|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Lance Armstrong stripped of titles
Posted on: October 22, 2012 - 10:48am
  Offline
Lance Armstrong stripped of titles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520
Turns out he was doping all along and got stripped of his titles. How can you go unnoticed for 12 years?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
What's gay about all of this is how the "federation" witch hunted him for years trying to get evidence against him. They turned all of his associates and team mates against him which led to his downfall.
Personally I think they should have left him alone. They didn't catch him cheating then so they attacked him to save face.
Unfortunately they lost me as a fan. I won't watch pro bicycle racing any more. It's worthless. They have caused so much harm and so much suffering just to have the final say in the matter.
Wasn't there also an issue about the cycling federations changing the doping rules (without informing the riders) solely to try and catch him?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Personally I don't know what to believe.
But I know there are tons of people in Austin that have to be freaking out. (Armstrong is from Austin)
There are people all over that city that are cycling their butts off all the time. Yuppies, directly inspired by Lance, to be cyclists. They're probably weeping all over their handlebars.
Actually, now that I think of it, you can probably get a great deal on nice bicycles in Austin pawn shops these days.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
What about all those athletes that you use God and Jesus to help them win? Why isn't divine intervetion considered cheating?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Because it's mythical?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I have yet to see any evidence to support the claim of doping. And I did look.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No shit? Did you read the report? Why did all those other team mates and his wife go against him?
I did read it. Witness testimony is suspect for a number of reasons, from the fallibility of memory to emotional concerns. I want hard evidence, not a few people that are giving testimony on a decade+ old event.
I also find it hard to believe that Lance could have been taking tranfusions midrace with only a dozen people noticing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I haven't payed very close attention to the story because I don't give a flying fuck about cycling but from what I've read it seems like they were trying very hard to bring him down and a hell of a long time without any success. Like Vastet, I would question the witness testimony simply because of the amount of pressure brought to bear. And from my understanding the actual physical samples do not offer conclusive proof of anything. If they think they need to change their testing procedures because they believe someone found a way around them they should do so. I don't think they should go back in time and strip away titles without conclusive physical evidence. I think Lance deserves the benefit of the doubt.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Why does it make a difference if someone is a good athlete because of genes or drugs? Somehow it is good if evolution or God made you a good athlete, but if science gives you a boost doesn't count. WTF is the difference?
In the future, they'll be able to genetically engineer your child to be a good athlete. Will this spell the end of athletics because science and not god did it?
If a man takes viagra or testosterone to be good in bed, is he cheating? This whole debate is like the gay marriage debate where some people think they have magical powers to say what is legitimate.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I think those are some great questions that society needs to revisit very soon. Legal or not, engineered people are inevitable.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Seems strange that they would spend so much time and so much resources to go after him. What did they gain?
I don't have the necessary information to determine motive. But I've seen that motives don't have to be ethical to be effective. So I require evidence.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well, my opinion still stands, as far as I'm concerned he is still the best cyclist of all time and he won those titles, seven times in a row, legally.
I find it difficult that with all the tests they had they didn't catch him and that it took this long to get people to talk about it.
Much like Beyond Saving, I don't much care about cycling. I never paid Lance any attention while he won his titles, and I haven't started paying attention.
I haven't ignored him though, and I try to stay up on current events, so I could hardly have failed to notice he won titles or started a charity. Headlines alone will tell you that much.
But after a few months of seeing the same thing over and over, this report was released and suddenly there was talk of actually stripping the titles, so I went ahead and read the report. And I was rather flatfooted after I read just how ridiculously complicated the supposed doping was, and how little evidence they had, and how easily there were alternate explanations for the evidence (I can see some and I'm not even a doctor or biologist, so I can only assume there are even more flaws than I can see), that I just shook my head.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I believe some doctor, a fan, or researcher will write a book or report about the subject then release it to the public showing a mockery of the sport and the governing body.
Lance Armstrong used to be my hero. He was the person who piqued my interest in professional road cycling. My interest in the sport has evolved a bit, as my cousin rides for a professional team in Europe, and just recently won a stage at the Vuelta a Espana. Lance Armstrong was one of his heroes too. I haven't spoken to him since the news broke, but I'm sure that he's as confused at it all as I am.
I sat down and read the report that USADA presented as well. The evidence that Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs is mostly circumstantial, but the eyewitness statements that make the allegations are reported to be consistent across all those that were said to be there. The tests for EPO that were run on the samples taken after the Tour of Switzerland (I think around 2001 - I'm going from memory...) didn't exist when the samples were taken. Using these stored samples was part of the final scientific process to develop a testing protocol that would allow the tests to be used on 'live' samples. The people who conducted the tests did a double blind experiment. The laboratory that provided the samples was only able to label the samples by number - they couldn't identify Armstrong's sample to subject it to additional scrutiny - and the people conducting the test had no idea who was represented by any of the numbers provided. It was only after the results of the testing protocols were made public, stating that the test indeed DID find EPO in stored urine samples (and in an alarmingly high number of samples) that a journalist for L'Equipe conducted his own research to cross-check the sample number with the test results.
These tests found that Armstrong's samples showed strong evidence of EPO use. They weren't 'official' tests, and there are a lot of questions being asked about why Armstrong soon after donated a large sum of money to the UCI to 'help the fight against doping'. But when this empirical evidence - which would now be enough to suspend a rider pending the testing of his B sample - points to performance enhancing drug use, and it is added to the eyewitness statements from many teammates and officials who worked with Armstrong during this time, many of whom have an awful lot to lose by speaking out - it seems to me on the balance of probabilities that Armstrong was a cheat.
Just to reiterate, Levi Leipheimer, a key teammate of Armstrong through the Tours and one of the riders who testified to USADA against him, has just this week been sacked by his professional team as a result of his admission. He has just had his career ended as a result of his testimony - that he volunteered to give - and yet he stands by his statement. There seems to me to be little reason to doubt what he says.
Lance Armstrong was given a chance to dispute the findings of the USADA report, and chose not to contest it. He could have formally made the oft-repeated statement "I have never failed a drug test" rather than "I have never taken drugs" with the threat of perjury charges being brought against him, but chose not to. The USADA report was the culmination of all the allegations, the rumours, the whispered conversations and outrageous newspaper articles. Armstrong has 'had enough of fighting it'. For one of the most aggressive and determined sportsmen ever to compete at the highest level to essentially concede the case (after his appeal over jurisdiction was rejected by the Supreme Court) without mounting a defense also seems so unusual and out of character that again, it seems more likely that he was cheating.
My home town of Adelaide, South Australia, hosts the first race of the pro-tour season each January. Lance Armstrong made his return to racing in Adelaide, and participated in a couple of races here before his second retirement. I was one of hundreds of thousands of fans to watch every stage as the race moved around the state, and to point Armstrong out to my son. I told my then three-year old that he was 'one of the best sportsmen the world has ever seen'. I now feel dirty thinking about it.
It is great that Lance Armstrong survived cancer. It is even greater that Lance Armstrong used his fame and fortune to benefit others, and build Livestrong into the massive success story that it is today. I hope it continues to build on its work, and eventually develops an affordable and effective cure for cancer. But for me, it is the breach of trust that is the greatest disappointment. While it might have been naive to believe that he really was that much better than all the others, despite many of them being later confirmed as being on drugs, it was the romantic story that appealed to me, and no doubt many millions of others. It hasn't been proved in a court. It may not be 'direct evidence' that would satisfy a jury. But there is enough there for my trust in Armstrong to be broken - and I contend, to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities he took performance enhancing drugs.
Lance Armstrong used to be my hero. But not anymore.
I think there are many questions for the UCI to answer, particularly Pat McQuaid and the former head Hein Verbruggen. I look forward to such an inquiry.
Yea so when his own teammates testify against him somehow the moon landing was faked. 12 years is enough due process and there was no witch hunt. You are the guy who speeds through the school zone and then complains because the cop got you on radar that you were just keeping up with traffic.
The other stupid crap pulled with this type of logic is "It shouldn't be this way". WHO CARES, pot should be legal too, but right now it is not, so if you get caught with it you are taking a risk. Either we collectively live by laws and work to change the ones we don't like or there is no point in having rules at all.
"Other people do it too" Lance could have avoided all this by not doing it at all. He deserves to be stripped and even his own teammates said he did it.
Beyond your me me me me me me mentality is not about living by rules which civil society needs and should only change when WE, not you, not I, but WE collectively via consent change what we don't like. Your mentality is selfish just like a kid getting their hand caught in the cookie jar who lies and makes excueses.
Your conspiracy crap here is on par with the JFK magic bullet. I do not think 100s of people running that sport nor the courts or his own teammates are all out to get him. His own hubris thinking he could get away with it got him caught. If he truely thought he wasn't doing anything wrong he should have worked to allow the substances he was using to become legal in the sport first.
