Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

1…1011131516…239

Comments

  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    pat1cp wrote:
    I've considered this for a while... I fail to see what sripping LA of his titles will do, it creates more problems than it solves.

    The only 'problem' that's thrown around by people seems to be 'who do the wins go to', that isnt a problem, give them to noone, or give them to whoever, just take them off ANYONE who's proven to have cheated to win them (like we should in situations like this in all sports)... easiest to star them out of course.
    pat1cp wrote:
    At the end of the day, he won them on a "levelish" playing field.

    Far from true in my mind at least, firstly because some people benefit much more than others from doping, that's fact. Secondly, doping can happen at all sorts of levels, well planned out ones will result in much better gains than poorly planned or lesser amounts of doping. Thirdly, needs a new paragraph...

    ...I think a LOT of people think about LA's doping as being equal, and look at him as an individual. But, grand tours are not won by individuals, they are won by someone with a great team. So if you assume LA had a team-wide doping programme (10 team mates seem to be saying this, we'll see) then he benefits enormously from a team built around and for him, a team that is scientifically at the forefront of the doping and using it as an incredibly key part of their strategy to win.This is why this is about far far more than just LA himself.

    Sometimes, I think some people think of doping like one drug, like EPO, that is simply thought like 'having a mars bar a day' and thats it. Its just not that simple in the slightest, but Im sure this kind of thinking allows people to not think much about it and to be able to conclude 'a level playing field'.
    pat1cp wrote:
    I know he's made alot of money but that was probably more to do with the USA public and the recovery from cancer.

    But if you take away all the bike racing and sportsman angle, he's just a bloke who's recovered from cancer, like thousands of others.


    ...these replies to your points aren't actually pinpointing any of your specific thinking, I thought your post was a good one to pull some of these general issues out of that's all yeah.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Sad times.

    The Hog blocked me.

    I guess I'll have to use my real name when I become his Fulham drinking buddy ;).
    _
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sad times.

    The Hog blocked me.

    I guess I'll have to use my real name when I become his Fulham drinking buddy ;).

    Colin Brown just doesn't have the same ring to it though, does it.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Not sure if this has been posted:

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html
    Contador is the Greatest
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    And so it begins: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/au ... CMP=twt_fd
    The Sunday Times is exploring whether it can review the terms of its costly 2006 libel settlement with Lance Armstrong after the cyclist dropped his challenge to anti-doping charges being brought against him in the US.

    Armstrong sued the publisher of the Sunday Times and two of its journalists in 2004 over an investigation that questioned his repeated denials that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs.
    _
  • k-dog
    k-dog Posts: 1,652
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    pat1cp wrote:
    Vaughters had a bit to say on that.
    Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

    I don't really get that. I get what he is saying about it not being a linear increase but if with everything being equal except haematocrit and them both taking EPO to get them to just below the "magic 50%" then surely their performance would be basically identical.

    Before they used anything the guy with the lower level just wouldn't be able to keep up - sure he could be more efficient but unless I'm completely misunderstanding the relationship between VO2max and haematocrit he wouldn't be able to use all the available oxygen because he wouldn't have enough RBCs to carry it to his muscles.

    Unless haemoglobin carrying more or less oxygen is where that efficiency is coming from I suppose. Does anyone know if that is a constant or can it vary from person to person?

    Or am I missing something else?
    I'm left handed, if that matters.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    And so it begins: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/au ... CMP=twt_fd
    The Sunday Times is exploring whether it can review the terms of its costly 2006 libel settlement with Lance Armstrong after the cyclist dropped his challenge to anti-doping charges being brought against him in the US.

    Armstrong sued the publisher of the Sunday Times and two of its journalists in 2004 over an investigation that questioned his repeated denials that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs.

    Good. Clean him out. Money is the one thing he has gained in SPADES from doping. Hit him in the wallet; hard.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    k-dog wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    pat1cp wrote:
    Vaughters had a bit to say on that.
    Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

    I don't really get that. I get what he is saying about it not being a linear increase but if with everything being equal except haematocrit and them both taking EPO to get them to just below the "magic 50%" then surely their performance would be basically identical.

    Before they used anything the guy with the lower level just wouldn't be able to keep up - sure he could be more efficient but unless I'm completely misunderstanding the relationship between VO2max and haematocrit he wouldn't be able to use all the available oxygen because he wouldn't have enough RBCs to carry it to his muscles.

    Unless haemoglobin carrying more or less oxygen is where that efficiency is coming from I suppose. Does anyone know if that is a constant or can it vary from person to person?

    Or am I missing something else?

