Talk:Lance Armstrong

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)

This is not true according to section 15.3 of the World anti doping code: "The USOC, USADA and UCI are signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code and bound by its provisions. Article 15.3 of the Code provides that “results management and hearings shall be the responsibility of and shall be governed by the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed Sample collection (or, if no Sample collection is involved, the organization which discovered the violation).” Under this plain language, the Code gives results management responsibility for non-analytical violations to USADA in any case where it “discovered the violation” by a U.S. Athlete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.42.234 (talk) 06:35, 12 October 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)

I remember when Wikipedia articles were updated faster than the news was reported in the mainstream news. Sad to see the opening paragraph of this article being so woefully out-of-date, skirting around the elephant in the room. As SineBot noted, he is in the process of being stripped of all his TdF wins. Furthermore the USADA hasn't just "charged" Armstrong with doping, they've found him guilty of doping. And sad to see the Armstrong apologists/"page owners" blocking other people from updating this page. Cowrider (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.35.248.202 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article as it stands is false. It doesn't say his titles will be stripped, or should be stripped, or are in the process of being stripped. It says they have been stripped. This is not correct. I'm not an "Armstrong apologist." I personally couldn't care less if he loses his titles or not, but I do care about Wikipedia articles being accurate, so I'm removing the false statement.68.58.156.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong NEVER won the Tour de France. The only way to win the Tour de France is to arrive in Paris with the fastest GC time, having completed the race within the rules. Armstrong only did the first bit, he merely fooled people for a good many years he'd done the second. Now that it is known that he cheated, we now know that he never actually won. This is what's known as facts coming to light. It happens from time to time in history. Given that this is such a contentious point, given that so many people disagree, the article should stick to the undisputable fact that he recorded the fastest GC time. But it is a monumental waste of time to remove the word "won" from the acticle. The Lance apologists just put it back in again. Presumably this denial will fade with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Metherall (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of doping

Should the section called "Allegations of doping" be renamed to "Doping" or something more conclusive? 46.116.16.47 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right but I want to hear what others have to say first.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the allegations needs to remain as allegations, because some of them are just that, allegations and however convincing legally not proven. The USADA section though needs to be moved out of the Allegations category and into its own category. Scrub that, someones already done it. As it stands I think is accurate Dimspace (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "uncontested allegations of doping", since he has chosen not to contest the charges, which in court is seen as "presenting no evidence" and is usually taken as proven guilty because the only evidence is against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.99.118 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"As it stands, it is" not "accurate". What Dimspace calls "allegations" are as "proven" as anything is ever proven in official cycling. Armstrong officially doped, and this article needs a section titled "Doping". TheScotch (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify some of the content is still allegations, some of the content is proven in the USADA documentation. The problem wikipedia has is this: A guy is suspected of killing ten people, accused by many of killing ten people, but is eventually tried and convicted of killing just five. Those five are factual legal convictions, the other five remain allegations. Anything within the allegations section that is contained in the USADA report is not factually established and is proven. Anything in the allegations section not contained in the USADA report remains as allegations.

Going through the paragraphs of the specific allegations one by one

• Para 1 - Ferrari - This is contained in the USADA report including evidence of money transfers etc. #Proven
• Para 2 - Ferrari - See above
• Para 3 - Emma O'Reilly testimony - Is covered by the USADA report where she makes further testimony
• Para 4 - Covers the times publication and is a news item rather than an allegation
• Para 5 - covers Mike Andersons testimony - this is still an Allegation. Mike made (I understand) federal statement but not to USADA
• Para 6 - Covers french media report of the SCA trial. These allegations have been repeated to USADA but the SCA trial still stands in Lances favour at the moment
• Para 7 to 10 - Cover the SCA trial. Again at the moment this trial found in Lances favour but witnesses involved have testified to USADA and forms part of the USADA evidence.
• Para 11 to 12 - Covers Floyds testimony. Some of this is covered in the USADA case and is now proven fact. What wasnt included in the USADA file is the allegations of covering up of tests by the UCI. The UCI are pressing ahead with a case against Paul Kimmage after he claimed the UCI covered up positive tests so sections of these two paragraphs remain as allegations.
• Para 13 to 14 - Covers Tylers allegations. Most of this is contained in the USADA case and to be honest, these two paragraphs should be incorporated into the federal/usada case sections
• Para 15 - covers the Tour de Suisse positive. This is still an allegation and continues to develop.
• Para 16 - covers dropping of the federal case, this needs to move into a federal case section, but also needs reference to articles citing the feds surprise at the case being dropped and complaints of political corruption.
• para 17 and 18 - Are largely redundant.
• 1999 Urine tests - This is a tricky one, as it stands it has not been acted on and should remain as a section within allegations.

then you get onto the USADA enquiry. Dimspace (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically the entire "specific allegations" section could be removed and instead resorted into distinct Categories

Example

• La Confidential 2004

In 2004, reporters Pierre Ballester.... through to.....The same authors (Pierre Ballester and David Walsh) subsequently published "L.A. Official" and "Le Sale Tour" (The Dirty Trick), further pressing their claims that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.

• 1999 Urine tests

The existing urine tests section

• SCA Trial 2006

In June 2006, French newspaper Le Monde reported claims by Betsy and Frankie Andreu.... through to..... hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings."[81]

• Federal Investigation 2009 - 2010

Take the information from Specific allegations by Landis etc, along with details on case being dropped.

Create a section within the USADA enquiry section with details of the witnesses and breif summary of their testimonies. This will cover the testimonies from Hamilton, Landis, O'Reilly etc that are currently in the "allegations section":

• USADA Witnesses
• Floyd Landis - Testified that he had been part of an organised doping policy at US Postal. Testified that he saw Lance Armstrong dope. Testified that Armstrong admitted testing positive for EPO at the Tour de Suisse. testified that Lance had worked with Doctor Michele Ferrari and had recieved doping advice from him. Testified that they recieved transfusions from Dr Garcia del Moral.
• Tyler Hamilton - Ditto
• Emma O'Reilly - Former soigneur with US Postal. Repeated her claims made in 2005 that "Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and to give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms"
• George Hincapie - testified that he was part of an organised doping policy at US Postal that included Lance Armstrong
• Tom Danielson - ditto
• Levi Leipheimer - ditto
• Christian Van de Velde - ditto
• Michael Barry - ditto
• Jörg Jaksche - ditto
• Jonathann Vaugters - ditto
• Betsy Andrea - repeated her testimony from the SCA trial

And then include links to each riders affidavit on the UCI website. Basically that would remove the entire specific allegations section and recategorise it properly into the distinct areas of allegations which would cover all of the information previously included and remove some doubling up Dimspace (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "The problem wikipedia has is this: A guy is suspected of killing ten people, accused by many of killing ten people, but is eventually tried and convicted of killing just five.":

I understood you the first time, and this still sounds to me like willful obfuscation rather than good faith argument, for the simple reason that your hypothetical "guy" in question still needs to have his Wikipedia article (assuming he has one) include a section titled something like "Murders". Yes, some accusations against Armstrong are no doubt merely allegations at this point, but the ones we are concerned with are not, and this article needs a section titled "Doping". After it has one, you argue to your heart's content about whether certain instances belong in the section or not. TheScotch (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Have i not got into enough detail about how the bulk of the "allegations" can be moved into sections so that they are no longer allegations and leave just the small peices not covered by the USADA evidence intact? The above suggestion moves a large proportion of the "allegations" out of that section and into either the USADA section (which is fact), or into seperate sections based on the allegation. Im not saying that the majority isnt allegations, but this is wiki, 90% of whats in allegations is now proven, or at least proven by usada, but you cant just retitle the whole section as "proven" when there are small sections within it that (sadly) have not been proven. Trust me, as the editor on this page with probably the biggest loathing of LA nothing would please me more than go mad, but I am very capable of being unbiased. We simply cannot put unproven allegations in a section that implies it is proven, but by the same token, an awful lot of the content can be moved out of "allegations" and into the USADA section, a SCA section, or a federal enquiry section as being evidence that was given under testimony. Dimspace (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a trier of fact: it is an encyclopedia that deals with the verifiable claims of reliable sources. Just because reliable sources say something is true, doesn't make it so, as countless examples prove. This article needs only state the conclusions of WADA and the denials of Armstrong and call it a day. Of course, factual issues, like the stripping of all tour victories, must be included. But so must factual issues, like the winning of those same victories. This is not rocket science, and this isn't a POV repository. Basic principles that have guided many other Wikipedia articles are more than enough to make do here.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pharm-Strong

Please add this to the list of nicknames in the right hand box. It has more right to be in there as it is now his most common one.

LOLZ!!!!1. No. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

can you provide a couple of reliable sources, preferably from the mainstream media where he is referred to by this name? Dimspace (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

so funny Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for a valid ref, and as soon as I find one, this is going in. There are loads of blog and twitter posts using it, so it's only a matter of time before the mainstream press pick it up. Manning (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Pharmstrong originally came from the cycling news forums about two years ago, just as Cancer Jesus was created by one of their members in the early part of this year after Mike Tomalaris compared Lance to Jesus. While its a long used nickname, that has been widely used over social media, im not sure you will find evidence of mainstream media using it Dimspace (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cancer Jesus has been picked up in the mainstream media: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling-big-reveal-of-cancer-jesus-3266380.html 82.141.207.55 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would need to be used by a few more publications before being accepted as a nickname. the article on independant.ie is written by Paul Kimmage who has used the phrase several times recently, but dont think just him saying it would be enough to pass wiki guidelines. Dimspace (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WADA

