Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Doping EPO 1999

A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range.

OK, but why haven't you mentioned the 6 og 8 positive, POSITIVE, EPO tests in 1999? Those Lance have rejected to be tested once again.

You have even locked the article about Lance, so get in all the facts! Wake up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.231.161 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Status post-2010 Tour

And yes, I'm still pissed off about the teams section

Would it be fair post-Tour to describe Armstrong as "semi-retired?" He's giving up racing in Europe entirely after this Tour. He'll still ride in 2011, but it'll just be races like the Tour of California and the Tour Down Under, and probably never as a squad leader. I'm not sure the phrase "semi-retired" is itself citable, but the rest certainly is. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency across WP

It says correctly at 2005 Tour de France and List_of_teams_and_cyclists_in_the_2005_Tour_de_France that Lance A on the Discovery Channel team raced and won the 2005 tour, yet if you go to Lance A's WP page here, it now says in the prominent infobox that his 2005 team was the U.S. Postal Service. This is not a good change in my opinion. The U.S. Postal Service did not sponsor their team (read, put up big $$$$) past 2004's end. Discovery Channel put up the money and should get the credit, but one WP editor wants to change those facts on WP because of some twisted "team continuity" logic. I think this is a bad idea in general and a bad precedent for consistency. Jack B108 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the two mains points are whether it was the same team (it was) and whether the team had the same name (it didn't). Although the team name derives from the sponsor, I don't think the sponsor is important: we don't give sponsors such prominence in other sports where team name is not derived from the sponsor. Severo^TC 08:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The sponsor made the team. There wouldnt be anything to discuss about 2004->2005 with Tailwind Sports unless Discovery Comm came in with major sponsorship. Sponsorship means that people on the team can eat: the sponsor buys the fuel fo the bus, pays the top cyclists six or seven figures, pays the mechnanic, take care of the hotel bills, etc. The "team" is a shell, so it is wrong to give priority naming rights to a shell that would collapse w/o major outside help. Jack B108 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You've made the point about "who pays the bills" before, but I don't accept it is the job of the athlete's infobox to tell the reader this. It is the job of the prose of the team's article to do this. Severo^TC 09:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I get the idea, but it's an original way of managing team name information, and therefore not allowed. The fact is, if Discovery Channel had not stepped up, there would have been no team. Bottom line: We can't say that the team in 2005 was US Postal because reliable sources don't say that. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Question – do you prefer the current state of Mark Cavendish's infobox or the one present in this old revision? Because I think the one in the diff is kind of ridiculous (and keep in mind, it would now have another name in it, and probably yet another later this season), but it's more defensible than separating Armstrong's teams. A reader is unlikely to assume that "Team Columbia-HTC" and "Team HTC-Columbia" are wholly different entities, but I'd say it's quite likely that they'll assume that of names as different as "US Postal" and "Discovery Channel." Putting those two names on separate lines suggests that Armstrong left one team and joined another, which did not happen. Just like the very different sounding "Cofidis" and "US Postal" which do reflect Armstrong leaving one team and joining another. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

However, if we can put aside any misplaced urgency to have total consistency in every article, would it be so hard to have something like

1999–2005 U.S. Postal Service

spacespaceDiscovery Channel (name for 2005)

in the infobox? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 06:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This situation is essentially that of anyone who has the problem of how to deal with an employer that changed names on one's resume. I suggest a similar solution - use both names - but add some kind of comment/qualifier, like "(title sponsor change)". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The biggest inconsistency of all would be to give a sponsor undue weight - as this is inconsistent with nearly every other sport on Wikipedia. We don't mention in an athlete's infobox if they get a new endorsement or if the team's shirt sponsor has changed etc. What matters here is what the team name is - that it derives from a sponsor is of secondary importance. Please note that in this argument I am not suggesting whether writing a separate entry for 2005 in the infobox is right or wrong, I am saying it is wrong based on the premise of what Discovery Channel's paid the bills and "deserve" inclusion in individual athlete's infoboxes.

That said, it's not perfect to just display "1999–2005 U.S. Postal Service" either. But I think there is a more nuanced solution. I have two ideas: 1) Note every year (one line per year) in the infobox with the team, and mark team changes with, say, a horizontal line. 2) Display common name teams with years of that team (so, years as per current setting, but with "common name" of the team) with a [show] button to display each year.

Severo's Proposal 1 Professional team(s)1 1992 Motorola 1993 Motorola 1994 Motorola 1995 Motorola 1996 Motorola 1997 Cofidis 1998 U.S. Postal Service 1999 U.S. Postal Service 2000 U.S. Postal Service 2001 U.S. Postal Service 2002 U.S. Postal Service 2003 U.S. Postal Service 2004 U.S. Postal Service 2005 Discovery Channel 2009 Astana 2010 Team RadioShack

Severo's Proposal 2 Professional team(s)1 1992–1996 Motorola Body text line 1 Body text line 2 1997 Cofidis Body text line 1 Body text line 2 1998–2005 US Postal/Discovery 1998 U.S. Postal Service 1999 U.S. Postal Service 2000 U.S. Postal Service 2001 U.S. Postal Service 2002 U.S. Postal Service 2003 U.S. Postal Service 2004 U.S. Postal Service 2005 Discovery Channel 2009 Astana {{{2}}} 2010– Team RadioShack {{{2}}}

Very quick mock-ups, which I did in about five minutes so not stylistically perfect! Severo^TC 09:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are both proposal's number "1"? Anyway, I would like to see a blend of the two - essentially the second one but don't put DSC/USPS on the same line - give 2005 DSC a separate line.

As to the issue about undue weight as compared to other sports, I believe the best analogy might be Formula 1 racing teams. Something like this:

Born2cycle's Proposal 1 Professional team(s)1 1992–1996 Motorola Body text line 1 Body text line 2 1997 Cofidis Body text line 1 Body text line 2 1998–2004 Postal Service 1998 U.S. Postal Service 1999 U.S. Postal Service 2000 U.S. Postal Service 2001 U.S. Postal Service 2002 U.S. Postal Service 2003 U.S. Postal Service 2004 U.S. Postal Service 2005 Discovery Channel 2005 Discovery Channel {{{2}}} 2009 Astana {{{2}}} 2010– Team RadioShack {{{2}}}

--Born2cycle (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Severo's Proposal 2.5

Professional team(s)1
1992–1996	Motorola Body text line 1 Body text line 2
1997	Cofidis
1998–2005	US Postal/Discovery 1998 U.S. Postal Service 1999 U.S. Postal Service 2000 U.S. Postal Service 2001 U.S. Postal Service 2002 U.S. Postal Service 2003 U.S. Postal Service 2004 U.S. Postal Service 2005 Discovery Channel
2009	Astana
2010–2011	Team RadioShack 2010 Team RadioShack 2011 Team RadioShack

Fixed the number issue :) Formula 1 bio articles don't include team information in their infoboxes so unfortunately offer no solutions. Anyway, I think it is very important to ensure that team continuity is treated equally. We are stating that the rider was on the same team for a number of seasons, and I don't think anybody would argue that the team Armstrong, amongst others, rode for in 2005 was different to the team he rode for in 2004. Putting the 2005 team on a separate line gives he impression it was a different team. It gives the 2005 sponsor undue weight and which, in my opinion, doesn't conform to a Neutral Point of View. Severo^TC 10:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source that presents it that way, you're violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV to do it that way. In fact, your concern about giving sponsors undue weight by presenting information in the same as do reliable sources is arguably pushing a point of view. If the sources don't think presenting it that way gives the wrong impression, then we have no grounds to fret about it. Just randomly looking around, I find that this is typical of how his team history is presented in biographical accounts. Do you know of any sources that present pro cyclist team history in the way you are? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That says at the bottom "Source: Wikipedia" so was probably taken from here at a time when the information on this page was displayed differently. It is not WP:OR to suggest in this case that the 2005 team was the same as the 2004 team. I am somewhat baffled to see such a suggestion, to be honest, and I don't understand how you came to such a conclusion. We don't need to copy sources in their presentation - how facts are presented is an editorial issue. My main point is - we need to balance two things here: 1) the continuous legal entity of the team (in this case, Tailwind Sports) and 2) the team name in each season. In this case, we do not achieve point 1 with your solution: it misleadingly gives a team name the status of a team. Likewise, with [1] we do not achieve point 2. My proposals try to find some middle ground in that but I am sure it's not perfect and there are probably countless other ways to find such a balance. But a solution does need to balance these two things or we (or our successors) will be back here in six months, one year, two years etc. Severo^TC 10:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How about an additional column for team owner (e.g., Tailwind)? That way you'd show continuity in team ownership along with change in name/sponsor. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How would you do that in the infobox (without making it unduly large)? Also, the name of the holding company can change without a change of legal continuity (for example when Bjarne Riis bought what is now Riis Cycling A/S). Severo^TC 11:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You then of course get the added confusion that essentially it was the same managment team at Astana and it was Johann Bruyneels Pro Tour Licence being used, along with cars and support registered to Bruyneels company. He then took that licence to Radioshack. So effectively lance has ridden for the one team ever since cofidis. Personally I think postal, disco, astana, shack should all be listed seperately. Its perfectly easy to explain in the main article that Postal changed sponsors, and that Bruyneel held the licence and astana and radioshack.90.195.108.18 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Except of course that's all not true. Astana have always had a different licence, Bruyneel never "took" it anywhere. Severo^TC 18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Doping Section out of Proportion

I have to say that the doping section of this article is out of proportion with articles on other cyclists, including those proven guilty of offenses such as Alexander Vinokourov, Jan Ulrich, Tom Boonen, and even Eddy Merckx. I understand that this has gotten a bit of press recently, but I have to say that there is some Recentism going on here. Allegations of doping surely are not more substantial than proven offenses, and it seems that, given Armstrong's accomplishments on the bike, the doping section of the article should not be the largest part, at least until accusations are proven true. Mrathel (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading the assessment summary page, I felt it was justified to move the "Specific Allegations" to a separate page, which I linked to in the article. This will help prevent the article from being weighted down by the controversial allegations. The section on the drug tests is still a bit lengthy, but I feel that it is an actual case, thus not meeting the criteria by which i labeled the others. Mrathel (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Allowing for some more time and input on such a big change is probably a good idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that time is really that necessary. I didn't remove content, I simply moved it to keep the article in proportion. There is no way the article could regain GA status with nearly 1/3 of the text discussing the doping practices of a rider who has yet to be proven to have doped, and the list-style presentation is not in accordance with the style guidlines. If anything, time should be given to allow the section to be cleaned up before it is readded to the main article, should that prove necessary. Mrathel (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do think that the Landis info should be put back into the article, but care should be taken to limit the amount of discussion on that subject until more information is available. Current controversies tend to put too much emphasis on small (often juicy) details, but the article should reflect the 20-year career of the subject.If this can be done with admitted and proven cheats, then it should also be possible for suspected ones:) Mrathel (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not cool to make such a major change to a very high-profile page without giving other editors time to review the proposal. It may or may not improve the page, but I wish Mrathel had at least given 48 hours notice. The doping allegations (and denials, etc.) are a key part of the whole Lance A story. I think Mrathel should now either revert their edit or rewrite what was left in the main article to make it an effective summary, which it isn't, esp. as many of the facts have been whisked away. What is there now has much too much detail about certain things (e.g., Paul K and Dr Ashenden's opine on LNDD urine tests) and effectively leaves out any summary of important allegations, such as those of Walsh, Landis, Lemond, the Andreu's, etc. regarding blood doping & EPO use. Jack B108 (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because what's left in the main article is incoherent, I think the change should be reverted until we have consensus for what the summary should be. I'd prefer to let Mrathel, or yet another not-yet-involved editor, do the revert, and commence the discussion about the summary section. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mrathel, why do you and many others want to support Lance by spreading wrong rumors? E.g. by comparison - there is much more evidence for the use of doping by Lance than by Jan Ulrich (indeed being widely considered as having used EPO, however never had a positive doping-test on that! - you know that argument ;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.17.13 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

spinout article nominated for deletion

Well, despite the objections to moving this section out, it has remained as a spinout article, and has now been nominated for deletion. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to save it, and the votes to keep were in favor, but the article was deleted nonetheless. I filed for a review, but all the votes so far are in support of the decision to delete, though I can't understand the reasoning. So, for now, I've restored the content to this article, at least until we come up with a better solution by consensus.

It should be noted that removing this content (without first putting it in a spinout) is violating WP:CENSOR since WP:BLP#Public figures clearly indicates that "notable, relevant, and well-documented" allegations like this belong in the article:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

The "notable, relevant, and well-documented" criteria applies to each and every allegation in this section, though I've been told some of the references are dead links and that needs to be fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Specific allegations section

1. Lance Armstrong (oldid) → List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong
2. List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong → User talk:Born2cycle/armstrong-allegations (oldid)
3. User talk:Born2cycle/armstrong-allegations (same) → Lance Armstrong (diff)

Reviewing the overall diff, it appears that changes to that section were confined to refs and whitespace. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This history focuses on edits where attribution might have been lost by copying (WP:Copying within Wikipedia), so I did not include earlier history showing the section's development and expansion. Flatscan (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing the history, Flatscan. Much of the content was removed by User:Tarc in this edit, but I restored it here. The edit summary provided for the removal was this: "Sorry, this is unsuitable for either a separate article or for this article. The description above is sufficient, removing per WP:UNDUE".

WP:UNDUE does not apply to this situation at all, unless it can be shown for each allegation removed that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" are not represented. In fact, there is no minority vs. majority viewpoint issue here at all, which is what UNDUE deals with. It's just content about the topic that from high quality reliable sources, though there are still a few deadlink issues to fix.

See also: WP:CENSOR. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your cries of "censorship!" can get stuffed, honestly. Having such lengthy detail for each and every ALLEGATION (not conviction, not proven) is a serious violation of WP:UNDUE as I noted. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL - your first sentence is not.

I'm not saying the section is perfect, just that imperfection is not justification for removal. Violation of BLP, for example, is justification for removal. Actual violation of WP:UNDUE might be justification for removal, but adding perspective of the missing viewpoint, to make it neutral, is better. In the case of each paragraph about a well-sourced allegation you removed, what is the missing viewpoint? How is it a violation of WP:UNDUE?

Yes, these are allegations. So what? You capitalize ALLEGATIONS and note that they are "not conviction, not proven" as if that clearly indicates including them in the article is not encyclopedic or something. To the contrary, WP:BLP#Public figures explicitly says, "If an allegation ... is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Removing content about any allegation without showing that it is either not notable, not relevant or not well-documented is removing content that policy explicitly states belongs in the article and so is censorship.

Instead of censoring, how about helping improve it? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• this comment from User:Jclemens in the deletion review of the allegations spinout is relevant to this discussion because it notes that many who supported deletion of the spinout article did not support deletion of the content entirely from Wikipedia (that is, the problem was not the content per se, but that it was all concentrated in one article rather than in the main article), and many explicitly called for a merge. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Born2cycle for restoring the specific allegations, removed by someone w/o consensus or prior notice a few weeks ago. (I asked the person that deleted so much in September to write a proper intro to the doping allegations section, but they did not). The entire section was terrible w/o the removed details or introduction/summary. There is no "serious violation" of WP policy here. Chill... Jack B108 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any chance that editing can get us down to a section that is about half this length? I think there is an UNDUE problem, but that it can be addressed with simple editing. I'll try some. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• You guys are using "undue" in a way that I don't understand. Can someone who believes there is an "undue" problem please quote from WP:UNDUE and explain how and why that applies here? Thanks.

  Having said that, I think paring down the wording, if and where possible, without losing important facts and viewpoints, is a good idea. But that seems like an editorial thing, not because of UNDUE. Ironically, we do have to be careful to not pare down so much that we lose a significant viewpoint in the process; that would be an UNDUE problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my bold edit to the article, but I was trying to state that there should be at least a semblance of consistency as to how doping is handled across the pages on prominent cyclists. Riders who have actually failed drug tests have relatively small doping sections and this article is heavily weighted by a poorly-structured list that detracts from the readability of the article. See the article on Alberto Contadoras a point of reference. I don't think anyone suggests that the allegations are not notable, but they are ostentatiously wordy. If you can sum up each time the subject wins the TDF in 3 sentences, I feel the same can be done for the doping allegations. Regardless of how one feels about the guilt of the rider, the back-and-forth about the blood samples could go without direct quotations. The doping section contains 6 times as much text as the section titled "Tour de France Success". Compare that to the ratio of text spent discussing Eddy Merckx's Tour de France performances and the section that mentions his positive blood tests, and it should be obvious that the article has issues with balance. Honestly, there is no reason why the section on the TDF victories is smaller than the one his relatively-unsuccessful comeback career other thanRecentism but I do know that the article needs to be refocused if it is to regain GA status. Mrathel (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is too much arguing Lance's points on the doping (e.g. ahsendend opposition)

This section: "A number of high-profile cyclists, some of them credible, some not, assorted journalists, and even one retired cyclist that never rode on a team with Armstrong (Greg LeMond) have alleged that he cheated." ...is pretty much the definition of POV. It's my understanding that Wikipedia articles are intended to lay out facts, not subjectively pass sentence on who's credible and who's not. It's question-begging of the highest order, and reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. 74.92.140.243 (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He is going down. and this article is POV. you will see... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.158.162 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, sccaaary! But you're a week or two early for Halloween. Good timing, anonymous idiot, too, as Oct. 2 was the day Lance A was diagnosed with cancer. And did you just make up a new word of "ahsendend"? BTW, are you the same guy who "brought down" David Letterman, LOL? Jack B108 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahahah "anonymous IP idiot", again the usual Wikipedia "god" who ranks personal self importance and image above someone who has something to say. Remember being an admin et al or a senior editor with all the Wikipedia accoutrements amounts to nothing in the real world. All this is site has become is a game where those with a vested interests fight against those with differing vested interests against those who think both groups are all pretty sad. Doing free work for years and fighting over keeping their chosen viewpoint as the "consensus". My point being the IP poster was correct, it's now January 2011 and no surprises but the man who is now facing potential legal ramifications over being a shameless drug user, here [2], [3] and [4]. But it hurts when you think you are wrong doesn't it? Partiucualry when this article is now going to go up smoke when the case happens. Let the edit battles begin ;-)

Denial under oath?

Has Armstrong denied, under oath in testimony to federal investigators or to a grand jury, that he has ever taken PEDs? Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he has never testified under oath to federal investigators or a grand jury, including the current investigations prompted in part by Landis' allegations. Wschart (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

lot of RSes coming in with more and more fellow riders saying that Lance doped

See for instance, this, [5]

The part at the end was ominous:

"Another former USPS rider, Jonathan Vaughters, gave Hamilton support today on Twitter. ‘Hang in there,” he stated, then added, ‘bullies have a special place in my little black heart.”

He has said that he will speak truthfully about his time with the team if he is requested to do so by investigators."

TCO (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Intimidating or attempting to intimidate a grand jury witness may be a federal crime (and I'm not accusing Armstrong of doing so), which perhaps is why the FBI is looking into it. Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.32.202.41, 11 July 2011

Change stage three cancer to stage four. Stage three has only spread to the lymph nodes, and stage four has gone to other organs, as Lance's cancer clearly had.

70.32.202.41 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but does it say in a source somewhere that Armstrong's cancer was stage four? Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Someone will me more then happy to make this change if you could provide a source for this. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No such thing as Stage IV for testicular cancer in any case. The detailed staging goes from Stage 0 to Stage IIIC. http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/TesticularCancer/DetailedGuide/testicular-cancer-staging Qwfp (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alwayzpaul, 7 August 2011

In the first paragraphs in this Wikipedia article on Lance Armstrong, it is inaccurately stated that he had breast cancer. In fact, he had an embryonal cell testicular cancer.

Alwayzpaul (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing where it is written where he has breast cancer, I did a simple find for breast and found no results. If you're still seeing it copy the line and paste it here so that we can narrow it down. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Important Edit To Be Made

3 members of Armstrong's team that were charged alongside him (Michele Ferrari, Luis Garcia del Moral, and Pepi Marti), have accepted the charges and declined their right to protest them, thus accepting lifetime bans. The section regarding the 2012 USADA Charges should be edited to mention this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.98.15.43 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the major wins be removed for the tour de france given the recent events? Calcoolidgefan (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not yet. The USADA believes the ASO will vacate the wins, but the USADA does not itself have the authority to do so. Until the wins are actually vacated by the sports authority that has the jurisdiction to do so, they should be retained. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

In the paragraph under the heading "Tour de France success", please change:

"when a spectator's bag caught his right handlebar."

to

"when a young spectator attempted to grab his yellow cap, which has hanging on his right handlebar".

Reference for this change: A child's hand grabbing the cap can be seen at the very start (00:00) of the YouTube video entitled "Lance Armstrong 2003 TDF - The Ascent of Luz Ardiden" Timnosuke 8 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, YouTube is not a reliable source. Guidelines on what makes a reliable source can be found here. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 08:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Floating Boat. Many thanks for your reply. I understand Youtube is listed as not being a reliable source, but in the case of this sudden bike crash, the only reliable evidence is the video, assuming it hasn't been tampered with. A personal eye-witness account, for example, would be very unreliable...The Youtube reference could just as easily be changed to the official TV program which broadcasted this footage). Anyway, red-tape aside, if you have the time to look at the first split second of the video, it's clear that the current content of wikipedia is inaccurate. If you are interested in making wikipeia more accurate, which I assume you are as you are an editor, and not interested in blindly sticking to rules, I wonder what you proposal is to rectify the error? I would be very interested in what currently accepted source the erroneous information about a handbag came from, as I suggest that the currently accepted list of reliable sources is itself not very reliable. The end of the paragraph has a reference to Armstrong's Self-Biography, but this appears to be a reference about the fair play award, not the handbag but, at any rate, Armstrong was staring straight ahead concentrating on forcing his bike up a mountain at the time of the crash, and so would not be a reliable source of accurate information. You can see with your own eyes what happened. Yours, slightly disappointed and frustrated, timnosuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timnosuke 8 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki guidelines state that self-published or questionable sources can be used as long as there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," which (as it is from a tv broadcast, copies of which can be viewed online or via DVD) I think qualifies here. YouTube is, I think, in an odd spot where it contains some material that falls into "self-published unreliable" and other material that is archived material of an actual event. So I'm supporting Timnosuke here, as I believe this is the latter. This should be allowed as a reliable source in this instance as it is a copy of an actual broadcast, with no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Stlamanda —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with Timnosuke at first, the youtube clip is obviously from a reliable source, but the clip linked gives the wrong impression. Armstrong didn't have a cap on his handlebar, it was the spectators bag that got caught. See this clip at 1:13 for proof. Armigo (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Triathlon suspension

"Armstrong also plans to race in Ironman France in an attempt to qualify for the 2012 World Ironman Championship in Kona, Hawaii.[124]"

This sentence is outdated, because Armstrong was banned from participation in the Ironman France, and thus could not qualify to compete in the World Ironman Championship. He did not / will not race in either event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.176.23 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please put a dead link template next to citation 55 at the end of the last sentence in the second paragraph in the Allegations of Doping section. The link to the Sunday Times article is dead. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Done FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: Please delete link to deleted list

Please delete the red link to the deleted list. Lumialover2 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Qwfp (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request regarding citation

The section "2012 USADA doping charges" cites Juliet Macur's August 23 2012 NY Times article "Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges" as support for the statement that Mr. Armstrong will likely be stripped of his Tour de France titles. This is speculation and unwarranted extrapolation.

