Lance Strongarm: Hero or Villain?

Professional athletes are supposed to compete according to the rules of their sport. One of the rules in cycling is that certain drugs are prohibited. To violate those rules is to defraud their sport and to violate the rights of competitors who chose to play by the rules.

What I've never understood is that if you cheat in a sport -- if you don't play according to the rules -- what have you "won"? To win in a sport means to win according to the rules. That's what it means! If you cheat, you disqualify yourself by the very definition of "success"!

Lance Strongarm didn't actually win seven Tour de France races. He simply gave the appearance of winning them. He is a pretentious fake who conned everyone into showering him with counterfeit accolades. This is also why he had no compunction about threatening and destroying the reputations of those who had the courage to expose his cowardice and villainy. Just as he has no respect for honesty, integrity or reality, so he has no respect for the rights of others.

He richly deserves the infamy and disgrace that are now his enduring legacy.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/23, 12:09pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 12:12pm

Neither; he is someone who ignored a law without any ethical basis, a ban against the informed risks taken on by individuals who bear the full consequences of those decisions, using a training aid that for decades was perfectly legal in all sports and wasn't considered 'cheating' by those who had the first clue how they worked.

Today it is perfectly legal to own a 30 round magazine or AR15 semi automatic weapon.

In the 50s and 60s and 70s and most of the 80s, it was perfectly legal to take steroids as a training aid, just as, vitamins and protein shakes are training aids.

Tomorrow, the Tribe may pass a law making high capacity magazines and such weapons illegal.

Will the people who will ignore such tribal over-reaches be heroes or villains?

The intent -- the purpose behind banning steroids had nothing at all to do with it being a 'cheater' drug. The intent was to minimize the Lyle Alzedo cowboy abuse of the drug(meaning, taken without the guidance and monitoring of a licensed doctor). However, the realized result has been the exact opposite the increase in abuse, precisely because licensed physicians are banned from being anywhere near steroids in sports. Insanity.

I amend my initial statement; Armstrong is a hero for shedding light on this stupid law, an intrusion into the informed decisions that individuals -- including Lyle Alzedo -- make with their own damned life.

It is his life. It is his risks. And having taken those steroids, he still had to actually do every rep and every mile of the training that led to his level of performance. Steroids are not a shortcut. They are a speedpass to personal training Hell, and athletes must still subject themselves to that advanced training regimen in order to realize the results. Steroids are not sufficient, though they may be necessary to survive that level of training. The consequences and the sweat and the reps are all on the athlete and nobody else.

Taking licensed doctors out of that equation serves no tribal need justifying forced association with our theories about what is best for others not ourselves.

regards,
Fred

Post 2

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 5:08pm

Fred,

You do understand that the issue here is not whether these drugs should or should not be legal. Of course, they should be legal. The issue is whether a particular sport has banned them as a condition for an athlete's being allowed to compete in it, which it has every right to do. To compete under the stipulated conditions is to freely consent to the rules. To then clandestinely violate them is to perpetrate a fraud against both the organizers and the other competitors.

Post 3

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 8:39am

I'm glad that someone started a thread on this. I was planning to myself, but I have been busy the last few days. It's an interesting debate. To me it starts with two initial questions:

1a) Is it proper for the government to ban steroids for personal use? Absolutely not! Ok, that one was easy.

1b) Is it proper for a league or event such as the Tour de France to ban steroids or other types of behavior? Sure, at it's own discretion. As Fred points out, the reasoning may be somewhat nonsensical for doing so and may even damage the level of the sport's competition and entertainment value. Risking the health of your body is certainly a part of being a professional athlete, so the argument that they want to eliminate that risk by banning steroids probably doesn't hold a lot of weight. However, there are reasons why a league might want to ban them. Such as, it may simply want to avoid the black spot that can be associated with steroids because of how they are generally viewed by fans. Or, it may just want to limit the amount of future medical cases seen by it's athletes. The NFL is dealing with this issue right now. A former linebacker, Junior Seau, recently killed himself at a pretty young age out of the blue. It was discovered that he had brain damage from the result of many traumatic hits during his career. This looks pretty bad on the league. If they could somehow ban the particularly harmful hits (as ridiculous a concept as this can be in the sport of football), they stand to gain by having a larger future talent pool (more parents letting their kids play) and more fans who aren't turned off by the sport. There are plentiful examples of a league having somewhat arbitrary rules that can be viewed as harmful to the league. The NFL has relatively strict celebration rules that at times make no sense. The NBA has a 3-step traveling rule (in other leagues it is 2). No one will argue the right of these leagues to determine the contract a player must keep to compete in the league. How much sense the individual elements in the contract makes is another story.

2)Is it proper to consent to the contract of a league/event, then renig on said contract? In the case of cycling during Lance's period, this is a somewhat trickier question than it sounds. Since it appears that just about every serious cycler was using PED's, you could make the case that in order to perform as a professional cycler it is a basic requirement that you take steroids. Given that, you could also make the case that not taking steroids would be sacrificing your goals to the whims of the masses. On the other hand, this is a contract breach and essentially using force on the part of the user. In a sense this is equivalent to coming to the U.S. for it's free-market prosperity, then preaching socialism...except in this case you made a contract not to be socialist. Lance could have raced other events that allow steroid use, or if there are none he could have collaborated to start one. He could also have started to bring about the truth of its usage and campaigned to have it un-banned. This of course is true of any cycler, so singling Lance out and demonizing him simply because he is the best is wrong. Up to this point, he gets the title of slightly flawed hero in my book.

3) Is it proper to threaten people against bringing forward the truth, while explicitly lying countless times, all to maintain your esteem in other people's eyes. No!!! This is the part that is the big issue for me and many others. It's pretty obvious in objectivism (and other philosophies) that lying to achieve a value is wrong, and cause nothing but damage to your happiness.

So ultimately, I will label him very flawed hero, and unfortunately kind of an asshole. He still had to work incredibly hard to achieve what he did, largely against similarly steroid-using opponents. Add that to defeating cancer, and his achievements are pretty remarkable and inspiring. It's just too bad that he was such an asshole on top of all that.

Post 4

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 9:59am

William:

He did certainly defraud a certain class of people: those so naive that they believe, for even a second, that there has ever been a moment in time when steroids were not widely used not only in the professional sports that they enjoy, market, take advantage of, and make money off of, or are fans of, because people actually take an interest in the level of performance displayed-- but in the college and HS programs that feed that huge pyramid of incentive.

No doubt, such dreamers, ignoring the obvious, were defrauded, and I see your point.

The obvious. As in, go track the average size of any high school, college, or pro football team in the period before and after the 'banning' of steroids in sports. Their use was widespread -- and legal -- before the ban, going all the way back to the 50s when they first appeared. This was a continuity of widespread usage, not isolated epochs of activity.

But it wasn't until after the -sudden- ban that high school teams started to -suddenly- look like college teams, that college teams started to look like Pro teams, and that Pro teams started to look like artificial freaks out of the other industry making millions off of the gladiator efforts of others, video games. And that is because, even if the % of athletes using didn't change much -- it might have even dropped -- the % of athletes who used who also now abused skyrocketed. Whatever the Holy intent was, the factual outcome was more abuse. WHich should have been a no brainer-- if *any* use at all is suddenly characterized as 'abuse', then any use at all might as well be abuse.

Why, if I was totally paranoid, I'd believe that the intent of the 'ban' was to chase away the doctors from professional sports and let the owners incenitfy the gladiators to juice themselves into more marketable freak status. The fans have responded accordingly, even if they don't have the first clue.

That there is an entire nation of fans, far from the weight rooms where all the risk and sweat is going on, who live in a fantasy world where that happened because of 'better nutrition...vitamins...modern diet trends' is at testament to mass delusion, period.

There are two kinds of HS athletes, and there always were, even when steroids were perfectly legal: D1 prospects, and those who didn't take steroids, who are largely today called fans. That is the reality of the marketplace, and the other reality is, it is largely the fans -- the naive who are deluding themselves that all that risk taking and sweat and reps -- by others -- should occur without the aid of steroids, just so that they can feel 'not cheated' when farting around with their lame ass fantasy football leagues, or wearing face paint in the stands of modern gladiator arenas, where flabby men in suits make hundreds of millions on selling the spectacle of risks taken by well paid others to others sitting on their couches, both of who share in incentifying a pyramid of limited opportunity with lucrative contracts only at the top for the few who claw their way there(increasingly out of ghettos these days)or else who or talking about it around the cooler on Monday morning.

