French still bitter that Lance Armstrong is better than them.

Axon: that's exactly what I had in mind--with our sports here in America, the big deal with steroids a couple years back wasn't using them to 'cheat' their way out of hard work, it was to actually spend *more* time in the gym, more time sweating, more time in 'pain for the gain' by rebuilding the body faster in between workouts.

I checked on the injury recovery, and the incident I was thinking of actually involved HGH. Of course, might not work at all, but like the person is quoted as saying: "I wasn't looking for an edge. I was looking to heal."

LouZiffer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Like I said above, everyone's going to have to have that conversation because of the toll these sports put on the human body. There may be reasons to keep PED's out of sports, but the argument about drugs--when athletes are awash in painkillers and cortisone injections and anesthesia--isn't one of them, not when you look at what competing at the level of a Lance Armstrong requires in terms of performance and training.

Isn't a lot of steroid usage about making the human body more capable of dealing with what modern training regiments do to it, or healing faster from the injuries these modern sports produce with how much strain they put on the human body?

I think what should be discussed is where the line exists between treatment and enhancement. Athletes get injured for sure, and should know what they're getting into before they decide to take that path as a profession. Without a level playing field though, any sport becomes a farce. We can all point to examples of where it is that currently (cycling, for instance!). "Fixing it" will be an ongoing thing in many instances as changes in technology make it impossible to do completely. I agree that part of that process should also be the discussion you're talking about.

Oh, I agree: that line between treatment and enhancement certainly should be discussed, but it's not relevant to this part of the discussion, the role the "you're doing bad things to your body" argument against PED's should play. Treatment or enhancement, pain is pain and disability is disability.

Hormones! I forgot about hormones. Testosterone ejections are fairly common in rugby and other sports as far as I know. While HGH could speed up recovery of torn muscles, they tend to have short recovery times and most athletes take the injuries as a sign of other mechanical problems or chronic fatigue. Changes are even if you repair the muscle in a couple of weeks it'll just tear again right away due to the underlying issue not being resolved so the advantage of taking hormones is practically nil. In the case of that article, HGH would do little for ligament damage as you are into the same issue with steroids in that they just do effect them nearly as much. I believe its to do with the lack of blood that ligaments and tendons receive compared to muscle tissue but don't quote me on that.

That all said I can see why some would do it out of desperation and my heart breaks reading that article and how athletes are pressured into abusing their bodies. Which leads into the other issue about the line between treatment and enhancement.

This issue has long been dealt with, you'll find. In my case, for example, start of every season you get a list of over the counter products (team doctors look after prescriptions) that will test you positive in a drug test. These include mundane things like cold remedies such as Lemsip (I believe its called Theraflu in the US and NeoCitran in Canada) and the responsibility is entirely yours to protect yourself. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as a lawyer will tell you. If you do have to take something serious, like a type steroid to clear a lung infection, your team doctor has to prescribe it and you both and to fill out a form and file it with your national drug testing body. And there are drugs that are completely off the list, doctors note or not. These even include painkillers of certain types. In short, its heavily regulated and monitored.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Axon: that's exactly what I had in mind--with our sports here in America, the big deal with steroids a couple years back wasn't using them to 'cheat' their way out of hard work, it was to actually spend *more* time in the gym, more time sweating, more time in 'pain for the gain' by rebuilding the body faster in between workouts.

That's cheating. There's no magic pill that allows someone to win contests without hard training. Everyone in sports trains hard. It's a question of getting that extra edge over the other person who trains hard. Athletes are going to take advantage of whatever methods they can find to add 1-2-5% to their performance levels, because that's the difference between the winners and the also rans.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Axon: that's exactly what I had in mind--with our sports here in America, the big deal with steroids a couple years back wasn't using them to 'cheat' their way out of hard work, it was to actually spend *more* time in the gym, more time sweating, more time in 'pain for the gain' by rebuilding the body faster in between workouts.

That's cheating. There's no magic pill that allows someone to win contests without hard training. Everyone in sports trains hard. It's a question of getting that extra edge over the other person who trains hard. Athletes are going to take advantage of whatever methods they can find to add 1-2-5% to their performance levels, because that's the difference between the winners and the also rans.

I don't see anywhere that we're in real disagreement, and I don't want to get into an argument over the semantics here.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood your point.

Edit: Nevermind.

The whole thing makes me sad. I'm sad that it happened, I'm sad that he felt the need to dope, and I'm sad that the whole thing is going down without any actual hard evidence, e.g. a failed test. Don't get me wrong, I think he's guilty — Zabriskie, Leipheimer, and especially Hincapie put it over the edge for me. But it's still a sad day.

This may be more of a general "Questions You Want Answered" inquiry, but can someone here briefly sum up the evidence against Armstrong? Was it based only on witness testimony? Or are there any documents or other material proof? Did Armstrong ever fail any drug tests and if not will these tests ever be able to detect the type of drugs that were used?

Note: I'm not defending Armstrong. In fact, my personal opinion (based on zero research into the matter) is that he probably did dope. At least, it doesn't surprise me in this day and age that he did.

I guess I'm just a little cynical about such concrete proof based only on others people's testimony and no other hard evidence. The fact that he doesn't want to defend himself does speak volumes though.

It was fun poking the French in the eye over their national sport being dominated by an American, but cheating is cheating. Every now and then the heroes turn out to have the feet of clay.

Afaik he never did fail anything, but that's because he was so far ahead of the curve the anti-doping agencies didn't even know what to look for.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Afaik he never did fail anything, but that's because he was so far ahead of the curve the anti-doping agencies didn't even know what to look for.

I could have sworn I read somewhere he did fail a test but it was thrown out on the good old "mishandled" loophole... see Ryan Braun.

TheGameguru wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Afaik he never did fail anything, but that's because he was so far ahead of the curve the anti-doping agencies didn't even know what to look for.

I could have sworn I read somewhere he did fail a test but it was thrown out on the good old "mishandled" loophole... see Ryan Braun.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence Nike/Armstrong bribed the UCI to bury a positive result. The UCI needed an American hero to shoehorn into the lucrative US market, and could miss the negative publicity after the Festina scandals. Now they claim they accepted the money (a transfer is proven, not why it was transfered) in good faith.

Source.

(This is all over the Belgian press, who is very knowledgable on cycling, but not quotable on GWJ of course. The source is the result of a quick google.)

Squee9 wrote:

I care mostly about how stupid it is to retroactively remove someone's titles or wins. You can't change the past. Lance Armstrong crossed the finish line of thsoe races in the shortest total time each of those years. You can't take away my memories of cheering for Lance with my Father. We were a French family drinking wine and sharing time talking about how cool it was for an American to be rocking house in France in a sport not a lot of people over here care about. It's not fair to somehow tarnish those memories by telling me that Lance didn't actually win.

Well if he chated he didn't actually win, so what's the difference? Well he hasn't been proved a cheater yet. Well in a Machiavellian sense he's just way better at the entire sport than everyone else. Well maybe I can rationalize cheating more easily than some organization telling me to alter my memories. Well maybe I think cheating is ok.

Fine the guy, ban him from cycling, throw him in jail if possible...but you can't change the past.

I agree with the sentiment. But he didn't win.

I care mostly about how stupid it is to retroactively remove someone's titles or wins. You can't change the past. Lance Armstrong crossed the finish line of thsoe races in the shortest total time each of those years. You can't take away my memories of cheering for Lance with my Father. We were a French family drinking wine and sharing time talking about how cool it was for an American to be rocking house in France in a sport not a lot of people over here care about. It's not fair to somehow tarnish those memories by telling me that Lance didn't actually win.

Well if he cheated he didn't actually win, so what's the difference? Well he hasn't been proved a cheater yet. Well in a Machiavellian sense he's just way better at the entire sport than everyone else. Well maybe I can rationalize cheating more easily than some organization telling me to alter my memories. Well maybe I think cheating is ok.

Fine the guy, ban him from cycling, throw him in jail if possible...but you can't change the past.

Vector wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

I care mostly about how stupid it is to retroactively remove someone's titles or wins. You can't change the past. Lance Armstrong crossed the finish line of thsoe races in the shortest total time each of those years. You can't take away my memories of cheering for Lance with my Father. We were a French family drinking wine and sharing time talking about how cool it was for an American to be rocking house in France in a sport not a lot of people over here care about. It's not fair to somehow tarnish those memories by telling me that Lance didn't actually win.

Well if he chated he didn't actually win, so what's the difference? Well he hasn't been proved a cheater yet. Well in a Machiavellian sense he's just way better at the entire sport than everyone else. Well maybe I can rationalize cheating more easily than some organization telling me to alter my memories. Well maybe I think cheating is ok.

Fine the guy, ban him from cycling, throw him in jail if possible...but you can't change the past.

I agree with the sentiment. But he didn't win.

I'm not quite understanding that.

Lance Armstrong finished first in a competiton several times (one of the applicable definitions of win). Did he perhaps deceive or break rules to gain an unfair advantage? According to a lot of people, yes. Did he win unethically, unfairly, and unjustly? Up to you.

People who are good at cheating tend to win, that's why people cheat.

I think the evidence is so heavily stacked against him and how he has decided to not defend himself makes the answer to both your questions. Yes & Yes. Armstrong deserves the worst punishment a sportsman can get, to be completely forgotten. Wiped away.

There's a lot of emphasis on the fact that he's not defending himself, but what exactly is he supposed to say? There is no hard evidence he can dispute. Short of calling his accusers liars, there's no point in him starting a defense, especially since the decisions has already been made. What can he do, show a bunch of film of himself not taking steroids?

The man's been in various legal battles about this for eight years, maybe he's finally fed up and just wants to do other things.

If someone came out with a thousand pages of stuff I allegedly did, I'd like to think I'd be able to come up with a few things to say about it.

Right, apparently he was the best cheater. That's why they're not reallocating his wins.

There's some truth to that. Jan Ullrich, the longtime #2 finisher, already retired after testing positive for stuff, and Ivan Basso (who finished #2 or #3 a couple times) has already served one doping suspension, as has Vinokourov, once #3. Joseba Beloki, once #2 and twice #3, was named in the Operation Puerta scandal but was later cleared by the courts, so he's technically clean, as is Andreas Kloden. Not sure about the '99 runners up of Zulle and Escartin.

I used to be a huge admirer of Armstrong, unfortunately reality gets in the way of that.

He didn't win the Tour, he cheated his way across the line in first place.

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious

Renji wrote:

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious :D

Yeah, that one didn't age so well.

clover wrote:
Renji wrote:

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious :D

Yeah, that one didn't age so well.

Actually I remember finding it pretty offensive at the time as well, but the one time I called out French bashing on the forums it was dismissed on the basis that it was just friendly ribbing so I gave up. As a "Frenchie" (grew up there) it gets old pretty quick.

Renji wrote:
clover wrote:
Renji wrote:

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious :D

Yeah, that one didn't age so well.

Actually I remember finding it pretty offensive at the time as well, but the one time I called out French bashing on the forums it was dismissed on the basis that it was just friendly ribbing so I gave up. As a "Frenchie" (grew up there) it gets old pretty quick.

Well, most of us are trying to be nicer to downtrodden minorities now.

Renji wrote:
clover wrote:
Renji wrote:

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious :D

Yeah, that one didn't age so well.

Actually I remember finding it pretty offensive at the time as well, but the one time I called out French bashing on the forums it was dismissed on the basis that it was just friendly ribbing so I gave up. As a "Frenchie" (grew up there) it gets old pretty quick.

I was discussing with a friend yesterday I'm still not sure where the US gets off France-bashing on military grounds:

(a) The Resistance were pretty badass
(b) The French actually won their wars in South East Asia. The best the US managed was a scoreless draw.
(c) Without the French the US is still flying the Union Jack.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Renji wrote:
clover wrote:
Renji wrote:

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious :D

Yeah, that one didn't age so well.

Actually I remember finding it pretty offensive at the time as well, but the one time I called out French bashing on the forums it was dismissed on the basis that it was just friendly ribbing so I gave up. As a "Frenchie" (grew up there) it gets old pretty quick.

Well, most of us are trying to be nicer to downtrodden minorities now. ;)

I lol'ed

You know, it IS going to be weird. When another star rises in cycling, someone who wins 5 Tours in a row, what will the story be? With Armstrong it was all about how no-one, not even Merckx, had been able to win 6. What now?

Cycling, especially the Giro/Vuelta/Tour will be kinda awkward forever more.

In my opinion, based on the evidence Lance Armstrong didn't deserve those wins and still doesn't now. Any responsibility for tarnished memories rests firmly with him as well. The governing body of the sport has the responsibility of restoring trust right now- if that's possible. Part of that is ensuring that known cheaters are not celebrated in any official capacity.

Minarchist wrote:

There's some truth to that. Jan Ullrich, the longtime #2 finisher, already retired after testing positive for stuff, and Ivan Basso (who finished #2 or #3 a couple times) has already served one doping suspension, as has Vinokourov, once #3. Joseba Beloki, once #2 and twice #3, was named in the Operation Puerta scandal but was later cleared by the courts, so he's technically clean, as is Andreas Kloden. Not sure about the '99 runners up of Zulle and Escartin.

I believe you have to get to 7th in '99 before you get to the clean riders. And just to pick you up on the lack of hard evidence issue. The problem is that seems that the UCI had at least one result that was positive from the Tour of Switzerland but it was suppressed. This is what the UCI are bringing Paul Kimmage to court over as he made the claim on the back of several interviews he did at the time. We know the sample exists, that isn't in doubt, but the sample is now classified as suspicious and not positive which to my knowledge is not a classification at all but I'm not sure on the details of this issue so I welcome correction on it.

As dejanzie points out, a governing body of a minority sport can be very sympathetic to its stars if they come from very large markets and the UCI isn't the only one guilty of that by a long shot.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Right, apparently he was the best cheater. That's why they're not reallocating his wins.

But there are guys who finished the Tour in those years who everyones acknowledges they are clean. If we want to promote a clean sport surely they should get the trophy as opposed to getting smeared along with the cheats just because your feelings and memories are hurt?

dejanzie wrote:

You know, it IS going to be weird. When another star rises in cycling, someone who wins 5 Tours in a row, what will the story be? With Armstrong it was all about how no-one, not even Merckx, had been able to win 6. What now?

Cycling, especially the Giro/Vuelta/Tour will be kinda awkward forever more.

Like I said above, Wiggins is generally accepted as being clean due to the rigorous drug testing system now in place. It's really up to the bodies in question to show these systems at work in a transparent fashion so the public can satisfy themselves that the sport is as clean as possible.

I think we know what has to be done, men: Jens Voigt, 13-time tour winner! Give that man a medal! Or a bunch of them!

Spoiler:

Got to meet him two weeks ago. Awesome, awesome dude.