Why? Did Lance Armstrong compete at a time when drugs were legal? Is the drugs ban retrospective or was it there at the time? What rules have been changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Printable View
Why? Did Lance Armstrong compete at a time when drugs were legal? Is the drugs ban retrospective or was it there at the time? What rules have been changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Any samples in themselves are not proof. The rest of it is and it's more than just hearsay.
There certainly was a ban on drugs before Armstrong's string of TdF wins, yet he's the one targeted out of plenty of riders. How do we call that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Sure thing. Lance is the only cyclist from that era to be targeted for drug use. Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The other riders didn't win 7 Tour de France's in a row, and they were prepared to admit it too.
In excess of 75% of podium finishers in the Tour de France in the period 1997 to 2005 (possibly to 2009) have been caught, implicated or confessed doping and have had bans, how you can say that they are singling out Lance is beyond me. Prior to that period the samples aren't available and testing was no good. Since then the testing and procedures is vastly improved and the teams and organisers are taking an active anti doping stance rather than turning a blind eye or actively promoting it.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Nail on head - they've proven themselves poor at doing both. They should regulate cycling, and nothing else. Others should be Promoting the different cycling disciplines - similar to the FiA with F1, WRC, WEC, WTCC, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark
So how many of them have had life bans and have been trashed in public like this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Also how many of them have been done with a 13 years old sample?
For how many of them did they heard together several dozens of 'witnesses' who all have a personal issue with Armstrong?
The question isn't if Armstrong doped, they all did. The issue is with the way in which 'justice' is being done.
If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.
The bans others received were proportionate to their offences at the time as per the rules in place. It is also proportinate to the cooperation they had when caught/investigated. Multiple cyclists at the height of their careers have had 2 year bans from their sport. A life ban from a professional elite physical sport when you are twice retired and over 40 is purely decorative. There have been at least 3 riders since this has all come out in the last couple of weeks who have confessed to using the same doping methods as detailed in USADA's report. They have been dropped by their teams and been banned. several ex riders who are now involved in teams who have been implicated by this scandal have been sacked and or banned. There is every chance of there being further criminal charges against seme of the dr's etc who are implicated in this scandal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The public trashing is directly proportional to the status of the athlete involved. outside of cycling who really knows much about Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Bjarne Rjiis, Marco Pantani etc. There bans and doping made little more than a few days/weeks sports page news due to their status. Lance Armstrong has a much wider appeal, due in part to his success, his cancer survival, his foundation (I can't call it a charity, have a little dig to see how much of the Livestrong money raised has actually been used in cancer research). he has courted the media to enhance his profile all his career, he has several best selling books, celebrity relationships etc beyond his sport. The media attention is therefore directly proportional to his status.
They are debating whether to reopen previous cases, look into other old sample from previous events, etc, this is the tip of a potential rewriting of the recent history of cycling. there are 2 competing voices within the UCI, whether to draw a line and do the best they can going forward to improve doping education, testing, transparency etc or whether to also dig up everything they can about the last 10-15 years.
In terms of justice, bear in mind the financial implications, the prizemoney, the sponsors bonuses received by all these riders and teams who were not only cheating, but engaging in illegal activity in some european coutries. like I said there could be criminal charges as a repercussion of all of this.
The judgements themselves were provided a. by the USADA and b. by the UCI, not by the media, althogh they have reported all the evidence. I for one welcome the tranparency allowing what is an informed decision. this is of course only available as evidence for the prosecution, but it was Armstrong himself who denied himself his opportunity to provide a defence in a bona-fide arbitration, meaning that USADA coule do nothing other than submit their report to UCI. Modern media, beyond the tabloid headlines, has allowed far greater ability for us to actually review the same evidence as the decision makes. should people not wish to and only rely on the headlines written by those who did read it, then that is up to them.
whether Lance has been targetted, or suffered more than others is certainly up for debate, but I feel given the rewards he made from a career of cheating and then lying about it (including under oath) the attention he has received has been proportionate. It is probably the only way that cycling can rid itself of the image and rumours going forward, by taking the full action they can against as many of the protaganists from the period in question.
I only hope that Lance does either choose to provide a reasoned evidence based defence, or comes clean. the only the way the 2nd will happen is through another book, which will sell millions and will probably recoup whatever he has to repay or loses from sponsors.
as an aside, I still think the physical acheivement in his 7 tour "wins" is incredible. he was far from the only doper, and he still beat them all, repeatedly
Lance made it a public issue that he wasn't doping and still refuses to admit it. So it should be made public and a big thing made of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan