Lance Armstrong to be stripped of all tour titles
24 August 2012, 10:52 PM
#31
Interesting article in the Telegraph today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...ce-titles.html. They looked at the guys on the podium in the seven years Armstrong won the TdF, and only one of them hasn't had some drug incident or other. So if they strip him of the titles not clear who they would go to.
I'm far from convinced Armstrong rode clean, but I'm also very uncomfortable with the process USADA are going through - the evidence seems to be entirely testimony from former team mates all of whom have failed drug tests at some time or other, so probably not the most reliable witnesses.
I'm far from convinced Armstrong rode clean, but I'm also very uncomfortable with the process USADA are going through - the evidence seems to be entirely testimony from former team mates all of whom have failed drug tests at some time or other, so probably not the most reliable witnesses.
25 August 2012, 01:25 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious as to wether the USADA actually has the legal authority to strip him of the titles, seems a little off that some US based doping agency seemingly has worldwide carte blanche to do this. They can refer it to whomever runs the Tour and then they should be the ones to decide what action to take.
25 August 2012, 07:00 AM
#33
If it goes against repeated blood samples over an extended period of time tested by different people in different countries but all coming up with the same result then yes I'd imagine it would be dismissed as conjecture. Depending on the court obviously.
25 August 2012, 07:18 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Only the UCA can strip him of his titles and they have been against the USADA from the start.
You have to remember that he passed the doping tests back in the day, but who gets the titles if the UCA strip him of them? Pretty much everyone at that time was doing something illegal, even the 2nd place guy in one of the TDF's was done for doping, do you give it to the guy who came last?!
Just read that in his career, Armstrong was drug tested over 500 times and none proved positive.
Tony
You have to remember that he passed the doping tests back in the day, but who gets the titles if the UCA strip him of them? Pretty much everyone at that time was doing something illegal, even the 2nd place guy in one of the TDF's was done for doping, do you give it to the guy who came last?!
Just read that in his career, Armstrong was drug tested over 500 times and none proved positive.
Tony
Last edited by TonyBurns; 25 August 2012 at 07:51 AM.
25 August 2012, 08:00 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Escartin
But really , how can they claim he's cheated on the basis that a couple team mates saw him do it and that he says he didnt
All a bit playground if you ask me, if didn't fail the tests then they should shut the **** up
But really , how can they claim he's cheated on the basis that a couple team mates saw him do it and that he says he didnt
All a bit playground if you ask me, if didn't fail the tests then they should shut the **** up
25 August 2012, 09:06 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
i believe Marion Jones never failed a drug test
and Tyler Hamilton, who failed a test right at the end of his career admitted to doping throughout out his career
he must have passed 100's and 100's of tests
and Tyler Hamilton, who failed a test right at the end of his career admitted to doping throughout out his career
he must have passed 100's and 100's of tests
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 25 August 2012 at 09:10 AM.
25 August 2012, 09:34 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
yes, just finishing my coffee then loading up the car to go to the beach
Felixstow, probably - not Hawaii, but getting on the water is getting on the water
Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Bjarne Riis and Richard Virenque were never caught out by drug test
they all pretty much admitted it faced with overwhelming evidence
Felixstow, probably - not Hawaii, but getting on the water is getting on the water
Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Bjarne Riis and Richard Virenque were never caught out by drug test
they all pretty much admitted it faced with overwhelming evidence
25 August 2012, 01:44 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are they saying then that in spite of the fact that no drug has been found in his samples that they suspect that he must have been using a drug which may yet be proved in the future should such a thing ever turn up.
They might as well say that for any athlete who has shown outstanding success in the field of his partisular sport!
Les
They might as well say that for any athlete who has shown outstanding success in the field of his partisular sport!
Les
25 August 2012, 02:02 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were to strip him of it then would there be some sort of official cerimony taking it off him and giving it to another?
Also, how could they prove after all this time that the person who then got it had always been clean?
Also, how could they prove after all this time that the person who then got it had always been clean?
25 August 2012, 03:41 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North Wales.
Posts: 4,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are they saying then that in spite of the fact that no drug has been found in his samples that they suspect that he must have been using a drug which may yet be proved in the future should such a thing ever turn up.
They might as well say that for any athlete who has shown outstanding success in the field of his partisular sport!
Les
They might as well say that for any athlete who has shown outstanding success in the field of his partisular sport!
Les
28 August 2012, 03:21 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot possibly see how they can justify such an action then. You can't just ban someone out of hand without any proof at all. They are making fools of themselves to say he should lose all his titles when his samples passed every test as clear. Basically they are saying that their own tests are inadequate when you think about it. And you cannot convict anyone without proof.
They want stuffing!
Les
They want stuffing!
Les
28 August 2012, 03:26 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot possibly see how they can justify such an action then. You can't just ban someone out of hand without any proof at all. They are making fools of themselves to say he should lose all his titles when his samples passed every test as clear. Basically they are saying that their own tests are inadequate when you think about it. And you cannot convict anyone without proof.
They want stuffing!
Les
They want stuffing!
Les
They apparently have ten witnesses.
It was enough for lance to plead no contest, he will avoid having to testify to a Grandjury and perjur himself, which is how Marian Jones got jail time.
Just off the top of my head. Jan Ulrich, Marian Jones, David Miller, Evan Basso, none failed a drug test.
28 August 2012, 09:13 PM
#48
Are they saying then that in spite of the fact that no drug has been found in his samples that they suspect that he must have been using a drug which may yet be proved in the future should such a thing ever turn up.
They might as well say that for any athlete who has shown outstanding success in the field of his partisular sport!
Les
They might as well say that for any athlete who has shown outstanding success in the field of his partisular sport!
Les
For that reason, the debate over whether or not Armstrong (and many others of his generation) should be labeled drugs cheats is as much a philosophical one as it is scientific.
28 August 2012, 09:22 PM
#49
From a practical point of view, they'd just have to leave the titles unawarded, probably.
29 August 2012, 12:32 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
armstrong guilt of doping, dunno, USADA guilty of a witch hunt, definatly.
The fatc that they wont give the UCI the evidence says it all to me, they dont have it. If they did they wouldn't hesitate.
I don't know if hes actualy guilty or not but the USADA definatly have a vendetta against him.
The fatc that they wont give the UCI the evidence says it all to me, they dont have it. If they did they wouldn't hesitate.
I don't know if hes actualy guilty or not but the USADA definatly have a vendetta against him.
29 August 2012, 04:15 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you mean by proof though?
They apparently have ten witnesses.
It was enough for lance to plead no contest, he will avoid having to testify to a Grandjury and perjur himself, which is how Marian Jones got jail time.
Just off the top of my head. Jan Ulrich, Marian Jones, David Miller, Evan Basso, none failed a drug test.
They apparently have ten witnesses.
It was enough for lance to plead no contest, he will avoid having to testify to a Grandjury and perjur himself, which is how Marian Jones got jail time.
Just off the top of my head. Jan Ulrich, Marian Jones, David Miller, Evan Basso, none failed a drug test.
Les
29 August 2012, 04:16 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In cycling, particularly during the era that Armstrong was competing, the drug of choice was a synthetic form of a naturally-occurring blood chemical known as EPO, for which at the time (and possibly still even now) there was no conclusive test available. Back then certainly, and to an extent possibly even now, the only way you could test for it was indirectly, by measuring the ratio of other chemicals or cells in the blood.
For that reason, the debate over whether or not Armstrong (and many others of his generation) should be labeled drugs cheats is as much a philosophical one as it is scientific.
For that reason, the debate over whether or not Armstrong (and many others of his generation) should be labeled drugs cheats is as much a philosophical one as it is scientific.
Seems however that if they cannot prove that he was guilty of using it then then are in the wrong to say that he did.
Les
29 August 2012, 04:49 PM
#53
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he did something that was not outlawed at the time and fully complied with (and passes) the testing that did exist then he should not be punished. If they cannot offer physical evidence rather than hearsay that he did anything wrong and still wish to strip him of his titles then that is totally unjust.
As for submitting to new tests for a substance that was banned subsequent to any pertinent victories - Why should he? It is a nonsense to retrospectively charge someone for something that was not banned at the time of the applicable competitions. Our knowledge of fair play evolves with our understanding of pharmacology and physiology and hindsight is always 20:20. The person should be assessed relative to whether they committed any wrongdoing in respect of the prevailing regulations/standards of practice that prevailed at the time they competed.
If that kind of retrospective application is applied universally then Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to be stripped of his titles as he openly admitted to using steroids before they were outlawed. As he explained: At the time, they were not outlawed and it was one of a number of things bodybuilder's experimented with that was seen as legitimate rather than cheating.
As for submitting to new tests for a substance that was banned subsequent to any pertinent victories - Why should he? It is a nonsense to retrospectively charge someone for something that was not banned at the time of the applicable competitions. Our knowledge of fair play evolves with our understanding of pharmacology and physiology and hindsight is always 20:20. The person should be assessed relative to whether they committed any wrongdoing in respect of the prevailing regulations/standards of practice that prevailed at the time they competed.
If that kind of retrospective application is applied universally then Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to be stripped of his titles as he openly admitted to using steroids before they were outlawed. As he explained: At the time, they were not outlawed and it was one of a number of things bodybuilder's experimented with that was seen as legitimate rather than cheating.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 02 September 2012 at 07:41 PM.
29 August 2012, 05:34 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...egal-minefield
Whether its a witch hunt or not, the USADA is clearly swinging an impotent dick as far as the srtipping of wins is concerned
Whether its a witch hunt or not, the USADA is clearly swinging an impotent dick as far as the srtipping of wins is concerned
29 August 2012, 05:38 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Curious as to wether the USADA actually has the legal authority to strip him of the titles, seems a little off that some US based doping agency seemingly has worldwide carte blanche to do this. They can refer it to whomever runs the Tour and then they should be the ones to decide what action to take.
Typical fukin Americans Markus - think they rule the world and that the world actually gives a **** about what the think
Edit - Les, this is what he'a being accused of:
Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong,or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.
The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:
(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
Last edited by Devildog; 29 August 2012 at 05:42 PM.
29 August 2012, 05:46 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he did something that was not outlawed at the time and fully complied with (and passes) the testing that did exist then he should not be punished. If they cannot offer physical evidence rather than hearsay that he did anything wrong and still wish to strip him of his titles then that is totally unjust.
As for submitting to new tests for a substance that was banned subsequent to any pertinent victories - Why should he? It is a nonsense to retrospectively charge someone for something that was not banned at the time of the applicable competitions. Our knowledge of fair play evolves with our understanding of pharmacology and physiology and hindsight it always 20:20. The person should be assessed relative to whether they committed any wrongdoing in respect of the prevailing regulations/standards of practice that prevailed at the time they competed.
If that kind of retrospective application is applied universally then Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to be stripped of his titles as he openly admitted to using steroids before they were outlawed. As he explained: At the time, they were not outlawed and it was one of a number of things bodybuilder's experimented with that was seen as legitimate rather than cheating.
As for submitting to new tests for a substance that was banned subsequent to any pertinent victories - Why should he? It is a nonsense to retrospectively charge someone for something that was not banned at the time of the applicable competitions. Our knowledge of fair play evolves with our understanding of pharmacology and physiology and hindsight it always 20:20. The person should be assessed relative to whether they committed any wrongdoing in respect of the prevailing regulations/standards of practice that prevailed at the time they competed.
If that kind of retrospective application is applied universally then Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to be stripped of his titles as he openly admitted to using steroids before they were outlawed. As he explained: At the time, they were not outlawed and it was one of a number of things bodybuilder's experimented with that was seen as legitimate rather than cheating.
29 August 2012, 06:24 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok my bad, but I think you will find many of the doping offences also illegal in France etc as they are classed as narcotics and there is trafficking involved etc. certainly in the festina affair charges were brought.