Weight Weenies

Another summation, from ESPN this time:-
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... nce-titles

mjduct wrote:...He was one of the early pioneers in interval training developed it with several sports scientists...

That bit right there is 100% false. Interval training for cyclists has been been around for decades before Mr Armstrong and co. A lot of cyclists may not have used it at the time be he sure as hell wasn't the only one to use "interval" training.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

MattSoutherden wrote: What does the verdict have to do with it? If I take CERA next season and nobody ever finds out, did I not cheat? If I murder you next week and the case gets thrown out of court due to a procedural error, I'm not a murderer? You are confusing justice with truth.

No you are confusing justice with truth. The only person that knows the truth is LA. He states he hasn't doped. As a result we are dependent on secondary tests and the legal process. Do you not understand that the person is innocent until proven guilty?

Evidence points to a crime. If there is no evidence, how do you come to a conclusion regarding the circumstances around it? If you were murdered tonight and no evidence was left at the scene (No CCTV, no DNA, no murder weapon, no finger prints....etc.) there is no evidence pointing to who committed the crime. You can't just go out on the street and pick a random person at that point and state that they did it. There is a "truth" but only with evidence are you able to figure out what that "truth" is.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In this circumstance there is "truth" but the question is how will we find out what that is? Well, it is the burden of USADA to put forward their case why LA is guilty of what they say he is. They need to prove it.

Btw, I love how you make it seem so easy to know what the "truth" is. USADA should hire you.

mjduct wrote:If you are that anti drug... do me a favor and rip the radio out of your car, take your ipod, cd player, tape deck, 8 track, 90, 45, pandora, napster, etc. make a big ass pile of all the music you've ever collected and enjoyed in your life and put it all in big pile in your front yard and light it on fire. I guarantee you the music industry has consumed tons more "performance enhancing drugs" per capita than all sports combined...

Check.............Mate

Pump the brakes there a second. In sports it's fraud, in music it's inspiration.

Just because many of us want to see Lance fry doesn't mean we didn't love watching him race. I must have watched the 2003 Luz Ardiden stage a dozen times. Love it. And even Landis' big day was amazing to watch. Of course it was a bit of a sham but still lots of fun.

Lance, you have entertained us - thank you. But the time has come to pay the debt owed for selling your soul. "Of your flesh that remains I will take as my food". Isn't this great!

Mr.Gib wrote:Pump the brakes there a second. In sports it's fraud, in music it's inspiration.

Just because many of us want to see Lance fry doesn't mean we didn't love watching him race. I must have watched the 2003 Luz Ardiden stage a dozen times. Love it. And even Landis' big day was amazing to watch. Of course it was a bit of a sham but still lots of fun.

Lance, you have entertained us - thank you. But the time has come to pay the debt owed for selling your soul. "Of your flesh that remains I will take as my food". Isn't this great!

Since you are so sure Lance doped, I am equally sure Cav doped. There is no way he can outperform other cyclists like that. It is all about EPO for him.

53x12 wrote:The only person that knows the truth is LA.

If he cheated or not? That may or may not be the case. I guess we will see.

53x12 wrote:Do you not understand that the person is innocent until proven guilty?

In the eye of the law, yes. But it still bears no relevance to the reality of whether they did it or not.

53x12 wrote:Evidence points to a crime. If there is no evidence, how do you come to a conclusion regarding the circumstances around it? If you were murdered tonight and no evidence was left at the scene (No CCTV, no DNA, no murder weapon, no finger prints....etc.) there is no evidence pointing to who committed the crime. You can't just go out on the street and pick a random person at that point and state that they did it. There is a "truth" but only with evidence are you able to figure out what that "truth" is.

Where did I state you can just make stuff up? I simply stated that the verdict in a judicial procedure does not say what 'truth' is.

No evidence of doping is not the same as evidence of no doping. If I was murdered tonight and no evidence and no body is found, did I not die?

Whether Lance is found guilty or not really isn't going to change my life either way.

MattSoutherden wrote:If he cheated or not? That may or may not be the case. I guess we will see.

I redact the "I guess we will see" statement.

It falls into the same false argument I am countering. We will see the verdict. Not whether he cheated or not, or if anyone else knows.

Mr.Gib wrote:Pump the brakes there a second. In sports it's fraud, in music it's inspiration.

Just because many of us want to see Lance fry doesn't mean we didn't love watching him race. I must have watched the 2003 Luz Ardiden stage a dozen times. Love it. And even Landis' big day was amazing to watch. Of course it was a bit of a sham but still lots of fun.

sounds to me like you were inspired by some of these epic now questionable rides my friend

I personally enjoyed baseball alot better when half the guys looked Like Arnold Scharzenneggar (sp?) and hit 70+ home runs per year, I'm pretty sure that the NFL is going to get alot less freakish when they institute their testing protocol. I'm 100% sure that in most countries what musicians do is illegal, but it makes them "better" and earns them money, and somehow were ok with that...

Why not in professional sports?

I don't like lance, and i personally believe he cheated. As much as i would like the truth to be out there about it, i just don think anyone will be satisfied with any of the possible outcomes. He is NEVER going to admit it.

The stupid thing about this whole saga is that even if he is given a fair and completely transparent trial, if he is found completely innocent, people are still going to accuse him for years to come. That alone for me means that this whole process is pointless and should not be pursued. Cycling as a sport would be better off just moving on and ignoring him.

As for the results, it would be pointless to try and work out who was the first clean winner. Just leave the results as they stand, and anyone found to be doped has an asterisk next to their name, and that mark appears in any results list that the rider has for their whole career, not just in the event in question. That way they can be seen and shamed right there in the results, instead of being too easily forgiven and then remembered fondly years later.

jsinclair wrote: this whole process is pointless and should not be pursued. Cycling as a sport would be better off just moving on and ignoring him.

I agree. Wouldn't the time and money be better spent trying to determine cyclists who are currently doping (or those in the near future) rather than go back 10-13 years to finally "nail" Lance. What is the point? I thought USADA wants to stop current doping. What is the point in trying to go back and "change history"? The damage has already been done. Try to change cycling now.

Yes, he should just be left alone and forgotten.

We are told that his pursuers are just trying to clean up the sport. They seem to forget that he's no longer involved in pro cycling. Every time there is progress made and the sport appears cleaner, he is mentioned again and we all have to relive it, it is exactly the same every time. The only news that actually filters through the mainstream public involves Armstrong and doping. They don't give a crap of Matt goss wins san-remo. If he is forgotten then so too might be cycling's dirty past.

Anyway, if he was found guilty, I wouldn't care because I already have an opinion. But if someone like wiggins was caught cheating then that would really piss me off. I would rather current cheats be strung up for all to see.

53x12 wrote:

jsinclair wrote: this whole process is pointless and should not be pursued. Cycling as a sport would be better off just moving on and ignoring him.

I agree. Wouldn't the time and money be better spent trying to determine cyclists who are currently doping (or those in the near future) rather than go back 10-13 years to finally "nail" Lance. What is the point? I thought USADA wants to stop current doping. What is the point in trying to go back and "change history"? The damage has already been done. Try to change cycling now.

And the worst part is, by digging up this dirt from an era of cycling that has faded away, it will undoubtedly be associated with cycling today, just as the sport's reputation is recovering.

My position is that if LA hasn't been found guilty and the case was thrown out, it should have ended there. Sure, it's possible that he cheated, but if it can't be proven, it's almost as frivolous as pulling any random guy off the street, accusing him of a murder and then throwing him in jail for life just because he fits the profile of a killer. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss, especially in a case like this, where if they just let him fade away into the history books, a new chapter of clean cycling could be allowed to continue. It's somewhat entertaining to watch all these armchair lawyers who talk as if they're absolutely certain if someone is guilty, even though thousands of hours of expertise failed to draw a case concrete enough.

Unfortunately, organizations like USADA operate on a presumption of guilt (as shown by their immediate suspension), rather than innocent until proven guilty, and as such, even though a court might not accept the evidence of these anonymous witnesses with questionable crediblity, there's nothing stopping them from doing it. I would be very surprised if they lost their case, as it just seems that their standards of evidence are not as solid as an actual court. If their mandate is truly to look to the future and prevent doping, then one could argue that punishing a past offender acts as a deterrent to anyone who even considers doping, which we know isn't true in the real world (Example: look at how useful the implication of harsh punishments, such as death sentences have been in reducing murder rates in the U.S.)

Bottom line: no one is going to win from this case being dug up and given the spotlight. The guys who will get their Tour titles won't experience the glory of standing on the podium at the Champs-Elysses (which is a large part of it) and won't have them considered "real" wins.

Having said all that above:

If we detach all emotional aspects from this case, then I do agree that Lance & Co. should be charged and have the case play out, but not be presumptively sanctioned as I understand it, unless it could be proven that today, he is doping. If the allegations are true, then it's the equivalent of committing a crime (e.g. fraud) in the cycling world. Even though there might be mitigating factors (e.g. it happened a long time ago, everybody else did it), the fact would remain he still committed the offence if there's enough evidence to support that. Since the punishment is all-or-nothing (i.e. he would be stripped of all TdF titles if found guilty) these mitigating factors mean absolutely nothing.

Crimes that occurred 30 years ago aren't left unpunished because it was a long time ago, or because the offender may be a wonderful contributor to society. If there's really new evidence, then it should be allowed to be seen. It may do no good to society to punish such an individual, similar to how no good to the cycling world this can do, but that's how a fair system is supposed to work. What I really take issue with is how reliable this evidence is, and what the threshold for reliability of evidence will be with an organization like USADA.

^ SSB to follow what you said about the burden of proof being low, here is a copy of the USADA statement on burden of proof. Will let the lawyers get into it.

@ SSB, a follow question I have is whether cycling can ever be a clean/pure sport? It just seems the history of it is so deep with doping and use of performance enhancing substances (free its very beginning) all the way up to now. These riders perform at such a high level of performance over such a long period of time, that I wonder how one gets rid of doping? The benefits are too large. Almost seems like it should be allowed and then closely monitored with several team physicians to ensure rider safety. Because it is the safety and health of the rider that is used as an excuse against doping right?



"3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof
The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an antidoping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof."

tranzformer wrote:^ SSB to follow what you said about the burden of proof being low, here is a copy of the USADA statement on burden of proof. Will let the lawyers get into it.

@ SSB, a follow question I have is whether cycling can ever be a clean/pure sport? It just seems the history of it is so deep with doping and use of performance enhancing substances (free its very beginning) all the way up to now. These riders perform at such a high level of performance over such a long period of time, that I wonder how one gets rid of doping? The benefits are too large. Almost seems like it should be allowed and then closely monitored with several team physicians to ensure rider safety. Because it is the safety and health of the rider that is used as an excuse against doping right?

That's something I can't really think of a solution to. Again, theoretically creating harsher punishments should be a deterrent to anyone even considering doping. Having seen multiple examples of why harsh punishments in the real world/cycling world don't work, I've come to the conclusion that not only does it fail to work, it has the tendency to exacerbate the problem because efforts are directed towards punishment rather than deterrence. The motive to cheat is simple: you gain a lot of glory and monetary awards. You can't exactly remove these incentives from pro cycling, otherwise what would be the point of the sport?

On a fundamental level, I believe that in all sports, one should be competing on the basis of their natural abilities. But one can dedicate their entire life to training and become a top player from a person who is merely "good", and a person who dopes within the safe range for their body can also be on the same field. What people find morally reprehensible is that the last person got to point X with a shortcut, and that is why those people are punished in society. A solution is that we just allow doping with ironclad oversight, and everyone is giving a level playing field, so it's one's choice to dope or not to dope to reach the limits of their body.

The problem that creates is that it contradicts the spirit of the sport, it's supposed to be man vs. man and not an arms race. That's a partial reason why we have limits and standards for bike design and weight. If we allowed doping, but within safe levels, then you'll bet that there'll be people with bottomless pockets trying to push the envelope of what is "safe", and again, we're back to the problem of it being an uneven playing field and a race between technologies, not bike riders.

There are so many sports that are clean out there, and all of them have the same incentives (i.e. glory and money.) Maybe we need to learn a thing or two from them? The solution is not as easy as telling kids not to dope, like how people tell kids drugs are bad.

Sorry for the long-winded posts, but it's a nice distraction from work.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com