The Tour de France is under the jurisdiction of the UCI, the WADA and is organized by Amaury Sports. The USADA does not have jurisdiction over these entities although it can inform them.

It does not follow that an athlete will be convicted and stripped of accomplishments because he is allowing the USADA to proceed without further resistance.

Please delete the sentence "He will likely be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from competing" under the section 2012 USADA charges as it is at this point speculation without merit.

Spingus (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My god you Armstrong apologists are a sad bunch

Tygart said UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

Do you like apples? UCI MUST strip Armstrong when the USADA found him guilty. UCI singed onto the WA-DC, and agreed to abide by such findings if it were the case.

Case closed, Lance Armstrong has NEVER won the Tour de France officially. So change the entry and recognise the FACTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.166.165 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that while Tygart may feel that way, without independent confirmation from UCI and Amaury Sports, Armstrong's wins still stand. The USADA has no authority, nor has ever convicted him of doping, so the continued allegations remain that - allegations. Refusal to continue with the legal process is not equivalent to an admittance of guilt.

Eoheomili (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

TSN says the USADA has strip his titles - any other sources confirming it that? http://www.tsn.ca/cycling/story/?id=403740 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.155.183 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Can this page get protection? The number of times the TDF titles will get deleted will just keep growing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I support protection request. The USADA has no authority to strip the Tour de France titles. That authority rests with the International Cycling Union Who fully supports, Armstrong's claims he never took Performance Enhancing Drugs.--Subman758 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support protection, as editors are adding information as a fact, which are not based on the citations given: for example: "On August 24, 2012, he was stripped of all results since August 1, 1998 including his Tour de France titles and barred from competing for the rest of his life.[8][9][10]" If you actually read the articles cited [8,9,10], they talk about the agencies stating that they intend, or plan to do such-and-such ... that does NOT equate to "On August 24, 2012, he was stripped ..." We need to wait and see how all this pans out since there are different jurisdictions to consider. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a news blog. Bobsd (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm yes they do

Tygart said UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

So there's that.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.166.165 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that this page should be temporarily protected to prevent edits. I should make it clear, I am one of the big opponents of Lance and whilst I get a certain amount of pleasure from this, its important that the Wiki page be kept relevant, and factual, while being IMPARTIAL and retaining complete neutrality. I was actually undoing edits last night where people removed his titles (despite looking forward to the day when they are removed). But also, there are a whole bunch of wannabee lawyers who are claiming USADA has no juristriction, etc etc which is also factually incorrect, and its important that the page is protected not just from those desperate to remove his titles, but also those who are still convinced its an unfair with hunt and that lance is innocent. When the wiki page is finally edited it needs to be fair, and we are just going to have running battles until then. If he is stripped of his titles, its likely that that wont be the end of it, there are likely to be further court appeals question USADA's juristriction, in fact in Hermans letter to USADA dropping the charges he has already intimated that should USADA attempt to strip him of his titles they will be held liable. So this is far from the end of the story.

However, i think when the decisions are finally made, and the page needs to be edited it should be done after discussions between at least 2 or preferably more editors over what tone to take with the article, and the exact wording of the page to give total impartiality. Already bits are appearing on the article like ""The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced," Armstrong wrote.". That line should not in my opinion be in the article. It is a personal opinion by Lance, but it is tagged on the article in such a way that it gives the impression that he is innocent. I dont think that line adds anything to the article, and is certainly not impartial. It is an opinion by Armstrong, not a factual peice of information. Dimspace (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no wannabe lawyer, nor am I an Armstrong apologist. Maybe he cheated. Maybe he didn't. Frankly, I don't really care. But I do care about authority/jurisdiction. The whole thing is a mess. The USADA wants to use the WADC to stake claim to act unilaterally, while the UCI is pointing out that the WADC standards haven't been fulfilled by the USADA (specifically article 8.3). The WADA chief has already said the WADA has no authority on the matter. The ASO is waiting for the UCI's final ruling. So what happens if there's a disagreement over WADC protocol (eight-year statue of limitations)? What happens if the UCI doesn't believe the evidence warrants the stripping of any of the seven titles? Do you really think the ASO is going to listen to the USADA over the UCI? I find that scenario highly unlikely.Scuzzletop (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article text has been corrected but infobox has not

The text has been corrected to say that the USADA 'intends' to strip his medals, but the infobox makes it look like they already have. Stuff needs to get put the way it was. Potentially asterisks could be added with notes saying that those titles may be stripped, but it hasn't happened yet. Chris3145 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Separately, the ambiguities in the dates/timing are grating in the following two sentences:

USADA confirmed it had given Armstrong a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present later the same day.[119] As of 24 August 2012, the UCI was waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[120]

Could these please be changed to something akin to:

On 24 August 2012 USADA confirmed it had given Armstrong a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present.[119] Currently, the UCI is waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.130.149 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Records need to be stripped from article

Since the announcement that Armstrong is to be stripped of his medals and his records expunged from the books the article will have to be updated. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, If you read the press very carefully USADA say they will strip the titles however this not verified by the UCI yet and there is no sign whether the UCI will challenge the advise from USADA, The bottome line is we should not remove the titles from this article until UCI confirms that the titles are actually dropped Nollieheelflip (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Make sure you understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Nollieheelflip (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again: an organization, which may or may not have the authority, decides if a "winner" of a race actually "won" it. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that? I don't know if the facts justify it; I just don't like rewriting sports records literally decades after the fact due to one organization's "opinion". What next? Will they say that some race or game didn't take place at all?

There needs to be a discussion of policy about these things on Wikipedia. I particularly feel there should be a distinction between actions that affected the contests and those that were not directly related.

They may indeed decided that the Tour de France did not take place, because if Armstrong's titles are taken away then people like Zulle and Ullrich who actually tested postive for doping, would be the winners. If you choose the best who never tested positive, then in the year 2000 you need to take the number 8, Escartin. But you then only have chosen someone who never tested positive, just like Armstrong. So you then still don't know if he would pass the test that Armstong didn't pass (i.e. can you can make a few cyclist testify against him). Also, if you declare the number 8 the Tour winner, you also need to strip the numbers 2 till 7 of their titles, to do that by the book requires a lot of investigations.

So, the UCI may simply decide that the Tour de France was never an official cycling event, none of the titles are then officially recognized. Count Iblis (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Luckily for us, we don't have to decide on any of that, nor do we need to speculate. Do that to your heart's content on other fora: here all we need to do is decide how best to present the encyclopaedic, long view facts. Which at the moment are clear: USADA considers his results since August 2012 null, UCI have not yet concluded on the matter. Which is what we have said. Kevin McE (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vindication for a total rewrite and approach to the article

Well after more than six years of bickering and obtuse by the Militant Wing of the Armstrong Protection Army, I seemed to have been proven right. Makes me annoyed to think that Wikipedia is run by editors who have a distinct POV about everything yet claim (like followers of all religions) that their actions are not based on prejudice but actually come from love.