The UCI decision was clear that it considers the rule on the statute of limitations (8 years) to be broken in this case, but equally clear that the UCI considers it the responsibility of WADA to appeal on such grounds. When is the deadline for WADA to make an appeal, and how should we note that the decision is still appealable to CAS? 88.88.162.240 (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

oh goodness, lets not go down another we cant say anything unless theres an appeal. The UCi are talking rot frankly. Armstrong cannot appeal to the court of arbitration to sport, well he can, but the grounds would be "unfair procedures by USADA, no fair trial etc" and WADA have already supported USADA's decision. And there is no way that WADA will appeal the USADA decision. USADA act on behalf of wada, it wouldnt work. Dimspace (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course the whole case can still be mentioned. I just think the fact that there is still a chance of appeal should be mentioned as well. It is not necessarily as unlikely as you might think; WADA has appealed to benefit dopers before. It does so when it thinks it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Code. 88.88.162.240 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that agrees with you that such an appeal is practically possible in this case, let us know. Good luck with that. The USADA explained very clearly why the statute of limitations should not apply in this case (the conspiracy was ongoing through 2012), and no one has seriously challenged that argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wada appealed to benefit dopers? no, wada may have appealed where the national federation made a two year ban based on extenuiating circumstances that warranted a lesser ban, or bans being too short. There is no way that WADA, with overwhelming evidence from one of its National Anti Doping Agencies is going to appeal that NAD's decision. If they do, i will run round trafalgar square naked. Dimspace (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WADA can. I am not saying they ought to appeal (nor am I saying that they shouldn't appeal). I am saying they can. UCI (linked above) even stressed that "recognition also depends on whether Mr Armstrong or WADA will appeal USADA’s decision to CAS", so the decision is not necessarily final. I think this is important, and should be stated somewhere in the article. (Off-topic, but WADA has jointly appealed cases with athletes who subsequently get off for minor technicalities concerning the B sample.) 88.88.162.240 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WADA's right to appeal expires 20 November 2012 acccording to their statement. This should be in the article. 88.88.162.240 (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wada as expected have said today that they wont be appealing the armstrong decision, or the decisions regarding hincapie, leipheimer etc. Why anyone was desperately hanging onto that shred of hope I dont know. Dimspace (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps you are willing to include this fact here, even if you did not think it important enough that they had a verifiable right to appeal. Why would you assume I wanted them to appeal? For the record: I think they should open a case against the UCI, not exonerate Armstrong. 88.88.162.240 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It should certainly be noted somewhere in the article that the USADA decision is now completely unappealable, as WADA only respond after the expiration of all other rights to appeal, cf. their statement above. 88.88.162.240 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong, professional cancer patient

As it stands, the opening section is laughable. Mr. Armstrong's fanboys/fangals trying desperately to earn empathy through his testicular cancer, and listing all his prizes. It really doesn't matter anymore, Mr. Armstrong unfortunately is now forever defined as the most notorious doper/cheater in elite sport. The opening paragraph should list that, everything else is secondary. --Oprah999 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. He still donated a lot of money towards cancer research and founded Livestrong. And Ullrich and many other top 10 finishers cheated too. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/sports/top-finishers-of-the-tour-de-france-tainted-by-doping.html

I dont think it is ridiculous, I can see Oprah999's point, esp if you consider there has been conjecture it was early use of performance enhancing drugs that bought on the cancer. Medically its very hard to prove, but very possible too. If ever proven that changes everything. After a diagnosis, did the guy hide behind the cancer foundation as a way to enhance reputation, get money and get fame to put himself beyond question? Yes that can be argued successfully. IMHO he ran a huge scam, so big some cant grasp it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Oprah999 too. It is definitively "nasty" and (unfortunately) of first importance (... perhaps not forever )... the argument about others cheaters is not relevant anyway and change nothing for this article. From the quote below "...risk my life again" it makes sense... life is a risk anyway ( but struggling against cancer is not a risk it is much more a fight) but "again" means something like he takes this foolish risk again even if he denied any. Weird. 109.217.211.251 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, remember before drugs Pharm Strong was considered an average rider Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, WP:NPOV. Wikipedia exists to record facts, not opinions. Whether his sporting record and/or cancer foundation achievements trump or are trumped by the recent doping scandal is, quite frankly, irrelevant - the opening paragraph of the article refers to both aspects of his life and career in a neutral manner, as it should do. Introducing claims of being "the most notorious doper/cheater in elite sport" would fail WP:NPOV, to say nothing of comparison with other scandals such as BALCO. As a neutral with no axe to grind either way, I see no problem with the opening paragraph as it stands, so unless you have more specific reasons for altering it I see no reason to change it. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Family and Personal Life

In the 1st paragraph from this section, it says that "Armstrong refuses to meet his birth father", but it should be changed to "refused" because his birth father died on June 25, 2012. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?pid=158244700#fbLoggedOut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.94 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty?

Or is the wiki community taking that shoddy USADA report as proof of guilt? ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 20:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We report verifiable facts. USADA have found him guilty of doping and stripped him of the Tour titles, amongst other things. We aren't here to pass judgement on the validity of any such decision. Do you have something within the framework of our policies to add to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment in italics below I made was removed by an unsigned editor 66.168.247.159 (talk). Unsigned editor dont do this vandalism, this is not a page for POV supporters of Armstrong. Learn how the talk page works, its not a forum. Read the comment in relation to its above posts. The comment I made below explains simply the Wikipedia policy on POV and verifiability. He is a cheat, and it can be verified, read the article. Do some research. This is a vandalism warning to you 66.168.247.159 (talk). BTW please learn to sign in. The comment is not a BLP violation as you stated in the edit history. Here is the proof from the article, 'The USADA report called Armstrong a "serial cheat who led the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen'. That verifiable comment is the definition of a huge (professionalised and successful doping programme that that sport has ever seen) cunning cheat (serial cheat).

Truth is not mandatory, verifiability is. Its verifiable he is and was a huge cunning cheater

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone calling a person "a huge cunning cheater" and that same person being referred to as a cheater in an encyclopedic article are very different things. As the USADA has undertaken its decision based purely on evidence in its possession, without the intervention of an independent third party such as a court of law or assessment of said evidence therein, any statements by USADA are by their very nature POV. It has a vested interest in proceedings, being as it is judge, jury and executioner. As such, while statements concerning the USADA report referring to Armstrong as a "serial cheat" are NPOV, actually describing him as such in the article as a fact is not. In support of this, I would direct you to the following quotes from WP:BLP:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."

"Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."(emphasis added)

Judgements of character such as "huge cunning cheater", however earnestly held, do not qualify as the above. As I have said before, Wikipedia is a repository of fact, not opinions. Statements that USADA regard Armstrong as a "serial cheater", or that contemporaries of Armstrong have disputed this depiction, are statements of fact. Stating that Armstrong is therefore a "huge cunning cheater" because of the USADA report is, in contrast, an opinion and does not belong on the article.

On a wider note, I would recommend that if you have any concerns about possible vandalism of your additions then you should report these to the mods so that they can address it and reverse as required, rather than by calling anonymous users out on the article talk page. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@ WDR re 'As the USADA has undertaken ...without the intervention of an independent third party such as a court of law or assessment ...It has a vested interest in proceedings, being as it is judge, jury and executioner' . Thats a bit rich. Armstong said 'no' to it going to court. USADA has jurisdiction by law BTW from the US Govt. The prime cycling body agreed. BTW I never wanted the comment I made in the article. Its a variation of what he is. A serial cheater (must be cunning to get away with it for 7 tours) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, no, it isn't. Under the framework in which it operates, USADA is incapable of fulfilling the function of an independent court or tribunal, much as a District Attorney is incapable of being one or the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK is incapable of being one. There is a straightforward conflict of interest. The fact it has jurisdiction from Congress to serve in this function does not mean that the process is not without question, nor does the endorsement from UCI or WADA. If you would like some justification for this position, google USADA v Jenkins and you will find a source soon enough. But that is off-topic. The point remains that there is sufficient dispute over the positions of the parties involved and the findings made that your desired statement of "serial cheater" as fact fails the NPOV test. That is all there is to say. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, we report verifiable facts. USADA have found him guilty of doping and stripped him of the Tour titles, amongst other things. We aren't here to pass judgement on the validity of any such decision. Do you have something within the framework of our policies to add to this? If not, what is the purpose of perpetuating this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Look Armstrong is over, legally. USADA named him a serial cheater. Period. Game over. Who is USADA? The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) was created under Title 36 of the United States Code. This is a federal mandate. The USCO made USADA. USADA is responsible for implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code in the United States. The Code works in conjunction with the following international standards: WADA Prohibited List (Outlining the substances and methods prohibited in sport. The International Standard for Testing (IST) International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) .. International Standard for Protection of Privacy and Personal Information. Also the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has subsequently confirmed that it will not appeal and said it took legal opinion that found that USADA's stance was correct. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The USADA opinion is proof of the USADA opinion, nothing else. If their opinions are attributed, that's fine. But their opinions cannot be used in the encyclopedia's voice.LedRush (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The basis of the USADA decision is basis for Armstrong to not challenge their findings, for the UCI and WADA to accept and not appeal the decision, for ASO to relinquish his titles, for all his sponsors and the charity organization he founded to drop him. That adds up to much more than just the USADA opinion. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not much more, and definitely not even close to enough to use Wikipedia's voice to make such hotly disputed claims.LedRush (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hotly disputed? Where? What reliable sources seriously dispute the claim that he was a serial cheater? Lackeys paid by Armstrong and incredibly gullible fans blinded by the myth who have not even read the report are not RS, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Its hotly disputed in only one place I know of FaceBooks Lance Armstrongs supporters page lol. Its sad people dont get it yet, this whole train wreck is spawning law suits but you LedRush say, I quote " The USADA opinion is proof of the USADA opinion, nothing else." Dude wake up Blade-of-the-South (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like WP policies, either get them changed or don't edit. This is really simple, guys.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP policy is to follow RS. 2nd time I'm asking: what RS, of the countless that covered the story, dispute the USADA claim that Armstrong was a serial cheater? An article in the NY Times? Time Magazine? Sports Illustrated? Outside Magazine? SF Chronicle? Velonews? An Austin paper, for crying out loud? Anywhere? Show me the source! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me the reliable sources that say that Armstrong is definitely a serial cheater, and not that that is a label attached to him by another organization? As for the fact that this is a disputed claim, every article that talks about this talks about how Lance denies the allegations, how he hasn't failed any tests, etc., etc. You're better than this, B2C.LedRush (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course the label is attributed to the USADA - they're the ones who said it! The point is, no one is seriously challenging it. No RS is calling it outrageous, unsubstantiated, premature, or inappropriate in any way. No RS disagrees with it. No RS challenges the USADA about this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I presume in a cycling context Miguel Indurain's claim that Armstrong is innocent on the BBC News website is considered a reliable source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066. I also presume an article by AFP in which a number of sports lawyers in Switzerland have questioned the validity of USADA's decision is also a reliable source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXRtTjrOJHCr_R560oCLWn6O50Pg?docId=CNG.cd877b51d07bcdf238629c4deaff0f61.1b1. Granted, you may take a completely different view to either of these sources and their authors - that is the beauty of civilised debate. However, it is evidence enough that this is not a settled matter and there have been questions raised of the procedure, as occurred with USADA v Jenkins. The fact that USADA is itself beyond the remit of a judicial review and therefore cannot be challenged in the courts (as evidenced by Armstrong's failed lawsuit in which the judge himself raised doubts about USADA's motives but was statute-barred from intervening) does not mean everyone agrees with its methods. That does not stand up to scrutiny. So long as there is dispute on the subject, from credible figures within the sport, Wikipedia should reflect this. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course no one would question that what the USADA says is the USADA's opinion. However, many people have questioned the process and/or disputed the result. But RSs won't usually make statements one way or the other on an issue like this. They usually just report what people have said. Of course, WP should never use an encyclopic voice for things which are only opinions of other people. The article is now correctly phrased (though it places horribly undue emphasis on doping claims and several POV issues, particularly in the doping sections and the lede). However, the suggestions that we could use WP's voice to make the statement that Armstrong is a serial cheater is just absurd.LedRush (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the concept of "guilt" as it applies to this discussion. Doping is not a criminal offense (lying under oath is, and he may yet face charges for that, but that's irrelevant), so there's no court this could possibly go to except possibly the CAS, which as I understand it is pretty much the final court of appeals for violations related to sporting events. Unless Armstrong appeals the decision to the CAS (I'm not sure if he still can do so), he's already gone through the process that is in place for determining the validity of the allegations against him - the arbitration process that he declined to participate in. Under that process, his refusal to contest the allegations is essentially equivalent to an admission of "guilt." Whether anyone here agrees with that process is not really relevant - or shall we go through and put "allegedly" in the articles of every athlete that's ever been sanctioned for doping without their case going to a court? 167.24.104.150 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept of guilt referred to is no different than in any other context - namely, that a case has to be proven before a duly appointed judge of fact in order for a verdict of guilt to be passed. A refusal to engage with a process has not been held to be an admission of guilt (irrespective of what WADA's John Fahey claims to the contrary) since the Court of Star Chamber was in operation. The burden is, and remains, on the prosecuting authority (in this case USADA) to prove its case discharges the required burden of proof before the relevant adjudicator. Merely claiming that it has discharged the burden of proof is simply not good enough. I could just as easily produce a 200-page document filled with apparently credible testimony to the effect that the Earth is actually flat, and claim to have proven thus beyond reasonable doubt - it does not mean anyone should take it seriously. At present, the basis for Armstrong's disqualifications is USADA telling the world that the testimony it received is credible and proves his guilt, and the UCI and WADA accepting USADA's claims at face value. It cannot be any stronger than that because the witnesses have not been tested under cross-examination. As such, while under some definitions it may be appealing to describe Armstrong as "guilty", from a legal perspective it does not have a leg to stand on. Other athletes have been before arbitration panels or the CAS and found guilty or innocent accordingly, so this is a problem particular to this case. Until such a time as it is actually heard by a duly authorised court and a verdict passed one way or the other, it remains one person's word against another. It's frustrating but if we intend to uphold Wiki policy then we're stuck with it. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, guilt only applies in case of criminal charges. This is not a criminal charge (and I'm no legal expert, but if it were a criminal charge, Armstrong's refusal to fight it would I'm guessing be most similar to a no contest plea). As for this going to any other kind of court, there was no arbitration proceeding because Armstrong refused it. He hasn't appealed to the CAS, and neither has any other party involved in this case. So, what are the USADA supposed to do, hold a hearing without a defendant? There isn't anything more they can do to establish the facts of the case, since Armstrong is refusing to contest the allegations they've brought against him. By the way, you say "duly authorized court." Duly authorized by whom? As this is neither a criminal charge nor a civil proceeding, the UCI have jurisdiction here, and they've delegated it to the USADA (the issue of jurisdiction, at least, has been resolved by a proper court in Texas), with an appeal process in place in case any party involved in the case disagrees with a ruling... so while they aren't a court, they are about as "duly authorized" as it gets in this situation. 167.24.104.150 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Guilt can also apply in disciplinary proceedings in certain professions, it should be noted, but this is beside the point. What I was trying to say, and what seems to be being obscured by debate over the use of "guilt", is that in order for Armstrong to be found guilty/liable/whatever you want to call it of doping, that needs to be established by an independent trier of fact. That has not happened - USADA isn't independent, and the UCI and WADA sure aren't either. (Nolo contendere only applies in very limited circumstances, by the way, as the article makes clear) If USADA was serious about establishing this by way of an independent judgment, they could have drafted their articles to make arbitration or a courtroom hearing the default course of action rather than summary judgment based on their opinion only. The inability of USADA to proceed with a trial properly is the fault of no one other than USADA - if they so wished, they could bring it before the CAS to secure a binding judgment, and one can only speculate on why they have avoided this course of action in favour of a model akin to "guilty until proven innocent". As for duly authorised court, I was referring to a dedicated tribunal equipped to judge on issues of fact independently as opposed to an appointed prosecuting authority (which USADA is, by Congress rather than the UCI incidentally). This is not a particularly controversial concept. Also, the appeal process prescribed by USADA is limited only to the arbitration hearing of the type Armstrong refused and therefore again presumes guilt, which is hardly comparable with an actual court system. So again, USADA's processes do not discharge this role and thus it cannot be deemed to pass binding judgments. The mechanism simply doesn't stand up to the job. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• USADA is the non-profit, INDEPENDANT and non-governmental entity responsible for the testing and results management process in the U.S
• The UCI had the option to refer the report to "The UCI INDEPENDANT Commission"
• WADA was established in 1999 as an international INDEPENDANT agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world.

The whole point of USADA arbitration is it is independant, they do not answer to US Cycling, they do not answer to teams, ie they do not get funding from teams etc, they do not even answer to the UCI governing body of cycling, just like they dont answer to the ITF (Tennis), NFL, NBA or anyone else. USADA hearings are held by independant arbitrators. "he inability of USADA to proceed with a trial properly is the fault of no one other than USADA" - Completely untrue, the reason it was not brought to a "tribunal" (not trial) is because Armstrong chose not to contest his case. In that event a decision was made without him and that decision was that he was guilty of the offences he was charged with. He could have chosen to go to fully independant arbitration. He then could have chosen to appeal that decision to the Court of Arbitration for sport. He chose not to. Therefore judgement was made in his abscence. Armstrong chose not to defend the charges in an independant arbitration. really... Dimspace (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, asserting that USADA is a competent, independent trier of fact simply because it is independent from other parties is completely bogus. USADA is acting as prosecuting authority in this matter, which renders it prima facie incapable of being independent. How, exactly, can it reach an objective, impartial decision upon a case it has itself prepared and prosecuted? It can't, any more than a District Attorney can pass judgment on a case brought by his department. It is a blatant violation of due process and judicial impartiality, and this is why decisions made by it without recourse to a properly independent forum is by definition POV and therefore not suitable for being reported as fact by Wikipedia. That really is the long and short of it. Given that arbitrators are only involved in athlete appeals against USADA presumptions of guilt, it is also incorrect to claim that "USADA hearings are held by independent arbitrators" - the charging hearings and summary decisions do not come anywhere near the arbitration process.

Also, it is in fact quite correct to say that USADA bear responsibility for it not being possible to proceed with a trial (or tribunal hearing) against Armstrong, as it is their own articles which prevent any hearing other than an arbitration appeal against their presumptions of guilt. They could, if they so wished, quite easily redraft their articles to instead say that if no reply if offered it will proceed to summary judgment by a court or tribunal and therefore become a binding judgment. They have not, and appear to have no interest in doing so. As such, they act as the only procedural bar to such an outcome and so it is entirely their fault that such a judgment cannot be reached. That may not be a particularly welcome statement, but it is an accurate one. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The process followed by the USADA was not created by them. It was created by everyone involved in creating WADA and the WADA rules, rules that all signers of the WADA Code obligate themselves to follow. The WADA rules say that a national anti-doping agency (like USADA) can bring charges, and the athlete has the right to ask for a hearing in front of three arbitrators, one chosen by the USADA, one chosen by the athlete, and a third one chosen by the first two arbitrators. The Athlete can waive his right to such a hearing, and that's what Armstrong chose to do. USADA work with no more presumption of guilt than does a DA. If the accused chooses to not contest the charges, then there is no trial, and the charges are presumed to be valid. Armstrong made a political gamble. He knew what the evidence was. He knew what the outcome was. He bet he would be worse off if it all came out in a hearing than if it came out only in a report. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. He picked death by a thousand cuts gambling on surviving it. Such a gutless cheater tactic. Im not proposing that be in the article, but for those who seem to want to still glorify him, its not on. He got a good sporting reputation by cheating other non cheater riders of their victories. Never forget that. He made money from cheating. Never forget that. Others did cheat but some did not. He is the alpha cheater. Im not proposing that be in the article either, so dont run with that as a distraction. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Born2cycle - with all due respect, you have completely contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you claim that "USADA work with no more presumption of guilt than does a DA"; on the other, you claim that in the event of no response being made "the charges are presumed to be valid". That is quite clearly a presumption of guilt. Were a DA placed in a similar position in which a defendant refused to respond to charges, they would not be able to ask the court for that to be considered a guilty plea. The court would enter it as "not guilty" by default, until such a time as the DA positively proved their case. In addition, while the WADA Code sets out that a national anti-doping authority can bring charges and must provide for hearings to take place, it does not prescribe a method for this - that is purely the choice of the national anti-doping authority, in this case USADA. As such, if the method chosen does not provide a satisfactory outcome from a finality perspective that is purely down to USADA's choice of forum, not WADA. The remainder of your comments are POV assertions on which I can make no real comment.

As interesting as this discussion is, it does seem to be going around in circles so I propose the following instead: if a consensus is reached that it is appropriate and in accordance with Wikipedia policy to describe Armstrong as guilty/liable/etc., and sufficient evidence is raised to support this, then I will concede the issue. If it is not, then I would advise leaving the article as it is and concluding this discussion. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Also, the appeal process prescribed by USADA is limited only to the arbitration hearing of the type Armstrong refused and therefore again presumes guilt, which is hardly comparable with an actual court system." - I'm not sure why you say that the arbitration hearing presumes guilt; it doesn't, to the best of my knowledge. And that's not the appeal process I was referring to - I was referring to the right to appeal the decision to the CAS, which Armstrong has also not exercised. By the way, I'm not sure what specific change to the article this discussion revolves around, but I understood the OP's post to mean that whatever it is is already in the article; I'm fine with the article as is. 167.24.104.150 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"USADA is acting as prosecuting authority in this matter, which renders it prima facie incapable of being independent" (WelshDaveRyan). Clearly then you dont understand how USADA works, and you are putting forward an argument without any knowledge of the actual facts. USADA put forward the evidence to an arbitration panel. The arbitration panel comes from the American Arbitration Association. Then either using a single arbitrator, or three arbitrators if requested (which it was). They get the arbitrators from selected from a pool of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS") Arbitrators who are also AAA Arbitrators. So the arbitration process is NOT handled by USADA, it is handled by the American Arbitration Association. In the case of Armstrong, and in the case of Bruyneel etc going forward, the AAA put forward the chair, and then both USADA and the Defendant get to pick an arbitrator from the list of available arbitrators, therefore ensuring a fair arbitration process. In Armstrongs case he chose not to go to AAA arbitration, and therefore the arbitrators had no role to play and so USADA were able to enforce the "sporting" decision to strip him of titles. Had he gone to arbitration in front of the impartial American Arbitration Association, he would have also retained the right to appeal their decision to the Court of Arbitration for sport. You claim that as a result of this "It is a blatant violation of due process and judicial impartiality". This is simply not true. He had the option to go to independant arbitration. A texas court ruled that he would not be prevented due process. Ive no idea what cause you are fighting here, but to make the claims you are making you have to have an understanding of how the arbitration process works which it seems you dont. If you want more information, read the USADA protocol on arbitration http://www.usatf.org/about/legal/antidoping/usadaprotocol.asp Dimspace (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the following change be made:

* instead of "Three days later, Armstrong, while publicly maintaining his innocence, decided to not officially challenge the USADA sanctions"

* replace with "Three days later, Armstrong, while publicly maintaining his innocence, decided to not challenge the USADA sanctions before the American Arbitration Association"

That would clarify the actual position and clarify the independance of the Arbitration organisation Dimspace (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

just by way of example, here is a judgement from the AAA (American Arbitration Association) between USADA (prosecuting) and Mark Jelks (defending) This is exactly the same form of arbitration that Armstrong would have recieved. Dimspace (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WelshDaveRyan wrote: "while the WADA Code sets out that a national anti-doping authority can bring charges and must provide for hearings to take place, it does not prescribe a method for this". Dave, I suggest you review Section 8.1 of the WADA Code, which outlines what a fair hearing is, and Section 8.3, which states:

8.3 Waiver of Hearing

The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’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.

That's exactly the process followed by USADA. The type of hearing USADA offered is the same they always use (and will use for Bruyneel), and meets the WADA Code "fair hearing" criteria. I remind you that Armstrong, like all pro cyclists, agreed to this process as well. That he doesn't like it now is irrelevant. He never complained about the process when it was used against others, like Hamilton and Landis. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I really dont know where we are trying to go with this. USADA did exactly what the WADA code requires. The hearing would have been held in front of the American Arbitration Association with a texas court ruling that he would have recieved fair arbitration. With possibility of Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for sport. That is the opportunity for two independant arbitration hearings. Armstrong chose not to. No Arbitration. USADA able to make a decision without arbitration. They then provided a reasoned decision in line with the WADA guidelines. The UCI upheld that reasoned decision. Wada upheld that reasoned decision. I think this matter is done. There is effective evidence that the American Arbitration Associated would have offered fair and impartial arbitration. I dont see why we need to rehash this over and over. Can we consider this one closed now, or is it worth mentioning somewhere that the arbitration would have been by the AAA? Dimspace (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to sum up my responses very briefly as this has gone on long enough:

Dimspace: I am familiar with both the facts of the Armstrong case and the nature of arbitration, so please refrain from inferring ignorance on my part. It is both inaccurate and not very becoming of civilised discussion. My reference to USADA being incapable of serving as an independent judge of fact was in relation to the summary decision it made to strip Armstrong's titles, not the theoretical appeal to the AAA. You have therefore completely missed the point I was making. The points you have made regarding the nature of the arbitration panel, while accurate, have no bearing on the aspect of the procedure I took issue with, which is USADA's summary decision. Given that the Armstrong case did not proceed to a hearing, and under the chosen model was incapable of proceeding to a hearing if arbitration was rejected, this is the only decision which could have binding force in law. My "cause", as you so put it, is nothing other than to clarify the fact that USADA's decision has no legal force beyond the sporting decision to strip him of his titles, and therefore references to him as guilty of doping (as was proposed at one point) are not appropriate. This is something we appear to be in agreement on at least. Re. the impartiality of AAA or similar organisations, I have never queried this and do not seek to now, and would ask that you do not construe my statements as criticism of them.

Born2cycle: With respect, you have omitted that Part 8.1 leaves the choice of the "fair hearing" model to the national anti-doping authority, as I had already pointed out. It is the model of hearing which Armstrong appears to have objected to, and which has prevented a binding decision warranting a label of guilt or liability to be reached. The terms of Part 8.3 are therefore irrelevant as to what has caused the inability to refer to Armstrong as guilty of doping (from a legal perspective at least) in relation to the findings of USADA. That is all, and I really don't see why this has proven such a contentious point.

As has already been said, the perceived wish to change the article to say Armstrong is guilty of doping (or similar) has subsided so I am quite happy to consider this closed now. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you're presuming the legal-court-of-law meaning of guilt/guilty. Within the relevant context here - the adjudication process specified in WADA Code and agreed to by all relevant parties, including Armstrong - Armstrong has been found and proven to be guilty of doping. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as a statement like this is attributed to the USADA or whatever relevant bike club, it's fine in the context that he has denied guilt and didn't participate in the process. Otherwise, the implication of "guilt" would be misleading.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "guilt" in a legal court and "guilt" in arbitration proceedings, i really dont see where you are going with this and im totally befuddled that a single word has dragged out into lengthy discourse. It was not originally USADA's remit to judge guilt, it was there job to provide the prosecution evidence and the AAA to determine guilt or innocence. By turning down the arbitration process, despite it being ruled by a federal judge that he would have recieved a fair hearing, then the case was uncontested and usada were in a position, based on the evidence they had to judge or presume guilt. Yes, it could easily be reworded to "usada found armstrong guilty of doping" to "armstrong was adjudged by usada to have doped..." but its really splitting hairs over a single word. Armstrong agreed to usada rulings when he started cycling and applied for a licence. He further submitted to usada decisions when he turned down the option of independant arbitration. Just as contador was found guilty of doping by bodies authorised to make that decision, armstrong was found guilty by bodies appointed to make that decision. I really dont see your point. Dimspace (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Repetition

Hey, some of the material about Armstrong's doping repeats statements...just search for the word "farcical" and you'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.209.178 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Best known for?

There seems to be an extraordinary, and unexplained, desire on the part of many editors to introduce some sort of competition, with an announced victor, as to what aspect of his life story Armstrong is, or was, "best known for". It is not a requirement of BLP articles to have such a clause, is has clearly been an area of dispute in editing. Is there any reason why we cannot say what he has done (which is objective encyclopaedic information) without needing to classify by impact on the wider public (which is unmeasurable subjective perception)? Kevin McE (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, besides the fact that it is verifiable fact that he is best known for winning 7 tour de frances, but your proposal to limit this language might still be workable. The problem with the language that Hippo is edit warring for is that it is unclear, badly worded, and probably inaccurate. He says "Before being stripped of the titles, he was best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having testicular cancer." What does the first clause do in this sentence? Is he best known for something else now? Of course not. I think he is trying to to say that he no longer won the titles (which is only partially true), but it is a muddled mess. Can anyone reverting this change please explain (1) what you think the sentence means; and (2) why we can't word it more clearly?LedRush (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that that is a "certifiable fact". What is a certifiable fact is that before being stripped of the titles, he was best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having testicular cancer. That's for sure. Yet that's what you replaced with the now dubious claim that "Armstrong is best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having survived testicular cancer." The statement that he has repeatedly denied any allegations, which you've also inserted in that edit, is WP:UNDUE, since he has stopped denying and gone into virtual hiding in Kona since Nike et al dropped him. Unless you adequately explain this, it needs to be reverted to Hippo43's version. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, please don't try to guess what people mean. Read my comments in other sections here and in edit summaries. If you don't understand what I think, ask. Despite commenting in discussions here, you haven't explained why your edits have anything to do with BLP or UNDUE issues.

All biographical articles make judgments about what to include and where. Bill Clinton is best known for being a US president, for example, and not for being a keen amateur saxophonist, and so the article on Clinton reflects this. Armstrong is most best known for being banned and stripped of his race victories. Before this went down, he was notable, and best known, for winning the TdF 7 times after having cancer.

If there is a way to word part of this more clearly, please suggest it. --hippo43 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring your version. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He has denied it repeatedly, as reliable sources confirm. These sources are already in the article and don't need to be brought out in the lede. Just look at the sources which have Armstrong denying the allegations. He denied them vigorously as recently as a few weeks ago, so your claim that he's gone into virtual hiding (and therefore isn't denying anything anymore) is patently absurd.

No evidence has been presented that he is best known for having been stripped of his titles. Seeing as the news coverage for the wins was several times more heavy than the coverage of the doping claims, it seems highly unlikely to be true. Do you have any RSs that back up this dubious claim.

Unsourced claims about living people are BLP violations and must be reverted, especially when they possibly defame a person. If you want to make these extraordinary claims, find some sources to back them up.

Also, a lede is supposed to accurately reflect an article. We spend enough time talking about how Armstrong has denied or countered claims of doping that it seems absurd to me that we could insert such a huge amount of info on doping in the lede, and NOT have an assertion of innocence by him, especially one that is backed by literally thousands of RSs.LedRush (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Denying it during the period when he still had sponsor/UCI/WADA/press support and before the details of the evidence were made public and examined is virtually meaningless now that all that has happened, and none of the evidence has been challenged by reliable sources. What is significant is that he has not denied doping since then, and his only public action in response has been to remove "7 time winner" from his Twitter account description. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a very strange, largely unsupportable, POV that has no bearing at all on this discussion. I would also say that we should remove the twitter mention (seeing as it is WP:UNDUE and seems to have been included as some sort of POV evidence). It is pretty outrageous how WP rules are being suspended on this page.LedRush (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Facts that need to be included: he won/was regarded as winner of seven tours, he was subsequently disqualified from those results after a doping enquiry, he recovered from cancer. There is no need, and little if any NPOV grounds, for trying to impose an order of current or past "known-for-ness" to those facts. Kevin McE (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.LedRush (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin, pretty much. Record 7 tour wins, substantial doping allegations, which he refused to legally challenge, tour wins all stripped, banned from cycling, loss of sponsors, law suits underway, prize money demanded back yeah that should do it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

4 words for the wins, 26 for the doping? That's a bit WP:UNDUE, no? Seeing as there are millions of articles about him denying doping allegations, that needs to be there.LedRush (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The most notable thing about Armstrong now is that he is a banned-for-using-drugs former cyclist who won lots of stuff after he had cancer and got really famous. Not that he is a famous cyclist who won lots of stuff after he had cancer then got banned but says he didn't do it. This is a matter of editorial judgment more than simply counting sources. Not presenting the doping ban first is seriously misleading to a reader who comes here wanting to find out who this Armstrong dude is.

As someone else pointed out above, stating that he survived cancer is not necessary and not neutral. He had cancer.

His denials are not necessary in the lead. He has been found guilty and banned - the fact that he has said he didn't do it is not surprising or noteworthy enough for the lead. If we state that Armstrong himself says he didn't do it, should we also list all the people who say he did do it? All the evidence against him? And has he actually denied doping since the USADA decision was confirmed and the evidence released? --hippo43 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The most notable thing about Armstrong is that he was the world's most famous and successful cyclist. You even seem to concede that counting sources would confirm this, despite many of his wins coming in the early days of the internet. The lede needs to present a NPOV of why he is famous and what has happened to him, summarizing the article and putting equal weight in the lede to things that are in the article. Now, the article has way too much on doping (this, of course needs to be dealt with extensively here, but we don't need this much detail). But my proposals accomplish all of WP's goals and guidelines on this. Your proposal (especially your insistance, against consensus here) that we say he is best known for being banned. I've already agreed that we don't have to say "best known" for anything. However, we should mention that he was the world's most famous cyclist seeing as that is WHY is famous, and is supported by thousands and thousands of sources, including sources ALREADY in the article, which the lede should supmmarize.LedRush (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you trying to guess what I think is foolish. I did not say anything about what I thought counting sources would reveal. I said what we put in the lead about a person's significance is partly down to editorial judgement. There is no consensus in this discussion yet, and certainly no consensus for the change you want.

There is no requirement to list events in chronological order in the lead - if something is a bigger deal than something else, it gets listed first. Being a banned former cycling champion who cheated is what Armstrong is most notable for. Before being famous for cheating and being banned, he was famous for winning the TdF 7 times after having cancer.

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't include anything about him being 'best known', but that we should mention that he was famous for being the most famous cyclist?? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. --hippo43 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Gawd, is this still dragging on. I see no reason to include best known for anything. best known is a very subjective term depending on who you are and what your perspective is, he could be best known as winning the tour seven times, or best known for being a cyclist, or best known for being a campaigner against cancer, and even best known as not being known at all, because beleive me, there are millions of people in the world who dont even know who lance armstrong is. I know at least a dozen people (thats not a made up figure i could name them) who didnt even know who Lance armstrong was until the recent publicity (ridiculous I know, but beleive me, not everybody had even heard of him). What he is best known for is entirely subjective and wiki is not here to be subjective, its here to be objective and report facts. there is no factual evidence of what lance is best known for. Dimspace (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall we go with "best known for being banned for life and stripped of his titles. Prior to this he was best known for winning seven tour de france and splitting up with his wife. before this however, he was best known for recovering from cancer to win the tour having previously been best known for doping so much that he got cancer. Before doping he was best known as a triathlete. He doesnt have to be best known for anything. Dimspace (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

hes also NOT famous for being the worlds most succesful cyclist, because he never was. He was the worlds most succesful tour de france winner. For a start, Merkx won five tours, five giros, a vuelta, paris nice 3 times, 3 time world champion, 19 YES NINETEEN monuments.. Armstrong isnt even close to the most succesful cyclist. Most succesful Grand Tour rider of his era, yes. Dimspace (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He will be remembered as a cheater, never forget that. He stole he lied he cheated, he is a nobody Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are demonstrating why you should not be allowed to edit this article.LedRush (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a personal attack dont do it be civil thank you. Further points, 1/ I will not edit such an article only help on the talk page. Why? been there done that, its a time waster. This article has all the ingredients and editors for a protracted silly fight. You being one of them. A lone persistent editor who reverts and adds without discuss, based on biased interpretations of Wiki protocol. 2/ Two if people like you continue to think he is a champion when he cheated to become one then you miss the point. I personally think you Led are biased and are 'for' or 'pro' this cheater. And talk like this enrages you. Why? Led leave the article alone. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

this is starting to do my head in. I stepped back from editing this page, post usada reasoned release because i didnt want to get involved in edit wars. Ive now gone back on that decision, partly because the page is in such need of revising and in areas rewriting and also because having studied this whole story in depth for ten years and having written a number of well respected articles im as well informed as any to do some work. I note that an awful lot of the cleaning up of the page as far as organisation of sections goes I have done, and none of it has been undone by editors. Its getting endlessly boring though with arguing over positioning of things like his wins, or cancer when there are far more fundemental issues to be addressed like the whole US postal section being tour centric and a mess. I also question LedRush NPOV as he seems determined to try and portray Armstrong is as positive light as possible, already removing huge peices of the usada report and continually changing the lede despite numerous editors (finally) agreeing on how it should be structured. Ledrush, if you want to help get the page readable, great, lets discuss changes in talk, and then on agreement implement them, but a single editor who is adding, changing and reverting without discussion is not helping. Im guilty of making changes, but I do try and detail the reasons for my changes extensively in talk before making them. Dave Dimspace (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to pare down the article, and it gets reverted. Every single editor on the BLP board agrees on how the lede should be approached, but the edit warriors here ignore the neutral advice. It is clear that some editors here, like Blade and B2C, are so biased that they should be allowed anywhere near a BLP article, but instead of addressing the serious issues of this article, some are focused on rearranging the deck chairs. To be clear, I am not an Armstrong apologist. I strongly suspect he cheated (to the tune that I would bet huge amounts on this) and I understand that all these charges, conclusions, and consequences MUST be addressed here. But we have policies on WP that tell us how to deal with them. All neutral editors agree on the conclusions. When your only support is of rabidly biased editors, you should rethink your position.LedRush (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Led you, I and others know a lot of things can be referenced reliably but does that make them worthy of being there in the article? Take this: You stated above 'it is verifiable fact that he is best known for winning 7 tour de frances.' Led that was before. Now its all different. You get the responses you do because you come across as NPOV dude Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@ledrush - there is a huge difference between paring down the article and removing valuable information. For example, in the USADA section, your idea of reducing the size was removing an entire section covering the original armstrong lawsuit against USADA and its rejection. That is not paring down, that is removing factual sourced evidence that is relevant to what follows.

Definition of editing

* To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.

* To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable

you are not editing to correct, revise or adapt, you are editing by removing sections that portray armstrong in a negative light and because of that your NPOV is questioned. Again you have edited the lede, despite the fact that this lede has been discussed at length by multiple editors and its content agreed on. Why do you as a sole editor have the right to run roughshod over other editors decisions to change the facts to suit yourself? Dimspace (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong's denial of doping in lede

Two editors are reverter the inclusion of Armstrong's denial of doping allegations in the lede, in part due to the fact that Armstrong has not issued a denial in the last 10 weeks. I believe this is not only bad editing, it is against WP policy. There are thousands, if not millions, of articles about Armstrong denying doping charges. That in itself would argue for inclusion.

But the argument also says that Armstrong hasn't denied since the report was published, therefore we shouldn't include it. This is a POV and cannot be support for that edit. Do the majority of reliable sources say that Armstrong now admits, tacitly or otherwise, that he doped? I've seen some opinions that his refusal to take part in the process is a tacit admission, but most sources just stick to the facts.

And the kicker is, this is EXACTLY what Armstrong said he would do just 10 weeks ago. He said he never doped, but he wouldn't fight this anymore because he can't win. CNN had this to say: "Armstrong has vehemently denied U.S. Anti-Doping Agency allegations that he took steroids throughout his career." This sentiment was echoed by thousands and thousands of other RSs when Armstrong said he was giving up the fight. CNN reported he said: "Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances," he said "I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet."

So, the guy says he didn't do anything, but that he doesn't want to fight anymore. And now, on Wikipedia, a supposed encyclopedia, we want to use the fact that he is doing exactly as he said he would do as evidence that he doesn't mean exactly what he said? That's just crazy.

How about this for a compromise - we put his denial at the end of the lede, instead of the end of the first paragraph of the lede?LedRush (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You trying to make arguments on Armstrong's behalf is ridiculous here. Arguing that he is doing exactly what he said he would do is just POV nonsense. He has not denied doping since the comprehensively damning evidence against him was released. So if we include, somewhere in the lead, that he denied doping in the past, we need to make it clear when and in what context. Armstrong has chosen not to answer the comprehensive evidence presented against him, and as a result was adjudged to have been guilty. That is a fact that can speak for itself, with readers able to draw any conclusion they want. --hippo43 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that we include in the article that he said that he is doing what he said he would do. I am arguing that we put his denial in the lede per WP policy. Also, it is not a POV that he is doing what he said he would. It is a factual statement backed up by the quoted article and B2C's contention. It is a fact that he has repeatedly denied doping, and it is supported by more RSs than I can count. Your refusal to allow it is the only POV here, and it is probably a BLP violation as well.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As a separate issue, many, many RSs have called him the world's most famous cyclist. We don't need to say WHY, but certainly that is a moderately important thing to note, no?LedRush (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. LA knew the evidence the USADA had. He knew they had a dozen former teammates, including Hincapie, testifying to what he did. He knew what the reaction would be. Armstrong is not an idiot. He's at least as good at PR as he is at cheating to "win". That you're trying to get his spin into this article is testament to that! He knew it would be untenable to continue denying after all the devastating evidence came out. So he did the best he could. Before the feces hit the fan, while he still had public support, he launched the preemptive "I'm done with this witch hunt kangaroo court" (paraphrasing), so the most gullible of his fans would still have something by which to defend the myth still alive in their hopeful minds.

Anyway, Hippo is correct. To state that he's always denied doping, without clarifying that the denials coincidentally stopped once the evidence became public, would be highly misleading and POV nonsense. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your entire post is POV nonsense, and demonstrates that you should not be editing this topic. We go with what the RSs say, and they all speak with one voice on this issue.LedRush (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush, the trend over the short to medium term will be toward more RS secondary sources that can be used to support the he cheated position. We are in a transition stage, yes right now you Led can find RS that say hes famous etc, won the tour 7 times etc. Why because hes been around a long time and only just been caught / stripped. The question to me is 'are you too close to the subject? Are you affiliated in some way to Armstrong or a non believer in the charges? I ask because you seem involved and Non NPOV at times. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, have you read the USADA report? If not, I urge you do so as soon as possible.

Your recent edits seem to be coming out of some sort of time warp, as if there has been no report with "insurmountable evidence" [2] substantiating what used to be mere allegations about Armstrong being a serial cheater. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Born2cycle I have to agree. Its been hard for some to accept, after all he was an icon. I believe USADA knowing this, and knowing he cheated to become an icon, picked its words for the report carefully. Words like 'a serial cheat' '"the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".

As for the argument many cheated in cycling, theres this: "the evidence is also clear that Armstrong had ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use, which was extensive, but also over the doping culture of his team. Final responsibility for decisions to hire and retain a director, doctors and other staff committed to running a team-wide doping program ultimately flowed to him."

Led the tone of the article must be got right. Your edits are a bit pro Pharm Strong IMHOBlade-of-the-South (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, this is WP, and we have rules about BLPs and RSs. We can't dictate the entire tone and content of the article on your gut instincts or by what one primary source says.LedRush (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you hallucinating? We're going by what reliable sources say about what that primary source says, which is really a secondary source with respect to all of the primary sources (eyewitness accounts) it is comprised of, and NONE OF WHICH has been challenged by anyone, including by Armstrong!

How many people have to tell you that you are way out of line with the way you've been editing this article lately? We have three so far. How many is it going to take? 4? 5? 10? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not only out of line with your edits, you are out of line with your civility.LedRush (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets cool it boys. Led maybe you should talk here more, get some consensus, before biggish edits, save an edit war maybe Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many BLP issues here which need to be addressed. Proper procedure is to remove the issues and then discuss them. I am trying to be patient and reason about policy, though it appears passion has gotten the better of my fellow editors.LedRush (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, you haven't explained any BLP problems yet. --hippo43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please reread WP:BLP and my posts above.LedRush (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you haven't explained any BLP problems yet. --hippo43 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you won't reread my posts or BLP, I'll paste them here for you.

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves."

Your positions do not document what reliable secondary sources have published. They all say that he has repeatedly denied all allegations. Omitting that is a BLP violation.

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content."

Several problems here. We spend way too much time on doping allegations (approximately 60% of the article). This does not conform to the weight that reliable sources have put on him. The structure of the lede is also not neutral, as I have argued before. I have tried to decrease (not remove, merely decrease) the claims that rely on guilt by association, but have been reverted.

"When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."

It seems on this board, when in doubt we should revert and add as much undue weight to an issue that is covered in a subarticle as possible.LedRush (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Why does he have to be "best known" for anything. Best Known is a subjective term, and is down to individual opinion as to what it means, and wiki is not here to post opinion. Lance Armstrong is simply, a former cyclist, and triathlete who in 2012 was banned from competition and stripped of his seven tour de france titles. In some circles he is best known as a drugs cheat, in other circles as a cancer survivor, in other circles as a bully and a liar, in other circles as a seven times tour de france winner. Its subjective, and wikipedia is not here for that Dimspace (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we've made it past this point.LedRush (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

These points go on and on. It may be time for a vote. I think the article is fine now as long as Led doesn't hack it to bits without discuss. Led your views on BLP are alone it seems. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the BLP board. All 3 editors there (even the blatantly anti-Armstrong one) indicate that at least a short mention of Armstrong's denial in the lede is warranted. Seems odd that all unbiased editors have the same opinion.LedRush (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is going to deny. To do otherwise means he would perjure himself from previous court cases and could go to jail. Put that in too Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If a whole bunch of RSs say that he denied specifically for that reason, we could attribute those opinion into the body of the article.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

of course but it takes time for them to come up, and its still a work in progress. I have done some law, its simple really, if he admits the flood gates open Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

THis is very easily resolved. Simply provide a reliable, verifiable source, where it is reported that Armstrong has claimed to never have taken performance enhancing drugs, post the release of the USADA reasoned decision. What he said prior is largely irrelevant (and its covered in the doping allegations section). But, if post the USADA reasoned decision being released, there is verifiable evidence that Armstrong has claimed to never have taken PED's then it is probably worthy of inclusion. Dimspace (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would we ignore WP policy like that? You just say what the RSs say. The fact that he denies doping even was referenced in the articles about how he tweeted a picture of himself under his 7 yellow jerseys this weekend.LedRush (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The references to armstrong denying doping all refer to prior to the USADA decision. Theres no reason why it cant be added that "prior to the USADA reason decision Armstrong had consistently denied taking performance enhancing drugs", but im not sure what it adds to the lede. Its already been covered in the doping allegations that he has consistently denied, he also denied ever taking PED's under oath in the SCA case (again covered within that section). The last documented instance of Lance explicity stating that he has never doped would appear to be June 13th 2012 when he stated "I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence." - I can find nothing since the USADA reasoned decision where he states that. It must also be noted that the UCI, WADA and USADA have all confirmed that the 500 tests line is a myth.

I think adding that "Prior to the USADA decision Armstrong had consistently denied taking performance enhancing drugs" would be accurate, but claiming that he still denies he ever doped would not stand scrutiny without documentation. Dimspace (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Armstrong made his last denial after he was banned from the sport (I believe that was in late august) but before the report was released. Any attempt to infer something from that, rather than just report that he has repeatedly denied doping as virtually all RSs agree, would be POV and BLP violations. This could easily be handled by saying something like "Armstrong has repeatedly denied all allegations of doping, most recently on August 27, 2012, three days after the USADA banned him from cycling and stripped him of all his titles. Armstrong said that he would no longer address this issue and has issued no further statements, including after the USADA report was published." Obviously that's unpolished, but you get the idea.LedRush (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I cant find anything from August 27th, so we'd need a reference. i think "prior to the release of the USADA reasoned decision, armstrong had repeatedly denied all allegations" would cover it.. but we are splitting hairs rather. Dimspace (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that would absolutely not be ok. The inference is clear and and POV. Just lay it out as it happened without the POV. There is no source (or logical reason) to support a connection between the reasoned decision and him not making any more statements.

Regarding the dates, as I said above, this was rough and I didn't look up the dates. After looking into it, the sources in the article seem to back up the following statement: "Armstrong has repeatedly denied that he used performance enhancing drugs at any time during his career, though since his decision not to contest the USADA's charges led to his being banned from cycling and stripped of his titles he has not made any public statements about the allegations." Alternatively, if you like your structure, we should tie it to an event that RSs do: "Prior to his decision not to contest the USADA's allegations or address the any doping allegations made against him any more, Armstrong had repeatedly denied all allegations.LedRush (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Im not offering POV, im offering Fact. The fact is, that at the moment the last recorded denial we have found is 13th June prior to the USADA reasoned decision. At the moment its a fact that the last denial was 13th June, so denied prior to the usada decision is accurate. As yourself admit, not only was your date in august approximate, but you also cant provide any evidence of it. Provide evidence of august statements and im on your side that it be included, until that point it can only be included that his latest denial was 13th June. that is not POV, that is accurate fact. Dimspace (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point or not, so I'll try again in good faith. Until a RS posits that there is a relationship between the USADA's publication of the reasoned decision and Armstrong staying silent, it is impermissable to imply it. It's also factual to say that Armstrong hasn't issue any more denials since he promised not to on whatever date he made his last statement and the USADA banned him. And those facts actually have a correlation to each other supported by RSs.LedRush (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html LedRush (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@ledrush Had a dig and found the full statement as issued by lance - The full statement could actually be an article in itself, but my thoughts on it.

• He doesnt actually deny doping as such in the article. What he does is say that he passed all the doping controls put in front of him. That the rules say that to be positive you have to have a positive a and b sample. He also talks a lot about statute of limitations and it being a witchhunt etc.
• "Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?"
• "The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It's an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It's just not right."

Now this is where we get into the "denied doping" area. Does Armstrong in that statement deny doping? In my mind he doesnt actually deny it. You can summise with POV that he is denying doping, but all he is actually doing is saying that he passed tests, didnt test positive within the rules set by the governing bodies at the time. Now, i fully agree that armstrongs statement needs including in some way in the lede, and referring the link i have provided that has his full statement rather than the NY TImes one (NY Times are a reliable source, but Juliet Macur is a known opponent and so her POV report on the statement isnt as accurate as the statement itself in original form). The question is how it is included. I wouldnt support going as far as "he denied doping" as its clear in the statement he doesnt say that, but it does need including in some way.

Proposal

On February 16, 2011, he announced his retirement from competitive cycling, while facing a US federal investigation into doping allegations. In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged Armstrong with having used illicit performance-enhancing drugs,. On August 24, 2012, Armstrong released a statement confirming his reasons for not entering into arbitration with USADA stating "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now.". The same day USADA announced a lifetime ban from competing in any sports which follow the World Anti Doping Agency code, as well as the stripping of all titles won since August 1998. On October 11, 2012 USADA published a full report calling Armstrong a "serial cheat who led the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". On October 22, 2012, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the sport's governing body, endorsed USADA's verdict and confirmed both the lifetime ban and the stripping of titles.

This doesnt add too much text to the lede which is lengthy enough already, but does add details of his statement which is an important fact in the whole matter, im surprised it wasnt in there before to be honest. I would pull short of saying he denied doping though, as he doesnt deny it in so many words in his statement, giving that impression would be POV. Thoughts? Dimspace (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of his statement seems unsupported by RSs. The one currently used in the article says "He continued to deny ever doping, calling the antidoping agency’s case against him “an unconstitutional witch hunt” and saying the process it followed to deal with his matter was “one-sided and unfair.” This is very simple. Armstrong has always, at all times, maintained that he has never doped and has never made any statement to contradict that. This Original Research into the timing, into whether his denial is a true denial, into correlating his statements to other, unrelated events is simply a perversion of the Wikipedia standards of editing. Everyone on the BLP agreed the statement must go in. I appreciate, Dimspace, that you are trying to compromise, but this is a BLP article, and we can't compromise core Wikipedia principles in a BLP article.LedRush (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Add "On November 2 WADA confirmed that it would not appeal the decision" to the end of WADA's reaction. Source. (Current text: The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)'s official statement indicates that it also awaits delivery of the USADA decision before making any comment on the matter.[131] The president of the WADA, John Fahey, believes Armstrong's decision not to appeal USADA pursuant to its process indicates there was "substance to those charges".[132]) 88.88.162.240 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC) It should also be mentioned somewhere in the article that the decision is now final, as WADA was the last entity with a right to appeal. 88.88.162.240 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has subsequently confirmed that it will not appeal and said it took legal opinion that found that USADA's stance was correct. It should be in the article now Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also agree, in part. The addition would properly reflect WADA's reaction to events and so would make the section more complete. However, I cannot see anything in the source which states the decision is now final and I believe it would be possible for Armstrong or a third party to initiate proceedings with the CAS on a de novo basis. As such, unless there is a source which confirms that the decision is now set in stone I would omit the second part while adding the first. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From WADA's earlier statement: "WADA’s mandate under the Code is to now decide whether to exercise its independent right of appeal, which it will do after its 21-day appeal period commences on Oct. 31, the appeal expiry date for other parties in this case."
Hope this suffices.88.88.164.25 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing the edit request template to answered so a consensus may be established. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the first part, which is supported by consensus. (It was the original request, the other part was more of an afterthought to explain the consequences of WADA's decision.) 88.88.165.22 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The original request is done. Not sure if it's where you wanted it or not. Other users seem to have problems with the other suggested changes. When consensus is reached, change the yes back to no in the edit request, or simply add a new one. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I figured it should placed together with WADA's earlier reactions, but it's not important for me. The text "to the end of WADA's reaction" was not intended for the article, it was information on where I thought the information should be placed in the article. It will probably be spotted and removed shortly, but I'll note it here anyway. 88.88.165.22 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really flow at the end of the first paragraph. I think it's better to keep things in chronological order. But I didn't separate it out into a new single-sentence paragraph. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Christophe Bassons

This article states (at the beginning of the "History of allegations of doping" section) that Bassons was "the only cyclist in his team to admit to the use of drugs during the Festina affair." The sources given don't work for me, so I can't be sure if that was actually said there, but according to the Christophe Bassons page here, not only did he not admit to the use of drugs, but in fact others on the team who had admitted their own use of drugs said that Bassons was the only one on the team who did not use drugs. 167.24.104.150 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, not sure how the blazes that even got in there. Well known and reported that Bassons was the only clean rider on the team. Very innacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

New article about USADA Report?

I wonder if we should have a separate article about the USADA "Reasoned Decision" Report. There are certainly plenty of RS to use for such an article, and there can be no question about it being a notable topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The doping allegation sections needs to be trimmed considerably, to about 33% of the current size, at most. However, the history of doping allegations should be more than enough to house the Reasoned Decision discussion. The report itself should not need to be covered in such minute detail - it needs to be discussed in the manner that reliable secondary sources discuss it. I would think that this is similar to the judge's report in the Knox case. There was simply no reason to get into every minute detail of the report to cover the subject.LedRush (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As if having an article about a topic means getting "into every minute detail of the [topic]". This was a landmark decision in not only the world of cycling, but the world of sports. It deserves coverage in and of itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RSs don't seem to back that up. Put it in the existing article, and decrease the coverage here to at most 1/3 the current level.LedRush (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you might be serious. Do you have any idea how many topics in WP have less RS material than the USADA report? Thousands! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already put forward a proposal over how the doping allegations section can be restructured to be more fluid and remove some of the repetative nature. if i get time I will do it. But it certainly wont reduce it by 2/3rds, maybe by about 10% Dimspace (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Historically, an important aspect of Lance Armstrong will be his uncanny ability to maintain an aura of innocence despite all the allegations. There is nothing undue about representing those allegations accurately in this article. Cutting 10% as part of reorganization/cleanup is reasonable. 2/3rds is way into POV meat and even bone cutting. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The current language in the article on doping accounts for about 60% of the article. Do you guys really think that bringing that down to 54% is proper weight? We have a sub article on this. That's where all the details that are encyclopedic should go. This section here would then succinctly summarize that in a few paragraphs.LedRush (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The sub article is totally out of date, and Im not sure how it reappeared, it had gone completely. Not sure how it came back. Dimspace (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else thought Pharm Strong could be editing here? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

SCA Promotions

Any reason this story is not mentioned in the article?

• Dallas promoter demands refund from Armstrong
• SCA Promotions to Lance ... we want our money back!
• Lance Armstrong Refund? SCA Promotions Demands Tour De France Bonus Money Be Returned
• SCA Promotions demands that Armstrong return $12 million in bonus earnings
• SCA to seek $7.5m from Lance Armstrong
• Lance Armstrong: From bad to worse

(there are hundreds more) --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have added a single reference to this in the newly created SCA Promotions section, which will also allow for any future developments Dimspace (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. I didn't know that Armstrong had offered to settle for $1M. Like the article says, I think it's going to cost him much more to avoid going to court! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Doping Section

Now that the broohaha seems to have died down a bit, im going to try and tackle the doping section, make it more ordered, cut out any waste and make it more readable. In two stages, the first stage taking the existing information and re-categorising it into sub headings.

• La Confidential 2004

In 2004, reporters Pierre Ballester.... through to.....The same authors (Pierre Ballester and David Walsh) subsequently published "L.A. Official" and "Le Sale Tour" (The Dirty Trick), further pressing their claims that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.

• 1999 Urine tests

The existing urine tests section

• SCA Trial 2006

In June 2006, French newspaper Le Monde reported claims by Betsy and Frankie Andreu.... through to..... hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings."

• Federal Investigation 2009 - 2010

Take the information from Specific allegations by Landis etc, along with details on case being dropped. Create a section within the USADA enquiry section with details of the witnesses and breif summary of their testimonies. This will cover the testimonies from Hamilton, Landis, O'Reilly etc that are currently in the "allegations section":

• USADA Witnesses
• Floyd Landis - Testified that he had been part of an organised doping policy at US Postal. Testified that he saw Lance Armstrong dope. Testified that Armstrong admitted testing positive for EPO at the Tour de Suisse. testified that Lance had worked with Doctor Michele Ferrari and had recieved doping advice from him. Testified that they recieved transfusions from Dr Garcia del Moral.
• Tyler Hamilton - Ditto etc etc etc

This will include all the information currently in the "allegations" section and categorise it properly under the relevant case. It also makes room for example, in reference to the above SCA information (a case that will now be re-opened) for addition information to be added as and when it happens. Dimspace (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ive recategorised the section into smaller cases. Now, will endeavour to reduce the information slightly.

• The O'rielly allegations can be rewritten and moved into the LA confidential section as this was when she originally made the allegations Done
• federal enquiry section, needs revisiting, rewriting slightly and more clarification given over why landis made the allegations, and how the enquiry started. Also needs reference to controversy over the closing of the case.
• Usada section - witness subsection added with breif detils of the key witnesses. In the case of O'Reilly and the Andreaus it can merely refer to them repeating their SCA testimonies, but also needs adding brief details of statements by Hincapie, Leipheimer etc along with links to the pdf's of their statements (hincapies statement for instance was key in changing public opinion)Dimspace (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are we still linking to an outdated "lance armstrong doping allegations" page? Dimspace (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

note, in reference to critisisms that the doping section is too large. I have not done any reductions yet. Merely re-ordered the information to a more logical and readable form. Dimspace (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Career Achievements

Can we now get a consensus on moving his extremely reduced palmares to this article and deleting the "career achievements" article Dimspace (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have moved his palmares to this article. Will propose the career achievements article for deletion Dimspace (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Career achievements page proposed for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Lance_Armstrong Dimspace (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

This guy is one of the most extraordinary cheats and frauds in the history of sport. Why such a biased Wiki article emphasising his (now shown to be fraudulent) achievements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.92 (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We have quotes from various agencies and people saying that he is the largest doper in the history of cycling, and about 60% of the article is devoted to the allegations? What percentage of the article do you think should be devoted to that, seeing as there is a sub-article where all the allegations should be detailed, and this article should only briefly summarize that? Remember, we are an encyclopedia and are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say and give due weight accordingly.LedRush (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Now that the article has some sort of structure to it, can we try and move forward with updating it and making it more relevant. Going through the talk the outstanding queries seem to be:

• The Lede - This is still fairly lengthy, a lot of people supported trimming it, but its gradually grown back to a large mess again. Is there anything can be done to trim it and make it more readable
• The Lede - Still no resolution as wether to include Armstrongs denials prior to June 13th in the lede.
• Seperate doping article - We are linking to an outdated article that was originally deleted. Whats the status on this, update it, or remove teh link again?
• Nicknames Pharmstrong/Cancer Jesus - personally i think this ones run its course. there is no, and unlikely to be credible documentation.
• The Lede - Positioning of "cancer patient" sitll apparently being argued about
• Lede - should wada be mentioned or not, still going back and forth.
• Doping allegation section - This does need tidying up, and i have started doing so, and will start trying to condense it a bit more to be more consise, but will also add a few bits like the links to testimonies. One person is saying it should be 1/3 of the size it is but they seem to be on their own.
• Career/Postal years - Is still totally Tour centric and reads like a 4 year old wrote it.
• Usada secction - There is absolutely no record of the reasoned decision?? And much of the reactions section is now out of date as it refers to reactions prior to the reasoned decision.

Thoughts Dimspace (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Armstrong made his last denial after he was banned from the sport (I believe that was in late august) but before the report was released. Any attempt to infer something from that, rather than just report that he has repeatedly denied doping as virtually all RSs agree, would be POV and BLP violations. This could easily be handled by saying something like "Armstrong has repeatedly denied all allegations of doping, most recently on August 27, 2012, three days after the USADA banned him from cycling and stripped him of all his titles. Armstrong said that he would no longer address this issue and has issued no further statements, including after the USADA report was published." Obviously that's unpolished, but you get the idea.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As above, you yourself admit this date is approximate and have produced no reference source. Until that point the last verifiable denial is June 13th. I too am looking for a later denial but cannot find one.

From the WP article we're editing: ::http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html LedRush (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Texas Court Case

Ok, this section has been slaughtered, albeit in good faith, so that it now makes no sense. Its gone from

On July 9, 2012, Armstrong filed a lawsuit in federal court in Austin, Texas against USADA, claiming that they (USADA) did not have jurisdiction and that his right to due process was being violated. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks initially dismissed Armstrong's 80-page complaint later the same day on the grounds that Armstrong's complaint was too long, and characterized more by a desire for publicity and self-aggrandizement than a presentation of the facts, commenting, that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "demand a short and plain statement of detailed facts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor...a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants."

The following day, Armstrong filed a revised lawsuit against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, once again asking to stop the agency from stripping his seven Tour de France titles and banning him from sport for life if he fails to submit to arbitration over alleged doping violations. Also on July 10, USADA announced lifetime bans against three of his former U.S. Postal Service cycling team associates: Luis Garcia del Moral, a team doctor, Michele Ferrari, a consulting doctor, and Jose "Pepe" Marti, team trainer.

To

On July 10, 2012, Armstrong filed a revised lawsuit against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, asking the court to stop the agency from stripping his seven Tour de France titles and banning him from sport for life if he fails to submit to arbitration over alleged doping violations. Also on July 10, USADA announced lifetime bans against three of his former U.S. Postal Service cycling team associates: Luis Garcia del Moral, a team doctor, Michele Ferrari, a consulting doctor, and Jose "Pepe" Marti, team trainer.

While I appreciate that the opening paragraph may be longer than required (I didnt write it), you cant just remove a whole section and start a paragraoh with "filed a revised lawsuit" without having some sort of introduction as to why the first suit was rejected. It makes no logical sense. Dimspace (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to get it down to one paragraph suggest:

In July, 2012 Armstrong filed a lawsuit in the Texas Court requesting that the court "bar Usada from pursuing its case or issuing any sanctions against him" based on "Usada rules violate athletes' constitutional rights to a fair trial, and that the agency does not have jurisdiction in his case.". On July 10, 2012, After the initial lawsuit was dismissed for being overly lengthy, Armstrong filed a revised lawsuit.

And then continue with the remainder. You simply cant say a revised lawsuit without explaining the original lawsuit, and also your description of what the lawsuit was about it innacurate. Dimspace (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ive made some small changes, making breif mention of the original dismissal, adding the accurate reason rather than a vague reason and removed a case of repetative date. Agree it needs reducing a bit, but it has to get the full story across accurately and neutrally, which hopefully it now does. You cant simply remove the original lawsuit being dismissed or the reason Dimspace (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The revision is unnecessary, but fine. I would think that no mention of the earlier pleading need be made at all seeing as it means nothing and helps the reader understand nothing. It would have been simpler and better to merely delete the word "revised" and call it a day.LedRush (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The reasons that first lawsuit was thrown out are telling in and of themselves. Judge Sparks was clear. And it wasn't merely because it was overly long. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if assertions about the meaning and importance of things were backed up by reliable sources. We are an encyclopedia, after all.LedRush (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My thought is that the original text was fine, but Ledrush made a good faith edit to tackle the issue of a very overly lengthy section, and i didnt want to undo, chose to edit slightly. I agree also though that it wasnt just because it was overly long, it was because basically the original lawsuit was a pr exercise but that is POV. I think the "overly long" just needs a cite and a ref to the judges full statement, i shall get the original version later. When all said and done, the fact is its all overshadowed by subsequent events. The section definately needs tackling, im still not sure the "reactions to" section serves any purpose as most of it is pre-reasoned decision and has subsequently changed. Dimspace (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

On the sourcing thing, i think a lot of the sources need reviewing. Due to the ever changing nature of events over the past months, many of the sources where either the first available source, or an easy to find source, and there are much better, or more in depth sources since (and in the case of anything legal such as the texas court case) all the original documents are now available Dimspace (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede - Decision needed

Can we please make a decision on this for once and for all. Certain lone editors including Ledrush are constantly reverting the lead to

Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. Armstrong won the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005. In 2012, he was banned for life and disqualified from all his results since August 1998, for using and distributing performance-enhancing drugs.[4]

This has been discussed at length by multiple editors and a lede agreed, can we now make a final decision on how the lede should be worded. its getting farcical. Dimspace (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

So 3 editors is a consensus; and 2 editors are "lone"? Um...ok.

We need to think of what will be easiest for a reader to understand, and what presents the information in the best way for those readers. In terms of understanding and logic, it doesn't make sense to talk about being banned from something without first explaining why we are reading the article and what important results we are talking about undoing. The language as presented above very succintly gives this information in an easy to understand way. No one can read that and not understand that Armostrong had all his results stripped because he doped, and the information is easily digested by a reader new to the topic.LedRush (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I count in excess of ten editors involved in the discussed. I count two editors that dont involve in discussion. Dimspace (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I only count one editor involved in this discussion. Do you have any substantive points to make?LedRush (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2012(UTC)

Things change, he was once more notable for cycling, no longer the case. People who had zero interest in cycling now associate him with one thing: being "a serial cheat who led the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". The reality is that even though he may have crossed the finish line a bunch of times, his "winner" status no longer exits. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with your premise and your conclusions, that's not really relevant to the article. The idea isn't to note which he's more notable for: the idea is to present the information in a clear, easy-to-understand and logical way. I think we are all in agreement as to what information goes in this part of the lede.LedRush (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that your way is easier to understand. I think "Prior to losing his titles, Armstrong had won the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having testicular cancer." is perfectly clear. Saying he won seven times in a row in a separate sentence without qualification is clear too, but misleading, and, thus muddling. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Im with Dimspace need for a decision. The concensus is against Led. Led on this thread its you vs 4. Plus your last revert by ‎Semitransgenic. Thats you vs five now at least. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So you count Semi, but not the guy who made the initial edit. Your fairness is again beyond reproach. Do you have any reasons for your opinions?

B2C - I was talking about understanding the entire concept. It is confusing and illogical to talk about being banned from cycling and losing one's titles before knowing (1) that he won titles; (2) why we care about the person being banned; and (3) why people first cared about the article's subject.LedRush (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

4 to 1 on this thread Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I vote for having the Tour de France first, then give the reason he was banned. There is plenty of time for the reader to understand who Lance Armstrong is, what he did in his career, and why he was banned. Looking at another article randomly, I noticed that Barry Bonds' article lists who he is, what his accomplishments were, then legal and drug problems. Marion Jones is another article that lists what she won before stating what she was banned for. Portillo (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bonds was a team member, not an individual athlete competing head to head, there is no issue of forfeiting wins. In the case of Jones, the second sentence reads: "She won five medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia, but forfeited all medals and prizes dating back to September 2000 after her October 2007 admission that she took performance-enhancing drugs as far back as the 2000 Summer Olympics." The Ben Johnson is similar to the Jones one. However, if the consensus shows that the current version is tolerable, then this is no necessity to change it. If consensus can't be arrived at on the talk page, best move it to the relevant content dispute notice board. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with the Johnson and Jones forumulations that you propose.LedRush (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile Portillo edits the lede while discussion is still ongoing. What part of Discussion do you not understand?

would settle for "Armstrong had won the Tour de France a record seven times but in 2012 was stripped of all results since 1998 and banned from the sport for life for using and distributing etc.. " I dont feel any need for the years to be included as its information available elsewhere in the article, I think seven wins has to be referred to as the past tense, and the stripping of titles needs to be in the same sentance. This fits in line with Johnsonn and Jones. Dimspace (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we also need to look at the repetition in para 3 of the lede. " He was a member of the US Postal/Discovery team between 1998 and 2005 winning the Tour De France a record seven consecutive times. " Does this need to be repeated twice in the lede bearing in mind that he now isnt the winner of those 7 tours, surely once is enough? Dimspace (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposed compromise. And we should change the formulation of the second mention of wins.LedRush (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of awards

Tufts university have stripped Armstrong of his honourary degree. At the moment I have gone with strikethrough along with reference to them withdrawing his degree. Possibly more awards that will be stripped in the future, so dont know what we are going to go with, removal or strikethrough. Personally i prefer strikethrough as it shows history a bit better. Dimspace (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think strikethrough for all results shows history better - what he won/earned, what he was stripped of/unearned.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#Lance_Armstrong_case

If you're going to edit Lance_Armstrong#USADA_Investigation_2011-2012, make sure to also edit links to it, such as United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#Lance_Armstrong_case. I'd fix this, but the article is locked. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)