Lance Armstrong won't fight doping charges; loses titles

[Greg Bernhardt]

Curious what people's opinions are on this. Does anyone have a link to the investigation and evidence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/us-cycling-armstrong-doping-idUSBRE87N03N20120824

 

[turbo]

Sad. He apparently never failed a doping test. Was he hounded out of his sport? I hope not, though much of this stuff goes on "behind the scenes".

 

[johnqwertyful]

Sad. He apparently never failed a doping test. Was he hounded out of his sport? I hope not, though much of this stuff goes on "behind the scenes".

If I recall right, he only failed one, but it was poorly handled or gotten illegally or something so it was thrown out.

It's definitely a witch hunt. He probably did it, but it's still a witch hunt.

 

[Rooted]

This pretty much sums up all the evidence I've heard about, I've not seen anything more substantial. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...y-offered-immunity-for-exposing-champion.html

It's definitely a witch hunt. He probably did it, but it's still a witch hunt.

I agree. It sounds like the sport is pretty rife with doping, and he's being make a scapegoat.

 

[cobalt124]

From what I heard the evidence is that his teammates did it and said he did as well, but they haven't backed up what they are saying with evidence. My gut feeling is he is guilty but you cannot act without evidence. If you can take drugs and pass drugs tests that makes me worry about the validity of recent British successes.

 

[BobG]

So, from 1999 to 2010, 9 of the 12 tour winners were stripped of their victories?

These should make some tough Trivial Pursuit questions. People that watched the Tour de France during those years would have a tougher time answering those questions than people that just looked them up.

Well, for a year or two, at least. I guess it's possible that the tour winners during any of those years could change on a regular basis and more than once for any given year. How can a person possibly keep their Trivial Pursuit cards current when the answers keep changing?

 

[Chi Meson]

So, from 1999 to 2010, 9 of the 12 tour winners were stripped of their victories?

These should make some tough Trivial Pursuit questions. People that watched the Tour de France during those years would have a tougher time answering those questions than people that just looked them up.

Well, for a year or two, at least. I guess it's possible that the tour winners during any of those years could change on a regular basis and more than once for any given year. How can a person possibly keep their Trivial Pursuit cards current when the answers keep changing?

Is Jan Ulrich Partying now?

 

[BobG]

Is Jan Ulrich Partying now?

Could be. Only Ullrich's awards from 2005 on were stripped for doping. His three 2nds to
Armstrong still count. Plus he had a 1996 2nd place finish behind Bjarne Riis who admitted doping during his 1996 victory, but was never suspended. Ullrich could be a 5 time winner!

Just to put things into perspective, drugs have been a part of pro cycling for decades - something many people don't realize. I was listening to an interview on NPR and the interviewer had a true D'oh moment. He said the spate of winners caught doping must make one long for the simpler, purer days of riders like 5-time winner Jacques Anquetil - except not only did Anquetil use performance enhancing drugs, and not only did he make no secret of it, but he argued using performance enhancing drugs should stay legal (which they were back in the days when Anquetil won his races); that drugs were absolutely essential for completing ordeals such as the Tour de France and other multi-stage races. Some commended him for his courage and honesty, since the stance on drug use was very similar to the stance on steroids in baseball in the 90's (technically legal, but something your stars such as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, et al avoided admitting at almost any cost).

And when drugs such as amphetamines were first banned, the penalties for testing positive were usually a time penalty for the race they were caught in. A 10 minute penalty for testing positive was fairly common and was a fairly serious penalty for a rider contending for a tour victory. Eddie Merckx, arguably the best cyclist ever, was penalized for positive tests four times in his career, but never in the Tour de France.

So, in one sense, the public is shocked and outraged when 5 out of the top 10 riders in the 1999 Tour used drugs sometime during their career, and 6/10 in the 2000 Tour, 4/10 in 2001, 6/10 in 2001, 6/10 in 2002, 8/10 in 2003, 5/10 in 2004, 8/10 in 2005. It's more the pain of pro cycling finally making a serious effort to get drugs out of the sport than a sudden surge in drug use. (That doesn't mean they were penalized for that particular tour, as in Ullrich's 2nd place finishes counting even though he was later suspended and stripped of later victories.)

