Lance Armstrong won't fight doping charges; loses titles

[Jimmy Snyder]

Oops. I meant to say that by forcing others to dope or go home you are inducing them into a dangerous situation.

I don't know the nature of the drugs that enhance bicycling ability. Are they dangerous?

 

[Astronuc]

Oops. I meant to say that by forcing others to dope or go home you are inducing them into a dangerous situation.

I don't know the nature of the drugs that enhance bicycling ability. Are they dangerous?

It's possible that some deaths have occurred due to doping, perhaps because it is uncontrolled/unregulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#1982

When a 31 or 22 year old athlete dies from a heart attack, something is wrong. It can happen if an athlete has a heart or health problem to begin with. Use of artificial hormones can cause problems with one's endocrine system, or heart attack or stroke.

 

[Mentalist]

What are the dangers of training in elite sports? In order to compete, athletes must go through rigorous training that does have harmful impacts on the competitor. Not only that we see the dangers of playing football, one of which is decreased longevity. I have yet to see a credible study regarding the dangers of performance enhancing drugs. That is the dangers with the use of the latter outweighing the non-use. There is even performance enhancing drugs used in science by scientists:

http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080409/poll-scientists-use-brain-boosting-drugs

Banning these drugs or penalizing others for their use is, to me, backwards. No-one has an unfair advantage if everyone is utilizing the drug. They all are just about "equal" (not in the strictest of sense as naturally, some are better than others which means even if they all took drugs, it would be the same footing).

There are talks about testing students for drugs because there seems to be higher usage of adderall among students. But, in regards to the link above, if one wins a nobel prize because s/he confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs, are we going to take that nobel prize away?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There are talks about testing students for drugs because there seems to be higher usage of adderall among students. If one wins a nobel prize because s/he confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs, are we going to take that nobel prize away?

That isn't a fair comparison. The Nobel prize is awarded for significant contribution to a field, sports awards are given for winning the competition within the confines of the rules and the rules state no doping.

IMO the debate surrounding doping in sports and whether it should be allowed is irrelevant to whether or not someone deserves an award when they do not might the criteria for it.

 

[Evo]

What are the dangers of training in elite sports? In order to compete, athletes must go through rigorous training that does have harmful impacts on the competitor. Not only that we see the dangers of playing football, one of which is decreased longevity. I have yet to see a credible study regarding the dangers of performance enhancing drugs. That is the dangers with the use of the latter outweighing the non-use.


There is even performance enhancing drugs used in science by scientists:

http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080409/poll-scientists-use-brain-boosting-drugs

Banning these drugs or penalizing others for their use is, to me, backwards. No-one has an unfair advantage if everyone is utilizing the drug. They all are just about "equal" (not in the strictest of sense as naturally, some are better than others which means even if they all took drugs, it would be the same footing).

There are talks about testing students for drugs because there seems to be higher usage of adderall among students. But, in regards to the link above, if one wins a nobel prize because s/he confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs, are we going to take that nobel prize away?

Do you make all of these posts just to troll? You seriously see nothing wrong with people cheating, breaking rules, doping for an advanatge, because you believe that everyone should do it, etc... We wish to raise the level of critical thinking thinking on this forum, not bring it down.

So, let's stick with the facts about armstrong and cease going off topic or speculating.

 

[Mentalist]

Lance broke the rules. However, what credible reason aside from rule breaking is there to take away his medals if he was performing on the same level (but to a higher degree) with other competitors? I'd like a better reason rather than, "its the rules," as even though a rule is in place, that does not mean it is a reasonable rule when concerning the context of the situation.

@Evo: I stated above that it isn't cheating if the playing field is leveled. Who is cheating against whom if everyone is utilizing similar drugs in cycling? Cheating is having an unfair advantage. There was no cheating within what has been stated among many cyclists, even those whistle-blowing. The consistent statements made among many is that, "there is a wide use of performance enhancing drugs and it would be stupid not to take them." Again make your case about where cheating occurred.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Lance broke the rules. However, what credible reason aside from rule breaking is there to take away his medals if he was performing on the same level (but to a higher degree) with other competitors? I'd like a better reason rather than, "its the rules," as even though a rule is in place, that does not mean it is a reasonable rule when concerning the context of the situation.

I don't understand why you don't accept the point that medals are awarded for winning within the rules therefore if it's found out that you broke the rules your medals should be removed.

If the rules are proposed to be unreasonable then there should be a debate on that but it doesn't change that at the time the rules were broken.

 

[Evo]

I stated above that it isn't cheating if the playing field is leveled.

This is ridiculous. Show me the rules where it says as long as everyone breaks the rules, it's OK. The onus is on you to back up your claims.

 

[encorp]

Lance broke the rules. However, what credible reason aside from rule breaking is there to take away his medals if he was performing on the same level (but to a higher degree) with other competitors? I'd like a better reason rather than, "its the rules," as even though a rule is in place, that does not mean it is a reasonable rule when concerning the context of the situation.

@Evo: I stated above that it isn't cheating if the playing field is leveled. Who is cheating against whom if everyone is utilizing similar drugs in cycling? Cheating is having an unfair advantage. There was no cheating within what has been stated among many cyclists, even those whistle-blowing. The consistent statements made among many is that, "there is a wide use of performance enhancing drugs and it would be stupid not to take them." Again make your case about where cheating occurred.

Your logic is flawed here.

The problem is, Lance was leading the charge - since he had the most money to afford the doping - thus the only people (by your logic, Mentalist) that shouldn't have lost their medals
were all those that lost to him.

He wasn't levelling the field - he was making it uneven and others were catching up.

Armstrong is a fraud, a sociopath, and a narcissist. Also the entire pelaton is STILL doing transfusions as we speak - it will never stop either.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In regards to Mentalist's position, it is possible that no one who doesn't cheat can ever win.

 

[Evo]

In regards to Mentalist's position, it is possible that no one who doesn't cheat can ever win.

If the sport isn't possible without cheating, shut it down. I for one am tired of bogus sports records. The one with the access to the best drugs wins. Why not do away with the cycling part and just award the title to the person with the highest level of drugs in their blood? (Not aimed at you Ivan, just that we as a society would accept how low some people have sunk). We need to keep going after these frauds and disgualify them and strip them of titles and any financial gains. I for one can't wait to see the lawsuits start against Armstrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the sport isn't possible without cheating, shut it down. I for one am tired of bogus sports records. The one with the access to the best drugs wins. Why not do away with the cycling part and just award the title to the person with the highest level of drugs in their blood? (Not aimed at you Ivan, just that we as a society would accept how low some people have sunk). We need to keep going after these frauds and disgualify them and strip them of titles and any financial gains. I for one can't wait to see the lawsuits start against Armstrong.

I actually resent the level to which sports and athletes have been elevated and think it is very unhealthy for us as a culture; not to mention the ridiculous salaries, but that's capitalism.

However, I think the problem is not that we have certain persons trying to cheat. I think the problem is deeper than that and cultural. Beyond that, there will always be a certain percentage of people who want to win at any cost so you can never really stop it. By definition some of the most highly competitive people around are the ones involved, and they are probably the most likely to cheat. So unless there is a failsafe method of testing, I think trying to stop cheating will be fruitless. And the cheaters will continue to get the big pay offs.

Just another reason to not like the influence that sports has on society. People would always talk about the great benefit of playing sports, which I did. What I saw were some positives and a lot of negatives. The win-at-any-cost attitude is found from the pros all the way down to the grade school level. For example, I've seen parents get into fist fights! I've seen kids pressured far beyond what is reasonable and healthy. In fact I could easily write a lot about this and seriously question the value we place on competitive sports generally. So I won't get into that any more but this is just more of the same.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the sport isn't possible without cheating, shut it down. I for one am tired of bogus sports records. The one with the access to the best drugs wins. Why not do away with the cycling part and just award the title to the person with the highest level of drugs in their blood? (Not aimed at you Ivan, just that we as a society would accept how low some people have sunk). We need to keep going after these frauds and disgualify them and strip them of titles and any financial gains. I for one can't wait to see the lawsuits start against Armstrong.

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment [Mentalist I think this makes you the devil! ], if everyone has access to the same performance-enchancing drugs and practices, and if people are willing to risk this for the sake of the big prize, money, then you would still have a level playing field. Just as people knowingly risk death in various other sports [auto racing, boats, motorcycles, airplanes...] and serious brain or spinal injury in other risky sports such as boxing and American football, and also those who put it all at risk in the settings world's records and so forth, people will do what it takes to win. Why are these drugs any more dangerous or unacceptable than other competitive sports and activities that we find perfectly acceptable? If everyone knew that bicycle racing means conceding to be a drug user, then at least one wouldn't go into this with their eyes closed. And maybe parents wouldn't be so quick to pressure their kids into things like this.

 

[WannabeNewton]

It's just a sport. This whole incident is giving the field far more importance than it is due. Soccer players cheat all the time but they aren't publicly criticized and humiliated to this extent. Sure he cheated so take away his medals yes but leave it at that for pete's sake - all he did was cheat in a sport he didn't murder anyone. The media glorifies and vilifies people for the most mundane, harmless things.

 

[Evo]

It's just a sport. This whole incident is giving the field far more importance than it is due. Soccer players cheat all the time but they aren't publicly criticized and humiliated to this extent. Sure he cheated so take away his medals yes but leave it at that for pete's sake - all he did was cheat in a sport he didn't murder anyone. The media glorifies and vilifies people for the most mundane, harmless things.

He ruined people lives and destroyed them financially as revenge if they tried to report him, or go against him. It wasn't just a simple case of illegal drug use, the man was, as was said previously, a psychopath.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's just a sport. This whole incident is giving the field far more importance than it is due.

Ultimately the money is what makes it important.

I thought it was sad when Congress took up the issue of drugs in professional baseball. With all of the problems that any Congress faces, they worry about who cheated in baseball.

 

[Borek]

Is Jan Ulrich Partying now?

He was already partying in 2002.

 

[BobG]

If the sport isn't possible without cheating, shut it down. I for one am tired of bogus sports records. The one with the access to the best drugs wins. Why not do away with the cycling part and just award the title to the person with the highest level of drugs in their blood? (Not aimed at you Ivan, just that we as a society would accept how low some people have sunk). We need to keep going after these frauds and disgualify them and strip them of titles and any financial gains. I for one can't wait to see the lawsuits start against Armstrong.

Keep in mind that Armstrong could just be Phase I. Phase II could be the UCI (cycling's governing body), itself.

Just by actions, I think the UCI was more interested in suing people who made "unsubstantiated" claims about doping in cycling than in investigating those claims. They seemed to protect Armstrong more than other cyclists, but that may not be Armstrong's doing. Prior to Armstrong, the USA, a very large market, had very little interest in cycling. The UCI had a lot to gain from Armstrong's hero status and a lot to lose if he were caught doping.

I imagine quite a few will have a similar view as yours, including the International Olympic Committee (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/us-cycling-armstrong-olympics-idUSBRE90E0ZU20130115).

 

[WannabeNewton]

He ruined people lives and destroyed them financially as revenge if they tried to report him, or go against him. It wasn't just a simple case of illegal drug use, the man was, as was said previously, a psychopath.

As insanely despicable as that is, we've seen time and again that more media coverage of these guys only helps their notoriety rise to a level where the focus stops being on the issue of drug use in the sport and more on who next can get Lance Armstrong on their talk show. That is all I meant. I don't disagree with you that he is a horrible person of course.

 

[BobG]

Is Jan Ulrich Partying now?

Actually, Greg LeMond is probably partying now.

He's the only American to win the Tour de France and not be stripped of his title(s).

Not only that, but criticizing Armstrong financially wrecked LeMond's bicycle business (Trek manufactured and distriuted LeMond bicycles Armstrong was a major spokesman for Trek bicycles). I don't think he feels much sorrow for Armstrong.

Were the 80's the only era in pro cycling where clean athletes won? (Hinault five times and LeMond three times.)

At least LeMond's victories are believable. He was virtually the first cyclist to use very aerodynamic bicycles and helmets in the time trials, providing him with a technological advantage (plus he was unbelievably lucky in '89 when the race favorite, Pedro Delgado, incredibly showed up late for the start of the race, falling 7 minutes behind after only 2 days of racing and winding up finishing third, 3 1/2 minutes behind).