Lance Armstrong To Lose All Tour de France Medals...

[Todeswind]

He's taken and passed 500-600 drug tests administered by independent agencies over a period of over a decade. More than any other Athlete in history. At a certain point there's nothing to find.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ ... 3N20120824

[Jub]

He's taken and passed 500-600 drug tests administered by independent agencies over a period of over a decade. More than any other Athlete in history. At a certain point there's nothing to find.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ ... 3N20120824

Yeah, at some point either there's nothing to find or you're not going to find it no matter how many tests you run. Given how far back this stretches I'd be inclined to stop gathering wood for the witch burning.

[Sriad]

What Judge Sparks actually said about the case:

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks acknowledged "the appearance of a conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum." But that doesn't mean federal courts should intervene, the judge said, adding "these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected."
"If these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts," Sparks said.

What the evidence has to say: ten-or-so eye witnesses who have actually been caught cheating. That would be pretty damning except for the hundreds and hundreds of tests that say "no he didn't".

Authority the United States Anti-Doping Agency has to strip Armstrong of Tour de France titles: None.

Honestly I don't give a shit about any of it. He won; if the claims of a decade of undetectable doping are to be believed he won as the world's best performance-enhanced cyclist in a field where every contender was performance-enhanced.

[Scrib]

By all means, prove it's a witch hunt.

Flagg, Lance Armstrong has been drug tested several hundred times over a period of years. He passed all of them. Exactly how long is he expected to continue passing the same tests over, and over, and over again as a retired athlete?

As many times as they ask him to? If he's not using he has nothing to fear. His pulling out of arbitration and giving up his titles tells me all I need to know. He can whine all he wants about how unfair it all is, if he had cooperated he could have proven himself innocent. Assuming he was innocent. Which considering the eyewitnesses and his capitulation is a hell of an assumption to make.

Here's the problem with kneejerk: "IF you're innocent you have nothing to fear!". I can totally go the other way and say: "If I'd been forced to do the amount of tests that Lance had done and still be subject to this problem, I would want to give up as well." At the end of the day it's just one impression against another. People are people. They aren't automatons that just forge ahead forever without rest. As he says, he won the medals, nothing is going to take that away from him, so fuck them.

[Zinegata]

By all means, prove it's a witch hunt.

Flagg, Lance Armstrong has been drug tested several hundred times over a period of years. He passed all of them. Exactly how long is he expected to continue passing the same tests over, and over, and over again as a retired athlete?

This is what troubles me though. Officially Armstrong passed all the drug tests. There is officially no physical evidence that proves he doped.

However much of this physical evidence has come into question (including several allegations of mishandling). But it seems the USADA wasn't even considering looking at this physical evidence (or reviewing the testing process) at all - they're just relying on "He said she said".

That stinks no matter how you look at it. If Lance is guilty, then it means the testing process was rotten to the core (otherwise how could he have passed hundreds of tests?). Yet the USADA isn't saying a word about the testing process or how it could have happened. They're just going "Hurr durr, Lance refuses to face our witnesses! He's guilty!"

The USADA's investigation simply makes no sense. It's like having a judge throw out most of the existing physical evidence in the case and to rely primarily on eyewitness testimony!

[Crazedwraith]

So there's no evidence. He's passed all the tests. And this agency doesn't actually have the authority to strip him of his titles. And it's well passed it own statue of limitations for these things...

This is a mess. I mean given that everyone was doping back then. It's sure suspicious if he wasn't but the fact he's passed ever test ever. I'm going to go with presumption of innocence.

[Grumman]

So you're saying that you think he's guilty because a bunch of people, who could be a lying pack of assholes, say he is? Wow, standards much?

Who are a lying pack of assholes. Why take the word of the opponents who cheated to try to beat him (and the rest of the cyclists) as gospel?

[Jub]

So you're saying that you think he's guilty because a bunch of people, who could be a lying pack of assholes, say he is? Wow, standards much?

Who are a lying pack of assholes. Why take the word of the opponents who cheated to try to beat him (and the rest of the cyclists) as gospel?

I was being generous by saying they have a chance to not be assholes.

[Simon_Jester]

Not fighting it screams "guilty" to me.

As opposed to "sick of lawyering?"

I mean hell, if he's done with competitive cycling (he's 41 now)... why would he want to bother? Why spend the rest of your life fighting an unfalsifiable accusation? "You can't PROVE you didn't use drugs!" is a bullshit charge. If all that affects is whether some national organization tries to retroactively 'unaward' him, isn't it reasonable for him to say "to hell with it, my ego isn't this important, I want to get on with my life?"

Not everyone likes the idea of spending their forties fighting to defend the 'honor' of what they did in their twenties.

As far as I'm concerned, Armstrong's statement is totally consistent with the facts.

As many times as they ask him to? If he's not using he has nothing to fear. His pulling out of arbitration and giving up his titles tells me all I need to know. He can whine all he wants about how unfair it all is, if he had cooperated he could have proven himself innocent. Assuming he was innocent. Which considering the eyewitnesses and his capitulation is a hell of an assumption to make.

'The innocent have nothing to fear...' Come on, this is just sad.

How long is this testing supposed to last? Will he still have to dodder into a doctor's office on a Zimmer frame and piss in a cup when he's 85, just in case there's some sixty year old residue to uncloak and be found in his urine?

That USADA is apparently relying on "He said, she said" without bothering with actual test results doesn't seem very credible on their part.

More like "A bunch of people claiming to have witnessed it versus one guy saying "Na Uh!" You don't need physical evidence to send a guy to death row, let alone to take away some trivial in comparison bicycle racing titles.

If the physical evidence from 500 different independent sources (say, security cameras) all place me miles away from the crime, then damn straight you need physical evidence to convict. "The cameras might all have been faked by evil gnomes!" isn't going to cut it.

[Broomstick]

I go so far as to wonder whether steroid abuse caused his testicular cancer.

Highly unlikely.

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in men between 20 and around 40, his diagnosis at the age of 25 wasn't at all remarkable for that disease. Steroid-induced cancers take years to develop, so unless Armstrong started doping as a teen (or earlier) that is also unlikely. On top of that, liver and kidney cancers are more typical steroid-triggered cancers. Or perhaps steroid-influenced might be a better term. Organ dysfunction and failure can be a side effect of long-term steroid abuse but classifying them as carcinogens is a bit extreme.

[Thanas]

I do believe he was doped, simply because I cannot find a motive for the French anti-doping agency, the US organization and the media to engage in a conspiracy to destroy Armstrong. After all, he is/was one of the most beloved athletes out there.

This is a good summary.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

I think he doped as well. Look at it this way. Here are the podium finishes for the 7 Tours he won:

- 1999 du 3 au 25 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ZULLE Alex (Sui)
3. ESCARTIN Fernando (Esp)

- 2000 du 1er au 23 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ULLRICH Jan (All)
3. BELOKI Joseba (Esp)

- 2001 du 7 au 29 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ULLRICH Jan (All)
3. BELOKI Joseba (Esp)

- 2002 du 6 au 28 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. BELOKI Joseba (Esp)
3. RUMSAS Raimondas (Lit)

- 2003 du 5 au 27 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ULLRICH Jan (All)
3. VINOKOUROV Alexandre (Kaz)

- 2004 du 3 au 25 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. KLÖDEN Andreas (All)
3. BASSO Ivan (Ita)

- 2005 du 2 au 24 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. BASSO Ivan (Ita) à 4’40"
3. ULLRICH Jan (All) à 6’21"

Out of all those, I know that Zulle, Ullrich, Beloki, Kloden, Basso and Vinokourov were all banned for doping at some point or another. There may even be a couple more that I've missed. It's very likely that everybody in the top 10 was on something. The average speed for the Tour has also risen in last few years since they started seriously cracking down on doping. Cadel Evan's win in 2011 was one of the slowest Tours (if not the slowest) in history, and Evans is not a bad rider by any standard.

So either Lance Armstrong was such a superhuman rider that he could beat guys that were later found to be doping while he was completely clean, or he was as up to his eyeballs as the rest of them. Which seems more likely? It won't hold up in a court of law, but the circumstantial evidence alone combined with his statement seems rather damning to me.

[Ralin]

So, it's been mentioned already, but it bears repeating. Even if he was the most doped up cyclist in history, how exactly does an American agency have the authority to strip him of titles he earned in a French race?

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

They can't, but they can recommend to the appropriate bodies whom award the title(s) to have them stripped. In this case it would be the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale). It all depends on what evidence they actually have on him though.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

Sorry for the double-post, but speaking of the evidence that's been collected against him, here's what we apparently know so far.

- There is evidence against him and if it went to arbitration he'd be completely fucked if/when it came out.
- He had been tested positive to a banned testosterone medication during his first Tour De France, but was let off because of an old, out of date prescription.
- His former masseuse has full details of picking up drugs and concealers for both Lance Armstrong and his team mates.
- This one is the biggie. 10 former team mates were willing to testify that Amrstrong doped, with them, and they had seen him do it.

[Broomstick]

Here's an idea:

Let's simply invalidate any and all cycling competitions from, say, 1990 onward. If the sport is that rotten then it's all meaningless anyway.

Either that, or just admit it's a race between pharmaceutical companies and not actual humans, allow anything and everything, and we can just sit back and watch these "athletes" die of drug complications a few years after spectacular wins. That's if they don't just simply start dropping dead mid-race.

[thejester]

Here's an idea:

Let's simply invalidate any and all cycling competitions from, say, 1990 onward. If the sport is that rotten then it's all meaningless anyway.

Either that, or just admit it's a race between pharmaceutical companies and not actual humans, allow anything and everything, and we can just sit back and watch these "athletes" die of drug complications a few years after spectacular wins. That's if they don't just simply start dropping dead mid-race.

That is extraordinarily stupid, even by your standards. For starters, do you realise that events like the Tour aren't just all about the yellow jersey?

[Jub]

How about this; they didn't catch him then, they have no physical evidence now, let him keep the damned titles and implement better testing policies for the future.

[Todeswind]

If a single person being tested via blood and urine five times a month for a decade by various agencies to can slip under the radar for the use of PEDs; it would require either that the method of testing be so wildly inaccurate as to be useless, the various organizations to be doing the testing to be entirely corrupt, or the persons administering the test to be so blisteringly incompetent that they can't be trusted to administrate it. We would more or less have to assume that all drug testing done in 1990-2012 cannot be reasonably trusted as accurate.

Edit: Well that or that Lance Armstrong employed methods of avoiding detection at a super villain level of deviousness. But I suspect that weekly fully body blood transfusions would be impractical.

[Broomstick]

Here's an idea:

Let's simply invalidate any and all cycling competitions from, say, 1990 onward. If the sport is that rotten then it's all meaningless anyway.

Either that, or just admit it's a race between pharmaceutical companies and not actual humans, allow anything and everything, and we can just sit back and watch these "athletes" die of drug complications a few years after spectacular wins. That's if they don't just simply start dropping dead mid-race.

That is extraordinarily stupid, even by your standards. For starters, do you realise that events like the Tour aren't just all about the yellow jersey?

Yes, I realize that it's more than just the yellow jersey.

My point, which apparently sailed over your little head, is that if the sport is so rotten that every single winner over a course of decades is later stripped of title for cheating then it's no longer a sport at all - and that's more or less an assertion that comes up again and again in these debates. If the sport is so rotten that the "testimony" of proven cheaters can convict a man for whom there is NO physical evidence of cheating despite near-constant and repetitive testing then any "investigation" into an accusation is no better than an inquisition where accusation is the same as conviction.

At a certain point words like "tradition" and "culture" become meaningless. If the Tour de France is more about who has the best doctor and pharmacist than who is the better athlete then it has become a farce.

If you want to accuse someone of cheating via chemical enhancement then prove it. And if it can't be proved then either the person is innocent or, possibly, he got away with it and you need better tests. Either way, repeatedly accusing someone of the same offense over and over doesn't make it any more or less true. There is a reason the US constitution forbids being tried more than once for the same crime, it's to avoid someone being ruined by endless court battles. Cheating in the Tour de France is, apparently, not a crime in the legal sense of going to jail which someone, in some peoples' minds, makes it OK to accuse and re-accuse indefinitely.

