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

[Stark]

I think its sad that Gunhead is probably right, and the truth is basically irrelevant at this point. It's just a dumb sport so I don't care, but its a shame this body is more interested in its profile than its integrity.

[aerius]

I remain undecided regarding USADA's actions. If this is the first step in them getting serious about getting drugs out of cycling and reforming the doping culture in the sport, then I fully support their actions. If they follow through from here and come down like a sack of bricks on all dopers past & present and work hard at getting doping out of the sport instead of just whacking a few token cyclists it'll be good for the sport in the long run and I can get behind their actions. But if they stop here and don't make a real effort going forward to clean up the sport then fuck'em, cause if they did that it would sure as hell look like a witch hunt and allow doping to get even more out of hand than it already is.

I like to think that this is a good first step because it shows that no one is above the rules and too big to get taken down. Whether I continue to believe this depends on what USADA and the rest of the governing bodies do in the future.

[KlavoHunter]

Doesn't matter what the USDA or UCI or ABC or XYZ says, Lance Armstrong will always be that fellow who won a whole shit-ton of Tour De France medals and appeared on a bunch of cereal boxes, to me.

Doesn't matter what the UK or the USA or the USSR or XYZ says, Hitler will always be that fellow who created a whole shit-ton of a jobs and appeared on the cover of Time magazine, to me.

YOU JUST GOT GODWIN'D! YEAH!

Heil Armstrong! Death to the car-drivers! Four wheels bad, two wheels good!



...

...


No, seriously, you just compared athlete doping to HITLER. You're dumb as fuck, and furthermore, terrible at this trolling thing.

[Stark]

I remain undecided regarding USADA's actions. If this is the first step in them getting serious about getting drugs out of cycling and reforming the doping culture in the sport, then I fully support their actions. If they follow through from here and come down like a sack of bricks on all dopers past & present and work hard at getting doping out of the sport instead of just whacking a few token cyclists it'll be good for the sport in the long run and I can get behind their actions. But if they stop here and don't make a real effort going forward to clean up the sport then fuck'em, cause if they did that it would sure as hell look like a witch hunt and allow doping to get even more out of hand than it already is.

I like to think that this is a good first step because it shows that no one is above the rules and too big to get taken down. Whether I continue to believe this depends on what USADA and the rest of the governing bodies do in the future.

I'd expect a broad policy to be raising checking and monitoring levels and showing the determination to pursue others. Is this happening?

[Sriad]

But I'm not comfortable with throwing the idea out the window, even if I really want someone to be punished for a crime. Who wants to live in a society where if the authority (professional or government) can't nail you for something the first time, they get to try again and again until a charge sticks? I don't.

Good thing it's not a forced dilemma then? Its actually quite trivial to neither ban retrials for <asinine reason> nor allow infinite attempts to the EBIL GUBBA MINT. I know, I know, America.

Plus as everyone should know, it's not actually a crime, just the regulatory body overseeing part of a sport he was involved in making the recommendation to the organisation that runs the events.

And so it turns out that double jeopardy has no fucking purpose in this discussion at all.

It has the purpose "what behavior leads to correct outcomes in the general case."

In science you don't keep performing the same experiment until you get the result you want. In dating you don't keep stalking the same girl until you get the answer you want. Elections aren't held over and over until the sitting government gets the result it wants. In criminal justice (at least in the United States where this shit is happening anyway) you don't keep retrying until you get the verdict you want.

But sports related substance abuse investigations... apparently is the one thing where it works.

[Sea Skimmer]

I have to say it has been just comical reading how Armstrong is accused of avoiding testing. He would simply stay in hotels away from everyone else, and sometimes just hide with the lights out from testers, who in some cases actually phoned ahead to say they were coming. Meanwhile his whole team constantly communicated by cell phone to alert each other to the locations of testing agents as they were all easily identified and predictable, never working at night for example. Since EPO injections could only be detected within hours of the injection this made life downright easy.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, now THAT is suspicious- but what bugs me about all the really suspicious evidence is why it didn't come up in this kind of strength before.

Plus as everyone should know, it's not actually a crime, just the regulatory body overseeing part of a sport he was involved in making the recommendation to the organisation that runs the events.

And so it turns out that double jeopardy has no fucking purpose in this discussion at all.

It's not about government or crime. It's about the way we define justice.

I think the idea behind double jeopardy is good. You shouldn't be allowed to keep investigating the same allegation over and over until a charge sticks and you "get" the target. There's not much point in trying to accept and tolerate a regulatory body if they're just going to keep hammering whoever they think Done It and cherrypicking the evidence until they get the 'right' outcome.

