Talk:Doping at the Tour de France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Cycling Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!


I think this article should be tagged for cleanup. This article kind of strays from NPOV on occasions, and the article could certainly do with more references, such as the last paragraph on average speed increasing disproportionally to technological growth. It would be better to split this article into separate sections as well. I will start cleaning up this article soon if no reply is given. Sanbuster 05:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Cleanup

I will start doing some clean up in my sandbox here to make things simpler for me. Otherwise any specific suggestions, such as how to split up the article, are welcome.--Joe Jklin (T C) 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, i'll just add to the section on Landis and this article should be done (for now, anyways)... Sanbuster 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Jersey Winners Table

This table smells strongly of original research. "Strong accusations" is not clearly defined and there are no sources provided. Especially questionable is putting Lance Armstrong in the medium category, considering that he has been tested numerously, falsely accused on several occasions, and has never failed to prove his complete innocence on all doping charges.

The media has reported on the accusations that have been made against him, which could be cited as sources, but they have also reported on how each accusation has proven to be baseless. Wikipedia is not the place for unverifiable personal accusations or original research, so I will change the "medium" listings to "clean" for all riders.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.61.46.60 (talk) 21:21, July 26, 2007

I agree, and as it concerns living people, WP:BLP applies. As it is not sourced, I'm removing it. SeveroTC 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I forgot WP:BLP... And I agree that it was too subjective. "Strong accusations" was not defined and sources were absent. So don't see this as an effort to get the table back. But I am surprised that you think it is "Especially questionable" that Armstrong was in the medium category! Questionable I agree, but "Especially questionable"? As if Armstrong is cleaner than the rest of the cyclists? Personal opinion: I am willing to bet that within 25 years, Armstrong admits that he has taken some doping once. (Just like 95% of all the cyclists.) Armstrong is in the top10 of best cyclists ever, but not in the top10 of cyclists that are most probably clean! But this is irrelevant.--Pie.er 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petacchi

In the part of the article about Petacchi's positive drug test it says that (cleared after the result was deemed "non-negative"). Non-negative means that FAILED the test. He was cleared because the drug (which he has a certificate to use) was deemed to be for 'therapeutic purposes.' All of this information is in the BBC article cited. I will add this information in the next day or two if no one else does or if someone has a reason not to add it.
Ender8282 03:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about because it wasn't at the TdF? I think it belongs in Doping at the 2007 Tour de France, but not here. SeveroTC 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You could use almost the same argument for not having the information in Doping at the 2007 Tour de France. It didn't happen at the 2007 TdF. Then information in the 2007 Tdf doping article is much better so I am going to copy and paste that information now and we can continue the discussion on whether it should be here at all. --Ender8282 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This article should summarise the 2007 article (and others, when someone is in the mood to do a 1998 page for example). For my money, it's important enough to be in the 2007 article, but not in this one. SeveroTC 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto Contador

To my knowledge Contador has never been cleared from all allegations as he is categorized on this page. Documents describing his involvement in the Puerto Files, has merely been dismissed and ignored by Spanish authorities. His case has not been fully explored, and so to say 'closed'.

His name is present in confiscated files and and bags containing tampered with blood with the initials 'AC' has been confiscated.

[edit] 2007 Tour Summary

It seems the section on the 2007 Tour is getting a little too big. Rather than blank the section and leave a link to the main article, I still think it needs a concise summary - though perhaps not referencing all riders/allegations. Thoughts? Dick G 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "doping" or "illegal performance enhancements"?

Just stopped by here while helping one of my students write a paper on this subject. You all have put together a well-documented page (just skimmed it, so I can’t comment on Sanbuster’s NPOV comment), but I do have one suggestion: “doping” seems to me a slanted word; it connotes drug use in the ‘getting high’ street sense of the term (“any narcotic or narcotic-like drug taken to induce euphoria or satisfy addiction”). While it can mean the use of any illicit substance (regardless of intent), why not call it what it is in this case: “illegal performance enhancement”? "Doping," besides being a bit misleading, slanted, and potentially POV, simply isn’t specific enough to carry encyclopedic merit.

These cyclists aren’t shooting up heroin because they’re bored or addicted, they’re taking performance enhancers because they want to perform better. Both illegal, both immoral, but still a big semantic difference. Richard Paez, University of Florida English Department, 24.136.34.159 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. You make an interesting point and I appreciate "doping" has all sorts of connotations linked, among other things, to its long history of usage. However in this context - namely professional cycling - it has been the adopted term for several years, regardless of whether it is "correct" or suggests POV. Perhaps the most obvious difficulty is that it is used as a global term, applied both to the introduction of a narcotic or other substance into the body and also to the blood transfusion aspect. I'll take a look at the article and see where we can neutralise any slant but there comes a point when a practice or activity is so widely regarded as immoral or simply negative that prima facie POV ends up being mere fact. Dick G 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right: I've looked around (and my student has been conducting research) and it seems that the term has been adopted by the people involved - a sad mangling of the language, but that's only my opinion and has no bearing here. Convention and use always override prescription. Thanks for the polite response! Richard Paez Richardpaez 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try and be specific about the drug or process used - for example, Zabel and Riis both admitted to using EPO, whereas Vinokourov was found to have had a homologous blood transfusion. kju 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's probably the best approach but is fiddly in this article, let alone the 2007 article which doubtless needs the same work. My only reservation is that in trying to be more specific the phrasing becomes more cumbersome. I guess I'm really encouraging you to be bold where I'm unashamedly shying away from doing the edit work myself! Thanks Dick G 07:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy won't paste

Hi Can anyone help? In the "Steroids and other drugs" section, I am trying to paste copy after the words "without strengtheners".

For some reason, when I try, only the last words come out, which is tricky because it says that drugs ruined van den Broucke's health, which so far as I know isn't true.

In the displayed version, the final line about the ruined health should come out and this whole new paragraph added:

De Mondenard argued that such was the acceptance of steroids and then of corticoïds that only the cost - which he put in prices of the time as between 35,000 and 50,000 French francs - was likely to restrict use. Only the richest or the most ambitious riders could afford that. And the rewards could be high: Bernard Thévenet won two Tours de France by using cortisone. "I was doped with cortisone for three years and there were many like me," he said. [1] The experience had ruined his health, he said.

Is there someone who can make it work, please? Thanks. 77.194.246.214 (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)les woodland

The problem was that some references weren't closed(and some lines of text were considered a reference). You can see what I changed to understand what I mean. Wikipedia:Footnotes could also be useful --Drunt (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. What would I do without you? - les —Preceding unsigned comment added by Les woodland (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Armstrong dope.jpg

Image:Armstrong dope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)