Talk:Lance Armstrong

Important Edit To Be Made

3 members of Armstrong's team that were charged alongside him (Michele Ferrari, Luis Garcia del Moral, and Pepi Marti), have accepted the charges and declined their right to protest them, thus accepting lifetime bans. The section regarding the 2012 USADA Charges should be edited to mention this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.98.15.43 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the major wins be removed for the tour de france given the recent events? Calcoolidgefan (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not yet. The USADA believes the ASO will vacate the wins, but the USADA does not itself have the authority to do so. Until the wins are actually vacated by the sports authority that has the jurisdiction to do so, they should be retained. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

In the paragraph under the heading "Tour de France success", please change:

"when a spectator's bag caught his right handlebar."

to

"when a young spectator attempted to grab his yellow cap, which has hanging on his right handlebar".

Reference for this change: A child's hand grabbing the cap can be seen at the very start (00:00) of the YouTube video entitled "Lance Armstrong 2003 TDF - The Ascent of Luz Ardiden" Timnosuke 8 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry, YouTube is not a reliable source. Guidelines on what makes a reliable source can be found here. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 08:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Floating Boat. Many thanks for your reply. I understand Youtube is listed as not being a reliable source, but in the case of this sudden bike crash, the only reliable evidence is the video, assuming it hasn't been tampered with. A personal eye-witness account, for example, would be very unreliable...The Youtube reference could just as easily be changed to the official TV program which broadcasted this footage). Anyway, red-tape aside, if you have the time to look at the first split second of the video, it's clear that the current content of wikipedia is inaccurate. If you are interested in making wikipeia more accurate, which I assume you are as you are an editor, and not interested in blindly sticking to rules, I wonder what you proposal is to rectify the error? I would be very interested in what currently accepted source the erroneous information about a handbag came from, as I suggest that the currently accepted list of reliable sources is itself not very reliable. The end of the paragraph has a reference to Armstrong's Self-Biography, but this appears to be a reference about the fair play award, not the handbag but, at any rate, Armstrong was staring straight ahead concentrating on forcing his bike up a mountain at the time of the crash, and so would not be a reliable source of accurate information. You can see with your own eyes what happened. Yours, slightly disappointed and frustrated, timnosuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timnosuke 8 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki guidelines state that self-published or questionable sources can be used as long as there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," which (as it is from a tv broadcast, copies of which can be viewed online or via DVD) I think qualifies here. YouTube is, I think, in an odd spot where it contains some material that falls into "self-published unreliable" and other material that is archived material of an actual event. So I'm supporting Timnosuke here, as I believe this is the latter. This should be allowed as a reliable source in this instance as it is a copy of an actual broadcast, with no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Stlamanda —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with Timnosuke at first, the youtube clip is obviously from a reliable source, but the clip linked gives the wrong impression. Armstrong didn't have a cap on his handlebar, it was the spectators bag that got caught. See this clip at 1:13 for proof. Armigo (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Triathlon suspension

"Armstrong also plans to race in Ironman France in an attempt to qualify for the 2012 World Ironman Championship in Kona, Hawaii.[124]"

This sentence is outdated, because Armstrong was banned from participation in the Ironman France, and thus could not qualify to compete in the World Ironman Championship. He did not / will not race in either event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.176.23 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please put a dead link template next to citation 55 at the end of the last sentence in the second paragraph in the Allegations of Doping section. The link to the Sunday Times article is dead. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: Please delete link to deleted list

Please delete the red link to the deleted list. Lumialover2 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Qwfp (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request regarding citation

The section "2012 USADA doping charges" cites Juliet Macur's August 23 2012 NY Times article "Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges" as support for the statement that Mr. Armstrong will likely be stripped of his Tour de France titles. This is speculation and unwarranted extrapolation.

The Tour de France is under the jurisdiction of the UCI, the WADA and is organized by Amaury Sports. The USADA does not have jurisdiction over these entities although it can inform them.

It does not follow that an athlete will be convicted and stripped of accomplishments because he is allowing the USADA to proceed without further resistance.

Please delete the sentence "He will likely be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from competing" under the section 2012 USADA charges as it is at this point speculation without merit.

Spingus (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My god you Armstrong apologists are a sad bunch

Tygart said UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

Do you like apples? UCI MUST strip Armstrong when the USADA found him guilty. UCI singed onto the WA-DC, and agreed to abide by such findings if it were the case.

Case closed, Lance Armstrong has NEVER won the Tour de France officially. So change the entry and recognise the FACTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.166.165 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that while Tygart may feel that way, without independent confirmation from UCI and Amaury Sports, Armstrong's wins still stand. The USADA has no authority, nor has ever convicted him of doping, so the continued allegations remain that - allegations. Refusal to continue with the legal process is not equivalent to an admittance of guilt.

Eoheomili (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

TSN says the USADA has strip his titles - any other sources confirming it that? http://www.tsn.ca/cycling/story/?id=403740 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.155.183 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Can this page get protection? The number of times the TDF titles will get deleted will just keep growing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I support protection request. The USADA has no authority to strip the Tour de France titles. That authority rests with the International Cycling Union Who fully supports, Armstrong's claims he never took Performance Enhancing Drugs.--Subman758 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support protection, as editors are adding information as a fact, which are not based on the citations given: for example: "On August 24, 2012, he was stripped of all results since August 1, 1998 including his Tour de France titles and barred from competing for the rest of his life.[8][9][10]" If you actually read the articles cited [8,9,10], they talk about the agencies stating that they intend, or plan to do such-and-such ... that does NOT equate to "On August 24, 2012, he was stripped ..." We need to wait and see how all this pans out since there are different jurisdictions to consider. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a news blog. Bobsd (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm yes they do

Tygart said UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

So there's that.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.166.165 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that this page should be temporarily protected to prevent edits. I should make it clear, I am one of the big opponents of Lance and whilst I get a certain amount of pleasure from this, its important that the Wiki page be kept relevant, and factual, while being IMPARTIAL and retaining complete neutrality. I was actually undoing edits last night where people removed his titles (despite looking forward to the day when they are removed). But also, there are a whole bunch of wannabee lawyers who are claiming USADA has no juristriction, etc etc which is also factually incorrect, and its important that the page is protected not just from those desperate to remove his titles, but also those who are still convinced its an unfair with hunt and that lance is innocent. When the wiki page is finally edited it needs to be fair, and we are just going to have running battles until then. If he is stripped of his titles, its likely that that wont be the end of it, there are likely to be further court appeals question USADA's juristriction, in fact in Hermans letter to USADA dropping the charges he has already intimated that should USADA attempt to strip him of his titles they will be held liable. So this is far from the end of the story.

However, i think when the decisions are finally made, and the page needs to be edited it should be done after discussions between at least 2 or preferably more editors over what tone to take with the article, and the exact wording of the page to give total impartiality. Already bits are appearing on the article like ""The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced," Armstrong wrote.". That line should not in my opinion be in the article. It is a personal opinion by Lance, but it is tagged on the article in such a way that it gives the impression that he is innocent. I dont think that line adds anything to the article, and is certainly not impartial. It is an opinion by Armstrong, not a factual peice of information. Dimspace (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no wannabe lawyer, nor am I an Armstrong apologist. Maybe he cheated. Maybe he didn't. Frankly, I don't really care. But I do care about authority/jurisdiction. The whole thing is a mess. The USADA wants to use the WADC to stake claim to act unilaterally, while the UCI is pointing out that the WADC standards haven't been fulfilled by the USADA (specifically article 8.3). The WADA chief has already said the WADA has no authority on the matter. The ASO is waiting for the UCI's final ruling. So what happens if there's a disagreement over WADC protocol (eight-year statue of limitations)? What happens if the UCI doesn't believe the evidence warrants the stripping of any of the seven titles? Do you really think the ASO is going to listen to the USADA over the UCI? I find that scenario highly unlikely.Scuzzletop (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tour de France

He has been stripped of his tour de france winnings, are you guys gonna remove that from the article? He has technically never won as it stands right now, what do you guys say? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. Given that the USADA merely claims to be stripping him of the titles, despite lacking the legal authority to do so. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The USADA has absolutely no jurisdiction over the tour de france. They can claim whatever but it doesn't make it so. 58.106.69.70 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When World Anti-Doping Agency president, John Fahey, was asked if USADA possessed the authority to strip Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, Fahey replied: "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA." - [[1]] As such, I think it is premature to state in the article that his Tour du France titles have been stripped. Preceding comment added by user:dpr873 06:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong has not as yet been stripped of any titles, and the page should be amended to show this. Yorkshiresoul (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tygart said UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

So there goes that whole "absolutely no jurisdiction" idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.166.165 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

all that confirms that it isn't the usada role to do the stripping. The actual stripping of the titles and imposition of formal penalties is a matter for the uci. We need to wait to see what they do. 175.38.14.198 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether the UCI is bound by the USADA decision or not isn't the case in point. The point is who has jurisdiction over the TdF which falls with the UCI and until the UCI chooses to respond to the USADA Armstrong retains his titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.12.114 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

His titles will be stripped in due course, he's given up the fight against the allegations for no other reason that being unable to defend himself. The rest of the misdirection with USADA not having authority over him has been resoundingly thrown out of federal court. Do not remove the wins yet, but perhaps put a note saying they are in the process of being stripped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.196.152.177 (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball the article should not be edited to predict future events, Nollieheelflip (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Which means that someone with better knowledge on reverting than me might want to take a look at the separate achievements page which has already had those titles removed, badly. Duds 2k (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Article text has been corrected but infobox has not

The text has been corrected to say that the USADA 'intends' to strip his medals, but the infobox makes it look like they already have. Stuff needs to get put the way it was. Potentially asterisks could be added with notes saying that those titles may be stripped, but it hasn't happened yet. Chris3145 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Separately, the ambiguities in the dates/timing are grating in the following two sentences:

USADA confirmed it had given Armstrong a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present later the same day.[119] As of 24 August 2012, the UCI was waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[120]

Could these please be changed to something akin to:

On 24 August 2012 USADA confirmed it had given Armstrong a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present.[119] Currently, the UCI is waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.130.149 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Records need to be stripped from article

Since the announcement that Armstrong is to be stripped of his medals and his records expunged from the books the article will have to be updated. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, If you read the press very carefully USADA say they will strip the titles however this not verified by the UCI yet and there is no sign whether the UCI will challenge the advise from USADA, The bottome line is we should not remove the titles from this article until UCI confirms that the titles are actually dropped Nollieheelflip (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Make sure you understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Nollieheelflip (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again: an organization, which may or may not have the authority, decides if a "winner" of a race actually "won" it. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that? I don't know if the facts justify it; I just don't like rewriting sports records literally decades after the fact due to one organization's "opinion". What next? Will they say that some race or game didn't take place at all?

There needs to be a discussion of policy about these things on Wikipedia. I particularly feel there should be a distinction between actions that affected the contests and those that were not directly related.

They may indeed decided that the Tour de France did not take place, because if Armstrong's titles are taken away then people like Zulle and Ullrich who actually tested postive for doping, would be the winners. If you choose the best who never tested positive, then in the year 2000 you need to take the number 8, Escartin. But you then only have chosen someone who never tested positive, just like Armstrong. So you then still don't know if he would pass the test that Armstong didn't pass (i.e. can you can make a few cyclist testify against him). Also, if you declare the number 8 the Tour winner, you also need to strip the numbers 2 till 7 of their titles, to do that by the book requires a lot of investigations.

So, the UCI may simply decide that the Tour de France was never an official cycling event, none of the titles are then officially recognized. Count Iblis (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Luckily for us, we don't have to decide on any of that, nor do we need to speculate. Do that to your heart's content on other fora: here all we need to do is decide how best to present the encyclopaedic, long view facts. Which at the moment are clear: USADA considers his results since August 2012 null, UCI have not yet concluded on the matter. Which is what we have said. Kevin McE (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vindication for a total rewrite and approach to the article

Well after more than six years of bickering and obtuse by the Militant Wing of the Armstrong Protection Army, I seemed to have been proven right. Makes me annoyed to think that Wikipedia is run by editors who have a distinct POV about everything yet claim (like followers of all religions) that their actions are not based on prejudice but actually come from love.

This article - in light of the revelations - honours a cheat, a liar and a fraud and should be amended forthwith. No more pulling every conceivable rule off the rack to stop denigration of an American Golden Boy. He is not and never was! But LO the article keeps up the illusion he never did anything wrong. Just a little amendment to the unmentionable. It's tantamount to focusing on Hitler and his role as German Chancellor and adding a little aside about 6 million Jews. Sorry the fact that he is now a convicted drug cheat takes precedence over his "successes".

I feel so utterly, utterly vindicated now. But still the pretence goes on. Hmm I wonder who protected this article? Certainly not any European. Protection is conveyed by nationalist Americans who can't face the fact that if free editing was allowed, this article would reflect the global reality of such a person. Ever since 2006 when I first came here, these allegations have dogged Armstrong. But then the wiki lawyers had to work over time to keep all assertions out of this article. But now what? He's a cheat who will be stripped of all titles, making him what? An ex pro rider with nothing to his name except the infamy that he used performance enhancing drugs. This is not POV it's fact and wikipedia is not about the truth, as I care to remember. So get this article unprotected and let the real work begin. (BTW here is my extended finger to all of you who were either too stupid, too proud or too prejudiced to admit the inevitable)109.155.66.41 (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your mother must be very proud of you. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 11:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an opinion section. We wait until there is undeniable proof and confirmation before we edit things here. If you don't like it, I'm sorry but rules are rules. I also don't like the random bashing and almost hatred of religion and even Americans here. Be respectful of others please (WP:PERSONAL). Srsrox (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but we also need to remember that this site, as with any site, tracks what actually happened. Whether Armstrong retains those titles or not, it does an injustice to recorded history to remove mention of them either here or on the Tour De France page, same with any medals or awards he has been given. While the official record books of the organizations who gave those awards might be changed, it doesn't change the fact that he won or was awarded them.72.93.108.76 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should still call him a '7 Time winner' when he might have been taking drugs during one or more of those races?

Surely this is not really in line with the way things are done here, Nadzeya Astapchuk of Belarus, is not shown to have won the gold medal in 2012. The summary of her achievments clearly shows 'disqualified' in 2012, it does not say, "Gold medal, but later disqualified".

The same should de done here, you could mention that he took part in many Tour de France, but then he was disqualified. Not first FFMG (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that he won them, and then also mention that he was later disqualified. Calling him a 7 time winner isn't innaccurate, but I wouldn't be leading with it. You can reference the BCS Championship article here, where USC was the winner in 2004 and it was later vacated, but they are still listed as the winner of the game. Also, Ben Johnson's article still says that he won the 100m in 1988 and set a new World Record, both of which were later vacated.72.93.108.76 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been so many accusations of doping for so many time and by so many official institutions and journalists that not mentioning any in the first paragraph of this article, shows, in itself, a biased point of view. Lerichard (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One example out of many, I think it is hard to claim that "no allegations have ever been substantiated" unless you think that USADA's (and so many other's) investigations are baseless. Circumstantial testimonies do count as evidence, people are sent to the death row with only that. I suppose also that the phrasing "assorted journalists" is meant to pretend that there's a conspiracy against Armstrong. Etc. etc. Lerichard (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When was anybody ever sent to death row with only circumstantial testimonies? Every US case I know of, also included the presence of a dead body.Scuzzletop (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As i have said above, i think if and when the titles are stripped, and the various appeals have run their course, the wording and phrasing of the article should be discussed here between a number of editors from all sides of the fence (ie the fanboys and the haters to coin a phrase) and decision be made over the wording. As for the removal of titles, theres a certain amount of inconsistency on wikipedia. However, the best guideline would be the page of alberto contador. his 2010 tour de france title is not indicated on his info panel, and in his palmares, the 2010 to 2012 results are hidden behind a "voided results" tag. That to me would be the perfect situation. removed from the info box as he clearly would not be the 7 times tour de france winner, but left in his palmares hidden as voided results. Its not just about tour wins with Lance, its also about countless stage victories. There is certainly precedent that those stage victories will be handed to whoever finished 2nd, even though his tour de france titles may not be re-allocated. (i think its very likely those years will just be left empty on the records). But anyway, this is something that will need discussion prior to edit amongst several editors, in line and consistent with other articles on wikipedia, and once all the appeal processes have been exhausted Dimspace (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

USADA don't have jurisdiction to 'strip TdF wins', only the Sports Governing body (UCI) do, and perhaps in some part, the ASO. XyZAn (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, unless you have factual grounds for that, can people stop going on about juristriction. Yes, a national anti doping agency to have the authority to say they want all results stripped, and any other race organisation such as the uci who subscribe to the wada code are expected to comply. Please can people get out of their head all the nonsense PR put forward by the Lance camp regarding juristriction. HOWEVER, until it is confirmed by UCI, ASO etc that results have been stripped, they have not yet been and stop editing the damn page. Dimspace (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re: Wording of future changes to page in the event of titles being stripped

In the event that his Tour de France titles are stripped i propose the following wording for the opening paragraph which retains the fact he won seven tours, but also makes it clear that they were later voided. Also removing some irrelevant info regarding how he won the tour after having cancer

Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson; September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist who won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times but was later stripped of those titles, along with all other results gained since 1 August 1998, having been found guilty y a USADA panel of doping through his career.

Lance Armstrong is also the founder and chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation for cancer support. In October 1996 he was diagnosed as having testicular cancer with a tumor that had metastasized to his brain and lungs. His cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy, and his prognosis was originally poor.

In 1999, he was named the ABC Wide World of Sports Athlete of the Year. In 2000 he won the Prince of Asturias Award in Sports.[4] In 2002, Sports Illustrated magazine named him Sportsman of the Year. He was also named Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year for the years 2002–2005. He received ESPN's ESPY Award for Best Male Athlete in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality Award in 2003. Armstrong announced his retirement from racing on July 24, 2005, at the end of the 2005 Tour de France but returned to competitive cycling in January 2009 and finished third in the 2009 Tour de France. He confirmed he had retired from competitive cycling for good on February 16, 2011.[5]

In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) officially charged Armstrong with the consumption of illicit performance enhancing drugs,[6] based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists. On August 23, 2012, Armstrong announced that he would not be fighting the USADA's charges.[7] On August 24, 2012, USADA banned him from competing as well as disqualification of any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes.

regarding palamares, suggest that in the event of titles being stripped they be removed from the info bar but all other wording regarding the tours remain, and his career achievements page be edited in the same way as the Alberto Contador page with the relevent results being struck through, and hidden using a voided results tag. Dimspace (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Has someone removed the tour titles from the info box, only USADA do not have jurisidiction to void his tour results, only the UCI (and in part ASO) do. As far as I know the UCI haven't commented yet. XyZAn (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

UCI can't strip him of all his titles only the last ten years asproven in the 1996 Bjarne Riss case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.252.222 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats irrelevant to this section. This section i created purely to discuss future wording for the page in the event of titles stripped etc, so that if/when they are we dont have everyone battling over wording. If you wish to discuss the endless juristriction argument do it somewhere else :D Dimspace (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all so idiotic. The final wording will be that "he competed in the Tour de France from x - y". A title stripped is a title NEVER won. The guy's a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.124.14 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove one of the current event tags

I'm not sure which is more fitting, but there shouldn't be one for the whole article as well as a single section. I'm thinking the specific section is more appropriate. lukini (talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong have not won anything since August 1, 1998

As the article mentions he have been stripped from "any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prize." Therefore the article should not mention in the right (Major wins) that he won Tour de France and other event since August 1, 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.80.13 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But I watched the Tour de France and I saw him winning :). The number two's are people like Zulle and Ullrich who unlike Armstrong have tested positive for doping, against whom you can easily find a lot more damning evidence than against Armstrong. The numbers 2 to 6 are actually mostly far more problematic people than Armstrong ever was. So, if Armstrong did not win, then no one could have won. And if no one can be said to have won in some official sense, we can just as well say that Armstrong did finish first overall, but that Tour results are only recognized since, say, 2005. Count Iblis (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how on earth he managed to beat all these people who cheated by doping? Dave (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

it really doesnt matter who else was doping and who wasnt, (and its widely thought that the majority of the 99 peloton was clean with the exception of armstrong), if and when he is officially stripped of his race results the page will reflect that. But in the meantime we still wait confirmation from the UCI who are signatories to the WADA code that they will enforce the ban. until then, theres no point anyone speculating on it Dimspace (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)



Indeed, but then the UCI has already said they will study the evidence, so they will not take the USADA ruling face value. Then that could mean that they will reject the findings because they will likely place the USADA findings the context of what most other cyclists were doing. Otherwise you would get the silly result that would award titles to people who almost surely used doping are awarded titles just because someone who was almost surely clean couldn't prove his innocence.

Armstrong could win many times in a row without using doping because like Indurain, he had a superior cardiovascular system. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets see also who gets awards the wins (if any will be awarded) after Armstrong is stripped! It will look bad to give his titles to riders, who are even more in the doping swamp than he is. So patience before any edits! (also: Jan Ullrich should be semi-proteced to avoid people awarding him titles before any official announcement.) noclador (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is more in the doping swamp than Lance Armstrong is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.4.158 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw Ben Johnson win the 100m at the 1988 Olympics, and Marion Jones win several medals at the 2000 Olympics. Wikipedia articles routinely strip titles after the fact, regardless of what your eyes see. 108.243.202.52 (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And did you also see him say on T.V. that someone must have put Stanozolol in his tea? :) . Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Two words, folks -- Joe Paterno.The Invisible Man (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what shocked me, that they will strip him of everything since 1998! Lance has never had his day in court. Generally the accuser must must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case Armstrong must prove himself innocent outside a court of law. If anti-doping was so important in this sport then tests should have been taken, and if not then no foul, as everyone is on the same playing field. No positive results, no charges can be brought. Supposed witnesses are only hearsay. Test results are evidence which they don't have. We might as will strip every title from every athlete, as there is a possibility they took drugs. What is the obsession the USADA has with Armstrong? 71.218.254.85 (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, see also here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way is Armstrong's case different from Floyd Landis'? Kowalmistrz (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Floyd Landis was tested postive for doping. He then engaged with the doping authorities to argue why he was innocent. It is one thing to have the burden of proof on you to explain how your urine or blood sample containes traces of doping, it is quite another thing to have the burden of proof on you to prove wrong vague allegations of people who saw you take doping. Armstrong was required to do that, and the negative test results were considered to be insufficient evidence for him. So, the USADA was overruling negative test results on the basis of testimonies that they obtained under cirumstances that are not clear (the witnesses did not come to USADA themselves, they testified in exchange for reduced punishment for their positive test results, it is not clear what they were told about testimonies of other witnesses).

