News The curious case of Lance Armstrong....and what it means to sports racing

[Cosmic Penguin]

Well I was about to talk about his case earlier, but the news about "the other Armstrong" overwhelmed it. Now the news came that a 1000 page report was issued that listed evidence about his alleged doping actions for the last decade.

I'm not willing to completely believe this report yet - not the least because he had hundreds of doping tests during the past races (that's many more than the others) by many different organizations, and yet unlike many of the champions in the same period, all of them cleared his allegations. The current charges were only put on him 2 or 3 years ago, so I'm not so sure he actually did it at all (although his linkage with a doctor known to be a source of doping is suggestive) - particularly when all of the other players that accused him also have doping records, and when there's a smell of political pulling in his case (unlike most other doping cases).

Of course it would be even more interesting if the charges turned out to be true. I would be disappointed at him, not because he "cheated" (see below for an explanation on this), but because he didn't have the courage to tell the truth of today's highest level sports racing. I actually have to wonder if the level of sport racing (cycling, athletics, swimming etc.) today have already reached beyond human being's limits, such that almost every athlete playing in this level have to resort to some kind of "cheating" methods (from doping, blood doping to the use of "shark suit" in swimming) to push the records beyond limits. So I have a proposal that probably will anger a lot of people here, but which conforms to the truth: delete any doping tests in the highest level races of limit-breaking sports like cycling, athletics, triathlon etc., but put the results in a category that reflects that the results may not completely reflect the "pure" strength of the athlete, and may have a degree of "man-made" factors in it. After all, how can you claim all athletes are standing at the same starting point when doping is illegal, but blood doping and other biological/technological enhancements are legal?

So, what's your take?

References:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/sport/armstrong-doping-investigation/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/29/sport/armstrong-doping-allegations/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

(Mods please move it down into the dungeon if necessary)

 

[Urwumpe]

I think all things that enhance the performance of an athlete beyond training should be illegal. That means also no protein powder or other chemistry in the food. Yes, it makes it hard to compete with historic athletes who had the chance to use such legal doping.

Also I think that with this magnitude of doping, large bicycle races might be better dead now. Nobody professional could win today without the suspicion of doping, and that mistrust does not make the sport better.

If you consider permitting a bit of doping, it would be only fair to allow all doping, harmful or not. It makes little sense to differ between harmless doping in harmful sports and harmful doping in harmless sports.

Or you could ban all sports that mostly depend on physical capabilities. There are still many sports left, where doping can make you better, but skill still can defeat you.

 

[80mileshigh]

As someone who has defended Armstrong, including here, I feel torn by this. My position was influenced by the SBS/NBC commentator Phil Liggett who has always shown skepticism towards the claims. I feel the evidence is much stronger now however, especially with Hincape's testimony. Hincape had been a domestique through thick and thin for Armstrong – why would he say this now if it were untrue?

It's interesting to see how reluctant many people are to being swayed by the USADA's findings. I think it's understandable. Even if Armstrong's performance was increased by doping, he still rode all those thousands of kilometers. Many will disagree but to me it just doesn't seem as villainous as the doping of a sprinter whose results are measured in fractions of a second. I suspect some people that are quick to rubbish Armstrong have never had to ride up a hill!

For a moment I did consider the merits of simply permitting doping, as just another kind of advance in technology; we except all sorts of engineering ingenuity - why categorize biological ingenuity so differently? But a friend pointed out to me that drug use in sport operates at a dangerous cutting edge of insufficient testing, and deregulation would hardly make this safer.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the UCI responds, there's geopolitics at play here too.

 

[palebluevoice]

As someone who has defended Armstrong, including here, I feel torn by this. My position was influenced by the SBS/NBC commentator Phil Liggett who has always shown skepticism towards the claims. I feel the evidence is much stronger now however, especially with Hincape's testimony. Hincape had been a domestique through thick and thin for Armstrong – why would he say this now if it were untrue?

It's interesting to see how reluctant many people are to being swayed by the USADA's findings. I think it's understandable. Even if Armstrong's performance was increased by doping, he still rode all those thousands of kilometers. Many will disagree but to me it just doesn't seem as villainous as the doping of a sprinter whose results are measured in fractions of a second. I suspect some people that are quick to rubbish Armstrong have never had to ride up a hill!

For a moment I did consider the merits of simply permitting doping, as just another kind of advance in technology; we except all sorts of engineering ingenuity - why categorize biological ingenuity so differently? But a friend pointed out to me that drug use in sport operates at a dangerous cutting edge of insufficient testing, and deregulation would hardly make this safer.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the UCI responds, there's geopolitics at play here too.

I think one of the reasons that athletes are outcast is that they're looked up to by children and teens. Lance Armstrong was revered and proof you could be a champion without breaking the rules. That's gone now. It's like someone with a mansion stealing a $6000 TV from best buy. Yeah, he doesn't need it to prove anything, but does that make it any better?

I don't know very much about this stuff, and so I'm in no position to deride him very much, all I do know is that there are many impressionable people who are taking things that will seriously hurt them at their age, and all professional athletes have a responsibility to set a good example for them.

I think all things that enhance the performance of an athlete beyond training should be illegal. That means also no protein powder or other chemistry in the food. Yes, it makes it hard to compete with historic athletes who had the chance to use such legal doping.

Also I think that with this magnitude of doping, large bicycle races might be better dead now. Nobody professional could win today without the suspicion of doping, and that mistrust does not make the sport better.

If you consider permitting a bit of doping, it would be only fair to allow all doping, harmful or not. It makes little sense to differ between harmless doping in harmful sports and harmful doping in harmless sports.

Or you could ban all sports that mostly depend on physical capabilities. There are still many sports left, where doping can make you better, but skill still can defeat you.

That sounds alright at first, but what about Gatorade with its fancy electrolytes and Total with its artificially added vitamins and protein? Hell, what if someone is anemic, are they not allowed to play sports?

I think the line should be drawn at things that are harmful or potentially harmful. Otherwise, it just becomes a competition on who can take the most drugs.

 

[Urwumpe]

That sounds alright at first, but what about Gatorade with its fancy electrolytes and Total with its artificially added vitamins and protein? Hell, what if someone is anemic, are they not allowed to play sports?

Not as professional. As amateur, nobody can stop you. But if the treatment for your "illness" is giving you a strong advantage in that sport and the alternative is harmful, I see little that speaks against not permitting you to start at all. The sport could be harmful otherwise.

I think the line should be drawn at things that are harmful or potentially harmful. Otherwise, it just becomes a competition on who can take the most drugs.

That is already what we have today, as you can see often. And we have dozens of legal ways for doping, that aren't harmful in first place, but then give you advantages that usual training could not offer you, only money. That the first places in the olympic games are mostly reserved for a few big countries is not explained by such countries having more athletes to select the best from. Such countries simply also have more resources for legal doping.

And if money is the difference between champion and second place, I think that we are no longer talking about sport. Then it is all about getting best drugs, the best equipment and the best training locations. Not about you.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Not as professional. As amateur, nobody can stop you. But if the treatment for your "illness" is giving you a strong advantage in that sport and the alternative is harmful, I see little that speaks against not permitting you to start at all. The sport could be harmful otherwise.
*SNIP*

So only perfect specimens who don't need training, because that's an unfair advantage, can play professional sports? Be careful. One of your contrymen was thinking along similar lines in the late 1930s...

 

[palebluevoice]

Not as professional. As amateur, nobody can stop you. But if the treatment for your "illness" is giving you a strong advantage in that sport and the alternative is harmful, I see little that speaks against not permitting you to start at all. The sport could be harmful otherwise.



That is already what we have today, as you can see often. And we have dozens of legal ways for doping, that aren't harmful in first place, but then give you advantages that usual training could not offer you, only money. That the first places in the olympic games are mostly reserved for a few big countries is not explained by such countries having more athletes to select the best from. Such countries simply also have more resources for legal doping.

And if money is the difference between champion and second place, I think that we are no longer talking about sport. Then it is all about getting best drugs, the best equipment and the best training locations. Not about you.

Fine, but its still an issue of money even if you remove drugs. You've already pointed out the best equipment and training locations; if an Olympian has a team of doctors, scientists, trainers and servants, they're going to have an advantage over a third world Olympian who has to work part time to support their training.

Money will always give people a significant advantage.

 

[Urwumpe]

So only perfect specimens who don't need training, because that's an unfair advantage, can play professional sports? Be careful. One of your contrymen was thinking along similar lines in the late 1930s...

You should really do two things.

Read my post again, because you accuse me of something opposite to what I have written.
Learn about German history, because it wasn't just one countrymen. And to their defense, the USA had been not far away in the 1930s in their views.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

Fine, but its still an issue of money even if you remove drugs. You've already pointed out the best equipment and training locations; if an Olympian has a team of doctors, scientists, trainers and servants, they're going to have an advantage over a third world Olympian who has to work part time to support their training.

Money will always give people a significant advantage.

Yes, but should this be augmented or should this be limited?

 

[Cras]

What all this doping has done to me is that everytime I now see an athelete do something that is unbelievable, like just excel so greatly in his craft and do things never before done, my first thought is "He is cheating", because that is what I feel doping is. It is cheating. If it seems unbelievable, odds are it is, and that s/he would not have been ablet to do it without cheating.

 

[FADEC]

I'm with Urwumpe. I also think that all things that enhance the performance of an athlete beyond training should be illegal.

But it should be mentioned that usual protein powder has no scientific verifiable advantage. A properly mixed diet already includes more protein than a top athlete needs. Most of such dietary supplements are nothing more than successful marketing (and needless for a healthy person), based on old, non-verifiable myths which a lot of people still believe.

I would like to see athletes which perform true achievements based on training and a natural, mixed diet. I don't like doping competitions.

 

[asbjos]

Zatnikitelman, if I'm guessing right about the "countryman" you are talking about, you should read his biography one more time. He wasn't even German.

And what mad people are thinking shouldn't be used against others who lived there at the same time. I have a German father, and I can assure you that of all the people I know there, none of them share the thoughts of this man.

 

[80mileshigh]

The Australian investigative journalism program 4 Corners has broadcast a pretty compelling piece, 'The World According to Lance.' This features the first broadcast of sworn depositions given back in 2005 and some interesting new interviews with big names:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm

Some extracts from it here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-15/the-world-according-to-lance-key-players/4313246

You can invoke occams razor in this case: either an enormous conspiracy out to get him, or ... the simpler answer.

 

[80mileshigh]

Game over for Armstrong.

The UCI has backed USADA all the way saying, 'Armstrong has no place in cycling' and stripping all seven TDF wins.

They're going to make a decision on Friday as to who gets awarded the wins. Here's an interesting take on that: Who really won the Tours de Lance?

Of course I feel silly for ever defending him, but the best way to admit you've been wrong is on the basis of evidence, right?

 

[MattBaker]

So Armstrong lost his Tour victories, but Bjarne Riis, whose Telekom team did the same thing, was allowed to keep his? Double Standards...

Also, who do you want to give these titles? Ullrich was proved guilty two times, his team had the same doping network like Armstrong's. Zülle used EPO with the whole Festina team too, just like Basso and Klöden and Beloki had allegations too.
No one who drove on top in these times was clean, so I look at this with doubt, it's like catching Al Capone and give his partner the money...

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, who do you want to give these titles?

Me of course. It is impossible to prove that I ever took illegal substances before, during or after an international bicycling competition. And I am sure a worthy Tour De France winner. You won't even find me on a picture with any athelete who was caught using illegal substances.

 

[Andy44]

So they take the titles from the best cheater and will now give them to the second place cheater.

Cycling is a joke, it's like baseball during the 90s "Steroid Years" where none of the statistics mean anything because they all are the result of players juicing up.