there seems to be a clear divide in this thread. Those who understand what doping is, and those who don't. Doping is generally not the use of chemicals to enhance performance, though there are some, such as EPO, that produce similar effects.
Blood doping is the injection of separated and concentrated red blood cells prior to a competition. In many cases the red blood cells are collected prior to the event from the athlete that is doping with them and stored. These guys aren't juicing on steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, they are manipulating the concentration of red blood cells in their cardiovascular system to allow their blood to carry more oxygen. naturally this sort of thing is extremely tricky to test for, unless you have have a baseline for the athlete in question as far as the concentration of red blood cells they normally have to compare a race day blood sample to. Compound this difficulty with the fact that things such as diet, stress level, and activity level can alter this baseline reading.
Now it should seems a little more clear why this is not a cut and dry, "did he take the drugs or not?" type of situation for those that misunderstood the accusation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The smallest seed of regret can bloom into redemption."
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.
I'm not saying otherwise.
However, my question is whether or not people believe he did or didn't dope. This wouldn't make any difference in any fair investigation, but if the prevailing opinion is that he did, then I feel that's noteworthy.
there seems to be a clear divide in this thread. Those who understand what doping is, and those who don't. Doping is generally not the use of chemicals to enhance performance, though there are some, such as EPO, that produce similar effects.
Blood doping is the injection of separated and concentrated red blood cells prior to a competition. In many cases the red blood cells are collected prior to the event from the athlete that is doping with them and stored. These guys aren't juicing on steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, they are manipulating the concentration of red blood cells in their cardiovascular system to allow their blood to carry more oxygen. naturally this sort of thing is extremely tricky to test for, unless you have have a baseline for the athlete in question as far as the concentration of red blood cells they normally have to compare a race day blood sample to. Compound this difficulty with the fact that things such as diet, stress level, and activity level can alter this baseline reading.
Now it should seems a little more clear why this is not a cut and dry, "did he take the drugs or not?" type of situation for those that misunderstood the accusation.
Is this what Lance Armstrong is being accused of? Or is it the use of chemicals?
The use of performance-enhancing drugs in human sport is commonly referred to as doping,[1] particularly by those organizations that regulate competitions. Another similar use of medical technology is called blood doping, either by blood transfusion or use of the hormone erythropoietin (EPO).
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
Ok. That's what wikipedia says...but do you really think that if he was doping using banned chemicals, he would be so hard to pin this on? Yes there are many performance enhancing drugs, but the point is these are professional athletes that are subject to regular and thorough drug screening. Anything they are doing is designed to be untracable. Even if there was some miracle drug out there that halve your time in the race but it was detectable, no one would use it. In this particular case, the issue at hand that they are trying to get him for is blood doping. The only stuff that athletes abuse at this level is either completely naturally occuring in the human body or so next generation that there isn't even a test for it. The latter while possible is probably not as common as you would think considering the fact that if it's that bleeding edge of a technology, the effects probably aren't very well understood yet. I'm just trying to be helpful here because I'm seeing a lot of talk flying around about steroids and the whole MLB scandal and while these things share many ethical dilemmas, there are differences and they are not identical issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The smallest seed of regret can bloom into redemption."
@mondu: I think it is fairly clear that Duke was specifically referring to doping in the context of this sport, not all sports.
Also, I don't think Armstrong did it. Mostly, I just don't think he could have gotten away with it for that long. And the fact that the USADA is trying to strip him of his titles etc. without ever actually having gotten a positive test against him(at least, it is my understanding that they didn't) is completely awful.
In the end though, I don't think it will really matter. The titles aren't that relevant. The USADA just wanted to make itself look more important than it really is by going after the biggest name in cycling. But all they really accomplished was to make everyone hate them, and ultimately I suspect that the sport will lose a fair bit of it's already small fan-base over this.
The issue is not just whether he cheated. The question is also what is a reasonable level of personal harrassment and scrutiny an individual's results should be subject to.
Regardless if whether he is guilty or innocent, individuals other than LancArmstrong do not have infinite resources to fight something like this decades long witch hunt.
Since we speak of accountability and public trust for the "sanctity" of "pure sport", there must be some kind of accountability and limitation in the power of persecution. I personal vendettas can be pursued like this based on carte Blanche police powers that have no time limit and no limit of scope, what is to stop them from going after the top black athlete or the top gay athlete or just the athlete who displeases them personally?
It's not just a matter of "he probably cheated" so therefore the persecutors are vindicated. If Over half the field is doing a SIMILAR or WORSE thing, then it becomes a SELECTIVELY enforced rule. Sure they punish when they publicly announce doping cases, but it's SELECTIVELY investigated.
It's picking one athlete you despise for whatever reasons and trying to take them down and subjecting them to separate rules. "Fair" my ass.
1) Given that the USADA isn't the governing body of cycling, what makes them think they have the ability to strip Lance Armstrong of his titles?
2) Why does the US government have an entire agency dedicated to determining who is "cheating" in sports? Every sport that cares about cheating has a governing body, and has the resources to self regulate. This is the epitome of waste.
No, Lance Armstrong has not had his titles revoked, and will not unless/until the organizers of the Tour de France strip them.
As for whether he actually doped? I have no clue... nor do I care.
It's not just a matter of "he probably cheated" so therefore the persecutors are vindicated. If Over half the field is doing a SIMILAR or WORSE thing, then it becomes a SELECTIVELY enforced rule. Sure they punish when they publicly announce doping cases, but it's SELECTIVELY investigated.
Wait, hang on here.
First of all, the willingness to go after their most legendary player is a damn sight better than, say, the organizations governing baseball or college football who won't touch their all-star players for fear of making less money.
Second, to say Lance Armstrong is high profile is an understatement. It's not like he's an obscure player, he's their biggest star and has set incredible achievements in the sport. Whether or not you regard this as a justified investigation or a vindictive witch hunt, if Lance Armstrong were doping, he is exactly the person they should go after even if the sport is dominated by drug abuse. It would send a message, and removes the false titles earned by someone who has made a mockery of the sport and of his status as a hero.
@highroller: The issue is PROCESS. You can't just go "Hmmmm... I think I'll go retest Lance's urine for more crap today. Because I want to, and I have so many of his urine samples, we have the ability to check as often as we like. For decades. No statute of limitations on it.
That's just a witch hunt.
"Mockery of his sport"? Please, don't get too pompous. When virtually everybody dopes, and its barely enforced and becomes the standard for the level playing field, how is Lance Armstrong making "mockery" of his sport?
He was successful playing on the same level field as all the other top cyclists, and in the meanwhile, he helped millions of cancer victims, and raised great amounts of money.
He did not do this by sucking the blood of babies he aborted.
He did not do this by bearing false witness to put innocent people in prison.
He MAY have done all this good in the world by breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules.
"Mockery of the sport?"
Do you think that people who were inspired and gave money to cancer research want their money back now that they think Armstrong may have cheated at racing to win?
He's a HERO because he came back from cancer and potential death raced at that level.
He may be FAMOUS because he won those tour de frances... but that has nothing to do with why he is a hero. Lance Armstrong is historically more relevant than the entire world professional bicycling sport.
"Mockery of the sport"? Get over yourself, yeesh. Before Lance Armstrong, nobody outside of hardcore bicycling fans and Frenchmen gave a **** about the Tour De France.
"Mockery of his sport"? Please, don't get too pompous. When virtually everybody dopes, and its barely enforced and becomes the standard for the level playing field, how is Lance Armstrong making "mockery" of his sport?
Because Lance Armstrong is not merely an athlete, he's an icon.
Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
But in this case, it's not about something irrelevant to the man's career as an athlete. Were Lance Armstrong doping, this would mean that his success was achieved by cheating and lying. That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful by any measure.
The fact that others were also cheating and lying should not be an excuse for breaking the rules.
The fact that Lance Armstrong is a celebrity should not be an excuse for making him exempt from the rules.
In fact, it is justified that they would first scrutinize their most high-profile player, because he is globally associated with US cycling and excellence in cycling in general.
He MAY have done all this good in the world by breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules.
Maybe.
However, no oversight committee in any sport should ever make it their policy to condone cheating and lying by its players. The entire point of having those committees in the first place is to ensure fairness and integrity within the sport.
