USADA - Armstrong

[TubularBills]

I do understand that, but given the duplicity and corruption of which you accuse almost any monetized power-or explicitly politicized economy--I would think that a thinking of foucault and klossowski on ethics and power might be more germane to LA's psyche than any humanist, individualized norm.

$5,610 and counting...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Actual count at ESPN:

Do you believe Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs?

54%
Yes

46%
No

(Total votes: 142,493)

Not the brightest people there when i remember some football discussions. So the numbers might be better than i thought earlier.

 

[rhubroma]

I do understand that, but given the duplicity and corruption of which you accuse almost any monetized power-or explicitly politicized economy--I would think that a thinking of foucault and klossowski on ethics and power might be more germane to LA's psyche than any humanist, individualized norm.

It's all just Greek to me.

 

[Carlo Algatrensig]

Sorry if I've missed people posting it but what has been the reaction of Phil and Paul to all this during their commentating on the USA Pro Cycling Challenge.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

No, but I don't believe I said that. What Tygart said was that everyone was offered the same deal: come in and talk to us; let us get rid of the dodgy doctors to protect the next generation from their influence. Lance was one rider who refused to play ball. Most of the others were open and talked. I assume the ones less forthcoming were those charged by USADA.

He no doubt had too much to lose to be honest. Hell mend him, as we say here in Scotland.

Having listened to that interview with Travis I'm a bigger fan of him now. The was he handles the situation was commendable, it seems like he was really going after the UCI which can't have been an easy thing to do.

The BS some people are saying about going after Armstrong to justify public funding are ridiculous, Tygart could have got confession's from much smaller names to justify their existence and funding.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

I just posted this piece on Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkar...armstrong-quit-the-fight-to-hide-more-dirt/2/

 

[aphronesis]

You said you were the media critic - thats what I am basing it on, your posts - this is a cycling forum I have no interest in participating in the politics thread, but if you were objective than I would expect more discussion on other riders. You don't.



Casual fan has never heard of Kloden (or Levi) - they heard today LA had all his Tours stripped.

I will be talking to some casual fans very soon, it will be interesting to see what they say and ask about.
Casual fans may not understand the intricacies of doping or how the process of anti-doping works, but they appreciate that for LA to have had all Tours stripped and a lifetime ban the scale of the offenses must have been equally large.

As is often the case when your posts take this tack, we're not discussing anything substantive. That you don't read those threads doesn't mean they aren't here. That's called myopia. I don't critique media of other riders because aside from Sky, there's not much to critique. (Radioshack is not worth the effort and the ghettoization of Spanish cycling is others' battle.)

I doubt they do acknowledge that. The largeness hangs on "conspiracy" period. So what is your point again?

 

[MarkvW]

Congratulations to Andreas Kloden for winning Stage 17 of the 2004 Tour de France*









*Stage where Armstrong advised Floyd to "Run like you stole something". As Lance crossed the finish line inches ahead of Kloden, Ligget exclaimed, "Is there any stopping Lance Armstrong?"

Yes, Phil, and you could have done stopped him by reporting honestly.

Ultimately, the truth confirmed that Lance stole something.

Dave.

Gosh. That stage was the single most exciting race I'd ever watched until I saw Floyd Landis on the road to Morzine. Seriously.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Sorry if I've missed people posting it but what has been the reaction of Phil and Paul to all this during their commentating on the USA Pro Cycling Challenge.

Wasn't Phil quoted as saying something about he'd retire if it's found out Lancey one ball was caught cheating? Curious to see how he spins it. I used to be a huge Liggett fan, but if this is true, it's another black eye for the sport & his credibility is in doubt IMO.

 

[Bicycle]

Wasn't Phil quoted as saying something about he'd retire if it's found out Lancey one ball was caught cheating? Curious to see how he spins it. I used to be a huge Liggett fan, but if this is true, it's another black eye for the sport & his credibility is in doubt IMO.

Has Phil ever even said doping is bad? He never voices the slightest doubt as to whether a cyclist is clean or not - they're either banned or they're not in his universe. If they are banned he's just waiting to welcome them back again once they've done their time.

