Armstrong formally charged by USADA

[toolonglegs]

As for whether the TdF and other titles should be awarded to someone else, that's really of no consequence to the case at hand. I don't think there's a right answer to that, other than the UCI/ASO having to uphold the WADA code on those matters once they have received the formal report from USADA. IOW removing the titles is a requirement under the code. The tricky bit is what then? But that's not a reason to not deal with the bigger issue of removing drug traffickers from the sport.

Something UCI have to work out is whether they ought demand the prizemoney returned, and if they do, whether it should be awarded to someone else or repaid to the sponsors.

Wouldn't it be nice if the UCI takes the money back, and spends it on more rigorous and improved testing ? Using it that way could have a decent impact on removing drug users from the sport and sends the right message about its importance.

It wasn't the UCI's money in the first place.
I know one organization who will be wanting their 5 million back especially as they didn't want to pay it in the first place as they said he only earned it by cheating.

[wombatK]

To me the fact that a large number were doing it as evidenced by the list you put up lessens the degree of wrong doing. He levelled the playing field v most of his rivals.

So how's the playing field level ?

Tucker (sportssicentists.com) rebutts this with three good reasons why it wasn't a level playing field:

First, remember that doping was illegal, which means that even though everyone may have been doing it, they were doing it with the pressure of a legal system on them. That means that some will have been brazen enough to try more than others. You are not seeing a level playing field because not every athlete is willing to risk as much given that there are penalties for cheating. And while the testing may have been grossly inadequate, as I explained above, it still forced athletes to take risks and spend more money to get away with doping. Therefore, the results of the race were strongly influenced by who was most successful at doing the illegal thing, who wanted to take the most risk, and who had the best systems to help them get away with the illegal action. That in turn is a function of money and power, but nowhere in this does being the best cyclist factor in. And yes, the playing field is never even, but when money, power and an appetite for illegal behavior affect results more than physiology and training, there's a problem.

See here The Armstrong Fallout Thoughts for more.

Our jails would empty overnight if the fact that other people were doing illegal things was a valid defence for any persons illegal acts. And chaos would reign on the streets.

[warthog1]

So how's the playing field level ?
.

See the list Alex posted for your answer.

[Chris249]

I never said he was a murderer, just pointing out the logical fallacy to suggest it's OK because they were all doing it. Yes, they all might have been doing it, but that does not make it OK, nor should an agency whose job it is to follow up evidence provided to it about systematic doping and trafficking, ignore it.

To me the fact that a large number were doing it as evidenced by the list you put up lessens the degree of wrong doing. He levelled the playing field v most of his rivals. Maybe it doesn't change things for you, I'm not you.

As for whether the TdF and other titles should be awarded to someone else, that's really of no consequence to the case at hand.

Just pointing out the debacle we are now left with given that you had to be on the juice to win as evidenced by that list and the widespread nature of doping at the time. In the minds of many, including mine having read that list, he remains the winner.

Moving on? That's something that each and every one of us has the power within ourselves to do. No-one else can do that for you.

I was talking about the sport and the negative publicity this is generating and has generated for so long now. Deal with it a damn sight faster and it is a bit easier to move on.

So if you in a solo breakaway in a road race ahead of the pack, who took the opportunity to take a short cut and therefore beat you to the finish, you would be happy with all the other competitors because it was a majority decision of theirs to cheat? You wouldn't say to the commisaires "hang on, they didn't do the course" because you would feel that the winner of the cheaters deserved his title?

It's not always easy to carry out investigations quickly, when the subject is intentionally trying to delay it and concealing evidence. Sometimes dissing investigations is a bit like dissing cyclists for not riding in the door lane - the problem is that those who criticise do not understand the issues involved.

BTW if a few years is too long to take action about dishonesty that involved something like $125 million bucks, how long do you have to take action about lesser crimes like stealing your bike, or your car, or burgling your house, or knocking you off your bike and injuring you?

[Chris249]

So how's the playing field level ?
.

See the list Alex posted for your answer.

So the playing field was level for the riders who did not cheat, compared to those who did cheat?

No, it certainly was NOT. Those who cheated had a big advantage.

Have you read "Riding through the dark" by Millar? It wasn't a level field - there were dopers and they had a vast advantage over the honest riders like Moncouts, Sastre, Cadel etc.

[warthog1]

I never said he was a murderer, just pointing out the logical fallacy to suggest it's OK because they were all doing it. Yes, they all might have been doing it, but that does not make it OK, nor should an agency whose job it is to follow up evidence provided to it about systematic doping and trafficking, ignore it.

To me the fact that a large number were doing it as evidenced by the list you put up lessens the degree of wrong doing. He levelled the playing field v most of his rivals. Maybe it doesn't change things for you, I'm not you.

As for whether the TdF and other titles should be awarded to someone else, that's really of no consequence to the case at hand.

Just pointing out the debacle we are now left with given that you had to be on the juice to win as evidenced by that list and the widespread nature of doping at the time. In the minds of many, including mine having read that list, he remains the winner.

Moving on? That's something that each and every one of us has the power within ourselves to do. No-one else can do that for you.

I was talking about the sport and the negative publicity this is generating and has generated for so long now. Deal with it a damn sight faster and it is a bit easier to move on.

So if you in a solo breakaway in a road race ahead of the pack, who took the opportunity to take a short cut and therefore beat you to the finish, you would be happy with all the other competitors because it was a majority decision of theirs to cheat? You wouldn't say to the commisaires "hang on, they didn't do the course" because you would feel that the winner of the cheaters deserved his title?

It's not always easy to carry out investigations quickly, when the subject is intentionally trying to delay it and concealing evidence. Sometimes dissing investigations is a bit like dissing cyclists for not riding in the door lane - the problem is that those who criticise do not understand the issues involved.

BTW if a few years is too long to take action about dishonesty that involved multiple millions of bucks, how long do you have to take action about lesser crimes like stealing your bike, or your car, or burgling your house, or knocking you off your bike and injuring you?

you can use all the analogies you like though I don't see the relevance of someone burgling my house. He won at the time, if that was by out cheating other cheaters then he still won. When you struggle to find an alternative winner in the top ten then I struggle to remove him as the winner, analogy or no analogy. Sorry that's the way it stands for me.

[wombatK]

So how's the playing field level ?
.

See the list Alex posted for your answer.

The list is evidence of cheating, and says nothing of the relative benefits gained by the various cheats.

So it says nothing at all about the playing field being level. Nothing about everyone being given advanced
notice of tests, everyone having the same money to access drugs, having results covered up, etc.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I was talking about the sport and the negative publicity this is generating and has generated for so long now. Deal with it a damn sight faster and it is a bit easier to move on.

Oh, I thought it was positive publicity. I mean if all those involved are shown to have committed the offences as laid out, then their removal from the sport is a wonderful thing, they will no longer be able to influence the younger generation.

As for speed, well the desire of the current generation for instant gratification I'm afraid doesn't work so well in the world of gathering evidence that requires detailed and thorough investigation of information that is usually well hidden / deliberately concealed.

[norbs]

It wasn't the UCI's money in the first place.
I know one organization who will be wanting their 5 million back especially as they didn't want to pay it in the first place as they said he only earned it by cheating.

5 million? I think they ended up paying out 7.5million.

[warthog1]

Oh, I thought it was positive publicity. I mean if all those involved are shown to have committed the offences as laid out, then their removal from the sport is a wonderful thing, they will no longer be able to influence the younger generation.

As for speed, well the desire of the current generation for instant gratification I'm afraid doesn't work so well in the world of gathering evidence that requires detailed and thorough investigation of information that is usually well hidden / deliberately concealed.

Positive publicity, the 7 time winner didn't win and we can't find some one who did........OK

Those involved will die of natural causes before removal if it proceeds at the same rate.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Those involved will die of natural causes before removal if it proceeds at the same rate.

Perhaps, but that's due process for you. That is not USADA's fault, it's the fault of those doing the doping and trafficking so aim your laser guns at them.

[Chuck]

And frankly the time limit they have for back testing should be removed. If it takes thirty years for the technology to catch up then so be it. I have no great desire to see shameful cheats maintain the stratospheric respect that befall sports success for the cheats whole lifetime. If they can't be shamed at time of competition then let them be embarrassed later, even in old age.

Well said.

He won at the time, if that was by out cheating other cheaters then he still won. When you struggle to find an alternative winner in the top ten then I struggle to remove him as the winner

You can't say that with any surety, take out the top ten and there's still another 180 guys in the race, we can't declare there actions with any certainty many may well have been cheated by Armstrong, Ullrich etc. What we can say for sure is that not only did Armstrong cheat Bassons, (who rode clean and dared to speak out) he also ran him out of the race with his aggressive behaviour (in defence of the omerta). What about Cadel in 05 ? Every rider who finished in front of him tarnished! Was he cheated ?

I feel sorry for the ADA's i think there is a real lack of understanding of the job they do and how hard it is for them to enforce the rules.

I think that most people thought that ADA's were set up for the right reasons and were pursuing their mandate with integrity. That was until Armstrongs PR machine got cracking.