This royal group of non-risk takers want to raise their patrician fingers and point to the arena and call 'foul' when they discover, much to their horror, that the freak gladiators in the arenas they scream for are juiced, by law, nowhere near the licensed doctors who used to regulate the risks.

And yet it is the very laws demanded by 'the fans' that enhance those risks. They scream endlessly for 'more' -- they raise the incentives and rewards and call forth the effort, and at the same time, guarantees that those who take the risks do so at even greater risk.

Let's face it, it is better spectacle that way. A massive Tribe, flaccid and frail and wobbly and filled with righteous indignation, points its shaking finger and says, "That's not how it should be done. If we were Emperor of these Games--(even though we are)--we'd demand better. We've been defrauded!"

No you haven't; you are just clueless, delusional, and naive beyond belief.

Donovan McNabb recently retired from the game. I saw him on ESPN this past year. I can't believe how much smaller he looks, now that he is no longer in the gladiator arena.

How naive must I or anyone be to not know why that is?

And how is this for naive. Some program authorities HS, College, Pro -- want to show the fans how much they care about this pressing issue, so they make a great show about testing their athletes...during the football season. Because after all, as every fan knows, steroids are magic superman pills; you take them five minutes before the game, and suddenly you are Superman. That is how these drugs work, and that is why it is 'cheating' when players take steroids.

What a show. Go test them in March and June, if you -really- want to learn when these drugs are used.

Because the last thing in the world these 'authorities' want is to remove steroids from the sports they are riding like parasites. What they want is to lead the often self-deluding naive around by the nose, and put on a show, because at its essence, the selling of sport is exactly that, a show.

"The use of performance enhancing drugs in the sport of American football has been an ongoing issue since the late 1980s, especially in the National Football League (NFL). The NFL began to test players for steroid use during the 1987 season, and started to issue suspensions to players during the 1989 season.[1] The NFL has issued as many as six random drug tests to players, with each player receiving at least one drug test per season.[2] One notable incident was when in 1992, when player Lyle Alzado died from brain cancer, which he attributed to the use of anabolic steroids,[3] however, Alzado's doctors stated that anabolic steroids did not contribute to his death.[4]

The use of performance enhancing drugs has also been found in other levels of football, including college level, and high school.[5] The most recent figures from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football drug tests show that one percent of all NCAA football players failed drug tests taken at bowl games, and three percent have admitted to using steroids overall.[5] In the NCAA, players are subject to random testing with 48 hours notice, and are also randomly tested throughout the annual bowl games.[5] The NCAA will usually take approximately 20 percent of the players on a football team to test on a specific day.[5]"

What a show. That's not when football players take steroids. Look, some no doubt do -- take them even during the season, -- even risking getting caught. They arent' always the sharpest tools in the drawer, after all. But wake up and smell reality.

The demand exists because they are effective in aiding athletes tolerate elevated training schedules; who is it that is providing the incentives -- the demand -- to elevate the training schedules, to the point where, at the fringes, the incentives are so great that those taking the risks do so without ready access to a doctor's care while taking those risks -and- at the risk of actually getting caught?

The article from Wiki is correct: this has been an issue since the late 198os--when they were suddenly banned -- but steroids have been in sports since at least the 50s.

regards,
Fred

Post 5

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 12:46pm

Donovan McNabb recently retired from the game. I saw him on ESPN this past year. I can't believe how much smaller he looks, now that he is no longer in the gladiator arena.

Two pics of Barry Bonds. Scroll down to see the second one.

Post 6

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 1:40pm

Fred writes,

He did certainly defraud a certain class of people: those so naive that they believe, for even a second, that there has ever been a moment in time when steroids were not widely used not only in the professional sports that they enjoy, market, take advantage of, and make money off of, or are fans of, because people actually take an interest in the level of performance displayed-- but in the college and HS programs that feed that huge pyramid of incentive.

Fred, the other cyclists did not have to "naively" believe that steroids were not widely used in order to be defrauded or cheated. The fraud here is not in doing something that the other cyclists didn't ever suspect him of doing. It is in violating a contract that other cyclists were honest enough to respect and to keep. It is to violate the rules of the sport which he agreed to respect and to keep as a condition of his own participation.

Do you seriously think that if other people are cheating, then there's nothing wrong with your doing it as well? Others are doing it, so it must be okay? So, then, at what point, would you consider it a breach of ethics? When no one else is doing it? When just a few other people are doing it? If most are thought to be doing it, do you then join in with a clean conscience? In short, by what principle do you decide that it's okay to cheat other people and to violate your agreements -- since you don't think that in principle there's anything wrong with it.

Post 7

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 3:16pm

William:

Your characterization is that it is 'cheating' to ignore a ban that has no ethical basis. I disagree. The ban is a fraud, the authorities who both benefit from the fraud and yet enforce the ban know its a fraud, and anyone with 5 minutes to spare to research the issue knows its a fraud.

Only with purposeful blinders on can anyone believe that steroids have left pro sports.

Here is a way to clear this up, and I wish we would run the experiment.

We should have two leagues. One in which steroids was perfectly legal, and one in which it was effectively enforced, as in, not 'pony show banned, and enforced when convenient' -- as is the case when the USPS invests in the property that is "Lance Armstrong, Inc", gets wrapped up in a dispute with other investors, and finds it suddenly convenient to 'out' Lance Armstrong suddenly for the latest public Kabuke Dance/Circus Act. (Armstrong was outed by a fellow steroids using teammate, he wasn't caught during the competition testing' that 'authorities' put on for the pony show.

Such enforcement would test for steroids in the off season way before the competitions, when it is guaranteed that 90% of all participants would be caught using steroids, which everyone involved in the sport, including those same authorities, knows for a fact.

Then, we could let folks decide which league they wanted to pay to watch, invest in, participate in, ethically, because now we aren't supporting 'bans' whose sole effect is to remove doctors from the marketplace, thereby resulting in far more sellabel spectacles at the cost of added risk to the gladiators yet incentified to take the risks by those making huge sums of money off of them on one hand, or realizing cheap vicarious thrills on the other.

The 10% who don't use steroids? Well, somebody has to come in last. They can knock themselves out in that other league, and be assured they were competing with folks who also only lifted on Monday, Wed and Friday. The one that will soon be bankrupt, because not a single person in the world except their family is showing up at the stadium to watch them, and who will soon find it impossible to compete with the part-time semi-pro leagues that are filled with unpaid athletes using steroids.

Or, we can wake up from our stupor, glance at the headlines, and be shocked -- shocked, I say -- to learn that steroids are a part of professional athletics after 60 plus years of parasitically enjoying the results of all those risks borne by others under the present system.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/24, 3:22pm)

Post 8

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 5:29pm

Fred,

For the last time, I'm not talking about disobeying a legal ban on performance enhancing drugs. I'm talking about violating a voluntary agreement to abide by certain rules as a condition for participating in a sport. By "cheating," I mean cheating on that agreement. Why is this so difficult to understand? I have a feeling it's because you don't want to understand it.

To reiterate: The fraud here is not in doing something that the other cyclists didn't ever suspect Lance Armstrong of doing. It is in violating a contract that other cyclists were honest enough to respect and to keep. It is to violate the rules of the sport which he agreed to as a condition of his own participation.

If you're serious about addressing the points I'm making, please reread my previous post and answer the questions I posed to you there. Otherwise, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

Post 9

Friday, January 25, 2013 - 5:00am

William:

Lance Armstrong's life belongs to Lance Armstrong. The risks he takes and bears belong to him.

Hitler invades Poland, and you want to cry foul when a fleeing Pole drives over the double yellow lines on his bicycle.

I fully agree, that Pole, fleeing for his life and freedom, should obey the rules. And now that we've covered the minor details, I hope that Pole manages to flee with his life, because it is his life, and I see it in more of my self interest that he maintains dominion over his life than I do that he obeys all the local traffic laws while fleeing the latest tribal tyranny.

This story is especially ironic as the actual back story of the Lance Armstrong affair is leaking out.

