Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles

[MacLeod]

Agreed Deckard, I see no indication of those who support cheating.

Well the article in question seems to imply that no actual hearing had taken place, team mates prepared to testify etc..

So if they are prepared to testify, that means they haven't as yet.

Which means he is being judged as being guilty. Without due process having been gone through. Armstrong doesn't have to prove his innocence he is automatically presummed to be innoncent until a court has proven him guilty.

The article doesn't say that he has been found guilty of the charge by a court. It mentions a two year federal investigation. No mention of a trial.

As for cheating itself of course that is wrong.

 

[Pingfah]

I expect the titles won't go to anyone.

I imagine that will cause some consternation amongst the handful of successful cyclists from that era who were not caught for doping.

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't applaud his cheating, if cheating is what actually occurred, but I do have a problem with these after-the-fact investigations. You want to test somebody for steroids? Do it before he competes. Retroactively taking away an athletes' titles just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[MacLeod]

Well during the olympics all medal winners were tested for banned substances.

 

[RoJoHen]

You want to ban somebody after they've failed the drug tests? Fine. Ban them from competing in future events.

Don't test them after they've already won and then try and take away their victory.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Well the article in question seems to imply that no actual hearing had taken place, team mates prepared to testify etc..

There's no hearing because Armstrong declined to have one! It was his decision.

How is that anything other than an admission of guilt?

 

[Avon]

their victory should be taken away if someone at the time was covering up the doping. i used to find armstrong inspiring. shame on him and anyone who thinks 'oh lets just forget it, it was ages ago'

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I didn't see anyone supporting cheaters and cheating.

Don't be naive. Statements like "nobody proved he cheated" and "winning isn't cheating" indicate that some folks are perfectly fine with doping, as long as the athlete doesn't get caught, and even if they do get caught, well, it must've been trumped up somehow. Nobody's going to come out and say "I'm fine with cheating," but those attitudes are a great way to support continuing it.

 

[RoJoHen]

their victory should be taken away if someone at the time was covering up the doping.

But what do we mean by "covering up?" Did somebody forge false drug test results?

From where I stand, the whole point of drug testing is to determine if someone is using illegal drugs. If drug tests fail to turn up any signs of illegal drugs, the person passes the test.

Witnesses popping up after the fact saying, "Yeah, but he totally did use illegal drugs" doesn't really count as solid evidence.

If he did somehow manage to outsmart the test and pass while still taking illegal drugs, then there's something wrong with the test. I don't condone cheating, but let's actually prove he did cheat before we crucify the guy.

 

[MacLeod]

Well the article in question seems to imply that no actual hearing had taken place, team mates prepared to testify etc..

There's no hearing because Armstrong declined to have one! It was his decision.

How is that anything other than an admission of guilt?

The article posted seemed to indicate that Armstrong felt he would not get a fair hearing. Perhaps if he felt he would get a fair hearing he might be willing to have one.


If you felt you weren't going to get a fair hearing/trial etc.. would you take part in i?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Perhaps you shouldn't just take him by his fucking word and instead apply a minimal amount of critical thinking.

 

[Roger Wilco]

If he did somehow manage to outsmart the test and pass while still taking illegal drugs, then there's something wrong with the test. I don't condone cheating, but let's actually prove he did cheat before we crucify the guy.

The thing is, for most of Armstrong's "reign", there was no way of testing for the things endurance athletes most commonly used at the time (EPO at first, then after EPO tests were finally developed more than a decade after it became common (!) autologous blood transfusions enhanced with micro-dosing EPO and testosterone).

So why shouldn't normal police investigative methods be used to reveal doping cheaters as well? Certainly it's nice in a murder trial to have the suspect's finger prints on the knife, but it's not necessary if he committed the stabbing in front of dozens of people.

 

[Shaytan]

His case was suspicious since the beginning in 1999. Surviving cancer and coming back stronger ? He was a good cyclist, not an great one, before that, there is no way he won naturally.

He has certainly more than 7 Tours to lose if he fights the doping accusations, his decision is tactical.

 

[Roger Wilco]

And besides, one of the critical point in the USADA's assertions is, that Armstrong did test positive for EPO in 2001, and that the test was covered up by the UCI in exchange for a donation of several hundred thousands of dollars by Armstrong.

Hmmm, why wouldn't the UCI want that stuff to get proven in a hearing?...

 

[Claudia]

Perhaps you shouldn't just take him by his fucking word and instead apply a minimal amount of critical thinking.

Perhaps you should get off your "let's crucify Armstrong" horse and take a critical look at the image these proceedings leave.

Why doesn't the USADA present their evidence to the public? Why threaten with the loss of all titles (does that include the olympic bronze in 2000, the victory in the Tour de Suisse or the 2 in the Dauphiné or just the 7 TdF-victories)? What about those closed investigations in 2006?

It's not about the fact that he might be guilty (wouldn't surprise me in this sport, actually I'd rather be surprised if anyone on the top level weren't doped up to his gills) - it's the manner of these USADA investigations that bothers me. And that's where my critical thinking comes in.

 

[MacLeod]

Hypotheticaly speaking, lets say someone say Armstrong inject something into himself. How would they know what it was?

Yes you've proven he injected something into himself.

Next from a legal point of view you have to prove it was a banned substance, which is harder to do.

Remember they say it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to go to jail.

 

[Shaytan]

I was reading a good article in Le Monde about the victory in 1999. It happened at a moment (Festina affair, the Spanish teams that left the Tour) when cyclism needed a good story, Armstrong was that.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Hypotheticaly speaking, lets say someone say Armstrong inject something into himself. How would they know what it was?

Yes you've proven he injected something into himself.

Next from a legal point of view you have to prove it was a banned substance, which is harder to do.

Remember they say it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to go to jail.

The USADA can't send him to jail.

 

[Claudia]

The thing is, for most of Armstrong's "reign", there was no way of testing for the things endurance athletes most commonly used at the time (EPO at first, then after EPO tests were finally developed more than a decade after it became common (!) autologous blood transfusions enhanced with micro-dosing EPO and testosterone).

No one contests that the doping industry is way ahead of the fighting-doping-industry.

But I don't think it's right to put specific samples into storage for them to be tested at a much later date when a test for up until then untestable substances becomes available. There has to be some sort of statute of limitations - and 13 years after the fact is way beyond that IMO. (Or why could Riis keep his Tour victory and even be the coach of teams participating in the tour?)

Everyone should be treated the same, and it's my impression that that's not the case here. Why treat proven dopers such as Hamilton and Landis like crown witnesses? Is what Armstrong allegedly did so much worse? He was lucky and didn't get caught - and that makes it worse?

 

[MacLeod]

Hypotheticaly speaking, lets say someone say Armstrong inject something into himself. How would they know what it was?

Yes you've proven he injected something into himself.

Next from a legal point of view you have to prove it was a banned substance, which is harder to do.

Remember they say it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to go to jail.

The USADA can't send him to jail.

Your taking me to literally. Sometimes the guilty are found innocnet, which is the price we pay to try and ensure the innocent aren't found guilty