 

[Benotti69]

Wasn't Phil quoted as saying something about he'd retire if it's found out Lancey one ball was caught cheating? Curious to see how he spins it. I used to be a huge Liggett fan, but if this is true, it's another black eye for the sport & his credibility is in doubt IMO.

Ah Jeez man, Ligget long ago lost his credibility in cycling.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wasn't Phil quoted as saying something about he'd retire if it's found out Lancey one ball was caught cheating? Curious to see how he spins it. I used to be a huge Liggett fan, but if this is true, it's another black eye for the sport & his credibility is in doubt IMO.

There's a guy that whistles past the doping graveyard on every lap.

 

[Carlo Algatrensig]

Has Phil ever even said doping is bad? He never voices the slightest doubt as to whether a cyclist is clean or not - they're either banned or they're not in his universe. If they are banned he's just waiting to welcome them back again once they've done their time.

I can't remember when. It was probably mid to late nineties he'd often make comments when an anglophone rider would win that were something like

"and of course we know we have seen a genuine performance today as (insert riders name) is British/American/Australian"

Doping was bad then when it was done by those awful continental Europeans but as soon as the anglophone riders showed they could dope with the best of them he seems to be less bothered by it.

 

[D-Queued]

Complain to Nike

I Just Did It, and sent the following to Nike:


Subject: Armstrong reveals lie on Nike ‘Inside the Lines’ Code of Ethics

Dear Nike,

By so quickly responding to Lance Armstrong’s acceptance of his willful cheating with a pledge of ongoing support within barely 12 hours, Nike Inc. has exposed its own charade on fostering excellence or any commitment to ethics whatsoever.

Please allow me to report a potential violation of the law and a violation of Nike’s code of ethics.

Unfortunately, however, I do not expect anyone at Nike will pay any attention to this as Nike has just broadcast to the world that it does not honor its own ‘Inside the Lines’ code of ethics.

The evidence of doping and cheating was so overwhelming that the great contestant Lance Armstrong elected to not contest the obvious and inevitable in the USADA case. Lance Armstrong is now the biggest cheat in sport.

Nike’s re-affirmed support for Lance Armstrong, less than 12 hours after Lance accepted his lifetime ban is appalling and represents Nike’s completely hollow commitment to excellence in sport, corporate governance and ethics in business. Your actions confirm that Lance doesn’t represent Nike. Rather, Lance’s cheating represents Nike.

This quick endorsement following his acceptance of guilt may go down in corporate history as the penultimate example of corporate PR mismanagement. Congratulations on making #1.

Just as Lance once encouraged a teammate to run like he stole something, it is now obvious that ‘Just Do It’ must be regarded as an incitement to cheat.

You should be ashamed and Steve Prefontaine must be rolling in his grave.

For my part, I will never knowingly purchase another Nike product, or product from one of your affiliates Cole Haan, Converse, Hurley, Jordan Brand, Nike Golf, or Umbro for the rest of my life.

Yours truly,



Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Trivial issue but why is armstrong banned for life and not just 2 years?

 

[aphronesis]

Trivial issue but why is armstrong banned for life and not just 2 years?

Scope and scale well beyond any positive finding

 

[Berzin]

This is from a Lance groupie over at Weight Weenies-you can't make this stuff up...

I still idolize Lance and I will still watch clips of his Tour victories with goosebumps because of the amazing things he did on a bike....things that can't all be attributed to performance enhancement. Lance made me love cycling and that will never change. But that's just me....

 

[gree0232]

I am just curious to see how many think that what USADA is doing is a good procedure? I, like I am sure many are, would love to see the 'evidence'. However, I am extremely uncomfortable with the process and that antagonistic process that has USADA and WADA on one side, and the UCI and US Cycling on the other ... with the implicit dangling that ALL cyclists of that (and presumeably this one as well) era have doped?

Well, we saw what happened with Wiggins TdF victory this year, with the accusations of doping sans evidence, just whispered through innuendo - a stanard high enough that - 12 years from now, and ambitious politician can use Wiggins victory as an crusading example of his anti-doping bonafides, because no doper can be left ... unpunished?

Are you still in favor of this approach?