So, Armstrong may be able to say he never failed a drug test and he may be able to say he's being treated unfairly, but I'd be surprised if he actually never used drugs. He certainly could be telling the truth, but if he didn't, he'd be one of a very few didn't (which would make his wins even more remarkable).

But wouldn't that be ironic to strip Armstrong of his victories and award 3 of them to another rider that had also had been suspended and had victories stripped because of doping?

 

[Borek]

As far as I can tell whole story - especially the part about the lost titles - is an exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts.

From what I understand USADA says Armstrong was stripped of his titles, but USADA has no authority over UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale). And it is UCI that decides who holds the title, not USADA. So far UCI said something like "if we will be presented with serious proofs, we will make a decision". But USADA hunts the Armstrong for so many years and so far failed to present the proof, somehow I find it hard to believe they have something new now. The only new fact is that Armstrong said "I am tired of fighting them" which doesn't mean "I am guilty", unless my English fails me big. But I have a feeling it is USADA that has problems with reading with comprehension.

That's regardless of whether Armstrong was clean or not.

 

[Chi Meson]

I think it is significant that Lance NEVER, ever said, especially when specifically pressed to do so, "I have never used performance enhancing drugs."

His responses have always been (as already noted)
"I have never tested positive"
"Lance Armstrong has never admitted to using drugs" (Yes, in the third person)
"The policy of the USPS team is that we are opposed to blood doping." (And "blood doping" usually refers to the relatively simple act of adding extra blood, often your own blood that was saved-up over the prior year).

The fact that he would never say "I have never used performance enhancing drugs during the Tour de France" is very telling. Wiggins came out and said as much (dang it all if he ever falls!)

Was it Anquetil or Hinault who said "You don't win the tour on bottled water"?

Edit:
This http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs for example is something that Lance never came close to saying.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't have any strong feelings either way. I'm not into sport at all.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

He should have stuck to trumpet playing.

 

[arildno]

He should have stuck to trumpet playing.

Or he should have played with strumpets.
What a zero value thread.

 

[Borek]

Earlier UCI statement on USADA actions:

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?source=SiteSearch&id=ODU0NA&MenuId=MTI2Mjg&CharValList=607%3B&CharTextList=&CharFromList=&CharToList=&txtSiteSearch=&SelChar207=607&LangId=1 .

For the UCI it is clear that USADA claims an authority that it does not have and uses procedures that violate basic principles of due process.

The absence of any evidence that has been made available to the respondents and to the UCI, the fact that USADA has no results management jurisdiction in this case, the fact that USADA refuses to have its file assessed by an independent results management authority and the fact that USADA continues to claim in these circumstances publicly that a doping conspiracy has taken place indeed brings UCI to the conclusion that USADA has no respect for the rules and for the principles of due process. This raises great concern.

Again, I am not defending Armstrong, I just find the original statement of Armstrong loosing his titles idiotic in the circumstances.

 

[BobG]

Was it Anquetil or Hinault who said "You don't win the tour on bottled water"?

Neither. It was Eddie Merkcx. (Actually he said "You don't win the tour on bread and water.")

Hinault said, "... you can win the tour on mineral water." Granted, he said this long after he retired in response to an entire team being kicked out of the Tour in 1998 for doping.

 

[Astronuc]

How does one prove that one didn't use doping in the past - especially in the absence of evidence that one did.

As far as I know, it is simply conjecture, which it seems is based on hearsay. Yes, no?

Is this guilt by association?

Was Armstrong not properly tested? If he did use doping, how was it that he didn't fail subsequent tests?

 

[Redbelly98]

I think it is significant that Lance NEVER, ever said, especially when specifically pressed to do so, "I have never used performance enhancing drugs."

I had noticed that too. He would deny that there was any evidence of his using them. Still, I always wanted to believe he was innocent.

How does one prove that one didn't use doping in the past - especially in the absence of evidence that one did.

