Although there is an element of vicarious liability to bear in mind, it does seem, though, that it was almost entirely Stepney and Coughlan, with some testing input from those two drivers. Whitmarsh and Dennis didn't seem to know anything about it until after it came publicly to light.

Also, I'm still interested to know where the "lying under oath" allegation against McLaren comes from. Because if that was the case I'd have expected to see perjury charges, and if not... those allegations shouldn't be made.

[Trixie]

They got the largest fine in F1 history, as well as disqualification from the WCC.

That 'largest' fine was returned to them (http://www.f1-racing.com/details/view/431913/McLaren_get_tax_back_on_spy_fine/) by British taxpayers. Doesn't that include you and your family? As I said, penalty free.


The favouritism shown to Ferrari by the FIA under Mosley was astonishing, extending to his doing everything in his power to ensure the succession of Jean Todt.

Favoritism? They didn't won anything save Raikkonen title since 2004. That might have been true once, not anymore, IMHO. These days, it's mostly anti-RB advantages regulations, essentially favouring McLaren and to lesser degree Ferrari and Mercedes.

Sigh, I remember how many things Hamilton get away with, earning no penalties for things other drivers got race bans, to the point he was called FIAmilton in one season, not anymore thankfully, but if anyone turned F1 into farce it's him and his Tweets, like that last Button 'unfollow' one. Had Schumacher got this kind of blind eye in 96 and 97, he would have 10 titles now.


Renault were mixed up in the espionage scandal that year and received absolutely no punishment whatsoever.

Well, yes, maybe they should have got one, but their drivers were not stupid enough to openly talk how good stolen info is, nor Renault challenged anything that year. Penalty should be double if you contest top spots of legit players, IMHO. But, okay.


Ferrari were known to have raced with an illegal car and received no punishment for that.

Um, practice of taking disputed part to a race only to take it off as soon as it is declared bending rules is quite common, IIRC. Everyone does that, had, say, F-Duct been declared illegal as McLaren went quite deep in loopholes making it, they would have had illegal car for a whole season.


Recall also the Spa '08 fiasco with Massa being credited with the race win despite never holding the lead, thanks to a retrospective penalty applied to Hamilton for, effectively, having the temerity to race.

Other current F1 drivers believed he broken the rules there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Belgian_Grand_Prix#Reaction), passing outside of track. But yes, stewards make stupid decisions a lot, especially if British ex-driver (Hill...) is steward and German driver is the target...


Also, I'm still interested to know where the "lying under oath" allegation against McLaren comes from. Because if that was the case I'd have expected to see perjury charges, and if not... those allegations shouldn't be made.

Nigel Stepney initially lied while interrogated by Italian police, getting off 2 year prison sentence for that only due to plea bargain (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/87071/). His McLaren partner, Mike Coughlan, was caught red-handed (http://www.totalf1.com/details/view/215040/Police_raid_found_Ferrari_documents_at_McLaren_des igners_home) in police raid before being interrograted, thus having no opportunity to do so. Both approached other teams demanding money from Honda (http://totalf1.com/details/view/215593/Honda_were_approached_by_spy_suspects/) for stolen documents, making it higly unlikely they gave them for McLaren for free.

Alas, all cases ended with various plea bargains, so, yes, you can't say anyone went to jail over that specifically.

[Asta Kask]

Er, Neil, you mean...Louis was a brass blower ;)

Detect Humor (Ex): This ability allows you to detect humorous posts even when not accompanied by the indicated smileys.

[Socratov]

Detect Humor (Ex): This ability allows you to detect humorous posts even when not accompanied by the indicated smileys.

well, it is a rare skill, not every klass has it...

[Blue1005]

I do not feel sorry for him at all. His ethics and morals are questionable on many levels.

[Karoht]

It is a problem with the whole sport.
It is infered to be a problem with many sports.
The actions of one athlete are inconsequential, except as offering her/him up as a scapegoat.

This is why I no longer support or really have any interest in professional sports these days. And it is going to take one heck of an overhaul to this and other problems.

[Asta Kask]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

[The Glyphstone]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

When everyone's a doper, no one will be?

[Karoht]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.
Which turns the barrier to entry from the everyman to the rich who can afford the doping. Again.
Look into the history of the Olympics, you'll see how that wasn't really a good thing. But there is a social impact to having such a barrier to entry, as well as an impact by removing the barrier to entry.


There are also health concerns with doping.
I would really, really, really, be hesitant with allowing athletes to use the dope. What kind of message does it send to kids? That it's okay to destroy one's body and risk cancer, internal organ damage/failure, and a host of other problems related to steroids, just to win something? Or that drugs are a solution to a problem? Both are highly negative messages to send to anyone, kids especially.


