Talk:Lance Armstrong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Good articles Lance Armstrong has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lance Armstrong article.

Contents

[edit] POV Section

As Socafan says, removing a tag without consensus may be considered vandalism. But consensus does not mean unanimity. There appears to be a strong consensus among those editors active in the discussion here, with the single notable exception of Socafan, that there is no POV problem with that section. So, the tag comes out unless and until Socafan can detail precisely why he feels it is justified. After all, inserting tags without giving adequate explanation and against conensus is also vandalism. It's also disruption. So: please detail precisely what statements constitute a neutrality problem, with specific relationship to Armstrong's status as the most tested legally clean athlete in the world. Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not right, there already is a section in this discussion with the same title above, there is an adequate explanation and only one editor expressed some doubt about the POV-tag. As a side note, the claim about most tested legally clean athlete in the world still lacks a source. Socafan 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of arm-waving, how about actually answering the question? Oh, and there were two sources, one the BBC. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, your tone is in no way helpful to resolve the conflict. If there are sources, please add them to the article as requested. I do not know which question you want to have answered. I pointed out to you that you were wrong and ask you to reinsert the POV-tag as per policy. Socafan 13:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's like this: there is no conflict to resolve. There is a civil discussion with broad agreement, and then there is you, standing on the sidelines screaming foul. The only way to fix that particular problem is for you to stop it. A good start would be to document, in neutral and reasonable language, the precise reasons why you think the POV section tag is justified. Just zis Guy you know? 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice that you talk about a "civil discussion" right after the vandal who had deleted the tag three times was blocked for incivility and when discussion above clearly shows why I think the tag is needed and that there is no consensus to remove it. My complaint about your admin abuse stands, I showed that four others showed concern about POV here recently, so if you do not see a conflict maybe you just do not want to see it. Please restore the tag immediately. Socafan 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And given that your continued use of the term "vandalism" is an outright falsehood according to the wording of the policy you keep pretending to cite, perhaps now would be the time to stop using it. After all, continuing to use something demonstrated to be false is lying and engaging in personal attacks -- or are the rules different for you? --Calton | Talk 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Any time you want to start addressing the subject is fine by me. Proof by assertion is insufficient here. Just zis Guy you know? 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Concurring with JzG. -- Steve Hart 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not necessarily support the POV tag, as many POV issues are due to compliance w/ the WP:BLP, rather than bias by the editors. However, perhaps someone should clearly state the source of the disagreement about the POV. I'm new here, so I may not be the best person, but here is my take. 1. Armstrong's claim of never failing a doping control while technically true may not be significant given the number of athletes caught doping while passing all of their controls. (I.E.,The San Remo Raids, Operation Puerto, Richard Virenque, David Millar, Marco Pantani, etc.) It has been firmly established that the doping controls may be compromised with near impunity. 2. The fact that Armstrong won all of his court cases may not be significant as no judge has ruled on whether or not he actually used doping techniques. Both the Sunday Times case and the CAS case rulings hinged on the fact that the UCI never sanctioned Armstrong and did not consider the testimony and evidence brought by either the SCA or Mr. Walsh and Mr. Ballinger. So, as long as the POV of the article is "Armstrong has never been convicted of doping offenses" I think it is OK and it needs no tag. If the article's POV is "Armstrong has never doped", then there are significant issues to be hammered out and the POV tag would be appropriate. The POV "Armstrong is a known doper" is certainly inappropriate, by any standard.Nichol@s 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this speaks directly to Armstrong, though, does it? It's material for an article on doping in cycling. Just zis Guy you know? 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that depends on how important context is. Armstrong's claims that the judges decision in the Sunday Times and SCA cases vindicate him appear very different when taken at face value and when compared to the context of the situation: i.e., neither judge ruled on whether or not Armstrong doped, but only that he was not banned by the UCI. You are 100% correct that this biography is not the place to argue about doping in cycling, but neither should this article treat his P.R. press releases with unquestioned reverance when there is important contextual information available from reputable sources. The importance of the POV question remains. If the POV of the article is that Armstrong never doped and those who say otherwise are crazy, then we have a problem. If the POV is that Armstrong has never been sanctioned by the UCI, but there are serious and unresolved questions related to the LNDD tests, then we are on safe footing.Nichol@s 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It is all a matter of emphasis. Unless and until Armstrong is officially guilty of doping (whihc is unliklely to happen given that he is now retired) the article must on balance reflect the fact that he is legally clean. There are questions, of course, but these questions do not seem to be any different form those in respect of any other pro cyclist. I would be astonished if any pro cyclist had never engaged in any practice which was then or is now illegal, but that is not about Armstrong it's about pro cycling in general. Armstrong is high profile because he's a winner, so there is more noise about the allegations (especially in France, where he is widely detested). In the end we need to be sure that we are not giving the allegations undue weight when compared with the generality of pro cyclists and their behaviour. Just zis Guy you know? 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess you are right about pro cycling in general. However, in the Armstrong case there were concrete dodgy test results that have to be covered, positive EPO and corticoide probes. According to the French version of the article, presenting a medical certificate after having produced a questionable result violated the rules. According to WADA his 99 probes were positive for EPO and the only reason why he cannot be punished is that the test method had not been available at the time and the reglement does not allow to redo tests years later. Happily ever after 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculations over cancer drugs

A sourced sentence about this was removed with a comment about "weasel words". [1] However, I would guess the Kennedy article also covers speculations over who killed him, as widespread and widely reported speculations are notable. How shall we deal with this? Socafan 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By strong consensus terms like "some have speculated" are weasel words and have no place in biographies of living individuals. If the claim is made by a recognised authority, then state it as their opinion. If it is random uninformed speculation, it should be deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You again fail to address the point. The speculations are widespread, widely reported by many recognised media and thus notable. Socafan 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you repeatedly fail to address the point. I wonder how many times I'm going to have to explain this to you? Per WP:BLP, the burden lies with you to support the inclusion. The cited source, [2], does not address the issue. Some have speculated is unacceptable. Name the authorities who have speculated, and give citations. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LA Times Article

Added more specific details of the evidence presented in the SCA case. I tried very hard to present the evidence fairly. I noted that the judge ruled in favor of Armstrong, but refrained from ruling on whether or not Armstrong doped. Also noted that the evidence was acceptible in arbitration hearings, but possibly would not be admissable in other court settings. The point of the addition is to provide references to the primary sources that have not yet been referenced namely: the Ashendon analysis of the LNDD test, the Andreu/Vaughters IM conversation, and the LA Times graphic of the results of the LNDD test. Nichol@s 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a recurrent theme: the Sunday Times case is similar, I think. There is a world of difference between saying there is some circumstantial evidence for doping, and saying that doping did or did not happen. Just zis Guy you know? 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with your contribution, the SCA case is now listed twice in this section; once initially referring to Le Monde, then listed again referring to LAT. Maybe they should be merged. The SCA case is also different in that people involved in previous allegations were called to "testify" in this case (e.g. because they were cited in LA Confidential). Quite messy -- Steve Hart 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I share that concern, actually. The LA Times section and the Le Monde section preceeding it deal with the same information and probably should be merged. I was hesitant to edit that much w/o consultation, but agree that the merger is warranted. I am most concerned that the links to primary sources provided by the L.A. Times remain and that the verbiage be carefully neutral. The Ashenden analysis of the LNDD test and Vrijmann's rebuttal are the key sources of the current allegations. Also, the final two quotations from the LA Times should remain intact, as they do an excellent job of objectively describing the allegations & Armstrong's response to them.24.21.169.185 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Give it a try. I think you should start with what the case was about, which is in the Le Monde paragraph. From what you wrote I think you should start with the outcome of the case, instead of the Michael Ashenden comment. And you should consider adding a quote from Armstrong. If you become uncertain about the outcome, you can always post it here. -- Steve Hart 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the LA Times graphic, and as a side note, I can only say "wow". The result of the anonymized samples, when later put together, gives a string of 8 positives and then 6 negatives for one cyclist - which is a most extraordinary event (probability is maybe one chance in 1000). This means that either their was indeed some sort of deliberate fraud (reordering the samples, false test results), or this validates the chain of custody and the even test itself with high probability. This is irrelevant for the Wikipedia article, except as a note that the Vrijman's report fails to indicate such facts (lack of facts establishment, a critique from WADA on the report). This explains why the Vrijman's is controversial: see [3] current UCI Vice-President says "this report brings nothing. It was ordered by Hein Verbruggen. Meanwhile, we had a change of president. It's another area." - translation mine. --213.41.133.220 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

Pace Leclerq, who I think we all recognise was unfairly tarred with the Socafan brush, I have archived out the trollfest and hopefully retained active discussion of substantive issues. Apologies if I missed anything. Kudos to Lecerq for accepting that this a genuine error was made in the heat of the moment. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, i'm glad this metadiscussion is resolved now, though it was quite straining. And JzG is right, a reasonable discussion should move on again. But i don't think i have the energy right now to help in the process of enhancing this article; i really wouldn't know where to begin, there's so much unbalance in the facts and in the way they are portrayed. And obviously you guys are happy with the status quo, so i don't want to evoke some bad mood.
Now i'm registered for english wp, i'd only like to post a source especially from german media like Spiegel or Frankfurter Allgemeine sometime, because there's a lot of high quality journalism here who is critical but certainly not biased in the issue in question (right now they're roasting former german 'hero' Jan Ullrich) and could give you a somewhat wider perspective at your disposal. Hope that's okay. Bye Leclerq 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] content from French version

There are some issues in the French version not covered here, I am not sure about the quality. There is something about a French rider Christophe Bassons who allegedly left the 1999 Tour due to pressure by other riders because of his anti-doping stances. And in 2005 Armstrong's assistant of the years 2002 to 2004 Mike Anderson declared he had found a bottle of steroids in Armstrong's bathroom and was laid-off soon afterwards. Happily ever after 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Christophe Bassons did more than "allegedly left" the Tour, he ended up in tears, and decided to abandon his first Tour in 1999; at the end of 1999, his teammates refused to share bonus money with him (even though, thanks to the some UCI points he got for the team, he did as well as others); in 2001, his team director barred him to participate in Le Tour, because other riders didn't like his "anti-doping" statements, and he ended his carrier on the same year. --213.41.133.220 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Armstrong reportedly told him to leave the Tour and expressed satisfaction when he did. [4] [5] Happily ever after 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backing up Floyd Landis

