AUSTIN, Texas—U.S. Anti-Doping Agency chief executive Travis Tygart says the agency will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles for doping.
Armstrong on Thursday night dropped any further challenges to USADA's allegations that he took performance-enhancing drugs to win cycling's premier event from 1999 to 2005.
.... wait, from what I read in the article, Armstrong is found guilty because he finally gave up defending himself, and that the only (potentially) lab finding of him doping was 2009-2010?
The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.
... I'm perfectly fine with the guy being stripped of his titles, but with only lab tests from 2009-2010, why is his 1999 win also on the line? He cheated in 2009-2010, therefore he cheated in all the rest? Something along those lines?
The entire thing puts into my mind a guy being hounded for over a decade, then he goes "I don't want to fight anymore!", then "aha! so you admit you're guilty!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Wow this is pretty crazy. I haven't been keep up with this but he is one of the most celebrated athletes of all time. Did this start back in 2009? If not, why did it take so long to come out?
Armstrong is apparently still denying the charges, he's just refusing to contest the allegations.
From what the article says, it seems that Armstrong has not, in fact, been found guilty of anything yet, nor stripped of his titles.
Indeed, there seems to be disagreement amongst other cycling organizations as to whether or not the USADA even has jurisdiction over this. So this whole ordeal seems like both a complete debacle, and far from over.
Personally this simply looks like a gigantic witch hunt by an organization that was created to deal with doping allegations for the olympics (from what I read), and thusly would have no say whatsoever on removing his 7 tour de france wins. With no real proof that he was doping when he won those titles, Im not about to believe anything that organization comes up with.
I will continue to believe that he is innocent until they can actually prove without a shadow of doubt that he actually did do it.
Its also telling that every other group and organiztion would appear to be on his side.
.... wait, from what I read in the article, Armstrong is found guilty because he finally gave up defending himself, and that the only (potentially) lab finding of him doping was 2009-2010?
Pretty much, but think of it this way: if I am charged with committing a crime on a regular basis to the point where I state, "No contest," regardless of whether I am guilty or innocent, I have agreed to not contest the charges.
... I'm perfectly fine with the guy being stripped of his titles, but with only lab tests from 2009-2010, why is his 1999 win also on the line? He cheated in 2009-2010, therefore he cheated in all the rest? Something along those lines?
I was talking with a friend about this, and she thinks it's more of making an example of Lance Armstrong. Cheat and not only is his future of cycling over, but his history is unraveled as well. Dunno the accuracy of the insight, but it makes some sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Pretty much, but think of it this way: if I am charged with committing a crime on a regular basis to the point where I state, "No contest," regardless of whether I am guilty or innocent, I have agreed to not contest the charges.
Yeah, but it's bludgeoning someone with lawyers and procedure, not finding evidence. It's illegitimate and an abuse of power that's been going on for YEARS and they've never had evidence to support their claims.
I was talking with a friend about this, and she thinks it's more of making an example of Lance Armstrong. Cheat and not only is his future of cycling over, but his history is unraveled as well. Dunno the accuracy of the insight, but it makes some sense.
Making an example of someone has its time and place, but it's appalling to go after someone without evidence. It's like accusing someone of theft for 15 years, and when they finally stop saying "No, I didn't do that" every time you take them to court, you get to declare that they're officially a criminal.
If the USADA system had double jeopardy, they couldn't touch Armstrong because they have never actually been able to build a case against him. They've just been implementing disciplinary procedures while hundreds of drug tests turned up negative.
As a cyclist, I have to say that this is a sad day for me.
Every winner of any Tour is accused if not suspicious of doping. Plain and simple as that. Why? Cycling is hard, and even the best of the best feel like doping is a necessity in order to perform to their fullest and win, which is sad but true as well.