Well, how about we pick your favorite cyclist and see if this system hold up? Let's say I found ten witnesses, all anonymous mind you, and an embittered former team mates wife to accuse ...

#1 - Cadel Evans?

#2 - Jens Voigt (My personal favorite)

#3 - Chris Froome?

#4 - Greg LeMond (Its retroactive remember?)

This is the standard you have to meet, and if you don't like we will give you a life time ban and strip you of every result you ever had.

How do cyclists like this? Since they are, according to the rumor mill, ALL doping, are you willing to submit to this process where, if you so much as flirted with dope when you were 16 (which of course EVERY cyclist has, right?) you can submitted to such a sketchy process? Especially when the only distinction between whether you are on the rebutting or accusing end of this process being ... whether or not you produced race results?

This is a process that fundamentally undermines concepts of due process or impartiality. Its not like the world is just now figuring out how judicial processes work ... but the antics of anonymous accusations and withheld evidence (What is Armstrong, a terrorist at GITMO????) belong more to a police state than to a professional sport.

Whether Armstrong doped or not? Its secondary to the farse of a process that places so much power and unchecked authority into a single man's hands. No matter what the system, some people will beat it. If you abandon the system however, you are left with ... innuendo, accusation, and witch hunt.

Perhaps we should ask the previous TWO TdF victors whether they appreciate the process unfolding now?

 

[Benotti69]

Trivial issue but why is armstrong banned for life and not just 2 years?

Because it was not just doping, but due to implemeting a team doping program on team mates, transport of PEDs etc

 

[rhubroma]

I Just Did It, and sent the following to Nike:


Subject: Armstrong reveals lie on Nike ‘Inside the Lines’ Code of Ethics

Dear Nike,

By so quickly responding to Lance Armstrong’s acceptance of his willful cheating with a pledge of ongoing support within barely 12 hours, Nike Inc. has exposed its own charade on fostering excellence or any commitment to ethics whatsoever.

Please allow me to report a potential violation of the law and a violation of Nike’s code of ethics.

Unfortunately, however, I do not expect anyone at Nike will pay any attention to this as Nike has just broadcast to the world that it does not honor its own ‘Inside the Lines’ code of ethics.

The evidence of doping and cheating was so overwhelming that the great contestant Lance Armstrong elected to not contest the obvious and inevitable in the USADA case. Lance Armstrong is now the biggest cheat in sport.

Nike’s re-affirmed support for Lance Armstrong, less than 12 hours after Lance accepted his lifetime ban is appalling and represents Nike’s completely hollow commitment to excellence in sport, corporate governance and ethics in business. Your actions confirm that Lance doesn’t represent Nike. Rather, Lance’s cheating represents Nike.

This quick endorsement following his acceptance of guilt may go down in corporate annuls as the penultimate example of corporate PR mismanagement. Congratulations on making #1.

Just as Lance once encouraged a teammate to run like he stole something, it is now obvious that ‘Just Do It’ must be regarded as an incitement to cheat.

You should be ashamed and Steve Prefontaine must be rolling in his grave.

For my part, I will never knowingly purchase another Nike product, or product from one of your affiliates Cole Haan, Converse, Hurley, Jordan Brand, Nike Golf, or Umbro for the rest of my life.

Yours truly,



Dave.

Bravo. It needs a few million more to get the message across.

 

[aphronesis]

It's all just Greek to me.

Droll, no doubt. How about this: it's too complex a situation to be reduced to an ethics on an I, even if that "I" was the aggressor at front and center.

 

[joe_papp]

Trivial issue but why is armstrong banned for life and not just 2 years?

"Aggravating Circumstances" being the formal "definition" in the WADA Code of "first-time" violation that merits way more than 2 years.

 

[Benotti69]

yada yada yada

Armstrong doped

Give it up. It is over. Wear a pink bracelet now.

 

[D-Queued]

Bravo. It needs a few million more to get the message across.

Thanks.

One correction, though: annuls --> history.

Dave.

 

[rhubroma]

Droll, no doubt. How about this: it's too complex a situation to be reduced to an ethics on an I, even if that "I" was the aggressor at front and center.

How about from the rear? So complex? Achtung!