As far as I know, it is simply conjecture, which it seems is based on hearsay. Yes, no?

I wouldn't think it is hearsay, the new evidence is that former teammates are willing to testify that they saw Armstrong using performance-enhancing substances during the years he was winning the Tour.

Could be. Only Ullrich's awards from 2005 on were stripped for doping. His three 2nds to
Armstrong still count. Plus he had a 1996 2nd place finish behind Bjarne Riis who admitted doping during his 1996 victory, but was never suspended. Ullrich could be a 5 time winner!

It's worth mentioning that he did win it outright in 1997 -- I guess you are counting that among the 5.

 

[BobG]

Was Armstrong not properly tested? If he did use doping, how was it that he didn't fail subsequent tests?

The drug test procedures aren't secret. In effect, they establish the limits on how much a rider can dope and the types of drugs/procedures they can use without failing the tests. For high profile riders that can afford the best procedures, those procedures should provide 100% certainty that they'll always pass a drug test. Except no one can achieve 100% success forever. Eventually, someone always gets caught and, presumably, a long enough career and everyone is sure to get caught at least once.

From Bernard Kohl, who was caught doping after his third place finish in the 2008 Tour: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kohl-tells-all-about-doping-1

“I was tested 200 times during my career, and 100 times I had drugs in my body,” he said, according to the New York Times. “I was caught, but 99 other times, I wasn’t. Riders think they can get away with doping because most of the time they do. Even if there is a new test for blood doping, I’m not even sure it will scare riders into stopping. The problem is just that bad.”

The younger, anonymous riders are probably clean - simply because they can't afford the procedures used by the top riders. Once the riders have established their careers and can afford the more expensive procedures, they usually use them.

 

[Astronuc]

Stories still coming out about Armstrong and his associates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/s...de-led-to-lance-armstrongs-eventual-fall.html

 

[Astronuc]

Lance Armstrong's doping admission: Questions Oprah should have asked
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/questions-oprah-should-ask-lance-armstrong-230849439.html

Lance Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey during an interview Monday that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, according to the Associated Press.

Dozens of former teammates, support staff and competitors already have detailed Armstrong's use. The United States Anti-Doping Agency released a 1,000-page report that was staggering in its detail proving it. There have been books and investigative reports and on-the-record accusations. Armstrong has been stripped of his titles, dumped by most of his sponsors and banned from competition.
. . . .

 

[ImaLooser]

Sad. He apparently never failed a doping test. Was he hounded out of his sport? I hope not, though much of this stuff goes on "behind the scenes".

He used EPO, which is natural and always present in the body. So as long as you stay inside of a reasonable range then you will pass the test.

Many very close associates testified against him.

 

[BobG]

Drugs are such a big part of sports that it's hard to know how to handle doping charges.

Did Armstrong really gain an unfair advantage over his competitors in the races that he won? Or are drugs so deeply ingrained in the sport that competitors won't stop using drugs unless they're absolutely sure their opponents will?

And, if the latter, stripping Armstrong of 7 titles could go a long way to making drugs the exception rather than the rule.

Pro cycling isn't the only sport plagued by drug use.

The 1988 Olympic 100 meter finals was a pretty good example of how prevalent drugs are in track. Of the 8 competitors in that race, 5 tested positive sometime in their careers (and Ben Johnson in that particular race). And of the 3 that never tested positive as an athlete, one (Ray Stewart) was later banned as a coach for helping his athletes dope for races.

And this year, baseball had no one voted into the Hall of Fame because most of the top candidates all used drugs during their career.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And this year, baseball had no one voted into the Hall of Fame because most of the top candidates all used drugs during their career.

Maybe it's worth freezing all the old records/halls and then open a new record book for the current generation to compete against.

 

[lisab]

Many very close associates testified against him.

Seems he was more feared than respected:

"He was Tony Soprano," author Dan Coyle, who wrote a book about Armstrong, told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "When you crossed him, he cut you dead. You were gone. The question is, is he going to apologize to the people he hurt along the way? "

Former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu also talked about Armstrong's wrath.

