Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 139
  1. #1
    flinty-eyed moderator
    Reputation: Coolhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    12,243

    To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question

    Velonews article:

    From the Pages of Velo: Lance's Void - Page 2 of 2 - VeloNews.com

    So, what then? Strip Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani? How far back does it go? Each of the race’s five-time winners have either admitted to doping (Jacques Anquetil), failed a drug test (Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault), or been suspected of doping (Miguel Indurain). Two-time Tour winner Fausto Coppi was no stranger to amphetamines, yet he is celebrated as one of the race’s legendary winners from a golden era. At what point do we accept the past, for all its deplorable truths? And who is best equipped to make this judgment — governing bodies, fans, or the athletes themselves?
    Hinault in particular stands out for ASO's continued use of him.
    Dr. Cox: Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard fillings. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine.

  2. #2
    Trigger Warning
    Reputation: Local Hero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,070
    Stripping them implies that the records being made today are legit.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,681
    You have one of two options in a situation like this.

    1. a Truth and Reconciliation committee as I outlined in an old thread with penalties for not coming completely clean..."soldiers" getting passes and those who actually ran or organized doping, "capos" getting bans etc.

    2. keep going back and strip others...

    The reason is simple. For the rules to have credibility today and to thus be enforced with something resembling credibility, you need to remove the appearance of prejudice. LA did indeed dope like a fiend. However a LARGE part of the reason he was targeted, vs others who were known to dope like fiends, was that others were not vindictive bullies. They smiled for the cameras, came off like nice guys, so people gave them a "pass" so long as their names did not show up in a police file or on a solid dope test.

    This is not the way to run a credible system.

    Now if you want to draw the line based on doping methods for practical reason...while I don't necessarily think this is the best path, okay. Say draw a line at the late 1980's where EPO came into it's own. I just think that unless we go with option 1, that it is write to draw a line at 1999 and say "Mission Accomplished" if we want the system to be seen as credible.
    Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Local Hero View Post
    Stripping them implies that the records being made today are legit.
    This year's Tour was 2 Legit 2 Quit.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Should we only enforce laws if we can capture 100% of the crooks?

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,681

    Re: To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Falsetti View Post
    Should we only enforce laws if we can capture 100% of the crooks?
    No but I don't think one should arbitrarily decide when to stop enforcing rules...hence Option number 1
    Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #7
    wyrd bið ful ãræd
    Reputation: c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    The fact that LA was stripped of his titles due to investigations by USADA and not UCI, does not bode well for the credibility of the governing body, for me that is.

    But I will still be a supporter of pro cycling and will still be interested in the sport because I know that hard work and dedication is still required to get to the top. Clean or not. And hopefully the governing body is doing whatever they can to do their job properly.

    My interest will not diminish even though I know UCI was as guilty as LA in their own way. That is the politics side of the sport and unfortunately politics will always be dirty.

    But to answer the OPs question? I do not know.

    One side of me thinks LA should not have been stripped ... They were all dopers competing against each other ... but then in the interest of the future of cycling ... ???

    Another side thinks all who have been proven to have doped before should have been stripped ... And even for periods when they were not caught as you do not know when they started ... Yup strip them all ... but then?

    What about those who did not win anything? Should they have their names removed from the record books? If you stripped LA, then yes ... All should be removed? What about those who are considered suspicious? They will still be in the record books.

    Actually, I think if you have the record books with names of riders and thereafter, (doping proven) or (doping suspicious)? Would that not make cycling more credible? At least my little boy, when he is reading the history of pro cycling in 10 yrs time will know who doped or was suspicious and not just have blanks everywhere.

    Apologies. I am just going round in circles ... Past midnight here now ...
    Last edited by c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n; 07-26-2013 at 04:55 PM.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n View Post
    Actually, I think if you have the record books with names of riders and thereafter, (doping proven) or (doping suspicious)? Would that not make cycling more credible?
    I think this is a great idea. The TdF entry for 1999, for instance would say, "Winner, Lance Armstrong (admitted doper)."

    Bravo. Excellent idea. I wish all sports would adopt this process for their record books. It's more interesting, more informative, and more realistic than simply ignoring that doping happened.

  9. #9
    Banned forever.....or not
    Reputation: MR_GRUMPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    22,688
    Everybody cheats.....
    .
    .
    .
    If your opinion differs from mine, ..........Too bad.
    .
    How would you like it if Hitler killed you
    Dogbert.

    I>U

    Buying parts to hang on your bike is always easier than getting fit.

    If you feel wimpy and weak, get out and train more, ya wee lassie!

    If Jesus had a gun, he'd be alive today!