    Yep, the guy with the lower hct. would be able to use all the oxygen before doping.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,698
    Assuming that both riders could ride at the same pace, the guy with the lower hct would have to be more efficient at using oxygen to create the same level of performance. Therefore if he had (e.g.) 10% more hct he would benefit far more from that extra efficiency.

    It depends how you look at it though. If you argue that all doping made a level palying field becasue it was equally available then the above argument stands and the "most naturally talented" athlete may not win (e.g the fittest guy with the best race head). However, if you argue that doping was just like having a good race head then the playing field was level. You just got the guy that was best at doping (and fittest and had the best race head)

    Depends how you re defining the playing field! ;)
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    ddraver wrote:
    Assuming that both riders could ride at the same pace, the guy with the lower hct would have to be more efficient at using oxygen to create the same level of performance. Therefore if he had (e.g.) 10% more hct he would benefit far more from that extra efficiency.

    It depends how you look at it though. If you argue that all doping made a level palying field becasue it was equally available then the above argument stands and the "most naturally talented" athlete may not win (e.g the fittest guy with the best race head). However, if you argue that doping was just like having a good race head then the playing field was level. You just got the guy that was best at doping (and fittest and had the best race head)

    Depends how you re defining the playing field! ;)
    As far as I'm concerned, once you all cross the line into cheating it's all now 'fair' game and it's still a level playing field - just at a different level. Being a 'better responder' merely becomes another natural talent.

    The 'better responder' gambit is usually wheeled out as excuse to demonize one doper while remaining a fan of another (eg "Ullrich/Pantani would have been champions in clean sport, but Armstrong was a nobody who was a better responder. Therefore, he is evil while Jan/Marco are not" - that sort of BS)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    What was Ullrich's and Pantani's natural HCT? Lance's was pretty low.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    mfin wrote:
    Couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy.

    LA could have confessed to it before the charging, back at the point the other 10 did.

    As for the offering, whilst admitedly a little confusing, if he admitted it now, then it would be saving resources in the outstanding arbitrations etc?.

    Source?

    The WADC doesn't contain any such carve out for its limitation provisions.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    Greg66 wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy.

    LA could have confessed to it before the charging, back at the point the other 10 did.

    As for the offering, whilst admitedly a little confusing, if he admitted it now, then it would be saving resources in the outstanding arbitrations etc?.

    Source?

    The WADC doesn't contain any such carve out for its limitation provisions.
    It's reported in this article which is based on an interview with Tygart. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 57336128/1

    It's not a quote from Tygart of course.
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy.

    LA could have confessed to it before the charging, back at the point the other 10 did.

    As for the offering, whilst admitedly a little confusing, if he admitted it now, then it would be saving resources in the outstanding arbitrations etc?.

    Source?

    The WADC doesn't contain any such carve out for its limitation provisions.
    It's reported in this article which is based on an interview with Tygart. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 57336128/1

    It's not a quote from Tygart of course.

    I know that - sorry - I should have been clearer. By "source" I meant what's the source of Tygart's claim that SOL can be disapplied in this way, given that the relevant statute (in the WADC) doesn't say anything like this. Tygart can't just make up a rider to th SOL that isn't there.

    Anyway, a bit of further digging suggests that Tygart is basing himself on an arbitration decision that the USADA got when proceeding against another cyclist called Eddy Hellebuyck. Eddy lied in 2004 during proceedings brought by WADA, and then again in 2005 in proceedings brought by the IAAF, saying that he had not taken EPO. It seems that in 2011 the USADA had another go, and he admitted that he had taken EPO, and that he had lied previously.

    Had he not lied, he would have had a ban going back 8 years from 2004. So in 2011 the arbitration panel decided that he shouldn't get the benefit of having lied in the earlier proceedings, and thereby dodging their consequences for him. Hence the statute of limitations was bypassed.

    There's a fair amount of legalese in the decision, but it is clear that that arbitrary tribunal accepted that a defendant had a right to say nothing; Hellebuyck's problem was that he had positively peddled a complete lie in previous proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of losing those proceedings.

    I'm not really sure that the principle established by the Hellybuyck decision goes as far as Tygart now says it goes. It doesn't seem to be the case that Armstrong is said to have lied in previous proceedings; it's simply that he didn't 'fess up to drug use at the time is now said to have been doping. If the true principle is that wide, then the SOL would almost never apply in doping cases (in fact, it would only apply in cases where the athlete proved that he was wholly ignorant of the fact that he doped - eg Alain Baxter and the Vicks).

    Anyway, that's something that the UCI may end up inviting the CAS to decide, so there's not much point in speculating further.

    Word to the wise though: never take as Gospel a prosecutor's press release... (cf the SFO, the OFT...).
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • pat1cp
    pat1cp Posts: 766
    frenchfighter wrote:
    What was Ullrich's and Pantani's natural HCT? Lance's was pretty low.

