Catholic Online Forum

All I know is what I read in the media, but it seems like everybody is dogpiling Lance Armstrong.

He still maintains his innocence.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/potential-tax-implications-lance-armstrongs-113039311.html

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

David,

I did not like the link, because on it was the suggestion that working to the age 80 should be the norm, which means another 11 months working for me

It would seem that those who use chemical substances to improve their performance are always one step ahead of those who wish to prevent this.

I don't know how you draw the line. For example, if Usain Bolt woke up the morning of the 100 meters Olympic final with a splitting head ache, or severe muscle pain and took Ibufren or paracetemol, that would help his performance on that day. Likewise if it was a Sally Pearson who woke with indemitriosis pain on the day of the 100 meters hurdle final and took something to take away the pain, that would assist her performance.


I realise that both my examples are spurious, but I have come to the conclusion that so much assistance is available in all sports these days, that we might just as well forget about doping and work on the assumption that they are all at it and let those who wish to take the chance risk their future health for a win at any cost. A bit like those of us who take our faith on trust that the "tap on the shoulder" will not come today. Something very much in line with the liturgy of recent days Mass readings.

Peter

_________________
"Lord to whom shall I go? Thou hast the words of eternal life"

Lance Armstrong passed 500 drug tests.

For the benefit of the brain dead news media who never seem to get it, I'll explain what this means.

Whatever else he did, he didn't take drugs himself.

_________________
Norman
"Reporters want to find out what I plan to do. They say imagine the temptations that come with unlimited power! Who could resist changing things? I can resist temptation. I’m not going to tell anybody what to do. People know best what to do with their lives."

--Theresa

What comes to mind with the tragic story of Lance Armstrong is not satisfaction for justice, or a re-reminder that cheaters don’t win in the end. I think not about what he has done, but what will he do. I think life is not about “winning” it is about doing the right thing. Can I do the right thing (for the glory of God) when the chips are down? Lance now has an obvious weight on his back now, and we see it. Has he hit rock bottom? Only he knows that. Fame and fortune have taken a turn on Lance, but we do not know if this is what is most important to him right now. I know these things are not important to me.

_________________
BobB

Fiat voluntas tua

The second statement does not necessarily follow. There are many assumptions which must be true in order for b to follow necessarily from a.

For instance, one might bribe a certain Hein Verbruggen to cover up failed drug tests.

As with many things, it is much more complex than many people want to reduce it to, in some misguided effort to have an opinion on everything, even things they know almost nothing about.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

So far I don't understand the science of this case. If he used forbidden drugs I am ok taking away his wins and records. In the US and in Europe I hear people speak who seem to be certain that he did this, for a long time.

It sounds as if earlier blood samples have been subjected to a more sensitive/reliable chemical testing process. It would explain why he seemed to have tested negative for a long time, and yet why there is certainty now. But I have not yet heard anyone describe the new evidence. Perhaps rather than old blood samples being subjected to a new test, there is some new way of taking a newly drawn blood sample and determining what you were doing 8 years ago.

I trust the people who are saying they know for certain. In time I suppose I'll learn the science.

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson

It seems we often hear people speaking with great certainty (on various topics) who later turn out to be totally wrong.

It is not beyond belief that those accusing Lance might have ulterior motives.

As I said, I only know what I have read in the media, which also has a less than stellar record of accuracy.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

Why is it that when someone absolutely dominates a sport, it is presumed that he (she) is cheating?

_________________
Bob C

It is not presumed.

It is a possibility because it has happened. A lot.

It is likely in THIS case because it seems like doing is endemic yo the sport, and he beat them all.

It is one thing to beat everyone when everyone is playing fair. It is something else when you beat everyone else and they're cheating. That makes your own fair play very unlikely. Is that enough to conclude cheating? Of course not. Is it enough to be suspicious? Perfectly reasonable.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

David L:

I haven't gone through the 1,000 page report (WOW) and read any of the science, but what I do find very damning is 15 former team mates giving testimony before the commission on what he took, how he took it, when he took it, and how it went unnoticed. Fifteen. Not one or two disgruntled people. Not strangers who are coming after him. People who rode with him, ate bread at his table. That is very damning to me, even without reading through the 1,000 pages of the report.

If you were being prosecuted for a work related crime, and 15 co-workers stepped forward to say they saw you are you're guilty--no ifs, ands, or buts, your going to jail.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

In this case, it seems like the analogy would be something like:

15 co-workers say they saw you embezzle funds.
A forensic audit shows no evidence of missing moneys.

Do you go to jail? hmmmm

_________________
squirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamais le mal n’aura le dernier mot. La foi et l’amour déplacent les montagnes de la haine.
- Marguerite (Maggy) Barankitse

Hello squirt:

Ah, that's the thing. It is possible to embezzle a lot of money and still hide it from a forensic audit. Armstrong, though, is not going to jail. It's far worse than jail. It is the infamy and shame of being told you have no honor, no name to defend. Your word means nothing. In short, you are not a man. You didn't "Livestrong" but you "Liedwrong."

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

As I recall, his 15 coworkers had all been caught taking drugs before they testified against him. Did they get some consideration for testifying against him?

From what I have read they seem to be the only evidence. I haven't seen any report of any physical evidence.

From my experience on a jury, evidence from co-conspirators if valid only if supported by some other evidence. While this my not be a conspiracy, I would like to see some evidence from a non-involved source.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

Hi Fr Angel!!

Yes, it is definitely possible.

I certainly hope that people remember that even if Lance cheated, he still had to work hard and persevere. You can't win by doping alone. A person shouldn't be remembered only for what he or she did wrong.

_________________
squirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamais le mal n’aura le dernier mot. La foi et l’amour déplacent les montagnes de la haine.
- Marguerite (Maggy) Barankitse

How many hundreds of athletes has he associated with over the years, not competitors necessarily, but just athletes who sought him out and spend time with him off the track etc etc etc.?
Not surprising if 15 of them got in trouble and made deals. Armstrong was an easy target.

What is surprising is that the authorities didn't arrest Armstrong if they had evidence against him, but all this came out in the open. Hmmm.....?

Anyway, if he passed 500 drug tests he'd have to be smarter than James Bond to have them all get negative results if he had the stuff in himself. As for speculation that the tests weren't as sensitive a few years ago or any speculation like that without something to back it up............ Really, now!

Remember Babe Ruth? He was the greatest athlete in his sport for years. It's possible for an athlete to dominate his sport for a long time. It happens.

_________________
Norman
"Reporters want to find out what I plan to do. They say imagine the temptations that come with unlimited power! Who could resist changing things? I can resist temptation. I’m not going to tell anybody what to do. People know best what to do with their lives."

--Theresa

Really, Norman! He hasn't violated any law that I am aware of, only the rules set down by some sports organizations. So why would he be arrested.


I believe the Bambino self-medicated with a drug called alcohol, a substance, by the way, that was illegal in the U.S. during most of his major league career.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

All,

You might find informative this ABC documentary, The World According to Lance, screened on the Four Corners program (the Australian equivalent of the BBC's Panorama):

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 608613.htm

I believe it's going to be screened in the US either tomorrow or the day after on CNN.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

And that, along with all the hot dogs and other junk food he ate, probably made his career less spectacular than it might have been and maybe shortened it too. It's a shame.

But who was going to tell the Sultan of Swat to change anything?

_________________
Norman
"Reporters want to find out what I plan to do. They say imagine the temptations that come with unlimited power! Who could resist changing things? I can resist temptation. I’m not going to tell anybody what to do. People know best what to do with their lives."

--Theresa

I have been following the Armstrong case closely and was on the verge of writing a commentary for my newspaper, after doing all the research on doping in sports. I am with Bob in the thinking that when someone dominates, there are always some who think the guy must be cheating, especially in a sport rife with drug cheats. Can't a clean sportsman nonetheless beat them all and be held up as an example that you don't have to cheat to win?

From what I understand there is no new scientific evidence that Armstrong was taking drugs. But in the world of doping, the drug investigators in the lab are always a step or two behind in identifying current drugs that many cheating sportsmen and women use, and that is the reason their blood and urine tests turn up negative. By the time they discover these drugs, the samples are no longer legally valid to be retested and the cheats are on to some new drug.

Joe made a good point in that all the 15 had doping issues and the assumption is that they cut a deal with USADA to give evidence because there is no scientific evidence Armstrong had doped when he won the seven Tour de France titles. If there is any scientific evidence, it is after he won those seven titles.

My problem with USADA is that its chief Travis Tygart was obsessive in hunting down Armstrong, the champion is the big fish and will look good on Tygart's record when he finally gets his guy after a frustrating pursuit for so many years. And Tygart was arrogant in wanting to get UCI down on their knees. He portrays himself as a man on a one-man crusade calling all the shots, and he gets the headlines -- this is how the story was and is panning out with the USADA chief.

Is Armstrong really guilty or was Tygart desperately grabbing on to what he could to bring the man down, regardless of the truth? I think this is the question that needs to be answered.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

??????????????????????????

1. Unless the drug dopers actually invent new drugs themselves ( which drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop ) the drug investigators have to be aware of the latest drug and take steps to detect it.

2. Interesting that Armstrong could avoid the latest and greatest drug test techniques 500 times in a row. He must either be a genius, or innocent.

_________________
Norman
"Reporters want to find out what I plan to do. They say imagine the temptations that come with unlimited power! Who could resist changing things? I can resist temptation. I’m not going to tell anybody what to do. People know best what to do with their lives."

--Theresa

You don't need to develop new drugs to go undetected, just come up with appropriate masking agents or other 'cleansing' techniques for the currently available tests.

_________________
squirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamais le mal n’aura le dernier mot. La foi et l’amour déplacent les montagnes de la haine.
- Marguerite (Maggy) Barankitse

A bunch of athletes can do this? They should get jobs with the drug companies.

Why have drug tests at all?

_________________
Norman
"Reporters want to find out what I plan to do. They say imagine the temptations that come with unlimited power! Who could resist changing things? I can resist temptation. I’m not going to tell anybody what to do. People know best what to do with their lives."

--Theresa

If the test does not look for a particular substance, does that mean it’s not cheating to take it? Do some vitamins or heightened levels of some vitamins tested? A pain killer, or Tylenol, is that cheating? I think that all athletes, as a part of their competitive nature, prepare in a way to win. What is too far is constantly changing. This game of avoid detection is a reality and always will be in professional sports. It is also part of the ugliness of professional sports and a consequence of participating in it.

_________________
BobB

Fiat voluntas tua

Damn skippy! Athletes and their coaches have been known to engage in such behaviour in the past.

The annals of track and field sports competitions contain many interesting stories along this line.

_________________
squirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamais le mal n’aura le dernier mot. La foi et l’amour déplacent les montagnes de la haine.
- Marguerite (Maggy) Barankitse

Part of why I find this thread interesting is that, in my day job, part of my duties involve the detection and documentation of various types of cheating, with possible serious consequences for those you are caught.

Sometimes I suspect something, and it turns out that I'm wrong.
Sometimes I suspect something, and I'm right.
And I'd bet that sometimes I don't suspect anything, when there was cheating going on.

_________________
squirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamais le mal n’aura le dernier mot. La foi et l’amour déplacent les montagnes de la haine.
- Marguerite (Maggy) Barankitse

It's not just drugs. It's methods as well, such as blood doping, infusions of someone else's blood to mask the presence of markers, finding a drug that supresses the marker that a particular test looks for, etc.


You keep assuming this is a fact. If he bribed testing and racing officials, as there is evidence he did, then it calls his tests very much into question.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Ian,

If you ever get around to writing that commentary, post a link I'd like to read it.

_________________
Bob C

Evidence or allegations?

_________________
Bob C

_________________
Jeff Stevens

If I am able to write it and push it through, I will surely give you the link, Bob.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Thanks

_________________
Bob C

Ever heard of Balco and Victor Conte? And that is a company that was operating as a legitimate business before they were found out. What is the doping market worth? Is it lucrative enough to send rogue chemists to work underground?


Norman, you assume I have formed a definite opinion of Armstrong's guilt or innocence. There are reasons to argue either way. One could also probably make a case that ego and obsession got the better of Travis Tygart and colored his pursuit and judgement of Armstrong.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

I would think that it is not cheating unless there is a specific rule against doing whatever you are doing. If there is a rule agaist vitamins, or specific medications and vitamins, then using them is cheating, otherwise it is not.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

David,

The generic term is performance-enhancing drugs. If an athlete takes a substance with the knowledge it will give him an unfair advantage, even if the present detection methods in place are not programmed to detect it, it is cheating. Using a substance not for its intended purpose is abusing its correct prescription and can be detrimental to the athlete's well-being.

I believe WADA and USADA and the various sports governing bodies have a list of vitamins and medications that are legitimate for athletes to consume to help them remain fit and recover from injuries during training and competition.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

I believe this is still a subjective process. Also, what is unfair? If no drugs were 'banned' it would be available for all and therefore not an unfair advantage.

_________________
BobB

Fiat voluntas tua

He did take a lot of illegal drugs back when he was being treated for cancer, but supposedly there were variances on those drugs. Is some of that being revisited? Is it possible that those drugs masked others that it's believed he took?

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Ian:

That the investigator had it out for Lance is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a 1,000 page report, scientific and filled with testimony, has been compiled. No one here, that I can see, has access to those 1,000 pages and has reviewed them.

However, they are apparently quite convincing and damning if the UCI has stripped Lance of his Tour wins in spite of the legal team and defenders and connections which Armstrong still maintains in the sport. I personally do not buy the line that UCI has been unduly influenced by anti-Lance sentiments. He is too powerful, and for some, too sacred a figure to remove from his pedestal without more than sentiment to back it up.

And let's not forget that Lance himself has chosen not to push back--most highly unusual for a fighter of his level of tenacity. It is usually a sign, when a tenacious and unrelenting fighter taps out, that something has been found out or uncovered which clearly signals the game is over. I believe that when all the dots are connected, it points to an extremely intelligent, clever, and sophisticated cover up which was efficiently orchestrated but is now exposed by equally sophisticated investigative research on the part of his prosecutors.

The 15 are only those willing to testify. But it only takes one hidden witness, unimpeachable in their word and incontrovertible in their evidence, to throw back the veil. That person may not necessarily be mentioned but still known to the authorities and to Lance. It will be interesting to know what those 1,000 pages say. Until people in this forum read through those pages and weigh the contents, it would be most imprudent to make comments like "there is no new evidence" or "we don't know anything we didn't know before."

Apparently, to Lance, a man who is now placing himself in the position where he will have to return millions and millions of dollars, there is something now known that wasn't known before. At least he knows it. And he is the one who has freely chosen to not fight for his innocence anymore. I think it's his way of saying he knows that he isn't that innocent after all.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Fr Angel,

You are probably right, but for the record I have neither judged one way or the other on the opinions of anyone on Armstrong’s guilt or innocence. Neither, like I said above, have I come to any opinion on him. I am still reading all information related to the case.

But no one can deny USADA has overwhelming evidence stacked against Armstrong and in the USADA document that can be downloaded here, USADA vs Lance Armstrong, Reasoned decision of USADA on disqualification and ineligibility (not the 1,000-pafge report), they reported on Page 4 that:


So, the case against Armstrong, from what I have read from the USADA document, is based mainly on witness accounts and I have no issue with this as long as the testimonies are credible and like you say that it only takes one hidden witness, unimpeachable in their word and incontrovertible in their evidence, to throw back the veil.


My comment “I understand” was not meant to indicate any existing definite proof in the public domain, and if it looked that way, then I offer my apologies. But I don’t make unsubstantiated comments and when I say I understand it was from documents that I am reading or have read and maybe I should have made this point. And “new evidence” I referred to were in the USADA document above that point to those after he won the seven titles. From page 139 onwards, USADA explains this scientific evidence, and in the case of those from 1999, there were questions raised in how the samples were handled by the French agency after so long a time period.

For the record I have not read the entire document, so I am opened to be corrected. But for the record again, I have not come to any conclusion or formed an opinion on Armstrong or anybody’s opinion about him.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Like most other COLers who are following this, I only know what I read and see in newspapers, magazines and on the various other media outlets.

So like most other COLers, any opinion I express here would be just that — an uninformed opinion based on how I feel about sports in general, the proliferation of performance-inhancing drugs in athletics and Lance Armstrong, in particular.

So the only opinion I am comfortable expressing is that whether Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping and/or the use of other illegal performance-inhancing drugs or not (and I certainly have know way of knowing), this whole controversy is a sad commentary about the importance our society attaches to athletic prowess/success.

That elite athletes are willing to risk future health and reputation to "win at any cost" is symptomatic of a culture that puts emphasis not on doing one's best but on winning. You either win or you are a loser!

One of the few things that Lance Armstrong and I have in common is that we are both cancer survivors.

Approximately two and a half miles from where this post is being composed sits Livestrong Sporting Park, where the MLS Sporting KC soccer team plays.

I can vividly remember the dedication last year when it was announced that the stadium would be sponsored by the Livestrong Cancer Foundation started by Lance Armstrong.

It is with great sadness that I have come to realize that this noble cancer-fighting organization will be forever inextricably associated with its founder. for good or for ill.

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

A lighter look:



http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3618757.htm

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-30/a ... de/4342566

Well, I'm sure he must be really upset about that.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I just stumbled across a quick explanation of what happened in the laboratory that I guess started the Armstrong investigation, although the actual timeline wasn't given.

What happened was that he had a test that screened normal. However, they take random normal screens and run a more specific test. It's the done thing in laboratories to check themselves for error. In this case the specific test came up positive for synthetic hormones. It turns out that a fraction of people have a genetic difference that allows them a pass on that screening test. Lance Armstrong is one of those people.

It wasn't clear from the short article I read whether this was a recent test, which may have given the agencies cause to go back and run the more specific test on archived samples or what happened then. Testing positive today should have no bearing on previous achievements other than perhaps to look at the tests associated with those achievements.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

In an upcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey, it is alleged that Lance Armstrong will finally confess to being guilty of doping.

The bombshell news is reported in this article:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2013-01-11/lance-armstrong-admission-doping-cyclist-oprah-winfrey-interview?ncid=webmail1

Ahead of time, I think it is appropriate to state that he needs our prayers. The scandal of such a world-renowned U.S. athlete admitting to cheating, and lying about it, will be too much for some ears to hear, or be able to deal with.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Oh, wow. When my mother was dying from cancer she said he was her hero. Glad she didn't live to see this.

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

Father,



Very sad indeed. A great disappointment to all who followed his career with admiration.

"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay." (Daniel 2:31-33)

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

It appears that this discussion, which began as a question, is now painfully concluded with the answer given by Lance Armstrong himself. According to an article in the HuffPo, Armstrong confessed in an emotional interview with Oprah Winfrey that he did, indeed, use performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/oprah-lance-armstrong-interview-doping_n_2478581.html?ref=topbar

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Father,

I saw Oprah being interviewed this morning on the ABC (Oz not Yank) and she seemed strangely equivocal. She said that Armstrong "did not come clean in the manner I expected". I wonder what that means.

I suppose we'll have to watch the interview.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Unfortunately, I do believe he did. There are just too many of his peers that have been caught. The number of testimonies from those claiming to be within his circle are just too many to write them all off as lairs.

Athletes know there is a small window of opportunity for getting caught. Drugs of choice like; EPO stay in the blood system for such a small period of time that it is difficult for enforcers to catch the guilty party. When they do get caught, their "B" sample does not match the initial "A" sample finding. Hence, the guilty party is acquitted. This is part of the reason why Athletes can make claims of passing hundreds of test as a verification of their innocents.

What complicates things are Athletes at the highest levels are sponsored with premium endorsement deals. Can you image if a "Branded" athlete was to get caught? There is a lot more at steak than his reputation. Hence, comes the Coaches, Trainers and Doctors that make up their entourage just to make certain their "Healthy"?

I am a BIG Athletics fan so I have followed this topic for a very long time. I remember watching in amazement at the shear size of the Eastern Block Athletes in the 70's...and that was the women competitors. Sadly, whenever I watch an incredible performance these days, I have to hope there was no help biologically beyond the talents that God provided.

On the good side, I believe the aggressive anti-doping tactics in Athletics have helped clean up the sport. There is an ongoing fight to take control of this epidemic. Organizations like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) need to be able to get in and monitor top tear professional sports - like Football, Basketball and Baseball. Of course these are BIG money sports and cannot afford scandals of any of the high profile athletes.

Sadly, it's more than a sport, it's a business...

_________________
Leo