A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
preston wrote:USADA's job is to monitor American athletes regardless of where the competition takes place; whether it's in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower.
Let's be precise in our language. USADA's job is to monitor American athletes in MINOR sports regardless of where the competition takes place, and ignore athletes in the four major team sports.
preston wrote: Nearly every athlete who testified against Armstrong has been sanctioned in some way yet Armstrong was "singled out"?
Not true. At least half of the ones who testified against were never caught, and some of them competed in this year's Tour and other races despite admitting to the Feds a couple of years ago that they were dopers.
And, more hysterics from "Captain Raincoat with long range zoom lens"
jazz, I don't disagree that the pros get a pass and US Cycling falls into the realm of minor sports - even if the signature event is the very much professional TdF. And, I say "nearly" and you say "at least"...can we agree on "not everybody?" They could have been let off for cooperating but let me make this clear: I never said that it needed to be equal to be fair.
preston wrote: And, I say "nearly" and you say "at least"...can we agree on "not everybody?" They could have been let off for cooperating but let me make this clear: I never said that it needed to be equal to be fair.
Saying that "nearly every" rider WAS sanctioned is a whole lot different than saying "at least half" WERE NOT sanctioned in my book. To be more precise, of the eleven riders that USADA listed as testifying against Armstrong, only two (18%) of them, Landis and Hamilton, were ever sanctioned during their cycling careers.
preston wrote: And, I say "nearly" and you say "at least"...can we agree on "not everybody?" They could have been let off for cooperating but let me make this clear: I never said that it needed to be equal to be fair.
Saying that "nearly every" rider WAS sanctioned is a whole lot different than saying "at least half" WERE NOT sanctioned in my book. To be more precise, of the eleven riders that USADA listed as testifying against Armstrong, only two (18%) of them, Landis and Hamilton, were ever sanctioned during their cycling careers.
Eleven Armstrong teammates testified against him, including six active riders who were given six-month suspensions for their own doping: Hincapie, Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.
What do you know? I'm over 50%
Last edited by preston on Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist wrote:Not true. At least half of the ones who testified against were never caught, and some of them competed in this year's Tour and other races despite admitting to the Feds a couple of years ago that they were dopers.
Perhaps you have not read much of the current report yet, so a few items.
1. Armstrong had not been sanctioned during his competitive career [REAL one] did he?
2. Many of these athletes who have provided testimony are being retroactively sanctioned, just like Armstrong, and therefore are going to forfeit results, including wins, during those periods.
3. Isn't it conceivable that some of these athletes have chosen to retire rather than face 2 years now.
4. Much of these testimonies came through a Grand Jury investigation. As such, they were not subject to any sanctions until the Grand Jury was through with its investigation. None of that information is even supposed to be made public (criminal penalties can be applied to anyone who leaks the testimonies) though we know that information still gets out.
To say or suggest than Landis and Hamilton are the only ones that faced punishment is completely in error.
5. People who come clean are always given more leniency than those who perpetuate the lie and Lance Armstrong has had ample opportunity to come clean about all of this. Yet he has continuously chosen to demean or harm anyone who dare challenge anything about him or his legacy, up to and including Travis Tygart.
Conor Dary wrote:Why does gh let you get away with disgusting shit like that? You did before and now you are back at it.
The real question is why gh, or any of the moderators, allow you to try to brow-beat everyone on the board who doesn't agree with you. YOU should have been banned long ago and your partner in crime should have gone with you. Thread after thread is you throwing one snark-filled, sarcasm-laden, hissy-fit post after another - and then showing your wanker properties when you get push back. You also lose ALL credibility when you use words like "d***head" and then want to pretend like you're a model of rectitude. Tone down your posting style and leave me alone or just accept that we have differences and ignore me. But, to continue to requote comments that you've already made is YOU, Conor Dary, trying to destroy the thread. Your proxy warriors should take that advice as well.
jazz, another reason why I think people mischarecterize this as a witch hunt is that DIFFERENT jurisdictions have gone after Armstrong. I think USADA only went at him once...I think.
While the arguments about Armstrong will continue among sports fans — and there is still a question of whether USADA or the UCI has the ultimate authority to take away his Tour titles — the new report puts a cap on a long round of official investigations. Armstrong was cleared of criminal charges in February after a federal grand jury probe that lasted about two years.
USADA sought evidence from federal investigators, but in its report, the agency said none was ever turned over to its offices, based in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Why do we have to put up with 7sided's disgusting posts? gh may remember this. "I found the "lifetime ban" button readily enough; I'm still looking for the one that says "next life also."
I stand corrected, you were right. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language. Only two of the cyclists have ever recieved MEANINFGUL sanctions during their careers. Five of them are retired and the four active cyclists will serve a six-month suspension during cycling's off-season. They won't miss any major race days in 2013. That's about as harsh as the three-month suspension that FINA handed down to Michael Phelps to be served during smimming's off-season for smoking weed.
jazzcyclist wrote:If every single runner in the Boston marathon had taken short cuts and ridden the subway, your Rosie Ruiz analogy might make some sense.