  10. #10
    Trigger Warning
    Reputation: Local Hero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,070
    1999 TdF should go to Christophe Bassons.
    Last edited by Local Hero; 07-26-2013 at 08:54 PM.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by badge118 View Post
    No but I don't think one should arbitrarily decide when to stop enforcing rules...hence Option number 1
    Nothing arbitrary about it. Riis, Pantani, Indurain, never signed the WADA code. It would be arbitrary if they were pursued using a lower standard of proof or using regulations that were no in place while they were riding

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,681

    Re: To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Falsetti View Post
    Nothing arbitrary about it. Riis, Pantani, Indurain, never signed the WADA code. It would be arbitrary if they were pursued using a lower standard of proof or using regulations that were no in place while they were riding
    But they still violated the anti-doping rules of the time... To use your logic LA should thus at least have is 1999 Jersey since WADA was not founded until November of that year....
    Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by badge118 View Post
    But they still violated the anti-doping rules of the time... To use your logic LA should thus at least have is 1999 Jersey since WADA was not founded until November of that year....
    Nope. Hellebuyck case gives precedent to tolling the SOL. Lance signed the code, Indurain did not.

  14. #14
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,884
    Poulidor would like his TdF wins
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  15. #15
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,463
    I think the USADA opened a can of worms when they said 'Armstrong was part if organizing a conspiracy to conceal, so the 8 year SOL goes out the window.'

    I think either -A) the 8 year SOL should stay.
    B) have to SOLs. 8 years for doping, 16 for doping + conspiracy.

    It's important to get doping 'conspirators' - the managers, Doctors and trainers who are pushing doping out of the sport.

    But at a certain point, stripping titles retroactively is ridiculous.
    Ride more, whine less - HTFU.

    "1/2 of you are wrong and the other .5 are incorrect!" (FlynG)

    "Taking crazy things seriously is a serious waste of time." (Murakami)

    Ignore List: AM999

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    I think the USADA opened a can of worms when they said 'Armstrong was part if organizing a conspiracy to conceal, so the 8 year SOL goes out the window.'

    I think either -A) the 8 year SOL should stay.
    B) have to SOLs. 8 years for doping, 16 for doping + conspiracy.

    It's important to get doping 'conspirators' - the managers, Doctors and trainers who are pushing doping out of the sport.

    But at a certain point, stripping titles retroactively is ridiculous.
    Nope. CAS confirmed that tolling the SOL is allowed and WADA hired an independent auditor to review USADA's setting aside the SOL and they found it within the rules

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,681

    Re: To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Falsetti View Post
    Nope. CAS confirmed that tolling the SOL is allowed and WADA hired an independent auditor to review USADA's setting aside the SOL and they found it within the rules
    Ummm that case was very different... But you did indeed still dodge the fact that the UCI had bannd substances and practices pre-WADA which would still be applicable. Artfully done sir BUT still obvious.

    Basically what you are saying is this. Crime A was a violation of State Law in 1995. It became a violation of Federal Law in 1999. Since he did not violate Federal Law (due to the timing of the statute) you can not prosecute him for a violation of State Law. Horse Hockey.

    If any living generation of doper is given a pass it only serves to reinforce the attitude of "Bob got away with it so maybe I can too."

    My preferred method BTW would be option 1...a truth and reconciliation committee, but barring that you need to show that the system is impartial and a huge part of that is removing the impression that only asshats, the unlucky and the stupid get punished.
    Last edited by badge118; 07-27-2013 at 09:10 AM.
    Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11,663
    Strip them all. Is this forum really against doping or just against Lance doping? I can't tell sometimes.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by badge118 View Post
    Ummm that case was very different... But you did indeed still dodge the fact that the UCI had bannd substances and practices pre-WADA which would still be applicable. Artfully done sir BUT still obvious.

    Basically what you are saying is this. Crime A was a violation of State Law in 1995. It became a violation of Federal Law in 1999. Since he did not violate Federal Law (due to the timing of the statute) you can not prosecute him for a violation of State Law. Horse Hockey.

    If any living generation of doper is given a pass it only serves to reinforce the attitude of "Bob got away with it so maybe I can too."

    My preferred method BTW would be option 1...a truth and reconciliation committee, but barring that you need to show that the system is impartial and a huge part of that is removing the impression that only asshats, the unlucky and the stupid get punished.
    It is clear you do not understand tolling. You may want to start with the Hellebuyck case, which was the precident USADA used to Toll the SOL for Lance. This was upheld by CAS and WADA. It was also submitted to an independent review and was found to be applicable.

    A key element to tolling is misleading an official investigation. lance did this in 99,00, 01, 02, 05. He also lied under oath in 05. Can you give a similar example for Indurain?

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,681

    Re: To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Falsetti View Post
    It is clear you do not understand tolling. You may want to start with the Hellebuyck case, which was the precident USADA used to Toll the SOL for Lance. This was upheld by CAS and WADA. It was also submitted to an independent review and was found to be applicable.

    A key element to tolling is misleading an official investigation. lance did this in 99,00, 01, 02, 05. He also lied under oath in 05. Can you give a similar example for Indurain?
    Ibdo understand tolling. The basis of that case was that, largely, Helle lied before a panel...was acquitted and THEN later confessed to the media. The rationalization used was that his lying before an anti-doping authority panel was enough to get past it. LA had never before been called to answer before an ADA so it is different. Hell back when we had the first SOL case you agreed that this was different enough that it made beating SOL in LA's case not a sure thing.

    In 05 he lied in a civil suit outside the ADA's jurisdiction so whether that would be relevant is uncertain. Since he did not fight it we will never know

    BUT AGAIN you dodge that the use of EPO was technically illegal as of at least April of 1997 when they instituted the Hemocrit limit. the expressed purpose of this rule was to stop the use of EPO because they could not detect EPO at the time....so at a minimum you could go after riders up to that date for EPO use quite easily if you chose to. Drawing the line at WADA implementation is a cop out.
    Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Falsetti View Post
    It is clear you do not understand tolling. You may want to start with the Hellebuyck case, which was the precident USADA used to Toll the SOL for Lance. This was upheld by CAS and WADA. It was also submitted to an independent review and was found to be applicable.

    A key element to tolling is misleading an official investigation. lance did this in 99,00, 01, 02, 05. He also lied under oath in 05. Can you give a similar example for Indurain?
    Why do we tap dance around asking Big Mig?

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,681

    Re: To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question

    Quote Originally Posted by spade2you View Post
    Why do we tap dance around asking Big Mig?
    Because he is one of the record holders and most importantly was a nice "gentle giant.". Then if you go after him how can you rationalize not going after the Badger? Then after the Badger the Cannibal?

    Anyone who can't see that part of this is not first "my favorite Champion" let alone "this guy was an asshat... That guys was not.." is either niave or disingenuous.
    Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by badge118 View Post
    Because he is one of the record holders and most importantly was a nice "gentle giant.". Then if you go after him how can you rationalize not going after the Badger? Then after the Badger the Cannibal?

    Anyone who can't see that part of this is not first "my favorite Champion" let alone "this guy was an asshat... That guys was not.." is either niave or disingenuous.
    Isn't our objective to put an end to doping? So far, the only take home point is that it's alright to dope if you're nice. If nobody is immune ya put more fear into people thinking about doping.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by badge118 View Post
    Ibdo understand tolling. The basis of that case was that, largely, Helle lied before a panel...was acquitted and THEN later confessed to the media. The rationalization used was that his lying before an anti-doping authority panel was enough to get past it. LA had never before been called to answer before an ADA so it is different. Hell back when we had the first SOL case you agreed that this was different enough that it made beating SOL in LA's case not a sure thing.

    In 05 he lied in a civil suit outside the ADA's jurisdiction so whether that would be relevant is uncertain. Since he did not fight it we will never know

    BUT AGAIN you dodge that the use of EPO was technically illegal as of at least April of 1997 when they instituted the Hemocrit limit. the expressed purpose of this rule was to stop the use of EPO because they could not detect EPO at the time....so at a minimum you could go after riders up to that date for EPO use quite easily if you chose to. Drawing the line at WADA implementation is a cop out.
    You are confused, lance does not have to lie only to an ADA or the UCI... but he did

    He lied to the UCI when he tested positive for cortisone in 99
    He lied to the UCI and the official French investigation into the dumping of drugs and syringes in 2000
    He lied to the UCI in 01 and 02 when he had suspicious tests for EPO
    He lied in 2005 during the offical investigation into the 99 EPO positives
    He lied under oath in 2005 in the SCA case

    the list goes on. It is clear that Armstrong actively impeded multiple investigations into his doping
    Last edited by Doctor Falsetti; 07-27-2013 at 11:34 AM.

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by spade2you View Post
    So far, the only take home point is that it's alright to dope if you're nice.
    Rather simplistic view of the issue.

    The more accurate interpretation is that when the sport does not have adequate oversight and a clearly outlined process then doping is allowed to flourish and sanctioning athletes is hard. Most have seen the significant improvement in the sport since the WADA code came into place

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Leadville should strip LA too
    By WAZCO in forum The Doping Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-25-2012, 02:33 PM
  2. FSA rim strip
    By Potomuchto in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 12:17 PM
  3. Dura Ace Wheel Rim Strip Question
    By ckmosley in forum Components, Wrenching
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 06:30 PM
  4. Campy rim strip question
    By boon in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-09-2006, 12:41 PM
  5. Open Pro rim strip question
    By CoachRob in forum Components, Wrenching
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-15-2004, 03:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

2015 LIGHTS SHOOTOUT

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

Interbike Featured Booths

Check out the hottest road bike products from these brands!



















See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook