Page 1 of 3

Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:24 am
by Konstantin
I've only seen the headlines but are they really going to strip him of his entire career including seven Tour de France victories? Hard to believe, and is it fair?

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:28 am
by tal
Also hard to believe that he was the only one. Who's going to get the win, the guy who came 50th?

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:40 am
by fredrikw
[quote="Talyn"]Also hard to believe that he was the only one.

Well that just the point, so many people around him has been banned for doping, team mates, doctors, coaches, it's highly unlikely that he would not be doing it as well.

Considering his team of lawyers and financial backing, I'm not sure why he would give up unless he didn't want to have whatever evidence USADA have be brought out in public.

I don't find it hard to believe at all, why would he be a shining exemption in a culture where PED culture is so strong as it is in professional cycling?

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:57 pm
by ninearms
The whole thing is disgusting. Doping is a foul, not a crime, and punishment of fouls should be instigated on the field of play at the time of the offence. If a foul isn't spotted at the time then it should be dropped. Imagine if FIFA finally decided to use video replay evidence and applied it retrospectively. Would it be appropriate to declare the 1996 World Cup Quarter Final between England and Argentina void, because everyone knows Argentina's first goal should have been disallowed but officials didn't spot it, and demand Argentina relinquish the World Cup and hand it over to Germany even though in the 1990 World Cup Germany were even bigger cheaters than Argentina were in 1986?

I suspect he's stopped fighting the charges because:

a) He's genuinely sick and tired of doing it.
b) If he takes it to arbitration, maintains his innocence, and is then found "guilty", especially as part of a larger conspiracy, then he could end up in the same situation as Marion Jones for having lied under oath.

Where does this nonsense end? Retrospective investigation of all successful athletes over the last 20 years?

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:23 pm
by ninearms
[quote="Talyn"]Also hard to believe that he was the only one. Who's going to get the win, the guy who came 50th?


The guys who come 50th are the worst. Gassed out of their minds, nothing to lose, but 49th to gain. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... 998_-_2012

I think this is the most reasoned, non-puritanical take on the situation I've read:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... #more-3905

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:57 pm
by wannalift
[quote="ninearms"][quote="Talyn"]Also hard to believe that he was the only one. Who's going to get the win, the guy who came 50th?


The guys who come 50th are the worst. Gassed out of their minds, nothing to lose, but 49th to gain. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... 998_-_2012

I think this is the most reasoned, non-puritanical take on the situation I've read:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... #more-3905


Great reads, thanks.

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:39 pm
by JP
feel sorry for him :(

aye no doubt he was using etc, but still, what an incredible athlete. Maybe this way he could maintain at least some credibility instead of being crucified after the trials?

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:09 pm
by Konstantin
Is it me or is the whole thing a mess?

It seems that everyone at the top is using and if you're not, you cannot win. The ones who get caught are the ones who mask it worst or who make daft mistakes. Therefore, there is no value in having a ban as it only affects those who make mistakes.

What should the authorities do moving forwards?

:?:

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:42 pm
by Orkje
[quote="ninearms"]

I think this is the most reasoned, non-puritanical take on the situation I've read:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... #more-3905


VERY interesting read. Non-puritanical indeed, but realistic.

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:31 pm
by skoptic
It does seem like a mess - I'm not convinced about their ability to strip his titles. I'm also very suspicious, but agree that it's impossible to judge something so far in the past.

Interesting article and I hear what you're saying ninearms, but in my heart I think doping is a 'crime' rather than a 'foul'.

The article seems to have a circular argument, validating the use of doping, because it's prevalent, part of the spirit of the Tour and unless you do it you can't keep up. I don't agree with this logic - that doesn't mean I have a practical solution to the situation, but this implies that a history of action and a misguided belief that 'this is right' provides validity for any situation. Not for me.... not for a lot of history either.

It also sidelines the "does the sport become less interesting or valuable" question into mostly about interest. It all becomes less valuable in my opinion - and over the past 20 years the public seem to have echoed this.

Also don't agree that the examples of boxing/shooting differing from running and biking. Beta blockers and fear reducing drugs might help enhance the effect of competing rather than the effect of training, but blood doping enhances the effect of competing. Everyone still has to train hard. This analogy doesn't fully work for me.

Still lots of good food for thought, and I'm not completely slating the article - just a few bits I liked, few bits I didn't ;) Maybe it's heart over head, but I'm still not in a position to chuck in the towel and accept doping as part of valuable sport to which I aspire.

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:36 pm
by skoptic
[quote="Konstantin"]The ones who get caught are the ones who mask it worst or who make daft mistakes. Therefore, there is no value in having a ban as it only affects those who make mistakes.


This makes me think is there any point in most legislation - it only affect those who are caught, but does that negate the need or validity of the legislation?

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:01 am
by Hiking Fox
This reminds me why I love sport, but hate sporting competitions.

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:34 pm
by runner
different is that armstrong is being taken in by his national antidoping org, while contador is being protected by the spanish federation. like all other athletes who dope are protected by the spanish federations (marta domingez etc etc).

life ban for people who get caught, medicall and other people involved + pay back prize money, sponsor contracts... might help.
use the funds for sports promotion and eduction for kids.

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:24 pm
by muchluv
A kick in the face for everyone who has looked up to this man as a hero and inspiration, after recovering from testicular cancer and going on to win the tour de france seven times. Those people are victims of this too. Now, so many people will disregard him and be dissapointed with him, without knowing, (if what is said in this thread is true) that it is commonplace.

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:15 pm
by ninearms
[quote="muchluv"]A kick in the face for everyone who has looked up to this man as a hero and inspiration, after recovering from testicular cancer and going on to win the tour de france seven times. Those people are victims of this too. Now, so many people will disregard him and be dissapointed with him, without knowing, (if what is said in this thread is true) that it is commonplace.


I don't think this is true. Armstrong was an outlier to the nth degree. Just look at how many of his competitors managed to place even top 10 more than once, the majority of whom have actually either been caught doping, or are linked in some other way. Some would suggest that if an athlete has been caught once, served a ban, then came back and performed just as well, then they are obviously still on drugs. Otherwise why would they have bothered the first time round? And if they performed just as well before they were caught as when they were caught then they were probably on drugs then too. Again, otherwise why would they have bothered doping later on?

People will know doping is commonplace, because any attempt to reassign Armstrong's wins will inevitably drag up the fact that more than half the top 10 in those years have been implicated in doping in some way. Seriously, who gets the titles?

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2 ... 9-to-2005/

That's why I don't see how this move by the USADA is anything but a witch hunt. What purpose does it serve to go after a retired 40 year old 14 years after the fact? How on earth does that serve to deter others from doping? When has drug testing ever deterred anyone from doping if the rewards are great enough? It certainly doesn't make the sport look any better. It just drags up an era of cycling that a lot of people would like to pretend never happened, and makes a mockery of any results from that era. People complain when the FIA changes the result of a grand prix a few hours later FFS.

Mods: would it make sense to merge this thread with the PEDs thread? There doesn't seem to be much sense in having 2 threads on ostensibly the same topic.