Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:54:18 GMT

Bleachers, grandstand. Or, colloquially, just plain "seats." What's the word in French, by the way? Oh great thanks. In French it's Gradins or Estrades.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:11:01 GMT

This article gives some reasons that LA received a lifetime ban, while others got less. Apparently he has never cooperated with the anti-doping agencies (beyond admitting he was doping).

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Rob Copeland — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:25:33 GMT

best I can tell... that the USADA only has jurisdiction over US athletes (duh) and Armstrong is particularly egregious as far as Americans go. The USADA also seems to be fairly consistent about lifetime bans for traffikers.I believe USADA has agreements with the USOC and each National Governing Boby member of USOC. These agreements cover the members of these NGB’s and events sanctioned by these NGB’s. So for example any USA-Swimming member on FINA’s Registered Testing Pool is available for out-of-competition testing by USADA, FINA or WADA. And any swimmer competing at USA-S sanctioned events (regardless of national affiliation or inclusion in the testing pool) is subject to drug testing conducted by the USADA and FINA. On a side note, I read where Russian cyclist Alexander Serebryakov recently returned an adverse analytical finding in an out of competition test. It appears the Armstrong example and clean sport initiatives haven’t completely sunk in for the cycling world.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:41:39 GMT

Now for the ultimate thread killer. I feel like using the "yeah, but everyone else was cheating too..." argument is tantamount to "Hitler did lots of good things for Germany." Let's face facts here. Armstrong's cheating, lying and bullying was almost an art form and the man deserves nothing but derision for that. Yet I still don't see why that should disqualify him from competing in masters swimming. I guess it all depends on the perspective. From a purely Master Swimmer's perspective, it's harder to draw the line. The truth being that elite/pro like categories just don't exist in this world. Now from an overall - including but not limited to cycling - perspective, I find that the line is easier to draw. Lance Armstrong probably scores a podium for being at the base of one of the worst doping mess. Like you mentioned, that includes forcing people to dope, bullying (severe bullying that is) of a few careers, he lied in front of the court (and actually deserved to be sued for that), etc... Ever since he got caught, he's constantly tried to find other grounds to compete. Well a large portion of the athletic community would rather see Armstrong paying back for what he did. So as far as I'm concerned, blocking him systematically from all fields of competition is not only reasonable, but mandatory. I didn't even mention the potential for repeat offense. Say that he does very very well, that he starts tackling for making podiums at the worlds, even targeting records. Say that he starts dominating the Master scene. Is there anyone here on USMS that would rule out doping? This guy has proved that we can not (and probably never will) be trusted. What I find particularly troublesome in the Lance case, is that he seems to suffer from ego bigorexia. What I mean here, is that he finds himself so big that rules don't seem to exist for him. So I guess the main reason why I don't want him to compete at the Master level, is that he has to learn that rules, even imperfect (most sports bodies are non profit, inefficient power trip based committees etc), are there to be followed by everyone. Doesn't matter that you're a millionnaire, that you created a foundation etc. Learn that you violated several rules, that you disappointed several thousands persons, and so stop trying to compete if this is what the society is expecting from you. You're no longer *Big* Lance, you're just a cheater. One of the best cheaters, but a cheater still.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:53:32 GMT

Again, did USADA performed (or was supposed to perform) drug tests for Mr. Armstrong? Of course they did! Do these tests discover doping through the analysis? Sure they do! So the question is: how come that for 12 years they couldn't prove any fact anti-doping rule violation? It certainly wasn't due to a lack of trying. Marion Jones never failed a drug test either. Doping is very sophisticated and continues to evolve. It is very difficult for the testing methods to keep pace.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:44:42 GMT

I still don't understand why no criminal complaints were brought against him, here or in Europe. The Department of Justice dropped their criminal investigation of him for reasons which remain unclear. While doping is not a criminal offense, he had allegedly violated his contract with the US Postal service and misused funds.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:04:31 GMT

Look at this from another angle - WADA/USADA sucks if they couldn't prove for decade that LA was cheating or they just didn't want to, so they should have punished themselves first. The whole thing sounds like a corruption issue and now they give life time ban to LA and come dry from water themselves. IMO they should have given same punishment to LA as to any other athlete caught on using drugs and there should be investigation why couldn't they prove that fact for decade. It's ridiculous to ban someone from participating in competitions which have nothing common with professional sport and which main purpose is health and fitness. Doing that exclusively to LA because he's a public figure is nothing less than hypocrisy. The lifetime ban is justified. Again, from USADA's August 24, 2012 statement: In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:05:48 GMT

Off topic, but is there such a thing as MILD pedophilia? Not IMO... Big topic, off topic. Best example are voyeurs. They have a problem, they are a pain in my humble opinion, a real one. They hang around for hours in locker rooms waiting for views. Could kid realize what's going on? Some will and some won't. It's really sad for those who will which makes this issue one that should be reported to the authorities. But by the way, who does? Do you recall having yourself spotted locker room rats and take the phone dial zero call security on suspicion? Probably not. Because it's mild case of pedophilia. Another example? One day i'm a lifeguard. My pal on the bridge (which cuts the 50m pool in two 25m) whispers to me "he's there again the sucker". I go like "what? who?". The guy in the (sorry, have no translations, the seats section, where people can cheers) section up there, he has a huge camera. He keeps coming back. What do you think is going on? Diving sessions. All kids from 5 to 13. Bending over and keeping the pause, before diving. I'm like "I'm going to go after him!!". Lifeguard pal goes "No we can't. We have to call security but they always show up when the guys is already gone". I jump over the fence and go after the sucker without permission, threaten to grab and seise his camera if I ever see him here again. I mention that another police report will be filed to report the issue. Mild case of pedophilia, Maybe someday this guy will get caught, but it's so mild that they can go on and on before getting caught. Kid that gets photographed, if pics don't reach Internet doesn't suffer from it. Nowadays with cameras stuffed in a phone, in a musical device, on the beach? This issue is complex. If you see a kid being physically abused by an adult, you jump at the adult's throat because it's severe case of pedophilia. If you see an adult that may have taken a picture with his iPhone on a beach, you see this through your sun glasses, are you going to stand up and challenge the person? Some will, some won't because as bad as it can be, it remains mild relative to physical abuse or psychological abuse etc...

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

knelson — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:56:07 GMT

If you allow me an analogy (I'll try to avoid hitting the Godwin spot here). You got caught in a severe case of drunk driving. The society wants you to stop driving for a whilst. That should apply to motorcycles, cars... and boats too! I was thinking of another scenario. Suppose you get fired at work for cause. Do you think it would be fair if there was some overarching "Employment Agency" that could then ban you from getting any kind of job ever again, based solely on their discretion?

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Elaine Krugman — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:54:45 GMT

Lance we believed in you, you cheated, you lied, you got caught, please stop trying to find workarounds and opportunities to raise attention. Get forgotten, stop trying to compete. Exactly! I was a fan and now I am totally disgusted. I read his books, watched every Tour de France, believed in him 100%. When the allegations first started years ago, I defended him when my friends suspected he was guilty. At this point, I wish he would just GO AWAY. :censor:

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Debugger — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:35:42 GMT

The lifetime ban is justified. Again, from USADA's August 24, 2012 statement: In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory. Again, did USADA performed (or was supposed to perform) drug tests for Mr. Armstrong? Of course they did! Do these tests discover doping through the analysis? Sure they do! So the question is: how come that for 12 years they couldn't prove any fact anti-doping rule violation? Personally I'm sure they found something but some important figures in this game where not interested in it to become public. Otherwise LA would get normal 2 year ban already 12 years ago and most likely the story would never come to the life time ban. Now situation looks like LA got most severe penalty in the history of sport as a scapegoat for the first proven violation and people who were covering him all this time stay clear (from USADA side as well because I don't believe they were not aware).

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

knelson — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:34:02 GMT

The guy in the (sorry, have no translations, the seats section, where people can cheers) section Bleachers, grandstand. Or, colloquially, just plain "seats." What's the word in French, by the way?

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

smontanaro — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:22:03 GMT

The lifetime ban is justified. Again, from USADA's August 24, 2012 statement: ... aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.... I still don't understand why no criminal complaints were brought against him, here or in Europe.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

knelson — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:14:15 GMT

Leif Erisson (sp?) Leif Ericson was the Viking explorer who was the first European to visit North America. I believe you're thinking of Leif Garrett whose achievements are notably less impressive. :)

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

chowmi — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:06:19 GMT

He will end up boxing against Tonya Harding and Vanilla Ice on Fox. Not before he gets a gig on that show WITH Tonya Harding, Danny Bonaduce (sp?), Leif Erisson (sp?), and maybe one of those Balwin guys commentating on dumb stuff people do.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Debugger — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:54:14 GMT

Maybe. His whole disgrace is still too fresh for most people, after over a decade of lying. He needs to lay low for a while. I realize in Austin he is a mythical figure but to many of us on the outside he just needs to get out of the public eye for now. Look at this from another angle - WADA/USADA sucks if they couldn't prove for decade that LA was cheating or they just didn't want to, so they should have punished themselves first. The whole thing sounds like a corruption issue and now they give life time ban to LA and come dry from water themselves. IMO they should have given same punishment to LA as to any other athlete caught on using drugs and there should be investigation why couldn't they prove that fact for decade. It's ridiculous to ban someone from participating in competitions which have nothing common with professional sport and which main purpose is health and fitness. Doing that exclusively to LA because he's a public figure is nothing less than hypocrisy. We should reevaluate Masters movement original purposes: Masters swimming officially began May 2, 1970, after Captain Ransom J. Arthur, M.D., a Navy doctor in San Diego, convinced John Spannuth, then president of the Coaches Association, to hold the first National Masters Swimming Championships in the Amarillo Aquatic Club pool. Arthur felt that if the incentive was appealing, it would give older swimmers (ex-competitors and beginners alike) a goal for keeping physically fit. Dr. Arthur's vision of adults improving their fitness through swimming has grown over the years into a nationwide organization of nearly 60,000 adult swimmers.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:55:55 GMT

They can't all have been particularly egregious. Particularly: adverb 1. in a particular or to an exceptional degree

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:41:47 GMT

I'm not saying Armstrong didn't deserve a ban. Clearly he did. I'm just not very comfortable with the unilateral power that WADA wields. Actually it was USADA that issued the ban.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

aquageek — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:28:20 GMT

At this point LA's just a guy living his life trying to redeem himself. Maybe. His whole disgrace is still too fresh for most people, after over a decade of lying. He needs to lay low for a while. I realize in Austin he is a mythical figure but to many of us on the outside he just needs to get out of the public eye for now.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:19:55 GMT

No doubt... and many of those may have a good case in court against him. Is that really the USADA's job though? Maybe a lifetime ban is what Armstrong deserves. But if so, where's the collective outrage over the other cheaters that got a 2 year slap on the wrist? Apparently USADA felt that his actions were particularly egregious. Most of the world agrees.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:40:51 GMT

Yes, exactly like that. Except your state medical board also bans the physician from getting any work in any field; even jobs not related to medicine. Lance can compete in a sport if the governing body is not a signatory to the code.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:18:09 GMT

I was thinking of another scenario. Suppose you get fired at work for cause. Do you think it would be fair if there was some overarching "Employment Agency" that could then ban you from getting any kind of job ever again, based solely on their discretion? Hmm, I removed my analogy whilst editing my post. Analogies are often a great way to get lost. This analogy you're referring too (drunk driving) was my choice #2. The very first analogy that popped in my mind Knelson was much harder. Let me share it with you and try to defend it my best. You get fired at work because of a case of mild (very very mild all right?) pedophilia. Not talking raping a kid here, but those milder cases where child abuse was demonstrated. Could be repeated sports massage with little too much focus on glutes muscles. Could be voyeurisme in the locker room. You loose that job, and you may be condemned to find a new job which invloves staying away from kids. Sometimes this call will be overkill, sometimes not. Lance did abuse a lot of people, not just kids. I mean not 'just' kids, though he definitely abused them too. I just read Elain's post (in answer to a part I also removed from my original post). This is sensitive matter even for me, 20 y+ of experience coach. As you probably all know, we have a rider that won the Giro last year. I started working with a Cat1 cyclist recently, and couldn't help asking him: Ryder? Doped or not? I like to believe that it's possible to score a podium in a Grand Tour whilst being clean, but it's become increasingly harder to believe it. I was like you Elain, I would defend Lance as much as I could. But he abused us dammit. So again Knelson. Say that we allow him to compete. Say that he scores 15:20 over 1500m LCM at worlds. What the heck would your reaction be? My reaction would be the same as if another kid was again raising concerns after having received a sports massage given by this same person that got fired from his former job, but that still was allowed to give massages in another job.

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

Former Member — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:12:05 GMT

I was thinking of another scenario. Suppose you get fired at work for cause. Do you think it would be fair if there was some overarching "Employment Agency" that could then ban you from getting any kind of job ever again, based solely on their discretion? You mean like a state medical board that could revoke a physician's license to practice medicine?

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

pmccoy — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:20:52 GMT

They can't all have been particularly egregious. Particularly: adverb 1. in a particular or to an exceptional degreeThat's not a point I'm particularly interested in debating. I will concede... best I can tell... that the USADA only has jurisdiction over US athletes (duh) and Armstrong is particularly egregious as far as Americans go. The USADA also seems to be fairly consistent about lifetime bans for traffikers. Edit: This link is kind of interesting if your head is spinning (like mine) about the relationship between WADA, USADA, and other organizations like the UCI or FINA. It kind of helped me piece together why things were handled the way they were. www.fighthype.com/.../content10292.html

RE: Lance not allowed to swim in masters competition

The Fortress — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:13:10 GMT

The only thing different about Armstrong's is that his was more successful. Unlike other doping riders, Lance also actively cultivated a squeaky clean reputation as a drug free superman, procuring endorsements and the like. The "vindictive" nature of the ban may have had as much to do with LieStrong as it did with his doping.