Now, as for solutions to the problem, better monitoring goes a long way.
But it doesn't have to treat the athletes like criminals. I'll explain.
As it is, trainers and coaches take very tight statistics from all of their players. Diet (carbs, protein, fats, sugars, etc), sleep hours, training hours, body weight, water intake, calorie intake VS burn, etc.
Some of them already do frequent medical testing, mostly for the safety of the athletes (blood sugar monitoring is imporant, along with a few other metrics), and it does provide them some amounts of data which can be useful for focusing the training of the athletes.

Well, what if such testing were required for professional sports, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and submitted to an appropriate authority? And make that information as transparant as reasonably possible?
Not only do the players and coaches gain benefit, it makes everything transparent and removes suspicion.
As part of qualifying for some event (IE-The qualifying matches for the Olympics or the World Cup), one has to submit a minimum amount of records. Say, 6 months to 12 months? And if that isn't enough, the supervising board can just review the whole record for anomalies.
Leagues and large sporting bodies (IE-The IOC) can simply make this a requirement for league participation. You be open and accountable, or you don't play with us.
You want the privilage, you accept the responsibilities.
Simple. Efficient. Transparent.
Done.

[Trixie]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

Have you read what was written in the case? :smallconfused:

Not only doping kills people (heart attacks in healthy 25 year olds?), you have such people like Scott Mercier (mentioned before) and Frankie Andreu who refused to take drugs and had their careers ruined as a reason. But I guess it's easy to dismiss "losers" without 7 Champ titles.

Oh, and one Betsy Andreu, wife of Frankie above, who persuaded her husband to not take drugs was literally threatened with murder (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9632129/Lance-Armstrong-is-a-bully.-I-could-not-let-him-win-says-whistle-blower-Betsy-Andreu.html) with baseball bat by Armstrong men. You can read (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512) or listen to it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dps1TpWfv54).

How can say after that Armstrong is misunderstood, poor, clean victim of witch hunt? :smallannoyed:


Which turns the barrier to entry from the everyman to the rich who can afford the doping.

Pretty much this.


Well, what if such testing were required for professional sports, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and submitted to an appropriate authority? And make that information as transparant as reasonably possible?

Problem is, you can't check for freshly invented doping drugs with that system. There has to be some stick involved, too, otherwise it can be circumvented.

Plus, it wouldn't have worked on Armstrong, he literally made paid spy/observer network to warn his team about controls, then quickly took countermeasures to be clean in every known test.

[Killer Angel]

Have you read what was written in the case? :smallconfused:

Not only doping kills people (heart attacks in healthy 25 year olds?)

A notable example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson). And pretty on spot, given that we're talking 'bout the Tour de France...

[Trixie]

I was more thingking about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Neves), but yeah. Here (http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=669566), experts describe matter in depth.

[Asta Kask]

How can say after that Armstrong is misunderstood, poor, clean victim of witch hunt? :smallannoyed:

I didn't know that I did. Au contraire, my suggestion hinges on doping being nigh-universal.

[Trixie]

I didn't know that I did.

The part about 'witch hunt' wasn't directed at you, it was general sigh over the Armstrong's whitewashing. Please note I referred to the bullying cases above in that line, not to anything you wrote? :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

Man oh man were they all asleep at the wheel or what? :smallconfused:

Honestly it sounds like we'd be better off getting rid of all the professional cyclists on the assumption that they're all guilty.

[Acanous]

Bah. Let Athletes use steroids and drugs. Their bio signs are all closely monitored and they get peak nutrition and exercize.
If we let them use performance enhancing drugs, we can procure valuable data about what drugs react how with what other factors. It will advance scientific knowledge of the human condition, and all the participants are volunteers!

Live for our adoration.
Work for our entertainment.
Die for our benefit.
Totally humane.

[Trixie]

Let me guess, final step would be Soylent Green? :smallconfused:

The book one :P

[Acanous]

That is why you are awesome, Trixie, you catch the things I miss :3

[Astral Avenger]

The good news is that drug testing is getting cheaper and more common. One of the upcoming cyclocross races in my area is doing random drug testing (or at least saying that they are going to).

I do not know who doped or how, but I know that this is really damn hard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q38Gyjv4EE) no matter what you might be taking.

Hm... Rereading my post in preview makes me think I should add a disclaimer that I have never taken a substance illegal in the USA.

[factotum]

I didn't know that I did. Au contraire, my suggestion hinges on doping being nigh-universal.

And you personally know that it is, then? There are so few clean athletes in any sport that they might as well drop the ban on drugs? Because I don't think even the most extreme critics of drugs in sport think that's the case...

[Trixie]

I do not know who doped or how, but I know that this is really damn hard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q38Gyjv4EE) no matter what you might be taking.

You know, I drive 1-2 hours per day, and I think one or two minutes of such jumping while driving upwards is well beyond the capability of even well fit people. Sure, they get vitamins, food, and training, but even then, it looks to me they "somehow" cheat limitations of human body.

I mean, even Phelps doesn't make swimming look so ridiculous compared to normal, well fit swimmer.

Also, I love how big advantage blocking your opponent gives in such narrow driving lane. Real class, winning by being moving roadblock instead of competing.

[Cuthalion]

Although doping does help in some ways, I'm pretty sure it doesn't enhance once's performance in huge ways. It's generally used to recover from injuries faster. To bicycle that well that far, and that long, you have to have some serious natural stamina, skill and strength. I think he shouldn't be erased from the books, but just have an asterisk, possibly, or something like that next to his name.

[Togath]

He should be erased from books. His records replaced with red blocks with a note stating the removal of his records.
I lack comprehension of why a person would tolerate a criminal. A criminal does not deserve to be free, let alone set a record.

[Trixie]

Although doping does help in some ways, I'm pretty sure it doesn't enhance once's performance in huge ways. It's generally used to recover from injuries faster. To bicycle that well that far, and that long, you have to have some serious natural stamina, skill and strength. I think he shouldn't be erased from the books, but just have an asterisk, possibly, or something like that next to his name.

Again: clean Olympic level cyclist dropped the sport because he found training at the level of doped cyclists impossible, which ruined his career. Races are harder than that. Had drugs been so little help, no one would have been bothering. It's all in the links in this thread.

So, yeah, let's let cheater who ruined careers of many talented people by breaking rules he swore to upheld, cheater who outright bullied others using all means he had into silence to held titles. Who cares about silly things like decency or justice? :smallsigh:

[Asta Kask]

And you personally know that it is, then? There are so few clean athletes in any sport that they might as well drop the ban on drugs? Because I don't think even the most extreme critics of drugs in sport think that's the case...

If it's not then I would still support dropping the ban, but more for moral-political reasons which I cannot go into here.

[GnomeFighter]

If it's not then I would still support dropping the ban, but more for moral-political reasons which I cannot go into here.

It sounds like you have never known any elite athletes. Often they will do anything to win and if you allow them free reign to use whatever drugs and doping they wanted you would end up with half dropping out and saying "I'm not doing that to myself" and the rest pushing there bodies to the very limit of what is possible and dieing on a regular basis (as in the Tour would see large numbers of the field dieing every year).

Alowing doping and drug use is just not in any way a sensible idea and encouraging people to kill themselves just to win...

Elite athletes already damage there body's and lives to win, letting drugs in to it would just multiply the harm.

[Cuthalion]

Again: clean Olympic level cyclist dropped the sport because he found training at the level of doped cyclists impossible, which ruined his career. Races are harder than that. Had drugs been so little help, no one would have been bothering. It's all in the links in this thread.

So, yeah, let's let cheater who ruined careers of many talented people by breaking rules he swore to upheld, cheater who outright bullied others using all means he had into silence to held titles. Who cares about silly things like decency or justice? :smallsigh:

Apart from the fact that "justice" hasn't been upheld by actually investigating it instead of just saying "He's busted". Also, if there are that many doped cyclists, why don't they crack down on more of them, if it's that big of a problem.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Also, if there are that many doped cyclists, why don't they crack down on more of them, if it's that big of a problem.
There are two basic problems with doping control.

One, there's a never-ending "arms race" between people who devise drugs and people who devise drug tests. Those who devise drug tests are - by definition - one step behind, since the goal of every new drug is twofold: enhance performance and fool existing tests.

And two, it's systemic, mate. Doping itself is not a crime - the police can only investigate related offenses (distribution of illegal substances, blackmail, fraud etc). So here's the rub: the only people who can crack down on doping are those in the sports business. That's the same people who make heaps of money out of "enhanced performances", world records and similar thrills. Do you understand now the systemic flaw of self-regulation?

For every honest person in the anti-doping agency who genuinely tries to do his job, there are 100 people in the sports world who have a very real, vested interest to stop him, mislead him, foil his investigation. From athletes, coaches and doctors all the way to the board members of sports clubs and committees. Who look away and pretend they see no evil. Look away, and win billions from advertising, broadcasting fees, subsidies and tax returns (because "they promote sports"), and all sorts of bribes.

Why wouldn't they look away?

[pendell]

Not only doping kills people (heart attacks in healthy 25 year olds?)


I'm curious. Is doping more hazardous than those normally experienced by, say, American football players or by boxers? ISTR the phrase "punch drunk" comes from people who have suffered permanent brain damage from boxing related injuries.

Put me in the corner of "drop the ban" for the following reasons:

1) You would be amazed what risks people will run when their livelihood is at stake. Consider factories in China or the glow-in-the-dark lithium that gave the factory workers cancer.

I say that if people should have the right to risk their health in exchange for securing the financial future both of themselves and of their families. Whether that's going into a coal mine or taking dope for sports.

2) Yes, this means that only rich people could compete. But how is that different from the present? A poor person isn't going to be able to afford a great bike or the time to train. The days when a mechanic could just walk out of his garage and win the tour de france are long gone, if they ever existed. Sports have always been a luxury for the idle rich. Poor people work.

3) I would feel differently, perhaps, if cheating was reliably detected and punished by all offenders without exception or exemption. But when there are whole industries devoted to cheating, and when those charged with enforcing the rules will happily look the other way , then "make an example" while ignoring others out of favoritism or because they weren't paid off or whatever ... I think it's not working.

To my mind "Justice" and "fair dealing" start with honesty. When people are truthful about what they are doing and why they are doing. A society where whole industries spring up for the purpose of lying, where the enforcers are highly selective about what rules they will and will not enforce, is not and cannot be a just society. I claim that a society which legalized doping would be more just and more honest in the long run than a society where everyone is pretending or lying to some degree or other.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zdrak]

Two wrongs don't make a right, pendell. Just because someone in some corner of the world is suffering horribly, doesn't mean we should condone slightly less horrible suffering elsewhere.

[Wardog]

Let me guess, final step would be Soylent Green? :smallconfused:


Eew, no way.

I only want pure, Organic Soylent Green.

[Xondoure]

Eew, no way.

I only want pure, Organic Soylent Green.

Grass fed of course.

[pendell]

Two wrongs don't make a right, pendell.


Outside of theory, very rarely is there such a thing as one choice that is totally right and has no adverse consequences for anyone anywhere. Instead, it's a constant searching to maximize the amount of good in the world while minimizing the evil. This means that sometimes lesser evils must be condoned in order to achieve the greater good. I believe a foundation of honesty is a better building block for a just society than a foundation of lies and pretense. It's also the first step of escape from addictive behavior -- to squarely face what you are , and not what you pretend to be. I believe it works that way for societies as well.

I believe that openly acknowledging who is doping and why is a step towards better regulation and control of the sport than to foster entire industries which exist only to foster lying and deceit. That it is better for everyone to know what is going on and who is doing it than to randomly strike one offender down around thousands, often for reasons that are not arbitrary.

I would change my mind if doping could be reliably caught at the time of racing and that it was then punished without exception or exemption. But since this isn't happening and isn't likely to happen, I would rather simply allow people to tell the truth and focus my regulatory efforts on things that CAN be reliably enforced.

However, I should note that in fact I don't much care for any professional sport and so will not participate in this debate much longer. Probably better to leave the field to people who care about it, neh?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zdrak]

Your arguments are way off. Just because it can't be reliably caught in the act ... Neither can every tax evader be reliably caught in the act. Nor every person who snatches a purse from a lady on the street. That's no excuse to not even try to catch them.

[pendell]

Your arguments are way off. Just because it can't be reliably caught in the act ... Neither can every tax evader be reliably caught in the act. Nor every person who snatches a purse from a lady on the street. That's no excuse to not even try to catch them.

The tax code is outside forum scope. A pity, becuase there's much to say about it.

As towards purse-snatchers -- I started to right a long response but realized that was political too. So with respect to the forum rules, I will simplify my response thus: I do not equate doping with purse-snatching. The second is what happens when the strong abuse the weak, and that is something I can't stand. The first is when a person hurts himself, and I care much less about that. If one doper is faster than other dopers, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In that sense I see no societal value in fostering hypocrisy. Simply rewrite the rules to describe the sport as it is actually practiced, rather than as it is in a neverland where only Devas compete.

And ... this is the second time I've caught myself hitting the rules boundary so I'm going to stop now. I'll read your response , but I think it's time for me to stop talking now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zdrak]

If one doper is faster than other dopers, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In that sense I see no societal value in fostering hypocrisy.If a doper is faster than non-dopers, then he effectively steals money (prizes, endorsements) from them. Lance Armstrong, for all practical purposes, stole money from the purses of those cyclists who didn't take drugs. Not my purse, admittedly, but I don't think "hypocrisy" is the right term to use when speaking of protecting the rights of a person who happens to be not me. I'd use "honesty" in this context, but that's just me.

Also, I found it interesting that you brought up the coal mine analogy before, and I want to address it. Let's say a mine owner decides he can save big bucks by eliminating various safety systems in his mine, and as a result, up the salaries of his miners by, let's say, $0.10/hour.

And let's say his miners are a poor and financially-pressed bunch, and have no choice but to agree to an arragement that will, in the short term, put $0.10/hour in their pocket, and in the long term, ruin their health. Here's the thing you need to understand, their agreement still doesn't make it right. That's why we have regulatory agencies overseeing mine safety, and they shouldn't allow any such schenanigans. It should be legal to work in a coal mine, but it should be illegal to operate an unsafe mine that ruins its employees health - even for an additional fee. You can see where this analogy is going with respect to sports.

[Trixie]

Apart from the fact that "justice" hasn't been upheld by actually investigating it instead of just saying "He's busted". Also, if there are that many doped cyclists, why don't they crack down on more of them, if it's that big of a problem.

Really. Dozens of witnesses, all the evidence including Armstrong blood before he heard he needs to mask better, and his own testimony to his doctor are 'he's busted'? :smallconfused:

What would have convinced you, out of curiosity, written edict of the Pope? :smallsigh:


I'm curious. Is doping more hazardous than those normally experienced by, say, American football players or by boxers? ISTR the phrase "punch drunk" comes from people who have suffered permanent brain damage from boxing related injuries.

Comic explaining why these make no sense (http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20121029.gif) better than I can.


I say that if people should have the right to risk their health in exchange for securing the financial future both of themselves and of their families. Whether that's going into a coal mine or taking dope for sports.

To take your idea to logical finish - let's open company harvesting people's kidneys paying them a small sum, then sell the organs to the rich. It's just risking your health for profit, am I right?


2) Yes, this means that only rich people could compete. But how is that different from the present? A poor person isn't going to be able to afford a great bike or the time to train. The days when a mechanic could just walk out of his garage and win the tour de france are long gone, if they ever existed. Sports have always been a luxury for the idle rich. Poor people work.

Wrong. Young, working people are often the best fit. Take a look at Ronaldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiano_Ronaldo) - the most expensive player in the world. Born in poor family, his contract is worth €1 billion now. There are dozens like him in Latin America and Iberian leagues. Mario Balotelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balotelli), current hero of Italy, was homeless.

What? Some rich doping jerk taking their spot is victimless crime? Oh, yeah, though so :smallmad:


3) I would feel differently, perhaps, if cheating was reliably detected and punished by all offenders without exception or exemption. But when there are whole industries devoted to cheating, and when those charged with enforcing the rules will happily look the other way , then "make an example" while ignoring others out of favoritism or because they weren't paid off or whatever ... I think it's not working.

Point one way of life where all crimes are caught.

None? Oh well, time to disband law enforcement, it's not working.


To my mind "Justice" and "fair dealing" start with honesty. When people are truthful about what they are doing and why they are doing. A society where whole industries spring up for the purpose of lying, where the enforcers are highly selective about what rules they will and will not enforce, is not and cannot be a just society. I claim that a society which legalized doping would be more just and more honest in the long run than a society where everyone is pretending or lying to some degree or other.

And I claim society where rich can harvest kidneys and shoot everyone they like for a fee would be much more honest, too.

Take that one Saudi prince. He had compatible poor man elevated to his bodyguard and paid handsomely... With understanding that if Prince's heart, failing due to obesity, ever fails, he will serve as a spare. To that end, he ordered surgical rooms being added to his 747 plane and private yacht. Ideal future? :smallconfused:


The second is what happens when the strong abuse the weak, and that is something I can't stand. The first is when a person hurts himself, and I care much less about that. If one doper is faster than other dopers, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Ah, so all the clean cyclists are not victims.

Tell me, had you were looking for a job, and someone who outright lied about his education in his resume got it instead, would it be victimless crime, too? No legs are broken. No pockets picked.

[Talya]

Lance Armstrong successfully fought doping charges for so long, and they just never gave up, they went at it like a pitbull. They never had anything substantial, he was just the main target in a witchhunt.

A decade later, he just gave up and stopped fighting. He was never shown to have been doping, he just got sick of the constant battle.

To hell with the Tour de France. It's now a joke.

Anyway, it's sad that my first reaction to this thread title was, "Louis Armstrong died before I was born. What are you talking about?"

[warty goblin]

Ah, so all the clean cyclists are not victims.

Tell me, had you were looking for a job, and someone who outright lied about his education in his resume got it instead, would it be victimless crime, too? No legs are broken. No pockets picked.
Lying, except in very, very specific circumstances (usually involving hands, bibles and courts), at least in the US, is not a crime. You can put whatever crap you want on your CV/resume, and it's entirely down to the employer to check it's legit. They can almost certainly fire your ass if you get caught (I'd bet most employment contracts have this built in, and a lot of US employment is by mutual convenience so they can fire you for just about anything except race, religion or a couple other things), but the lie itself isn't a crime.

And in the case about lying over your education, I've never really been able to muster much excitement. Either the person can do the job or they can't. If they can, the education clearly is not a necessary condition for competence, so who cares? If they can't, they'll probably get canned pretty fast anyway and the job will go to somebody who can.

[Zdrak]

Lying, except in very, very specific circumstances (usually involving hands, bibles and courts), at least in the US, is not a crime. You can put whatever crap you want on your CV/resume, and it's entirely down to the employer to check it's legit. They can almost certainly fire your ass if you get caught (I'd bet most employment contracts have this built in, and a lot of US employment is by mutual convenience so they can fire you for just about anything except race, religion or a couple other things), but the lie itself isn't a crime.

And in the case about lying over your education, I've never really been able to muster much excitement. Either the person can do the job or they can't. If they can, the education clearly is not a necessary condition for competence, so who cares? If they can't, they'll probably get canned pretty fast anyway and the job will go to somebody who can.Musing over moral compass aside, you didn't actually answer the original question. For your convenience, I shall repeat it.

Had you were looking for a job, and someone else who lied in his resume got it instead of you, would it be victimless crime?

[Aedilred]

Lying, except in very, very specific circumstances (usually involving hands, bibles and courts), at least in the US, is not a crime. You can put whatever crap you want on your CV/resume, and it's entirely down to the employer to check it's legit. They can almost certainly fire your ass if you get caught (I'd bet most employment contracts have this built in, and a lot of US employment is by mutual convenience so they can fire you for just about anything except race, religion or a couple other things), but the lie itself isn't a crime.
It's not a crime, but it is a tort (fraudulent misrepresentation) and if it is discovered then your employer can legally take you to the cleaners regardless of your actual competence in the position. There is no defence of contributory negligence (in the UK at least) so it doesn't matter whether or not the employer bothered to check.

It would be enough to have you disbarred from any professional institution if they were so minded. Given that the distinction between tort and crime is often really a technical one, and fraud is a crime in itself, then depending on the facts, it's possible that misrepresentation in a job application could be found criminal.

I'll stop before I stray into the territory of giving legal advice (which I'm not qualified to do and which is against the rules in any case) but outright lying on your CV is to forfeit completely any moral or legal high ground and giving your prospective employer good cause to fire you at any point they discover it with no other reason required. You might even end up paying them for the privilege of the sacking.

[warty goblin]

Musing over moral compass aside, you didn't actually answer the original question. For your convenience, I shall repeat it.

Had you were looking for a job, and someone else who lied in his resume got it instead of you, would it be victimless crime?

Pedantically, if it's not a crime, it's not a victimless crime, rather by construction, no?

Ignoring that, sure I wouldn't be overjoyed about it, but so what? Just because something upsets me does not mean it should be illegal, or that anything actually wrong has occurred.. The employer is free to hire whomever they please, and that includes people who lie on their resume, or I dislike for any other reason. It's in no way my call to decide who is the best person for a company to hire, that's for the company to determine for themselves.

[Coidzor]

Pedantically, if it's not a crime, it's not a victimless crime, rather by construction, no?

It's no longer pedantic when it's a known and commonly used idiom, however. :smallconfused:

Edit: It feels like it's going somewhere above and beyond that.

[Trixie]

Lance Armstrong successfully fought doping charges for so long, and they just never gave up, they went at it like a pitbull. They never had anything substantial, he was just the main target in a witchhunt.

What. Massive file (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/10/lance-armstrong-usada-reasoned-decision-teammates-doping/1624551/) filled with evidence is "nothing substantial? :smallsigh:

Do read it, especially sworn testimonies, tests or Armstrong blood, evidence where and when he cheated - the report is available online. Fun fact never mentioned by Armstrong apologists, UCI (the organization that gave Armstrong titles) threatened USADA (pursuers) with lawsuit for overstepping bounds. Then, they got to read evidence, couldn't refute a single line of it and had to quietly withdraw both lawsuit and objections to taking lawful action, stripping titles without further prompts.

But I guess US agency somehow bribed Swiss one that hated their guts just before. Just like Armstrong did with his massive donations to UCI, eh? BTW, another fun fact - Armstrong outright lied about 600 blood tests he passed. USADA found 150-200, out of which 20% gave dubious results (rest was dodged due to his net of informers). UCI just didn't spoke against their rich donor and title holder.


A decade later, he just gave up and stopped fighting. He was never shown to have been doping, he just got sick of the constant battle.

Yeah, and the evidence is red herring. Let's release 95% of judged of any crime, in any of the world's prisons, because evidence in their cases was far less solid. Maybe 0.01% of cases gets thousands of pages of irrefutable evidence.


To hell with the Tour de France. It's now a joke.

It was a joke when someone "defending" himself by threatening wife of cyclist who decided to went clean with baseball bat and maiming held titles. Now, there is still hope for it, again.

Anyway, this is my last post here. You can throw literally a thousand pages of ironclad evidence into people's faces, point out where their idol lied and threatened people, show his blood full of drugs, they still won't bother to look and will go "innocent lily". I have said all that I could, no point of saying anything more :smallsigh:

[Acanous]

You totally didn't say anything more about the soylent green or eugenics programs based on results of athlete testing, though :< You're good at that!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Well, considering I had cancer (tongue cancer), then got into bicycle racing afterwards partially to get back in shape, and partially because of those yellow wristbands, I think I still will respect Lance Armstrong.

Yes, he probably doped. One (possibly) failed test, with thousands of pages of testimony from team mates who received substantially lesser punishments makes for a pretty convincing case. Against who remains to be seen.

The NGO that receives government money but does not have to follow Constitutionally approved guidelines?

The head of the UCI who said "Lance deserves to be forgotten," yet has no plans to return the $500,000 "donation" they received from the LA Foundation?

The fact that NO ONE will get the medals since EVERYONE who raced was doped? Read Bicycling Magazine some day. Everyone who came in second or third behind Lance also had doping convictions, or lawyers who kept the testers at bay just long enough.

There was a question earlier about job resumes... So let's play with that one as well: Your lies on your resume were beaten out by another guy's lies on his resume. Did he have an unfair advantage? Were you the victim of a victimless crime? Kind of gets into Kane and Lynch territory here, doesn't it? (Maybe not, never played that game. Read the reviews, and the online game of "shoot your buddy and grab his cash while running to the helicopter, while avoiding being shot by your "friends" as well" seemed kind of cool.)

Let's see more than Lance's head roll over this, then I'll believe the UCI is serious about cleaning up. Until then, I'm going to keep riding, and keep on wearing my LIVESTRONG sunglasses. You all can do whatever you want. :smallsigh:

[Killer Angel]

Anyway, this is my last post here. You can throw literally a thousand pages of ironclad evidence into people's faces, point out where their idol lied and threatened people, show his blood full of drugs, they still won't bother to look and will go "innocent lily". I have said all that I could, no point of saying anything more :smallsigh:

I thought that the fact that Armstrong made use of doping, was beyond doubts. Silly me.

Now, I'm wondering: 'til what point we choose to push the anti-doping fight? What is the limit to go back in time to revoke titles?
2 years? 5? 10? 20?
I know it's a matter of moral standing, but crimes lapse.

[Traab]

I thought that the fact that Armstrong made use of doping, was beyond doubts. Silly me.

Now, I'm wondering: 'til what point we choose to push the anti-doping fight? What is the limit to go back in time to revoke titles?
2 years? 5? 10? 20?
I know it's a matter of moral standing, but crimes lapse.

Yeah but this isnt a court of law, its the equivalent of whatever the heck the name of the council is that covers violations in the nba punishing someone who they finally caught doing drugs or betting on his own games right? I dont think that gets covered by the statute of limitations. If we found proof that michael jordan had tiny trampolines in his shoes at every game that let him do so well, im sure all his records would get targeted as well.

[Socratov]

Well, i agree with Talya that one thing that is iffy is the fact that when the agency loses a lawsuit for doping, they can just retry until they get bored. lance has been engaged in a legal fight for years on end. After some time you just don't care anymore and that's what struck me in his press conference: he basically sat there with an attitude of "I don't care anymore", "I'm sich of this ****", "let's get this over with and it will soon be over". think of it what you want but that doesn't strike me as someone guilty, or innocent, but as someone who just gives up, whatever happened.

yes doping is bad (inherently, unless everyone uses, then it's a test of constitution and endurance). But staging something the world has not seen since the Spanish Inquisition is equally bad IMO.

[Xondoure]

Well, i agree with Talya that one thing that is iffy is the fact that when the agency loses a lawsuit for doping, they can just retry until they get bored. lance has been engaged in a legal fight for years on end. After some time you just don't care anymore and that's what struck me in his press conference: he basically sat there with an attitude of "I don't care anymore", "I'm sich of this ****", "let's get this over with and it will soon be over". think of it what you want but that doesn't strike me as someone guilty, or innocent, but as someone who just gives up, whatever happened.

yes doping is bad (inherently, unless everyone uses, then it's a test of constitution and endurance). But staging something the world has not seen since the Spanish Inquisition is equally bad IMO.

The man who fought off cancer that had invaded the majority of his body, and won the tour de france continuously, has given up in the face of lawyers. This world huh?

[Killer Angel]

Do you want some additional fun (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/49672994/ns/sports/) on cycling's world? :smallsigh:

[Socratov]

The man who fought off cancer that had invaded the majority of his body, and one the tour de france continuously, has given up in the face of lawyers. This world huh?

well, it fully comforts me in making the right conclusion of believing all lawyers are LE and shoudl be treated accordingly.

[Aedilred]

well, it fully comforts me in making the right conclusion of believing all lawyers are LE and shoudl be treated accordingly.
Barristers are LN, with the odd exception. In fact, they're pretty much required to be. Solicitors, on the other hand... I'm not even sure about the "L" part. :smalltongue:

[Chen]

Well, i agree with Talya that one thing that is iffy is the fact that when the agency loses a lawsuit for doping, they can just retry until they get bored. lance has been engaged in a legal fight for years on end. After some time you just don't care anymore and that's what struck me in his press conference: he basically sat there with an attitude of "I don't care anymore", "I'm sich of this ****", "let's get this over with and it will soon be over". think of it what you want but that doesn't strike me as someone guilty, or innocent, but as someone who just gives up, whatever happened.

The giving up part does not necessarily mean he is guilty as you said. It could mean he's just tired of it.

Of course, all the evidence they presented, that definitely points more towards him being guilty than not. And its the evidence that should be considered, not our random speculation on why he's doing things.

[Talya]

The giving up part does not necessarily mean he is guilty as you said. It could mean he's just tired of it.

Of course, all the evidence they presented, that definitely points more towards him being guilty than not. And its the evidence that should be considered, not our random speculation on why he's doing things.

There's no new evidence. It's all evidence that they've failed to get him with before. If he kept fighting it, they'd probably fail again. But they've shown they'll just keep trying...

[Zdrak]

The giving up part doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. The mounds of evidence - the test results, the multiple detailed eyewitness reports, these do mean he's guilty.

[Joran]

There's no new evidence. It's all evidence that they've failed to get him with before. If he kept fighting it, they'd probably fail again. But they've shown they'll just keep trying...

The new evidence for me is the sworn testimony of basically everyone on his team, including George Hincapie, saying that the entire team was doping and Lance Armstrong was the head ringmaster of it.

So, it simply beggars belief that Lance Armstrong was the only clean rider in a sport absolutely awash in doping and that every team member of his were bribed or intimidated into lying about him.

There's a point where the mountain of evidence simply outweighs any plausible defense and I think we've reached that point with Lance Armstrong. His corporate sponsors, who have stuck by him for this long, also seem to believe so.

[Zrak]

yes doping is bad (inherently, unless everyone uses, then it's a test of constitution and endurance). But staging something the world has not seen since the Spanish Inquisition is equally bad IMO.

I know, man. Anti-doping makes Stalinist purges look like a walk in the park.


The man who fought off cancer that had invaded the majority of his body, and won the tour de france continuously, has given up in the face of lawyers. This world huh?

The guy who was really good at riding a bicycle, in part because he cheated at it, lost a battle of wits and determination against people who dedicated the energy he put into cycling to intellectual pursuits. It's almost as much of a shame as when the nerdy kid who goes to college and graduate school ends up making more money than some kid who was a football star and then worked at McDonald's.
Getting a disease and having the fortune/fortitude to live through it doesn't make someone a good or noble. I don't understand the attitude that, on account of having had cancer, he is automatically the righteous champion, hounded by the jealous dogs who would wrongly cast down his glory. He's basically built up this whole cult of personality around his cancer which, honestly, kind of offends me.

[Xondoure]

I know, man. Anti-doping makes Stalinist purges look like a walk in the park.

The guy who was really good at riding a bicycle, in part because he cheated at it, lost a battle of wits and determination against people who dedicated the energy he put into cycling to intellectual pursuits. It's almost as much of a shame as when the nerdy kid who goes to college and graduate school ends up making more money than some kid who was a football star and then worked at McDonald's.
Getting a disease and having the fortune/fortitude to live through it doesn't make someone a good or noble. I don't understand the attitude that, on account of having had cancer, he is automatically the righteous champion, hounded by the jealous dogs who would wrongly cast down his glory. He's basically built up this whole cult of personality around his cancer which, honestly, kind of offends me.

Oh I'm rather convinced he cheated. I just find the irony delicious. :smalltongue:

[Zrak]

Haha, fair enough.

[Karoht]

I'm just reading up on the wiki article now.
Yes, I know, it's wiki, I take it with a grain of salt for now.

An interesting thing to note, is that he did take drugs, but not drugs on the list of banned substances.
It is also interesting to note that, due to chemotherapy being involved, steroids of some form as standard procedure.
It is also interesting to note that Armstrong bought himself $100K in blood testing equipment, documentation supports this finding.

As for the court cases, most of them were Libel cases, which discusses slander and the ramifications thereof, moreso than investigating if the findings are actually true or untrue. I could see a good Lawyer succeeding in 'defeating the evidence' in such a matter if the evidence was hardly in question, and the statements made by the accuser was the bulk of the case.

I think a very silly move on Mr Armstrong's part was his choice of coach. Michele Ferrari was a name synonomous with cheating already, one could make the arguement that you don't hook up with a cheater unless you intend to either be branded the same, or help someone turn over a new leaf. He then tried to lie about it, but records show Mr Armstrong paying Ferrari for his services. Um, okay, even if Mr Armstrong wasn't cheating, why lie and cause even more suspicion? That's a very silly move to make.

========
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to make of it, just going by what stated evidence I've read from wiki. Combined with a suspicion of bias from wiki (I assume that with just about all wiki articles), the outsider perspective on the whole story seems murky at best. I want to believe that Lance Armstrong is and was every bit the man the newsreels made him out to be prior to having his titles stripped from him. But I have sincere doubts now about what kind of man he really was all along.
I wonder what the options are, scientifically, to investigate the matter further?