If I were a clean cyclist right now, I'd be worried about pissed-off competitors of mine now, in case they decide to give 'eye-witness' testimony about my doping. After the third or fourth round of investigations, the regulators would be a lot more inclined to believe what they want to hear.

[thejester]

Except part of the point is that it did come up previously. It's like the myth he never tested positive. He tested positive for cortisone at least once but was able to get a backdated prescription, because he had a doctor in his pocket. I don't think you can really talk about 'double jeopardy' when the evidence is so totally overwhelming of both the doping itself and the cover-up. In the end this has become about more than Armstrong himself and the results - it's about the failure of the system and the conspiracy that supported the doping and co-opted other riders into it.

EDIT: Ultimately the summation of the report is on the USADA website. People should go read it and make up their own minds.

[aerius]

I'd expect a broad policy to be raising checking and monitoring levels and showing the determination to pursue others. Is this happening?

I think it's still too early to tell either way, cycling season is over so there's not much going on that the general public can see, there might be a ton of stuff going on behind the scenes but I'm not privy to it in any way and have no way of really knowing about it. We'll have to wait till next year to see how they do their testing & enforcement as well as any new policies they roll out.

EDIT: Ultimately the summation of the report is on the USADA website. People should go read it and make up their own minds.

The executive summary alone is over 200 pages. Unfortunately I'm not an underemployed government worker anymore so it's going to take me a long time to read through the whole thing.

[mr friendly guy]

Now, double jeopardy is one of those rules people want to violate sometimes. For example, the case referenced here:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frank ... -you-feel/

Ignoring any questions of "I hate the tone of the article," we can pretty well say that in this case, it's blindingly obvious that the defendant did commit rape. But the prosecutors screwed up and charged him with a specific subtype of rape that, given the strict definition of the law, the defendant did not commit. He gets off on a technicality.

It stinks.

But I'm not comfortable with throwing the idea out the window, even if I really want someone to be punished for a crime. Who wants to live in a society where if the authority (professional or government) can't nail you for something the first time, they get to try again and again until a charge sticks? I don't.

Simon, in a previous post with me in regards to defamation law, you said that the method of proof I was arguing works well for SD.net debates but not legal matters. If I applied that logic, Armstrong case is not a legal matter, so why bring up legal proceedings to a non legal case?

To me this whole thing has gone beyond the guilt of a single athlete and has turned into a issue of credibility. USADA has gone all the way to prove Armstrong is guilty of doping and cannot back away anymore without looking like total bunch of idiots. Thus they'll keep hounding till they either dig up something to make their claims concrete, which seems unlikely since this would be something like a positive blood test, or they successfully assassinate Armstrong's character enough that people accept USADA's view on the matter. I'm not saying Armstrong didn't use doping, but I also think that is a moot point since this circus has gone on for so long. It's pretty unlikely at this point USADA will find their smoking gun that proves beyond question Armstrong is guilty of doping because if they had, they'd would have come forward with it which in turn means USADA's credibility will probably suffer no matter what as Armstrong can appear as the poor victim of a witch hunt conducted by USADA. For this reason I think he stopped fighting the claims as his career is already over and harm done by an accusation to his reputation is less than actually getting caught, which seems unlikely at this point.

-Gunhead

As I mentioned earlier before the thread was resurrected with new information, he is accused of
a) taking EPO before we invented a method to detect it
b) use autologous blood transfusions (ie his own blood was taken, stored and reused after his body had replenish his own supply) - there is no method to detect this in a test, since its his own blood. Thus you won't get a positive test.

This is the nature of things where the KNOWN cheating methods are ahead of the detection methods. EPO is been known about and I have personally prescribed it to renal patients. I have also ordered blood transfusions, so its not like these methods are out of the blue. As such, the detection agencies can only rely on eyewitnesses, documents etc rather than a blood test. Its not ideal, but thats the way technology is at the moment.

Heil Armstrong! Death to the car-drivers! Four wheels bad, two wheels good!
No, seriously, you just compared athlete doping to HITLER. You're dumb as fuck, and furthermore, terrible at this trolling thing.

I actually found his comment quite funny. Maybe because I realise he wasn't comparing Lance to Hitler, but comparing your method of holding your hands over your ears saying "I can't hear you" to the same level of denial Hitler apologists (or any other denialists for that matter) used.

[KlavoHunter]

I actually found his comment quite funny. Maybe because I realise he wasn't comparing Lance to Hitler, but comparing your method of holding your hands over your ears saying "I can't hear you" to the same level of denial Hitler apologists (or any other denialists for that matter) used.