Now, if you feel that the oversight committee in question is doing a generally terrible job of imposing fairness and integrity within a sport, that's a fair criticism. If you think they are showing unfair prejudice against Lance Armstrong, that is also a fair criticism.
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
He may be FAMOUS because he won those tour de frances... but that has nothing to do with why he is a hero.
I do not wish to diminish Lance Armstrong's victory over cancer. Nor, and this is why I italicized some qualifying statements, do I have any position on whether or not he doped. I don't know enough to form an opinion on the matter.
But to say that Lance Armstrong being a hero has nothing to do with his victories in the Tour de Frances is overstepping greatly. Lance Armstrong is indeed seen as a hero because he overcame cancer to compete in a professional sport.
However, the man is a legend because he was able to achieve more consecutive victories in the Tour de Frances than anyone else even despite being diagnosed with three forms of cancer. And part of that is absolutely the belief that those races were won fairly.
"Mockery of the sport"? Get over yourself, yeesh. Before Lance Armstrong, nobody outside of hardcore bicycling fans and Frenchmen gave a **** about the Tour De France.
I should sincerely hope you're not arguing that man's celebrity status makes him exempt from the rules.
"He MAY have done all this good in the world WHILE breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules."
His "heroism" stems from what he did for people with cancer.
You really think there are disillusioned cancer victims out there now going: "Gee, Lance Armstrong doped to win those races? I guess I have no chance to survive my lymphoma now... that bastard!"
Now, if you feel that the oversight committee in question is doing a generally terrible job of imposing fairness and integrity within a sport, that's a fair criticism. If you think they are showing unfair prejudice against Lance Armstrong, that is also a fair criticism.
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
Of course, I'd complain. Because you're assuming guilt prior to investigation.
And USADA is not an "oversight committee". It is just a private organization.
Because Lance Armstrong is not merely an athlete, he's an icon.
Being an icon makes you no more and no less a citizen in the US. It is not a crime to be a fallen icon.
Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
What the heck? You are wasting your disgust... and your sympathy.
Tiger CHOSE to make an apology, in order to try to salvage what was left of his huge marketing status.
He's a role model to millions of young kids, and people who bought apparel and gear that Tiger made millions off of. Tiger chose to cheat on his wife and child, and cheapen himself with some serious skanks. Nobody wanted to buy his gear anymore, and he CHOSE to apologize.
NOBODY MADE HIM APOLOGIZE.
Whats to be disgusted about other than Tiger's behavior. Nobody took away his titles. Nobody put him in prison. He is not a criminal, and neither is Lance Armstrong.
He lost his endorsements, because nobody wants to buy gear endorsed by a guy who ****ing cheats on his wife and baby. Tiger apologized in an effort at spin control, to save himself some of his millions and salvage his image.
But in this case, in the case that a man who is a hero and public icon would be revealed to have his successes in a sport achieved by cheating and lying? That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
For what "CRIME" should he be investigated and chased on by an "OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE"?
What kind of mentality do you have that you think there should be a congressional oversight committee harrassing a private citizen for doing something that is NOT ILLEGAL? To do what?
Do you even understand what the thin premise was for the original Oversight committee investigating steroids in baseball? The ILLEGAL use of steroids was the excuse.
That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
You are drooling at the thought of the US government spending millions to determine whether a guy should be disqualified from bike races from 7 - 13 years ago, that didn't even take place on US soil?
Seriously, get over it.
I think its outrageous that you want to harrass this guy, that you want congressional oversight committees hounding a man who didnt' even break the law. Your values are so misplaced, and your obsession with sport is ludicrous.
What does this man owe you? What is your endgame here?
And again, the Tour de France made millions on Lance Armstrong's coattails, because Armstrong actually made non-bike nerds actually care about the race. Should the tour return THAT money?
You are drooling at the thought of the US government spending millions to determine whether a guy should be disqualified from bike races from 7 - 13 years ago, that didn't even take place on US soil?
Seriously, get over it.
I think its outrageous that you want to harrass this guy, that you want congressional oversight committees hounding a man who didnt' even break the law. Your values are so misplaced, and your obsession with sport is ludicrous.
What does this man owe you? What is your endgame here?
Humorous, considering you're the person shouting here. Calm down.
