Armstrong stripped of titles (Merged Lance threads)

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by switch

The documentary said that Bruyneel is challenging his charges.

I think the expectation is that LA will be called as a witness to testify at that hearing, although I'm not sure if he can be issued a summons to force him to appear.

[KenN]

Originally Posted by CraigH

Lance and the rep. from Oakley, maybe others who weren't in the TV show.

I wonder if Lance's cancer doctor gave a statement under oath? I'm guessing he wouldn't have to because of the patient/doctor confidentiality?

Patient confidentiality doesn't trump a court summons though.


Kn.

[switch]

Originally Posted by CraigH

Lance and the rep. from Oakley, maybe others who weren't in the TV show.

I wonder if Lance's cancer doctor gave a statement under oath? I'm guessing he wouldn't have to because of the patient/doctor confidentiality?

Doctor Ferrari would like that.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by switch

Doctor Ferrari would like that.

<Jack Handey> I think if you don't go faster after a visit to "Doctor Ferrari", you should at least get your money back. </Jack Handey>

[Circlip]

Originally Posted by CraigH

Lance and the rep. from Oakley, maybe others who weren't in the TV show.

I wonder if Lance's cancer doctor gave a statement under oath? I'm guessing he wouldn't have to because of the patient/doctor confidentiality?

Like most things with this case, it's not that simple. See article below from journalist Bonnie Ford, who has done some solid pieces on the Armstrong case over the years.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=5522910

To recap, the Andreus were among a group of friends who visited Armstrong at the Indiana University hospital when the cyclist's prognosis and his career prospects were uncertain. The Andreus say that two doctors entered the room and asked Armstrong questions, including whether he had ever used performance-enhancing drugs. According to the Andreus, he ticked off a list that included steroids, human growth hormone, cortisone and EPO.

The episode was first reported publicly in a 2004 book co-written by journalists David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, "L.A. Confidentiel," which was only published in French. The book came to the notice of SCA Promotions, a Texas insurance company that had signed a contract with the Postal team's ownership to pay Armstrong a $5 million bonus if he won a record-breaking sixth Tour. The hospital room incident, along with other allegations against Armstrong, prompted the company's refusal to pay the bonus.

Armstrong sued, and the case went to arbitration. The Andreus gave depositions under oath about what they had seen and heard. Armstrong testified that the conversation they described never took place. His supervising physician, Dr. Craig Nichols, signed an affidavit stating that he had not asked Armstrong the questions recounted by the Andreus and that he could find no reference to the subject in Armstrong's medical records. The Andreus could not identify the doctors who came into the room but said Nichols was not one of them.


What we do know is that Armstrong donated monies in the seven figure range to the hospital, and also in the form of research grants to Dr. Nichols, large portions of which came only days after his testimony at the SCA arbitration hearing. Obviously a "thank you" from Armstrong, but was it strictly for being part of his treatment team, or was it for the testimony? Based on everything else we know now, I would find nothing surprising if it came to light that the testimony was provided with certain mutually understood arrangements behind it.

[cerealkilla']

As promised...I had to explain to a few people that the kit was wrong because I've had to switch up my sponsors lately. I'm now sponsored by Oaklee Sunglasses (available in Mexican markets everywhere), Lukeee Beer (a nice home brew), and Nickee sportswear (a new fitness clothing company in kits, about to go out of business. The hypos in my butt make it hard to sit down, gonna' have to drink standing up I guess. I also deny I have ever ever ever drank alcoholic beverages at any time in my life.


http://photos.nsmb.com/showimage.php...atid=newimages

[CraigH]

The spiral continues...

IOC opens probe into Lance Armstrong's Olympic medal

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/cycling/sto...armstrong.html

Leipheimer might loose his Olympic medal too.

[nortonwhis]

New south park does a pretty decent job of making fun of this whole issue. s16e13 i think. worth a watch

[cerealkilla']

Will Routley's take on the matter (PEDs, not just Lance)
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/W...237/story.html
Basically, anyone who takes drugs isn't just a cheater, they're a criminal. Good read, strongly worded from someone that has been there the right way.

[thansen]

Performance enhancing drugs are used because people are genetically inferior to their competitors. Sometimes training can only get you so far, generally speaking you will always run into somebody who is naturally better than you at a sport, and if that person trains just as hard as you, you will never beat them. PED's provided a way to level the playing field.

I would put PED's in the same boat as something as common as laser eye surgery. With laser eye surgery you are artificially enhancing a physical attribute that is genetic, which is the same thing you are doing with PED's.

Some people argue about the health concerns of using PED's, which I find hypocritical, especially when talking about the use in sports like football, boxing and to a lesser extent hockey. We fully support games/competitions where it is proven that these professional athletes are damaging there bodies beyond repair and in some cases shortening their life span, but get upset when they take a PED because it could affect their health.

[Oldfart]

Originally Posted by thansen

Performance enhancing drugs are used because people are genetically inferior to their competitors. Sometimes training can only get you so far, generally speaking you will always run into somebody who is naturally better than you at a sport, and if that person trains just as hard as you, you will never beat them. PED's provided a way to level the playing field.

I would put PED's in the same boat as something as common as laser eye surgery. With laser eye surgery you are artificially enhancing a physical attribute that is genetic, which is the same thing you are doing with PED's.

Some people argue about the health concerns of using PED's, which I find hypocritical, especially when talking about the use in sports like football, boxing and to a lesser extent hockey. We fully support games/competitions where it is proven that these professional athletes are damaging there bodies beyond repair and in some cases shortening their life span, but get upset when they take a PED because it could affect their health.

That's not what a level playing field is. A level playing field is everyone has the same chance, same rules same course. If you are genetically inferior to others tough shit. I loved playing hockey but was too small (and too unskilled) and too bad. I do see you point though. If athletes took drugs purely for recovery or for their health that is one thing. But to make an athlete bigger or better or whatever the sport demands is cheating. Competition is about doing your best with what you got. It's like playing poker where you get to see the other cards or are plying with a loaded deck. It's cheating.

Think about that term "level playing field". If you playing soccer and have to run uphill to the other teams net....tilted in their favour...its not about making all the athletes the same. Its about making the game the same.

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by thansen

I would put PED's in the same boat as something as common as laser eye surgery. With laser eye surgery you are artificially enhancing a physical attribute that is genetic, which is the same thing you are doing with PED's.

I read somewhere that Tiger Woods had laser surgery to get his vision better than 20/20. Presumably, this gives him an advantage in judging distances, reading fairways and greens, and picking out skanky chicks in the crowd.

Pretty much the same thing as taking a PED, but I'm pretty sure no sports leagues are banning eye surgery.

Originally Posted by PaulB

I think the expectation is that LA will be called as a witness to testify at that hearing, although I'm not sure if he can be issued a summons to force him to appear.

According to Velonews, if Bruyneel's hearing goes to arbitration, the USADA will be able to subpoena witnesses to testify under oath. It will be interesting to see how Bruyneel plays this out.

[Duncan]

The "level playing field" is somewhat mythical in many sports anyways. Not all training programs are equal. What works for some athletes, doesn't work for others, be it genetics, mental abilities, personality, physiology etc. The same is probably true of PEDs. If you wanted a truly level playing field, you would enforce standardized training regimens and restrict the amount of money and resources the athlete had to train with. Then you would get to see who is the better (natural) "athlete".

[switch]

Originally Posted by Duncan

The "level playing field" is somewhat mythical in many sports anyways. Not all training programs are equal.

I'd guess the US Track and Field training program has some advantages over other countries like, say, Haiti.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by switch

I'd guess the US Track and Field training program has some advantages over other countries like, say, Haiti.

Nope ... the US is just superior. Period. At least according to the Men's Health list of the 100 fittest men of all time. Soooo many Americans in the list (over 80 percent I estimate), and over 90 percent have lived in my lifetime! What are the odds of that? We are living in the age of amazing fitness. And who would have thought Adrian Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings is one of the of the fittest men who has ever lived in history (#97 position)?