I liked this post of mine better, it was more articulate - probably why nobody wanted to reply to it.

Seriously, even if Lance did it and even if the unlikely case that the runner-up didn't, how are you going to convince everyone that this #2 person is actually the superstar winner? I don't even know the name of any other cyclists other then Lance. Who's going to shell out for the media blitz to popularize the 'new winner'?

At best, you'll just get the list of medal winners changed on Wikipedia and nobody will notice or care.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nope, not an issue, as the announced plan is to have no winner 1999-2005 once Armstrongs titles are formally revoked. Maybe you should read the facts before you make arguments like this. In fact the #2 guy for several of his wins, Erik Zabel, already admitted to doping years ago as it is, one of several reasons not to declare new winners.

The sport is a load of crap at the professional level, they should just give everyone motorized bikes and turn it into a driving competition. The only way to crack down on EPO seems to be either barracks like conditions for the riders, or testing them every four to six hours neither of which is bloody likely in such a large event.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, in a previous post with me in regards to defamation law, you said that the method of proof I was arguing works well for SD.net debates but not legal matters. If I applied that logic, Armstrong case is not a legal matter, so why bring up legal proceedings to a non legal case?

Because it has many of the same characteristics as a legal decision. A lot's at stake, it takes extensive resources to set things up, there's formalized testimony and contractual obligations involved.

A legal principle like "innocent until proven guilty" may be worthwhile to preserve and use outside the court system. More justice is good, right?

Now, I'm willing to believe that there are so many overlapping bits of suspicious evidence that someone decided to do another investigation into Armstrong's case on the grounds that the first ones were all blatantly botched or improper. I'm not sure it's a good long-term practice, though. It makes me uncomfortable because it's easy for me to imagine it becoming a witch-hunt.

Sort of like how child abuse scandals can lead to very damaging persecutions of innocent people when they start running around a community. We should prosecute child abusers, but that doesn't mean we should keep trying to find ways to punish a person who passes every test of innocence we can throw, because we are sure he must be guilty.

[KlavoHunter]

Nope, not an issue, as the announced plan is to have no winner 1999-2005 once Armstrongs titles are formally revoked. Maybe you should read the facts before you make arguments like this. In fact the #2 guy for several of his wins, Erik Zabel, already admitted to doping years ago as it is, one of several reasons not to declare new winners.

Ah, bugger, suppose you're right, then.

Though, the idea of no winner at all just sounds laughable... I guess this is the last time I will ever give a shit about the Tour de France; the magic is gone, so to speak.

[thejester]

EDIT: Ultimately the summation of the report is on the USADA website. People should go read it and make up their own minds.

The executive summary alone is over 200 pages. Unfortunately I'm not an underemployed government worker anymore so it's going to take me a long time to read through the whole thing.

You don't need to read more than 10-20 pages of the main narrative to understand the massive weight of evidence against Armstrong.

[Gunhead]

As I mentioned earlier before the thread was resurrected with new information, he is accused of
a) taking EPO before we invented a method to detect it
b) use autologous blood transfusions (ie his own blood was taken, stored and reused after his body had replenish his own supply) - there is no method to detect this in a test, since its his own blood. Thus you won't get a positive test.

This is the nature of things where the KNOWN cheating methods are ahead of the detection methods. EPO is been known about and I have personally prescribed it to renal patients. I have also ordered blood transfusions, so its not like these methods are out of the blue. As such, the detection agencies can only rely on eyewitnesses, documents etc rather than a blood test. Its not ideal, but thats the way technology is at the moment.

All of the above is true really. The whole issue hasn't been making huge headlines here, but from what I've read the way USADA has approached the issue is they come off as defending their reputation vehemently which I find extremely distasteful. USADA should not engage in tactics of character assassination, no matter how iron clad their case is. If the weight of evidence is great but inconclusive, then you don't run around claiming how the investigative body has done it's job and the guy investigated is guilty. If the weight of evidence is measured by the same group gathering it, it does make the whole thing look dubious at best. Specially when it's combined with a publicity campaign which looks like an attempt to discredit someone. If EPO and blood manipulation was used but USADA cannot conclusively prove it, they're just playing a game of he said she said and trying to get Armstrong tried in the public court.
I haven't looked at the final report by USADA and might take a gander at it. If that convinces me of Armstrong's guilt, I still think USADA could have done a lot better job in publishing it's findings.
I think they way USADA has handled the publicity of the whole affair is one of the reasons why some defend Armstrong claiming USADA is on a witch hunt and others are convinced Armstrong is guilty of doping and USADA has done enough to prove it.

