Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

thing is though, EVERYONE in cycling dopes, or at least they did when Armstrong was winning. so really he's still on the same level as the rest of the field

Not really, all this tells me is that Armstrong probably had a better team of doping doctors and a better drug regime then other competitors not that he was genetically superior, or trained better or had a more fierce mental state.

He just had a better quality of drugs.

[chemgear]

I wonder if a full admission of guilt would even deter the Armstrong/Livestrong apologists.

Between the "hearsay evidence" and the conspiracy theories - I can see people claiming that Armstrong was backed into a corner through "false evidence" and forced to tell a little lie (the admission) just to get some part of his life back.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Unfortunatly it will also be unwatchably dull.

So not much will change.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not really, all this tells me is that Armstrong probably had a better team of doping doctors and a better drug regime then other competitors not that he was genetically superior, or trained better or had a more fierce mental state.

He just had a better quality of drugs.

Does that matter?

There is a direct link between dollars spent and medals won at the olympics. Is access to the best drug program any different between access to the best coaches, training, nutrition, and equipment?

Even going back to the origins of sport it was rich people competing against eachother because they have time and money. The poor didn't have time for sport. Why is drugs the hill people decide to die on.

There is no ideal competition that competes genetics and the will and determination of athletes without all of these other factors. Sport pretends to be this but it never has been.

Going back to cycling I think it is fair to assume that each of the well funded teams had equally well funded drug programs so that the top teams were always in fair competition with eachother.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not really, all this tells me is that Armstrong probably had a better team of doping doctors and a better drug regime then other competitors not that he was genetically superior, or trained better or had a more fierce mental state.

He just had a better quality of drugs.

Probably less of a difference than his training regime, the quality of drugs tended to differ more along the lines of where in the team a rider was, the best riders in each of the teams had the best drugs, the lower level guys less so, but each of the teams pretty well used the same dope.

Where Armstrong differed from most, especially in the early wins, was his single minded pursuit of the tour, most other riders felt compelled to try to compete in the classics and the giro as well as the tour, Armstrong was the first rider to essentially discount the other races and just focus on the tour, from a classic cycling point of view this was considered more cheating than the drug use,

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does that matter?

There is a direct link between dollars spent and medals won at the olympics. Is access to the best drug program any different between access to the best coaches, training, nutrition, and equipment?

Even going back to the origins of sport it was rich people competing against eachother because they have time and money. The poor didn't have time for sport. Why is drugs the hill people decide to die on.

There is no ideal competition that competes genetics and the will and determination of athletes without all of these other factors. Sport pretends to be this but it never has been.

Going back to cycling I think it is fair to assume that each of the well funded teams had equally well funded drug programs so that the top teams were always in fair competition with eachother.

What? How in the hell is that "fair to assume"?

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is a direct link between dollars spent and medals won at the olympics. Is access to the best drug program any different between access to the best coaches, training, nutrition, and equipment?

Yes.

4 of those are legal / moral.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Yes.

4 of those are legal / moral.

Legal yes. Moral? Not so sure.

[Julio]

I think it has been mentioned here, but Tyler Hamilton's book " The Secret Race" is absolutely scary...and as somebody who followed cycling through that time, really sad.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Legal yes. Moral? Not so sure.

Okay, I'll bite. Which of those four things is immoral?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Yes.

4 of those are legal / moral.

I would argue that cycling endorsed doping up until at least the middle of armstrongd career. So although by the letter of the rules it wasnt legal but if the governing body new and did nothing then I think it is moral to take them or at least not cheating. And no real difference between it and any other technical advancement.

You would have to convince me that the arbitrary line weve drawn between a drug and a legal amino acid is anything more than an arbitrary line

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flameswin

What? How in the hell is that "fair to assume"?

Because each team got busted, every top rider has been caught. Top riders would go to top teams and in order to be a top team you needed a good drug program.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Julio

I think it has been mentioned here, but Tyler Hamilton's book " The Secret Race" is absolutely scary...and as somebody who followed cycling through that time, really sad.

Yup, I just finished reading that book, and man is it an interesting look at things.

Anyone who doesn't think people were doping, or who thinks the people who were are the most horrible people in the world needs to read that book.

The truth of the matter really is that almost everyone was doping, the people who weren't, were only not doping YET, and the people with the power to stop it, didn't really do much to make sure it was stopped.

[Knut]

When you have devoted your life to something and people that do not work as hard as you are passing you by due to doping, I am sure most of us would follow suit. It is amazing how many people sit on their high horse and judge these guys for doping when in the same situation they would likely do the same. Especially when the powers that be turned a blind eye to it.

Think of it this way. If you gained access to an old copy of a examination that you were not supposed to have would you look at it ? Would it change your mind if everyone else in the class has looked at it as well and your grades are based on a curve ?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Hesla

When you have devoted your life to something and people that do not work as hard as you are passing you by due to doping, I am sure most of us would follow suit. It is amazing how many people sit on their high horse and judge these guys for doping when in the same situation they would likely do the same. Especially when the powers that be turned a blind eye to it.

Think of it this way. If you gained access to an old copy of a examination that you were not supposed to have would you look at it ? Would it change your mind if everyone else in the class has looked at it as well and your grades are based on a curve ?

That's one of the greatest miscomceptions about doping.
The biggest advantage to doping is that you recover faster, and so you can work more/harder than the other guys.
Give me access to every drug in the world and Lance would still kick my ass.
Sure he doped, but that doesn't mean he didn't also work harder than everyone.

[Knut]

I am not saying that these guys do not work hard. The reason Armstrong won was that he worked harder with the drugs than everyone else.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would argue that cycling endorsed doping up until at least the middle of armstrongd career. So although by the letter of the rules it wasnt legal but if the governing body new and did nothing then I think it is moral to take them or at least not cheating. And no real difference between it and any other technical advancement.

You would have to convince me that the arbitrary line weve drawn between a drug and a legal amino acid is anything more than an arbitrary line

It's not up to cycling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Doping_Agency

There's a reason certain drugs/supplements are illegal; it's all about safety. Heck, if you look at the number of supplements on the market that aren'tsafe, or at the very least, aren't proven to be safe then you can imagine that if some are actually banned that they must be pretty convincingly awful for you.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping#Negative_effects

The simple act of increasing the number of red blood cells in blood raises its viscosity, which can cause it to clot or coagulate more readily.[23] This increases the chances of heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism, which has been seen in cases where there is too much blood reintroduced into the blood stream. Because blood doping increases the volume of red blood cells, it effectively introduces a condition called polycythemia, a blood disorder that has known adverse outcomes.
Blood contamination during preparation or storage is another issue. Contamination was seen in 1 in every 500,000 transfusions of red blood cells in 2002.[24] Blood contamination can lead to sepsis or an infection that affects the whole body.
Certain medications used to increase red blood cells can reduce liver function and lead to liver failure, pituitary problems, and increases in cholesterol levels.[25]

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

It's not up to cycling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Doping_Agency

There's a reason certain drugs/supplements are illegal; it's all about safety. Heck, if you look at the number of supplements on the market that aren'tsafe, or at the very least, aren't proven to be safe then you can imagine that if some are actually banned that they must be pretty convincingly awful for you.

Yeah by doping you put your health at risk and I'm sure most everyone would rather that no one is put into a position where they have to do this but they are. That's mainly the fault of the organizations and the sponsors who condone this. I wouldn't want to be put in that situation and I'd like it even less if one of my children had been put in that situation. Still for all his excuses Lance cheated and saying everyone else did too doesn't cut it.

[transplant99]

I dont think the problem with Armstrong is that he cheated....its that he lied about it over and over and over again and still hasnt come clean and owned up to it. his denials were so impassioned and his ability to make people think they were horrible for even thinking he could have done something so preposterous and devious are what this boils down too.

No matter how great he has been in raising boh awareness and funding for research through livestrong, his alter ego side has been nothing short of douchbaggery to the very people who aided him in becoming such a force in the rest of his endevours.

He has lost any and all credibility, and has no one to blame but himself.

[pylon]

Looks like he might come clean:

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/01/08...s-in-interview

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/showbi...rah/index.html