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).
Most people have moved on from being an LA apologist. All your statements ignore the simple fact that he admitted to doping and cheating.
All your statements ignore the simple fact that he admitted to doping and cheating.So did Floyd Landis. If I remember he bullied a few people and cried about unfair drug testing procedures until he didn't have a choice. Perhaps his smartest move was to know when it was over and accept the 2 year ban. Landis even alleged that the USADA was bribed to ignore a drug test. This would have been a good time to bust Armstrong except there was the issue of a big pile of cash rolling in from everyone looking at how a cancer survivor was suddenly winning the worlds biggest bike race. Turns out every TdF winner from 1996 to 2007 has either admitted to doping or was caught. All except Pantani could swim for USMS today. Only Armstrong and Contador have been stripped of any of those victories and Contador was allowed to keep 2 of his. Indurain was frequently suspected of it and was caught with an allowed substance due to his asthma. Merckx failed drug tests and still owns 5 titles. Anquetil has admitted to doping. None of this excuses Armstrong's actions. He cheated. He lied. He sued. And he lost. And perhaps he deserves the largest ban every handed out to any professional cyclist. But a lifetime ban for an athlete that no longer poses any threat to be at the top of any professional sport seems excessive... almost vindictive.
Note that I don't disagree with the USMS ruling. He can't swim... those are the rules as unfair as it may seem to some.
But a lifetime ban for an athlete that no longer poses any threat to be at the top of any professional sport seems excessive... almost vindictive.
Vindictive is a good word to use in regards to LA when you look at his history of treating those who accused him over the years of doping. He is certainly getting no worse than he gave.
I'm glad USMS made the ruling it did. I don't want to be part of an organization that will only be known by people as the organization that quickly welcomes the most notorious drug cheat of all time. He needs a long time-out.
Vindictive is a good word to use in regards to LA when you look at his history of treating those who accused him over the years of doping. He is certainly getting no worse than he gave.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?
You mean like a state medical board that could revoke a physician's license to practice medicine?
Like that, but with the addition that the medical board could also bar you from getting a job as a car salesman.
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.
Apparently USADA felt that his actions were particularly egregious. Most of the world agrees.That's a fairly naive view of the sport of cycling pre-2008. By 2008, it was pretty obvious that the sport was full of systemic doping and teams were doing everything they could to avoid detection. They are all particularly egregious. The only thing different about Armstrong's is that his was more successful.
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.
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