If every single runner in the Boston marathon had ridden the subway, we could call it the great Boston subway race, but calling it the marathon, which implies it is some kind of foot race, would be a tad misleading.[...].
[...] As for you implication that any sporting event in which there is cheating going on forfeits its right to bear the sport's name (eg. steroid-era baseball players never played baseball), I don't think that's sensible enough to warrant a response.
[...]
Methinks you misunderstood yourself. Your initial example was premised on "every single runner ... had ... ridden the subway.." (emphasis added) You're now attributing to me something premised on "..there is cheating going on." A marathon in which every single runner - in your language - takes the subway is surely not a marathon, but some other kind of contest. If there are many possible subway routes, and picking the optimal route requires skill, it may well be fair to think of it as a subway route choosing contest, or the like.
I actually thought the point you were intending to make was something like 'if everyone cheats, "cheating" no longer picks out a property which distinguishes some contestants from other contestants, and looses meaning'. The fancy term is the principle of non-vacuous contrast. That would be a fair point, but I gather it wasn't yours. As to the baseball example: if everyone took steroids, and success as a player was a mainly a function of how good their drug program was, then if it were a game of skill, the relevant skill is surely more to do with doping prowess than baseball prowess. Are they playing baseball? Of course. Is it, at its heart, a test of baseball skill? Perhaps not.
If it's true that were years where everyone in the Tour de France doped, then the principle of non-vacuous contrast could arguably apply, so long as every one had equal opportunity to dope, and equal resources, support, information, and the like. If not, and if doping significantly increases performance, which if everyone is in fact doing it would seem likely, then the extent to which the Tour is a contest of bicycle skill as opposed to a contest of doping skill, is, I suppose, a question without easy resolution.
odelltrclan wrote: Many of these athletes who have provided testimony are being retroactively sanctioned, just like Armstrong, and therefore are going to forfeit results, including wins, during those periods.
Besides Armstrong who has a brand name to protect, these retroactive sanctions mean nothing IMO. If they want to make it hurt, they should go after the money the earned. Besides, we still don't know if the UCI will even honor these UCI sanctions.
odelltrclan wrote:Isn't it conceivable that some of these athletes have chosen to retire rather than face 2 years now.
Hincapie is the only one who retired this year, but he announced that he was retiring back in the Spring, many months before this report came down, which isn't out of the ordinary for someone who will be 40 in June.
odelltrclan wrote:To say or suggest than Landis and Hamilton are the only ones that faced punishment is completely in error.
See my post above.
odelltrclan wrote:[People who come clean are always given more leniency than those who perpetuate the lie and Lance Armstrong has had ample opportunity to come clean about all of this. Yet he has continuously chosen to demean or harm anyone who dare challenge anything about him or his legacy, up to and including Travis Tygart.
Based on everything I've read, Armstrong is a world-class asshole but is that a valid reason to treat him differently than everyone else? Barry Bonds is also supposed to be a jerk and I thought what they did to him was wrong. Albert Belle is another jerk but I thought it was a travesty when the sportswriters denied him his 1995 MVP award because of it.
I think they know that if they rescind the statute of limitations to get Armstrong that they will open a can of worms that may change Olympic results all the way back to the 60's and possibly the 50's.
-“It has been the policy in the past wherever there was enough information to proceed we would proceed,” IOC executive board member Denis Oswald of Switzerland told the AP in a telephone interview. “All cases which have been now established will be reviewed.
“Where we have jurisdiction, I guess the attitude will be to disqualify the relevant athletes and to possibly see whether it’s appropriate to reallocate medals.”
The IOC has an eight-year statute of limitations for changing Olympic results, which could affect any moves to take Armstrong’s medal from 2000.
“For Armstrong, I’m not sure,” Oswald said. “Sydney might be too late.”
Ladies and gents, let's stop the name calling. Take a step back and relax; life is too short!
From what I have read thus far, it appears Armstrong was not just another rider, but was part of the orchestration of the whole thing and a bully. Perhpas that is what distinguishes him from others, and of course the fact that he won the Tour more times than anyone else.
I don't really care whether every team is taking drugs as long we're doing our best to catch them all. And for those that preach and protest, despite being obviously guilty like Armstrong, then I am very much for them to be hung, drawn and quartered in public (metaphorically speaking of course) I will always respect those that 'fess up once convicted much more than those that continue to lie and not tell the whole truth. Angella Isajenko and Tyler Hamilton I applaud you; Marion Jones & Lance Armstrong I do not.
Gabriella wrote:From what I have read thus far, it appears Armstrong was not just another rider, but was part of the orchestration of the whole thing and a bully. Perhpas that is what distinguishes him from others, and of course the fact that he won the Tour more times than anyone else..
He may have been a jerk but he was not any sort of mastermind, though that's what USADA wants you to believe. Even Tyler Hamilton admitted in his 60 Minutes interview that U.S. Postal already had a full-blown doping program going before Armstrong ever joined the team. I believe Armstrong was just a little more careful than the folks who got caught - careful about how much he doped and careful about who he got dope from. Other cyclists like George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer and Christian Van Velde were similarly careful since they never got caught during their cycling careers either. As someone said earlier in this thread, drug tests are really de facto IQ tests.
