OK, I'll admit I do not have all the facts, but does it seem right that Lance Armstrong is being barred from the iron-man based on new charges that he doped in the Tour De France, the last one he was in was what, 7 years ago? Especially when he supposedly passed the drug tests at the time?
I'm against people using dangerous and/or unfair techniques to gain advantage in sporting competitions but if a person passes drug tests what can you do? It seems that they ought to test Lance Armstrong now if they are worried about him doping, but if he passes the tests, I don't get what all the furor is about. If he was somehow cheating the tests, that's on the testers as far as I'm concerned. Then they would need to... I don't know, hire security to follow him around for several days prior to the test or something. But then they'd have to make that part of the agreement for all participants, in whatever competition.
It just seems like maybe they are flogging a dead horse here. Either he doped and got away with it, or he didn't, but that was years ago, why are they slamming him now? Does he have a really ascerbic personality? It just sounds like someone really doesn't like him.
Armstrong isn't really being singled out, he's one of the last major names from that era (late 90's & early 00's) to be prosecuted for doping - Riise, Pantani, Ullrich, Zulle, Basso, Hamilton, Landis, Garzelli, Heras et al. have all already been implicated and punished in one way or another. Whether he loses his titles or not isn't all that important, because of how prevalent doping was at the time. I guess what's important is that the truth comes out so that the next generation of athletes don't make the same mistakes.
They're doing it to save face at this point, but it's total hypocricy.
He cheated, won millions of dollars, and then lied under oath, so it seems perfectly normal to me that he has to pay.
To me, the argument that "everyone is doing it" doesn't excuse Lance Armstrong. It's normal to make an example out of him, and then move on to the other cheaters. And if everyone is still doing it after what happened to Lance Armstrong, well, they won't be able to say that they didn't know what was coming.
It's time we get clean athletes instead of a cheating competition.
There are no "clean" athletes.
"If he was somehow cheating the tests, that's on the testers as far as I'm concerned."
Are you kidding? with this attitude, what kind of a message are promoting to kids out there? If you cheat on your test, and don't get caught, then that's your teacher's problem? If you steal stuff from a store and don't get caught, then that's the problem of the security team of the store? Should we not be promoting integrity instead of this approach?
As far as not allowing him to compete years after the doping incidents in question, you make a good point, but that just seems to be the convention across various sports: If you get caught doping, you get suspended from competition as a form of punishment. It's not unusual.
LOL! I think all kids should dose up on 'roids and copy each other's tests for sure!!!
I'm kidding! But my point is not that cheaters should get a pass, but what I see is a lot of harsh sanctions against a person with no corroborating physical evidence. As far as what I've read, what they have is the statements of other people who were doping, against him. Does that mean I think Lance Armstrong is innocent? No, but I think it's important we draw a clear line to be sure that "witch hunts" are not the accepted standard for determining who we punish.
The more I've read of this case, the more I believe that Armstrong probably comes across as a bit of a jerk to put it mildly, and I suspect he rubbed some people the wrong way and probably was not very, um... humble in his dealings with them. So maybe the karma wagon is making a delivery to him in a way. But still, what sticks in my craw is the no physical evidence thing. I think if they start attacking him, he will fight back and probably win some lawsuits, but at what cost?
I am married to a teacher, and I never liked how people who misbehaved, like John McEnroe were given a "pass" because of their results. I've always been a proponent of "honor in sport" and look with distaste upon all sorts of cheating, hubris, showboating, etc. That said, to "uphold a standard" it has to be a real standard, not some selectively applied thing. If cycling is getting serious about keeping dangerous practices out of the sport and if cyclists buy in and agree, then I am happy about that.
But this is a farce, not that Armstrong didn't dope, but that for what over 300 tests he never came up positive? If they were so sure he was doping all that time, why not make the tests harder to cheat on? Why not make sure they had data from all the angles necessary to make their case, while it was going on? What irks me more than people cheating is people being considered guilty until proven innocent. I've known people in that position before and it's a cruel, uphill, battle that is almost impossible to make, even when totally innocent. And even when vindicated, ends up taking a huge toll on the target of the "investigation". I am totally for justice, but I think that the same standards of excellence HAVE to be imposed on the investigatory process as are imposed on the person being held to the standard(s).
I am very uncomfortable with things requiring people to sign away their rights and super uncomfortable with things taking away people's rights without their consent.
Well said :)