Hi there, in my opinion there should be a little bit of Information about Armstrong backing up Floyd Landis in his recent doping case. Yes there were others too, but as predecessor and other winner of the tour that should have some significance. The article about Landis gives this [6] source. Cycling fan22 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people backed Landis up prior to the B sample - if Armstrong speaks up again post-B sample, maybe. Phil Sandifer 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"Yes there were others too, but as predecessor and other winner of the tour that should have some significance." Did you see that one? That's why i brought it up in the first place. Besides, i don't think there were so many others, the majority drew conclusions right after the positive A-Sample. OT: if i should use some weird language that's only because i'm relatively new to it. Nevertheless i hope you'll get what i mean Cycling fan22 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Most everyone I saw interviewed was distressed, but waiting for the B sample. Phil Sandifer 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have sources for that? I don't recall anyone with a comparable significance defending Landis this vigorously Cycling fan22 09:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, I find extremely hard to believe that Armstrong, as a professional rider, was completly unaware of the dreadful record of the Phonak team with respect to doping: 3 riders have been found guilty of doping in 2004 (Hamilton, Oscar Camenzind and Santi Perez); and in 2005 in the team, one, Santos Gonzalez, "was pulled out of the Spanish Vuelta last year after blood tests showed irregularities", another, Sascha Urweider, "tested positive for testosterone and was fired"; in 2006 two (Santiago Botero and Jose Enrique Gutierrez) were not allowed to race because they are been linked to the doping scandal in Spain. I mean, at the very least in 2005, Armstrong should have asked "hey guys, where is my old teammate and dangerous rival in 2004, Tyler Hamilton" (and got the answer: "tested positive more than one time, suspended foir 2 years"). With this context, you can't blindly jump defend Landis ; as a multiple champion who loudly claimed he never doped, I expected at least a sentence like "... but in the unlikely case Landis cheated, he should be punished, as it's a profound disrespect to spectators and competitors" --213.41.133.220 11:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are no other sources, e.g. of a group of significant folks defending Landis that all-out like Armstrong, there should be some (contained) remark stating his support. Indication of significance for the article:
--Armstrong is one of the biggest american cyclists and Landis' predecessor as winner of the TdF
--He had him in his Team back then
--He already charged the french laboratory with unproper methods in his own case.
That's why it is mentionned in the article about Landis. So are there any sources stating that other high profile personalities defended Landis in a comparable manner? Cycling fan22 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

For the first reading:

  • in Political possibilities section, there is a lot inproper references. These links shouldn't be external links, but internal references.
  • Personal Statistics is really important?
  • inproper references in the first sections too (like Carrier)
  • "After Ferrari's conviction on doping charges, Armstrong severed all links." (for example a statement reference from him?)
  • In the Livestrong and the Lance Armstrong Foundation section, quotations couldn't be referenced?

Anyway it's a really great article. I think it can even be a FAC. Good work! NCurse work 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a good article, it is tendentious, showing him as if he was the one great cyclist of his era that had nothing to do with doping in spite of the fact that he was proven positive and WADA confirms it. Happily ever after 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
He was not proven positive. Please show a reference. Anyway he was the one great cyclist of his era. Not of the history of cycling, but his era. NCurse work 04:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The World Anti Doping Agency as well as the laboratory confirmed that what the French newspaper had found out about his test was correct. You can call that great, I call it fraud. The sources are in the text: Armstrong's B-probes confirmed positive Wada rejects UCI report that had questioned validity of the findings They don't get him because the method of analysis was only invented years after his 1999 success, and the rules say A-probes have to be destroyed after a short period and tests years later cannot lead to any sanctions. However, his B-probes were positive, and there were 6 of them. After reading of cyclists who say they rubbed salt on their testicles in order to get them inflamed and the doctor signing them that they need certain medication and after so many other top cyclists being expelled from the Tour even though they never were tested positive I find very hard to believe that any of the winners in recent years did it without illegal drugs. Happily ever after 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Armstrong name accuracy

I question the accuracy of the opening line of the article, where Lance Armstrong is said to have had the surname Armstrong from birth. My understanding is that Lance Armstrong adopted the surname of his step father, Terry Armstrong, at the age of 3. Prior to that, he would have used his biological fathers surname, Gunderson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

[edit] When did Armstrong turn Professional?

A recent edit suggests that Armstrong turned pro in 1991. Can anyone find literature to substantiate this claim? According to the discovery team web site, he has been a pro since 1992, not 1991. [[7]]. Based on this, I am going to roll back to edit to read that he turned pro in 1992. (Dixianity 09:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/n/Talk%7ELance_Armstrong_b140.html"