This article - in light of the revelations - honours a cheat, a liar and a fraud and should be amended forthwith. No more pulling every conceivable rule off the rack to stop denigration of an American Golden Boy. He is not and never was! But LO the article keeps up the illusion he never did anything wrong. Just a little amendment to the unmentionable. It's tantamount to focusing on Hitler and his role as German Chancellor and adding a little aside about 6 million Jews. Sorry the fact that he is now a convicted drug cheat takes precedence over his "successes".

I feel so utterly, utterly vindicated now. But still the pretence goes on. Hmm I wonder who protected this article? Certainly not any European. Protection is conveyed by nationalist Americans who can't face the fact that if free editing was allowed, this article would reflect the global reality of such a person. Ever since 2006 when I first came here, these allegations have dogged Armstrong. But then the wiki lawyers had to work over time to keep all assertions out of this article. But now what? He's a cheat who will be stripped of all titles, making him what? An ex pro rider with nothing to his name except the infamy that he used performance enhancing drugs. This is not POV it's fact and wikipedia is not about the truth, as I care to remember. So get this article unprotected and let the real work begin. (BTW here is my extended finger to all of you who were either too stupid, too proud or too prejudiced to admit the inevitable)109.155.66.41 (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your mother must be very proud of you. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 11:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an opinion section. We wait until there is undeniable proof and confirmation before we edit things here. If you don't like it, I'm sorry but rules are rules. I also don't like the random bashing and almost hatred of religion and even Americans here. Be respectful of others please (WP:PERSONAL). Srsrox (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but we also need to remember that this site, as with any site, tracks what actually happened. Whether Armstrong retains those titles or not, it does an injustice to recorded history to remove mention of them either here or on the Tour De France page, same with any medals or awards he has been given. While the official record books of the organizations who gave those awards might be changed, it doesn't change the fact that he won or was awarded them.72.93.108.76 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should still call him a '7 Time winner' when he might have been taking drugs during one or more of those races?

Surely this is not really in line with the way things are done here, Nadzeya Astapchuk of Belarus, is not shown to have won the gold medal in 2012. The summary of her achievments clearly shows 'disqualified' in 2012, it does not say, "Gold medal, but later disqualified".

The same should de done here, you could mention that he took part in many Tour de France, but then he was disqualified. Not first FFMG (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that he won them, and then also mention that he was later disqualified. Calling him a 7 time winner isn't innaccurate, but I wouldn't be leading with it. You can reference the BCS Championship article here, where USC was the winner in 2004 and it was later vacated, but they are still listed as the winner of the game. Also, Ben Johnson's article still says that he won the 100m in 1988 and set a new World Record, both of which were later vacated.72.93.108.76 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been so many accusations of doping for so many time and by so many official institutions and journalists that not mentioning any in the first paragraph of this article, shows, in itself, a biased point of view. Lerichard (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One example out of many, I think it is hard to claim that "no allegations have ever been substantiated" unless you think that USADA's (and so many other's) investigations are baseless. Circumstantial testimonies do count as evidence, people are sent to the death row with only that. I suppose also that the phrasing "assorted journalists" is meant to pretend that there's a conspiracy against Armstrong. Etc. etc. Lerichard (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When was anybody ever sent to death row with only circumstantial testimonies? Every US case I know of, also included the presence of a dead body.Scuzzletop (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As i have said above, i think if and when the titles are stripped, and the various appeals have run their course, the wording and phrasing of the article should be discussed here between a number of editors from all sides of the fence (ie the fanboys and the haters to coin a phrase) and decision be made over the wording. As for the removal of titles, theres a certain amount of inconsistency on wikipedia. However, the best guideline would be the page of alberto contador. his 2010 tour de france title is not indicated on his info panel, and in his palmares, the 2010 to 2012 results are hidden behind a "voided results" tag. That to me would be the perfect situation. removed from the info box as he clearly would not be the 7 times tour de france winner, but left in his palmares hidden as voided results. Its not just about tour wins with Lance, its also about countless stage victories. There is certainly precedent that those stage victories will be handed to whoever finished 2nd, even though his tour de france titles may not be re-allocated. (i think its very likely those years will just be left empty on the records). But anyway, this is something that will need discussion prior to edit amongst several editors, in line and consistent with other articles on wikipedia, and once all the appeal processes have been exhausted Dimspace (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

USADA don't have jurisdiction to 'strip TdF wins', only the Sports Governing body (UCI) do, and perhaps in some part, the ASO. XyZAn (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, unless you have factual grounds for that, can people stop going on about juristriction. Yes, a national anti doping agency to have the authority to say they want all results stripped, and any other race organisation such as the uci who subscribe to the wada code are expected to comply. Please can people get out of their head all the nonsense PR put forward by the Lance camp regarding juristriction. HOWEVER, until it is confirmed by UCI, ASO etc that results have been stripped, they have not yet been and stop editing the damn page. Dimspace (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re: Wording of future changes to page in the event of titles being stripped

In the event that his Tour de France titles are stripped i propose the following wording for the opening paragraph which retains the fact he won seven tours, but also makes it clear that they were later voided. Also removing some irrelevant info regarding how he won the tour after having cancer

Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson; September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist who won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times but was later stripped of those titles, along with all other results gained since 1 August 1998, having been found guilty y a USADA panel of doping through his career.

Lance Armstrong is also the founder and chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation for cancer support. In October 1996 he was diagnosed as having testicular cancer with a tumor that had metastasized to his brain and lungs. His cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy, and his prognosis was originally poor.

In 1999, he was named the ABC Wide World of Sports Athlete of the Year. In 2000 he won the Prince of Asturias Award in Sports.[4] In 2002, Sports Illustrated magazine named him Sportsman of the Year. He was also named Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year for the years 2002–2005. He received ESPN's ESPY Award for Best Male Athlete in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality Award in 2003. Armstrong announced his retirement from racing on July 24, 2005, at the end of the 2005 Tour de France but returned to competitive cycling in January 2009 and finished third in the 2009 Tour de France. He confirmed he had retired from competitive cycling for good on February 16, 2011.[5]

In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) officially charged Armstrong with the consumption of illicit performance enhancing drugs,[6] based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists. On August 23, 2012, Armstrong announced that he would not be fighting the USADA's charges.[7] On August 24, 2012, USADA banned him from competing as well as disqualification of any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes.

regarding palamares, suggest that in the event of titles being stripped they be removed from the info bar but all other wording regarding the tours remain, and his career achievements page be edited in the same way as the Alberto Contador page with the relevent results being struck through, and hidden using a voided results tag. Dimspace (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Has someone removed the tour titles from the info box, only USADA do not have jurisidiction to void his tour results, only the UCI (and in part ASO) do. As far as I know the UCI haven't commented yet. XyZAn (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

UCI can't strip him of all his titles only the last ten years asproven in the 1996 Bjarne Riss case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.252.222 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats irrelevant to this section. This section i created purely to discuss future wording for the page in the event of titles stripped etc, so that if/when they are we dont have everyone battling over wording. If you wish to discuss the endless juristriction argument do it somewhere else :D Dimspace (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all so idiotic. The final wording will be that "he competed in the Tour de France from x - y". A title stripped is a title NEVER won. The guy's a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.124.14 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove one of the current event tags

I'm not sure which is more fitting, but there shouldn't be one for the whole article as well as a single section. I'm thinking the specific section is more appropriate. lukini (talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong have not won anything since August 1, 1998

As the article mentions he have been stripped from "any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prize." Therefore the article should not mention in the right (Major wins) that he won Tour de France and other event since August 1, 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.80.13 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But I watched the Tour de France and I saw him winning :). The number two's are people like Zulle and Ullrich who unlike Armstrong have tested positive for doping, against whom you can easily find a lot more damning evidence than against Armstrong. The numbers 2 to 6 are actually mostly far more problematic people than Armstrong ever was. So, if Armstrong did not win, then no one could have won. And if no one can be said to have won in some official sense, we can just as well say that Armstrong did finish first overall, but that Tour results are only recognized since, say, 2005. Count Iblis (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how on earth he managed to beat all these people who cheated by doping? Dave (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

it really doesnt matter who else was doping and who wasnt, (and its widely thought that the majority of the 99 peloton was clean with the exception of armstrong), if and when he is officially stripped of his race results the page will reflect that. But in the meantime we still wait confirmation from the UCI who are signatories to the WADA code that they will enforce the ban. until then, theres no point anyone speculating on it Dimspace (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)



Indeed, but then the UCI has already said they will study the evidence, so they will not take the USADA ruling face value. Then that could mean that they will reject the findings because they will likely place the USADA findings the context of what most other cyclists were doing. Otherwise you would get the silly result that would award titles to people who almost surely used doping are awarded titles just because someone who was almost surely clean couldn't prove his innocence.

Armstrong could win many times in a row without using doping because like Indurain, he had a superior cardiovascular system. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets see also who gets awards the wins (if any will be awarded) after Armstrong is stripped! It will look bad to give his titles to riders, who are even more in the doping swamp than he is. So patience before any edits! (also: Jan Ullrich should be semi-proteced to avoid people awarding him titles before any official announcement.) noclador (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is more in the doping swamp than Lance Armstrong is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.4.158 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw Ben Johnson win the 100m at the 1988 Olympics, and Marion Jones win several medals at the 2000 Olympics. Wikipedia articles routinely strip titles after the fact, regardless of what your eyes see. 108.243.202.52 (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And did you also see him say on T.V. that someone must have put Stanozolol in his tea? :) . Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Two words, folks -- Joe Paterno.The Invisible Man (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what shocked me, that they will strip him of everything since 1998! Lance has never had his day in court. Generally the accuser must must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case Armstrong must prove himself innocent outside a court of law. If anti-doping was so important in this sport then tests should have been taken, and if not then no foul, as everyone is on the same playing field. No positive results, no charges can be brought. Supposed witnesses are only hearsay. Test results are evidence which they don't have. We might as will strip every title from every athlete, as there is a possibility they took drugs. What is the obsession the USADA has with Armstrong? 71.218.254.85 (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, see also here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way is Armstrong's case different from Floyd Landis'? Kowalmistrz (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Floyd Landis was tested postive for doping. He then engaged with the doping authorities to argue why he was innocent. It is one thing to have the burden of proof on you to explain how your urine or blood sample containes traces of doping, it is quite another thing to have the burden of proof on you to prove wrong vague allegations of people who saw you take doping. Armstrong was required to do that, and the negative test results were considered to be insufficient evidence for him. So, the USADA was overruling negative test results on the basis of testimonies that they obtained under cirumstances that are not clear (the witnesses did not come to USADA themselves, they testified in exchange for reduced punishment for their positive test results, it is not clear what they were told about testimonies of other witnesses).

Obviously, there is then little Armstrong could have said that would change the mind of USADA. This points to another problem apart from the burden of proof. USADA acts as both the prosecutor and the judge. So, when Armstrong decided not to engage, the prosecutor passed its own prior judgment which automatically became the verdict. Count Iblis (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I clearly understand all your doubts about this case, but what anoyone thinks of it should not determine what we write here. It's just your and someone other's personal opinions. Kowalmistrz (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

guys guys guys. Wikipedia is neither a cycling forum, nor a blog. Wether or not Lance was given his day in court (which he was, twice and then declined the opportunity of further days) is irrelevant to the content of the page. And wether or not he tested positive (publicly) or not again is irrelevant. Marion Jones "never tested positive", there are also serious allegations made by USADA that positive tests were covered up by the UCI. We could go round and round in circles, 500 tests, 200 tests, never tested positive, tested positive for cortosteroids, and epo in 99, and testosterone in the nineties, bio passport discrepancies in the last few years and remember it was the UCI who created the bio passport to detect blood doping and move the burden of requiring a positive test result so that anti dopin agencies could have "analytical" positives. he had his chance of arbitration which had he done he could have then appealed any decision to teh court of arbitration for sport in switzerland. he chose not to. Dimspace (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Requesting a sentence in the upper part of the article be adjusted. From: Whether USADA actually has the legal authority to enforce their ruling, remains in question. To: Whether the USADA actually has the legal authority to enforce their ruling, remains in question. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

More balanced lede – Sponsors

With the addition of the phrase "Whether the USADA has the legal authority to enforce their ruling, remains in question." the lede is now much more balanced than previously (although it still does not reflect the complexity of the situation). Before this addition, it was given the impression that USADA was going to enforce the stripping of the titles within the next hours; that it was an irreversible course while the situation is not so simple. For instance, UCI's extremely cautious statement seems to reveal the Union's intention to cast doubts on USADA's jurisdiction ("As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code"). And IOC was even more cautious in its first reaction: "The IOC would have to consider decisions made by USADA and the UCI "before deciding its next steps."

It is characteristic that even WADA's head, John Fahey, in his ititial reaction to the case and when asked whether USADA had the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, he replied: “Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA.” He then of course made some more "strong" statements in favor of USADA's argumentation. However, I believe that his initial words keep their value and reveal the complexity of the whole situation, especially in terms of jurisdiction and decision-making competence. I repeat, WADA's head initially reacted to USADA's and Tygart's statements and claims by saying: “Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA.”

I also think that another issue that should be treated in the article is the fact that the main body of Armstrong's sponsors expressed their intention to continue supporting him. This is not what has happened in most doping cases, and I believe that its treating in the article would be useful.

Finally, I would also like to say that the Armstrong doping case could also be treated in a separate article due to its unique dimensions among all known doping cases (only the Ben Jhonson's case had enjoyed such a publicity, but it was less controversial and not so complicated, while it ended much quicker). The aspects of this case are various and worth-treating (jurisdiction, evidentiary process, federal, UCI and USADA procedures, other cyclists', trainers' and doctors' involvement, sponsors, idolization etc. etc.) and there is already a very rich material with columns/articles criticizing either Armostrong [6] [7] either USADA [8] [9] either both.

In most doping cases, the approach used to be black or white (usually "black" for the "cheater"). In this case, I see a grey area which IMO is worth treating.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you are not the judges here! The fact is that he was stripped of his career achievements and that's what we should refer to, only. Period. He is not the legendary Tour de France winner anymore. Very sad but true. Kowalmistrz (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

this line should NOT be there in its current form. It is speculative and the "opinion" of a handful of people, ie Lance and his closest allies. Theyve already argued the question of jursitriction in a court of law and had it rejected. Wikipedia is not an opinion peice, or a newspaper column. It is a straight reporting of facts, Its also not here to pass opinion as fact. If that line is to remain it should at least make it clear that this is Lance's opinion and not a fact. Something to the effect of "Armstrong has consistently maintained that USADA do not have the jurisdiction to strip him of his Tour de France wins" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

most of lances sponsors are sticking by him because he has financial stakes and shareholdings in most of them, sram, trek etc, and they all do very well out of livestrong events. Dimspace (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My friends, I am not the judge of anybody here and I do not defend anybody. The only thing I say is that WP should reflect facts. The facts until now are:

1. that Armstrong refused to defend himself in arbitration;
2. that he lost a fight in court, but the judge also fiercely criticized USADA for its motives;
3. that, following Armostrong's decision not to go to arbitration, USADA sanctioned Armstrong for life and said that it would take back all his titles;
4. that UCI and IOC issued cautious statement, where they say that they would wait for USADA's reasoned decision, in order to take their own decisions as regards Armstrong's respective titles;
5. that UCI, in its decision, seems to question USADA's jurisdiction;
6. that WADA's president stressed that Armstrong should be stripped from his titles, but he also said "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

So, who is speculative here? USADA? WADA? Armostrong? UCI? Everybody?! Of course, there is speculation from most sides in this case. The trick is to avoid, to overcome speculation and focus on facts and what we know for sure. And I am very sorry to say from the reactions to my initial comment that many people here believe that if somebody proposes something for the article then he/she must be an Armstrong opponent or defender. I am neither a fan nor an opponent! I don't care about either side of the "drama"! I just want the lede to be NPOV and to reflect facts, which IMO does not happen now.
Before the addition of this line the situation was worse, then it got a bit better, but now it gives again the impression that Armstrong and UCI presented some false claims which were then rejected by the all mighty Texas court!

• First of all, if there is an all mighty court in our case this is CAS and not any Texas judge (federal or not).
  
• Secondly, UCI in its official statement and in the link the last editor of the line used does not question USADA's jurisdiction. It opens the room for questioning by the wording it uses ("USADA claimed" "the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision"), but it does not yet question it.
• Thirdly (and maybe most importantly as regards the accurate presentation of events), the Texas judge did not reject Armstrong's claim as regards USADA's jurisdiction (with relation to UCI's jurisdiction) as the phrase now falsly implies. The judge rejected a lawsuit, because he argued that the US courts do not have jurisdiction, that, even if they had, USADA is the most competent and specialized organ to deal with the case and that he does not see any violation of Armstrong's constitutional rights. At least, this is what I read here, unless somebody has the full text of the ruling to read it.
  

Therefore, as it is written now, the phrase in question (and the paragraph as a whole) does not reflect facts; to the contrary, it falsely presents them and it is speculative (it speculates that UCI questioned or will question jurisdiction).
What do I propose? Write the last paragraph in a way that it reflects facts and not speculations from either side. Write the paragraph in a way that focuses on procedures and not speculative and unclear questions about jurisdiction.
How would I have written it? Like that:

• "In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) officially charged Armstrong with the consumption of illicit performance enhancing drugs,[6] based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and undisclosed testimonies from other cyclists. On August 23, 2012, and after the Texas district Court rejected his lawsuit against USADA, Armstrong announced that he would not be fighting the USADA's charges.[7] On August 24, 2012, the USADA said it would ban Armstrong for life and recommend that he be stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles.^[8][9] On August 24, 2012, and following Armstrong's decision not to proceed to an arbitration in order to fight the charges against him, USADA stated[10] that Armstrong was banned for life and would be disqualified from any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes. Later the same day, UCI and IOC stated that they would wait for USADA's reasoned decision, in order to decide on the forfeiture of Armstrong's medals and titles that fall within their competence.[12]"

The phrase I strike is obviously repetive and already covered by the next one. Finally, as regards sponsors, again I care about facts and not about anybody's motives! If most sponsors continue to support him, then I personally believe that it should be mentioned; it is a significant fact worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, since it is not the case in most doping cases. That's all!

• • The UCI maintains the record book and it has not acted to enforce any of the the USADA decision. Moreover, given the UCI's statements that the USADA lacks jurisdiction, it is doubtful that the UCI will ever enforce the decision absent a ruling by the worldwide Court of Arbitration for Sport in favor of the USADA. For the record, Armstrong remains officially the winner of seven Tour de France competititions, and the article should make that clear.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

THe court was also scathing of the uci commenting that USADA's desperation to prosecute lance was only matched by UCI's determination not to prosecute lance and he found that suspicious. There are no clear facts here, some of the allegations are that the UCI covered up positive tests so when they question USADA's juristriction we can hardly take that seriously. AS for sponsors, if you are going to say that his sponsors continue to support him then it needs to be made clear that he has financial stakes in Trek, Oakley, Nike, Stinger Bee, FRS, SRAM and others. The fact that he has stakeholdings in most of his sponsors and puts a lot of work their way via livestrong is definately worth noting and relevant. Dimspace (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

to follow on and answer your points that Armstrong refused to defend himself in arbitration;

agreed

that he lost a fight in court, but the judge also fiercely criticized USADA for its motives;

As well as critising the UCI and USAC and suggesting their behaviour was suspicious

that, following Armostrong's decision not to go to arbitration, USADA sanctioned Armstrong for life and said that it would take back all his titles;

agreed

that UCI and IOC issued cautious statement, where they say that they would wait for USADA's reasoned decision, in order to take their own decisions as regards Armstrong's respective titles;

agreed, although among the allegations that appear to have been made by USADA are that the UCI knowlingly covered up positive tests, and the then uci president Hein Verbruggen now at the IOC was complicit, so its very hard to take either side with total plausibility

that UCI, in its decision, seems to question USADA's jurisdiction;

agreed, but again it must be noted that one of the many accusations some of which are already public are the fact that the UCI knowingly covered up positive tests by Armstrong. Again, UCI can query all they like, but we cannot take the UCI's word as fact (just as until they release all the evidence) we cannot take USADA's word as fact.

that WADA's president stressed that Armstrong should be stripped from his titles, but he also said "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

doesnt really say much except wada think that the various agencies should support usada's decision.

Onto the sponsors, firstly its not unknown for sponsors/teams etc to stick by riders, contador retained his sponsors, valverde was even training in his team kit during his ban, floyd landis retained a lot of financial and sponsor support throughout his trial and onto his comeback, even Rasmussen was able to secure a personal sponsor who created an entire taem for him. So its not unknown, in fact with hi profile riders its fairly normal. What needs to be looked at with Lance is that many of his personal sponsors are also livestrong partners and make huge amounts of money through their associations with livestrong. Nike, make millions of dollars through merchandising (as does lance, as do livestrong) and even if Lance loses all his titles, his cycling career in tatters, livestrong will still continue to be supported. Are Nike supporting Lance, or are they supporting their very succesful financial relationship with the livestrong Brand. Other personal sponsors such as Oakley and Trek, again, benefit hugely from their association with the livestrong brand, and lance has financial intrests in both companies, they are supporting the "charity" and one of their shareholders. Stinger, who again Lance has a shareholding in, have exclusive rights to sell their range of energy products at Livestrong Challenge rides. Of course they are going to support their part owner and benefactor. The same with FRS, again, personal sponsor of Lance, again, corporate sponsors of Livestrong, again, Lance has a shareholding in the company, and again, they have exclusive rights to sell their products at Livestrong events.