My point is that saying that every single player dopes does not mean that going after Armstrong for doping becomes illegitimate. Never did I say that problem wasn't process, never did I say that the USADA is either justified or unjustified in their actions.
You can stop frothing at the mouth now. The rabid dog act impresses no one.
That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
Quote from Highroller »
You can stop frothing at the mouth now. The rabid dog act impresses no one.
Quote from Highroller »
Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
My point is that saying that every single player dopes does not mean that going after Armstrong for doping becomes illegitimate. Never did I say that problem wasn't process,
never did I say that the USADA is either justified or unjustified in their actions.
sure you did:
Quote from highroller »
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
Quote from dcartist »
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
And then you didn't address my reply. You didn't have a legitimate response so you resorted to accusing me of "frothing at the mouth". Meanwhile, you want the "****ing disgraceful" Lance Armstrong to be HOUNDED by an oversight committee, for something which is not a misdemeanor, let alone a crime of any sort:
Quote from Highroller »
That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
Why do you have such a hard on to harrass the man. Did the money he raised for cancer research save the life of somebody you dont like?
Right, and it isn't. However, the accusation is the USADA is going after Armstrong as an unjustified witch hunt. That's more than simply exercising its authority and stepping into the realm of the uncalled for.
And then you didn't address my reply.
Because I have no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you, which is what you're turning this into with your bold text and your all caps which you know full well is the internet equivalent of a hissy fit.
I'll sooner agree to disagree.
You didn't have a legitimate response so you resorted to accusing me of "frothing at the mouth". Meanwhile, you want the "****ing disgraceful" Lance Armstrong to be HOUNDED by an oversight committee, for something which is not a misdemeanor, let alone a crime of any sort:
To which I stand by. If Armstrong was indeed doping, he deserves to have it brought to light, and he be banned for life and stripped of all of his titles. The same goes for everyone in any sport who cheats their way to victory. It is a blatant act of dishonor and should be revealed for what it is.
.... 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?
... 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!"
It's along the lines of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." But if you charge someone repeatedly for over a decade, after a while, you'll get a no contest plea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
It is clear to anyone who follows cycling that Armstrong was in fact doped.
But to mean, this doesn't mean he didn't win those Tour the Frances.
Especially if you look at the top-10's from his victories. They all contain 7+ riders that have been caught or admitted taking doping.
I do find it strange that there are still people thinking that Armstrong was innocent.
The fact that all his helpers (Heras, Hamilton, Landis) that went to different teams to become head riders got caught (while riding worse then they did as a helpers of Armstrong) makes it pretty obvious in my eyes.
Armstrong a great cyclist? Absolutely.
The best in 7 Tour the Frances? At least in 5-6.
But 'clean'? No way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
This is the biggest kick in the balls for Lance Armstrong since testicular cancer.
I'm trying to think of something substantive to say, but I guess Lance Armstrong has enough substances for the both of us.
Seriously though, my understanding was it was oxygen doping, which was also part of his treatment. Has there been other substances or was it believed his treatments gave him too much of an advantage? It's a huge loss for American inspiration either way.
He also will never admit to any of this or he would be up on purgery charges for giving false testimony multiple times. The man is not a hero or someone worthy of respect after what he has done he is a pathalogical cheat who used his influence to ruin the careers of many young riders and the image of cycling for years to come.
The UCI was silent on this because admitting that cheating was rampant and unregulated in international cycling would threaten cyclings place as an olympic sport.
This is the biggest kick in the balls for Lance Armstrong since testicular cancer.
I'm trying to think of something substantive to say, but I guess Lance Armstrong has enough substances for the both of us.
Seriously though, my understanding was it was oxygen doping, which was also part of his treatment. Has there been other substances or was it believed his treatments gave him too much of an advantage? It's a huge loss for American inspiration either way.
I agree. The thing is he under went thousand of doping tests while riding and none of them came back dirty. so unless someone was swapping samples in and out i don't see how they could accuse him of doping.
only other things is that he was doing it in the off season and quit in time for the races to not come up positive.
There is a ton of speculation and almost no concrete evidence. alot of it comes from testamony from his teamates that were doping so they wouldn't get in trouble.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
His team mates did get in trouble any of them that won titles have had them stripped and most recieved hefty bans from cycling. He has recieved heavier bans because he both planned and executed the cheating and he refuses to admit it. Blood doping and EPO doping are not easy to identify because unlike steroid tests you are not just looking for specific substances in their blood. The UCI didn't have much incentive in proving their poster boy of the past 2 decades was doping either. Man recovers from cancer to win Tour de France is pretty good publicity for your sport.
I have the impression that us Norwegians are quite naive. We think that performance enhancing drugs is something only foreigners use. Here is a guy who recently admitted to drugging himself, and he did so while being on US Postal with Lance Armstrong. For those reasons, the following article is quite interesting:
Oslo (NTB): Steffen Kjærgaard bekreftet på en pressekonferanse i Oslo tirsdag at han benyttet dopingmidler i sin karriere som proffsyklist.
- I snart 15 år har jeg holdt på en løgn. Det som har kommet fram de siste to uker gjennom USADAs offentliggjøring om US Postal har gjort at jeg har vært nødt til å ... dra fram min mørke løgn fra fortiden, sa Kjærgaard.
Han sa at han de to første årene av proffkarrieren, i TVM-laget, opplevde «et skittent game» han var uforberedt på etter tiden som amatør i Norge.
- Da de årene var ferdig, hvor jeg var helt ren og ikke brukte ulovlige medikamenter, så tok jeg valget et stykke inn i 1998-sesongen, at om jeg skulle være med på dette racet videre så var jeg nødt til å ta del på de premisser jeg følte at rådet i feltet. På eget initiativ gikk jeg da til anskaffelse av EPO, sa han.
Kjærgaard meldte at han fikk en «respons» da han begynte å dope seg, og at det bidro til bedre resultater og kontrakt med US Postal. I 2000 og 2001 syklet han Tour de France som hjelperytter for Lance Armstrong. Kjærgaard fortalte at laget organiserte dopingen da han var i US Postal.
Quote from "Kjærgaard innrømmer dopingmisbruk" translated by Auja Windur »
Kjærgaard admits drug abuse
Oslo (NTB): Steffen Kjærgaard confirmed that he used drugs during his career as a professional cyclist at a press conference on tuesday.
- I have hidden a lie for almost 15 years. The things that have been revealed during the last two weeks through USADAs announcements about US Postal made me have to ... come forward with my dark lie from the past, said Kjærgaard.
He said that during the first two years of his professional career, as part of the TVM team, experienced "a dirty game" for which he was unprepared after his time as an amateur in Norway.
- After finishing those years, during which I was completely clean and used no illegal drugs, I made the choice a while into the 1998 season, that if I wanted to be a part of this race I had to participate under the conditions I felt dominated the field. I took the initiative on my own to get EPO, he said.
Kjærgaard could report that he got a "response" when he started to take drugs, and that it contributed to him getting better results and a contract with US Postal. In 2000 and 2001, he participated in Tour de France as an assisting cyclist (translators note: not sure what the correct term is, but I think you will get what he is saying) to Lance Armstrong. Kjærgaard said that the team organized the drug use while he was with US Postal.
This is being called the biggest drug scandal in Norwegian sports ever, since this guy went on to hold high positions as a trainer, manager and boss within a large sports association in Norway. Since this got out, another Norwegian cyclist admitted to using drugs once for a race in 1984.
I agree. The thing is he under went thousand of doping tests while riding and none of them came back dirty. so unless someone was swapping samples in and out i don't see how they could accuse him of doping.
only other things is that he was doing it in the off season and quit in time for the races to not come up positive.
There is a ton of speculation and almost no concrete evidence. alot of it comes from testamony from his teamates that were doping so they wouldn't get in trouble.
There is a ton of concrete evidence, actually.
Keep in mind that doping tests are like an anti-virus sweeper. You have to know what to look for for them to be effective.
