Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life from cycling, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life from...

post #1 of 134
Thread Starter 

 Quote:

The United States Anti-Doping Agency said Friday that it was sanctioning Armstrong for using the banned blood booster EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents; for trafficking EPO, testosterone and corticosteroids; and for administering those drugs to other riders. The agency also claimed he participated in a widespread cover-up of doping on his Tour-winning teams.

 

The agency then said it would move to expunge Armstrong’s most celebrated cycling achievements — his seven Tour de France titles — and bar him for life from participating in any sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code.

 

See, for instance,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/sports/cycling/antidoping-officials-move-to-wipe-out-armstrongs-titles.html?_r=1&ref=sports

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

 

What do you think?


Edited by JakeJack_2008 - 8/25/12 at 3:53pm
post #2 of 134

This is, IMHO, so wrong.

post #3 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Pa View Post

This is, IMHO, so wrong.

Why exactly?

 

Would it be more fair if anyone caught doping was stripped of any achievements,

regardless of sport.

 

Or do you feel doping is just part of the game, modern day sports...

post #4 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Why exactly?

 

Would it be more fair if anyone caught doping was stripped of any achievements,

regardless of sport.

 

Or do you feel doping is just part of the game, modern day sports...

None of the above.  Have you read Armstrong's statement in deciding not to defend?  Pretty much says it all. 

post #5 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Pa View Post

None of the above.  Have you read Armstrong's statement in deciding not to defend?  Pretty much says it all. 

I did. I think it pretty much says he's given up. Is that somewhat admitting guilt or just saying screw it, who knows?

 

What's unclear to me is how they are able to strip him of the titles. IIRC he tested positive at least twice,

but within politics of the law he somehow got off. Correct me if I'm wrong. The other time I believe

his DR. provided some kind of evidence for why he failed that test.

 

AFAIK, the only thing going against armstrong is allegations of former teammates and/or competitors.

 

I don't know where I actually stand on this. Do I think he's guilty, yep. Was he ever caught, nope.

Without evidence he shouldn't be punished, right?

post #6 of 134

I don't think that refusing to defend further against 13 year old charges (where there is, what, an 8 year statute of limitations?) is an admission of guilt.  I did not read anything in Armstrong's statement that I though was any kind of an admission of guilt.  It is my understanding that some of the "allegations" against him were made by people who were already up on charges with real evidence and admissions and they were offered deals.  I don't know anything that would allow me to form a legitimate opinion as to his guilt, certainly not in light of a presumption of innocence which is only fair.

 

Tell me, though, in your opinion:  if some practice, like being transfused with your own blood, was not banned by the rules at one time and somebody did it, and then it was banned by the rules at a later time, and the same person did not do it again, would you consider them guilty of a violation?


Edited by Old Pa - 8/26/12 at 1:20pm
post #7 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Pa View Post

I don't think that refusing to defend further against 13 year old charges (where there is, what, an 8 year statute of limitations?) is an admission of guilt.  I did not read anything in Armstrong's statement that I though was any kind of an admission of guilt.  It is my understanding that some of the "allegations" against him were made by people who were already up on charges with real evidence and admissions and they were offered deals.  I don't know anything that would allow me to form a legitimate opinion as to his guilt, certainly not in light of a presumption of innocence which is only fair.

 

Tell me, though, in your opinion:  if some practice, like being transfused with your own blood, was not banned by the rules at one time and somebody did it, and then it was banned by the rules at a later time, and the same person did not do it again, would you consider them guilty of a violation?

Just because allegations came from people already up on charges shouldn't automatically dismiss their claims.

He failed 2 tests, you could argue (and they do) that the tests were questionable. 

(This to me always seems to be the case of any failed tests).

 

Sure, so far there probably isn't anything legitimate (whatever that even means) to sway your opinion as to his guilt. Of course, it's being somewhat presumptuous.

 

You say they did it the first time under no ban, but then they didn't do it again under ban. Do you mean they did do it again...

 

Then yes, they are guilty of the violation. I personally think they should let this doping thing go, it is a part of that era in sports.

Just look at baseball man.....that is a mess. Who gets a 50 game suspension, who claims of faulty testing,. Does this doper or 

known  but  never caught doper , or  suspicioned doper, or even prosecuted doper deserve HOF status, do we put asterisk or not  in the history books.....

 

I think you wipe the slate clean. Put in your rules and give lifetime bans on the first offence. But I'm a rash thinker.


Edited by paradoxper - 8/26/12 at 1:33pm
post #8 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Just because allegations came from people already up on charges shouldn't automatically dismiss their claims.

He failed 2 tests, you could argue (and they do) that the tests were questionable. 

(This to me always seems to be the case of any failed tests).

 

Sure, so far there probably isn't anything legitimate (whatever that even means) to sway your opinion as to his guilt. Of course, it's being somewhat presumptuous.

 

You say they did it the first time under no ban, but then they didn't do it again under ban. Do you mean they did do it again...

 

Then yes, they are guilty of the violation. I personally think they should let this doping thing go, it is a part of that era in sports.

Just look at baseball man.....that is a mess. Who gets a 50 game suspension, who claims of faulty testing,. Does this doper or 

known  but  never caught doper , or  suspicioned doper, or even prosecuted doper deserve HOF status, do we put asterisk or not  in the history books.....

 

I think you wipe the slate clean. Put in your rules and give lifetime bans on the first offence. But I'm a rash thinker.

Who said anything about "automatically dismissing" them?  I was just talking about pressure, bias and motivation.

 

In criminal prosecutions (ie. where "criminal" rules are alleged to have been broken), there is by law a presumption of the defendant's innocence which must be overcome to convict.  That's only fair.

 

No, that whatever it was was not done after it was banned, and it was not banned when they did it (so it could not have been a violation).  Its the old ex post facto rule: you can't convict somebody for doing something that was not against the rules when they did it by passing a later rule making it against the rules.

 

What were the two tests he failed?  Are we discussing false positive or false negatives?  What are the reliability rates normally on those tests?

 

I think they took away what Armstrong legitimately won and earned and if we let them do it to him, they will do it to others.

post #9 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Pa View Post

Who said anything about "automatically dismissing" them?  I was just talking about pressure, bias and motivation.

 

In criminal prosecutions (ie. where "criminal" rules are alleged to have been broken), there is by law a presumption of the defendant's innocence which must be overcome to convict.  That's only fair.

 

No, that whatever it was was not done after it was banned, and it was not banned when they did it (so it could not have been a violation).  Its the old ex post facto rule: you can't convict somebody for doing something that was not against the rules when they did it by passing a later rule making it against the rules.

 

What were the two tests he failed?  Are we discussing false positive or false negatives?  What are the reliability rates normally on those tests?

 

I think they took away what Armstrong legitimately won and earned and if we let them do it to him, they will do it to others.

It did seem to be implied by "allegations" against him were made by people who were already up on charges with real evidence and admissions and they were offered deals". I interpreted that as part of the deal was to rat on Lance.

 

Based off your example of the ex post facto rule, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency doesn't have the grounds to strip him of his wins and

ban him for life.

 

 

You call to question what the reliability rates on the tests. Couldn't you just as easily argue if the test are so damning and unreliable

why would he volunteer for them in the first place, and have the backbone of your case be "I never failed a test" 

What does that matter if the process is flawed?

 

The question then becomes do they have such authority? 

 

Well, again IIRC he failed a test in 2001 or 2002, but it was somehow taken care of through DR or perhaps

by disputing lab results.

 

I also believe some of the most used examples of doping would be Marion Jones who I think confessed

while under investigation, never failed a drug test.

post #10 of 134

We seem to have different interests in this discussion and in regards to ethics generally.

post #11 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Pa View Post

We seem to have different interests in this discussion and in regards to ethics generally.

I think we do have different interest, though I don't really stand on any one side.

 

I think based on what we've talked about, it's wrong for them to strip him of his accomplishments. There is no evidence.

 

On the other hand, it's hard to personally believe he was clean, when so much doping was taking place all around him.

 

Of course, these are just my speculations, but OP did ask what we thought.

post #12 of 134
Thread Starter 

Well, there's more to it.

 

 

Quote:

Floyd Landis

 

Floyd Landis (born October 14, 1975) is a retired American cyclist who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France victory in 2010.

He was an all-around rider, with special skills in climbing, time-trialing, and descending. Landis turned professional in 1999

with the Mercury Cycling Team. He joined the US Postal Service team in 2002, and moved to the Phonak Hearing Systems team in 2005.

In January 2010, a French judge issued a national arrest warrant for Landis on computer hacking charges related to

the 2006 doping allegations.[1][2]

In 2006, Landis won the first edition of the Amgen Tour of California, before going on to finish first in the 2006 Tour de France.

He was stripped of his Tour de France victory and fired from the Phonak team after a drug-control test demonstrated the presence of

a skewed testosterone/epitestosterone ratio during stage 17.[3]

Until 2010, Landis maintained his innocence and mounted a vigorous defense. Although Landis' legal team documented inconsistencies

in the handling and evaluation of his urine samples, the disqualification was upheld.

He was suspended from professional competition through January 30, 2009, following an arbitration panel's 2-to-1 ruling

on September 20, 2007. Landis appealed the result of the arbitration hearing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport,

which subsequently upheld the panel's ruling.[4]

 

....

 

On May 20, 2010, after almost four years of contesting the allegations against him, Landis admitted to continual doping

and alleged that Lance Armstrong and many other top riders who rode on his team doped as well.[7][8]

The admissions and accusations came in an e-mail Landis sent to cycling officials three weeks before it was leaked to the media.

Landis is cooperating with Food and Drug Administration agent Jeff Novitzky.[9]

In January 2011, Landis was unable to find a new team, and ended his professional career.[10]

 

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis

 

 

I would not call Lance Armstrong innocent.

post #13 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeJack_2008 View Post

 

 

I would not call Lance Armstrong innocent.

Still don't understand why anyone would want to form up a judgment on what is obviously incomplete information.  What's your beef with Armstrong?

post #14 of 134
Thread Starter 

The question is ... who's next?

 

I hope that  any accusations related to illegal drug/enhancents use will never be brought against Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt!

I hope that they're clean. I keep my fingers crossed.


Edited by JakeJack_2008 - 8/27/12 at 11:03am
post #15 of 134
Thread Starter 

 In case you didn't know.

 

Quote:

Heike Gabriela Drechsler née Daute (born 16 December 1964 in Gera, Thuringia, then East Germany) is a German track and field athlete. She is one of the most successful female long jumpers of all time and also had several successes in sprint disciplines./

 

....

 

Doping allegations

 

There were many accusations of drug use while she competed for East Germany. She has never failed a drug test during her career; it is to be noted however that all East German athletes competing abroad were tested before departure to avoid getting caught [3] In 2001, the BBC claimed she has admitted to unknowingly taking prohibited substances in the early 1980s under orders from her team doctors.[2]

In 1991, after the fall of East Germany, Brigitte Berendonk and Werner Franke wrote several theses and dissertations quoting former GDR doping researchers in the Military Medical Academy Bad Saarow (MMA). The basis of the work reconstructed state-organized doping practices involving many well-known GDR athletes, including Heike Drechsler. Indications were that Heike Drechsler used high doses Oral Turinabol plus more testosterone ester injections before competitions from 1982 to 1984.[3] In 1993, Drechsler challenged Brigitte Berendonk, accusing her of lying in a lawsuit.[4] In the case, the full annual dosage schedules, and charts of the development of sport performance as a function of the dosage amount were released. Drechsler lost the lawsuit.[5][6]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heike_Drechsler#Doping_allegations

 

 

and

 

"Marita Koch (born 18 February 1957 in Wismar, East Germany, married name Marita Koch Meier), is a former sprint track and field athlete.

During her career she collected a remarkable sixteen world records in outdoor sprints, as well as 14 world records in indoor events.

 

...

 

Drug use controversy

 

Koch's achievements, along with the extraordinary performances of many other East German female athletes, aroused suspicion that they were achieved with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.[2] These drugs were and remain illegal, but were not detectable at the time. In 1991 German anti drug activists Brigitte Berendonk and Werner Franke were able to save several doctoral theses and other documents written by scientists working for the East German drug research program. The documents list the dosage and timetables for the administration of anabolic steroids to many athletes of the former GDR, one of them being Marita Koch. According to the sources Koch did use the anabolic steroid Oral-Turinabol from 1981 to 1984 with dosages ranging from 530 to 1460 mg/year. Koch never publicly admitted to this. However, a letter to the head of the state-owned pharmaceutical company was discovered by researcher Werner Frank, in which Marita Koch complained that Bärbel Wöckel received larger doses of steroids, because she had a relative working in the company."

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marita_Koch#Drug_use_controversy

 

Will Lance Armstrong deny using illegal drugs/stereoids for at least 25+ years as Marita Koch,

or will he claim that he has used them unknowingly like Barroid? I just wonder.

 

Edit:

This might  interest you: Doping in East Germany, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany


Edited by JakeJack_2008 - 8/27/12 at 5:45pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life from cycling, etc.