Gabriella wrote:I don't really care whether every team is taking drugs as long we're doing our best to catch them all. And for those that preach and protest, despite being obviously guilty like Armstrong, then I am very much for them to be hung, drawn and quartered in public (metaphorically speaking of course) I will always respect those that 'fess up once convicted much more than those that continue to lie and not tell the whole truth. Angella Isajenko and Tyler Hamilton I applaud you; Marion Jones & Lance Armstrong I do not.
I don't know why you would put Isajenko ir Hamilton on a pedestal. It doesn't take much courage and/or character to confess your PED sins once your career is over or after you've been subpoenaed and you're simply trying to avoid going to prison for perjury. Hamillton himself said that he would have taken his secrets to his grave if he hadn't gotten subpoenaed. What would impress me is if an active athlete who is at the peak of his/her career, and who is under no duress to speak out due to a subpoena or a failed drug test, all of a sudden got PED religion. For example, if Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt came out today and admitted to being a doper, that would really impress me as an act of honesty.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist wrote:He may have been a jerk but he was not any sort of mastermind, though that's what USADA wants you to believe.
And that also gives a convenient excuse to others, who can now claim that it wasn't their own fault that they were doping, but rather a response to Armstrong:
jazzcyclist wrote:He may have been a jerk but he was not any sort of mastermind, though that's what USADA wants you to believe.
And that also gives a convenient excuse to others, who can now claim that it wasn't their own fault that they were doping, but rather a response to Armstrong:
And I guess Armstrong can say that I only doped because Bjarne Riis (1996 Tour winner), Jan Ullrich (1997 Tour winner) and Marco Pantani (1998 Tour winner) were doping.
Gabriella wrote:Ladies and gents, let's stop the name calling. Take a step back and relax; life is too short!
Name calling? I identify 7sided by his old name and he comes back with his disgusting accusations to me and others.
And no one gives a shit....
Gabriella didn't name you, but he was probably talking about you (and others) when you make comments like, I don't know, "****head" or your partner in crime referring to anyone besides himself as "sick".
Everyone else has moved on, but you continue to regurgitate this nonsense to kill the thread - all because when people don't agree with you you feel compelled to lash out and then declare that it's of no consequence and then continue to come back. If you don't give a shit why don't you move along to another thread?
To say that Lance Armstrong was just the same as others I think is a little misleading. While it may be correct that he learned his trade from others, with Postal, he took it to another level. But, assuming that he did nothing more than any other team leader, what sets him apart from any others I have read about?
1. Slander and threaten others reputations and livelihoods. Multiple instances with dozens of people. 2. Rat others out if he thought they were getting a doping advantage approaching his performance level as he did to Hamilton [allegedly of course], calling the UCI to check him out in 2004. 3. Ensured that he got better help [access to treatment and products] than others and even his own teammates. 4. Once he had fame and money, he used it to circumvent investigations and outright bullying of others. Getting the grand jury investigation to be dropped is one example. Having congressmen trying to introduce legislation to stop USADA is another.
Just like bringing another level of "professionalism" in the pursuit of Tour de France wins, as he is so often credited with in the cycling community, I suspect he did the same to the doping programs. And he brought mafioso thuggery along to help him out.
odelltrclan wrote:2. Rat others out if he thought they were getting a doping advantage approaching his performance level as he did to Hamilton [allegedly of course], calling the UCI to check him out in 2004.
Come on man. Hamilton won an Olympic Gold Medal in 2004. Medal winners are automatically tested. Hamilton flunked the test that he took at the Olympics after winning the gold medal. Hamilton blamed the Operation Puerto doctor for giving him someone else's blood. Obviously, Armstrong had nothing to do this. You're reaching.
odelltrclan wrote:3. Ensured that he got better help [access to treatment and products] than others and even his own teammates.
I can see why one might resent Armstring for doping, but it seems that you also resent him for doping smartly. It's like hating the competent bank robber who never gets caught more than you hate the incompetent bank robber.
odelltrclan wrote:4. Once he had fame and money, he used it to circumvent investigations and outright bullying of others. Getting the grand jury investigation to be dropped is one example. Having congressmen trying to introduce legislation to stop USADA is another.
Surely you jest. I doubt very seriously that Jeff Novitzky or any of the other G-men felt that they needed to drop the case against Amrstrong because they felt intimidated by him and his lawyers. The folks who brought Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones to trial, not to mention the Blind Sheik, John Gotti and many other really, really bad guys, are not afraid of a cyclist.
As for Congress, I can't believe you would be surprised that such a craven, superfical and self-serving group of people would try to bask in Armstrong's celebrity. Didn't you see them asking Clemens for his autograph when he went to testify on Capitol Hill? A couple of years ago, Michelle Bachmann gave a scathing rebuttal to Barack Obama's State of the Union address right after she had just gone up to him and asked him to autograph her program like some bobby-soxer at a Beatles concert. That should tell you all you need to know about the typical Congressman.
If you don't give a shit why don't you move along to another thread?
