Talk:Lance Armstrong doping case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Merger proposal with Lance Armstrong doping allegations[edit]

As per my comments on the Talk:Lance Armstrong page, I would be in favour of merging these two articles into a broader article on the whole affair. Born2cycle has suggested carrying on the discussion here instead and I agree. Thoughts on the proposed merger? WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. My view at this time is I'd rather see efforts made to improve this article. I also think that if we were to properly incorporate the allegations into this article, then we'd have to edit out much of the material. I think that would be a mistake. A key point to the story is that despite the large number and seriousness of the allegations, Armstrong escaped scrutiny not only from anti-doping authorities, but also from the press and public. One cannot fully appreciate this without seeing how many allegations there were, as they are currently covered at Lance Armstrong doping allegations. Much of that is not pertinent to "the case", and so it does not make sense to incorporate all if it into a section of this article. That means it has to be left there, in its own article, or much of it will be lost. I suggest there is a lesson in the breadth and depth of all those allegations, and they should be retained. --Born2cycle (talk)
  • Support, I believe with the information available both articles should be merged. B-watchmework (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It's basically the same topic, it would only be logical. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can one or both of you address the concerns I expressed above? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, why couldn't we keep all the content from both articles? Just putting the allegations in chronological order, with the USADA related text at the end of the article. From the reader's perspective, I think it's a bit silly to have 2 articles about the same topic. Maybe the title would need to be changed, say Lance Armstrong doping-related history or whatever fits. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 21:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I would argue that aside from perhaps a bit of reorganisation and potentially refining the wording a bit, there's no need to remove any of the allegations in the event of a merger. They are of relevance to the wider scandal, even if they did not form a substantive part of the USADA reasoned decision. How to merge them in an effective manner is not an easy question to resolve, admittedly, but neither is it insurmountable. I would also advise caution in placing too much emphasis on separate retention on the basis of potential lessons to be learned - much as there no doubt are, WP:NOTSOAPBOX would suggest that isn't the point. I'm all for retaining the allegations, but I feel keeping two articles which by definition will feed off each other is somewhat superfluous. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
        • If the merger is done without actually losing content my concerns are greatly lessened. But Matt's suggestion that the article title be changed contradicts the assertion that we have two articles about the same topic. The topics are different. Now, maybe there is a topic that encompasses both, but currently that broader topic is not the subject of either article in question.

          That said, I would agree with merging both articles into a new one called Lance Armstrong doping history. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Not a single sentence should be lost I think, and I also believe this is a good title, Born2cycle. Of course some adaptations for both articles to "blend" need to be done. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 02:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Over on the talk page of the main page Dimspace has suggested that we not merge the Fed case and the USADA case. I don't know. That's a good point, but with the title and implied expanded scope of "Lance Armstrong doping history" maybe it fits? Or how about something like Lance Armstrong doping and legal issues? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

afternoon guys. First up good on setting up a page for the usada case.
  • On the "lance doping allegations" support that that page needs to go, either redirected to this one, or redirected to the doping allegations section of the main lance armstrong article. either way is fine.
  • Onto this page, at the moment we are missing a bit of clarity. We have the main armstrong page and then redirects to a joint page for the federal investigation and the usada investigation which in my mind are two very different things. My thoughts at the moment are that the federal investigation information should return to the main armstrong article and then this page be set up solely as a USADA investigation page. Two reasons for this. One the federal investigation was about fraud, money laundering and was not restricted just to US based crimes, and also, the USADA investigation I feel should be treated as a very seperate case would also have the benefit of being able to link to it from other articles, for example, leipheimer, hincapie, tygarts page should all link to the "usada cycling investigation" which is the official name for it.
So my proposal would be, in the short term, federal investigation return to the lance article, and this page be named "USADA Cycling INvestigation" which is the correct title and fits in line with their database of information [1]. The investigation wasnt just about Lance Armstrong, and that is important. It would also be a far more accurate page title, and one that then links to other people involved in the investigation, for instance Ferrari, Del Moral, all should be named as being investigated in the "USADA Cycling INvestigation" Dimspace (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As an example, the Operacion Puerto article isnt referred to as the "Valverde doping investigation" or the "Basso doping investigation", and while I agree it was primerily about armstrong I think we are on shaky ground calling it the armstrong investigation, and by implying that the USADA investigation of cycling was all about Armstrong could put us in serious POV issues. The USADA cyling investigation would fit. Would need a breif intro paragraph detailing the cause of the investigation. The bulk of the information would be about armstrong, but its also critical that it includes information about the suspensions of Leipheimer, Barry, et al, the banning of ferrari etc. Dimspace (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Once the USADA cycling investigation page is set up and in an ordered fashion, then I would propose we look at the federal enquiry and see if that warrants its own article. (the same could be said for the armstrong v the times section). As for the "doping allegations" theres nothing on that article that isnt already in the main lance article. Dimspace (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

All I will say, is that im strongly in the camp that this shouldnt be called the "lance armstrong doping case", but "the USADA cycling investigation". I really do think we are on dodgy ground implying the whole case is about armstrong. Dimspace (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - I think there's a good argument for including all the material on the history of doping allegations, investigations and controversy around Armstrong in one article. I'm not sure what it should be called, though - 'Lance Armstrong doping case' seems too narrow a title, as that suggests an article only covering the recent investigation. Perhaps Lance Armstrong and doping? Robofish (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to decide if its going to be a lance armtrong doping page, or a usada investigation page. that effects what we decide over a merge. Dimspace (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Texas Court Case[edit]

I am slowly putting online all the various bits of documentation for the armstrong case that arent involved in the USADA documents. and in some sort of chronological order. I have put up PDF's of all parts of the Armstrong v USADA texas court case here [2]. The PDF's can be used as sources in the main article should we wish to develop on the texas court case section Dimspace (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename?[edit]

Per Dimspace's points above, how about USADA cycling investigation? Since D already stands for doping, including "doping" in the title is redundant. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with change, but depends if we are making it an all encompassing article focussing on the whole case, or just the Armstrong part? Dimspace (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If so, opening Para would be something to the effect of "The USADA Cycling Investigation was a doping investigation that led to Lance Armstrong losing his seven Tour de France titles and him eventually admitting to the doping. It also brought confessions from several current and former riders and led to the suspensions of amongst others, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer as well as bans from the sport of cycling for doctor Michele Ferrari."
We can then link for example from the Ferrari article "Michael Ferrari was banned for life.. blah as a result of the USADA Cycling Investigation Etc. Would need a brief opening bit as well, detailing the original charges and the persons against whom they were made. The Activity leading to august decision would then become "armstrongs attemts to overturn usada jurestriction" or something. Anyway, im just thinking out loud. Im busy trying to organise sources for the usada case into some sort of sensible mess Dimspace (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Assuming we're going for a whole-case perspective now as opposed to just focusing on the Armstrong part, I'd agree as well. The allegations against Armstrong still form a substantive part of the background to the USADA case, so they'd still fit in under the new title as far as I can see. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Blimey dave, we agree on something :D Just a point, if we make it all encompassing it will involve some work. For example, admission will become armstrong admission, and then earlier in the chronology will need to be leipheimer, barry admissions etc. Id also propose if the case is made to make it all encompassing that the page be semi protected while the editors update it, or there will be a ton of well intentioned people causing chaos working on a page that isnt fully complete. Dimspace (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
reading through, if its a full usada investigation page the federal enquiry does offer some background, would just need armstrong changing to Lance Armstrong. And then at the start of the usada section a note that following the closure of the federal case, usada opened their own investigation into doping on the us postal cycling team. activity leading to august decision would be renamed to something like Armstrong attempts to block usada case, admission and apology would become armstrong admission and apology. which then leaves it free to insert other sections for the other key players. and turn the whole thing a little less armstrong a bit more investigation. Dimspace (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Headings[edit]

Under the heading about the fed investigation there was references to things that were not related to the actual investigation. Text about the "60 minutes" segment and the Swiss allegations have nothing to do with the Federal investigation.

In fact, I find some of what I deleted was copied in toto from the allegations page, and all of it is discussed fully there.

People adding things here need to stay on topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of headings, shouldn't this article be called Lance Armstrong doping cases, not case since it is about two totally seperate cases? Jackhammer111 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been thoroughly deserted. As I have said before, this shouldnt be called the Lance Armstrong Doping Case. It should be an article purely on the "USADA INVESTIGATION INTO DOPING IN CYCLING" which is what it was, and take into account not just lance, but all the other aspects. THis case was never about just lance. Dimspace (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)