ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th September 2012, 03:38 PM   #321
Laeke
Critical Thinker
 
Laeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 443
OK sorry to turns this into a monologue but I bumped into this thread after the media storm.

Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Liggett has always been very vocal about his anger towards riders using drugs in the sport. So if Liggett thinks Armstrong was clean......thats good enough for me
The impartialy of Liggett is called into doubt. I don't think he ever hid that he was close to Armstrong. And it does seems (although not very publicized) that he may have invested in an Ugandan gold mine along his co-commentator which runs the whole thing. The same one Armstrong has/had(?) a share in.

He was a paid speaker for Livestrong, it seems as well.

Cycling reporters being more or less willingly (or selectively) blind to the problem would not be a first to be fair.

(The african gold mine thing is way less common, and a great colourful detail, I'll say.)
__________________
"The idea of justice is not a result of the social pact, as some pretended ; on the contrary, it is the very foundation of society" Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, Essay on diplomacy

Last edited by Laeke; 13th September 2012 at 03:44 PM.
Laeke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2012, 09:15 AM   #322
Laeke
Critical Thinker
 
Laeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 443
A pretty interesting (albeit short) interview with two riders that were at USPS in 1997 but "didn't has what it takes" to make it in the elite:
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/ore...n_can_380.html

(MP3 file, 12mn approx.)
__________________
"The idea of justice is not a result of the social pact, as some pretended ; on the contrary, it is the very foundation of society" Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, Essay on diplomacy
Laeke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 06:29 AM   #323
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
I'm delighted that at long last Armstrong has been finally dealt with. It's been a long time coming. I picked him out as dirty back in 2000 & he's been a corrosive influence on cycling for far too long.

There are a number of bizarre delusions flying around this thread.

1) USADA have no jurisdiction over Armstrong & can't strip him of his titles

Wrong. USADA had carriage of Armstrong's nefarious activities as soon as he applued for a racing licence from US Cycling. US Cycling is a signatory to the WAD Code. USADA is empowered to enforce the WAD code by WADA. The UCI has no choice but to take action now Armstrongs thrown in the towel.

2) No positives = not guilty.

Again wrong. Both WADA & USADA have provisions in their regulations vis a vis compelling witness based evidence. As well organised & financed dopers evade positive results (that's the point!) this in entirely logical. On a broader scale it makes sense. If kill someone in front of say 10 witnesses but manage to clean up the physical evidence am I beyond justice? of course not.

3) The 500 + tests.

So says Armstrong. The reality is around 150 & maybe less.

4) The 8 year limitation period.

Armstrong's mistake was to stage his '08 comeback. That set the clock back to zero. Furthermore, he was also charged with running a doping Conspiracy.

5) Everyone else was doing it so Armstrong's doping doesn't matter.

Moral relativism. No one should have been doping.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 06:41 AM   #324
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,550
Can they recover the prize money though? What about the sponsorship as well? If he gets to keep the loot, it will have been worth it in the end.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 08:00 AM   #325
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Can they recover the prize money though? What about the sponsorship as well? If he gets to keep the loot, it will have been worth it in the end.

Rolfe.
Dunno about the prize money - that was awarded in France which isn't my jurisdiction. However, there is scope for The Times to revisit the libel settlement make back in 2006. SCA Promotions may want to have a pop at him as well.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...l-Service.aspx

I think he may have a real problem with SCA. Getting a $5 million payout by winning a bike race 'clean' when you were actually doped up to the gills is fraud isn't it? That's a crime isn't it?
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 08:13 AM   #326
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,550
But was there any explicit stipulation that he had to win it clean? That may be the legal stumbling block.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 08:19 AM   #327
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
But was there any explicit stipulation that he had to win it clean? That may be the legal stumbling block.

Rolfe.
Yes, hence the arbitration. 'Morals' clauses are quite standard in these types of contract.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 11:38 AM   #328
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 8,310
Originally Posted by gtm View Post
...
1) USADA have no jurisdiction over Armstrong & can't strip him of his titles

Wrong. USADA had carriage of Armstrong's nefarious activities as soon as he applued for a racing licence from US Cycling. US Cycling is a signatory to the WAD Code. USADA is empowered to enforce the WAD code by WADA. The UCI has no choice but to take action now Armstrongs thrown in the towel.

