Lance Armstrong

This topic juices me up.

 

Hmmmm...

Lance never ever ever... tested positive...

But folks he knows
know folks he knows
that know he knows
he didn't, do anything...
weeeee heeeeeeee...

That doesn't matter matter matter
We are witch hunting

 

If the history of the Tour de France is rewritten, it's going to get very very complicated.

If Lance's titles are invalidated, the runnerups for most of those years also doped.

So does the title go to the rider in 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc place?

 

Armstrong is an amazing athlete, and his return to competitive cycling after cancer is almost unbelievable. People really should keep that in mind regardless of whether he doped or not.

As for the question of doping, I have my doubts, specific to cycling, whether it actually gave a competitive edge most of the time. Certainly it was part of the culture of pro cycling and I imagine many of the athletes felt obliged to participate. So while I am glad that doping is (slowly) exiting pro-cycling, I think Armstrong deserves his place in history and I would just as soon see the investigations stop.

 

"I've achieved my lifelong dream and now have as many Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong." - status seen on Facebook

 

Not yet. USADA doesn't award those titles, so it also doesn't have the actual power to revoke them either. If USADA, ICU, and the race sponsor can't settle their feuds, it is possible that Lance may keep his titles.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

He probably did it. But he cheated fair and square How do we know that whoever gets the wins did not dope? If no one was cheating Lance would have likely won, still if you are a dick to your team mates that saw you cheat......

 

What's the difference between Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds?

May I suggest likability and race may factor?

I don't want to believe Lance doped, but rationally I'm challenged to believe he's innocent when so many in a position to know are saying he did it. Perhaps not enough evidence to convict him in a court of law, but lots and lots of smoke. Recent PEDs are designed to make it hard to detect....you have to make a judgement call if a normal person can have a really high red blood cell count, etc.

Barry Bonds: A jerk. So when he got investigated, his unlike ability and being African-American factored against him (although I see Mark McGuire and Roger Clements no different.)

Lance Armstrong: Can't take away his near-death brush with cancer and successful re-entry as a pro, that that does not mean his status as champion/all time cycling great is under question.

Again, I want to believe Lance did it fair-and-square, was truly the best, but starting to believe there is too many people too close for it to be just people with an ax to grind with him.

 

I doubt that. Lance has that beat cancer feel good story, to become the greatest cyclist of all time. He used his fame to create a cancer foundation that has funded much cancer research. The lance Armstrong foundation increased his political and celebrity status. Lance was plagued by charges of doping throughout his career. They never could find evidence.

Barry Bonds seemed to get stronger as he got older, a big indicator of steroids. He did fail a drug test, but it was at balco in 2000 not administered by MLB. He did perjure himself in front of a grand jury in the balco case.

The evidence is from testimony from teamates. They really don't have any medical evidence as they had with bonds. Its best that Armstrong just let it go, and have plausable deniability.

Great athlete. It looks like he was following the rules until 2000, at least by his stats.

In baseball and cycling there seems to have been a culture of performance enhancing drugs.

 

I'm not sure a lot of other sports test very thoroughly. In cycling, I think there has historically been a culture of using drugs to gain an advantage - so they may have to disqualify winners back in time as early as 1949 (I'm talking about the legendary Fausto Coppi, who admitted to taking amphetamines).

 

I'm in two minds about this.

Lance never tested positive despite 100's of tests and many years of accusations. During his cancer treatment Lance took EPO, but this was a) medically-indicated and b) declared to UCI. Lance was subjected to drug testing after his cancer treatment ceased for about 2 years before he could compete again. (USA Olympic cyclists used certain substances and techniques that have since been banned, so they can't be judged on that.)

Similarly, Marion Jones also never tested positive (in 2006 an "A" sample contained EPO, but the "B" sample was negative) but later admitted to steroid use from about 1999. So never testing positive is not a guarantee of never using.

USADA suggests that Armstrong is admitting his guilt by withdrawing from the enquiry against him, like declaring "no contest" in a court case. However, that's a poor comparison since a court doesn't put your guilt or innocence, your character as it were, to test 100 times a year and then declares you guilty because you wanted to be left alone.

To win le Tour de France takes incredible strength and Lance had very good teams supporting him. Seven wins seems impossible without "outside assistance" but Eddy Merckx and Miguel Indurain are just two cyclists that won 5 times and could have won more.

 

I don't follow the main sports much. But didn't Bonds show obvious visible signs of steroids, starting mid-career?

I don't think cycling tests all that well, either, at least when Lance was active. After he first retired and Landis won, only to be caught doping, I seem to remember a TdF test schedule of only about five riders per day -- the day's stage winner, the tour leader, and three random riders. To clean up the sport, they need a lot more testing, such as ensuring most riders get tested at least once, and all those near the lead get tested frequently.

Absent archival test samples for verification, this makes no sense. But considering the sparse sampling during Lance's era, and the fact that virtually all his runner's up (with possibly a single exception) were also clouded, it could be that the next up riders were unsampled or hardly sampled, unlike Lance. So as one writer suggested, it may be that the only sensible solution is to not award any new titles for the years Lance gets DQed.

 

He was not declared guilty because he wanted to be left alone --- that is silly.

The USADA opened an investigation based on the testimony of team mates. Lots of testimony. Lots of team mates. The agency thinks arbitration is mandatory and binding; that is, that an accused person must participate if they want to dispute the charge.

If you want confounders, I'd pick these:
1. Defense is horribly expensive for the accused, prosecution is usually on the taxpayer tab. Few riders or coaches can realistically defend themselves beyond a certain level, or for any length of time.

2. Armstrong has been through extensive investigations, including by not so friendly Euro based agencies. At this point it becomes a matter of subjectively weighing the evidence in the court of public opinion. No smoking gun is going to be found. Even if a new super test was positive on every archival sample, it is probably fair to argue that Armstrong should only be judged by the tests of the day, just like the other riders.

Armstrong's lawyerly argument in refusing to enter arbitration with the USADA is that they do not have jurisdiction. Whatever. I'm more sympathetic to the American idea barring double jeopardy, or in the case of Armstrong, x-tuple jeopardy. Did he beat the then current system ? I think so. So improve the system for now and the future.

Lastly, I just cannot get overly excited by accusations of Epo and transfusion doping when those advantages, such as they are, can be obtained by anyone training at altitude. The UK rider Millar is a great case example: he doped heavily and won; was caught and removed from riding during what is often the pinnacle of an athlete's career years. Now he is as clean as the system can establish, older, and yet once again as competitive as ever. So just how 'performance enhancing' was his prior doping ? I say little to none.

 

Even in the United Racist States of America, not everything is about race.

We should bring back the threads about Floyd Landis to remind people that athletes lie, and athletes with lifetime achievements on the line may lie until they are blue in the face. I still remember the outrage over the witch hunts of the upstanding Christian.

 

^ Let's not get too excited over this.

Just saying Lance's story is more likeable than your average jock, and not everyone gets a fair break.

 

Some of his teammates didn't like him enough to stay silent Others were forced to testify under oath.

He uses inappropriate work place language, but Carlin has weighed in beyond the grave

At this point for the Armstrong Foundation the best thing lance could do was stop fighting. The comparison should be to Roger Clements, not bonds. The circumstances were similar. Clements decided to testify before congress. He was found not guilty of perjury, but it was a long drawn out affair. His name was removed from the Roger Clemens Institute of Sports Medicine. He now is playing minor league baseball. Everyone thinks he did lie to congress.
Roger Clemens exceeds expectations on mound – USATODAY.com