Investors in LA, Inc. Stock futures. Someone goes long, someone goes short. We need to look real closely at the goings on of anyone shorting LA, Inc. (especially when one of the players in this back story is the US Postal Service as shareholder in LA, Inc.) Lance was 'outed' not via testing, but by a fellow also steroids taking teammate. Yeah, someone needs to look real close at what WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY's been paid for 'endorsements' or whatnot recently, because suddenly everyone within reach who has been riding LA like he was the bicycle is just shocked -- shocked, I tell you-- that pro athletes are taking steroids in sports.

Come to think of it, you are right. When he is speeding up and down those mountains and taking risks with his life with those steroids, surrounded by parasites of all shapes and sizes riding him and his fame, he shouldn't cross the double yellow lines.

You are right, there is little point in continuing this. We don't agree on what the major issues are surrounding this story. You are somewhere off in confused fan world with some odd perception of the reality staring us all in the face, and as you say, deliberately not seeing it.

regards,
Fred

Post 10

Friday, January 25, 2013 - 6:15pm

Bill,

One of the premises you are entertaining here is that there might be a lot of professional cyclists who don't use drugs -- in order to create a contrast between Lance Armstrong and some unidentified 'other cyclists' who are clean (and therefore, more honest than Lance). But before that argument can get off of the ground, you would have to prove it to be the case. A glance at Wikipedia on the subject reveals a lot of skullduggery in cycling. Here is a relevant excerpt, concerned failed drug tests in 2006. As you can see, drug use is perhaps more common than the alternative:

Wilmer Bravo of Venezuela tested positive for Prednisolone and Prednisone on 9 January 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 4 months".^[264]

Garcia Quesada Adolfo of Spain tested positive for Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in competition on 19 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Stephen Alfred of the US, tested positive for Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in an 'out of season' test on 26 March, and an 'in competition' test on 10 June 2006. Further tests indicated that his testosterone imbalance resulted from the presence of exogenous testosterone. He was suspended for 8 years by the USADA.^[283] The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 8 years."^[245]

Victor Hernandez Baeta of Spain tested positive for EPO in an 'out of competition' test on 4 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Ivan Basso was expelled from the Tour de France in the week prior to its commencement due to his involvement in the Operaci�n Puerto doping case^[284] On 30 April 2007 Team Discovery Channel announced that Basso would be released from his contract on Basso's request.^[285] While still claiming to never have actually engaged in blood doping, Basso admitted contacting Dr. Fuentes' clinic with the intention to engage in blood doping.^[286] On 15 June 2007, Basso received a two-year ban.

Pawal Bentkowski of Poland tested positive for Norandrosterone on 25 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

Jaime Bretti of Chile tested positive for Phentermine in competition on 4 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Santos Gonzalez Capilla of Spain tested positive for Triamcinolone acetonide on 4 March 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification, warning and reprimand".^[264]

Jose Balague Carvajal of Chile tested positive for Ephedrine 'in competition' on 11 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Erick Castano of Ecuador tested positive for Metelonone on 14 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

Luis Coehlo of Portugal tested positive for Norandrosterone, Clenbuterol, and hCG in competition on 15 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and Ineligibility for 1 year".^[245]

Juan Cotumba of Bolivia tested positive for Benzoylecgonine, methylecgonine, and cocaine metabolites on 11 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

Jhon Cunto of Peru tested positive for Norandrosterone in competition on November 9, 2006. he UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Kamil Dominian of Poland tested positive for Stanozolol on May 20, 2006. The 'Union Cycliste Internationale' (UCI) summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

David Garbelli of Italy tested positive for Triamcinolone acetonide and salbutamol on 9 June 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated "disqualification and warning".^[264]

Christoph Girschweiler of Switzerland tested positive for Salbutamol and salmeterol in competition on 21 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and warning".^[245]

Aitor Gonz�lez, the winner of the 2002 Vuelta a Espa�a, tested positive twice in 2005, first during an out of competition test in August, and again during the 2005 Vuelta a Espa�a for a methyltestosterone metabolite. Gonz�lez claimed that the positive test was the result of a contaminated dietary supplement called Animal Pack prescribed by a doctor.^[287] Gonz�lez was handed a two-year ban and retired soon afterwards. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' listed 17 alpha methyl, 5 beta androstane, 3 alpha 17 beta dio and a 2 year ban^[264]

Oscar Grau of Spain tested positive for Finasteride. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

Jon Pena Hernaez of Spain tested positive for Phentermine in competition on 1 August 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Christina Alcade Huertanos from Spain was disqualified for 2 years. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' listed Triamcinolone acetonide and a 2 year ban^[264]

J�rg Jaksche was one of the 9 riders held out of the 2006 Tour de France after being identified by investigators in the Operaci�n Puerto investigation. On 30 June 2007 Jaksche admitted he was guilty of blood doping and that he was the Bella mentioned in the documents confiscated from Fuentes' clinic.^[288]^[289]

Valdimir Koev of Bulgaria tested positive for Stanozolol on 18 June 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

Rafal Kumorowski of Poland tested positive for Cannabis in competition on 4 August 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and warning."^[245]

Floyd Landis was fired from the Phonak team on 5 August 2006, after a test result indicated an abnormally high testosterone/epitestosterone ratio^[290] after stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. On 20 September 2007, he was stripped of his title as winner of the 2006 Tour and placed under a two-year ban from professional racing, following an arbitration panel's 2 to 1 ruling. He appealed the result of the arbitration hearing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which subsequently upheld the panel's ruling. He remained suspended until 30 January 2009.

Maxime Lefebvre of France 'Failed to Comply' with the 'in competition' testing on 29 December 2006 and 2 January 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for life".^[245]

Christian Luce of France. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' listed Testosterone and a 3 year ban^[264]

Joseph M. Papp of the US tested positive for metabolites of testosterone or its precursors (6?-OH-androstenedione 6?-OH-androsterone) on 7 May 2006, at the International 42nd Presidential Cycling Tour of Turkey. He received a 2 year suspension. When he testified for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) at the Floyd Landis trial he also stated that he had graduated to testosterone after starting on EPO (erythropoietin) in 2001.^[291]

Evandro Luis Portela of Brazil tested positive for Phentermine and Stanozolol on 23 March 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for life".^[264]

Aitor Osa from Spain was involved in the Operaci�n Puerto doping case. The Guardia Civil in Madrid linked numbers used by Dr. Fuentes to identify blood sample bags to names; number 1 to Ullrich, number 2 to Basso, number 4 to Botero, number 5 to Sevilla, number 7 to Aitor's brother, Unai Osa, number 8 to Aitor Osa himself.^[292]

Unai Osa from Spain was involved in the Operaci�n Puerto doping case. The Guardia Civil in Madrid linked numbers used by Dr. Fuentes to identify blood sample bags to names; number 1 to Ullrich, number 2 to Basso, number 4 to Botero, number 5 to Sevilla, number 7 to Unai Osa himself, and number 8 to his brother Aitor Osa.^[292]

C�n�ric Racault of France tested positive for Prednisolone and Prednisone. IThe UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for 18 months".^[264]

Ilaria Rinaldi of Italy tested positive for Testosterone in competition on 18 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Jose Antonio Pastor Roldan of Spain tested positive for Terbutaline on 19 June 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated that he was sanctioned by 'disqualification and a warning'.^[264]

Alexandre Sabalin of Moldavia tested positive for Strychnine on 26 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated that he was sanctioned by 'disqualification and Ineligibility for 1 year'.^[264]

Michele Scarponi was implicated in the Operaci�n Puerto case. On 8 May 2007, Scarponi confessed his role in the case.^[293] On 15 May, Scarponi was provisionally suspended.^[294]

Ger Soeperberg of the Netherlands tested positive for Salbutamol on 2 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' stated that he was sanctioned by 'disqualification and warning'.^[264]

Alvaro Tardaguila from Uruguay tested positive for r-EPO in February 2006, and received a 2 year ban.^[295]

Fernando Torres of Spain tested positive for Ephedrine in competition on 8 July 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years - (under appeal by rider)."^[245]

Matteo Trentin of Italy tested positive for Salbutamol 'in competition' on 26 December 2007. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years."^[245]

Jan Ullrich was expelled from the Tour de France in the week prior to its commencement due to his involvement in the Operaci�n Puerto doping case.^[284]

Sascha Urweider was suspended by Team Phonak after a positive A-test for testosterone. Urweider blamed a nutritional supplement he bought without team doctors advise.^[296]

Tristan Valentin of France tested positive for Heptaminol on 6 June 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for 6 months".^[264]

Jordi Reira Valls of Spain tested positive for Stanozolol and hCG on 16 May 2006. The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2006' states "disqualification and ineligibility for 2 years".^[264]

Post 11

Saturday, January 26, 2013 - 8:15am

Ed:

But what about the 10% who didn't and came in last?

The ones who didn't 'cheat?'

Like in the NFL? The ones who, if we who dont take the risks and do the reps could enforce our Emperor wishes on the galdiators in our arenas could manage to get them all into the same league, effectively competing only against other non steroids using athletes, we would all reward by watching them perform at their level of performance.

This issue is filled with such screaming blind hypocrisy. Steroids were a continuous element of sports -- not just professional level but in the pyramids feeding that beckoning arena of incentives -- since the 50s. An entire industry has sprung up catering to selling the risks taken by others, a lucrative industry for the sellers of the spectacle, who forever raise the incentives.

If only they could find a way to goose the gladiators into ever higher levels of performance. Too many pesky doctors monitoring their blood and telling they need to modulate their dosages. What is the actual effect if those 'authorities' in the selling of sport spectacle 'ban steroid use?' It chases away the licensed doctors from the arena, period. And then watch the gladiators juice.

Because did they reduce the incentives to take on risk during this period, or did they increase those as well at the same time?

And do these authorities tip their hands, especially in football and baseball, when the test athletes only during the season or literally at bowl games? Because steroids are largely taken during the off season during off season training, and everyone knows that,including the authorities putting on the pony show and making money off of the resulting freak like gladiators.

And sure enough, look at the results. In HS, colleges, and pro sports. Ban steroids...and suddenly everyone is huge. Fans deny what is staring them in their ticket paying faces.

The risks and rewards belong to those who take them, including the use of steroids, but the parasites have found a way, once again, to shed risk onto others and accept only the resulting rewards.

Literally, in the background story of Lance Armstrong, Inc., what is looking to be a manipulation of stock futures by weasels far from the risk and sweat but front seat on the rewards.

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Saturday, January 26, 2013 - 8:26am

Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame.

Why? Because he gambled on baseball.

Did he ever bet against a team he was playing for? If so, he deserves to be shunned. But if not... if nobody can come up with an incident of him doing anything but betting that he was going to win, then I say, he not only should be in the HoF but be the first guy you see.

And what hypocrisy. Every lame ass fan in the world can bet on Pete Rose and his risks...except Pete Rose, putting his money and his body and his risks where his mouth is.

Who played the game harder than Pete Rose?

That is another bit of tribal insanity. But in the end, it doesn't really matter. If begging this tribal mass of loose belts goo for a plaque in a dusty hall with a gift shop is why folks take those risks, then they are the fools.

Betting against your team and throwing a game to make money is running downhill scum weaselness. But betting on your team and putting your money where your mouth is, betting that you will get to the top of the hill first, is the opposite of weaselness, and should be celebrated in a free nation-- and that is the guy that this nation wants to punish.

The psychological reasoning behind that -- a nation of lame ass fans putting Pete Rose in his place for trying too hard-- is a pit of goo I wouldn't want to stare into for long.

regards,
Fred

Post 13

Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 6:27pm

Ed writes:

One of the premises you are entertaining here is that there might be a lot of professional cyclists who don't use drugs -- in order to create a contrast between Lance Armstrong and some unidentified 'other cyclists' who are clean (and therefore, more honest than Lance). But before that argument can get off of the ground, you would have to prove it to be the case. A glance at Wikipedia on the subject reveals a lot of skullduggery in cycling. Here is a relevant excerpt, concerned failed drug tests in 2006. As you can see, drug use is perhaps more common than the alternative:

Why do I have to prove that there might be a lot of professional cyclists who don't use drugs? For all we know, there might be. Your long list of cheaters doesn't prove otherwise. You even acknowledged this when you hedged your claim by stating that "drug use is perhaps more common than the alternative. "Perhaps" implies 'perhaps not'.

In any case, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. If you are going to claim that a "lot" of cyclists (i.e., most of them) are guilty of cheating, then the burden of proof is on you; it is not on me to prove that most of them are not. Besides, even if only one cyclist played by the rules and abstained from using performance enhancing drugs, he would still have been cheated by all the other cyclists who did.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose that you are taking a class in college, and everyone in the class is cheating on the tests except you. Would that give these other students an unfair advantage over you? Or would you say that there was nothing wrong with their cheating, because everyone except you was doing it? The fact that everyone else was doing it wouldn't excuse them, would it? And if you agree that it would not, then apply the same reasoning to the competing cyclists, and you'll understand why Lance Armstrong was indeed guilty of cheating, even if all the other cyclists save one were guilty of it too.

Post 14

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 7:04am

William:

Cheating by copying from others is a poor analogy to this issue.

The risks Lance takes while others ride him and his fame and his effort like a pony, and who shower him with incentives to take those risks, (including, compete in an arena where only the doctors are effectively banned), are nothing like riding someone elses back, as in, copying from them on a test.

Here is the actual analogy. Suppose there was an academic rule that students not be 'augmented' in any fashion when taking a test of their abilities. After all, we want a fair test of their native abilities. We wouldn't want them to 'cheat' either during or after the test.

And so, the majority in the Tribe conclude, it is against the rules to use artificial aids, such as 'glasses.' But...glasses have been available and readily used for decades. The use of glasses doesn't replace the effort of studying, but it does augment it. It's not like you put on a pair of glasses, and suddenly you know calculus. You still need to put in the effort, and using the artificial augmentation 'glasses' permits you to put in more effective effort than you would without that artificial augmentation.

Even if you use the glasses before the test.

Coffee, No-Doz are also drug related augmentation of performance. If we can drag up a study claiming excess use of stimulants has led to heart attack, then we might be inclined to ban coffee and No-Doz(or in my case, literally eating spoonfulls of instant coffee). Bur the use of those artificial stimulants is not anything like staring at the test paper of my neighbor and writing down those answers as my own.

Now, let me point out where my analogy breaks down; there is no equivalent financial incentive for schools to ban glasses or coffee. The sports authorities who sell spectacle in gladiator arenas have an obvious and realized incentive to 'ban the legal use of steroids' in that the only observed impact has been to remove doctors from the arena and thus encouragement of the incentified risk takers that they ride like parasites to abuse steroids, as long as any use at all is characterized as abuse.

Only from a million miles away from any actual sport at any level can there be a credible claim that maybe steroids are fringe in sports. It is staring us in the face in HS, college and pro sports, and the promoters know it, benefit from it, and show their hand with their totally ineffective pony show of testing.

I respect your view that we should all obey the rules, all the time, no matter the context. But sometimes that belief is used against us without any ethical basis at all, and in this case, not only not in our best interests, but detrimental to our health and well being. Simultaneously being showered with increased incentive to take risk, coupled with denial access to doctors to modulate that risk, is indeed professional abuse by those offering the increased incentive to take risk.

And who is that? It is also us fans, ever demanding more.

regards,
Fred

Post 15

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 12:47pm

Last night's 60 Minutes story about Lance Armstrong.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/28, 1:15pm)

Post 16

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 1:05pm

Merlin:

I think your link might be dinged; it appears to be a link to my post #14.
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/28, 1:06pm)

Post 17

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 1:19pm

Fixed and http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2013-01-25/travis-tygart-60-minutes-interview-lance-armstrong-lying-doping-usada-ceo

Merlin: I think your link might be dinged; it appears to be a link to my post #14.

Post 18

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 4:29pm

If I may ... I agree with Fred that "performance enhancing drugs" could be anything and really are nothing. Vitamins, coffee, or just a balanced diet - whatever that means - are all performance enhancers.

Still, Dwyer's point is the cogent one. The bicycle racing association defines the "air" in the tires. I think that 100% nitrogen is allowed. If they defined the mixture of atmospheric "air" you could mix your own pure air - no dust, no dust mites - to those specifications. But you could not put anything else in. If you found that molten uranium gave you an advantage, it would be banned by the rules that define the air in your tires. And using it would be cheating. Because those are the rules.

There was a TV show or movie about a murder on a football field where the compromised athlete had to cross the goal, so he pulled out a gun and shot the defender. You are not allowed to do that.

That is what Lance Armstrong did. He cheated.

And Ed's point is irrelevant: it does not matter how many people do it. Even you claim that a longish list shows consensus, this is really only a small fraction of the actual participants.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/28, 4:31pm)

Post 19

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 5:31pm