Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Professional Cycling For the Fans (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/)
-   -   Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France Titles? (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/904808-restoration-armstrongs-tour-de-france-titles.html)

sprince 08-04-13 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger (Post 15924675)
That's pre EPO era but if they really wanted to dig, I suppose they could go back to the early '90s and really go through the era. Somehow I don't think they'll bother.

Back in the days of the Red Zinger Classic in Colorado in the late '70s promoter Mo Siegel never sent samples to the lab because it was too expensive. They just gathered the samples from podium winners and randoms and threw them away, lol.

Too bad Phil Anderson was distracted by an invitation from a young lady to join her at her place after winning the Vail criterium stage in '78 and missed doping control. He was the only one who was ever suspended. They didn't actually start sending samples to the lab until the then-Coors Classic in '83.

That perfectly illustrates why they should dispense with the history revisions and spend the time and resources doing something positive in the future instead of litigating the past.

ooga-booga 08-05-13 04:01 AM

time to move on. good luck figuring out who or whom was "clean" or less doped than the others. seems to permeate all competitive/well-compensated sports and has for
quite some time now. have operated under the assumption that everyone is doing something questionable or worse and have rarely been disappointed. do i like convicted
or supposed dopers? yep. do i like holier than thou and supposed clean riders? yep. just like the sport. i have zero problems with a lifetime ban for first time offenders
or at least something stricter (4-10 years) but the powers that be better have a damn airtight testing program than they do now.

ooga-booga 08-05-13 04:10 AM

fortunately, i think the hysteria to get retroactive will die with the armstrong/ullrich/pantani/zulle/virenque era. can you imagine another sport coming
across old samples and applying modern applications to samples from platini, gretzky, ripken, sampras or elway?

Keith99 08-05-13 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ooga-booga (Post 15926145)
fortunately, i think the hysteria to get retroactive will die with the armstrong/ullrich/pantani/zulle/virenque era. can you imagine another sport coming
across old samples and applying modern applications to samples from platini, gretzky, ripken or elray?

Only sport I can picture doing that is Rugby.

Why?

Because they take doping controls seriously. The one instance I am thinking of was for a player who had Asthma (I think). Because of that he was allowed to take a drug that normally was banned because it can server as a masking agent. He had been doing that for at least a couple of years.

Then one year he neglected to check a box in his annual paperwork. He got a 2 month suspension for using the drug he had legally used for years. He appealed. The suspension stood, only good thing was that the write up of that made it clear that this was purely a paperwork error on his part, not cheating and he got no additional consequences (e.g. no strike against him going forward).

Rather different from Cycling and post dated doctors notes.

Leinster 08-05-13 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprince (Post 15925252)
That perfectly illustrates why they should dispense with the history revisions and spend the time and resources doing something positive in the future instead of litigating the past.

That's exactly why they've introduced the 8 year limit on re-testing. But if you don't test back a few years, you're giving a free pass to everyone to use whatever they can't detect today.

GreatWhiteShark 08-05-13 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsteinb (Post 15923009)
where are you?

What do you mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsteinb (Post 15923009)
I believe this covers it:

Oprah: Did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling performance?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: Was one of those banned substances EPO?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: Did you ever blood dope, or use blood transfusions to enhance your cycling performance?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: Did you ever used other banned substances like cortisones, testosterone, or human growth hormone?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: In all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned substances or blood dope?
Lance Armstrong: Yes

Considering the DOJ is on Lance for about what his net worth is, the restoration of his Tour titles have to be pretty low on his list of priorities at this point.

If that is what he said in that interview, then I am with you.

I would not put it past a athlete, that has achieved the highest possible achievement(s) in his sports (and used illegal drugs that are PEDs to do it that risks jail time and hurts one's body) to put that before everything else.

sprince 08-05-13 08:03 PM

What's with the font?

kenji666 08-05-13 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprince (Post 15929511)
What's with the font?

What do you mean?

lenA 08-06-13 02:54 AM

I'm just going to go with the position that any standout on the elite level of any sport is cheating and be done with it. Those folks are so close in ability, and other then the occasional freakish human, there is nothing else to account for the differences except PEDs

sprince 08-06-13 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenji666 (Post 15929531)
What do you mean?

nothing

GreatWhiteShark 08-06-13 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leinster (Post 15929331)
That's exactly why they've introduced the 8 year limit on re-testing. But if you don't test back a few years, you're giving a free pass to everyone to use whatever they can't detect today.

I could not agree more with this! Great Post, man; I wish all sports did that.

Zinger 08-06-13 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leinster (Post 15929331)
That's exactly why they've introduced the 8 year limit on re-testing. But if you don't test back a few years, you're giving a free pass to everyone to use whatever they can't detect today.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 8 year limit pertains to samples from the Olympics and USADA only. I don't know that it applies to pro cycling in general. It didn't stop USADA's case against Armstrong from going forward anyway.

canam73 08-06-13 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger (Post 15932096)
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 8 year limit pertains to samples from the Olympics and USADA only. I don't know that it applies to pro cycling in general. It didn't stop USADA's case against Armstrong from going forward anyway.

The UCI and USADA both operate under the Olympic rules.

Under special circumstance they are allowed to go back farther. In LA's case they looked at it as a continuous infraction that didn't end until 2010.

Zinger 08-06-13 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam73 (Post 15932430)
The UCI and USADA both operate under the Olympic rules.

Under special circumstance they are allowed to go back farther. In LA's case they looked at it as a continuous infraction that didn't end until 2010.

Well I guess that leaves Pantani safely past their statute of limitations.

dahoss2002 08-07-13 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lenA (Post 15912197)
naturalized citizens can't run for president

then he can fake a birth certificate.

lenA 08-07-13 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahoss2002 (Post 15933950)
then he can fake a birth certificate.

right.....

bt 08-08-13 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rumrunn6 (Post 15912291)
how is it cheating if he did what everyone else did, only better? he won 7 times. no one can change that.


yes they can and yes they did.

sprince 08-08-13 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bt (Post 15939490)
yes they can and yes they did.

In a pretend, doublethink, sort of way.

mprelaw 08-08-13 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprince (Post 15941021)
In a pretend, doublethink, sort of way.

Have to say, in all honesty, that I am a little troubled at how they avoided the SOL. I can see stripping him of everything within it. I understand their reasoning. Not sure I can agree with it 100%.

He was offered a deal letting him keep 5 TdFs and his bronze medal from Sydney, if he admitted doping. He told them to stuff it, and within 6 months went on national TV and admitted it all. His thinking process there also eludes me.

xfimpg 08-14-13 07:18 AM

If you restore the titles to Armstrong, the cheaters will come back as the ultimate threat is gone; being banned is temporary, losing your title is forever.

GreatWhiteShark 08-16-13 10:27 AM

xfimpg,

WOW, what a statement you just inserted, that banning someone can only be temporary. How is that not just a long suspension?

I agree that titles (records and Etc.) are a huge important reason for athletes to do what they do; but I think being prevented from ever participating in their sport of their life (so far; for 99% of them) is bigger punishment. I just do not think any sports organization would ban someone and then years later treat it like/change it to a suspension.

I think they should do both, they have him suspended, now strip all the awards that he gained from being dirty.


mprelaw 08-16-13 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteShark (Post 15967530)
xfimpg,

WOW, what a statement you just inserted, that banning someone can only be temporary. How is that not just a long suspension?

I agree that titles (records and Etc.) are a huge important reason for athletes to do what they do; but I think being prevented from ever participating in their sport of their life (so far; for 99% of them) is bigger punishment. I just do not think any sports organization would ban someone and then years later treat it like/change it to a suspension.

I think they should do both, they have him suspended, now strip all the awards that he gained from being dirty.


There isn't a sport anywhere that bans someone for life for the first doping offense, as far as I know. In the NFL, for example, it's a whopping 4 games. Zero tolerance sounds fine in theory, but it can lead to injustices in certain situations. There is such a thing as accidental ingestion. Athletes are still responsible for what they ingest, but the circumstances can differ. Certain banned substances---like albuterol---are legal to use under a certain daily dosage limit. Would you ban someone for life if they test at a miniscule level over that limit? In that case, you'd likely get disqualified from the event, but not even suspended.

xfimpg 08-16-13 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteShark (Post 15967530)
xfimpg,

WOW, what a statement you just inserted, that banning someone can only be temporary. How is that not just a long suspension?

I agree that titles (records and Etc.) are a huge important reason for athletes to do what they do; but I think being prevented from ever participating in their sport of their life (so far; for 99% of them) is bigger punishment. I just do not think any sports organization would ban someone and then years later treat it like/change it to a suspension.

I think they should do both, they have him suspended, now strip all the awards that he gained from being dirty.


You need to read and understand statements before responding to them. I said, and I quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfimpg (Post 15959351)
If you restore the titles to Armstrong, the cheaters will come back as the ultimate threat is gone; being banned is temporary, losing your title is forever.

Being banned under the current rules is temporary. Current titles removed are forever.

Now go back and re-read that 10 times before responding. And if you don't want to respond, I'm fine with that.

GreatWhiteShark 08-16-13 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfimpg (Post 15967767)
You need to read and understand statements before responding to them. I said, and I quote:



Being banned under the current rules is temporary. Current titles removed are forever.

Now go back and re-read that 10 times before responding. And if you don't want to respond, I'm fine with that.

I am NOT going back and forth on this, I made no mistake on reading your post.

GreatWhiteShark 08-16-13 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mprelaw (Post 15967759)
There isn't a sport anywhere that bans someone for life for the first doping offense, as far as I know. In the NFL, for example, it's a whopping 4 games. Zero tolerance sounds fine in theory, but it can lead to injustices in certain situations. There is such a thing as accidental ingestion. Athletes are still responsible for what they ingest, but the circumstances can differ. Certain banned substances---like albuterol---are legal to use under a certain daily dosage limit. Would you ban someone for life if they test at a miniscule level over that limit? In that case, you'd likely get disqualified from the event, but not even suspended.

I do not disagree with all you posted and I already knew it. There is the other side of the coin, in what you are saying and the other side is a lot more likely and common. You are right, it would be unfair to ban someone for life for failing one time*. I would go with three-strikes you are out rule. By the way, I am always a huge believer in rehabilitation (basically that is what it would be, after the first failed test**), heck I have had to use such rehabilitation myself (as many others do); basically, you helped me being lazy examining, thanks.

*- I would agree only if it is under one-time to have failed one-race. Not caught one-time to have failed more three-races/tests. But then the way cyclist are tested so much and process is done I do not see how that could happen.

**- Plus, there are huge debates and findings out there about the accuracy of the tests.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 PM.