-----
This turn of events greatly saddens me. I watched 3 tours while Lance was riding. It was inspiring. Now.... what a damn shame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I dont feel that something that happens after the fact should effect what happened back then. He was tested in every race he was in and came back clean. He should not have been stripped of anything. You cant change the rules after the fact and punish those who followed what you laid down prior to the race.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Blood doping is the injection of separated and concentrated red blood cells prior to a competition. In many cases the red blood cells are collected prior to the event from the athlete that is doping with them and stored. These guys aren't juicing on steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, they are manipulating the concentration of red blood cells in their cardiovascular system to allow their blood to carry more oxygen. naturally this sort of thing is extremely tricky to test for, unless you have have a baseline for the athlete in question as far as the concentration of red blood cells they normally have to compare a race day blood sample to. Compound this difficulty with the fact that things such as diet, stress level, and activity level can alter this baseline reading.
Now it should seems a little more clear why this is not a cut and dry, "did he take the drugs or not?" type of situation for those that misunderstood the accusation.
UBANTBU
UBRWDDFTWRBU
WUBRGT.E.S.GRBUW
Irrelevant. The question is did he dope?
I'm not saying otherwise.
However, my question is whether or not people believe he did or didn't dope. This wouldn't make any difference in any fair investigation, but if the prevailing opinion is that he did, then I feel that's noteworthy.
Is this what Lance Armstrong is being accused of? Or is it the use of chemicals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_sport
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Ok. That's what wikipedia says...but do you really think that if he was doping using banned chemicals, he would be so hard to pin this on? Yes there are many performance enhancing drugs, but the point is these are professional athletes that are subject to regular and thorough drug screening. Anything they are doing is designed to be untracable. Even if there was some miracle drug out there that halve your time in the race but it was detectable, no one would use it. In this particular case, the issue at hand that they are trying to get him for is blood doping. The only stuff that athletes abuse at this level is either completely naturally occuring in the human body or so next generation that there isn't even a test for it. The latter while possible is probably not as common as you would think considering the fact that if it's that bleeding edge of a technology, the effects probably aren't very well understood yet. I'm just trying to be helpful here because I'm seeing a lot of talk flying around about steroids and the whole MLB scandal and while these things share many ethical dilemmas, there are differences and they are not identical issues.
UBANTBU
UBRWDDFTWRBU
WUBRGT.E.S.GRBUW
Also, I don't think Armstrong did it. Mostly, I just don't think he could have gotten away with it for that long. And the fact that the USADA is trying to strip him of his titles etc. without ever actually having gotten a positive test against him(at least, it is my understanding that they didn't) is completely awful.
In the end though, I don't think it will really matter. The titles aren't that relevant. The USADA just wanted to make itself look more important than it really is by going after the biggest name in cycling. But all they really accomplished was to make everyone hate them, and ultimately I suspect that the sport will lose a fair bit of it's already small fan-base over this.
Regardless if whether he is guilty or innocent, individuals other than LancArmstrong do not have infinite resources to fight something like this decades long witch hunt.
Since we speak of accountability and public trust for the "sanctity" of "pure sport", there must be some kind of accountability and limitation in the power of persecution. I personal vendettas can be pursued like this based on carte Blanche police powers that have no time limit and no limit of scope, what is to stop them from going after the top black athlete or the top gay athlete or just the athlete who displeases them personally?
It's not just a matter of "he probably cheated" so therefore the persecutors are vindicated. If Over half the field is doing a SIMILAR or WORSE thing, then it becomes a SELECTIVELY enforced rule. Sure they punish when they publicly announce doping cases, but it's SELECTIVELY investigated.
It's picking one athlete you despise for whatever reasons and trying to take them down and subjecting them to separate rules. "Fair" my ass.
1) Given that the USADA isn't the governing body of cycling, what makes them think they have the ability to strip Lance Armstrong of his titles?
2) Why does the US government have an entire agency dedicated to determining who is "cheating" in sports? Every sport that cares about cheating has a governing body, and has the resources to self regulate. This is the epitome of waste.
No, Lance Armstrong has not had his titles revoked, and will not unless/until the organizers of the Tour de France strip them.
As for whether he actually doped? I have no clue... nor do I care.
Wait, hang on here.
First of all, the willingness to go after their most legendary player is a damn sight better than, say, the organizations governing baseball or college football who won't touch their all-star players for fear of making less money.
Second, to say Lance Armstrong is high profile is an understatement. It's not like he's an obscure player, he's their biggest star and has set incredible achievements in the sport. Whether or not you regard this as a justified investigation or a vindictive witch hunt, if Lance Armstrong were doping, he is exactly the person they should go after even if the sport is dominated by drug abuse. It would send a message, and removes the false titles earned by someone who has made a mockery of the sport and of his status as a hero.
That's just a witch hunt.
"Mockery of his sport"? Please, don't get too pompous. When virtually everybody dopes, and its barely enforced and becomes the standard for the level playing field, how is Lance Armstrong making "mockery" of his sport?
He was successful playing on the same level field as all the other top cyclists, and in the meanwhile, he helped millions of cancer victims, and raised great amounts of money.
He did not do this by sucking the blood of babies he aborted.
He did not do this by bearing false witness to put innocent people in prison.
He MAY have done all this good in the world by breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules.
"Mockery of the sport?"
Do you think that people who were inspired and gave money to cancer research want their money back now that they think Armstrong may have cheated at racing to win?
He's a HERO because he came back from cancer and potential death raced at that level.
He may be FAMOUS because he won those tour de frances... but that has nothing to do with why he is a hero. Lance Armstrong is historically more relevant than the entire world professional bicycling sport.
"Mockery of the sport"? Get over yourself, yeesh. Before Lance Armstrong, nobody outside of hardcore bicycling fans and Frenchmen gave a **** about the Tour De France.
Because Lance Armstrong is not merely an athlete, he's an icon.
Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
But in this case, it's not about something irrelevant to the man's career as an athlete. Were Lance Armstrong doping, this would mean that his success was achieved by cheating and lying. That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful by any measure.
The fact that others were also cheating and lying should not be an excuse for breaking the rules.
The fact that Lance Armstrong is a celebrity should not be an excuse for making him exempt from the rules.
In fact, it is justified that they would first scrutinize their most high-profile player, because he is globally associated with US cycling and excellence in cycling in general.
Maybe.
However, no oversight committee in any sport should ever make it their policy to condone cheating and lying by its players. The entire point of having those committees in the first place is to ensure fairness and integrity within the sport.
Now, if you feel that the oversight committee in question is doing a generally terrible job of imposing fairness and integrity within a sport, that's a fair criticism. If you think they are showing unfair prejudice against Lance Armstrong, that is also a fair criticism.
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
I do not wish to diminish Lance Armstrong's victory over cancer. Nor, and this is why I italicized some qualifying statements, do I have any position on whether or not he doped. I don't know enough to form an opinion on the matter.
But to say that Lance Armstrong being a hero has nothing to do with his victories in the Tour de Frances is overstepping greatly. Lance Armstrong is indeed seen as a hero because he overcame cancer to compete in a professional sport.
However, the man is a legend because he was able to achieve more consecutive victories in the Tour de Frances than anyone else even despite being diagnosed with three forms of cancer. And part of that is absolutely the belief that those races were won fairly.
I should sincerely hope you're not arguing that man's celebrity status makes him exempt from the rules.
"He MAY have done all this good in the world WHILE breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules."
His "heroism" stems from what he did for people with cancer.
You really think there are disillusioned cancer victims out there now going: "Gee, Lance Armstrong doped to win those races? I guess I have no chance to survive my lymphoma now... that bastard!"
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
Of course, I'd complain. Because you're assuming guilt prior to investigation.
And USADA is not an "oversight committee". It is just a private organization.
Being an icon makes you no more and no less a citizen in the US. It is not a crime to be a fallen icon.
What the heck? You are wasting your disgust... and your sympathy.
Tiger CHOSE to make an apology, in order to try to salvage what was left of his huge marketing status.
He's a role model to millions of young kids, and people who bought apparel and gear that Tiger made millions off of. Tiger chose to cheat on his wife and child, and cheapen himself with some serious skanks. Nobody wanted to buy his gear anymore, and he CHOSE to apologize.
NOBODY MADE HIM APOLOGIZE.
Whats to be disgusted about other than Tiger's behavior. Nobody took away his titles. Nobody put him in prison. He is not a criminal, and neither is Lance Armstrong.
He lost his endorsements, because nobody wants to buy gear endorsed by a guy who ****ing cheats on his wife and baby. Tiger apologized in an effort at spin control, to save himself some of his millions and salvage his image.
For what "CRIME" should he be investigated and chased on by an "OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE"?
