Lance Armstrong DQ'd (cycling is still racing, no?)

[machin]

so you would support a movement to retroactively apply current F1 rules (and points system), say to give Mr Prost 6 or 7 WDCs and Mr Senna 1 WDC ?

Its different... There is no suggestion of retrospectively applying new rules. it was always illegal to take EPO in those years that he won those Tours (although its use was apparently prevalent). They now claim they have evidance (of some sort) to prove he broke the rules that were around at the time.

[bhall]

[...]
As has been stated earlier failure to contest the case is a tacit acceptance of guilt.

How so?

The United States has been on a PEDs hunt for a decade now, and the authorities have frighteningly little to show for all the effort. The two highest-profile athletes to have cases taken to court, Barry Bonds for perjury and obstruction of justice, and Roger Clemens for "making false statements before Congress," have, respectively, been convicted for obstruction of justice only, and acquitted of all charges after an earlier mistrial. In neither case was it proven that either athlete used PEDs. In fact, the evidence was so scant that formal charges for using illegal substances couldn't even be brought forth against them.

That's not to say Bonds and Clemens didn't use PEDs; I personally believe they did. But, it can't be proven through due process, and that means something.

I'm interested to see what evidence USADA has against Armstrong, because I don't expect it to be the damning indictment they've implied it to be. If it was otherwise, this whole thing would be moot. Thus far, it appears to be little more than hearsay and innuendo. Even though the courts declined to intervene on Armstrong's behalf, the presiding judge went on the record to say, "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives."

Whether he did it or not, walking away was the right move by Armstrong. He stood to gain nothing through USADA's process, even if it proved inconclusive. I think he learned by watching, amongst others, the Bonds and Clemens cases that, although one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, the court of public opinion tends to work the other way while that process takes place; that's just how it is when people see courtroom pictures and interviews from courthouse steps. By abruptly standing aside, Armstrong has skipped USADA's version of that and put the ball firmly back in their court, so to speak, because now they have to make their case directly to the public, and tackling public perception, which is all this is about, is an entirely different beast.

It's essentially using public hearsay to combat USADA's hearsay, and that's a very smart move.

[Petroltorque]

This reminds me of the Nike add that Armstrong starred in; he delivered the voice over.
" I'm often asked 'what are you on?'
"What am I on? I'm on my bike 6 hours a day, breaking my balls. What are YOU on?"

[bhall]

You mean, "...breaking [his] ball"?

[Petroltorque]

The problem with many Doping cases is the lack of a clear positive test despite strong circumstancial evidence. Barry Bonds was a case in point. IIRC his helmet size enlarged 2 sizes during the season in question. That sort of size increase involving bone and soft tissue will only occur in the presence of Growth Hormone.
A valid test for the detection of EPO has only been around since 2008 and I donkt think the UCI store blood from previous Tours going back to the time in question.
I remember staying at a hotel in the Alps in the mid 90s, a couple of the cycle teams were staying in the same hotel. One night I was awoken by a commotion in the corridor. When I looked outside my door the team doctor had the cycle team sprinting up and down the corridor. The reason? Their heart rates had dropped dangerously low and they needed to get them back up. To me this was evidence of EPO blood doping. If your blood gets thick enough the heart struggles to maintain an output.

[bhall]

The problem with circumstantial evidence is that it's, well, circumstantial.

Don't get me wrong here; I think it's highly likely Lance Armstrong cheated, simply because it seems to be rampant in athletics these days. But, as a big fan of due process, I can't accept what the authorities want me to accept. Whenever these things end up before a judge in a court of law, it's almost always a losing proposition, because there's just no way to prove someone cheated absent a definitive positive test. That this stuff is continually brought up without such results, though, begs the question, why are there tests at all?

[timbo]

A valid test for the detection of EPO has only been around since 2008 and I donkt think the UCI store blood from previous Tours going back to the time in question.

They don't store the blood? Well, it is THEIR problem. I am amazed at how is this possible.

[Petroltorque]

It took time for WADA to get agreement between regulating sporting bodies to sanction blood testing. Anti doping is a technology race with the labs one step behind the Dopers. Storing blood only became common place with the development of new synthetic steroids. If a lad does not know the chemical footprint they won't detect it.
Marion Jones dodged an EPO ban. She was caught only caught when a suspiscious coach sent a vial of THG to WADA.
Labs are storing blood now because as we identify new synthetics we can retrograde test. As doping is an offemce at any time retrograde sanctions will always be possible.
WADA is hardly to blame. Its taken years to convince Goverments, IOC, IAAF, etc to fund the programs and labs.

[bill shoe]

I'm happy to complain about the FIA and they are happy to provide me with bad decisions to complain about.

The FIA is Formula 1's sanctioning body and they have final, controlling authority over the sport. I don't like how the FIA handles tough decisions, but at least they get handled and they are done and gone. I can't go to the AAA (American Automobile Association) in my country and protest an FIA decision to them. The AAA would never claim to void the decisions of the FIA.

I'm not pro or anti Armstrong, but my god the jurisdiction in that case is a mess. Any national body can make a decision that, in theory, an international organization must follow. Imagine having a Max Mosley in every country with full authority to review any FIA decision.

The FIA is the devil, but they are the clear and undisputed devil. Good.

[Jersey Tom]

Honestly I think the whole doping accusation thing is almost inconsequential at this point. Lance is so much bigger than just cycling.

If he truly was clean, he's as much as a freak of nature incredible athlete as we've always thought. If he doped (and passed however many drug tests), he's a doper in a field of dopers and still outclassed everyone.

Regardless of all of that, the dude has had a positive impact on hundreds of thousands of people's lives and his foundation has done incredible things. A month, a year, two years ago before all this recent drama.. that's been by far the biggest thing for me. Whether or not he is "officially" recognized with however many wins or medals.. makes no difference to me.

[gato azul]

I'm not pro or anti Armstrong, but my god the jurisdiction in that case is a mess. Any national body can make a decision that, in theory, an international organization must follow.

While I agree with you that the jurisdiction in many of this cases is "questionable", I'm not sure the second part of your statement is the way you think.
There are some cases where the international body overruled the national organizations.
One of the latest prominent one would be the case of Alberto Contador, where the CAS (which in these cases seems to be the ultimate legal instance/court) overruled (rightly or wrongly) the Spanish national body.
There are others, but that would go too far off topic.

I think JT has some valid points, good sentiments which should be considered, but on the other hands does some good right some wrong?
Everyone will have to answer this for himself I suppose, it's a difficult question.

[Cam]

If he doped (and passed however many drug tests), he's a doper in a field of dopers and still outclassed everyone.

Yep, that's how I look at it. I've never once considered any cyclist, olympic competitor or top level athlete clean. They all use something to 'enhance', whether it's legal or not. Some tests, such as for HGH are not available or not accurate, so there's no way to measure if an athlete is using this. The very top simply either stay one step ahead of the tests or are 'overlooked' for the good of the sport. Here's one case of the Australian top league player"admitting he took cocaine for 10 years during his career. Never got caught. BS - they all knew and looked the other way as he was a poster boy for the sport. If you consider that this guy is the only one every overlooked for doping - you're in dream land.

[Petroltorque]

The Alberto Contador case illustrates why any sport need oversight by a Single Governing body. He was convicted of a Slam Dunk doping offence. The use of Clembuterol, a synthetic anabolic steroid. Under the code of Strict Liability that's a 2 year ban. But wait the Spanish Cycling authorities believed his Tall story that his positive test was a result of eating contaminated beef, WTF? No wonder WADA sent that to CAS!
Clembuterol is a molecule as big as a house, you can't digest it from eating as it's too big to be absorbed and the human body doesn't produce it. His story would have had more credibility if he'd said that he had been abducted by aliens and the positive test was a by product of being probed!
The Armstrong case has been dissapointing. It's a good news story, recovering from cancer, that's gone sour. He's tarnished by association. I don't know how credible it is to claim that you weren't involved in systematic doping if your team was actively involved in the practice.
Personally I remain vehemently opposed to doping. On health grounds alone, we remain unclear about the long term effects PEDs. It's not as though athletes can gain access to medical level pharmaceuticals as was the case in Government Sponsored programs of East Germany.

[timbo]

Labs are storing blood now because as we identify new synthetics we can retrograde test. As doping is an offemce at any time retrograde sanctions will always be possible.

And that is why it should have been stored right from the beginning of the doping tests.

WADA is hardly to blame. Its taken years to convince Goverments, IOC, IAAF, etc to fund the programs and labs.

Well, this is true that it takes time for action, but the tests and lab equipment costs a lot too, so the storage part should've been negotiated right away.
Instead they are quick establishing "whereabouts".

[Petroltorque]

You make valid points. But no oversight organisation can force an individual to part with body fluids without his/her express consent. No right thinking Doper will part with blood if he knows he will be incriminated. Taking blood without consent is a Tort ( actionable civil wrong) of common assault. It was only when the governing bodies were able to get blood testing within their articles that they could proceed. Until then they were left with the non invasive but unsatisfactory urine testing.
Urine testing allowed an athletes lawyer to cloud the issue and I have yet to meet a lawyer who would not argue black is white for enough money!