[Flagg]

I do believe he was doped, simply because I cannot find a motive for the French anti-doping agency, the US organization and the media to engage in a conspiracy to destroy Armstrong. After all, he is/was one of the most beloved athletes out there.

This is a good summary.

This, essentially. You'd have to be a conspiracy theorist loon to think all of the agnecies after him are somehow in collusion to take him down.

1) Take down Lance Armstrong for doping.

2)???

3) Profit!

[Broomstick]

The problem is proof. There is no proof here, only accusation.

Yes, it would seem reasonable that in a field where everyone else was caught cheating the winner wasn't cheating, too - but if that is so why did none of the tests ever catch it? That needs to be explained before you start stripping titles.

Unless you're proposing a conspiracy theory where every single tester over those years conspired to fake clean results for Armstrong... but why would they do that?

[Thanas]

When the amount of money spend on doping is multiple times higher than the amount on testing and when stuff like Fuentes goes on for decades then it is not unreasonable to expect the side who spends more to have better chemists. Quite frankly, there is enough precedent for this to have happened. There are plenty of illegal substances out there that are only caught after somebody blows the whistle. See for example the entire east German swimming team.

Also what motive should all these people have to tear down Armstrong when the opposite would enhance their profits? It would be the best for them to keep it quiet and hush it up so that the sport can finally have a clean winner. That they are going after him instead is another strong indicator that he did indeed dope.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

The problem is proof. There is no proof here, only accusation.

Yes, it would seem reasonable that in a field where everyone else was caught cheating the winner wasn't cheating, too - but if that is so why did none of the tests ever catch it? That needs to be explained before you start stripping titles.

Unless you're proposing a conspiracy theory where every single tester over those years conspired to fake clean results for Armstrong... but why would they do that?

Not all doping is created equal. I have little difficulty in believing that Armstrong (as Thanas said) had the resources and contacts to get the very best stuff. There are also a myriad of ways to do it at various costs and with various probabilities of being caught. Add in a bit of luck and possibly willful blindness from people from the right positions and you have the situation we're in now. No incompetence or mass conspiracy required.

Oh, and enough of this "There's no physical evidence, therefore he isn't guilty" crap. There have been a host of recent cycling cases where direct eyewitness testimony a lot weaker than what Armstrong is facing now has been enough to find them guilty, but because he's Armstrong it's somehow different. Whether it's because he's American, or won so many times, or he's a cancer survivor, or a combination of all of those and more.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, and enough of this "There's no physical evidence, therefore he isn't guilty" crap. There have been a host of recent cycling cases where direct eyewitness testimony a lot weaker than what Armstrong is facing now has been enough to find them guilty, but because he's Armstrong it's somehow different. Whether it's because he's American, or won so many times, or he's a cancer survivor, or a combination of all of those and more.

For my part, none of the above. I dont give a shit about sports. Hate being an American most of the time, and really find it difficult to believe that a cancer survivor won without cheating in a sport where everyone cheats. That said:

Put up or shut up. Eyewitness testimony, even from 10 people, is unreliable. Even if simple subjectivity of observation were not sufficient, there are the human motivations. Namely, the desire to see the person who beat them dishonored. Among others.

Eye-witness testimony should not be relied upon for anything more than investigating who started a fight on a god damn playground. So, unless there is actual evidence, leave the man alone. If you think he cheats, the burden of proof rests on you (the all-inclusive you). Test for drugs. Hell, make all the athletes submit to an RFID data logger and weekly blood samples, but dont go on a witch-hunt where an accusation is as good as guilt. There is nothing Armstrong can do if he is innocent to shake these charges, safe for not participating in the proceeding. What he is going to do? Go in front of a private arbitrator who has a HUGE conflict of interest by way of the plaintiffs paying said arbitrator? (and yes, private arbitration has won the right in US courts to be corrupt). No.