Lance Armstrong - what?!

If cycling of any kind, from leisure to endurance, is your passion, this is the forum for you.

Moderators: hardcore iv, fredrikw, JP, stateofflux, bronco

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby Mr. Cleetus » Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:49 am

Have a listen to this ninearms. I do not agree that it is a witch hunt, but can see how it can be interpreted that way. I also think there are a lot of ill-informed discussions and articles flying all over the place. Tygart explains the USADA position better than I ever could:

http://www.msg.com/videos/the-dan-patrick-show-travis-tygart-824.html
User avatar
Mr. Cleetus
Active Member
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:09 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby skoptic » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:28 am

[quote="Mr. Cleetus"]Have a listen to this ninearms. I do not agree that it is a witch hunt, but can see how it can be interpreted that way. I also think there are a lot of ill-informed discussions and articles flying all over the place. Tygart explains the USADA position better than I ever could:

http://www.msg.com/videos/the-dan-patrick-show-travis-tygart-824.html


Hmmm .... always good to hear it from the horse's mouth :)
User avatar
skoptic
Facebook Admin
 
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 4:12 pm
Location: Kensworth

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby ninearms » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:45 pm

[quote="Mr. Cleetus"]Have a listen to this ninearms. I do not agree that it is a witch hunt, but can see how it can be interpreted that way. I also think there are a lot of ill-informed discussions and articles flying all over the place. Tygart explains the USADA position better than I ever could:

http://www.msg.com/videos/the-dan-patrick-show-travis-tygart-824.html


Tygart doesn't really deal with what makes people think it's a witch hunt though. He doesn't explain why they were interested in events that occurred a full 8 years before the original (already ridiculously excessive) 8 year statute of limitations had expired, nor why they felt they could disregard that particular rule. He doesn't explain how a lifetime ban for a retired athlete deters anyone from doping (obviously it doesn't - it's like me being banned from competitive snooker). He doesn't explain if anyone outside of Lance's team has been/is being investigated for doping infractions during that period, given that most of the top riders from that era are now known dopers, or if other high profile athletes have been/will be investigated retrospectively.

The other issue I have is to do with retrospective drug testing. As I'm sure everyone knows, when an athlete is requested to submit to a drug test they provide a urine sample which is then split into 2 containers, an A and a B. In the event that an A sample tests positive the athlete is then offered the opportunity to have the B sample tested to rule out an error with the first test (if the A sample is negative then the B sample remains untested). However, if, when a B sample is retested some years later (obviously only B samples can be retested, because the A samples have already been opened), there is no recourse to a C sample available to the athlete, because no C sample was ever taken. IMO any retesting that uses different testing methods to the first should abide by the same protocol as the earlier test, i.e. the athlete should be able to challenge the results via the testing of another sample.
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said gravely, “and go on till you come to the end. Then stop.”
User avatar
ninearms
Perked Member
 
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: Leicester, UK

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby Mr. Cleetus » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:28 pm

I completely agree with your comments on the testing. Even without those problems, as you know, the tests themselves have their own issues. If this case was purely about test results, it would be pretty hard for me to swallow, but that is not the case.

Lance is not retired. He was intending to compete as a pro in Kona this year (Ironman). He is actively doing other races, as he did this past weekend. USADA is not just about cycling. I am not sure if retirement is particularly relevant anyway. This is not just a case of going after a single cyclist who was doping on his own. It is about systematic doping and someone who was heavily (allegedly) involved in directing that along with Bruyneel, etc. It is also about someone who was also, allegedly, working with the governing body to get around test results and who was aware of imminent tests, etc. To me that is working at getting at the heart of the drug culture in cycling and is not the same as a going after someone with an isolated positive test. From your other posts I understand you are pro-drugs in sport. I am not. Therefore I think it is safe to say we won't agree on this.

Having said all that, I am not convinced Tygart is not biased against Armstrong when compared to any other athlete. I am also not convinced if that matters.
User avatar
Mr. Cleetus
Active Member
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:09 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby ninearms » Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:48 am

[quote="Mr. Cleetus"]To me that is working at getting at the heart of the drug culture in cycling and is not the same as a going after someone with an isolated positive test. From your other posts I understand you are pro-drugs in sport. I am not. Therefore I think it is safe to say we won't agree on this.


Maybe it's getting at the heart of drug culture from over a decade ago, but is it really going to change anything about current doping practices? I doubt it. Even the judge who ruled that USADA had jurisdiction questioned their motivation.

I wouldn't say I'm pro drugs. I actually don't care either way. I just think making PED useage an isolated issue fails to recognise the significance of the multitude of other performance enhancers available to athletes without punishment (coaching, equipment, training facilities, funding, infrastructure, popular support, sponsorship, etc) but not available to all athletes equally.
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said gravely, “and go on till you come to the end. Then stop.”
User avatar
ninearms
Perked Member
 
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: Leicester, UK
Top

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby Mr. Cleetus » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:07 pm

If the UCI, ASO, Bruyneel and current riders are involved, how is it not current? (I've got no idea if ASO is actually involved)

As I mentioned, Armstrong is certainly not retired and is/was intending to still compete at a pro level. Possibly I would agree with you if we kept it only in the context of cycling; however, the USADA is not only for cycling. Also I do not believe just because someone has retired that they should be given a free pass for such an offense when money has been won, careers have been affected, etc. I am not sure why rules should change with retirement.

