Excellent read

[bobswire]

Quote: We highlight a number of well-known examples in pro cycling to illustrate this argument:

- Although many might point to the USADA Reasoned Decision and the “Armstrong affair” as the death knell of the modern doping era, this case itself actually illustrates many of the problems with current anti-doping approaches. We are by no means Armstrong apologists, but we must question the inconsistencies of holding one person (or a few people) responsible for the sins of a whole generation, and more importantly, what this kind of witch hunt implies for the overall nature of competitive sports. Why have Armstrong’s Tour de France victories been revoked, while those of other well-known dopers’ victories remain intact? How far down the list of top finishers during the Armstrong years does one have to go to find a certifiably clean rider? It is well known by now that most of the runners-up during those years also had undeniable doping connections. Why has this punishment and sense of moral outrage not extended back to Anquetil, or to Merckx — who also tested positive for drugs three times in his career? We do not condone doping, but we believe that it basically spells the end of competitive sport if we insist on erasing victories when, at any point in the future, it may be found out that the winner was cheating. Cheating has always been part and parcel of sport, and we have to find a way to live with it and try to moderate it in order to maintain any competitive structure for elite sport at all.

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/09/news/anti-doping-cure-worse-disease_346334#2ZACt0QdX7bFgwFj.99

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/09/news/anti-doping-cure-worse-disease_346334

[sw3759]

i read that earlier today as well.interesting perspecitve i guess.some of their decisions in the past didn't make alot of sense to me either.i still think at some point in time they'll reinstate LA's wins.not that i care either way but it makes no sense to keep all the others and only take the years he won off the list

[cnighbor1]

If one reverses Armstrong you get Strong Arm which is what Lance did.

[rain dogs]

You cannot question punishing someone who broke the rules because others got away with it. Armstrong got sanctioned to the rules, others sometimes get under-sanctioned, LA did not get over-sanctioned.

I'm a fan of Valverde, who I mention because he was sanctioned and sat out for two years and had numerous results voided over the Operation Puerto affair. 60+ other cyclists got nothing. Does that mean Valverde didn't deserve his sanction? Of course not, he deserved to sit and he did. Done.

Armstrong being responsible for the "sins of a generation" is the most bias and hyperbolic line of thinking in the whole doping debate.

Armstrong was sanctioned, deservedly, for admitting to a career of doping, and multiple infractions, multiple positives, that demand a lifetime ban, by the rules he agreed to holding a UCI license at that time.

Why don't we start crying for Danilo DiLuca? Save your tears.

Here's a question. If LA's violations don't constitute a lifetime ban, then what the heck would? If you can't ban him for life, you can't ban anyone for life... why even have the rule if you can't impliment a lifetime ban?

[bobswire]

The Outer Line Report

http://www.theouterline.com/anti-doping-is-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease/

[etu]

doesn't leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling, but it was interesting to read
makes you wish things were just simpler

[CunegoFan]

You cannot question punishing someone who broke the rules because others got away with it.

You can when those rules were never meant to be followed in the first place. There was not a single person in pro cycling who did not know Armstrong and all the riders he competed against were doping. All the riders knew. All the teams' staff knew. All the race promoters knew. The national federations knew. The international union knew. All the cycling media knew. All the serious fans knew. The only naive people were newly minted fans and the non-cycling media.

There was an understanding in cycling that doping was an accepted practice. The only issue was pretending to outsiders that it was not. Hence the sport ended up with a policy of scapegoating the few who were publicly exposed and protecting those who were not. The end result is a sordid mess of capricious and arbitrary differences in how riders are treated.

What takes the biscuit is USADA giving its stamp of approval to self-serving witnesses who blame their own doping on other people. Good ol' Vandevelde. "The evil Bruyneel and Armstrong made me dope. I didn't want to. They made me. After that I went to ride for those paragons of team virtue, Liberty Seguros and CSC."

[jr59]

You cannot question punishing someone who broke the rules because others got away with it. Armstrong got sanctioned to the rules, others sometimes get under-sanctioned, LA did not get over-sanctioned.

I'm a fan of Valverde, who I mention because he was sanctioned and sat out for two years and had numerous results voided over the Operation Puerto affair. 60+ other cyclists got nothing. Does that mean Valverde didn't deserve his sanction? Of course not, he deserved to sit and he did. Done.

Armstrong being responsible for the "sins of a generation" is the most bias and hyperbolic line of thinking in the whole doping debate.

Armstrong was sanctioned, deservedly, for admitting to a career of doping, and multiple infractions, multiple positives, that demand a lifetime ban, by the rules he agreed to holding a UCI license at that time.

Why don't we start crying for Danilo DiLuca? Save your tears.

Here's a question. If LA's violations don't constitute a lifetime ban, then what the heck would? If you can't ban him for life, you can't ban anyone for life... why even have the rule if you can't impliment a lifetime ban?

You can when those rules were never meant to be followed in the first place. There was not a single person in pro cycling who did not know Armstrong and all the riders he competed against were doping. All the riders knew. All the teams' staff knew. All the race promoters knew. The national federations knew. The international union knew. All the cycling media knew. All the serious fans knew. The only naive people were newly minted fans and the non-cycling media.

There was an understanding in cycling that doping was an accepted practice. The only issue was pretending to outsiders that it was not. Hence the sport ended up with a policy of scapegoating the few who were publicly exposed and protecting those who were not. The end result is a sordid mess of capricious and arbitrary differences in how riders are treated.

What takes the biscuit is USADA giving its stamp of approval to self-serving witnesses who blame their own doping on other people. Good ol' Vandevelde. "The evil Bruyneel and Armstrong made me dope. I didn't want to. They made me. After that I went to ride for those paragons of team virtue, Liberty Seguros and CSC."


Both of these are good points. The punishment must fit the crime and be level across the board. I'm not sure this has been the case in the LA case. The article makes that point very clearly.

[1centaur]

The trouble with the thrust of the piece is that it lists the problems, which is easy to do, while avoiding the solutions, which are hard. It's navel gazing, and as such is in some ways more appropriate for forum chat than professorial papers.

Inconsistency in sentencing is part of the criminal justice system too. In exchange for reduced terms, lower level criminals rat out upper level criminals who are viewed as more important by prosecutors for various reasons. You gotta break eggs to make omelets, and in this case the omelet is doping in cycling. If you don't nail Armstrong you don't send the message that the ones who benefit the most are most likely to lose it all. To the extent doping is down, the messiness has worked.

I can't even guess how the professors think things should be regarding the record books. Not caught by the end of the Tour, books closed? 1 year?

The one element that is worth exploring is, interestingly, the one on evidence in the Goodell press conference today and in media reaction to that. Goodell has figured out that there needs to be a clear and transparent process that's fair to players and fair to the league, and he's smart enough (I think) to know he should not only not just invent it himself but that his singular role was part of the problem in the first place. I hope the NFL recognizes this is not a domestic violence issue it's a due process, clear consequences issue for all crimes that might reflect badly on the business of the NFL. There are a 1001 crimes that the league could be dealing with and domestic violence is just one. Creating an extra-legal process that's fair for everyone is going to take time and debate, and I hope the league is better for it.

But the bloodthirsty mob wants him to resign more than they seem to care about where the NFL is heading. It's not like he condones domestic violence, he just didn't explode in horror at the original Ray Rice news to the extent that some would have liked. He followed whatever process there was (whim? hard to tell), which was grossly insufficient, which he admits. But do we want the system to nuke players on domestic violence accusations but not B&E, dope dealing, drunk driving, A&B, etc? I hope not. So anybody who replaces Goodell would have to follow the exact same path he's set out on. Resignation would only be predicated on the presumed character flaw that led to an insufficient reaction to a single incident? People in glass houses...

And so in cycling, do we want a system where the UCI is Roger Goodell, randomly pursuing and punishing whatever the zeitgeist wants that year, or should we have a predictable, transparent process that leads to consistent outcomes in rapid fashion? I think the system is more predictable than it was, though way too slow. Just as many would take the process out of Roger Goodell's hands I think it would be better to take it out of the UCI's hands in cycling, because each is conflicted on the money issue. Courts are not political (we would like to think) for a reason. Impartiality is vital. I would like to think the NFL's process is worth studying by the UCI, assuming it is not either a whitewash or a PC submission.

