Lance Armstrong stripped of his seven titles
Huge news but it’s what I expected. They had no choice with all the evidence infront of them.
So I noticed Alberto Contador was caught for doping and he beat Cadel Evens in the 2007 tour. Does this mean Cadel is officially a two-time winner?
In 2003 the top 4 places were caught for doping (and 7 of the top 8). Disgusting.
well i think for the years that lance won, they are saying there was no winner - so I assume it would be the same for contador beating evans?
In 2003 the top 4 places were caught for doping (and 7 of the top 8). Disgusting.
“Disgusting” that only 7 of the top 8 were “caught”? Because in reality, they ALL should have been?
It’s not really a true statement anyway, because the fact remains that Lance NEVER officially failed a single test - so he was NEVER, by definition, “caught”.. That’s the benchmark which everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring.
In a competitive arena humans will look for any advantage they can get, it’s just part of our make up, give up on the drug testing, let people do whatever the hell they want to do to win. I’m sure the ratings will go up when people are waitng to see which juiced up lunatic is going to die on the first stage through the alps due to stroke or some other blood pressure, blood thickening issue caused by the drugs cyclists are so keen on. Be a little more like the US NFL where every man and his dog is a test and HGH junkie and they turn a blind eye to it. I have never seen another sport with more ripped 300 pound gorillas than the NFL, has very little to do with good breeding either!
One of the newest things they are trying in bodybuilding circles is Myostatin inhibitors. Myostatin is a growth factor that regulates muscle growth in humans and animals, without it muscle can grow to abnormal size, this is a whippet born without the capability to produce Myostatin
This a breed of cattle called Belgian Blue who don’t produce Myostatin either
I dont imagine myostatin inhibitors would have much of a place in endurance sports but if steroids, growth hormone and eating full chickens 6 times a day can result in this
Imagine what myostatin inhibitors are gunna do.
interesting article I read today
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/the_bonus/10/22/david-walsh-lance-armstrong/index.html
In 2003 the top 4 places were caught for doping (and 7 of the top 8). Disgusting.
“Disgusting” that only 7 of the top 8 were “caught”? Because in reality, they ALL should have been?
It’s not really a true statement anyway, because the fact remains that Lance NEVER officially failed a single test - so he was NEVER, by definition, “caught”.. That’s the benchmark which everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring.
Well, he was caught. He was caught out over the course of time by others being caught or confessing to what was going on. The Four Corners report also indicated he was caught twice by blood/urine tests but these were covered up and for whatever reason they didn’t come to light until now. In my opinion he has been caught out, granted years later, but the fact that we now all now what he was doing, doesn’t that show he’s been caught? I have nothing against Lance and I think the work he has done with Livestrong is nothing short of amazing. I know what you’re saying, chucky. The sport had a culture of doping, where we can assume nearly everyone was doing it. Lance has been made an example of because of his profile. He may have been victimised in the process but the truth came out, and no one is going to ignore the fact he was a drug cheat.
Yeah, but within ‘the rules of the game’, he got away with it - which is all that’s required of any rider in the peleton. The fact remains that under the rules of the time, if you don’t fail a drug test, your result stands. To move the goalposts years later is just plain wrong.
Like I said earlier: if you had been driving for 30 years with an unblemished record - not even so much as a parking ticket - and years down the track, various passengers in your car throughout that time were called up to testify that they had seen you exceed the speed limit on numerous occasions, would you think it was reasonable to be fined retrospectively for speeding, even though you’d never actually been caught doing so? Or if you’d won Wimbledon ten or so years ago, and even though not a single umpire or linesman spotted it, numerous spectators came forward and testified that they’d seen a crucial shot of yours go out when it was called in at the time - would you think it was fair for you to be stripped of your win?
At the time he was racing, Lance did everything required of him within ‘the rules of the game’. Sure, morally he shouldn’t have been doping - but legally within ‘the rules of the game’, he just had to not get caught. At the time he was racing, Lance NEVER officially* failed a single test - so unless he confesses, his results should stand.
*(Yes, years later results surfaced - but at the time, he passed, and that was all that was required of him)
so basically you’re saying if you cheat as long as you can get away with it
there should be no repercussions because you got away with it at the time
how to determine length of time after the event is it OK? 1,2,3 years…once you retire? once your dead?
your examples lack the principle of cheating/gaining unfair advantage over competitors
lets spin the Wimbledon example to include some cheating
lets say the crucial call by umpire was due to the fact you paid off the umpire
and this news didnt surface until much later on….would it be fair for you be stripped then? in this example i would say yes
alternatively, if the umpire was paid off by Mafia due to bet rigging (in this example you had nothing to do with it at all)
would it be fair for you be stripped then? in this example i would say no
the circumstance and details are critical in what happens post findings.
There’s always controversy like this in sport, people always make a big deal out of it. In my opinion when a sport has a doping culture (or not) people try hard to discredit what a person has done. It doesn’t matter if he takes doping or not, it’s not a magic drug or whatever that’s gonna win you 7 titles. You still gotta train, you still gotta have the will to win. What Lance did is incredible, find another person, doping or not, that can win 7 titles. And I agree with Chucky you cannot reverse a decision, even if it came out years later. The point is he passed all the drug test at that time.
The point is he passed all the drug test at that time.
yeah but apparently he didn’t….apparently he covered up the failed tests.
. . . you cannot reverse a decision, even if it came out years later. The point is he passed all the drug test at that time.
Exactly, he’s in the clear as far as ‘the rules of the game’ are concerned.
As far as ‘the rules of the game’ are concerned, it doesn’t matter what was “covered up” - all that’s relevant is what the official results were at the time. The official results gave him the wins.
so basically you’re saying if you cheat as long as you can get away with it
there should be no repercussions because you got away with it at the time
I’m specifically referring to professional road cycling when I say that under their rules at the time - yes, “as long as you got away with it at the time”.
Like I said earlier, vehicle-wise, professional cycling is policed a lot like Formula One racing - there’s a HUGE list of rules, they’re enforced within a bee’s dick tolerance, and officials are constantly moving the goalposts. To be genuinely competitive, the challenge is for teams to stay ahead of the game and push the limits as far as they can without either going beyond them, or getting caught doing so.
Officials meticulously scrutinise every aspect of the race vehicles, including the engines, ensuring all are within acceptable tolerances. If everything meets approval, they’re cleared to race. If years down the track it’s discovered that there was an extra bit of carbon fibre (or whatever) on the winner’s vehicle where there shouldn’t have been during a particluar race, the result still stands. Essentially, just like with a missed forward pass in a Rugby match (for example) - if it’s not enforced at the time, the result still stands. It just so happens that NOW, as the cyclist is effectively the ‘engine’ of the racing vehicle, the rules have been skewed to accommodate retrospective penalties.
lets spin the Wimbledon example to include some cheating . . .
Instead of changing that example to suit your argument, why not go with the other example that already “includes some cheating”? The act of exceeding the posted speed limit is effectively “cheating”, as it breaks the ‘rules of the road’ - so go with that.
Instead of changing that example to suit your argument, why not go with the other example that already “includes some cheating”? The act of exceeding the posted speed limit is effectively “cheating”, as it breaks the ‘rules of the road’ - so go with that.
was changing the example to include “cheating” to the same situation
otherwise i can spout out examples that does not include cheating but what relevance would it have?
eg…if i robbed someone and someone else got caught, its ok?
cause i bet the “rules of the game” ...it happens everywhere…“many people” are doing it so its ok right?
many years later was found it was me….i should not be given jail time ? cause the incident has past ??
what is the relevance of speeding to professional sports?
am i a role model for someone? possibly but that’s another argument 
what did i gain from exceeding the speed limit? i don’t get paid to drive and i certainly dont win anything getting somewhere faster
there is no competition or prize here
skip:
no doubt you have to actually work hard to achieve, you still have to race and win.
drugs is performance enhancing not sure win…there would of been plenty of cyclists who used but not achieved the same Lance has done
Does it make it right though? what if you were one of the few “clean” folk….would you not be gutted to find out you have spent years of training only to lose out to someone else not on the same playing field
just to be clear my argument isn’t against Lance in particular (in my eyes there is still doubt he is guilty) but the effect of not stripping the titles after being found “supposedly” guilty of cheating (Lance not contesting)
by not doing anything, your basically saying
its only not ok to do drugs if you get caught within specific window of time but condone drug use as long as you are really really successful and can get away with it (for x amount of time)
what kind of mixed bag of message are we sending out to kids??
^^ like button ^^
eg…if i robbed someone and someone else got caught, its ok?
cause i bet the “rules of the game” ...it happens everywhere…“many people” are doing it so its ok right?
many years later was found it was me….i should not be given jail time ? cause the incident has past ??what is the relevance of speeding to professional sports?
am i a role model for someone? possibly but that’s another argument
what did i gain from exceeding the speed limit? i don’t get paid to drive and i certainly dont win anything getting somewhere faster
there is no competition or prize hereetc.
You’ve completely missed the point, which is that these cyclists should NOT be retrospectively penalised many years later, purely based on hearsay and conjecture - hence the examples relating to hearsay and conjecture.