"Anybody that crossed his path or didn't go along with his plan, he set out to take them down. And he was very powerful and influential and did take them down," Andreu told ESPN radio host Colin Cowherd on Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/armstrong-critics-vindication/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

He sounds like a first-class jerk to me.

 

[fourier jr]

spiegel has a couple good stories about this. here's some stuff that caught my eye:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...nd-his-long-history-with-doping-a-877550.html

(p.1)

Armstrong benefited from the lax doping tests. Furthermore, he participated in a limited number of races, focusing primarily on the Tour de France, which significantly reduced the number of tests he was exposed to. The UCI also largely spared the pro cyclists unannounced tests during training. The risk of being taken by surprise somewhere was close to zero.

His team also refined its warning system. During the Tour, two observers would sit at the windows in the hotel and would notify the team members when testers turned up. The riders also trusted their crafty team director Johan Bruyneel, who often knew hours or even days in advance when testers were going to appear. No one knew where Bruyneel was getting his tips.

If there was any trouble, if something did go wrong, the boss took care of it. In 2001, a blood test taken from Armstrong during the Tour de Suisse revealed suspicious results, a clear sign for doping analysts. But there was no official investigation. Soon afterwards, Armstrong donated $25,000 to the UCI, and later another $100,000, allegedly to support its efforts to fight doping. To ensure that no one would hit upon the idea that Armstrong was trying to bribe the officials, UCI honorary President Hein Verbruggen said in 2011: "Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I'm sure." Verbruggen has since denied having made the statement, though it was widely reported at the time.

Betsy's father, a man who had been bitterly poor before emigrating to the US from Yugoslavia, was adamant that his daughter should not sully the reputation of an American hero. Frankie's father was also concerned and asked them to find a way to get around testifying. The Andreus were shocked to realize that their parents were trying to encourage them to lie or keep quiet.

(p.2)

A conference on fighting cancer was scheduled for July 2008 in Austin, and Armstrong wanted then Senator Barack Obama as his star guest. But Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate at the time, was on his campaign tour through Europe and had no time for Armstrong's event. Armstrong was furious and called Obama's fellow Democrat, Senator John Kerry, threatening to turn the members of his foundation against Obama. He had become so overcome by hubris that he no longer took no for an answer.

When a doping control officer with the French anti-doping agency came to his villa in Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat to collect urine, blood, fingernail and hair samples, Armstrong had him wait outside for 20 minutes. It was a violation of the rules, because Armstrong was required to remain under supervision once the testers arrived. But there were no consequences. Instead, UCI President Pat McQuaid criticized the French action, calling it "not very professional."

Armstrong came in third in the Tour that year. Many in cycling were pleased to have their superstar back. Doors were flung open for him everywhere he went. French President Nicolas Sarkozy received Armstrong at the Elysée Palace in July 2010. Soon afterwards, the budget of the National Anti-Doping Laboratory in Paris was cut in half. Its director Pierre Bordry, who had ordered strict testing of the pro cyclists during the Tour, resigned in frustration. Armstrong despised Bordry.

"Au revoir Pierre", he tweeted.

US federal authorities investigated Armstrong and his former racing team for almost two years. They suspected the team of having misused taxpayer money for doping purposes, because the US Postal Service, the team sponsor for many years, is a US government agency. On Feb. 3, 2012, a district attorney in California terminated the investigation, but without stating any reasons.

It looked like a big win for Armstrong. "Our legal system has failed," Betsy Andreu said angrily. "That's what happens when someone can afford attorneys with connections at the very top of the Justice Department."

http://www.spiegel.de/international...catches-up-with-lance-armstrong-a-877960.html

dick pound of wada also says cycling could even get completely dropped from the olympic programme if it doesn't clean itself up. that's a pretty big stick but it seems they have it coming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQDmX5nVbVw

 

[nanosiborg]

Lance Armstrong's doping admission: Questions Oprah should have asked
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/questions-oprah-should-ask-lance-armstrong-230849439.html

Good essay. I doubt that Oprah asked any of the hard questions.

 

[fourier jr]

the sunday times had an ad in the chicago tribune where they had some questions of their own:

http://deadspin.com/5975562/the-sun...stions-lance-armstrong-should-answer-on-oprah

 

[Evo]

What a scum bag.

 

[BobG]

What a scum bag.

Who's a scum bag? Lance Armstrong, David Walsh, or (gulp) me?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

 

[Evo]

Who's a scum bag? Lance Armstrong, David Walsh, or (gulp) me?

lol. Lance Armstrong.

 

[Jorriss]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

Well played.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

Not sure I'd admit to that.

 

[OMGCarlos]

It would be impossible, literally impossible, for the human body to train as hard and as long as the top tier athletes do, to include Armstrong, in any sport without some sort of performance enhancement. Fact.

Your body can only process so many nutrients per hour and your muscles can recover only so fast. Even with a "perfect" diet, supplementation and supreme genetics training hard for 8-10 hours a day 5-6 days a week, for years, will cause you to overtrain.

Supplementation (legal) helps you inch your way closer to the limits. For example, drinking down 200g of whey protein means you don't have to eat 10lbs of meat. Other supplements essential for training come naturally in such small quantities that it would be impossible to compete even at the amateur level without them. Multi-vitamins anyone?

Also, doping doesn't necessarily mean steroids as people I talk to sometimes think...it just refers to illegally using prescription drugs *OR* drugs banned in sports. What's the difference between a drug and a sports supplement?

Walk into GNC or other vitamin/nutrition stores and you'll find plenty of supplements bordering in the "gray area", stating plainly on the label "Taking this dietary supplement may cause you to fail X test" - and yet those aren't illegal to purchase, just banned from said test/sport.

I agree that his title should be stripped - he broke the rules and he got caught...he was stupid. But the sheer will and determination required to be at the level he is at, with or without banned supplements, is ridiculously ridiculous.

[edit]
Also, I'd like to point out...regardless of whether he doped or not, the money he has raised for cancer over the years STILL DID go for the cause. Millions of dollars that would not have otherwise been raised. What does it really matter if he doped in a sport where doping is expected?!

 

[Evo]

What does it really matter if he doped in a sport where doping is expected?!

He was a very mean, nasty, vindictive a-hole? Also, read some of the other links about this guy.

See here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4231162&postcount=24

 

[berkeman]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

But she benifited from that, no? Why would she be upset?

 

[Evo]

Wow, this guy was really not nice.

This was about Lance's sociopathic spectacle.

At one point during the interview, he couldn't recall how many people he'd sued. Really. He not only didn't know the number, he couldn't even be sure when asked about specific individuals that his mighty, powerful legal team relentlessly tried to bury.
It's worth noting that many of the people he's sued through the years in an effort to protect his lies and glory were one-time close friends, roommates, teammates, business partners and associates.

Is there another person in America who has sued so many people he once liked – for telling the truth, mind you – that he can't remember all of them? Anyone?
What you and your bank account and those sleepless nights you can't forget -- he can't remember.

He was, and likely remains, nothing but a machine of personal glorification, no concept of his real place in the world. Now that the truth is out, it's not about the cheating so much as it's about the way he fought dirty to protect the cheating.

"I was a bully," he acknowledged. "In the sense that I tried to control the narrative, and if I didn't like what somebody said, I tried to control that and say that's a lie."
Except he didn't stop at saying "that's a lie." He'd start there, then go on the attack, often trying to ruin his accusers professionally and, perhaps, personally, maybe legally and certainly financially.

So much wrong about this man. I can't post it all, but take a minute to read it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-...-image-in-mea-culpa-with-oprah-062222144.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It wasn't just that, it was the denials and the lawsuits.

 

[lisab]

Wow, this guy was really not nice.

So much wrong about this man. I can't post it all, but take a minute to read it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-...-image-in-mea-culpa-with-oprah-062222144.html

Wow. Reading that gave me the creeps. He truly seems to be a psychopath.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On one of the Sunday morning news shows, one person made the comment that she was glad that this finally came out so that kids will learn that it doesn't pay to cheat.