..
What has been claimed in this thread is that USADA does not have the power to strip titles from participants in the Tour de France directly. Who in this this thread has said anything different? Perhaps unintentionally, I think you created a strawman to disagree with. The original news reports suggested that USADA would strip Armstrong of his titles. Several people were skeptical that the USADA had the power to directly do something like this and it looks like they were correct. The USADA doesn't have the power to directly strip Armstrong's titles.

UCI seems to think they are the entity that can strip Armstrong of his titles and they don't seem to think they have no choice in this matter. They have stated that they aren't going to do anything until they get more information from the USADA and they have said they will review the information and make a decision. Does UCI know they have no choice in this matter? Do you know that issues like statutes of limitations that USADA seems to have violated with regard to this matter can not be considered by the UCI? What is your level of expertise with regard to the agreement between UCI and the USADA that makes you think that the UCI has no options in this matter? In the end it is the UCI that has the power to make decisions with regard to stripping people of Tour de France titles and I am skeptical that you know what they are going to do with regard to this matter.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 17th September 2012 at 11:40 AM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2012, 01:00 PM   #329
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
What has been claimed in this thread is that USADA does not have the power to strip titles from participants in the Tour de France directly. Who in this this thread has said anything different? Perhaps unintentionally, I think you created a strawman to disagree with. The original news reports suggested that USADA would strip Armstrong of his titles. Several people were skeptical that the USADA had the power to directly do something like this and it looks like they were correct. The USADA doesn't have the power to directly strip Armstrong's titles.

UCI seems to think they are the entity that can strip Armstrong of his titles and they don't seem to think they have no choice in this matter. They have stated that they aren't going to do anything until they get more information from the USADA and they have said they will review the information and make a decision. Does UCI know they have no choice in this matter? Do you know that issues like statutes of limitations that USADA seems to have violated with regard to this matter can not be considered by the UCI? What is your level of expertise with regard to the agreement between UCI and the USADA that makes you think that the UCI has no options in this matter? In the end it is the UCI that has the power to make decisions with regard to stripping people of Tour de France titles and I am skeptical that you know what they are going to do with regard to this matter.
The limitation period is not relevant. By throwing in the towel when he did Armstrong conceded guilt for an ongoing conspiracy from 1998 through to date. He's admitted he never stopped breaking the anti doping regulations so there is no period to limit.

look at the USADA charging letter (see page 6 especially) herewith:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...262704154.html

This is the wording of Article 17 of the WADA code that deals with limitation:

No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other
Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code
unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from
the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.

As far as I can there is no legal problem with charging him with the conspiracy violations as he was 'at it' well within the 8 year period. As I said in a previous post he should have skipped the come back

Expertise? I'm a lawyer & more than capable of getting a fair handle on this kind of material.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 11:34 AM   #330
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,372
Bumping with a USADA statement:

Quote:
Today, we are sending the ‘Reasoned Decision’ in the Lance Armstrong case and supporting information to the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC). The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.

The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants’ doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.

Together these different categories of eyewitness, documentary, first-hand, scientific, direct and circumstantial evidence reveal conclusive and undeniable proof that brings to the light of day for the first time this systemic, sustained and highly professionalized team-run doping conspiracy. All of the material will be made available later this afternoon on the USADA website at www.usada.org.

The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices. A program organized by individuals who thought they were above the rules and who still play a major and active role in sport today.

The evidence demonstrates that the ‘Code of Silence’ of performance enhancing drug use in the sport of cycling has been shattered, but there is more to do. From day one, we always hoped this investigation would bring to a close this troubling chapter in cycling’s history and we hope the sport will use this tragedy to prevent it from ever happening again.
...
http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html


ETA: apparently the report has been leaked, so you can get an peek before its up on the USADA website:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 10th October 2012 at 11:45 AM.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 12:57 PM   #331
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
I've read the edited highlights. Damning. Armstrong has had his **** handed to him.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 01:19 PM   #332
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by gtm View Post
I've read the edited highlights. Damning. Armstrong has had his **** handed to him.
I disagree. The vast majority (and, according to the Reasoned Decision, the "most critical") of the evidence was the testimony of his former teammates. There is evidence that these teammates, all of whom had a financial interest in cooperating with the USADA.