I may be too idealistic. Fairness for all in a human institution is more dream than reality.

[jr59]

No! I want Goodell to live to the standards he has set forth in the past. He didn't answer the reporters question when it was asked today. The question about the Saints. The head coach Sean Patton said he didn't know about bounty gate and was told he should have known. He was suspended along with the GM for a whole year.

But now, just like UCI, it will be selective enforcement. Just like always.

[tiretrax]

How about this for an analogy - SMU football. They've never recovered from the "death penalty" they received in the 80's. Was it fair - under the rules, yes. Was it equal to other teams - not even close. What's worse is how so many universities have had minor penalties when caught for the same infractions and academic cheating in the same timeframe.

Personally, I don't think a lifetime ban was warranted for LA. I would have issued a long one, however - probably 15 years. If ASO is going to revoke his victories, it needs to be consistent in dealing with all the dopers and revoke plenty more titles from the 70's through the 90's.

[don compton]

you cannot question punishing someone who broke the rules because others got away with it. Armstrong got sanctioned to the rules, others sometimes get under-sanctioned, la did not get over-sanctioned.

I'm a fan of valverde, who i mention because he was sanctioned and sat out for two years and had numerous results voided over the operation puerto affair. 60+ other cyclists got nothing. Does that mean valverde didn't deserve his sanction? Of course not, he deserved to sit and he did. Done.

Armstrong being responsible for the "sins of a generation" is the most bias and hyperbolic line of thinking in the whole doping debate.

Armstrong was sanctioned, deservedly, for admitting to a career of doping, and multiple infractions, multiple positives, that demand a lifetime ban, by the rules he agreed to holding a uci license at that time.

Why don't we start crying for danilo diluca? Save your tears.

Here's a question. if la's violations don't constitute a lifetime ban, then what the heck would? if you can't ban him for life, you can't ban anyone for life... Why even have the rule if you can't impliment a lifetime ban?
amen!!!!!!!

[tv_vt]

So if you get pulled over by a cop for driving 75, along with basically the whole population of greater Boston, you can get off by claiming others should have been ticketed too, cuz everyone was speeding?

Let me know how that turns out for you...

[CunegoFan]

So if you get pulled over by a cop for driving 75, along with basically the whole population of greater Boston, you can get off by claiming others should have been ticketed too, cuz everyone was speeding?

Let me know how that turns out for you...

Try basketball. The officials don't grab some poor schmuck, charge him with being a serial cheater for a history of travelling, and hold him up as the worst cheater in sports. They don't force one player to hand over the ball for travelling but ban another for life for travelling. They don't change the results of the NBA playoffs ten years later because of travelling or holding during the last five minutes of the game.

The way cycling has handled the doping issue is lunacy. Contador's 2011 Giro is a farce. He tests positive for an amount of Clenbuterol one fortieth of WADA's recommended lower limit for detection. He stops racing. His national fed exonerates him as a victim of contamination. He is free to race so he rides and wins the Giro. The UCI appeals the national fed's decision. CAS decides the positive was most probably caused by contamination but Contador did not prove there was no fault on his part. Contador is stripped of the result in the Giro where there is no evidence he doped. To top it off the win is transferred to Scarponi, a rider who was coming back from a blood doping suspension.

[oldpotatoe]

i read that earlier today as well.interesting perspecitve i guess.some of their decisions in the past didn't make alot of sense to me either.i still think at some point in time they'll reinstate LA's wins.not that i care either way but it makes no sense to keep all the others and only take the years he won off the list

Take out the periods and it would be like reading Japanese..I guess handwriting has already gone south, I guess typing with puncuation and capitals and entire words are next.omg,wht has the wrld cum 2.
ot

[oldpotatoe]

You cannot question punishing someone who broke the rules because others got away with it. Armstrong got sanctioned to the rules, others sometimes get under-sanctioned, LA did not get over-sanctioned.

I'm a fan of Valverde, who I mention because he was sanctioned and sat out for two years and had numerous results voided over the Operation Puerto affair. 60+ other cyclists got nothing. Does that mean Valverde didn't deserve his sanction? Of course not, he deserved to sit and he did. Done.

Armstrong being responsible for the "sins of a generation" is the most bias and hyperbolic line of thinking in the whole doping debate.