Like everything with Lance there are no black and white areas. I can provide sources regarding the ownership and shareholdings there are but there is no need because i dont intend putting that information on his page. But to say he has full support of his sponsors, gives the impression that his sponsors think he is innocent and wiki are not here to give an impression, they are here to give facts. Yes you can argue that technically it is a fact that his sponsors have chosen to support him. It is also a fact that he has shareholdings in many of those companies and many if not all also have business relationships with Livestrong Dimspace (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the USADA has jurisdiction over this at all? IMO the only organization that has jurisdiction is the Amaury_Sport_Organisation, the ones who were actually affected by him using or not (Which by the way, he didn't). Maybe if there was a French wing of WADA they would have jurisdiction. No one else was involved, thus no one else can rule over this. Bluefist ^talk 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are competing arguments about whether or not the USADA has authority to strip Armstrong of his titles etc. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter. We just need to report on what actually happens, and then explain what happened and why. right now, we don't have those answers.LedRush ([[User talk:

|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your query clearly arises from the pathetic reportage of this story that acts as though the only race that Armstrong took part in in 14 years were the Tour de France. Your prejudiced assumptions don't particularly dispose me towards spending much time on your question, but yes there is a NADO in France (Agence française de lutte contre le dopage), as there is in most countries. Any sport with Olympic participation is obliged to sign up to the World Anti-Doping Code, and that code places authority for results management in the hands of the NADO that uncovers the use of banned substances. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Kevin has summed it up very well, but yes, this is a long established process regarding National Anti Doping Authorities and carry out testing and in some cases suspensions that are recognised by WADA. Other WADA members are then expected to fall into line with those decisions. Very few, in fact im struggling to think of any, cylists bans are actually implemented by the UCI, Contador, Spanish Federation, although UCI appealed the decision, Valverde, Italian federations, Whoops, Millar, French authorities, and in easch case the national NADO implemented the ban and all the wada signatories fell into line. The only time in 30 years following this sport I can remember an athlete every questioning a NADO's authority was Valverde saying that CONI had no jurisdiction over him. To be honest, if the UCI refused to rule with USADA it could change the sport as we know it. Battle lines would be drawn, WADA, NADO's and UCI with the IAF somewhere in between. Cyclings olympic participation would under threat (theres plenty at the IAF would love to see Verbruggen in trouble), and how much dissent would there be from the various anti doping organisations knowing that a precedent had been set where they could ban a rider and his governing body could overrule the ban and say nah, sorry. Would have huge ramifications for not just cycling, but all sports. Lance's one saving grace, is that with a breif exception during comeback 2.0 he barely raced in Italy so has no italian results to be expunged so RCS and CONI cant put their oar in. 99% of his results are under the ASO who are now so tightly involved with the UCI that they are almost one. But anyway, its all completely irrelevant, none of it matters as far as the wiki page entry goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say the current lead is a bit repetative though, no real need for it to talk about the uci requesting more info etc in both para 1 and para 3, lot of duplicate information in the space of three paragraphs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, ive changed the intro as it was making the same references to the doping allegations, dates and everything else in both paraghraph one and paragraph 3 which was needlessly repetative. Now though paragraph three looks far to weighty in comparison. Scrub that. Im going to undo my revision, but we need to look at the repetative nature of paras 1 and 3 and what infomation is then repeated again in the 2012 allegations section. Dimspace (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the recent edits – done mainly I think by Dimspace – the paragraph in question looks indeed much better now and definitely NPOV. It reflects quite accurately the actual events and gives the reader a fairly comprehensive idea about what happened. As regards the complicated issue of jurisdiction, I'll repeat what LedRush wrote above: focus on reporting the facts; this is the only way not to get trapped into an endless discussion about jurisdictions, which, after a certain point, becomes irrelevant.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

USADA have not recommended anything

USADA believe themselves to have jurisdiction on the matter: as far as they are concerned, they are competent in results management, and he has already been stripped of those titles. It would therefore be inconsistent of them to make this a recommendation. Does anyone have a source of them positing this as their suggestion/recommendation? We ought to be saying that USADA has declared his results void, but that the UCI challenges their authority to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mention above, UCI does not challenge anything yet; at least officialy. UCI's statement is crystall clear: They wait for USADA's reasoned decision and then they will decide what they will do. But the last paragraph of the lede is so badly written that it confuses instead of clarifying.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Only what the UCI decides to do matters. If, hypothetically, the UCI would say that it cannot accept the USADA ruling and they would also not accept any further arbitration, they would have effectively split off from the system. But then the Tour de France results would still fall under the UCI as they are in charge of it. The Tour de France would then have become a sport event that doesn't fall under the WADA anymore.

Although, you can then also imagine that the Tour director would decide to split off from the UCI and start a new organization that does fall under WADA. So ultimately, only the Tour director has the authority to remove Armstrong's Tour titles, the jurisdiction of other authorities only exists by agreement. If too much strain is put on the system, some parts of it may break away, cutting away the jurisdiction the other parts used to have. Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WADA to retroactively increase the statute of limitations to 14 years, retroactively

See here. So, USADA violated the 8 years statute of limitations, and to fix that one has to increase this to 14 years, allow this to be applied retroactively and allow a previous investigation conducted under the old statute of limitations to have retroactive validity under the new statute of limitations. WADA will do precisely this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a non op-ed piece to confirm this, rather than the cited rant? If so, it might be relevant for the article on WADA, but not here. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Current Team

Can this be deleted or edited? Livestrong dont have a UCI registered team unless you count the Bontrager/Livestrong development team. Lance rides as a individual but carries livestrong sponsorship. He is also part owner of the Radioshack team. But not sure how it ever became that livestrong was his current team?

Good spot: he retired from Radioshack in January 2011. No reason to believe that he has been a member of any UCI team since then. Not listed on UCI site as a member of Trek-Livestrong (2011) or Bontrager Livestrong (2012), and not on Bontrager site. Kevin McE (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doping in the United States

During a recent clean up of the doping articles I created the Doping in the United States page. I would be nice to see some effort on that page. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Armstrong case is not only the only cycling case mentioned on that page, but also has more information than all other specific cases in history added together. I am at a loss as to why you would want that article to be even more recentist and disproportionate than it already is. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very confused. The Armstrong case is the only cycling case mentioned in the Doping in the United States page. I started this thread to try and get editors over to the page to improve it. I am well aware of WP recentism (this article is case in point) and as my tagging of the article requesting expert help I am well aware of its faults. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely: not only is it the only cycling case, it is far more comprehensively covered than any other case.

Armstrong is overrepresented, and you are asking on the Armstrong page for people to add. If you want a broader cycling input, you would be better asking at WT:CYC or the talk page of List of doping cases in cycling (although the talk page of articles is not really the forum for drumming up contributors for other articles). Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, it's time to apologize for making incorrect assumptions concerning Alan, and to stop being so rude.LedRush (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made no assumption. He misinterpreted my phraseology, but otherwise agreed with me. Once he clarified his intent, I made a suggestion as to what might be a more fruitful hunting ground, but gave a gentle warning that some approaches might be seen as not in keeping with the purpose of article talk space. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

" Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court"

This doesn't seem correct, and it's not supported by the reference. Should it not read as follows? Armstrong challenged this United States District Court. 87.114.8.133 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please change "Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court" to "Armstrong challenged this United States District Court." 87.114.8.133 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done, but not by me; I'm simply closing the edit request. If there are any questions as to the details of the edit actually made please take that up with Frank (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please replace
"Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court"
with
"Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court"

The assertion that he attempted to challenge it in the Supreme Court is not suported by the references. This is a BLP. 87.114.8.133 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This was done over an hour before you posted here. And the post above yours describes how it was done.LedRush (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The first request was for a different edit, which was reverted without discussion, and without providing the required citation. Hence this new request to add {{citation needed}} . 87.114.8.133 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to anything "supreme" in the article.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry I must have misread the history because my initial request was partially, but not fully, implemented. I'll close the existing requests to avoid conclusion, and open a new one below.

•  Done Per your request.LedRush (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The text as it stands is
"Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in federal court".
That needs tidying up because he either made the challenge or he didn't. After he made the challenge he couldn't unmake it later. Please change the text to:
" Armstrong challenged this in the federal court" 87.114.8.133 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

SUCH a good example of why wikipedia will never replace reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.4 (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia has always required reliable sources. I know of no discussion that would seriously suggest Wikipedia try to replace them, and to do so would change the essence of what Wikipedia is about. As for this page being an "example", actually every single page in this encyclopedia is an example - they all require reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)