Lance is a special case. The guy is a cancer survivor, and his body has been pumped with the chemicals used for chemotherapy, and it is harsh and very painful. People seldom speculate that these chemicals could have altered his body physically to perform better without having to dope, which is probable, but it definitely altered him psychologically. As a cancer survivor, keyword is survivor, he had his "win at all costs" mentality that pushed him to be the champion he is.
The way I see it is that the USADA was on witch-hunt fueled purely on doubt and empty evidence. Their disbelief of a man being able to win without doping is what put him on the stake. They claim to have previous team mates ready to testify that he has doped before, yet all of his tests show up negative for any illegal substances such as steroids or the harder-to-detect blood boosting. What surprised me this time is that Lance actually gave up on something, even though it is completely understandable why he did so. He's getting old, and he's built a foundation that deserves more of his time and effort instead of having him spend it fighting an impossible case of fingers pointed at him.
Lance is always going to be a seven-time tour winner to the world of cycling, heck, he's the most inspirational figure to me so far and there is nothing any organization can do to strip him of the respect of the cycling world. The only thing wrong is that the USADA has that capability to officially strip and ban cyclists, even though that power should strictly be limited to the UCI.
But who ultimately knows. Without proof, I will not convict Lance Armstrong, and as far as the issue of whether he "officially" has those tour wins, I could not give a crap either way.
Armstrong raised $470 million for cancer research, started the "live strong" band thing that has been used to raise billions worldwide for everything from breast cancer to stopping bullies to AIDS research.
The idea that he may have cheated to win some sports contests is very small potatoes to me. It's not a felony in any jurisdiction that I care about
.
On the "moral wrongs" scale, cheating to win a sports event falls way, way below... Drunk driving.
First, I think his story is at least plausible. They have been hounding him for a decade. That has to have been taking a toll on him and on his family and at some point you have to wonder if it's worth continuing to defend your reputation at the expense of your family.
I don't know that he was innocent or guilty, but having seen no evidence, I presume innocent.
Second, the idea of a vacated title is ridiculous. You can't just pretend that didn't happen. You can't just pretend the second best biker in the world was the best. You can't just revise history like that. Those are Lance Armstrong's titles with an asterisk, not "Nobody won this year" titles.
It's like the MLB hall of fame. The HOF for the steroid era is going to exclude nearly all of the great players of that era. If you go look through it, it's going to present a picture of baseball that is NOTHING LIKE what we will all remember.
Just as a side note. What bothers me about this and other things, is how a government-backed agency basically has the ability to outlast anyone. They can hire as many people as it takes, they can spend as much money as it takes, and they can continue through the process until the other person eithor gives up, drops dead of old age, or they find some miniscule amount of evidence for which to "nail" the person for and claim it a win. Normal situations where they have irrefutable evidence, it gets submitted, and after an appeal or two, they are convicted is fine. When they basically sit back and bludgeon someone to death in such a situation as this till the person finally gives up, its just sad, and certainly bothers me that the government or a government agency or entity would be able to go to those lengths with so little real evidence (at least that was actually brought forth and submitted). Imagine a normal citizen that doesnt have the time/money/otherwise to be able to put forth a proper counter-defense against such an agency, I certainly wouldnt want to be that person, because innocent or guilty it may simply not matter in the end which is sad and shouldnt be how it works.
Normally Im on the side of the justice system, but agencies that overstep arent something I can believe in.
Reading through various discussions on the topic, I came up with this:
"The USADA is not a court of law. Therefore, it isn't held to the same standards with regards to evidence and double jeopardy. Stop asking for evidence."
How valid of an argument is this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Reading through various discussions on the topic, I came up with this:
"The USADA is not a court of law. Therefore, it isn't held to the same standards with regards to evidence and double jeopardy. Stop asking for evidence."
How valid of an argument is this?
Valid in saying they haven't broken any rules, but makes it even more suspicious...
If they don't give evidence, they can't expect everyone to believe them. Right now they just kinda look like jerks who had it in for him.
Reading through various discussions on the topic, I came up with this:
"The USADA is not a court of law. Therefore, it isn't held to the same standards with regards to evidence and double jeopardy. Stop asking for evidence."
How valid of an argument is this?
It's certainly troubling that the government could set up an agency with quasi-juridicial powers but none of our common legal protections, but then, if it's true, they have a point that such is the nature of the proceeding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This reminds me of an extortion case, or a patent troll type case to be honest.
I'm half expecting Armstrong to be fined a few million with the condition that if he pays they'll stop hounding him.
Seriously, how is it that he's had to defend the same case repeatedly? Shouldn't they have stopped after they lost?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Reminds me of a future question on Jeopardy, I just really don't care about sports. I expect within the next 10 years he'll have an autobiography, especially after his death and if that provides a political analysis to this he may very well post mortum have them given back to him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The one thing that comes off as strange is that Lance Armstrong only has one announced positive drug test, which was for a cortosteroid that was in an approved cream for treating saddle sores and the level detected was below what would have been considered a "positive" test at the time. That's it. So if all these other cyclists kept coming up dirty and failing drug tests, assuming that Lance Armstrong doped with them, how was Lance Armstrong able to dope so much more effectively that his competitors, when he is the most scrutinized cyclist in history. If Lance Armstrong doped for EPO, it would make sense to announce that... immediately as it has been done in every other doping case?
However it is important to note that Lance Armstrong's argument about the cyclists claiming he doped were doing it to get lighter bans for doping, one of the people claiming Lance Armstrong doped, Tyler Hamilton, banned now twice for doping, lost his 2004 Gold Medal, because he admitted to doping before the 2004 Games when "testifying" against Lance Armstrong. Granted people already knew that he doped during the 2004 Olympic Games because his A sample came back positive, however his B sample was accidentally frozen and cannot be tested to verify an A sample.
The one thing that comes off as strange is that Lance Armstrong only has one announced positive drug test, which was for a cortosteroid that was in an approved cream for treating saddle sores and the level detected was below what would have been considered a "positive" test at the time. That's it. So if all these other cyclists kept coming up dirty and failing drug tests, assuming that Lance Armstrong doped with them, how was Lance Armstrong able to dope so much more effectively that his competitors, when he is the most scrutinized cyclist in history. If Lance Armstrong doped for EPO, it would make sense to announce that... immediately as it has been done in every other doping case?
However it is important to note that Lance Armstrong's argument about the cyclists claiming he doped were doing it to get lighter bans for doping, one of the people claiming Lance Armstrong doped, Tyler Hamilton, banned now twice for doping, lost his 2004 Gold Medal, because he admitted to doping before the 2004 Games when "testifying" against Lance Armstrong. Granted people already knew that he doped during the 2004 Olympic Games because his A sample came back positive, however his B sample was accidentally frozen and cannot be tested to verify an A sample.
Exactly someone in that organization holds a grudge against the dominance in the sport that Lance Armstrong has shown.
I think its a well known fact that Lance has some powerful enemies by winning more titles in cycling then basically anyone ever has. This is a witch hunt that hopes to discredit one of the greatest athletes of all time. I find it very peculiar that this organization is a non-profit non-governmental based organization but yet has the gall to put United States in their title to come off far more official.
I sure as heck wouldn't call my organization hypothetically United States blah blah blah if I was not tied to the government in any way shape or form. I sincerely hope someone does some deep investigation into this organization and puts them under the same damn scrutiny that Lance Armstrong has faced from them.
If he doped, it wasn't more so than his competitors. Cycling is pretty notorious for it. There's a chance he doped in recent years, but I don't see how that should vacate his past wins, given that he turned up clean for over a decade.
The important to keep in mind is this: Even though Barry Bonds only failed one drug test for amphetamines, he never tested positive for steroids. However it has been proven that he did in fact use Steroids through evidence with the BALCO investigation. No such organization or evidence of equipment for drugs or blood boosting has ever turned up despite people trying to connect him to drugs and EPO even before his first retirement after his last Tour De France title.