Obviously, there is then little Armstrong could have said that would change the mind of USADA. This points to another problem apart from the burden of proof. USADA acts as both the prosecutor and the judge. So, when Armstrong decided not to engage, the prosecutor passed its own prior judgment which automatically became the verdict. Count Iblis (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I clearly understand all your doubts about this case, but what anoyone thinks of it should not determine what we write here. It's just your and someone other's personal opinions. Kowalmistrz (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

guys guys guys. Wikipedia is neither a cycling forum, nor a blog. Wether or not Lance was given his day in court (which he was, twice and then declined the opportunity of further days) is irrelevant to the content of the page. And wether or not he tested positive (publicly) or not again is irrelevant. Marion Jones "never tested positive", there are also serious allegations made by USADA that positive tests were covered up by the UCI. We could go round and round in circles, 500 tests, 200 tests, never tested positive, tested positive for cortosteroids, and epo in 99, and testosterone in the nineties, bio passport discrepancies in the last few years and remember it was the UCI who created the bio passport to detect blood doping and move the burden of requiring a positive test result so that anti dopin agencies could have "analytical" positives. he had his chance of arbitration which had he done he could have then appealed any decision to teh court of arbitration for sport in switzerland. he chose not to. Dimspace (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Requesting a sentence in the upper part of the article be adjusted. From: Whether USADA actually has the legal authority to enforce their ruling, remains in question. To: Whether the USADA actually has the legal authority to enforce their ruling, remains in question. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

More balanced lede – Sponsors

With the addition of the phrase "Whether the USADA has the legal authority to enforce their ruling, remains in question." the lede is now much more balanced than previously (although it still does not reflect the complexity of the situation). Before this addition, it was given the impression that USADA was going to enforce the stripping of the titles within the next hours; that it was an irreversible course while the situation is not so simple. For instance, UCI's extremely cautious statement seems to reveal the Union's intention to cast doubts on USADA's jurisdiction ("As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code"). And IOC was even more cautious in its first reaction: "The IOC would have to consider decisions made by USADA and the UCI "before deciding its next steps."

It is characteristic that even WADA's head, John Fahey, in his ititial reaction to the case and when asked whether USADA had the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, he replied: “Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA.” He then of course made some more "strong" statements in favor of USADA's argumentation. However, I believe that his initial words keep their value and reveal the complexity of the whole situation, especially in terms of jurisdiction and decision-making competence. I repeat, WADA's head initially reacted to USADA's and Tygart's statements and claims by saying: “Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA.”

I also think that another issue that should be treated in the article is the fact that the main body of Armstrong's sponsors expressed their intention to continue supporting him. This is not what has happened in most doping cases, and I believe that its treating in the article would be useful.

Finally, I would also like to say that the Armstrong doping case could also be treated in a separate article due to its unique dimensions among all known doping cases (only the Ben Jhonson's case had enjoyed such a publicity, but it was less controversial and not so complicated, while it ended much quicker). The aspects of this case are various and worth-treating (jurisdiction, evidentiary process, federal, UCI and USADA procedures, other cyclists', trainers' and doctors' involvement, sponsors, idolization etc. etc.) and there is already a very rich material with columns/articles criticizing either Armostrong [2] [3] either USADA [4] [5] either both.

In most doping cases, the approach used to be black or white (usually "black" for the "cheater"). In this case, I see a grey area which IMO is worth treating.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you are not the judges here! The fact is that he was stripped of his career achievements and that's what we should refer to, only. Period. He is not the legendary Tour de France winner anymore. Very sad but true. Kowalmistrz (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

this line should NOT be there in its current form. It is speculative and the "opinion" of a handful of people, ie Lance and his closest allies. Theyve already argued the question of jursitriction in a court of law and had it rejected. Wikipedia is not an opinion peice, or a newspaper column. It is a straight reporting of facts, Its also not here to pass opinion as fact. If that line is to remain it should at least make it clear that this is Lance's opinion and not a fact. Something to the effect of "Armstrong has consistently maintained that USADA do not have the jurisdiction to strip him of his Tour de France wins" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

most of lances sponsors are sticking by him because he has financial stakes and shareholdings in most of them, sram, trek etc, and they all do very well out of livestrong events. Dimspace (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My friends, I am not the judge of anybody here and I do not defend anybody. The only thing I say is that WP should reflect facts. The facts until now are:

1. that Armstrong refused to defend himself in arbitration;
2. that he lost a fight in court, but the judge also fiercely criticized USADA for its motives;
3. that, following Armostrong's decision not to go to arbitration, USADA sanctioned Armstrong for life and said that it would take back all his titles;
4. that UCI and IOC issued cautious statement, where they say that they would wait for USADA's reasoned decision, in order to take their own decisions as regards Armstrong's respective titles;
5. that UCI, in its decision, seems to question USADA's jurisdiction;
6. that WADA's president stressed that Armstrong should be stripped from his titles, but he also said "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

So, who is speculative here? USADA? WADA? Armostrong? UCI? Everybody?! Of course, there is speculation from most sides in this case. The trick is to avoid, to overcome speculation and focus on facts and what we know for sure. And I am very sorry to say from the reactions to my initial comment that many people here believe that if somebody proposes something for the article then he/she must be an Armstrong opponent or defender. I am neither a fan nor an opponent! I don't care about either side of the "drama"! I just want the lede to be NPOV and to reflect facts, which IMO does not happen now.
Before the addition of this line the situation was worse, then it got a bit better, but now it gives again the impression that Armstrong and UCI presented some false claims which were then rejected by the all mighty Texas court!

• First of all, if there is an all mighty court in our case this is CAS and not any Texas judge (federal or not).
  
• Secondly, UCI in its official statement and in the link the last editor of the line used does not question USADA's jurisdiction. It opens the room for questioning by the wording it uses ("USADA claimed" "the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision"), but it does not yet question it.
• Thirdly (and maybe most importantly as regards the accurate presentation of events), the Texas judge did not reject Armstrong's claim as regards USADA's jurisdiction (with relation to UCI's jurisdiction) as the phrase now falsly implies. The judge rejected a lawsuit, because he argued that the US courts do not have jurisdiction, that, even if they had, USADA is the most competent and specialized organ to deal with the case and that he does not see any violation of Armstrong's constitutional rights. At least, this is what I read here, unless somebody has the full text of the ruling to read it.
  

Therefore, as it is written now, the phrase in question (and the paragraph as a whole) does not reflect facts; to the contrary, it falsely presents them and it is speculative (it speculates that UCI questioned or will question jurisdiction).
What do I propose? Write the last paragraph in a way that it reflects facts and not speculations from either side. Write the paragraph in a way that focuses on procedures and not speculative and unclear questions about jurisdiction.
How would I have written it? Like that:

• "In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) officially charged Armstrong with the consumption of illicit performance enhancing drugs,[6] based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and undisclosed testimonies from other cyclists. On August 23, 2012, and after the Texas district Court rejected his lawsuit against USADA, Armstrong announced that he would not be fighting the USADA's charges.[7] On August 24, 2012, the USADA said it would ban Armstrong for life and recommend that he be stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles.^[8][9] On August 24, 2012, and following Armstrong's decision not to proceed to an arbitration in order to fight the charges against him, USADA stated[10] that Armstrong was banned for life and would be disqualified from any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes. Later the same day, UCI and IOC stated that they would wait for USADA's reasoned decision, in order to decide on the forfeiture of Armstrong's medals and titles that fall within their competence.[12]"

The phrase I strike is obviously repetive and already covered by the next one. Finally, as regards sponsors, again I care about facts and not about anybody's motives! If most sponsors continue to support him, then I personally believe that it should be mentioned; it is a significant fact worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, since it is not the case in most doping cases. That's all!

• • The UCI maintains the record book and it has not acted to enforce any of the the USADA decision. Moreover, given the UCI's statements that the USADA lacks jurisdiction, it is doubtful that the UCI will ever enforce the decision absent a ruling by the worldwide Court of Arbitration for Sport in favor of the USADA. For the record, Armstrong remains officially the winner of seven Tour de France competititions, and the article should make that clear.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

THe court was also scathing of the uci commenting that USADA's desperation to prosecute lance was only matched by UCI's determination not to prosecute lance and he found that suspicious. There are no clear facts here, some of the allegations are that the UCI covered up positive tests so when they question USADA's juristriction we can hardly take that seriously. AS for sponsors, if you are going to say that his sponsors continue to support him then it needs to be made clear that he has financial stakes in Trek, Oakley, Nike, Stinger Bee, FRS, SRAM and others. The fact that he has stakeholdings in most of his sponsors and puts a lot of work their way via livestrong is definately worth noting and relevant. Dimspace (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

to follow on and answer your points that Armstrong refused to defend himself in arbitration;

agreed

that he lost a fight in court, but the judge also fiercely criticized USADA for its motives;

As well as critising the UCI and USAC and suggesting their behaviour was suspicious

that, following Armostrong's decision not to go to arbitration, USADA sanctioned Armstrong for life and said that it would take back all his titles;

agreed

that UCI and IOC issued cautious statement, where they say that they would wait for USADA's reasoned decision, in order to take their own decisions as regards Armstrong's respective titles;

agreed, although among the allegations that appear to have been made by USADA are that the UCI knowlingly covered up positive tests, and the then uci president Hein Verbruggen now at the IOC was complicit, so its very hard to take either side with total plausibility

that UCI, in its decision, seems to question USADA's jurisdiction;

agreed, but again it must be noted that one of the many accusations some of which are already public are the fact that the UCI knowingly covered up positive tests by Armstrong. Again, UCI can query all they like, but we cannot take the UCI's word as fact (just as until they release all the evidence) we cannot take USADA's word as fact.

that WADA's president stressed that Armstrong should be stripped from his titles, but he also said "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

doesnt really say much except wada think that the various agencies should support usada's decision.

Onto the sponsors, firstly its not unknown for sponsors/teams etc to stick by riders, contador retained his sponsors, valverde was even training in his team kit during his ban, floyd landis retained a lot of financial and sponsor support throughout his trial and onto his comeback, even Rasmussen was able to secure a personal sponsor who created an entire taem for him. So its not unknown, in fact with hi profile riders its fairly normal. What needs to be looked at with Lance is that many of his personal sponsors are also livestrong partners and make huge amounts of money through their associations with livestrong. Nike, make millions of dollars through merchandising (as does lance, as do livestrong) and even if Lance loses all his titles, his cycling career in tatters, livestrong will still continue to be supported. Are Nike supporting Lance, or are they supporting their very succesful financial relationship with the livestrong Brand. Other personal sponsors such as Oakley and Trek, again, benefit hugely from their association with the livestrong brand, and lance has financial intrests in both companies, they are supporting the "charity" and one of their shareholders. Stinger, who again Lance has a shareholding in, have exclusive rights to sell their range of energy products at Livestrong Challenge rides. Of course they are going to support their part owner and benefactor. The same with FRS, again, personal sponsor of Lance, again, corporate sponsors of Livestrong, again, Lance has a shareholding in the company, and again, they have exclusive rights to sell their products at Livestrong events.

Like everything with Lance there are no black and white areas. I can provide sources regarding the ownership and shareholdings there are but there is no need because i dont intend putting that information on his page. But to say he has full support of his sponsors, gives the impression that his sponsors think he is innocent and wiki are not here to give an impression, they are here to give facts. Yes you can argue that technically it is a fact that his sponsors have chosen to support him. It is also a fact that he has shareholdings in many of those companies and many if not all also have business relationships with Livestrong Dimspace (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the USADA has jurisdiction over this at all? IMO the only organization that has jurisdiction is the Amaury_Sport_Organisation, the ones who were actually affected by him using or not (Which by the way, he didn't). Maybe if there was a French wing of WADA they would have jurisdiction. No one else was involved, thus no one else can rule over this. Bluefist ^talk 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are competing arguments about whether or not the USADA has authority to strip Armstrong of his titles etc. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter. We just need to report on what actually happens, and then explain what happened and why. right now, we don't have those answers.LedRush ([[User talk:

|talk]]) 18:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your query clearly arises from the pathetic reportage of this story that acts as though the only race that Armstrong took part in in 14 years were the Tour de France. Your prejudiced assumptions don't particularly dispose me towards spending much time on your question, but yes there is a NADO in France (Agence française de lutte contre le dopage), as there is in most countries. Any sport with Olympic participation is obliged to sign up to the World Anti-Doping Code, and that code places authority for results management in the hands of the NADO that uncovers the use of banned substances. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Kevin has summed it up very well, but yes, this is a long established process regarding National Anti Doping Authorities and carry out testing and in some cases suspensions that are recognised by WADA. Other WADA members are then expected to fall into line with those decisions. Very few, in fact im struggling to think of any, cylists bans are actually implemented by the UCI, Contador, Spanish Federation, although UCI appealed the decision, Valverde, Italian federations, Whoops, Millar, French authorities, and in easch case the national NADO implemented the ban and all the wada signatories fell into line. The only time in 30 years following this sport I can remember an athlete every questioning a NADO's authority was Valverde saying that CONI had no jurisdiction over him. To be honest, if the UCI refused to rule with USADA it could change the sport as we know it. Battle lines would be drawn, WADA, NADO's and UCI with the IAF somewhere in between. Cyclings olympic participation would under threat (theres plenty at the IAF would love to see Verbruggen in trouble), and how much dissent would there be from the various anti doping organisations knowing that a precedent had been set where they could ban a rider and his governing body could overrule the ban and say nah, sorry. Would have huge ramifications for not just cycling, but all sports. Lance's one saving grace, is that with a breif exception during comeback 2.0 he barely raced in Italy so has no italian results to be expunged so RCS and CONI cant put their oar in. 99% of his results are under the ASO who are now so tightly involved with the UCI that they are almost one. But anyway, its all completely irrelevant, none of it matters as far as the wiki page entry goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say the current lead is a bit repetative though, no real need for it to talk about the uci requesting more info etc in both para 1 and para 3, lot of duplicate information in the space of three paragraphs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, ive changed the intro as it was making the same references to the doping allegations, dates and everything else in both paraghraph one and paragraph 3 which was needlessly repetative. Now though paragraph three looks far to weighty in comparison. Scrub that. Im going to undo my revision, but we need to look at the repetative nature of paras 1 and 3 and what infomation is then repeated again in the 2012 allegations section. Dimspace (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the recent edits – done mainly I think by Dimspace – the paragraph in question looks indeed much better now and definitely NPOV. It reflects quite accurately the actual events and gives the reader a fairly comprehensive idea about what happened. As regards the complicated issue of jurisdiction, I'll repeat what LedRush wrote above: focus on reporting the facts; this is the only way not to get trapped into an endless discussion about jurisdictions, which, after a certain point, becomes irrelevant.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

USADA have not recommended anything

USADA believe themselves to have jurisdiction on the matter: as far as they are concerned, they are competent in results management, and he has already been stripped of those titles. It would therefore be inconsistent of them to make this a recommendation. Does anyone have a source of them positing this as their suggestion/recommendation? We ought to be saying that USADA has declared his results void, but that the UCI challenges their authority to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mention above, UCI does not challenge anything yet; at least officialy. UCI's statement is crystall clear: They wait for USADA's reasoned decision and then they will decide what they will do. But the last paragraph of the lede is so badly written that it confuses instead of clarifying.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Only what the UCI decides to do matters. If, hypothetically, the UCI would say that it cannot accept the USADA ruling and they would also not accept any further arbitration, they would have effectively split off from the system. But then the Tour de France results would still fall under the UCI as they are in charge of it. The Tour de France would then have become a sport event that doesn't fall under the WADA anymore.

Although, you can then also imagine that the Tour director would decide to split off from the UCI and start a new organization that does fall under WADA. So ultimately, only the Tour director has the authority to remove Armstrong's Tour titles, the jurisdiction of other authorities only exists by agreement. If too much strain is put on the system, some parts of it may break away, cutting away the jurisdiction the other parts used to have. Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WADA to retroactively increase the statute of limitations to 14 years, retroactively

See here. So, USADA violated the 8 years statute of limitations, and to fix that one has to increase this to 14 years, allow this to be applied retroactively and allow a previous investigation conducted under the old statute of limitations to have retroactive validity under the new statute of limitations. WADA will do precisely this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a non op-ed piece to confirm this, rather than the cited rant? If so, it might be relevant for the article on WADA, but not here. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Current Team

Can this be deleted or edited? Livestrong dont have a UCI registered team unless you count the Bontrager/Livestrong development team. Lance rides as a individual but carries livestrong sponsorship. He is also part owner of the Radioshack team. But not sure how it ever became that livestrong was his current team?

Good spot: he retired from Radioshack in January 2011. No reason to believe that he has been a member of any UCI team since then. Not listed on UCI site as a member of Trek-Livestrong (2011) or Bontrager Livestrong (2012), and not on Bontrager site. Kevin McE (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doping in the United States

During a recent clean up of the doping articles I created the Doping in the United States page. I would be nice to see some effort on that page. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Armstrong case is not only the only cycling case mentioned on that page, but also has more information than all other specific cases in history added together. I am at a loss as to why you would want that article to be even more recentist and disproportionate than it already is. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very confused. The Armstrong case is the only cycling case mentioned in the Doping in the United States page. I started this thread to try and get editors over to the page to improve it. I am well aware of WP recentism (this article is case in point) and as my tagging of the article requesting expert help I am well aware of its faults. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely: not only is it the only cycling case, it is far more comprehensively covered than any other case.

Armstrong is overrepresented, and you are asking on the Armstrong page for people to add. If you want a broader cycling input, you would be better asking at WT:CYC or the talk page of List of doping cases in cycling (although the talk page of articles is not really the forum for drumming up contributors for other articles). Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, it's time to apologize for making incorrect assumptions concerning Alan, and to stop being so rude.LedRush (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made no assumption. He misinterpreted my phraseology, but otherwise agreed with me. Once he clarified his intent, I made a suggestion as to what might be a more fruitful hunting ground, but gave a gentle warning that some approaches might be seen as not in keeping with the purpose of article talk space. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

" Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court"

This doesn't seem correct, and it's not supported by the reference. Should it not read as follows? Armstrong challenged this United States District Court. 87.114.8.133 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please change "Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court" to "Armstrong challenged this United States District Court." 87.114.8.133 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done, but not by me; I'm simply closing the edit request. If there are any questions as to the details of the edit actually made please take that up with Frank (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please replace
"Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court"
with
"Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in the Texas Supreme Court"

The assertion that he attempted to challenge it in the Supreme Court is not suported by the references. This is a BLP. 87.114.8.133 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This was done over an hour before you posted here. And the post above yours describes how it was done.LedRush (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The first request was for a different edit, which was reverted without discussion, and without providing the required citation. Hence this new request to add {{citation needed}} . 87.114.8.133 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to anything "supreme" in the article.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry I must have misread the history because my initial request was partially, but not fully, implemented. I'll close the existing requests to avoid conclusion, and open a new one below.

•  Done Per your request.LedRush (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The text as it stands is
"Armstrong originally attempted to challenge this in federal court".
That needs tidying up because he either made the challenge or he didn't. After he made the challenge he couldn't unmake it later. Please change the text to:
" Armstrong challenged this in the federal court" 87.114.8.133 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

SUCH a good example of why wikipedia will never replace reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.4 (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia has always required reliable sources. I know of no discussion that would seriously suggest Wikipedia try to replace them, and to do so would change the essence of what Wikipedia is about. As for this page being an "example", actually every single page in this encyclopedia is an example - they all require reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tour de France titles on article

I am removing the titles of the Tour de France that appear under his infobox, this article needs to be modified to demonstrate the following facts:

1.Armstrong decided no longer to contest the allegations of doping and by definition conceding to such accusations.

2.The media has reported explicitly "Armstrong stripped of his Tour de France titles", this means that it is our duty to replicate such information, not to interpret it.

3. In most articles the rule of thumb is to follow the media reports and to use them as a source. Any claim of "let's wait to see what happens" will fall under WP:CRYSTAL.

4. I know it is hard for many out there to face the fact that Armstrong cheated, but, this is not a place to portray his best or worst side. It's only a place to show in a neutral way the information surrounding the subject and the information now is that he has been stripped of his titles and that he is not fighting such actions, the interpretation of being fed up or that he is admitting is not for us to make.

Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 14:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. This is already in there.

2. This is factually incorrect. In fact, the media have explicitly contradicted this by explaining the current controversy.

3. I think you misunderstand WP:CRYSTAL. Saying we should wait and see what happens is the opposite of WP:CRYSTAL. Saying that we know he'll be stripped of his titles eventually, even though media reports haven't reported this is WP:CRYSTAL.

4. It is not a fact that Armstrong cheated, and your claim that it is shows that you are not NPOV. It is a fact that he has been accused of cheating, and it is a fact that the USADA has concluded that he cheated, though I don't think they've released their findings yet. It is also a fact that other agencies have either come to different conslusions or waiting to read teh USADA report. It is unlikely that any claim that Armstrong did or didn't cheat will be a fact upon which WP can conclusively report. As such, we will report what the media does, attributing such statements.LedRush (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LedRush on this. I think it's premature to remove the Tour de France titles from the infobox, considering the official Tour de France website continues to list Armstrong as the winner for those years, whereas Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 title, is no longer listed. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't start reading me guidelines just to cover the fallacy of your argument. WP:CRYSTAL implies that there should not be speculation about the future. Regarding my edition I am not speculating, I am executing something that the media have widely covered. I paraphrase "Armstrong has been stripped of his Tour de France titles", they have been using it on websites and newspapers. Therefore, this article should reflect such changes in the record of an individual that has quit fighting the accusations and allegations. Our interpretation should be one of : yes, in fact he has been stripped of his titles and this should be shown in the infobox or at least this should be indicated WHICH IS NOT! . WP:CRYSTAL in this case it's taking place by an omission in the information provided in key areas of the article that are at a glance of utmost importance for most readers. So I believe the above arguments are flawed if not biased. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't been stripped of his titles yet. Any claim in the article that he has will be WP:Crystal. Instead, we merely report what is reported by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not getting it, he might not be officially stripped of his titles, he is being "symbolically" stripped, this is not like the Olympics that he can just return the medals, but the bottom line is that the guy is a cheater. I don't understand what we need to have this article reflect such thing. Is not like they are going to have a special ceremony in which he returns the titles, you know, it's ridiculous, I hate when people don't have common sense. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue deals with who is doing the symbolic stripping of the titles. The sources that have reported his titles are being stripped by USADA are the same ones that also discuss whether USADA has the authority to do that in the first place. This Washington Post article, for example, says "Armstrong can still hold out hope that he’ll ultimately be able to retain his Tour de France titles, as race organizers and the international cycling body wrestle with USADA over who has the authority to strip the cyclist of his wins." SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 20:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"the bottom line is that the guy is a cheater." You simply should not be editing this article if you can't rein in your personal opinions. Until the agencies figure out who has authority to strip him of his titles, the best we can do is what we've done: say that the USADA has stripped him of his titles but everyone else is waiting to see what they will do. Also, please stop your personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone in the right mind think that he can retain the titles when he cheated? If that was the case then anyone can just take a shortcut and still be a winner and retain the titles, by definition the mere fact that he is not contesting, and that the USADA has officially stripped him should be enough to acknowledge that he no longer holds those titles. What are you guys waiting for, for him to have a press conference confessing that in fact he cheated? This makes no sense at all. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

USADA can claim that they are stripping him of his titles, but until the Tour de France says that they have the right to do so (and they have said they are reserving judgement for now until they discuss it further with USADA), the ultimate authority on whether or not Armstrong still has his titles is the Tour de France. USADA can't simply say they are taking away titles that they didn't give in the first place, unless the Tour de France says they can - which they haven't. Plus I should reiterate that Armstrong is still listed as the winner on the official Tour de France website. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Armstrong has explicitly and repeatedly denied cheating. The USADA can say he cheated, and we attribute that opinion to them, but all it is is the opinion of the USADA.LedRush (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct. Yes, Armstrong has denied doping in legally inconsequential public statements. But when officially faced with charges backed up by evidence, he refused to deny those charges officially. The USADA has charged him officially, and his only official response has been regarding a dubious technicality based on supposed lack of jurisdiction, which the federal court dismissed. He did not officially challenge or deny the actual charges. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Legally inconsequential public statements is an opinion and has no place in this article. Armstrong has denied the charges, and it has been reported that way in numerouse reliable sources. Simply because he hasn't done what some folks might want him to do or expect him to do does not mean he has not challenged or denied the charges; it is clearly demonstrated that he has done so.  Frank  |  talk  16:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Camilo you make a rather large assumption that people are not capable of being impartial over the portrayal of the page. " I know it is hard for many out there to face the fact that Armstrong cheated, but, this is not a place to portray his best or worst side" If you want to know where Im coming from, I have been one of armstrongs biggest critics for many years, search for my twitter account (not hard to find), or google a couple of things "dimspace the legend of the 500" or have a look at this article i did recently http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/ and you will see i am in no way having any problems facing the fact he cheated, however, i have already deleted many many edits that either removed his titles, or unfairly changed peices of information to his detrement. Its fair to note however, that i have a very in depth knowledge of this affair having read every document and peice of paper, so if people try and sneak in pro armstrong pr over the next few months i will also be zapping that equally quickly. But even as a so called armstrong "Hater" i fully agree with everyone that you cannot yet strip his results from the page as the governing body and the various race agencies have not confirmed the decision. Dimspace (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What if they never come forward to strip his titles? Will that give legitimacy to his winnings? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 16:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of deciding whether people cheated or whether their titles are legitimate. We just report the facts, with sources.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

French cycling federation have said they would like the years results left blank in the event of a ban and will be seaking compensation. Have added it to the article in the 2012 section. Theres no reason for it to be added to the lead para, and im not sure how much impact FFC have on an ASO decision although one assumes as the national federation the ASO will be expected to follow their recommendation. Dimspace (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

LedRush wrote above: "It is a fact that he has been accused of cheating, and it is a fact that the USADA has concluded that he cheated, though I don't think they've released their findings yet. It is also a fact that other agencies have either come to different conslusions or waiting to read teh USADA report. It is unlikely that any claim that Armstrong did or didn't cheat will be a fact upon which WP can conclusively report. " All that is mostly accurate (not the part about other agencies coming to a different conclusion - that's pure conjecture as far as I know), but it misses a huge point: It is a fact that USADA charged Armstrong with violating anti-doping rules, and it is a fact that Armstrong chose to not challenge those charges and waive his right to a hearing where the USADA would be required to present evidence supporting these charges.

That is, because of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges, the USADA is under no obligation to present the evidence. In fact, Armstrong doesn't want the evidence presented. As Brad Wieners writes in Bloomberg News[6], this is what Armstrong gains by giving up his titles: avoiding "hearings expected to include eyewitness testimony that he took testosterone and the blood booster EPO, got illicit blood transfusions, and conspired to help his entire team dope. Armstrong accepted these sanctions as the lesser of evils—a way to limit his liability, as any large corporation might, even if it meant absorbing a hit to the credibility of his brand." The article is not conveying this currently, and this needs to be rectified. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But are those facts, or are they the editorial opinions of the writer?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The following are facts verifiable via multiple primary (WADA code and court documents) and secondary sources (innumerable articles), and not contradicted by any reliable sources:

1. USADA charged Armstrong with violating anti-doping rules
2. Armstrong chose to not challenge those charges and thus waive his right to a hearing where the USADA would be required to present evidence supporting these charges. In other words, because of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges, the USADA is under no obligation to present the evidence in a hearing.
3. Observers like Bloomberg's Wieners believe the only reasonable explanation for Armstrong's decision is that he he does not want the evidence presented.

One way or another, the article should be clear on these important points. Currently, because of this revert, it is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1. 3 is not a fact, and is quite silly, actually. Nothing I said was wrong, and nothing presented even argues against what I said. BTW, other agencies have explicitly come to a different conclusion, and are consequently waiting before making their own judgmeents. This is found both in court filings and reliable secondary sources. But that's not really important for the immediate discussion.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Off Topic Discussion

Could someone please see this edition where one of my comments was removed? I am within the topic of the article in question, this was totally uncalled for by User:LedRush . Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I kindly request a neutral editor to take a look at this discussion since User:LedRush is stubornly deleting my comments and trying to restrict my opinion --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than this one [7] ?LedRush (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude get the hell off me, I am trying to get back to the main discussion regarding the article, I can't do that with you proofreading and deleting what in your opinion is not ok, let it go, this is the talk page not the article itself, you don't have to be reading guidelines at the drop of a hat man. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Coyle/Hamilton book

Somehow the information in the new Coyle/Hamilton book will have to be incorporated.

For source material, we can start with these two excellent reviews in Outside magazine.

• LANCE ARMSTRONG: CASE CLOSED, by Bill Gifford.
• LANCE ARMSTRONG’S SECRET IS OUT, by Christopher Keys

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what it would really allow us to add: these are the allegations of one man, and can only be presented as such. We could add to the bit that already says that Hamilton has made accusations to say that they are repeated in his book, but that's about it. But thanks for the reference: I enjoyed reading the reviews. Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

agreed. it can be included that further allegations are made by tyler in his book, but thats all that should be on lances page. I dont think book reviews of a book are suitable as references for wikipedia purposes. On tylers page, quoting certain sections with page number etc may be acceptable, but not on lances page putting lines from book reviews. Dimspace (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

These are the allegations of one man? How can you say that after reading these reviews? Keys addresses this directly:

What ultimately makes the book so damning, however, is that it doesn’t require readers to put their full faith in Hamilton’s word. In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. Nine teammates. That fact is the first punch thrown at Armstrong’s supporters—and it might be the most damaging one. Next Wednesday, when The Secret Race comes out, backers will probably make the familiar claim that Hamilton is a disgruntled, bitter ex-rival who got popped for doping and is now looking to cash in. But that doesn’t explain why nine former teammates agreed to cooperate.

According to Dan Coyle (who has collaborated on a book with Armstrong [8]), these "allegations" (Hamilton's account) are corroborated and supported by 9 other former teammates. It's misleading and inaccurate to say these are the allegations of one man. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Updated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying the book is not a valid source, what i said was in anwswer the the original point, reviews of a book are not valid sources for wikipedia. Quoting a passage from the book that contains a specific allegation is different to quoteing a section from a book review that says what is contained in the book. Book reviews are by their very nature not neutral. Dimspace (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A book review is simply a secondary source about a primary source (a book) and is not inherently unreliable. It depends on what in the book review is being cited. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 USADA charges

Please change:

• Armstrong's decision to stop fighting USADA means he forfeits, in the eyes of USADA, all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.[117][124] As of August 24, 2012, the UCI was waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[125]"

TO:

• According to Section 8.3 of the WADA code, Armstrong's decision to stop fighting the USADA means he waives his right to a hearing in which the USADA would be required to present evidence supporting the charges in the charging letter. Because Armstrong failed to challenge the USADA's charges, the USADA must provide a reasoned decision to the relevant parties (Armstrong, UCI, WADA), which they have said is that he loses all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and that he is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.[117][124] As of August 24, 2012, the UCI was waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[125]

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Both of the linked sources - while interesting - are primary sources and not appropriate as the only sources for such wording. This is still developing; there will be more written about this in reliable sources, and there is no deadline. But at this point, the requested edit would not be consistent with policy.  Frank  |  talk  02:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What policy prohibits using only primary sources for a paragraph like this? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, already linked above, is pretty clear on the subject. In addition, I was remiss in forgetting to mention WP:OR; we may look at primary sources and interpret what the words seem to mean to us, but that doesn't mean that is what will actually be put into practice. Most especially in a developing case such as this one, any interpretation we put is going to be fraught with peril. When something actually happens and is reported on in reliable sources, we can be more definitive in this article.  Frank  |  talk  00:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please spell it out. What I see: " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.". That's exactly how I used it in the above. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked the one sentence from that link that appears at first glance to support your assertion, but it is taken out of context. For the all-important context that is necessary, search for the following words sprinkled throughout the section: do not, unless, misuse, and interpretation.  Frank  |  talk  16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it. Please quote the exact words that you believe prohibits the use of primary sources in a paragraph such as mine above. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Already did, above, in bold text. There's nothing more I can do.  Frank  |  talk  22:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're being obstinate. What you have in bold text above is plainly not a quote of the exact words that prohibits the use of primary sources in a paragraph such as mine above. Your refusal to quote any full policy statement that supposedly supports your position suggests no such statement exists. I certainly can't find one. For example, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" - I did not do any of that in the paragraph above.

On the other hand, it does say this supporting what I did do:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them

I did use the primary source with care (i.e., I was careful to not analyze, synthesize, interpret or evaluate). I did not misuse the primary source. If you think I did, then explain. Otherwise, it's impossible to take your objection seriously. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You need not take my "objection" seriously; all that is required is to adhere to policies which have already been outlined; in this case I refer specifically to WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Merely pasting text from a primary source document without editing it does not mean it is being used carefully. Really, pulling one (or a few) sentences from a rule book does not qualify as neutral wording. It is precisely what is prohibited by policy, to wit: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. - To present section 8.3 is to imply that it is the only section of the rulebook - and indeed, the only rulebook itself - that applies to this matter. That is clearly not the case, as the UCI, FCF, WADA, and USADA all have something to say on the matter. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. - Again, clearly this does not apply here; the facts of one section of a dry set of rules from a worldwide organization are not sufficient to decide what will or may happen without the requisite "further, specified knowledge". Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. - Again, this certainly applies to Armstrong.  Frank  |  talk  19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything you say in general about primary sources is accurate and I completely agree. But every statement you make about how you think it applies to the material I proposed inserted above, or to the material you just reverted, is utter nonsense.

Below you expounded on how the cited material does not mean Armstrong admitted anything. True enough, but nothing I proposed meant that he admitted anything, so this entire point was irrelevant. Similarly, you now expound on how presenting 8.3 is inappropriate - when no one is presenting 8.3 (it is only being cited to substantiate the undisputed fact, which is supported by secondary sources I cited above and in the material you reverted, and is not contradicted by any type of source anywhere, that Armstrong's failure to challenge the USADA charges means he waives his right to a hearing). You personally may dispute this, but unless you can provide some kind of source that disputes it, it's irrelevant.

You also inexplicably contend that "presenting Section 8.3" (apparently meaning citing the WADA code and that section in particular) implies "that it is the only section of the rulebook - and indeed, the only rulebook itself - that applies to this matter". No, it is not the only section that applies to "this matter". But Section 8 is the only section of the rulebook that substantiates the undisputed fact that Armstrong's failure to challenge the USADA's charges means he waives his right to a hearing where USADA would have been required to present evidence supporting the charges. Nobody challenges this. UCI's only statement also relies on 8.3 - which goes on to say that the USADA must explain their reasoned decision.

Since none of your statements apply to the actual material in question, I still cannot take your objection seriously. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, there is no question that Armstrong had a right to a hearing - a hearing where the USADA would have been required to present evidence supporting the charges spelled out in the charging letter - and that Armstrong waived this right by not officially challenging the charges by the (extended) deadline. For a secondary source, the question of how Armstrong turned this into a PR positive (at least for now) is the subject of this piece in Bloomberg: [9] --Born2cycle (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates the problem with using primary sources. Let's say that everything you've asserted is correct - and I have no information to the contrary. The problem is that there are facts, and there is reality. It may well be true that Armstrong has waived some right...but that does not mean that he has admitted to anything, tacitly or otherwise. Perhaps he is preparing some other action in some other venue outside the USADA. There are any number of perhaps situations...and we are not privy to them at this point. It may be that there are no other actions he is going to take. But for us to draw any conclusions based on the information we now have is original research.  Frank  |  talk  16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Admitted" is your word. The wording I request to insert does not say that. It says only as much as is obviously supported by the cited sources. I was quite careful about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

From that article: [Accepting the USADA's charges by not challenging them is] "a hefty price to pay [losing Tour titles, etc], but consider the alternative: hearings expected to include eyewitness testimony that he took testosterone and the blood booster EPO, got illicit blood transfusions, and conspired to help his entire team dope. Armstrong accepted these sanctions as the lesser of evils—a way to limit his liability, as any large corporation might, even if it meant absorbing a hit to the credibility of his brand." --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My main problem is the current wording, especially "Armstrong's decision to stop fighting USADA means he forfeits, in the eyes of USADA, all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998." The problems with this are:
1. His decision does mean he waives his right to a hearing in front of a panel of three arbitration judges where the USADA would be required to submit evidence supporting their charges that he violated WADA anti-doping rules. This is true not only in the eyes of the USADA, but anyone who has taken 30 seconds required to read Section 8.3 (page 49) of the WADA code, which states:

The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s ... failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. Where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the Persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

2. The fact that the result of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges that he violated the WADA anti-doping rules means that he will lose his titles since 1998 and be banned from all WADA sports for life is not only in the eyes of the USADA, but in the eyes of countless secondary sources, including the Bloomberg source I cited above.

The current wording is very misleading about the actual situation. The wording I proposed above corrects this.

I suppose it can also be rectified by removing the "in the eyes of USADA" clause, but even the "stop fighting USADA" wording is misleading. The only reason there has been any fight at all so far is because Armstrong chose to take the case to federal court, where it was dismissed, twice. There did not have to be a fight. All he had to do was make a simple official statement asserting his innocence and denying the charges, thus invoking his right to a hearing (if the USADA chose to pursue the case). None of this is clearly conveyed in the current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert??? Getting the facts right

I object in the strongest terms possible to this revert, especially the claims in the edit history: "first is a primary source and a blog entry (we do not interpret or synthesize), and second repeats same primary source)".

First of all, nothing that was reverted in that edit is based on the primary source (WADA Code Section 8) - the primary source citation is there supplementing what was said in the referenced secondary sources.

Secondly, nothing in the primary sources had to be interpreted or synthesized to support the reverted material.

Finally, all this was repeatedly explained above, and I've asked for explanation in return from Frank, and he has provided none. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you seem to feel that Wikipedia is about facts, which it is not; it is about verifiability. I have engaged your comments above, and separately I broke out an entire subsection in the article (Lance_Armstrong#Interpretation_and_reaction) that contains four entries that are quite negative about Armstrong but are properly sourced and don't cross the line into bad sourcing or challengeable material. You have repeatedly tried to insert links directly to the WADA code which are inappropriate, and you appear to be trying to interpret what possible future moves Armstrong may or may not be able to make (or will or will not make), which we cannot do. In any case, the material you are attempting to add has been challenged and removed; the proper course of action is to open a discussion on the matter and achieve WP:CONSENSUS.  Frank  |  talk  19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by "undisputed fact" I mean not only verifiable material, but material for which there is no source that contradicts it. That's what you are removing from the article!

"You have repeatedly tried to insert links directly to the WADA code which are inappropriate...". This is our main point of disagreement, apparently. You seem to interpret policy to prohibit all use of primary sources, even where the primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, and it is being relied on to augment the secondary source, which is exactly what WP:BLPPRIMARY allows ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies"), and exactly how the cited primary source was used in the material you reverted. If I re-insert the material will you revert again? If so, we have to move on to some sort of DR, because I can't see how to make progress with you since your arguments in objection, though valid in general, don't apply to the material at issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for DR; you haven't yet achieved (or even attempted to achieve) any form of consensus on this page on which to base a resolution of a dispute. You've made some proposals and comments on this page and multiple others (I am not alone!) have objected to them. You then went and added them (or variations thereof) against those objections and were reverted. Where is the consensus on which you based your edits to the article? Where is the attempt to generate it? When you make a proposal and people object, that's an indication there is no consensus, and it then becomes time to make an alternate proposal.  Frank  |  talk  19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been unable to achieve consensus with you, which is normally done through reasoned discussion, because your objections don't make sense, as I've explained above. I have spent way too much on this relatively simple matter with you, so I've asked for assistance at the NOR board Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Lance_Armstrong_-_citing_WADA_Code. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't achieve consensus with one other editor on a page as busy and frequently edited as this one. Have you missed the multiple alternate viewpoints - from multiple editors - to your posts on this page?  Frank  |  talk  19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You are the only one who has engaged me about this particular material - both in this section and the preceding one. It's a specific issue about the particular material I initially proposed in the previous section, and the variant which you reverted. No one else has said a peep about it, and we've been discussing it for several days. If you're confusing this with other disagreements above, that explains much. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. There have been others who have questioned or otherwise not fully agreed with your comments above. Because they haven't chosen to engage in a particular conversation does not mean they agree with you (or with me). It means they haven't chosen to engage. Nothing more, nothing less. But when they did choose to do so, they did not tend to agree with your point of view. Again - that's not what consensus is about.  Frank  |  talk  20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to your original point, questioning my revert, as I went back and re-read it, it's really quite simple. Take a look again. Both paragraphs I removed contain explicit interpretation - one by you and one by a third party. Yours is that his decision "means that..." which is very explicitly an interpretation. It is not shared by all, and indeed as has been pointed out above, he is still listed as the Tour winner for 7 years. I understand that may change; it hasn't yet. The second interpretation is by the USADA, which announced that "their decision is that..." and about which we do not care. So they've "decided." So what? Their decision is not binding on the Tour de France itself. Again - I understand it may change. But for one organization to "decide" he forfeits titles does not make it so, and for us to even report it as much as we currently are is really on the edge of violating BLP.  Frank  |  talk  20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"It is not shared by all"? Really? Sorry, but I call b.s. Let's look at the full "means that" statement: "Armstrong's failure to challenge USADA's charges that he violated anti-doping rules also means that he waives his right to a hearing, allowing the USADA to proceed with their decision without presenting evidence supporting the charges in a hearing where Armstrong would have been able to present his own witnesses and question those presented by the USADA." There are countless sources that agree with this statement, and not one that disagrees with it. This underlined assertion about the Italicized statement should be trivial to refute, if it can be, by providing just one reliable source that disagrees with the statement. If it can't be, that means your assertion that the statement is "not shared by all" is unsupportable.

While it's true that Armstrong is still the official Tour winner, nothing in the material in question (what you reverted) says anything to the contrary. Again you are making valid but irrelevant points! Why do you continually and repeatedly waste our time like this?

So what, you ask, about USADA's decision to sanction Armstrong? Seriously? Yes ASO can theoretically do what they want, but to ignore USADA in this matter would mean ignoring WADA code, and that would be unprecedented and highly controversial, to say the least. You do realize that because the USADA merely issued the charging letter, there was no question that Armstrong was immediately banned from participating in all WADA events, including the European triathlon in which he was planning to participate, and that the TDF is a WADA event?

I agree we have to be careful to not say he has actually lost his titles (which some sources have said... speaking of getting the facts right - note that the "lost his titles" assertion is abundantly verifiable but I'm not suggesting we include it, though all those headlines does speak volumes about the practical formal inevitability of all this), because that has not actually formally happened yet (per the WADA Code Section 8.3 that you strive to not mention in the article even as a citation, the USADA must still send their reasoned decision in writing to Armstrong, UCI and WADA, as confirmed in multiple secondary sources about UCI's statement), but to ignore or somehow downplay the significance of Armstrong's decision to not challenge USADA's charges and waive his right to a hearing where USADA would be required to present the evidence supporting the charges, would be even worse, not to mention it being a blatant violation of NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, this USADA process is controversal in the way it is applied here. If you stricly focus on the rules, you are not going to see the problem. This is similar to Assad's perspective on the events in Syria, he only considers the official laws in Syria which means that the opposition are all terrorists.

You can have expeptional cases that can prove that the rules cannot always be applied in the way they usually are, you have to look at the bigger picture to see this, intepreting the facts narrowly in terms of the existing rules can then lead to a conflict. Clearly in this case, there is a big potential for such a conflict, and the UCI will have to make a very important decision on how to deal with Armstrong. This is not going to be a simple matter of just applying the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's how Armstrong wants you to see it, and I see he has been extraordinarily successful in that respect. In fact, how well his PR tactics have worked (so far) is the topic of this Business Week article. But the issue relevant to this article, and in particular to the question of whether the reverted material should be included, is whether reliable sources see it differently. I've provided sources supporting that they do.

There is a whimsical hope floating out there among the fanboyz and apologists that somehow the UCI and/or ASO will ignore or dismiss the USADA's findings and decisions. That wish has no foundation in reality. Am I wrong? Where are the sources? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the head of the UCI has already said that they will ban Armstrong if the USADA provides the relevant evidence (as they must per WADA Code Section 8.3).[10]:

"If ultimately the UCI has to sanction, we will have no problems. We've sanctioned many good riders in the past, we've put them out of the sport and we're not afraid to do it with anybody," McQuaid told Cyclingweekly.

.

So they've already announced they will be following the rules. There is no hint whatsoever from anyone that "this is not going to be a simple matter of just applying the rules." Without supporting sources, I have to conclude that you just made that up.

Yes, of course it's theoretically possible that the USADA does not have the evidence. But in light of their claim about the charges being supported by "over 10" US teammates, and that this is corroborated by Dan Coyle stating that Tyler Hamilton's damning account has been verified with nine other riders, it's practically impossible that the USADA does not have the evidence. Unthinkable, really.

Also, it's not like the UCI can just ignore what the USADA sends them. The most they can do is appeal the decision to CAS. However small the probability is that this will happen, the likelihood that CAS will also side with UCI is astronomically small. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

UCI can look into what USADA sends them and then reach the conclusion that the case against Armstrong is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The case is build only on witness statements, and these witnesses statements were solicited. In such a case, without recordings of all the hearings of all the witnesses from start to finish, you don't have a case. It needs to be clear that witness x did not know what witness y had already testified. Basically, the evidence must show that y's corroboration of what x is saying cannot be explained by anything other than the statements being true.

Now, if USADA indeed has a strong case against Armstrong, you have to wonder why the justice department isn't persuing him. In the US this is a criminal matter for which you can go to jail. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in a reasonable manner. Of course you know the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies only to criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". But this isn't even a legal civil matter (Armstrong tried to make it one but the judge dismissed that case) - it's a sports code violation case governed by the WADA Code.

There is a standard that must be met IF the charged athlete challenges the charges, but in this case that didn't happen. It's like pleading no contest in a court case - the prosecution is not obligated to present its case.

Since Armstrong did not challenge the charges and waived his right to a hearing, all the USADA is required to do is present "a reasoned decision explaining the action taken" (see WADA Code Section 8.3 "Waiver of hearing" on p 49 of the WADA Code). Normally, since the Athlete did not challenge the charges, the USADA could simply presume the charges are valid and the decision to ban him and strip of all his titles would follow with a mere reference to the WADA rules, because the charges are so serious. It's a mere formality. This is why so much of the press has already announced his titles have been stripped.

But because of all the publicity and noise created by the incredibly effective Armstrong PR machine surrounding this case, I suspect the USADA will never-the-less present evidence supporting the charges in the "reasoned decision" they send to Armstrong, UCI and WADA. But it's really important to understand that the USADA is under no obligation to do so, because of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges and waive his rights to a hearing. Why there is so much reluctance to state this undisputed and well-supported-in-reliable-sources[11] fact in the article is confounding. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortune magazine gets it. Why doesn't Wikipedia?

FORTUNE -- The disgrace of legendary cyclist Lance Armstrong on allegations of doping puts yet another black eye on the world of professional sports. The jig was finally up as nearly all of Armstrong's former teammates, many of whom were also dopers, stood waiting in the wings to tell the world under oath how their friend had indeed cheated. But instead of fighting the allegations in arbitration, Mr. "Live Strong" Armstrong decided that the chips were invariably stacked against him and chose to veer out of the peloton of shame he had created.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/04/lance-armstrong-sponsors/

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

because at the moment, regardless what is quoted in the press, armstrong has not yet been stripped of all his titles. Im with you, im a long time critic of Armstrong who has written some scathing articles on him, but we have to go with the facts. At the moment the facts are that USADA has made the decision that all titles be stripped and life ban be implemented, at the momment, this decision has not been verified by the UCI. Once it is, dont worry, there will be a mad scrum to remove his titles from him. But in the meantime you are banging your head against the wall, whatever you say and sources you provide it does not change the undeniable fact that the UCI and ASO have yet to strip those titles from him. 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)

Where have I said or suggested that the article should say that Armstrong has been stripped of his titles? Have you even been reading my comments? On that particular issue, I've only said the exact opposite! Even this quotation does not say that. What I want the article to say is what Frank reverted, and none of that material said or implied that Armstrong was stripped of his titles. Please review it. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are (once again) quoting an opinion piece rather than an actual news article. Really it's unclear what you perceive to be so bad about the current wording other than it is a revert of your edit. Why not just propose new wording and work to get a consensus version? I am not (nor is anybody that I can see) saying or implying that only the current version is acceptable. I'm just saying that the version I removed was unacceptable. That doesn't mean all editing on the article must cease. Your current crusade seeks only to get your version approved; what the goal should really be is to improve the article. You've yet to suggest a way to do so. You are only complaining that your edit was removed as if it is personal (which it's not) or it is Armstrong fanboy apologism (which it also is not).  Frank  |  talk  19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to do that, but, again, it's very difficult to adjust what I'm saying when your stated objections don't make sense. But I'll try again. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

um, because Wikipedia is written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?169.231.21.125 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 USADA Charges, Take 2

Under the new subsection, Interpretation and reaction, this is the first bullet:

• The USADA considers that Armstrong's failure to contest the charges means that he forfeits all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.

While not incorrect, this wording is misleading because it suggests that USADA is alone, unique or at least unusual in having this view, and the situation is open to interpretation. That's misleading because this view is consistent with WADA Code. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the NY Times, as is stated in this NY Times article (not opinion piece) [12] which is already cited in the article:

Armstrong’s decision, according to the World Anti-Doping Code, means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 forward.

This view is also is not contradicted by any reliable source, so far as I know. So, I think we need to be clear that Armstrong's failure to challenge these charges of very serious violations of anti-doping rules means, per the WADA Code, that he must be stripped of his titles and banned from all WADA sports; that the only way that can be avoided is by ignoring or dismissing the WADA Code, and no one is even suggesting or hinting that might happen.

Therefore, I propose removing that bullet from the Interpretation and reaction section, rewording it as follows, and inserting at the end of the main 2012 USADA Charges section just above it. This is the proposed revised wording:

According to the WADA Code, Armstrong's failure to contest the charges means that he forfeits all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.

The NY Times reference would be cited there too. I also propose adding a reference to the WADA Code. Yes, it's a primary source, but this is a classic case of a reference to a primary source in order to augment what is said in a secondary source in which the primary source is discussed, per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, ...".

Any objections? If so, why? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done [13] --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is better than the previous attempt but reads awkwardly at best and most certainly does not represent consensus. (You don't make a proposal and wait 21 hours and implement it as if that is consensus.) I don't have better words popping into my head right now; perhaps someone else will come along and improve it.  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree there is room for improvement in the wording and also hope a word crafter will help. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are thanking me for. I think the edit is only marginally better than the previous one, and you still have not achieved consensus for the change. You merely posted it here and assumed that silence is assent, which is not at all true. Then, you express the hope that someone else will come along and clean up the mess. Unfortunately, the last time that happened (when I did so), you seemed to think it was an attack on you. Meanwhile, the article has not been improved. And after all this, you're saying "thanks"?  Frank  |  talk  00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging and not reverting. But simply stating an edit is not an improvement is not helpful. Please explain why you believe it's not an improvement.

Similarly, simply claiming consensus has not been achieved is also not helpful. What specifically about the edit do you believe is contrary to consensus, how, and why? Thanks, again. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I pared down the wording[14]. I think it reads better; hopefully you agree.

I also added a paragraph about what comes next. The best secondary source I could find for this for now is a lawyer's blog, but his analysis is easily verified by the primary source, including Section 15.4 of the WADA Code, which is also cited. I believe this combination clears the verifiability hurdle, especially since these particular points are not controversial (no reliable sources disagree). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The pared down wording is an improvement; the other edit is absolutely inappropriate and I removed it per WP:CRYSTAL. My claim that consensus has not been achieved is self-explanatory; if you don't have consensus, you don't have consensus. Posting a proposed change and hearing nothing in return is not consensus.  Frank  |  talk  01:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've worked with a lot of difficult editors over the years, but I have to say, you are among the most difficult, and a contender for #1 at this point. If that's your goal, keep up this obstinate approach, and congratulations will be in order.

Hopefully, that's not your goal. If so, please give me something substantive to work with. Don't just declare a suggestion or edit to be "not an improvement", "not consensus", or "violates CRYSTAL" - explain why you believe each to be the case, and suggest what could be changed, removed or added to overcome each objection. Work with me, not against me. Please?

As to the CRYSTAL objection, you do understand that merely discussing a process that must be followed is not a violation simply because it's in the future, don't you? In an ongoing court case while the jury is out, it's not a violation of CRYSTAL to point out that the outcome will be either guilty, not guilty, or a hung jury. This situation is no different. If you think such situations are violations of CRYSTAL, please cite the words in CRYSTAL that you believe mean that. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:CRYSTAL objection. The text implies that there is only a certain small set of outcomes that are possible. We really don't know—this is a legal and procedural battle that remains to be resolved. Now, if you want to flesh out an article on USADA and/or WADA with information on their appeals process… Kerfuffler (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting other outcomes are possible not covered by the reverted text? Such as? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the three sentence in the text:

1. Once the USADA produces its "reasoned decision" per WADA Code Section 8.3, Armstrong, the UCI or WADA may appeal to CAS.
2. If there is no appeal, then WADA Code Signatories like the UCI and ASO (owner of the Tour de France) are obligated to abide by USADA's sanctions per WADA Code Section 15.4, Mutual Recognition.
3. If there is an appeal, CAS may rule in favor of USADA, overturn their decision, or assign jurisdiction to the UCI.

1 - All announcements USADA has made so far are informal. The formal "reasoned decision" has to go to Armstrong, WADA and the UCI, any one or more of which may appeal. That's indisputable.

2 - The UCI and ASO are both WADA Code Signatories. That means they are obligated to abide by the USADA decision if it is not appealed. Again, indisputable. Note that this statement does not preclude the highly unlikely possibility that they will simply ignore the WADA Code (it's highly unlikely because ignoring the WADA Code would probably cause the IOC to kick cycling out of the Olympics).

3 - What can CAS do besides one of those 3 possible outcomes if it does get appealed to CAS?

Now, where exactly is the problem? Don't we want readers to know where this is going? I know I did, and I'm glad I found out. Why not share the wealth? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is the purest case of WP:SYNTH I've seen. You're effectively saying, “becaue their policy says X, then Y must happen”. In the real world, there are no such guarantees. As to what I think might happen, Wikipedia is not the place for my speculation. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm saying they are obligated to do X if Y doesn't happen by the policy they have pledged to follow. I'm not saying anything about what they will actually do. How could I know that? Do you really not see and appreciate the difference? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Any way you slice it, it's a forward looking statement, and makes an implication about the future, which is WP:CRYSTAL in a nutshell. Such statements are heavily discouraged, because there are a zillion (I counted!) confounding factors that could throw things off.

And in any case, the primary purpose of this type of content on Wikipedia is to document what happened, not what we think might or should happen.

I feel like this is getting to the point of repeating myself, and I detest doing that, so I will only reply if I feel I have something new to say. Silence != assent. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Obligated to..." is not the same as "did". That is the point of WP:CRYSTAL - we are here to report what they did do. We do absolutely see and appreciate the difference, which is precisely why we are letting you know that what you are trying to put in the article doesn't belong.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the point! What USADA/ASO/UCI/CAS/IOC DID do (way back when, not in the future), when they signed the WADA Code, is obligate themselves to follow the future decisions of other WADA Code signatories, unless those decisions are appealed as having been made in violation of the Code. This is a very important point quite relevant to this story, and one about which many seem to be unaware.

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not what your text actually says. It says that X, Y, or Z will happen. You could write something like, “WADA signatories, including USADA and UCI, are required to comply with each others' decisions. Disputes are resolved with a binding [[WADA#arbitration|arbitration process]].[ref]” (Obviously WADA#arbitration would have to be written.) This is less of a WP:CRYSTAL infraction, and more informative, but I still wouldn't write it myself. (Oh, wait.) Kerfuffler (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. It says if W occurs (an appeal), then either X, Y or Z will happen. It says this based on the easily verifiable analysis of WADA Code by a dispute resolution lawyer. This is exactly the kind of properly referenced "discussion about whether some development may occur" that CRYSTAL explicitly allows (see below). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The point of the clause you quote is to allow you to quote/paraphrase what a reliable source says about the topic. You're not quoting or paraphrasing there, you're WP:SYNTHing it by piecing together bits of information from various sources. Ergo, the clause you cited does not apply. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The material about the WADA Code says all comes from one source - a dispute resolution lawyer. Paraphrasing who a reliable source said about this is exactly what I was doing! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is not paraphrasing. I'm done. You can have the last word, but silence != assent. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Kerfuffler has explained the violation of WP:CRYSTAL quite well. We are not here to decide what process "must" be followed; we are here (on this page) to write an article about Lance Armstrong, in which - as in all articles on Wikipedia - we write what has been written elsewhere in reliable sources, in our own words. We do not interpret, predict, or conjecture. You imply that we are supposed to educate readers "where this is going", which is unambiguously antithetical to what Wikipedia is about. You may disagree with what I'm saying, but doing so won't change Wikipedia's policies. If you find you cannot edit within those policies, it would probably be far easier for you to find some other venue to frequent.  Frank  |  talk  03:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We both support policy and CRYSTAL in particular. We just disagree on whether the text in question is a violation of CRYSTAL. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This, for example, is straight from CRYSTAL:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

That perfectly describes the text I inserted: "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"... And relevant discussion was properly referenced.

Interpreting CRYSTAL to mean any "forward looking statement [which] makes an implication about the future" is inappropriate, which is how Kerfuffler has described his understanding, and with which you apparently agree, is plainly inconsistent with what is actually said at CRYSTAL. If you disagree with what CRYSTAL says, and think it should agree what you have said here, I suggest you take it up there. Good luck with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance resolving this CRYSTAL interpretation disagreement here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What you are inserting has nothing to do with "the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur", and in any case, you didn't insert "discussion and arguments about it" - you declared what may happen. In point of fact, a great many things may happen, and we don't know which ones will happen, which is the reason WP:CRYSTAL exists in the first place. It was perfectly appropriate to create Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton six months before the wedding since it had been announced by Buckingham Palace. It would not be appropriate to create articles about pending nuptials of Hollywood celebrities based on rumor, or about sports figures being traded to different teams, etc. There are planned future events, and there are possible future occurrences. There's a difference. Discussions of possible future outcomes of Armstrong's situation fall into the "possible future outcomes" category that WP:CRYSTAL prohibits.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely about whether some development will occur.

At any rate, I understand the point of CRYSTAL (and have more years - stop treating me like some newbie). I don't see the harm to WP, Armstrong or anyone if this material is included. It's inclusion can be justified by IAR if nothing else. Unless you can explain how it causes harm? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is not to explain how it "causes harm". The point is to explain why the policy shouldn't be followed; that responsibility lies with you. IAR most certainly does not apply; ignoring policy - which is what would be required to put your predictive text in - does not improve the encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia correctly describes the facts as they stand: seeking to unwrap future contingencies is a journalistic, not an encyclopaedic, function. Six months before the wedding referred to above, it was reasonable to set out in a wiki article what was already in established plans: the meaning and implications of choices and decisions not yet made, or not yet in the public forum, about what uniform William would wear if he chose to wear a uniform, or what proportion of UK weddings feature younger sisters as chief bridesmaids before the allocation of Pippa to that post was public knowledge, is not encyclopaedic. unsigned by 169.231.21.125 (talk · contribs) 02:17, 10 September 2012

Yes, Frank, the point IS to explain how the material harms the encyclopedia (if it does, and concede that it doesn't if it doesn't). The "rule" link at IAR links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. About that it says to ignore [policies and guidelines] if they "prevent you from improving the encyclopedia". In this case the material gives readers more verifiable and relevant information, and causes no harm. That is, it improves the article, and thus the encyclopedia.

But I still deny it violates CRYSTAL in the first place. I'm just saying that for anyone who believes it does violate CRYSTAL, per IAR that policy should be ignored in this case anyway. Otherwise you're invoking rules for the sake of invoking rules, rather than for improving the encyclopedia, which is exactly what IAR is designed to prevent.

So if your only argument is that the material should not be included because it violates some policy, and you can't explain how it harms the encyclopedia, you're admitting IAR should apply. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Putting speculation and forecasting into WP does harm by lowering its credibility (in as much as WP has any). That's WP:CRYSTAL in a nutshell. Too many things just do not play out the way you think they will. —Kerfuffler 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm admitting no such thing, and your argument is an obvious logical fallacy. (You are saying that "if my argument is A then I am admitting B", which is not at all true. My argument is A simply because my argument is A, nothing more.) WP:IAR is not a blunt instrument to be used in any case you feel like the existing rules shouldn't apply. The point of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:BLP, and common sense are all the same: predicting what may happen is an absolutely losing battle. I can say with pretty high confidence level that it won't happen in this article; attempts to enter predictions into the article will meet with increasing resistance. As I've stated above, if you feel like you can't edit within the existing policies without bringing up WP:IAR as your only defense, you will almost certainly find more success elsewhere. We've been editing this encyclopedia for about the same time and number of edits; I can tell you I've have never invoked WP:IAR. That includes four years as an admin and two years as a checkuser. Let me repeat: I've never invoked IAR. Have you? And if so, did the edit(s) stand?  Frank  |  talk  03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want WP:CRYSTAL in a nutshell, I present the first sentence: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Everything you guys are saying is consistent with an interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL that omits unverifiable, as if verifiable (and relevant) speculation is unacceptable too. When the speculation is relevant and verifiable, it can often improve the article, and even if it doesn't it's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.

In any case, this material in question does not speculate at all. It simply paraphrases the WADA Code which all relevant parties have agreed to follow. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add to Category:Disabled sportspeople

His monorchidism condition coincides with his career as a sportsman including the seven Tour victories. It's a disabling abnormality correlated with sexual dysfunction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.68.157 (talk • contribs) date

Add to people with monorchidism, maybe, yes, but disabled sportspeople, i dont think morochidism, by any stretch of the imagination, would be classified as a disability. 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)

It's an amputation, a removal of a bodily extremity. Testes produce testosterone. In men, testosterone plays a key role in the development of muscle and bone mass and is essential for health and well-being as well as the prevention of osteoporosis. Its external administration to a competitive athlete is considered a form of banned doping.

That's WP:SYNTH. Show a medical study that shows a link between monorchidism and reduced cycling performance, and you might have something. You can't just make it up. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the only editor with any interest in applying cases of monorchidism to that category wants to gain consensus (which is the ultimate arbiter in Wikipedia), he will have to present a multiplicity of reliable medical/social science sources that explicitly describe monorchidism as a disability. When/if that happens, the inclusion of such cases in the category will be unchallengeable: until then, the consensus that not every bodily imperfection is a disability will prevail, and opinion to the contrary will remain a no doubt well intntioned one man campaign destined to failure. Kevin McE (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For info, editorial by a fellow cancer survivor saying that he has not seen any evidence that Monorchidism causes any loss of athletic ability http://www.tbnweekly.com/editorial/viewpoints/content_articles/091812_vpt-03.txt Dimspace (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

UCI chief questions USADA delay on Lance Armstrong file

See here:

"UCI chief questions USADA delay

The chief of world cycling's governing body is questioning why American anti-doping authorities have not sent him the file of evidence that prompted them to erase Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life.

Pat McQuaid, the International Cycling Union president, said the United States Anti-Doping Agency had not given the UCI a date to expect the details, and he sounded impatient to receive them.

"UCI assumes that USADA have the file, the full file, as they've already made a decision based on it and therefore it's difficult to understand why it hasn't arrived yet," McQuaid said.

Armstrong has long denied doping but chose last month not to fight drug charges by USADA, which wiped out 14 years of his results. USADA believes Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including EPO, steroids and blood transfusions."

Count Iblis (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, USADA is likely editing the Armstrong Dossier to fill in some gaps. Count Iblis (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

UCI now sending the file by 15th October. Rumours are its to be far worse than ever expected, but that is just rumour. The delays are partly because its such a lengthy case file to put together, but also there are still upcoming hearings on Bruyneel etc, so they have to ensure what goes in it does not effect those cases Dimspace (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

USADA report and stripping titles

Okay, this report on the BBC website was published today. It clearly states "The UCI now has 21 days to lodge an appeal against Usada's decision with Wada or they must comply with the decision to strip Armstrong, who now competes in triathlons, of his seven Tour de France titles and hand him a lifetime ban." So I guess 31 October is the deadline, then we can remove all the stolen titles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Once the dust has settled it would seem quite sensible to consider whether this entire article should be in line for a major rewrite. Based on the vast amount of testimony, all publically available at http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/, LA seems shaped up to be one of the biggest fradsters in all of sport, never mind just cycling - and almost all of his career (every tour, every win) is painted in an eniterly new light when you read what was going on behind the scenes as he doped his way to the top. SFC9394 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think there is a big argument for locking the page now (just today theres a whole host of edits been undone) to save editors the insane amount of work needed in undoing edits, and a group of editors with knowledge of the whole situation to start working on proposed edits ready for the UCI retifying any decision. This will be a considerable amount of work, but I am happy to play a part in the discussions. Firstly an agreed proposal for the page structure, and then assigning editors to either individually or together re write the various sections bringing them up to date. I also think there is now an argument for bringing back the "specific doping allegations against lance armstrong" article and seperating it from this article. The doping writing is going to be huge and very very extensive and we risk having an incredibly long article that isnt cohesive or readable. Dimspace (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On a side note this might be a good place to ask other editors on a standard approach we take regarding removal of results. I have today edited the articles for all six riders banned by usada and having results stripped. And in all six cases i have used the strikethrough model and hidden tags. Would be good to have a consensus going forward. My hunch at the moment is that with the exception of world titles and olympic medals results wont be re-allocated Dimspace (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As noted on your talkpage, it seems a bit odd to strike results of the umderlings in this scheme, while we are awaiting UCI ratification on Armstrong's results. Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The complete report. This is posted on Yahoo!, so the link will eventually go dead. Anyone have a better link to the report pdf? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I see someone posted a link to the USADA document above. Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

KEvin, I did reply on your talk page. Big difference between the two, Barry etc have signed affidavits accepting their bans, the stripping of their results, prize money etc. Armstrong has not, the UCI have not yet accepted his ban, so its not yet enforced. If you hunt me down on twitter etc, you will know im certainly not an armstrong apologist. read some of my articles on cyclismas, ive done a huge amount of work trying to bring down the myth that surrounds him. But when it comes to wiki i am impartial, while also being dedicated to making sure that when his page is finally edited it is accurate and not swayed by hate, but equally importantly, not watered down by the livestrong army. Dimspace (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First section

With the current dispute, I think it's relevant in the first paragraph to first mention Lance's foundation and cancer, followed by his cycling career and disputed tour victories. I think everyone will agree that his foundation puts him in a truthful and positive light, while still mentioning his career as a cyclist in a respectable manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.172.239 (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid your edits before seeing this, but I stand by my change. He is defined by his cycling career, and in particular for his Tour de France history. Most of the article is devoted to that, rather than to his foundation. Positive light doesn't come in to it. Do we write articles about infamous criminals by striving to say something positive before we get down to what the person is notable for? No. The lede is supposed to be about what defines the person (or whatever the article is about). Meters (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, it is not here to paint anyone in a positive or negative light Dimspace (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Secondary source take on the report's release. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Vindication - but the Lance Armstrong apologists are now trying as hard as ever to water the truth!!

This article remains a sham thanks to those who still have an agenda. Back in 2004, I added stuff about his drugs use and it was removed, uncited unsourced,a BLP violation etc.

But even now when I was proved right; those who still refuse to admit it still connive to make this article theirs. Talk about avoiding the elephant in the room!! The very first line of the article's lede just says he's a professional cyclist. And?? This is not watering down, this is content homoeopathy!! And it runs runs throughout this article.

The first line should say:

Lance Armstrong was an award-winning American professional cyclist who was stripped of all his titles following the revelations he had taken performance enhancing drugs throughout his career.

That is the summation. It was the cycling that made him famous not his charity work! There is so much apologist stuff at work in this article it beggars belief. Even the page is protected (lol so much for the encyclopedia where anyone can edit) to keep out those who do not agree with the apologists party line! His cycling career, as we now know but I knew long before the editors who protect this page, was based on a lie. He was never an Indurain, LeMond or Fignon because he did not have the physiology they had. He built his entire career on fraud, but this article wants to play down that part and give all his other works equal status. Ridiculous, it was his cycling that created him which is now also sadly his downfall. This article does not reflect this at all instead it is soap box for his defence and his image. There has to be precedence. Which is lacking here, apparently he threatened any rider who spoke out by telling them he was powerful enough to get them kicked out of pro-riding for good. He is not a nice man. But reading this article you would think otherwise.

Unprotect this article now and let the real story out...86.149.183.127 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Alas, he has not "been stripped of all his titles", so of course we cannot make that edit. If that happens...the article will be changed accordingly. And, regardless of whether or not that happens..."uncited, unsourced, a BLP violation, etc." will (and must) continue to apply. Frank  |  talk  11:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank, et al, are correct here. Technically, UCI is responsible for actually revoking the titles. They have contractual obligations that restrict their options in how they proceed, but the matter is not quite settled yet. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  12:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Post-USADA Doping Confirmation - Subjectivity and heated language

This article has clearly been tainted by prejudice and anger and non-objectivity can be seen all through this, the first sentence labels Armstrong as a cheat primarily and a cyclist secondarily. No other ex-doper is treated in this manner in a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.121.186 (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)