Of course it is not as black and white as either one of us is making it. I certainly don't think they should be going after Merckx and finding out how many more than three (or whatever it was) positives it was that he should have had. I have no idea where that line of difference is, but it seems to me that because this is about more than just Armstrong and since he is still racing as a pro, that he should still be fair game. I would probably feel the same if he was still recently retired.
User avatar
Mr. Cleetus
Active Member
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:09 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby ninearms » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:23 pm

I guess the root of our disagreement is that is you still see it as a war worth fighting, whereas I see it as not only a war that has been lost, but also a war that we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place.
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said gravely, “and go on till you come to the end. Then stop.”
User avatar
ninearms
Perked Member
 
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: Leicester, UK

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby Mr. Cleetus » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:15 pm

I certainly do, but I am very happy I've got nothing to do with it. 8)
User avatar
Mr. Cleetus
Active Member
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:09 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby sergio » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:45 pm

I accidentally replaced all of my blood with coffee.
User avatar
sergio
Active Member
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:43 am

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby niall » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:06 pm

[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 disagree, I looked up to him and still do, I dont care what USADA say and obviously either do the thousands of people who support him and still donate to the LAF
niall
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:44 am
Top

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby bob_summers » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:16 am

Kiwis* haven't (AFAIK) killed anyone, yet PEDs have, both directly and indirectly.

PEDs require a high degree of medical competence to administer, which is why the term "level playing field" means nothing, even if everyone is using them. US Postal seemingly had a bottomless purse to support this; a continental team which is already struggling to pay its riders can't afford the same. Take the medical competence away altogether and you have a bloodbath... Riccardo Ricco almost killing himself by trying to perform his own blood transfusion for example :shock:

The UCI's stance is hypocritical. It imposed a minimum weight limit of 6,8kg for bikes, for safety reasons but also to prevent the big teams having an advantage through throwing money at ever-lighter bikes. Yet it was complicit in LA's medical advantage.

There will always be riders with an unfair advantage. Look at the way the top guys in the classification are now helicoptered off the mountain so they can start their recovery earlier. I think the 'line' you talk about should be around where it begins to get dangerous...



*the fruits, not Al O...
"No se deja de pedalear cuando se envejece.
Se envejece cuando se deja de pedalear"
User avatar
bob_summers
Active Member
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: donostia, euskadi

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby israel » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:22 am

ohhh - sry i deleted my post before seeing your post - ( im in an internet rehab so i post and delete lol)

to whoever wants to knows - in general i asked - does a fruit give an unfair advantage ? maybe taking sugar in large dosage before a race is not ok or using any other fruit which can aid you in anyway and gave kiwis as an example (the fruit not the animal lol) - and i asked where is the line ?
User avatar
israel
Active Member
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:19 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby bob_summers » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:37 am

[quote="israel"]ohhh - sry i deleted my post before seeing your post - ( im in an internet rehab so i post and delete lol)

to whoever wants to knows - in general i asked - does a fruit give an unfair advantage ? maybe taking sugar in large dosage before a race is not ok or using any other fruit which can aid you in anyway and gave kiwis as an example (the fruit not the animal lol) - and i asked where is the line ?


heh, my post looks a bit random without the context :D
"No se deja de pedalear cuando se envejece.
Se envejece cuando se deja de pedalear"
User avatar
bob_summers
Active Member
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: donostia, euskadi
Top

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby xrodolfox » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:49 am

It was obvious to me that Lance was doping, as was just about every other top cyclist. Looking through [url=this list]this list[/url] verifies my suspicions.

Thus, I personally am not at all disappointed or surprised. Frankly, I hope that Lance has the ability to compete in amateur races again. I'd love to race Lance in a triathlon, or see him race. I hope they lift the ban on his racing, as he can't even enter into any competition with Olympic ties. That means no marathons, no triathlons, no local 5k races, no anything.

That said, I think that cleaning up the future of cycling is important, and that Lance helps them clean it up. I do think that his wins should be officially stripped from him, and that he should be required to do some reparations, especially to those athletes he "sent down the river" like Landis.

The fans... eh. I don't really care if folks are disappointed. Whomever holds an athlete as a hero for being an athlete is a fool and deserves to be constantly disappointed. The media loves to make heroes and villains out of athletes, but that's just marketing, and society is eager to make athletes into heroes. A good story doesn't mean that the athlete is a saint or an ethicist, as much as athletes are eager to embrace that for the benjamins.

Instead of athletes as heroes, we should be looking towards those folks with unexceptional skill that are exceedingly ethical as heroes; those that may not be as beautiful or sexy but that work hard and fight the good fight as heroes rather than folks who get paid to compete as heroes.
"The worker has the right to leave his boss, but can she do it? And if she does quit him, is it in order to lead a free life; where she will have no master but herself? No, she leaves to sell herself to another employer. She's driven by the same hunger. Thus the worker's liberty is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means of realization; an utter falsehood."
-Bakunin
User avatar
xrodolfox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Lance Armstrong - what?!

Postby israel » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:24 pm

Gave it some more thought - a lot more

this is a subject i dont no shit about - so i wouldnt know about where the line exactly! should be

But what i understood is that when there are rules to a competition even if they are not fair there are still the rules and if you follow them so does others - just like studying tests - if you find some legal way to do stuff even if its buying super expansive kiwis (not as a metaphor for drugs - im talking about actual kiwis lol) that no one else can buy then thats ok ( its the judges responsability to ban kiwis in the next race )

so even if the rules are made by a stupid person its still not right to brake them

and as long as one person dosnt cheat then you shouldnt to cause thats unfair to that guy - they might be many other reasons but i guess this is one reason that i can say 100% that im sure about
User avatar
israel
Active Member
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron