Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping?

[troutman]

People really need to stop saying there is no evidence. There is so much evidence, Lance had to surrender. Much of the evidence has been made public, or hinted at, and much more will be disclosed as this matter and other investigations proceed. I can't force you to read about the evidence, but is linked and documented in this thread and others, and it is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Evidence is often "one person's word against another", except here it is many person's word against another.

[bossy22]

What evidence? This was dropped in federal court because they didn't have enough evidence. This is a dozen people saying they saw him do it. USADA doesn't need "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Based on WHAT evidence? Unless I'm missing something here there is no evidence besides one persons word versus another.

So in my opinion, that plus the ridiculous amount of time that has passed should be enough to just drop it.

Maybe we should strip Jesse Owens of his olympic titles because I garuntee we can find some Nazi documents that suspect him doping...

Of all the threads this was probably one that I thought would never be Godwin'd, but you found a way.

[polak]

Originally Posted by valo403

Of all the threads this was probably one that I thought would never be Godwin'd, but you found a way.

It was the first thing that came to mind

[bossy22]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...2080853.column

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bossy22

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...2080853.column

I love writers who grab bits of dicta from legal opinions and pretend like they're a conclusion

Haha, this guy also apparently doesn't even know what Bonds and Clemens were tired for. What a joke.

Oh, and his big closing point seems to be that it should be okay to take steroids because it's okay to have injuries surgically repaired.

[GoFlamesGo89]

Originally Posted by bossy22

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...2080853.column

I wasn't able to make it through the first third of that article before my BS detector forced me to close the window.

While it might be true that there are 'insurmountable hurdles' preventing athletes from defending themselves in a typical case (although if you're clean why would you need to defend yourself?), that certainly isn't the case with LA. The guy could crowdsource the resources he needs fairly easily.

Here's probably the best scientific summary I've read describing the evidence which now exists for which technology was not available at various points of his career:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

In general, it astounds me how many people believe that someone not failing any number of drug tests means that they weren't doping.

[troutman]

I re-read this excellent article today, and highly recommend it. The writer clinically (and fairly) demolishes all the usual arguments made by Lance denialists, and eloquently explains why this is important, all these years later. Also, read the links in the article. Very illuminating.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ce+of+Sport%29

[GGG]

Is it worth it retesting samples to know what we all know anyway? That all of the athletes are dirty?

If testing of the day is unable to catch an athlete then one has to assume that all top level atheltes will use because there is no immediate consequence. Once you win the tour or get your gold medal you cash in with sponsorship and appearance fees. A positive test 4 years later isn't a disincentive because you have already branded and sold yourself.

It really only damages the sport because it breaks the illusion that a negative test means a clean athlete.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

So your saying that Armstrong was the best doper so he should be allowed to retain his titles! Based on the evidence that is showing up in the NY Times and UK newspapers the USP team had the most sophisticated doping operation going(including a 20 minute warning), you can hardly call that a level playing field.

In a sport reliant on technology some teams have better helmets and skin suits, some better doping, the teams on the tour decide what to spend their money on.
In a sport where the organisers coluded with the teams to ensure doping continued it was effectively an even playing field

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by troutman

I re-read this excellent article today, and highly recommend it. The writer clinically (and fairly) demolishes all the usual arguments made by Lance denialists, and eloquently explains why this is important, all these years later. Also, read the links in the article. Very illuminating.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ce+of+Sport%29

Thanks for posting this, I was looking for an article that laid out the argument and evidence like this does.

[Inferno099]

Originally Posted by troutman

I re-read this excellent article today, and highly recommend it. The writer clinically (and fairly) demolishes all the usual arguments made by Lance denialists, and eloquently explains why this is important, all these years later. Also, read the links in the article. Very illuminating.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ce+of+Sport%29

I will be curious to see result and evidence in the arbitration for Armstrong's former coach Johan Bruyneel.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is it worth it retesting samples to know what we all know anyway? That all of the athletes are dirty?

If testing of the day is unable to catch an athlete then one has to assume that all top level atheltes will use because there is no immediate consequence. Once you win the tour or get your gold medal you cash in with sponsorship and appearance fees. A positive test 4 years later isn't a disincentive because you have already branded and sold yourself.

It really only damages the sport because it breaks the illusion that a negative test means a clean athlete.

Not sure if you read the article that Troutman posted just above your post, but I think it does an excellent job of answering those questions.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Not sure if you read the article that Troutman posted just above your post, but I think it does an excellent job of answering those questions.

I did read the article after i posted but disagree with a lot of the arguements.

The whole idea that stripping titles years after is a deterrant is false. As an elite cycling athlete you have two choices:

Dope and try to avoid getting caught, or not dope and lose. If you dope and get caught years later you have already made money off of winning, more money than if you ever one. If you dont dope and you are the best non doped athlete and say finished tenth even if they caught all of other dopers in front of you you would never reep the rewards of winning and because everyone else doped you would be guilty by association. So based on all of the above if you want to be an elite cyclist you dope to the limit of not getting caught in the present and if you get caught in the future it doesnt matter as you already made a name for your self. Would Armstrong dope if he had to do it all over again... Of course so its obviously not a deterrant.

The next arguement is that you still need to change past results. In fact the better thing to do is to leave the results and reinstate the results of ulrich etc. those tours stand on their own as events that document what happened in cycling. We all know they doped and history will always discuss it as a doped era so there is no need for adjusting the results years later. He also brings up olympians who wouldnt have got their medals if results changing wasnt done but is rewarding the 4th place athlete who likely doped really benficial. One of the reason olympic gold medalists get caught after events is after they win they are subject to increased scruitany that the other athletes arent. If Lance had disappeared after his first tour he would have never been caught. So since you cant put all of the dopers under the same scruitany there is little value years later. Even the olympics has an eight year limit on retesting drug samples with new technology so the highest body of the sport recognizes that their needs to be some limitations.

I also disagree that the sport comes down to who an dope the best vs who is the best athlete. All of the top teams have similar resources, and all of the top riders ride for top teams eventually, therefore top riders have equal access to doping tech and compete on an even playing field

One thing I do agree with in the article is the need to keep and expand in and out of compitition testing to limit the scale of doping that occurs. But to me if a test cant test it an athlete is foolish not to take it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by troutman

I re-read this excellent article today, and highly recommend it. The writer clinically (and fairly) demolishes all the usual arguments made by Lance denialists, and eloquently explains why this is important, all these years later. Also, read the links in the article. Very illuminating.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ce+of+Sport%29

This article fails in the first paragraph though,

Friday last week saw Lance Armstrong release a statement that effectively ended his fight against the USADA doping charges, and accept the stripping of his seven Tour de France titles. It was a significant day for the sport, if only because it forces a look back to the era of cycling that was so tainted by drugs that between 1996 and 2006, the sport has not had a single champion untainted by doping. The timeline reads: Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, and here we sit, seven years later with a big asterisk next to the Tour!

The significance of 1996 in cycling is not because it was when teams started doping, it is the year a major team (think New York Rangers of cycling) Festina got caught sending a van full of dope by a back road driven by the team doctor and massuese as I recall, this wasn't a suprise in the sport, every team had a van full of drugs, and had for as long as their were teams, before that cyclists arranged their own drugs.
The idea that 1996 to 2006 where any worse for doping than the previous 90 years of the tour is laughable and shows the inability of non cycling (and to be frank american) outsiders to understand what is going on.

To non cycling fans it loooks like alot of riders started to dope from 96 on as they were constantly getting caught, what they dont understand is prior to '96 there was no attempt to test riders and the tour organisers, who were totally aware of what was going on were happy to have riders set inhuman times, ride for days with broken bones, occasionally die on a stage (tom Simpson, due to amphetamine use on a hot day).
Even after 96 the organisers coluded to enable the teams to continue their ways, US Postal was a well funded and effeciant team but its doping was no different from any other team in the top tier, you can argue cycling is corrupt but to persue individual riders at this stage is somewhat assinine.

[bossy22]

Eddy Merckx tested positive three time, the first timhash was kicked out of the Giro in 1969 for testing positive.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

This article fails in the first paragraph though,

Friday last week saw Lance Armstrong release a statement that effectively ended his fight against the USADA doping charges, and accept the stripping of his seven Tour de France titles. It was a significant day for the sport, if only because it forces a look back to the era of cycling that was so tainted by drugs that between 1996 and 2006, the sport has not had a single champion untainted by doping. The timeline reads: Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, and here we sit, seven years later with a big asterisk next to the Tour!

The writer understands that doping was a problem before 1996:

The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced. Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught.

The 90s and 2000s were affected by a generation of "pharmacological fraud"

[Bill Bumface]

I still like the original Tour de France cheaters, taking the train during the night stages when no one was watching. A sport surrounded by integrity for it's entire history...

[T@T]

Question?

Besides Lance and his family, who truly gives a flying f***?

[Northendzone]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a sense of how have the winning times changed from the golden era of doping(1996 to 2006) thru to today?