What kind of mentality do you have that you think there should be a congressional oversight committee harrassing a private citizen for doing something that is NOT ILLEGAL? To do what?
Do you even understand what the thin premise was for the original Oversight committee investigating steroids in baseball? The ILLEGAL use of steroids was the excuse.
You are drooling at the thought of the US government spending millions to determine whether a guy should be disqualified from bike races from 7 - 13 years ago, that didn't even take place on US soil?
Seriously, get over it.
I think its outrageous that you want to harrass this guy, that you want congressional oversight committees hounding a man who didnt' even break the law. Your values are so misplaced, and your obsession with sport is ludicrous.
What does this man owe you? What is your endgame here?
And again, the Tour de France made millions on Lance Armstrong's coattails, because Armstrong actually made non-bike nerds actually care about the race. Should the tour return THAT money?
Humorous, considering you're the person shouting here. Calm down.
My point is that saying that every single player dopes does not mean that going after Armstrong for doping becomes illegitimate. Never did I say that problem wasn't process, never did I say that the USADA is either justified or unjustified in their actions.
You can stop frothing at the mouth now. The rabid dog act impresses no one.
sure you did:
And then you didn't address my reply. You didn't have a legitimate response so you resorted to accusing me of "frothing at the mouth". Meanwhile, you want the "****ing disgraceful" Lance Armstrong to be HOUNDED by an oversight committee, for something which is not a misdemeanor, let alone a crime of any sort:
Why do you have such a hard on to harrass the man. Did the money he raised for cancer research save the life of somebody you dont like?
Right, and it isn't. However, the accusation is the USADA is going after Armstrong as an unjustified witch hunt. That's more than simply exercising its authority and stepping into the realm of the uncalled for.
Because I have no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you, which is what you're turning this into with your bold text and your all caps which you know full well is the internet equivalent of a hissy fit.
I'll sooner agree to disagree.
To which I stand by. If Armstrong was indeed doping, he deserves to have it brought to light, and he be banned for life and stripped of all of his titles. The same goes for everyone in any sport who cheats their way to victory. It is a blatant act of dishonor and should be revealed for what it is.
It's along the lines of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." But if you charge someone repeatedly for over a decade, after a while, you'll get a no contest plea.
On phasing:
But to mean, this doesn't mean he didn't win those Tour the Frances.
Especially if you look at the top-10's from his victories. They all contain 7+ riders that have been caught or admitted taking doping.
I do find it strange that there are still people thinking that Armstrong was innocent.
The fact that all his helpers (Heras, Hamilton, Landis) that went to different teams to become head riders got caught (while riding worse then they did as a helpers of Armstrong) makes it pretty obvious in my eyes.
Armstrong a great cyclist? Absolutely.
The best in 7 Tour the Frances? At least in 5-6.
But 'clean'? No way.
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
Update: Lance Armstrong has lost his Nike endorsement and has stepped down from his position at his charity.
I'm trying to think of something substantive to say, but I guess Lance Armstrong has enough substances for the both of us.
Seriously though, my understanding was it was oxygen doping, which was also part of his treatment. Has there been other substances or was it believed his treatments gave him too much of an advantage? It's a huge loss for American inspiration either way.
The UCI was silent on this because admitting that cheating was rampant and unregulated in international cycling would threaten cyclings place as an olympic sport.
I agree. The thing is he under went thousand of doping tests while riding and none of them came back dirty. so unless someone was swapping samples in and out i don't see how they could accuse him of doping.
only other things is that he was doing it in the off season and quit in time for the races to not come up positive.
There is a ton of speculation and almost no concrete evidence. alot of it comes from testamony from his teamates that were doping so they wouldn't get in trouble.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I have no formal training in translating.
This is being called the biggest drug scandal in Norwegian sports ever, since this guy went on to hold high positions as a trainer, manager and boss within a large sports association in Norway. Since this got out, another Norwegian cyclist admitted to using drugs once for a race in 1984.
There is a ton of concrete evidence, actually.
Keep in mind that doping tests are like an anti-virus sweeper. You have to know what to look for for them to be effective.
-----
This turn of events greatly saddens me. I watched 3 tours while Lance was riding. It was inspiring. Now.... what a damn shame.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great