Posted on 10/22/2012 4:26:59 AM PDT by Perdogg
Cycling's governing body agreed Monday to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life, following a report from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that accused him of leading a massive doping program on his teams.
Speaking from Geneva, International Cycling Union President Pat McQuaid confirmed to a news conference that UCI had decided to uphold USADA'S decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour titles.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Cycling’s governing bodies need to own up to their inadequacy. If you impose rules on participants, you must have adequate and valid means for enforcing those rules. I am on the record as being ambivalent about PED use, and could probably even get behind the idea of its acceptance in all sports (provided no laws are broken).
Cycling’s enforcement regime is just riddled with problems. I think you either have to have a bright line definition (you test positive, you’re out), or don’t test or enforce at all.
That’s my point. If they were all doing it, then either Armstrong was doing it much better than the rest or he was just the better athlete overall, would have still been better if none including Armstrong were “doping”. That doesn’t make what Armstrong or the other cyclist did “right” but it puts it into some perspective IMO.
- EPO is not only legal, it is something our bodies produce naturally. That is why it is so difficult to figure out who is using it and at what level. They do things like test current versus past levels and try to test blood counts, but all of those things can be managed. It’s ability to up rbc counts makes it almost the perfect drug for competitive cyclists.
My understanding is that “doping” is evident as an increase of red blood cells, something that can be also achieved through diet and extreme physical training and as well as from pharmaceutically produced EPO. Is that correct?
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.
Good point. If Armstrong was taking EPO because of his cancer treatments, would that still be “illegal”?
Armstrong=Sociopath
So we should believe what, that Armstrong is really from the planet Krypton, since he was able to beat all the cheaters without doping? If the cheaters admit they cheated, and Armstrong beat them, then it’s almost redundant to get the cheater’s testimony against him. He’s already testified against himself just by winning in such a playing field.
They don’t have any test results. Shouldn’t tht count for something, or nothing, as it were? Does no one find it troubling ha=ow this has been “tried?”
So if I invent a new way to cheat that can’t be detected, it’s somebody else’s fault for not catching me fast enough? I thought athletics was supposed to teach accountability and personal responsibility, not teach people to abandon it for the sake of winning.
Throw the tests out, if you wish. What about Armstrong’s administration and trafficking of PED’s? What about the conspiracy? What about the bribery? What about the witness intimidation?
I think it's rather preposterous to invent rules that are unenforceable. Let's say there was a magical performance enhancing drug that was not only legal, but absolutely undetectable by any test of any kind. Then let's say cycling banned it. What would be the purpose? Everyone would be on an honor system. This is essentially the state of cycling today. They are unable to objectively enforce their own rules.
there were no tests available at the time the cheating occurred for the cheating they were doing, including transfusions of their own blood during a race, EPO, and testosteron.
In Armstrong's case it was both and he was given the benefit of the doubt by testers anytime the tests were close because of his cancer treatment. His rbc count and testosterone always tested high but within limits and excusable for someone recovering from cancer.
It's not that he was just another doper in the sport but that he was leading the charge and compelling his teammates to do so if they wanted to be on the team. And anyone competing against him had to resort to it as well.
And look at today. In light of all the evidence against him, his quiver is still full of deluded true believers. Think about how full his quiver was when he was still competing and winning and thus able to intimidate and threaten to the max.
Curious connection; cheating at an organized sporting event with millions of $$ at stake is the same as raping a child???
Seriously messed up world you live in.
He had over 500 blood and urine tests and not one showed doping.
People testified against him, that is not evidence.
There was no physical evidence he was doped.
Cycling’s governing bodies need to own up to their inadequacy. If you impose rules on participants, you must have adequate and valid means for enforcing those rules. I am on the record as being ambivalent about PED use, and could probably even get behind the idea of its acceptance in all sports (provided no laws are broken).
We are definately in agreement on governing bodies needing to take responsibility for the way they have managed the sport.
Really? Sounds very strange. Anyway, I would be interested in blood data from LA from other time periods except 2009 - 2010. Do you have them available?
You are correct, no matter how much people think doping works, with out talent it is meaningless.
“I think it’s rather preposterous to invent rules that are unenforceable.”
They didn’t invent rules that were unenforceable, the cheaters invented ways to evade the enforcement. We don’t strike crimes from the books just because criminals innovate and find a way to commit them without getting caught. That’s just silly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.