    Are you trying to justify their wins in the TDF ??
    http://tinyurl.com/332edp
    http://tinyurl.com/2nu7r3
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    It might be glib/bogus psychology, but maybe Armstrong has to forgive his (biological) father for some sh!t before he can properly "man up" and put an end to all this conjecture.

    Just a thought.
  • Will.C
    Will.C Posts: 245
    Not sure if this has been covered else where but anyone catch Hayden Roulstons blog?

    "i feel there needs to a massive change. If wada and the uci dont catch the cheats within a certain timeframe, then it should be done and dusted.. because whats just happened now makes our sport have no credibility whatsoever. my thoughts are if the cheats arent caught after 6 months, then its done and dusted.. turn a page, and stop worrying about ‘what ifs’. if not, then the next dude is gonna do it and will get away with it because everyone is so caught up with something that ‘could’ have happened years ago… sometimes i reckon its better to cut your losses.."

    Whether you're for or against LA, that's a pretty poor attitude is it not? And plenty of other pros on twitter patting his back for speaking up!!! Madness

    Source: http://haydenroulston.co.nz/vuelta-update-thoughts/
  • itisaboutthebike
    itisaboutthebike Posts: 1,120
    Roulstan - what a knobhead........................
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Pretty poor attitude.

    What happens when the media pick up on a cyclist's doping 7 months after he's done it? Does letting that cyclist keep the victory lend the sport more credibility somehow?

    It's the dopers and the organising bodies who let the sport's credibility get to where it is now. Not USADA.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,655
    Greg66 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy.

    LA could have confessed to it before the charging, back at the point the other 10 did.

    As for the offering, whilst admitedly a little confusing, if he admitted it now, then it would be saving resources in the outstanding arbitrations etc?.

    Source?

    The WADC doesn't contain any such carve out for its limitation provisions.
    It's reported in this article which is based on an interview with Tygart. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 57336128/1

    It's not a quote from Tygart of course.

    I know that - sorry - I should have been clearer. By "source" I meant what's the source of Tygart's claim that SOL can be disapplied in this way, given that the relevant statute (in the WADC) doesn't say anything like this. Tygart can't just make up a rider to th SOL that isn't there.

    Anyway, a bit of further digging suggests that Tygart is basing himself on an arbitration decision that the USADA got when proceeding against another cyclist called Eddy Hellebuyck. Eddy lied in 2004 during proceedings brought by WADA, and then again in 2005 in proceedings brought by the IAAF, saying that he had not taken EPO. It seems that in 2011 the USADA had another go, and he admitted that he had taken EPO, and that he had lied previously.

    Had he not lied, he would have had a ban going back 8 years from 2004. So in 2011 the arbitration panel decided that he shouldn't get the benefit of having lied in the earlier proceedings, and thereby dodging their consequences for him. Hence the statute of limitations was bypassed.

    There's a fair amount of legalese in the decision, but it is clear that that arbitrary tribunal accepted that a defendant had a right to say nothing; Hellebuyck's problem was that he had positively peddled a complete lie in previous proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of losing those proceedings.

    I'm not really sure that the principle established by the Hellybuyck decision goes as far as Tygart now says it goes. It doesn't seem to be the case that Armstrong is said to have lied in previous proceedings; it's simply that he didn't 'fess up to drug use at the time is now said to have been doping. If the true principle is that wide, then the SOL would almost never apply in doping cases (in fact, it would only apply in cases where the athlete proved that he was wholly ignorant of the fact that he doped - eg Alain Baxter and the Vicks).

    Anyway, that's something that the UCI may end up inviting the CAS to decide, so there's not much point in speculating further.

    Word to the wise though: never take as Gospel a prosecutor's press release... (cf the SFO, the OFT...).

    That's interesting. It's not just the press release though - the original charge sheet claims that the conspiracy charge renders the SOL void.

    Of course, the WADA code is a compliance framework, the details of its implementation can vary from ADA to ADA, and from sporting association to sporting association. So the question of jurisdiction may be doubly relevant if e.g. USADA implementation includes voiding the SOL for conspiracy but UCI implementation doesn't.

    Disclaimer: I'm basically guessing this stuff in the hope that someone who knows what they're talking about will clarify/put me right.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • DNQ
    DNQ Posts: 45
    Will.C wrote:
    Not sure if this has been covered else where but anyone catch Hayden Roulstons blog?