Armstrong was sanctioned, deservedly, for admitting to a career of doping, and multiple infractions, multiple positives, that demand a lifetime ban, by the rules he agreed to holding a UCI license at that time.

Why don't we start crying for Danilo DiLuca? Save your tears.

Here's a question. If LA's violations don't constitute a lifetime ban, then what the heck would? If you can't ban him for life, you can't ban anyone for life... why even have the rule if you can't impliment a lifetime ban?

I think the point is that many others deserve a lifetime ban also..like Hincapie.

[Rueda Tropical]

Try basketball. The officials don't grab some poor schmuck, charge him with being a serial cheater for a history of travelling, and hold him up as the worst cheater in sports. They don't force one player to hand over the ball for travelling but ban another for life for travelling. They don't change the results of the NBA playoffs ten years later because of travelling or holding during the last five minutes of the game.

The way cycling has handled the doping issue is lunacy. Contador's 2011 Giro is a farce. He tests positive for an amount of Clenbuterol one fortieth of WADA's recommended lower limit for detection. He stops racing. His national fed exonerates him as a victim of contamination. He is free to race so he rides and wins the Giro. The UCI appeals the national fed's decision. CAS decides the positive was most probably caused by contamination but Contador did not prove there was no fault on his part. Contador is stripped of the result in the Giro where there is no evidence he doped. To top it off the win is transferred to Scarponi, a rider who was coming back from a blood doping suspension.

Traveling and similar infractions that happen in every game in every sport would be on a different level then doping, bribery, game fixing, extortion, money laundering, etc. Apples and Oranges. When you engage in those sorts of activities you should know that if you are caught you need to be prepared for the consequences. Aside from any moral considerations you can decide if the risk reward equation works for you. Just because corruption or crime is pervasive in your profession doesn't mean you will get a pass.

In other words if you can't do the time don't do the crime. Don't cry about the consequences after you get caught. Seems like now that the racket has been busted everyone from Armstrong to his lowliest domestiques is playing the victim while they still are enjoying the cash and businesses that they obtained cheating. Boo hoo hoo.

[cash05458]

Was Armstrong abit screwed compared to others who got off lightly? Sure...but so what? If he hadn't been such a power thug the USADA wouldn't have had to make such deals to get others to finally talk most likely...listening to armstrong and his lackies complain about 'unfairness" is pretty rich...live by the sword, die by it.

[malcolm]

You can when those rules were never meant to be followed in the first place. There was not a single person in pro cycling who did not know Armstrong and all the riders he competed against were doping. All the riders knew. All the teams' staff knew. All the race promoters knew. The national federations knew. The international union knew. All the cycling media knew. All the serious fans knew. The only naive people were newly minted fans and the non-cycling media.

There was an understanding in cycling that doping was an accepted practice. The only issue was pretending to outsiders that it was not. Hence the sport ended up with a policy of scapegoating the few who were publicly exposed and protecting those who were not. The end result is a sordid mess of capricious and arbitrary differences in how riders are treated.

What takes the biscuit is USADA giving its stamp of approval to self-serving witnesses who blame their own doping on other people. Good ol' Vandevelde. "The evil Bruyneel and Armstrong made me dope. I didn't want to. They made me. After that I went to ride for those paragons of team virtue, Liberty Seguros and CSC."

I agree but Lance was the poster boy when things were good and it's only natural that he be the poster boy when it all went down the crapper. May not be completely fair but it's life. If you are on the top of a dirty heap you'll be the one best known we it all comes tumbling down. It easier to vilify and place blame when it's a well known name especially a well known name with a history of being ruthless, less than scrupulous and an arse.

[Rueda Tropical]

I agree but Lance was the poster boy when things were good and it's only natural that he be the poster boy when it all went down the crapper. May not be completely fair but it's life. If you are on the top of a dirty heap you'll be the one best known we it all comes tumbling down. It easier to vilify and place blame when it's a well known name especially a well known name with a history of being ruthless, less than scrupulous and an arse.

+1 That about sums it up.

If you wanted to be singled out as the Lance Armstrong of cycling when it meant private jets and a celebrity entourage -you should expect that you will get the same special treatment when being the Lance Armstrong of cycling isn't a title that anyone would want.