I think it would be asinine to think that Lance Armstrong never doped. However I'm of the opinion he did it in the very early 90's when the drug testing was kind of a joke. The sheer amount of training necessary to come back from the effects of Chemo are not a joke. I've seen what it does to people. However once he was on that insane training regime, and nothing else to do while recovering, is really out of the realm of human possibility that he came back in better shape than before he was diagnosed with cancer. Not to mention, who knows how long he had cancer before diagnosis and how that affected his physical body.
Out of curiosity: Let's poll here, who thinks Lance Armstrong was doping and who thinks he wasn't?
I'd be surprised if he didn't, even if were just EPO.
Of course, whether he did or not is not the same as being _caught_ or being proven that he did, or as one poster above said, "used as an example." Being punished for something he _might_ have done is pretty shady.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
thoughts? Justice?
Or a big mistake?
... I'm perfectly fine with the guy being stripped of his titles, but with only lab tests from 2009-2010, why is his 1999 win also on the line? He cheated in 2009-2010, therefore he cheated in all the rest? Something along those lines?
The entire thing puts into my mind a guy being hounded for over a decade, then he goes "I don't want to fight anymore!", then "aha! so you admit you're guilty!"
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Armstrong is apparently still denying the charges, he's just refusing to contest the allegations.
From what the article says, it seems that Armstrong has not, in fact, been found guilty of anything yet, nor stripped of his titles.
Indeed, there seems to be disagreement amongst other cycling organizations as to whether or not the USADA even has jurisdiction over this. So this whole ordeal seems like both a complete debacle, and far from over.
I will continue to believe that he is innocent until they can actually prove without a shadow of doubt that he actually did do it.
Its also telling that every other group and organiztion would appear to be on his side.
It's pretty much the same thing as when they took away the medals from Jim Thorpe.
I was talking with a friend about this, and she thinks it's more of making an example of Lance Armstrong. Cheat and not only is his future of cycling over, but his history is unraveled as well. Dunno the accuracy of the insight, but it makes some sense.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Yeah, but it's bludgeoning someone with lawyers and procedure, not finding evidence. It's illegitimate and an abuse of power that's been going on for YEARS and they've never had evidence to support their claims.
Making an example of someone has its time and place, but it's appalling to go after someone without evidence. It's like accusing someone of theft for 15 years, and when they finally stop saying "No, I didn't do that" every time you take them to court, you get to declare that they're officially a criminal.
If the USADA system had double jeopardy, they couldn't touch Armstrong because they have never actually been able to build a case against him. They've just been implementing disciplinary procedures while hundreds of drug tests turned up negative.
Every winner of any Tour is accused if not suspicious of doping. Plain and simple as that. Why? Cycling is hard, and even the best of the best feel like doping is a necessity in order to perform to their fullest and win, which is sad but true as well.
Lance is a special case. The guy is a cancer survivor, and his body has been pumped with the chemicals used for chemotherapy, and it is harsh and very painful. People seldom speculate that these chemicals could have altered his body physically to perform better without having to dope, which is probable, but it definitely altered him psychologically. As a cancer survivor, keyword is survivor, he had his "win at all costs" mentality that pushed him to be the champion he is.
The way I see it is that the USADA was on witch-hunt fueled purely on doubt and empty evidence. Their disbelief of a man being able to win without doping is what put him on the stake. They claim to have previous team mates ready to testify that he has doped before, yet all of his tests show up negative for any illegal substances such as steroids or the harder-to-detect blood boosting. What surprised me this time is that Lance actually gave up on something, even though it is completely understandable why he did so. He's getting old, and he's built a foundation that deserves more of his time and effort instead of having him spend it fighting an impossible case of fingers pointed at him.