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 01:41 PM   #333
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,803
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I disagree. The vast majority (and, according to the Reasoned Decision, the "most critical") of the evidence was the testimony of his former teammates. There is evidence that these teammates, all of whom had a financial interest in cooperating with the USADA.

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.

The entire document is a fabrication because the USADA has a vendetta against Armstrong? All 202 pages?

Not just use of, but trafficking in PEDs and doping paraphenalia?

Everyone involved is lying to "get" Lance Armstrong?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 01:48 PM   #334
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
The entire document is a fabrication because the USADA has a vendetta against Armstrong? All 202 pages?

Not just use of, but trafficking in PEDs and doping paraphenalia?

Everyone involved is lying to "get" Lance Armstrong?
Not sure how you got that from what I said, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

No, no, no, and no.
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 01:50 PM   #335
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,803
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Not sure how you got that from what I said, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

No, no, no, and no.
Okay. I totally misinterpreted what you wrote.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 01:52 PM   #336
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
The entire document is a fabrication because the USADA has a vendetta against Armstrong? All 202 pages?

Not just use of, but trafficking in PEDs and doping paraphenalia?

Everyone involved is lying to "get" Lance Armstrong?

Not quite, according to Armstrong's lawyer they're doing it because they are paid shills for big tobacco, who fear the power of cancer Jesus.
Originally Posted by Timothy Herman (Lances Lawyer)
It points to an impending "farce" with the release of the USADA report "written by USADA with the significant assistance of lawyers from one of Big Tobacco's favorite law firms at a time when Lance Armstrong is one of America's leading anti-tobacco advocates. While USADA can put lipstick on a pig, it still remains a pig."
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 01:57 PM   #337
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,803
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Not quite, according to Armstrong's lawyer they're doing it because they are paid shills for big tobacco, who fear the power of cancer Jesus.
Okay, that's more reasonable.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 02:04 PM   #338
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sp...anted=all&_r=0

Quote:
Armstrong played a key role by doping, supplying doping products and demanding that his top teammates dope so he could be successful.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 02:13 PM   #339
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I disagree. The vast majority (and, according to the Reasoned Decision, the "most critical") of the evidence was the testimony of his former teammates. There is evidence that these teammates, all of whom had a financial interest in cooperating with the USADA.

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.
Why the need for a positive test? You can convict a killer of murder without a corpse. In any case there are positive tests.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Not quite, according to Armstrong's lawyer they're doing it because they are paid shills for big tobacco, who fear the power of cancer Jesus.
The big tobacco argument is laughable & pathetic at the same time.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 04:07 PM   #340
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,813
What's more likely: Lance Armstrong beats cheaters and so everyone's out to get him because he's a winner, OR he wins by cheating and they're out to get frauds. I think the former, which is the same reason why everyone hates America. Because we're better than you.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 04:38 PM   #341
Dani
Graduate Poster
 
Dani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 1,399
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
What's more likely: Lance Armstrong beats cheaters and so everyone's out to get him because he's a winner, OR he wins by cheating and they're out to get frauds. I think the former, which is the same reason why everyone hates America. Because we're better than you.
So now we know why Armstrong is innocent.

Because USA is better than you, you America hater (including USADA)!

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion (I'm not well informed over this issue) but somehow I didn't find your argument compelling enough.
Dani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 05:42 PM   #342
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,813
Good point. Why does the USADA hate America?
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 05:50 PM   #343
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
 
RedRatSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.
I totally Agree ~

Never fails to surprise me what people will come up with if they have a problem with someone or something. Now even testing is not good enough.

Tim
RedRatSnake is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 06:06 PM   #344
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víđarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 44,756
If all those guys who were on 'performance enhancing' drugs were yet unable to keep from being utterly dominated, for the better part of a decade, by Armstrong, who ostensibly was not on them, then why should we care whether anyone takes the drugs anyway? They obviously don't work as advertised.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 06:15 PM   #345
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
 
RedRatSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
They obviously don't work as advertised.
I guess they didn't take enough.

Tim ~ LOL
RedRatSnake is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2012, 06:20 PM   #346
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 29,125
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
Bumping with a USADA statement:


http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html


ETA: apparently the report has been leaked, so you can get an peek before its up on the USADA website:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision
In case anyone can't access that link for any reason: http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral...ggest-in-sport
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 05:21 AM   #347
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,803
Originally Posted by Slocie's View Post
I totally Agree ~

Never fails to surprise me what people will come up with if they have a problem with someone or something. Now even testing is not good enough.

Tim
Yes. When testing for PEDs began in earnest, there was a problem and the solution was masking agents.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 06:48 AM   #348
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
I've read the full 202 page reasoned decision & some of the affadavits. Armstrong was doped to the gills throughout his career & anyone who disputes has lost command of their rational faculties. This evidence is overwhelming.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 07:18 AM   #349
Peephole
Master Poster
 
Peephole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
What's more likely: Lance Armstrong beats cheaters and so everyone's out to get him because he's a winner, OR he wins by cheating and they're out to get frauds. I think the former, which is the same reason why everyone hates America. Because we're better than you.
You're incredibly naive if you truly believe that pretty much the whole top ten of the Tour de France was doped up, except the one guy that was first. Especially considering Armstrong didn't "just win", no he was miles ahead of his competitors.

Luckily we finally don't have to make these assumptions anymore since the USADA got his former teammates to talk.
__________________
Peephole is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 07:20 AM   #350
Laeke
Critical Thinker
 
Laeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 443
The fixation on tests as an end-all be-all in antidoping is really weird. I may have already said it, but you know who "never" (even though in Armstrong case, even that is not that absolute) tested positive? The immense majority of East-German athletes, despite being juiced since their childhood. The BALCO case -Marion Jones never tested positive- (or the multiple ones in cycling) only demonstrated that even recently a medium-sized doping operation was able to run circles around most traditional tests.
Tests are and always were pretty lousy counter-measures to doping. The big scandals were brought upon when the relevant authorities investigated institutionalized doping.
__________________
"The idea of justice is not a result of the social pact, as some pretended ; on the contrary, it is the very foundation of society" Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, Essay on diplomacy

Last edited by Laeke; 11th October 2012 at 07:25 AM.
Laeke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 07:37 AM   #351
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Laeke View Post
The fixation on tests as an end-all be-all in antidoping is really weird. I may have already said it, but you know who "never" (even though in Armstrong case, even that is not that absolute) tested positive? The immense majority of East-German athletes, despite being juiced since their childhood. The BALCO case -Marion Jones never tested positive- (or the multiple ones in cycling) only demonstrated that even recently a medium-sized doping operation was able to run circles around most traditional tests.
Tests are and always were pretty lousy counter-measures to doping. The big scandals were brought upon when the relevant authorities investigated institutionalized doping.
+ 1

The whole point of well funded & organised doping programs is enhance performance & avoid positive tests. Armstrong paid Dr Ferrari over $1 million in a 10 year. That buys plenty of negative results. The WADA code acknowledges this & provides for non scientific evidence.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 08:00 AM   #352
Le Jab
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 57
What I fail to comprehend is that in the face of pretty convincing evidence, there are those who still choose to stick their fingers in their ears and hum. Armstrong has obviously achieved iconic status in the US, and I presume the reason people are finding it difficult to accept that he is a liar and cheat is because of his incredible sporting feats and charity work. My guess is Armstrong will eventually have to confess his guilt, admit he was lying all these years, do the talk show circuit and ask for forgiveness. It seems after all those years thinking he wasnt, he is human after all.
Le Jab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 08:55 AM   #353
Croydon Bob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 468
Originally Posted by Le Jab View Post
What I fail to comprehend is that in the face of pretty convincing evidence, there are those who still choose to stick their fingers in their ears and hum. Armstrong has obviously achieved iconic status in the US, and I presume the reason people are finding it difficult to accept that he is a liar and cheat is because of his incredible sporting feats and charity work. My guess is Armstrong will eventually have to confess his guilt, admit he was lying all these years, do the talk show circuit and ask for forgiveness. It seems after all those years thinking he wasnt, he is human after all.
+1

there is a multitude of layers of evidence. Including, for instance, the financial records of the money moving around to pay for the dope, the ingredients, the bribes, etc.

This is (a bit) like smoking, climate change or perhaps even evolution. It is reasonable and understandable to be skeptical at first, but there comes a point where there is just too much evidence. The alternative is a conspiracy of epic proportions; perhaps not as large as the imaginary 911 or Moon landings conspiracies, but bigger than any real conspiracy has ever managed (as far as we know).
__________________
Gorgeous George Galloway: "The Holocaust is the greatest crime in human history"
Croydon Bob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 08:58 AM   #354
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,761
Originally Posted by Le Jab View Post
What I fail to comprehend is that in the face of pretty convincing evidence, there are those who still choose to stick their fingers in their ears and hum.
While I will admit that I do this, it is not because I don't believe that Armstrong, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, etc did some sort of doping, it's because I don't care. I absolutely don't.

Mainly, because I find the distinction between "not allowed" "performance enhancing drugs" and "allowed" PEDs to be silly. You know what the most commonly used PED is in baseball? Ibuprofen. Ask a pitcher, they will tell you the day after pitching, they can barely move their arm until they take some motrin. Ibuprofen allows them to do training that they would not be able to do without it.

Curt Schilling was a hero because he shot up his ankle with cortisol to allow him to go out and pitch. He couldn't have pitched well without it. It enhanced his performance.

But these are allowed PEDs.

I don't care.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 10:15 AM   #355
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,233
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
While I will admit that I do this, it is not because I don't believe that Armstrong, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, etc did some sort of doping, it's because I don't care. I absolutely don't.

Mainly, because I find the distinction between "not allowed" "performance enhancing drugs" and "allowed" PEDs to be silly. You know what the most commonly used PED is in baseball?
Baseball isn't a useful comparison as it doesn't really follow the same standards with regards to drugs that more international sports do.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 11:40 AM   #356
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,761
Originally Posted by geni View Post
Baseball isn't a useful comparison as it doesn't really follow the same standards with regards to drugs that more international sports do.
Is there anything, anywhere, where ibuprofen is prohibited?

Neither of the things I mentioned is prohibited by the WADA.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 12:43 PM   #357
Le Jab
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 57
There is a difference. Ibuprofen and cortisone will allow the human body to perform at its best level as determined/limited by an athletes natural physiology. EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone all take an individuals genetic blueprint and push it beyond what would be physically possible outside of a good diet and training regimen.
Le Jab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2012, 08:04 PM   #358
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,468
Originally Posted by Le Jab View Post
There is a difference. Ibuprofen and cortisone will allow the human body to perform at its best level as determined/limited by an athletes natural physiology. EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone all take an individuals genetic blueprint and push it beyond what would be physically possible outside of a good diet and training regimen.
There's another difference, and one I think is ultimately more important: all sports depend on arbitrary rules that are very well spelled out. If your sport says you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, then you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, period. There is no more argument really than there would be if you said you want four strikes this time around, or a motor on your bicycle. Everyone knows the rules, and if some decide to take a chance, it's their chance. If some get away with it and others don't, it's too bad, but it's still the same chance, the same cheat.

I was something of a Lance holdout, hoping he had somehow managed to do his thing clean, or to be so smart that he found performance enhancers that were at least not technically illegal. Doesn't look so good now. Too bad, 'twas a long shot anyway.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2012, 04:28 AM   #359
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,761
Originally Posted by Le Jab View Post
There is a difference. Ibuprofen and cortisone will allow the human body to perform at its best level as determined/limited by an athletes natural physiology.
No.

Curt Schilling's body was NOT ABLE TO PERFORM because his ankle was too sore.

How is that not his "natural physiology"?

As I said, it's an artificial distinction.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2012, 04:45 AM   #360
Dani
Graduate Poster
 
Dani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 1,399
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
There's another difference, and one I think is ultimately more important: all sports depend on arbitrary rules that are very well spelled out. If your sport says you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, then you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, period. There is no more argument really than there would be if you said you want four strikes this time around, or a motor on your bicycle. Everyone knows the rules, and if some decide to take a chance, it's their chance. If some get away with it and others don't, it's too bad, but it's still the same chance, the same cheat.

I was something of a Lance holdout, hoping he had somehow managed to do his thing clean, or to be so smart that he found performance enhancers that were at least not technically illegal. Doesn't look so good now. Too bad, 'twas a long shot anyway.
This is what I was about to say. More or less arbitrary (anyway, you'll always have to set the bar somewhere) there are rules, so the problem here is not why the rules are the way they are, but the fact that someone, knowing the rules, cheated, going to great lenghts not to be caught. "The rules are arbitrary, so I don't care if people cheat" sounds a lot like a subterfuge in order to not admit that what Armstrong allegedly did is morally wrong.
Dani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.