    "i feel there needs to a massive change. If wada and the uci dont catch the cheats within a certain timeframe, then it should be done and dusted.. because whats just happened now makes our sport have no credibility whatsoever. my thoughts are if the cheats arent caught after 6 months, then its done and dusted.. turn a page, and stop worrying about ‘what ifs’. if not, then the next dude is gonna do it and will get away with it because everyone is so caught up with something that ‘could’ have happened years ago… sometimes i reckon its better to cut your losses.."

    Whether you're for or against LA, that's a pretty poor attitude is it not? And plenty of other pros on twitter patting his back for speaking up!!! Madness

    Source: http://haydenroulston.co.nz/vuelta-update-thoughts/

    Not unlike the Statute of Limitations, in fact?
  • DNQ
    DNQ Posts: 45
    That's interesting. It's not just the press release though - the original charge sheet claims that the conspiracy charge renders the SOL void.

    Of course, the WADA code is a compliance framework, the details of its implementation can vary from ADA to ADA, and from sporting association to sporting association. So the question of jurisdiction may be doubly relevant if e.g. USADA implementation includes voiding the SOL for conspiracy but UCI implementation doesn't.

    Disclaimer: I'm basically guessing this stuff in the hope that someone who knows what they're talking about will clarify/put me right.
    You maybe right, but I thought the WADA code was to harmonise how different organisations work.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,655
    DNQ wrote:
    That's interesting. It's not just the press release though - the original charge sheet claims that the conspiracy charge renders the SOL void.

    Of course, the WADA code is a compliance framework, the details of its implementation can vary from ADA to ADA, and from sporting association to sporting association. So the question of jurisdiction may be doubly relevant if e.g. USADA implementation includes voiding the SOL for conspiracy but UCI implementation doesn't.

    Disclaimer: I'm basically guessing this stuff in the hope that someone who knows what they're talking about will clarify/put me right.
    You maybe right, but I thought the WADA code was to harmonise how different organisations work.

    Yes, it is, but it provides a template, rather than just a rule-set. Think of state V federal law, or the EU nations each implementing a European law in their own countries.

    Usual disclaimer that I'm basically making this up, to the best of my abilities, applies.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Disclaimer: I'm basically guessing this stuff in the hope that someone who knows what they're talking about will clarify/put me right.
    No tA Doctor wrote:

    Usual disclaimer that I'm basically making this up, to the best of my abilities, applies.

    Ha ha ha... Pure dialectics, non?
    I can't think of anyone I've ever met/encountered/heard of, etc, that this proviso is not applicable to: yet show me an "expert" who's prepared to accept that their stance is flawed (why else would you express it if, as an expert, you thought it could be wrong?).
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,698
    Well you could start with any decent Scientist OCU.....
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    Thought this was quite good for those wanted to catch up with what's been happening...

    http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cycling/ ... aid-to-ask
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Thought this was quite good for those wanted to catch up with what's been happening...

    http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cycling/ ... aid-to-ask
    ...Or at least it would be if it didn't include well-known howlers like the 500+ tests one.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    bompington wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Thought this was quite good for those wanted to catch up with what's been happening...

    http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cycling/ ... aid-to-ask
    ...Or at least it would be if it didn't include well-known howlers like the 500+ tests one.

    But isn't that just putting the arguement across? That's what alot of the pro Armstrong people have said as proof that he's clean. Sure, it doesn't go into it, but then if you did that with every single point on there it would be far too long, nobody would read it.

    I just thought it was a good summary of what has happened so far, it doesn't seem to be on one side or another.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Thought this was quite good for those wanted to catch up with what's been happening...

    http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cycling/ ... aid-to-ask
    ...Or at least it would be if it didn't include well-known howlers like the 500+ tests one.

    But isn't that just putting the arguement across? That's what alot of the pro Armstrong people have said as proof that he's clean. Sure, it doesn't go into it, but then if you did that with every single point on there it would be far too long, nobody would read it.

    I just thought it was a good summary of what has happened so far, it doesn't seem to be on one side or another.
    Not sure I really agree, it focuses an awful lot (like LA does) on making USADA's procedures the big issue: doesn't say much about what the likely evidence is.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    bompington wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Thought this was quite good for those wanted to catch up with what's been happening...

    http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cycling/ ... aid-to-ask
    ...Or at least it would be if it didn't include well-known howlers like the 500+ tests one.

    But isn't that just putting the arguement across? That's what alot of the pro Armstrong people have said as proof that he's clean. Sure, it doesn't go into it, but then if you did that with every single point on there it would be far too long, nobody would read it.

    I just thought it was a good summary of what has happened so far, it doesn't seem to be on one side or another.
    Not sure I really agree, it focuses an awful lot (like LA does) on making USADA's procedures the big issue: doesn't say much about what the likely evidence is.

    But that's all that's happened, so it is a good summary of what's happened so far, isn't it? I think your looking for a different article.

Categories