Whatever happened to ... All the heroes



Making a call is fine when you're dealing with an investment or reinstating someone. Destroying a reputation, killing someone with government sanction and various other decisions of that magnitude needs more than a judgement call IMHO. You need clear evidence rather than opinion based on less than perfect evidence. Having said that as USADA hasn't released their evidence yet how good it is is uncertain.
 
Originally Posted by nonns .

Making a call is fine when you're dealing with an investment or reinstating someone. Destroying a reputation, killing someone with government sanction and various other decisions of that magnitude needs more than a judgement call IMHO. You need clear evidence rather than opinion based on less than perfect evidence. Having said that as USADA hasn't released their evidence yet how good it is is uncertain.
Click to expand...
I don't think he has been sentened yet. I have a lot of experience with evidence and trials and there is rarely a black and white stuation like on TV or in the movies. It's always a judgement call taking into account reasonable doubt. Two factions with the same evidence and a 180 degrees opposing perspective. However he is not on trial here so we will see how it shakes out.
 
this has not been such a good year for leopard trek radio shack nissan. now frank has to concoct an imaginative apology for having a positive dope test. tainted spanish beef is pretty popular.
 
Apparently he's been poisoned by Leopard Trek on the off chance that he might complain about non payment or late payment of salaries ... :->.

Lance has the potential for a new excuse.
 
well, "poisoning" might not be as imaginative as twin who pulled a disappearing act in the womb, but i have to give high marks for the splash of intrigue this excuse brings.
 
Originally Posted by nonns .

Seriously folks. So USADA finds L.A. guilty of doping. They strip him of his TdF victories and whatever other palates he's won. So who are the TdF winners?
Merckx?
Anquetil?
Lemond?
Fig non?
Hinault?
Roche?
Induration?
Delgado?
And whoever else I've forgotten. It calls into question everybody who's ever cycled professionally. One begins to question what the point is of the anti doping. They will never catch all the dopers. New drugs will come along. Cyclists will dope. Some will be caught and some not. Ultimately we will never know who is clean. We will just know that we caught some cheats and that others escaped
Dope or not it takes training, focus and determination to win a Tour. Lance may have been doping but he was competing against other dopers. Surely the drugs just level the playing field so they all get a bit faster.
Do I condone doping - no but neither do I feel that USADA is achieving much by there stance. [COLOR= #0000cd]Can they actually guarantee any rider who was clean in the races they fell that Lamce was doping in?[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
No, and there's a solution (IMO anyway): Sanction the rider, fine the rider, suspend the rider, do whatever, but don't do it retroactively, do it from the point guilt has been determined and move forward. Half the riders on the list above have admitted to doping, if not outright, at least suggestively. If one takes away Lances titles, they'll need to take Anquetils, and Merckxs, and Mosers, and Riis', and Fignons... and the list would simply go on and on. Then those titles will go to someone else. Contador gets his title stripped, and the consolation prize goes to a Schleck, who's brother is then withdrawn for suspected [all together now] d-o-p-i-n-g. This title stripping thing is a joke simply because the title may be removed and simply go to another doper.
 
Originally Posted by danfoz .
No, and there's a solution (IMO anyway): Sanction the rider, fine the rider, suspend the rider, do whatever, but don't do it retroactively, do it from the point guilt has been determined and move forward. Half the riders on the list above have admitted to doping, if not outright, at least suggestively. If one takes away Lances titles, they'll need to take Anquetils, and Merckxs, and Mosers, and Riis', and Fignons... and the list would simply go on and on. Then those titles will go to someone else. Contador gets his title stripped, and the consolation prize goes to a Schleck, who's brother is then withdrawn for suspected [all together now] d-o-p-i-n-g. This title stripping thing is a joke simply because the title may be removed and simply go to another doper.
Click to expand...
quick question...if we were to transport this attitude to an area such as research, would the fit be as comfortable? obviously the financial gain and increased stature within the professional circle would be increased greatly if the researcher were to "fudge" the numbers just a bit to make the outcome more palatable. or do we continue to reject the invalid results and look at the later conclusions/results of the researcher with a suspicious eye?
 
Originally Posted by slovakguy .

quick question...if we were to transport this attitude to an area such as research, would the fit be as comfortable? obviously the financial gain and increased stature within the professional circle would be increased greatly if the researcher were to "fudge" the numbers just a bit to make the outcome more palatable. or do we continue to reject the invalid results and look at the later conclusions/results of the researcher with a suspicious eye?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting two things: we don't change data we have no transparency into, and we deliver the same disciplinary measure across the board. There is no data fudging in my model.

Historically speaking, since we don't have full transparency into these affairs we would end up quickly with, a phrase altogether familiar to those in the DBA world, garbage in, garbage out.

What is your suggestion for handling "adulterated" cycling palmares going back to the turn of the century? Or do we just stop at LA?
 
Originally Posted by danfoz .



I am suggesting two things: we don't change data we have no transparency into, and we deliver the same disciplinary measure across the board. There is no data fudging in my model.

Historically speaking, since we don't have full transparency into these affairs we would end up quickly with, a phrase altogether familiar to those in the DBA world, garbage in, garbage out.

What is your suggestion for handling "adulterated" cycling palmares going back to the turn of the century? Or do we just stop at LA?
Click to expand...
Agree with your position. IMO, the punishment for failing a blood test (A&B) should be swift, and it should be the final and only sanction. A statute of limitations should be established, say 30 days, which is plenty of time to get the necessary lab work done. After that time has elapsed, there would be no penalty imposed, regardless of who said what, who claims they saw some .
doctor with what, etc. No double or lifetime jeopardy; once the 30 days is up, the results and titles stand.

This approach would mean that someone smart enough to fool the tests could get by, but that's a risk I'd take in order to promote fairness. If an athlete wants to gamble that he can bump his hemocrit up a couple of points via EPO and then use diauretics or whatever masking agents to beat the test, then so be it. Rather than "zero tolerance", the system would say that you're innocent unless you're caught, period. If we had perfect tests and could always administer them at the perfect time, we'd probably catch more cheaters.

The analogy to speeding is interesting to consider. How many of us would testify under oath that we never have exceeded the posted speed limti? I have, and continue to do so every time I drive, yet have never gotten a ticket. Am I a guilty speeder who should be singled out and punished now for 40-years of speeding? Of course, if we had more police on the roads, or speed cameras, I'd probably have been caught at least once. And my speeding is rarely more then 5-10 over the limit, except for short "tests" on empty roads.

Note, I hate the idea that an athlete would want to gain victory by taking a drug, The notion that they could stand on a podium and accept the palmeres, never knowing whether it was the drugs or their ability that put them there....that to me diminishes the whole reason for competing in the first place.
 
Originally Posted by danfoz .

I am suggesting two things: we don't change data we have no transparency into, and we deliver the same disciplinary measure across the board. There is no data fudging in my model.

Historically speaking, since we don't have full transparency into these affairs we would end up quickly with, a phrase altogether familiar to those in the DBA world, garbage in, garbage out.

What is your suggestion for handling "adulterated" cycling palmares going back to the turn of the century? Or do we just stop at LA?
Click to expand...
i have to proceed with the understanding the we will never have a fool-proof method to screen out the dopers. the examples are too numerous and indicate that some athletes will try to gain a competitive edge with the latest drug, most likely trying to step lightly over the testing threshold or by employing something which is, as yet, overlooked in testing. so i find myself in agreement with wada for keeping samples for years and retesting as methods become more refined. at the very root of this belief is the cheat is still a cheat. and with the cheat discovered, action must be taken, if only to make overt to the present competitors and generations following that cheating is not tolerated.

as for the actions of riders in the past, i have no qualms about anyone taking the time to come up with specific samples/examples of cheating or finding those willing to provide testimony to the cheating. but here i have to point out that those riders who were mentioned above, who had a test come back positive or admitted to having used substances in competitions, have already had their day in those sporting "courts," and to re-open the matter would be akin to subjecting them to double-jeopardy. yet, those acts and those of many others have put us on the present path to making competition fair. i leave it up to the organisers to determine what they will do with the finishing orders in their records. although ridiculed, the roger maris asterisk comes to mind as a possible solution to finishing orders rather than erasures. honestly, though, we already employ that tactic in these forums, in that we all recognise the prevalence and practitioners of doping today and in years past.

i don't think i've given you a response which answers your points exactly. my fault.
 
Perhaps a more correct approach to this issue is to accept the fact that ALL professional athletes will seek to boost their performance via some method. The fact of the matter is professional athletes generally have large salaries on the line, their employer's/sponsor's want them to win, and the fans want to be entertained. Entertained fans mean money. Bored fans mean finding a different line of work for everyone involved. If clean and slow/dull sold tickets/generated revenue, then pro sports would be filled with geriatrics barely capable of performance.

Draconian punishments, like life time bans, are simply ridiculous. Grow up. Professional athletes are entertainers. That's all there is to it. They use performance enhancers. Get used to it.

Whiners will say, "It's not fair;" or "What about the competitors who don't want to dope?" Again, I say pretty much all athletes and very definitely all pro athletes will use performance enhancers. If you want truly "fair" competitive events then make everyone ride exactly the same bike, wear the same clothes, eat & drink exactly the same foods/liquids in exactly the same quantities for a prescribed period before each event, etc.... In fact, to make it really fair all competitors should weigh exactly the same amount and have the same wattage outputs. Like I said, Grow up. This is the real world, there isn't true fairness.

As for competitors who don't want to dope, then don't. But, they won't be as competitive as those who do, you say. Bummer. We're back to the issue of fair. Johnny wants to be a marathoner, but he's a 300+ lb couch potato who doesn't want to train. So to be fair to Johnny let's make a rule that says you can't do any type of training that will make you competitive. Utterly ridiculous. The real world fact of the matter is that if you want to be a competitive marathon runner, you had better be prepared to run a lot of miles. If you want to pitch in pro baseball you better be ready to go the ball. want to play pro football, better be ready to take some hits. That's just the way it is.

So let's stop all the idiotic rhetoric about doping. Pro athletics is about entertainment/money. Steroids, EPO, HGH, etc use by pro athletes is no different from an actress getting plastic surgery to enhance her career.
 
Well it looks like USADA has won as LA appears to have capitulated in exhaustion. The verdict seems to have been a foregone conclusion. They were going to find him guilty regardless which seems to be what the judge who kicked LA's rebuttal out said - essentially their desire was politically motivated. So many known dopers get to retain their titles and it looks like LA wont.

Cycling has one less hero and a gaping hole in the victories in its greatest cycle race. What has been achieved with this?

Can we be sure that cycling is cleaner as a result? No. They still can't completely prove that LA is guilty. The truth is we'll probably never know. Even a US judge said much of the evidence seems to be hearsay. IS cycling cleaner well which bit of it. USADA appears to be politically motivated rather than impartial and therefore cannot be deemed to be clean either.
Can we be sure that cycling is a far sport? No? You may get away with wrong doing or not depending on the time you were alleged to have doped in?
can we be sure that cyclists wont dope in future? No. the cycling authorities wont cooperate with each other and behave like adults and institute uniform draconian penalty schemes which might actually deter riders. Neither will they share jurisdiction and necessarily recognises each others penalties/determinations. The penalties need to finish the athletes abilities to work in and be rewarded from the sport either directly or indirectly (advertising/sponsorship) in order to deter the riders or their teams from doping. Two riders from a team found doping and the team is history. The somewhat arbitrary rules applied to be applied quickly, clearly and transparently and without the prospect of appeal. My unborn twin was drinking beer and the fight I have with it in the womb caused my haemat to spike when I dream is no longer a valid excuse. Neither is poisoned meat, fresh veg, pot smoking or anything else. 3 positive samples and you're history.
Positive results of doping not to be notified to press or public until all three are tested. Two labs must verify results. Prior public notification by either labs or governing bodies results in dismissal of test results and rider to get off scot free.

They wont do any of this cos it would be fair and clear. All athletes signing up know what they would be in for. Their careers are over if they're found positive and the agencies notify correctly. No court cases are required as the very fact that 2 labs have found 2 or more positive samples are good enough. The sport governing bodies are clear that if they blurt out results and besmirch a riders reputation before they are certain then the rider is automatically judged clean.

What a farce. Who are the dopers? We don't know nor will we ever know.

We do know that yet another "hero' has fallen by the wayside.
 
Kubler Ross Model aka The Five Stages of Grief:
  1. Denial (I'll just close my eyes and make it go away) - "He's never failed a drug test." "How do you know he doped - did you actually see him dope?" "Why should he continue fighting these trumped up charges?"
  2. Anger (a good offense is the best defense) - "They've got it in for him." "They're just jealous of his success." "Oh, it's those French. They always hate on Americans." "The Feds are just out to get him." "This investigation is a waste of taxpayer money." "He's a hero - we need heroes like him."
  3. Bargaining (trying to soften the blow) - "Well, what about all the others that were doping?" "Why don't they go after football/track and field/basketball/hockey/cricket/soccer players? They're always picking on cyclists." "It's in the past, why don't they just leave him alone?" "He conquered cancer. Just leave him alone!" "Look at all the good he's done concerning raising awareness for cancer victims."
  4. Depression (putting things into perspective) - "There's cheating in all aspects of life. Why should we think cycling is to be any different?" "Everyone cheats, so you might as well accept it as a part of life." "Lance is not perfect - he's just another human being."
  5. Acceptance - "Okay, he did it. Pro cycling is still and will always remain a wonderful sport."

Heroes are good parents. Heroes are people who put themselves in harm's way to protect and serve others. Heroes are people who do the right thing regardless of profit, power, or prestige. Heroes see the big picture and think of the collective benefit over the individual. Travis Tygart is a hero of the utmost order.

An entertainer is NOT a hero. And at the end of the day, that's all pro cyclists are - entertainers.
 
Here, Here!!! Someone finally gets at least part of the point. Professional athletes are nothing more than entertainers. The answer to the issue of performance enhancing drug use is not ever more draconian punishments. I have no desire to live in any kind of police state, and if you have any understanding of such things, then neither do you. The real answer to the use of performance enhancers by pro athletes is, Who cares? As a general rule, entertainers have no real impact on any real world issues of consequence. Who cares what they do?

You are wrong about Travis Tygart. He is most definitely NOT a hero. He is well known as a homosexual within the athletic community, who uses his position to intimidate athletes he finds desirable into sexual encounters. Anyone who refuses his sexual advances is immediately subjected to a McCarthy style witchhunt. The punishment for refusing him is the destruction of your career. Athletes fail to come forward with this information because, like entertainers, they are in the public eye and such revelations may brand them as "fags." Consequently, ruining their careers. He should be removed from office, tried for pedophilia and rape, then imprisoned for life. Someday, in the very near future, the athletes he has raped will overcome their embarassment, come forward with the truth, and destroy the monster.
 
^ You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. I will agree to disagree.
In mine, Tygart is a hero in that he's done the right thing even though his actions are highly unpopular with millions around the world, and unprofitable for many corporations/companies.
His fortitude in this present affair will be held high for all other leaders in various organizations to emulate.
As I do not know Tygart in the way you apparently do, I will reserve judgement as to his personal life. When, and if, these allegations come to light and are proven I may/may not have an opinion.
 
Your response is reasoned & I can respect that. However, I believe your reasoning is faulty. Without delving into Tygart's personal life, a quick review of the USADA case against LA will reveal the following:

1. The case against LA was based primarily on hearsay. Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in court for the simple reason that it is not evidence. (My friend's cousin's uncle's brother said he saw a UFO land in a cornfield, and LA got out of it.) While a party is protected from the use of such "evidence" in a court of law, the rules of law are relaxed in arbitration. This means that the arbitrators may take such nonsense into consideration when arriving at a decision.

Perhaps, you are thinking that the arbitrators are impartial judges with no stake in the outcome of the case. Wrong. Arbitration is a system of private justice paid for with private funds. Most private individuals will probably never arbitrate more than one case in their lifetime, if at all. Corporations, and other large organizations, like the USADA, often arbitrate hundreds of cases each year. Arbitrators are in business to make money. They know who is signing their paychecks. They know that if their customers aren't happy they will simply find new arbitrators. Further, arbitrators, unlike judges, are not subject to public/political accountability. Also, bribing public officials, like judges, is a criminal offense. Arbitrators are not public officials.

2. The USADA wholly lacks the authority to strip LA of his Tour de France wins. Their announcement has no effect on LA's titles. The only real results of the attack on LA are the generation of a great deal of publicity, and a smear on LA's reputation.

Tygart was well aware of these facts. He is no more a hero than Adolf ****** or Joseph Stalin. He is a publicity seeking fascist with no regard for truth or justice.
 
It is quite clear your position on this matter - you are entitled. Please see Stages 1,2, and 3 above.

Strawman argument(s) you presented notwithstanding, as previously mentioned, I will agree to disagree.
 
The Armstrong's reputation was smeared by the carefully orchestrated system of doping for himself and his team, a system of doping for which he used threats and possibly enticements to lure new riders into said system. Further, Armstrong's lousy reputation was tattooed on his forehead the minute he chased down Simeoni, when he and his cohorts leveled threats against people against people speaking out, and his reputation was sealed with the threats against witnesses, something for which he yet might have to answer.
 
JOECAJUN said:
You are wrong about Travis Tygart. He is most definitely NOT a hero. He is well known as a homosexual within the athletic community.....
Click to expand...
What the hell does his sexual orientation have to do with anything? The only that the mention of his sexual orientation shows is that you're a bigoted, hateful asshat. It shows you've got the maturity level of a 7th grader. Hopefully people with your hateful bias will continue to be weeded out of society as society evolves and your kind of hate prevents people like you from finding willing partners for mating. Say, "Hi" to your kin:
klan2L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back