Someone else pointed out that the only real lesson here is that you can cheat, bank a hundred million or so, and then just apologize on Oprah.

Publicly humilitated? Lost trophies? Big deal. He's set for life.

 

[AlephZero]

Publicly humilitated? Lost trophies? Big deal. He's set for life.

He might end up losing a few of the "hundred million":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21102475

But let's not get too serious about this whole affair:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720

 

[Mentalist]

He was a very mean, nasty, vindictive a-hole? Also, read some of the other links about this guy.

See here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4231162&postcount=24

Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

This is a sport, not a beauty pageant. I'd be angry if people were being vindictive, accusing me of cheating (even if I were) when most of the people in the sport are also utilizing epo.

Do I believe these people had some "revelation" and wanted to out the cheaters of the sport? I cannot say for sure. However, I can understand Lance's frustration with those truth-tellers. He ultimately had no other choice but to confess in my opinion to stifle the process and have it be a long, on-going issue. Just end it now and by the end of the year people will have forgotten about it.

But to the comment about Lance being a sociopath:

Just because one is telling the truth doesn't mean that person is also a good person. There are many reasons as to why people do things, so saying Lance is being mean to those people really is looking at one side and nothing else. It is favoritism, and I dislike it when people equate "whistle-blowers" as saints that did nothing wrong or were just being good citizens.

 

[Evo]

Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.

It's the rules. Break the rules, you lose. "Everyone does it" is no excuse. Anyone that does it loses. That's the rules. To say there should be no punishment because of rampant abuse is idiotic, IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.

Why exactly should he keep those medals? They're awarded to the person who wins the tournament without breaking the rules. He didn't do that so he doesn't deserve them. Similarly the question of doping being rampant doesn't come into it. It can play a part in the debate about drugs in sport and what to do but it's irrelevant to this as no matter how you cut it he broke the rules. If everyone did then none of them deserve it.

This is a sport, not a beauty pageant. I'd be angry if people were being vindictive, accusing me of cheating (even if I were) when most of the people in the sport are also utilizing epo.

Being angry at people for revealing your cheating is one thing, persecuting them with every means you have is nothing short of evil. Unless you think it's morally acceptable to detour to devastate people financially and professionally so that they won't reveal that you don't deserve what you have?

Just because one is telling the truth doesn't mean that person is also a good person. There are many reasons as to why people do things, so saying Lance is being mean to those people really is looking at one side and nothing else. It is favoritism, and I dislike it when people equate "whistle-blowers" as saints that did nothing wrong or were just being good citizens.

What kind of comment is that? Are you saying that the people who have come forward deserved what they got? Do you think he is at all justified with the level of persecution that has come to light? Calling it "being mean" is disingenuous, being mean would have been to call them names not set out to ruin their career and have them sued.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

Arguably this isn't true if you take into consideration that the title is for those who win and by definition in the case that means coming first without cheating. If you didn't win then the title isn't yours. It's akin to giving out a world record to someone who it is later revealed didn't do the feat.

 

[rootX]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

I don't think dishonest people deserve fair treatment. People who are ruining sports with drugs should be thrown out of their profession for life and all their titles/awards should be burned down.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think dishonest people deserve fair treatment. People who are ruining drugs in sports should be thrown out of their profession for life and all their titles/awards should be burned down.

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

 

[rootX]

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

It's unfair to punish some and not punish others but I think that's fine. However in the future, I would wish to see all players to be punished as strictly as possible if tested positive for drugs.

 

[Evo]

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

As they are discovered, they should be, which, I believe, is the intent of the commitee in this case. There will be no alternate winners named for the years Armstrong won.

So perhaps it's not surprising that the director of the Tour de France declared that if the International Cycling Union (UCI) decides not to appeal USADA's decision to ban Armstrong for life and strip him of his seven Tour titles, there will be no replacement winner named for years 1999 through 2005.

"It indicates that no one in the races was above suspicion, which highlights the fact that doping was prevalent during the entire period," says Dick Pound, former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ance-armstrong-tour-de-france-doping/1635499/