There was a time in the NFL when the 2 point conversion didn't exist, so back when it didn't you couldn't do it.
You are as capable as any theist of hubris and narcissism because you and he are still part of the same flawed perception evolution produces in our species.
What should be and what is are two different things. No one likes a cheater and he cheated. If he had any balls or morals he'd admit it and I would have more value for him if he would simply own up to it rather than run from it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Beyond, I am going to try to explain to you beyond politics and sports why i have a huge problem with you that bleeds into every topic you discuss and try to explain why you have the personality you do, which isn't about you but why men do what they do in general.
Throughout the male species history, in politics and in sports and in business and in personal relationships, when you combine testosterone with power it can and often leads to a sense of intitlement. This is not a label issue, it is an ego issue.
This is why we have seen both Republicans and democrats have affairs, and why we have seen both republicans and democrats indicted for etheics violations, even if they never get any hard time.
Risk taking is part of evolution, and in other mamals you can and do see cheeting, both by the alpha male and the subordanate, be it about mating with a female, or steeling food. But also part of evolutiion is a sense of negitive reaction when we catch another doing it.
You have a woody for risk takers and you also have an ego. But there still is no use for rules or laws if we always get to cherry pick which ones we obey. Just like even in a personal relationship, if your partner doesn't care about you having sex with other women, that is one thing, but if you go into it with an expectation of one on one and then lie to your partner, your ego is what is causing that. No different in sports or business. Players do cheat and sometimes they get away with it. Sometimes businesses con people and get away with it.
But when others react to that when they get caught the child runs from it and they hide behind their ego as an excuse.
Do you know why Lance got what he deserved? Because there were pleanty of guys in that sport, who might have agreed with him in that they should be allowed to use certain substances, but did not because those were the rules at the time. His hubris and ego got him in trouble, not his risk taking or his desires of "what should be".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I remain unconvinced. Insufficient evidence.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't think it is all that radical to require conclusive physical evidence. It is kind of like the NFL replays where to overturn the call on the field you have to have indisputable video evidence, many official reviews hinge on what the call in the field was because the video evidence isn't conclusive one way or the other. From my understanding, the call at the time was that Lance was clean and there is not indisputable evidence that he wasn't. Like I said, I haven't payed terribly close attention but from what I have read the physical evidence is disputable and mostly they relied on testimony from a handful of people. I don't think a persons entire career should be wrecked on testimony alone, we know for a fact that testimony is often wrong.
If it can be proved that he was doping I would agree with their decision. I do not believe it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I understand it is not a court of law so they can do whatever the fuck they want for any reason they want, they could strip his titles just because they think he is ugly if they want. But my opinion is they are pretty shitty people for doing that to him without solid physical evidence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Why is someone a hero or a strong person because they survived cancer? So people that die from cancer were weak and not as good as Armstrong? He survived because he was fortunate to have access to medical care.
So if he didn't take banned substances, he won because he was born with good genes. How does this make him a hero? And what is so nobel and beneficial about riding a bicycle faster than others?
And why would finding a cure for cancer be better for humanity overall than not? If someone survives then someone else much die. Such is life on an overpopulated planet.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Surviving cancer doesn't necessarily make someone a hero to me. It might to someone else. Being born with good genes doesn't necessarily make someone a hero either. 'Hero worship' is a very subjective, personal feeling. Lance Armstrong was my sporting hero because of his background - his rise from poverty - and his iron-clad determination to be the best, despite facing significant setbacks in his life. At around the time that I started following Lance Armstrong, I was diagnosed with diabetes, which had an impact on my ability to participate in sport. My looking up to Armstrong was partially based on me undertaking my own journey to overcome the limitations that diabetes presented me at the time, and to not let it rule my life. If others don't feel that way about Armstrong, or another sporting figure, or anyone else, that's fine with me. It's a very personal choice.
I didn't say that finding a cure for cancer would be better for humanity overall. But I think that it is important to keep studying and looking for new answers. I agree that the planet probably has too many people already, and it is only going to get worse in the next few decades. But the scientific research that serves to keep people alive for longer is just as likely to indirectly provide the answers to some of the problems of overpopulation, desertification and pollution (to name just a few) as well. Finding a cure for cancer will only come after significant expenditure on scientific research, which will spawn other benefits in a range of other fields.
Do you think scientists should stop looking for a cure for cancer? What else should they stop looking for answers for?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/5-time-tour-de-france-champion-miguel-indurain-says-he-believes-in-armstrongs-innocence/2012/10/23/251efc0a-1d23-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html
I like the picture