Lance is always going to be a seven-time tour winner to the world of cycling, heck, he's the most inspirational figure to me so far and there is nothing any organization can do to strip him of the respect of the cycling world. The only thing wrong is that the USADA has that capability to officially strip and ban cyclists, even though that power should strictly be limited to the UCI.
But who ultimately knows. Without proof, I will not convict Lance Armstrong, and as far as the issue of whether he "officially" has those tour wins, I could not give a crap either way.
Armstrong raised $470 million for cancer research, started the "live strong" band thing that has been used to raise billions worldwide for everything from breast cancer to stopping bullies to AIDS research.
The idea that he may have cheated to win some sports contests is very small potatoes to me. It's not a felony in any jurisdiction that I care about
.
On the "moral wrongs" scale, cheating to win a sports event falls way, way below... Drunk driving.
I don't know that he was innocent or guilty, but having seen no evidence, I presume innocent.
Second, the idea of a vacated title is ridiculous. You can't just pretend that didn't happen. You can't just pretend the second best biker in the world was the best. You can't just revise history like that. Those are Lance Armstrong's titles with an asterisk, not "Nobody won this year" titles.
It's like the MLB hall of fame. The HOF for the steroid era is going to exclude nearly all of the great players of that era. If you go look through it, it's going to present a picture of baseball that is NOTHING LIKE what we will all remember.
Normally Im on the side of the justice system, but agencies that overstep arent something I can believe in.
"The USADA is not a court of law. Therefore, it isn't held to the same standards with regards to evidence and double jeopardy. Stop asking for evidence."
How valid of an argument is this?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Valid in saying they haven't broken any rules, but makes it even more suspicious...
If they don't give evidence, they can't expect everyone to believe them. Right now they just kinda look like jerks who had it in for him.
It's certainly troubling that the government could set up an agency with quasi-juridicial powers but none of our common legal protections, but then, if it's true, they have a point that such is the nature of the proceeding.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I'm half expecting Armstrong to be fined a few million with the condition that if he pays they'll stop hounding him.
Seriously, how is it that he's had to defend the same case repeatedly? Shouldn't they have stopped after they lost?
Art is life itself.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
However it is important to note that Lance Armstrong's argument about the cyclists claiming he doped were doing it to get lighter bans for doping, one of the people claiming Lance Armstrong doped, Tyler Hamilton, banned now twice for doping, lost his 2004 Gold Medal, because he admitted to doping before the 2004 Games when "testifying" against Lance Armstrong. Granted people already knew that he doped during the 2004 Olympic Games because his A sample came back positive, however his B sample was accidentally frozen and cannot be tested to verify an A sample.
Hire some bozos to "clean up" the sport in order to perpetuate this illusion.
Exactly someone in that organization holds a grudge against the dominance in the sport that Lance Armstrong has shown.
I think its a well known fact that Lance has some powerful enemies by winning more titles in cycling then basically anyone ever has. This is a witch hunt that hopes to discredit one of the greatest athletes of all time. I find it very peculiar that this organization is a non-profit non-governmental based organization but yet has the gall to put United States in their title to come off far more official.
I sure as heck wouldn't call my organization hypothetically United States blah blah blah if I was not tied to the government in any way shape or form. I sincerely hope someone does some deep investigation into this organization and puts them under the same damn scrutiny that Lance Armstrong has faced from them.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
I think it would be asinine to think that Lance Armstrong never doped. However I'm of the opinion he did it in the very early 90's when the drug testing was kind of a joke. The sheer amount of training necessary to come back from the effects of Chemo are not a joke. I've seen what it does to people. However once he was on that insane training regime, and nothing else to do while recovering, is really out of the realm of human possibility that he came back in better shape than before he was diagnosed with cancer. Not to mention, who knows how long he had cancer before diagnosis and how that affected his physical body.
I'd be surprised if he didn't, even if were just EPO.
Of course, whether he did or not is not the same as being _caught_ or being proven that he did, or as one poster above said, "used as an example." Being punished for something he _might_ have done is pretty shady.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn