adieu, monsieur L. Armstrong

[Trixie]

Apart from the fact that "justice" hasn't been upheld by actually investigating it instead of just saying "He's busted". Also, if there are that many doped cyclists, why don't they crack down on more of them, if it's that big of a problem.

Really. Dozens of witnesses, all the evidence including Armstrong blood before he heard he needs to mask better, and his own testimony to his doctor are 'he's busted'?

What would have convinced you, out of curiosity, written edict of the Pope?

I'm curious. Is doping more hazardous than those normally experienced by, say, American football players or by boxers? ISTR the phrase "punch drunk" comes from people who have suffered permanent brain damage from boxing related injuries.

Comic explaining why these make no sense better than I can.

I say that if people should have the right to risk their health in exchange for securing the financial future both of themselves and of their families. Whether that's going into a coal mine or taking dope for sports.

To take your idea to logical finish - let's open company harvesting people's kidneys paying them a small sum, then sell the organs to the rich. It's just risking your health for profit, am I right?

2) Yes, this means that only rich people could compete. But how is that different from the present? A poor person isn't going to be able to afford a great bike or the time to train. The days when a mechanic could just walk out of his garage and win the tour de france are long gone, if they ever existed. Sports have always been a luxury for the idle rich. Poor people work.

Wrong. Young, working people are often the best fit. Take a look at Ronaldo - the most expensive player in the world. Born in poor family, his contract is worth €1 billion now. There are dozens like him in Latin America and Iberian leagues. Mario Balotelli, current hero of Italy, was homeless.

What? Some rich doping jerk taking their spot is victimless crime? Oh, yeah, though so

3) I would feel differently, perhaps, if cheating was reliably detected and punished by all offenders without exception or exemption. But when there are whole industries devoted to cheating, and when those charged with enforcing the rules will happily look the other way , then "make an example" while ignoring others out of favoritism or because they weren't paid off or whatever ... I think it's not working.

Point one way of life where all crimes are caught.

None? Oh well, time to disband law enforcement, it's not working.

To my mind "Justice" and "fair dealing" start with honesty. When people are truthful about what they are doing and why they are doing. A society where whole industries spring up for the purpose of lying, where the enforcers are highly selective about what rules they will and will not enforce, is not and cannot be a just society. I claim that a society which legalized doping would be more just and more honest in the long run than a society where everyone is pretending or lying to some degree or other.

And I claim society where rich can harvest kidneys and shoot everyone they like for a fee would be much more honest, too.

Take that one Saudi prince. He had compatible poor man elevated to his bodyguard and paid handsomely... With understanding that if Prince's heart, failing due to obesity, ever fails, he will serve as a spare. To that end, he ordered surgical rooms being added to his 747 plane and private yacht. Ideal future?

The second is what happens when the strong abuse the weak, and that is something I can't stand. The first is when a person hurts himself, and I care much less about that. If one doper is faster than other dopers, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Ah, so all the clean cyclists are not victims.

Tell me, had you were looking for a job, and someone who outright lied about his education in his resume got it instead, would it be victimless crime, too? No legs are broken. No pockets picked.

[Talya]

Lance Armstrong successfully fought doping charges for so long, and they just never gave up, they went at it like a pitbull. They never had anything substantial, he was just the main target in a witchhunt.

A decade later, he just gave up and stopped fighting. He was never shown to have been doping, he just got sick of the constant battle.

To hell with the Tour de France. It's now a joke.

Anyway, it's sad that my first reaction to this thread title was, "Louis Armstrong died before I was born. What are you talking about?"

[warty goblin]

Ah, so all the clean cyclists are not victims.

Tell me, had you were looking for a job, and someone who outright lied about his education in his resume got it instead, would it be victimless crime, too? No legs are broken. No pockets picked.

Lying, except in very, very specific circumstances (usually involving hands, bibles and courts), at least in the US, is not a crime. You can put whatever crap you want on your CV/resume, and it's entirely down to the employer to check it's legit. They can almost certainly fire your ass if you get caught (I'd bet most employment contracts have this built in, and a lot of US employment is by mutual convenience so they can fire you for just about anything except race, religion or a couple other things), but the lie itself isn't a crime.

And in the case about lying over your education, I've never really been able to muster much excitement. Either the person can do the job or they can't. If they can, the education clearly is not a necessary condition for competence, so who cares? If they can't, they'll probably get canned pretty fast anyway and the job will go to somebody who can.

[Zdrak]

Lying, except in very, very specific circumstances (usually involving hands, bibles and courts), at least in the US, is not a crime. You can put whatever crap you want on your CV/resume, and it's entirely down to the employer to check it's legit. They can almost certainly fire your ass if you get caught (I'd bet most employment contracts have this built in, and a lot of US employment is by mutual convenience so they can fire you for just about anything except race, religion or a couple other things), but the lie itself isn't a crime.

And in the case about lying over your education, I've never really been able to muster much excitement. Either the person can do the job or they can't. If they can, the education clearly is not a necessary condition for competence, so who cares? If they can't, they'll probably get canned pretty fast anyway and the job will go to somebody who can.

Musing over moral compass aside, you didn't actually answer the original question. For your convenience, I shall repeat it.

Had you were looking for a job, and someone else who lied in his resume got it instead of you, would it be victimless crime?

[Aedilred]

Lying, except in very, very specific circumstances (usually involving hands, bibles and courts), at least in the US, is not a crime. You can put whatever crap you want on your CV/resume, and it's entirely down to the employer to check it's legit. They can almost certainly fire your ass if you get caught (I'd bet most employment contracts have this built in, and a lot of US employment is by mutual convenience so they can fire you for just about anything except race, religion or a couple other things), but the lie itself isn't a crime.

It's not a crime, but it is a tort (fraudulent misrepresentation) and if it is discovered then your employer can legally take you to the cleaners regardless of your actual competence in the position. There is no defence of contributory negligence (in the UK at least) so it doesn't matter whether or not the employer bothered to check.

It would be enough to have you disbarred from any professional institution if they were so minded. Given that the distinction between tort and crime is often really a technical one, and fraud is a crime in itself, then depending on the facts, it's possible that misrepresentation in a job application could be found criminal.

I'll stop before I stray into the territory of giving legal advice (which I'm not qualified to do and which is against the rules in any case) but outright lying on your CV is to forfeit completely any moral or legal high ground and giving your prospective employer good cause to fire you at any point they discover it with no other reason required. You might even end up paying them for the privilege of the sacking.

[warty goblin]

Musing over moral compass aside, you didn't actually answer the original question. For your convenience, I shall repeat it.

Had you were looking for a job, and someone else who lied in his resume got it instead of you, would it be victimless crime?

Pedantically, if it's not a crime, it's not a victimless crime, rather by construction, no?

Ignoring that, sure I wouldn't be overjoyed about it, but so what? Just because something upsets me does not mean it should be illegal, or that anything actually wrong has occurred.. The employer is free to hire whomever they please, and that includes people who lie on their resume, or I dislike for any other reason. It's in no way my call to decide who is the best person for a company to hire, that's for the company to determine for themselves.

[Coidzor]

Pedantically, if it's not a crime, it's not a victimless crime, rather by construction, no?

It's no longer pedantic when it's a known and commonly used idiom, however.

Edit: It feels like it's going somewhere above and beyond that.

[Trixie]

Lance Armstrong successfully fought doping charges for so long, and they just never gave up, they went at it like a pitbull. They never had anything substantial, he was just the main target in a witchhunt.

What. Massive file filled with evidence is "nothing substantial?

Do read it, especially sworn testimonies, tests or Armstrong blood, evidence where and when he cheated - the report is available online. Fun fact never mentioned by Armstrong apologists, UCI (the organization that gave Armstrong titles) threatened USADA (pursuers) with lawsuit for overstepping bounds. Then, they got to read evidence, couldn't refute a single line of it and had to quietly withdraw both lawsuit and objections to taking lawful action, stripping titles without further prompts.

But I guess US agency somehow bribed Swiss one that hated their guts just before. Just like Armstrong did with his massive donations to UCI, eh? BTW, another fun fact - Armstrong outright lied about 600 blood tests he passed. USADA found 150-200, out of which 20% gave dubious results (rest was dodged due to his net of informers). UCI just didn't spoke against their rich donor and title holder.

A decade later, he just gave up and stopped fighting. He was never shown to have been doping, he just got sick of the constant battle.

Yeah, and the evidence is red herring. Let's release 95% of judged of any crime, in any of the world's prisons, because evidence in their cases was far less solid. Maybe 0.01% of cases gets thousands of pages of irrefutable evidence.

To hell with the Tour de France. It's now a joke.

It was a joke when someone "defending" himself by threatening wife of cyclist who decided to went clean with baseball bat and maiming held titles. Now, there is still hope for it, again.

Anyway, this is my last post here. You can throw literally a thousand pages of ironclad evidence into people's faces, point out where their idol lied and threatened people, show his blood full of drugs, they still won't bother to look and will go "innocent lily". I have said all that I could, no point of saying anything more

[Acanous]

You totally didn't say anything more about the soylent green or eugenics programs based on results of athlete testing, though :< You're good at that!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Well, considering I had cancer (tongue cancer), then got into bicycle racing afterwards partially to get back in shape, and partially because of those yellow wristbands, I think I still will respect Lance Armstrong.

Yes, he probably doped. One (possibly) failed test, with thousands of pages of testimony from team mates who received substantially lesser punishments makes for a pretty convincing case. Against who remains to be seen.

The NGO that receives government money but does not have to follow Constitutionally approved guidelines?

The head of the UCI who said "Lance deserves to be forgotten," yet has no plans to return the $500,000 "donation" they received from the LA Foundation?

The fact that NO ONE will get the medals since EVERYONE who raced was doped? Read Bicycling Magazine some day. Everyone who came in second or third behind Lance also had doping convictions, or lawyers who kept the testers at bay just long enough.

There was a question earlier about job resumes... So let's play with that one as well: Your lies on your resume were beaten out by another guy's lies on his resume. Did he have an unfair advantage? Were you the victim of a victimless crime? Kind of gets into Kane and Lynch territory here, doesn't it? (Maybe not, never played that game. Read the reviews, and the online game of "shoot your buddy and grab his cash while running to the helicopter, while avoiding being shot by your "friends" as well" seemed kind of cool.)

Let's see more than Lance's head roll over this, then I'll believe the UCI is serious about cleaning up. Until then, I'm going to keep riding, and keep on wearing my LIVESTRONG sunglasses. You all can do whatever you want.

[Killer Angel]

Anyway, this is my last post here. You can throw literally a thousand pages of ironclad evidence into people's faces, point out where their idol lied and threatened people, show his blood full of drugs, they still won't bother to look and will go "innocent lily". I have said all that I could, no point of saying anything more

I thought that the fact that Armstrong made use of doping, was beyond doubts. Silly me.

Now, I'm wondering: 'til what point we choose to push the anti-doping fight? What is the limit to go back in time to revoke titles?
2 years? 5? 10? 20?
I know it's a matter of moral standing, but crimes lapse.

[Traab]

I thought that the fact that Armstrong made use of doping, was beyond doubts. Silly me.

Now, I'm wondering: 'til what point we choose to push the anti-doping fight? What is the limit to go back in time to revoke titles?
2 years? 5? 10? 20?
I know it's a matter of moral standing, but crimes lapse.

Yeah but this isnt a court of law, its the equivalent of whatever the heck the name of the council is that covers violations in the nba punishing someone who they finally caught doing drugs or betting on his own games right? I dont think that gets covered by the statute of limitations. If we found proof that michael jordan had tiny trampolines in his shoes at every game that let him do so well, im sure all his records would get targeted as well.

[Socratov]

Well, i agree with Talya that one thing that is iffy is the fact that when the agency loses a lawsuit for doping, they can just retry until they get bored. lance has been engaged in a legal fight for years on end. After some time you just don't care anymore and that's what struck me in his press conference: he basically sat there with an attitude of "I don't care anymore", "I'm sich of this ****", "let's get this over with and it will soon be over". think of it what you want but that doesn't strike me as someone guilty, or innocent, but as someone who just gives up, whatever happened.

yes doping is bad (inherently, unless everyone uses, then it's a test of constitution and endurance). But staging something the world has not seen since the Spanish Inquisition is equally bad IMO.

[Xondoure]

Well, i agree with Talya that one thing that is iffy is the fact that when the agency loses a lawsuit for doping, they can just retry until they get bored. lance has been engaged in a legal fight for years on end. After some time you just don't care anymore and that's what struck me in his press conference: he basically sat there with an attitude of "I don't care anymore", "I'm sich of this ****", "let's get this over with and it will soon be over". think of it what you want but that doesn't strike me as someone guilty, or innocent, but as someone who just gives up, whatever happened.

yes doping is bad (inherently, unless everyone uses, then it's a test of constitution and endurance). But staging something the world has not seen since the Spanish Inquisition is equally bad IMO.

The man who fought off cancer that had invaded the majority of his body, and won the tour de france continuously, has given up in the face of lawyers. This world huh?

[Killer Angel]

Do you want some additional fun on cycling's world?

[Socratov]

The man who fought off cancer that had invaded the majority of his body, and one the tour de france continuously, has given up in the face of lawyers. This world huh?

well, it fully comforts me in making the right conclusion of believing all lawyers are LE and shoudl be treated accordingly.

[Aedilred]

well, it fully comforts me in making the right conclusion of believing all lawyers are LE and shoudl be treated accordingly.

Barristers are LN, with the odd exception. In fact, they're pretty much required to be. Solicitors, on the other hand... I'm not even sure about the "L" part.

[Chen]

Well, i agree with Talya that one thing that is iffy is the fact that when the agency loses a lawsuit for doping, they can just retry until they get bored. lance has been engaged in a legal fight for years on end. After some time you just don't care anymore and that's what struck me in his press conference: he basically sat there with an attitude of "I don't care anymore", "I'm sich of this ****", "let's get this over with and it will soon be over". think of it what you want but that doesn't strike me as someone guilty, or innocent, but as someone who just gives up, whatever happened.

The giving up part does not necessarily mean he is guilty as you said. It could mean he's just tired of it.

Of course, all the evidence they presented, that definitely points more towards him being guilty than not. And its the evidence that should be considered, not our random speculation on why he's doing things.

[Talya]

The giving up part does not necessarily mean he is guilty as you said. It could mean he's just tired of it.

Of course, all the evidence they presented, that definitely points more towards him being guilty than not. And its the evidence that should be considered, not our random speculation on why he's doing things.

There's no new evidence. It's all evidence that they've failed to get him with before. If he kept fighting it, they'd probably fail again. But they've shown they'll just keep trying...

[Zdrak]

The giving up part doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. The mounds of evidence - the test results, the multiple detailed eyewitness reports, these do mean he's guilty.

[Joran]

There's no new evidence. It's all evidence that they've failed to get him with before. If he kept fighting it, they'd probably fail again. But they've shown they'll just keep trying...

The new evidence for me is the sworn testimony of basically everyone on his team, including George Hincapie, saying that the entire team was doping and Lance Armstrong was the head ringmaster of it.

So, it simply beggars belief that Lance Armstrong was the only clean rider in a sport absolutely awash in doping and that every team member of his were bribed or intimidated into lying about him.

There's a point where the mountain of evidence simply outweighs any plausible defense and I think we've reached that point with Lance Armstrong. His corporate sponsors, who have stuck by him for this long, also seem to believe so.

[Zrak]

yes doping is bad (inherently, unless everyone uses, then it's a test of constitution and endurance). But staging something the world has not seen since the Spanish Inquisition is equally bad IMO.

I know, man. Anti-doping makes Stalinist purges look like a walk in the park.

The man who fought off cancer that had invaded the majority of his body, and won the tour de france continuously, has given up in the face of lawyers. This world huh?

The guy who was really good at riding a bicycle, in part because he cheated at it, lost a battle of wits and determination against people who dedicated the energy he put into cycling to intellectual pursuits. It's almost as much of a shame as when the nerdy kid who goes to college and graduate school ends up making more money than some kid who was a football star and then worked at McDonald's.
Getting a disease and having the fortune/fortitude to live through it doesn't make someone a good or noble. I don't understand the attitude that, on account of having had cancer, he is automatically the righteous champion, hounded by the jealous dogs who would wrongly cast down his glory. He's basically built up this whole cult of personality around his cancer which, honestly, kind of offends me.

[Xondoure]

I know, man. Anti-doping makes Stalinist purges look like a walk in the park.

The guy who was really good at riding a bicycle, in part because he cheated at it, lost a battle of wits and determination against people who dedicated the energy he put into cycling to intellectual pursuits. It's almost as much of a shame as when the nerdy kid who goes to college and graduate school ends up making more money than some kid who was a football star and then worked at McDonald's.
Getting a disease and having the fortune/fortitude to live through it doesn't make someone a good or noble. I don't understand the attitude that, on account of having had cancer, he is automatically the righteous champion, hounded by the jealous dogs who would wrongly cast down his glory. He's basically built up this whole cult of personality around his cancer which, honestly, kind of offends me.

Oh I'm rather convinced he cheated. I just find the irony delicious.

[Zrak]

Haha, fair enough.

[Karoht]

I'm just reading up on the wiki article now.
Yes, I know, it's wiki, I take it with a grain of salt for now.

An interesting thing to note, is that he did take drugs, but not drugs on the list of banned substances.
It is also interesting to note that, due to chemotherapy being involved, steroids of some form as standard procedure.
It is also interesting to note that Armstrong bought himself $100K in blood testing equipment, documentation supports this finding.

As for the court cases, most of them were Libel cases, which discusses slander and the ramifications thereof, moreso than investigating if the findings are actually true or untrue. I could see a good Lawyer succeeding in 'defeating the evidence' in such a matter if the evidence was hardly in question, and the statements made by the accuser was the bulk of the case.

I think a very silly move on Mr Armstrong's part was his choice of coach. Michele Ferrari was a name synonomous with cheating already, one could make the arguement that you don't hook up with a cheater unless you intend to either be branded the same, or help someone turn over a new leaf. He then tried to lie about it, but records show Mr Armstrong paying Ferrari for his services. Um, okay, even if Mr Armstrong wasn't cheating, why lie and cause even more suspicion? That's a very silly move to make.

========
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to make of it, just going by what stated evidence I've read from wiki. Combined with a suspicion of bias from wiki (I assume that with just about all wiki articles), the outsider perspective on the whole story seems murky at best. I want to believe that Lance Armstrong is and was every bit the man the newsreels made him out to be prior to having his titles stripped from him. But I have sincere doubts now about what kind of man he really was all along.
I wonder what the options are, scientifically, to investigate the matter further?