-Gunhead

[mr friendly guy]

I liked this post of mine better, it was more articulate - probably why nobody wanted to reply to it.

On the contrary I read your post and as I am one of those who "won't notice or care" about the lists of winners being changed on wikipedia, I didn't see a need to reply to that. I didn't even care enough about your original post to reply to it. I found Ando's parody of your statement funny though, and I had to defend his joke when he is being accused of comparing Armstrong to Hitler.

Because it has many of the same characteristics as a legal decision. A lot's at stake, it takes extensive resources to set things up, there's formalized testimony and contractual obligations involved.

A legal principle like "innocent until proven guilty" may be worthwhile to preserve and use outside the court system. More justice is good, right?

Now, I'm willing to believe that there are so many overlapping bits of suspicious evidence that someone decided to do another investigation into Armstrong's case on the grounds that the first ones were all blatantly botched or improper. I'm not sure it's a good long-term practice, though. It makes me uncomfortable because it's easy for me to imagine it becoming a witch-hunt.

Sort of like how child abuse scandals can lead to very damaging persecutions of innocent people when they start running around a community. We should prosecute child abusers, but that doesn't mean we should keep trying to find ways to punish a person who passes every test of innocence we can throw, because we are sure he must be guilty.

I don't think Armstrong was guilty until he decided to fold. In any event I am not disputing whether "innocent until proven guilty" should or should not be applied to sport cases, I am disputing applying the equivalent principle of double jeopardy to sport cases. Actually I don't object to ignoring double jeopardy in light of new evidence or gross incompetence in the first case in legal cases anyway but thats another story.

**

***

If anyone is interested, this is apparently a copy of the USADA's statement
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/! ... cision.pdf

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think Armstrong was guilty until he decided to fold. In any event I am not disputing whether "innocent until proven guilty" should or should not be applied to sport cases, I am disputing applying the equivalent principle of double jeopardy to sport cases.

Noted. I don't really feel like disputing this, I don't have enough stake in the issue to feel like wrestling over it- at least, that's how I feel at the moment.

Actually I don't object to ignoring double jeopardy in light of new evidence or gross incompetence in the first case in legal cases anyway but thats another story.

Now this I'd be interested in talking about, but I guess it's a derail.

[mr friendly guy]

Can anyone elaborate a bit more about how the USADA look like its undergoing a witch hunt again and again until it gets the answers it wants, since from what I recall in Aussie media its just mentioned that Armstrong threw in the towel.

A quick google search would seem that the USADA only brought preceedings against Armstrong last summer, and the USADA was only up and running in october 2000. I am not saying it doesn't look like that Armstrong's detractors tried to get him over the years, but it seems like the organisation that "brought him down" only coming into existence as a functioning organisation after Armstrong had already won two of his titles.

[mr friendly guy]

I am going to further say that claims that Armstrong is just accused and accused again until his detractors get the result they want seems a bit weak to apply to the USADA because this appears to be the first and only time the USADA formally accused Armstrong. According to their own case against Lance they only got information pointing to Armstrong in April 2010. Armstrong had already retired and made a come back and will retire again in late 2010. Heck, the USADA wasn't even formed yet when Armstrong won his first two titles.

[Irbis]

Though, the idea of no winner at all just sounds laughable... I guess this is the last time I will ever give a shit about the Tour de France; the magic is gone, so to speak.

The idea of no winner sounds laughable because of... What? Making example of 99% confirmed cheater in a case that maybe, just maybe will clean the sport by making others hesitate before they cheat, too, is bad?

I guess you'd prefer Mr Liarstrong to keep the titles sinking the sport's authority and audience's interest, then the magic wouldn't be gone, is that right?

I'd prefer the titles to be given to clean rider, but since we can't find out who that was (and if there was anyone clean due to competition pressure from your doped idol) that solution works for me.

[Flagg]

I love the idea that he shouldn't be penalized both because he wasn't cheating and because everybody cheated. Either he cheated and should lose his medals or he won all of those races against dopers and he's the goddamned Batman.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

If doping is so prevalent that they have to declare that for a six year period there were no winners because of it, I say they should just make it an official part of the sport, dose the bikers up on whatever combination of steroids and PCP gets results and turn 'em loose.

[weemadando]

Well, Matthew White (Australian cyclist) has now resigned from his professional sporting posts and admitted that the allegations in the USADA report regarding his time on the same team as Lance Armstrong are true.

So, make of that what you will.

[Thanas]

Anybody who doesn't think the guy is guilty as hell after reading the USDA statement is either dumb or a blind fanboy. Seriously.

Page 16 onwards is telling.