Conquer Club

So Lance was stripped of his titles.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/lance-armstrong-stripped-tour-de-france-titles-lifetime-ban-olympic-sports-drops-doping-appeal-article-1.1143295

This is one of many hits on Google.

My question is... should he have been?

It's getting to the point where people get caught doping so much... I'm wondering how often the regulators and authories miss it... and the athelete "gets away" with it. Does it make sense to even care about it anymore? Maybe we should just let atheletes dope? They would still win or fail on their merits as atheletes... and we wouldn't have all the BS and Drama. Yes... they would be destroying their bodies... but that is true of many top atheletes even without doping.

One guy got kicked out of the Olympics because he had pot in his system. How ridiculous is that? How did the pot help him???

What is the difference between these banned substances... and legal things like creatine, and vitamins, and protein, and advil???

I'm not sure allowing doping ang 'steroids' is the right thing to do... but I'm starting to think it might be.

Thoughts?

No big surprise this. Dude was cheating and making a fine profit of his "I got over cancer and won the Tour de France" myth for a long while,

first creatine is not legal, maybe it is in in the US for some of your national sports, but get caught with this and you get banned from any international event in any sport.

secondly, what if you are an athlete that doesn't want to put strange products in your system? which is by the way, the rule?

the worse thing about lance is that it was so obvious he cheated and was an ambulat pharmacy, but yet he's been lying so bad during all these years in spite of the evidence.

what i don't like about all this, is that in spite of the cheating i know he is a great athlete and he sure deserved a few of thes 7 tours. Probably not all of them, but still.

Anyway, the real question is: they are doing this also so people know that you can get your titles stripped even after so long, on top of all the controls that are being done. The worse thing is that cycling is probably becoming one of the cleanest sports in terms of doping, but it's probably the one with the worse reputation. in other sports, they just pretend nothing happened.

Right... but he DID get cancer. Isn't overcoming that (even with drugs) impressive?

... but I don't want to discuss Lance in particular. Just use this latest example of a top athelete getting 'caught' to discuss wether or not we should/can even police this.

I mean... by policy it... you know we are NOT catching all the people who do it. So all the atheletes who don't do it are victims.

Look at all the years Lance won.... who would have won if his Team didn't??? Those teams that came in second will never get their recognition, their sponsorships, etc. It's too late for them to capitalize on this.

If they all were allowed to dope... at least it would be an even playing field. No?

betiko wrote: 1) what if you are an athlete that doesn't want to put strange products in your system?

2) which is by the way, the rule?

My thoughts are not specific to Lance.

1) If you don't want to put "strange products" inot your system... don't do it.

2) This thread is about discussing whether or not this should be the rule. We can't change the past.

Saying "it's the rule" is not a reason to keep that rule in place. Why or why not should we ban "doping", "steroids", or other products (natural or unnatural) that will enhance our bodies performance?

betiko wrote:first creatine is not legal

... from Wiki...

"Creatine and athletic performance"

"Creatine use is not considered doping and is not banned by the majority of sport-governing bodies. However, in the United States, the NCAA recently ruled that colleges could not provide creatine supplements to their players, though the players are still allowed to obtain and use creatine independently."

===

I am sure that different sports have different rules about what is and is not banned.

Another problem with these rules... some substances stay in the body longer than others. So you can use the substancs while training... just not as the competition (and testing time) nears. The only way to truly have an even playing field with the bans in place is to test atheletes daily... even months/years in advance of actual competition.

jimboston wrote:

betiko wrote:first creatine is not legal

... from Wiki...

"Creatine and athletic performance"

"Creatine use is not considered doping and is not banned by the majority of sport-governing bodies. However, in the United States, the NCAA recently ruled that colleges could not provide creatine supplements to their players, though the players are still allowed to obtain and use creatine independently."

===

I am sure that different sports have different rules about what is and is not banned.

Another problem with these rules... some substances stay in the body longer than others. So you can use the substancs while training... just not as the competition (and testing time) nears. The only way to truly have an even playing field with the bans in place is to test atheletes daily... even months/years in advance of actual competition.

i've seen many tennis or soccer players get in trouble for creatine.
in fact you need to show a whole lot of prescriptions and crap even for an advil ir you are competing.

let's put it another way. If lots of people steal and get caught or not, but the police can't catch all of them; means you'd rather legalize stealing to give a fair chance to people who steal and get caught?

lately there has been a story with a diferent type of cheating; some guys had an electric motor on their bike hidden in tubes of the bike, impossible to see.
you would just press on it and get a little help. in what way is this more cheating than EPO?

in the end, what is the meaning of winning a tour de france on drugs? you are just a cheater. the essence of the sport is you, your bike and your teammates. if you take drugs you know what you do is wrong and you have to be ready for the concequences.

if you are the best, you don't need them to win.

In a related story Major League Baseball banned 71 year old Pete Rose from ever playing in the Major Leagues...

Lance is a cheat just like Marian Jones was at the Sydney Olympics

just imagine how small his single ball is now

jimboston wrote:
My thoughts are not specific to Lance.

1) If you don't want to put "strange products" inot your system... don't do it.

2) This thread is about discussing whether or not this should be the rule. We can't change the past.

Saying "it's the rule" is not a reason to keep that rule in place. Why or why not should we ban "doping", "steroids", or other products (natural or unnatural) that will enhance our bodies performance?

You kind of started a topic about Lance Armstrong and his past achievements, But ass-holey to criticise people for looking at Lance *It;s so cute that you're on first name terms

Plus. of course, it's kind of a dick move to start a thread about previous winners of the Tour while weirdly demanding that they shouldn't be mentioned.

jimboston wrote:Right... but he DID get cancer. Isn't overcoming that (even with drugs) impressive?

... but I don't want to discuss Lance in particular. Just use this latest example of a top athelete getting 'caught' to discuss wether or not we should/can even police this.

What do you mean "we," white man?

Should they hold separate events? One where everyone is natural and one where performance enhancing substances are encouraged?

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:
My thoughts are not specific to Lance.

1) If you don't want to put "strange products" inot your system... don't do it.

2) This thread is about discussing whether or not this should be the rule. We can't change the past.

Saying "it's the rule" is not a reason to keep that rule in place. Why or why not should we ban "doping", "steroids", or other products (natural or unnatural) that will enhance our bodies performance?

You kind of started a topic about Lance Armstrong and his past achievements, But ass-holey to criticise people for looking at Lance *It;s so cute that you're on first name terms

Plus. of course, it's kind of a dick move to start a thread about previous winners of the Tour while weirdly demanding that they shouldn't be mentioned.

You are either dumb... Or intentionally being an ass and misreading/interpreting my points.

In either case..GFY.

jimboston wrote:One guy got kicked out of the Olympics because he had pot in his system. How ridiculous is that? How did the pot help him???

What is the difference between these banned substances... and legal things like creatine, and vitamins, and protein, and advil???

It's about being a role model, what kind of message do we want to put forward in a game?
"Do anything to win, even if it destroys your body." or "Work hard, play fair, and stay healthy."
"Famous people can get away with whatever they want." or "No one is above the law."
If pot is such a trivial meaningless thing that doesn't affect anything either way, then why couldn't he just not smoke pot before coming to the games?

2dimes wrote:Should they hold separate events? One where everyone is natural and one where performance enhancing substances are encouraged?

This is actually the only reasonable response to fix the problem offered so far.

Everyone else is saying "just keep testing".

Unless you change how you do the testing though... and unless you test BEFORE the competition (so dopers don't compete) you still have problems.

jimboston wrote:

2dimes wrote:Should they hold separate events? One where everyone is natural and one where performance enhancing substances are encouraged?

This is actually the only reasonable response to fix the problem offered so far.

Everyone else is saying "just keep testing".

Unless you change how you do the testing though... and unless you test BEFORE the competition (so dopers don't compete) you still have problems.

You can test effectively. Lance has been shown to dope by the advanced programs that his medical team had not yet devised a strategy to get around (eg the early 2000s epo detection program & the biological passport studies of change over time that he submitted to when he came back into the sport in late 2000s).
You can test in advance of competition. There will always be sad cases of results being changed after the event which is a pity, but you have to live with it - after you have gone over the hump of getting sport clean, which appears to be happening in sports like cycling, there wont be many cases of champions being stripped of medals years later, simply because many fewer athletes will be doping.
The problem in cycling isn't that testing doesn't work, it;s that there are powerful interests which tacitly support drug use.. It's that the authorities and the cycling industry have set up a regime to hamper the testing from working. It's a multi-million dollar big-hype industry where the controlling body, the UCI, makes its money out of the sport having a good image on the one hand, and on the other is responsible for keeping the sport clean. Terrible conflict of interest, and progress has been very slow toward creating an effective anti-doping policy.
Now cycling is showing us that testing and anti-drugs campaigns really do work. 10-20 years ago cycling was one of the dirtiest sports around. It has been through massive upheavals, but it really does appear, with Bradley Wiggins for example, we have a generation of riders now who are winning the biggest races without cheating on drugs.

Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.

Army of GOD wrote:just imagine how small his single ball is now

I'm sure you have big balls. After all, the smaller the dick is, the bigger the balls look.

Gillipig wrote:Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.

Tests have shown he's used drugs outside the rules on at least one occasion, in fact he's probably failed multiple tests. All we can be sure of those tests is his sport's governing body hasn't pursued them to a ban.
If Armstrong wants to clear his name he should go to court to do it.
I'm a big cycling fan and I've been trying not to look too closely at the Lance evidence for a long time, because it would so undermine what I felt about the sport and about Armstrong's victories... Reluctantly looking at it now, I see there is very strong evidence indeed that he failed drug tests on multiple occasions as well as a large amount of witness testimony. I think the detail of the USADA's evidence on Armstrong's doping will come out over coming months as they hold their hearings in the cases for Armstrong's manager Johan Bruyneel and others associated with Armstrong. In the meantime, there is a summary of the evidence here http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike. You can also pull together the info here, http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years though that takes more reading.
I really would have liked for Armstrong to be innocent. I'm sure if he felt there was any way he could go to law and win he would have continued to maintain his innocence. He knows he can't.

laughingcavalier wrote: but it really does appear, with Bradley Wiggins for example, we have a generation of riders now who are winning the biggest races without cheating on drugs.

He's already been accused of doping.

Many didn't believe Armstrong used drugs when the allegations first came out against him.

Can you tell me with CERTAINTY that he hasn't doped... and that 10 years from now we won't find out new ways to retroactively take away his victories???

Gillipig wrote:Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.

You may be right,

My thoughts / questions/ intent of this thread was to discuss OTHER WAYS of dealing with enhancements.... so we can avoid this BS.

I mean... what is "doping" anyway?

If you sent a nutritionist/trainer from today back to 1912 he'd be able to feed and train selected athletes so that their performance CRUSHED the competition at that time. People would think there was something nefarious going on. Maybe these enhancements are today's version of vitamins?

What happens in 50 years when we can genetically alter people's cells... maybe so they heal faster, so they can train harder... or maybe modifying the genes to allow for a more favorable muscle/mass ratio. Will genetically altered athletes be tested? Unable to compete? What if the genetic alterations are done pre-conception... is it still cheating.

If we don't deal with doping now... we are going to have bigger fish to fry later.

jimboston wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.

You may be right,

My thoughts / questions/ intent of this thread was to discuss OTHER WAYS of dealing with enhancements.... so we can avoid this BS.

I mean... what is "doping" anyway?

If you sent a nutritionist/trainer from today back to 1912 he'd be able to feed and train selected athletes so that their performance CRUSHED the competition at that time. People would think there was something nefarious going on. Maybe these enhancements are today's version of vitamins?

What happens in 50 years when we can genetically alter people's cells... maybe so they heal faster, so they can train harder... or maybe modifying the genes to allow for a more favorable muscle/mass ratio. Will genetically altered athletes be tested? Unable to compete? What if the genetic alterations are done pre-conception... is it still cheating.

If we don't deal with doping now... we are going to have bigger fish to fry later.

One of the main arguments against allowing use of performance enhancing drugs is that it ruins athletes' health.
For example there is a link between steroid use and cancer.
Another issue is if PEDs are allowed it effectively gives the win to whoever's body happens to be best adapted to the drug of the day.
Another is the moral shakiness of forcing athletes to take drugs - which you effectively do if there is not an effective no-PEDs policy.
Don't do it kids.

There are complex choices around what to allow and what not to allow in sport - not just around drugs but the whole male-female and able bodied-prosthetic limbs areas too for example. These issues will get more complex not less as medical science advances. But there isn't any analogy between better nutrition or improved exercise regimes and doping. We simply have to maintain the no-drugs approach, and focus on the ethical and practical challenges around it as they come up.

And stop with this "Lance is innocent" nonsense! The point is he and his legal team believe there is no way he can prove he's innocent in an open legal process.

If you want to look at the health effects of steroids just look at pro wrestling. It seems like only a small percent of pro wrestlers even make it past their 50s without some sort of heart attack.

Or like Chris Benoit and just straight up murder your family.

jimboston wrote:One guy got kicked out of the Olympics because he had pot in his system.

They must have changed the rules since 1998, when Ross Rebagliati tested positive for THC and had his medal stripped, only to have it returned quickly because pot wasn't a banned substance. Illegal, yes. Performance enhancing, no.