Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Subaru 2 Stuff 3 Request for Comment 4 A study on Armstrong 5 Allegations of drug use 6 Objective presentation of Andreu testimony 7 The Sunday Times settlement 8 Lance as a teenager 9 Deletions and intimidation 10 Factual information deleted 11 Third opinion 12 POV 13 Biography of living person 14 Protect article 15 Protected 16 Content of doping allegations section. 16.1 Michele Ferrari 16.2 L. A Confidentiel 16.3 Corticoide 17 Unprotected 18 Image 19 Heads up 20 Merge 21 The bits currently under discussion 22 I came here for a write-up about his retirement 23 POV cleanup 24 By Erin Martin? 25 From Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons 26 POV section 27 Abuse of administrative power by JzG 28 Revert wars 29 Fanzine 30 A background on the POV controversy. Can we move along? 31 Citations for most tested athlete 32 adminship abuse in order to push POV here 32.1 Evasion of ban by blocked user 32.2 ...messed up

Subaru

--Beaker342 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Channel_Pro_Cycling_Team#1992-1994_.E2.80.93_Subaru-Montgomery pls see link that verifies .. for two yrs 92- and 93 lance was a member of subaru montgomery racing team prior to motorola..

Stuff

Didn't see it mentioned, so I will: in the course of 6 TdF wins, Lance won 20 solo stages. (I heard that someplace or other...) Trekphiler 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

你食蕉啦

refereing to the last comment - we do not eat s**t

Request for Comment

During a dispute over the content of the 'Allegations of drug use' section, an anonymous editor created a Lance Armstrong/proposal article in an attempt to settle the argument. The dispute has died down, but the 'proposal' article remains, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I have not tagged these two articles for merging yet because I want to hear other viewpoints first.

For purposes of this discussion, 'original entry' refers to Lance Armstrong and 'proposal' refers to Lance Armstrong/proposal.

Options:

• Delete the proposal without modifying the original entry at all.
• Rename the proposal as the main article and delete the original entry.
• Merge the two by making the 'allegations' section of the original entry into a new article named 'Allegations of drug use against Lance Armstrong', linking that article to the original entry, then moving the 'allegations' section of the proposal into the original entry as its new 'allegations' section.
• Merge the two articles in some other fashion.
• Start all over from scratch and delete the proposal completely.

I look forward to hearing your comments. Any and all suggestions are welcome. ddlamb 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The article had 4 edits:

1. 12 November 2005 Mike Selinker m (cleaning up Category:Cyclists)
2. 7 September 2005 Gero (→Allegations of drug use)
3. 26 August 2005 Warofdreams m (Lance Armstrong 2 moved to Lance Armstrong/proposal)
4. 26 August 2005 69.231.50.25 (new proposed page)

Given the lack of recent activity, I would assume that any relevant material has been merged and nominate the 'proposal' article for deletion. There seems no justification for a breakaway article.--A Y Arktos 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the proposed artical looks better, however, I don't think that working it a seperate artical is going to work in this case...I'm not going to touch the controversy section myself (I can't spend all my time on wikipedia), but if you think that it's better then go for it... --T-rex 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As suggested, I have merged the two 'Allegations of drug use' sections' and did not create a separate 'allegations of 2005' entry. Thanks everyone! - ddlamb 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A study on Armstrong

Seeing how the entire "Reasons for success" section is unsourced, this might be a useful article: A study on Armstrong: Texas professor discusses cyclist's success Poulsen 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of drug use

"Armstrong is a somewhat controversial athlete in parts of Europe." Who was the Author? Armstrong Public Relation Inc.?? Maybe there is no evidence for drug use, but surely he is the most controversial athlete in the world! American Fan-Nonsense! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.193.2.200 May 12 2006

Come on people, lets be honest here. Of course he doped himself. That explanation that he used ointment cream to treat a rash is just bull... this guy probably does everything he can do to enhance his performance in ways that are hard to detect. His cancer then, if he really has cancer and it is not just a marketing stunt, is probably the result of him injecting himself with everything he can think of.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Afmenguesd June 1 2006

Nah, some Europeans are just pissed that they got owned by an American in their own event - especially one with cancer. Seven years in a row. Sweet.

You're a real jerk, asserting that Armstrong's cancer was the result of a marketing stunt. I hope you get cancer.

The section is not neutral. First of all, cycling is one of the sports were doping is know to be most widespread, Armstrong is not the only one accused, and it is rather ridiculous to blame it on anti-Americanism. Secondly, he is known to be good friends with an Italian doctor who helped cyclists with doping, and he even humiliated an Italian cyclist in his last tour by not letting him escape from the crowd because that guy had publicly spoken out against the doctor. This was unique as a team leader would always send one of his mates to stop escape attempts of cyclists of other teams who pose no threat. Añoranza 10:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you: this section is not neutral. Regarding the whole article, we could add, around the title, a tag like "this article, written by LA's fan club, and sponsored by Nike and Sport Illustrated, is not neutral". Every people with common sense knows that this story of "he fought cancer and won seven Tour de France without any drug use helping" is nothing but a fairy tale. Everybody can trust it, but, personnaly, I don't believe in Santa since I'm 5 years old... By the way, Armstrong had never bring any action against those -including the French newspaper L'Equipe- who wrote he used doping treatment. To be more precise, it would be necessary to add at the "Reason for success" section, that he never won a major race (Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Tours, Liège-Bastogne-Liège...) the same years he won the Tour de France. Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, for instances, did it. That is the hallmark of great champions: being able to existing without a team around and not winning nothing but the same stages race.Do Espirito 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that Armstrong's 1996 cancer diagnosis (3 years before his first Tour win) was a marketing stunt is utterly ignorant. He was an average cyclist in '96. A marketing stunt for whom?

Armstrong was the #1 ranked cyclist in the world in 1996 [1] Landwalker 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts are clear. Armstrong has always maintained that he never took drugs. He's been tested dozens of times. And he's never once tested positive on anything that could be considered an official and legitimate test. It's French sour grapes about their growing inferiority. Armstrong is so much better than any of their cyclists that the only logical explanation is that he has to be on drugs. Sorry you white-flag-waving deodorant-shunning Frenchies. He's just better than you. Supposition and insinuation is evidence of nothing.

actually he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 in 1996, number one of that year was Laurent Jalabert

You're right, facts are clear. For instance, he has gotten a positive test to corticosteroides on the Tour de France '99. He then has produced a prescription (this dermatologic ointment is only authorized with prescription). But he has done it after the test, and for that would have been punished regarding the Cycling Rules (UCI Rules, Title XIV, Chapter 4, Section 43). Regarding your comments about the Frenchs, you'd better watching another channel than Fox News and travelling from time to time few meters away from your backyard... And next time, don't forget to sign your lines. Thank you in advance Do Espirito 09:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, facts are clear. Armstrong has been tested positive on a legitimate test. It's all about Americans trying to defend their nationals. Sorry you American liars and torturers. Armstrong is not the clean athlete you might think.--195.68.44.148 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I'd have to say nothing in the article strikes me as particularly biased or untrue. Comments like his success without the help of drugs is "nothing but a fairly tale" are pure opinion and don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the debate about his historical place in cycling and the differences between him and Merckx, however, as Armstrong's sole focus on the Tour De France is an interesting discussion.

I'm wary of biographies who looks like fairy tales, no more. Your proposal about his historial place in cycling is a good one. I'd participate with pleasure. Do Espirito 09:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just added some more on his alleged doping use. Links to document this: http://www.vrtnieuws.net/sport_master/wielrennen/hoofdpunten/060623_armstrong_epo/index.html http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0%402-3242,36-787190%4051-778298,0.html Terrapin2001 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your link is to a newspaper published in French so I am removing your addition to the article because this is the en wiki. If you can post a link to an English version of that Le Monde page, then fine, go for it. Moriori 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanded the section with more citations. I think my section on the most recent "Andreu" allegations is overly verbose. Made the part about the UCI investigation stand out as it is rather exceptional that a 3rd party investigator is endorsed by an official agency and then ends up levelling serious charges against them. Landwalker 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

there was a link that had his initial 1998 steroid treatment "admission" which helped establish a timeline and possibly started all the suspicions. it'd be nice to have it worked back in somewhere.

I added some balancing background information of Emile Vrijman. He has a financial interest in getting Armstrong off the hook, since his profession is helping athletes beat doping allegations.Nichol@s7/26/2006

Added background material for Craig Nichols, showing his seat on the LAF as a possible confict of interest.Nichol@s 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I get an explanation as to why Nichols personal and professionals connections to Armstrong were pulled? The information is verifiable, relevant, and allows the reader to draw her own conclusions. Nichols works w/ Armstrong in a charity that would be negatively impacted if Armstrong were embarrassed in the press. The fact that Nichols sits on the board does not accuse Nichols of pejury, but merely alerts the reader to a very salient potential conflict of interest.Nichol@s 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Objective presentation of Andreu testimony

The section regarding the Andreu testimony needed to be changed to eliminate the strong POV and to correct statements that were factually wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Truthiness

Stop complaining, the article's neutrality is great. I don't see a prejudice anywhere. Stop overreacting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.253.118.223

The Sunday Times settlement

Has anyone seen details of the settlement between Armstrong and The Sunday Times? Moriori 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Lance as a teenager

I just wanted to tell you guys, My dad knew Lance Armstrong as a teenager in the 80s. They raced almost everyday, And, My dad always lost because how good he was. They met in 85' during the "President's Triathlon Dallas" Wich lasted from June 8-9th 1985. They parted either in 1992 0r 1990 or maybe even 1991. My dad's not sure. Maybe we should mention this somewhere?-68.113.192.98 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be something relevant enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. --CaptainGetts 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions and intimidation

JzG deleted factual information from this article and threatened to block me on my talk page even though nothing was presented to cast any doubt on what I wrote. Please use talk if there is anything to discuss. Socafan 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation: admin JzG removed content which was stated in POV terms and included guilt-by-association, and instructed the editor in question to bring it to Talk to find a consensus form of words before reinserting content into the article, as per normal practice.

Here is the diff: [2].

Problematic phrases include: The latter has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the Festina scandal or those like David Millar who were members of the Cofidis team, in which Armstrong had also cycled. - this is irrelevant unless it is associated only or primarily with doping riders. What proportion of supposedly clean riders also have this indicator? Where is the evidence that the UCI, a French dominated body (read: cheese eating surrender monkeys) would bend the rules for Armstrong when they wouldn't do it for Basso or Ullrich? A French body beinding the rules to let an American off the hook? An American the French cycling fans hate like poison? Yeah, right. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you perceived any POV terms you could have pointed them out. Instead, you deleted factual information, and violated the 3RR rule. If pointing out that Armstrong was never tested positive is ok in the context of doping allegations, noting that this is the case for many cyclists who are known to have abused drugs should be ok, too. The Greg LeMond controversy had been copied from our own article, the other information from versions in other languages. It is a joke not to cover a notable book or the fact that WADA still considers him to be a proven drug abuser. If you do not like the French please practice your racism somewhere else. Socafan 11:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That entire section is already POV tagged. Like I said, achieve consensus on Talk first. There is no deadline to meet, and WP:BLP is one of the most important guidelines we have, especially where it interacts with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. A properly neutral form of words needs to be agreed, and the innuendo needs to go. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual information deleted

"It [corticoid in urin sample] was explained after the test with a medication. Even though the Tour de France reglementation is that such an event would lead to a penalty the test did not have any consequences for Armstrong.

Urin samples taken on six different days of the 1999 Tour he won contained EPO (Erythropoetin), which at the time could not be detected. The anonymous samples that only had a code of numbers could be matched with Armstrong by L'Équipe after the medical director of UCI, Leon Schattenberg – assumably feinted – had handed out several of Armstrong's doping protocols. Neither the Institut Chatenay-Malabry, which had done the tests, nor the French minister of sports, Jean-François Lamour, wanted to confirm the match, but the director of the laboratory admitted that the evidence presented by L'Equipe was unequivocal. The A-sample of the time were destroyed, but the deep-frozen B-samples of Armstrong allegedly contain EPO.

WADA claimed that the report of the UCI commission contained factual errors. WADA continues to see correct evidence for Lance Armstrong's doping.

Armstrong's former masseuse Emma O'Reilly made claims about his doping in a book L.A. Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong by Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter), parts of which were published in the tabloid L'Express.

The latter [not having been tested positive] has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the Festina scandal or those like David Millar who were members of the Cofidis team, in which Armstrong had also cycled." diff link Socafan 11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ballester and Walsh book is, as far as my understanding goes, pretty much universally discredited and dismissed. The only times I've seen it brought recently up have been in threads started by Armstrong-bashing trolls on Usenet.

There is no fundamental problem with including a properly sourced and neutrally worded summary of the doping allegations (which are generic for any pro cyclist, of course) and every reason to rework taht section from the ground up if you feel motivated to do so. What we do not need are sly inuendoes, comments which are left hanging without context and so on. Do the job properly. Just zis Guy you know? 12:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not there to judge the value of books. It is there to report factual information. The book has caused quite a scandal, Armstrong lost at court when he demanded to give his view of things in it, and the claims by his masseuse led to investigations by the police. This is quite notable. The Greg LeMond controversy is well-sourced and already in a section in his article, removing it here has absolutely no legitimation. I already explained above why it is not neutral to counter drug allegations with the fact that he was never tested positive while many other known abusers, including some of his former teams, have never been tested positive either. Socafan 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here from WP:3O.

About the book L.A. Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong, it seems that could be handled by including the sentence and then including another sentence with a source to show that it has been discredited and dismissed. The three paragraphs at the top of "Factual information deleted" are more complicated than I am up to handling right now. Maurreen 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• What we need is some reliable secondary sources discussing the book and its credibility to add to the now-NPOV'd doping section. Much of the deleted info was, to my reading, a POV restatement of matter already covered, but that is just a quick reading. Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you two have a larger problem between you than I am up to dealing with. I think it would be wise to agree on a cooling off or look for help via dispute resolution or a page related to the article.Maurreen 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Greg LeMond article had not been covered anywhere, nor had the book and the masseuse's claims or the fact that WADA continues to see him as a proven drug abuser. Socafan 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Greg LeMond's statements were covered. I have already said that the book needs to go in as soon as we can get some reliable secondary sources which discuss its reliability. Let's not forget that Armstrong probably is the most tested athlete in history, and not one single drug test has ever proved positive. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All that was covered was one hearsay issue. You only added an out of context apology. As you know very well, many cyclists who were never tested positive are known to have abused forbidden drugs. Socafan 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And as you know very well, unless they have tested positive we absolutely may not imply otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WADA regards him as tested positive. Period. Socafan 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not, according to Steve. I am more inclined to trust him since he does not appear to have an agenda beyond building a great encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

As shown above, important information about the alleged drug abuse of this athlete is getting suppressed, thus the POV-section tag. Removing it is vandalism. A request for arbitration has been filed because JzG in my eyes abused his admin powers in order to violate the three revert rule in order to push his POV, remove a POV-tag, block another user while in a conflict of interest and pretend to own another user's talk page. Socafan 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography of living person

JzG posted this at my talk page although it obviously belongs here, so I move it: a few people have told you now why we have a particular problem with biographies of living persons. In this case, the overall tone of the section must reflect the fact that Armstrong has never had a positive dope test, has never been banne dor suspended for doping, and has either won or had dropped every court case which even tangentially relates to doping. He is an international figure, very rich, has superb lawyers, and is a friend of the most powerful man on the planet. If we say a single word about him which is not impeccably sourced and stated in the most studiously neutral terms, this project could be wiped out overnight. That is why I care about this, even though I don't care much about the subject. Your agitation is wholly misplaced. What you need to do is not keep saying the same thing only louder, you need to say it better, and that means going to the Talk page of the article and discussing a properly neutral form of words, and in particular showing how reliable that book is (or rather, isn't) as a source. Your claim to be pursuing "factual content" is weak - for example, you don't appear to have included the fact that LeMond apologised to Armstrong and said his remarks had been taken out of context something I'd have considered relevant. How hard did you try to verify the neutrality of what you were inserting?

George W. Bush cannot sue anyone for reporting very well known allegations that do not come from me - by the way, I do not even know Armstrong - but from other wikipedia articles like the one about Greg LeMond or the Armstrong articles in other languages. I compared them and noted that this here is like a fansite - criticism minimized and countered with "he was never tested positive" even though it is very well known that many cyclists who were never tested positive did abuse drugs. Socafan 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Protect article

Lance bashed the French on an award show. You better protect the article for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Protect from who? Protect the article from people who see right through his egomanical antics? How come there is no article on here about his personal life or how he one of the most cockiest athletes? This man had no purpose other than to agitate when bringing up the soccer team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Well this article is trying to achieve neutrality and you can basically say any athlete is cocky. He won the tour de france seven straight so he can back it up and be cocky, the others that won 5 straight were cocky as well because they knew they were that good.

Yeah he's doing that to agitate the French because the French are agitating him, he passed all the drugs tests they wanted him to but still are trying to dig up dirt to try to discredit him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please sign your posts and discuss the article instead of personal feelings. Socafan 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the French team did nothing to him and anyone who watched that game saw that they played the best. Armstrong is dragging them into his riff to agitate the french press. It's childish and he's beyond cocky, he is simply a conceited child. Atleast you guys admit that he is cocky. And a personal space can be put in his about his attitude considering the numerous sources about taking his cycling to such heights that it hurt his family, and his personality is known to be rather shallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please sign your posts and discuss the article instead of personal feelings. Socafan 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what changes, exactly, you're looking to make to the article? 24.136.38.121 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I removed this - it's inappropriate to include mention of every news story to come out about a prominant public figure. If this gets meaningful play over the next few days, we should include it, but if it's a one-day story, it's not really notable. 24.136.38.121 05:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"And a personal space can be put in his about his attitude considering the numerous sources about taking his cycling to such heights that it hurt his family, and his personality is known to be rather shallow."

You seem to hate Lance so much that you want a section that attacks his personality, LOL, good luck in leaving that in the article without getting a NPOV dispute in there. So what if he's cocky? Deal with it because people will be able to argue that he is a great person that promotes cancer research and etc. so there's not going to be any personal space that deals with attacking his faults in his personality any time soon.

I propose a compromise of the allegations of drug use such as the "case for" and "case against" Lance Armstrong because both sides can be argued and its hard to achieve neutrality when both sides are think they are right.

Protected

I have protected this article temporarily due to the determination of certain editors to insert content stated in a way which does not comply with WP:NPOV. The overall tone of the drug allegations section must reflect the fact that Armstrong has been tested probably more than any other athlete in history, as well as being the subject of an official inquiry, and remains withotu a stain on his character.

The inclusion of critical material is acceptable if and only if it is done in the correct context (e.g. LeMond's criticisms must include the context that leMond later apologised). There are many people with an axe to grind, and any top sporting figure is a target for jealousy, sour grapes and plain old-fashioned anti-Americanism. This is a biography of a living person and must be handled with complete impartiality. Please eagree any changes of wording here. I will review all the changes made since the version I've rolled back to and see if any important facts have been removed; we can then discuss how to word them. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I object strenuously to reverting an article to your preferred version, protecting it, and then going through and selectively editing to include the facts you want. As for the edit you actually reverted (Which was a logged out edit of mine)...

It creates a main section about doping that makes clear that Armstrong was constantly tested, and frequently investigated. It then served to actually clarify the Ferrari accusations (As they were totally incoherent previously), and then mostly organized sections into individual accusations (Which also serves to make it easier to deal with their phrasing individually). I could deal with some of the content being cut (LeMond's criticisms seem to me notable more in terms of what they say about LeMond than what they say about Armstrong), but I think the massive reversion and protection was 100% out of line. Phil Sandifer 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Object away. You are free to unprotect and/or revert, if in your judgment the later content is sufficiently neutral. I respect your much greater experience in these matters. I disagree, as I've made clear, and I was following my interpretation of the advice from Jimbo that potentially defamatory content about living subjects should be removed immediately. I am certainly open to the possibility that I am wrong in my interpretation of both the content and Jimbo's intent, which is why I posted all my actions over this article at WP:ANI for review. I would laugh in the face of anybody who called me infallible, I am very fallible indeed. Phil, as an admin you are included in the invitation I made at WP:ANI to undo protection if you feel that is right. I don't feel it is acceptable to protect biographies of living individuals at "the wrong version", but I could be wrong in that as well. Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll decline (at least for now) your invitation to wheel war. :) The thing is, WP:BLP is a guideline. And I think you're also misusing "the wrong version." The point of that page is that every version of a page is the wrong version, so you should just protect it as you found it. Use of administrative powers like protection to enforce your view of a content dispute is bad - and the protection policy says very clearly not to do it. WP:BLP provides the principles under which work on the article should take place. But those principles should be interprted and applied by community discussion and editing, on an unprotected page. Please unprotect, even if you don't restore the edits. Phil Sandifer 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A wheel-war is where things are done, undone, redone. I have made it abundantly clear from the very beginning that I welcome peer-review of every action in this dispute, specifically including undoing any action. As long as everybody is working towards a neutral version per WP:BLP I am happy enough; my problem was always with the use of innuendo and guilt-by-association to imply that the allegations have more substance than can be justified. That seems to be absent from the current article, and I see no sign that Socafan intends to reinsert it.

I know BLP is a guideline. But it is one of the most carefully worded guidelines we have, and goes straight to the heart of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, all of which are policies. You will be well aware, Phil, that there have been several recent high-profile cases where defamatory biographies have caused acute embarrassment and in some cases legal threats. My understanding of Jimbo's recent pronouncements is that in the case of biographies, uniquely, protect-as-you-find is inappropriate. But what I should have done (and would do in any future case) is to simply stub the section and pick it up on Talk; that much is unequivocal and does not endorse the neutrality any particular version. So: I live and learn. Just zis Guy you know? 10:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please at the very least restore the POV-tag. They should never be removed without consensus. Socafan 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Content of doping allegations section.

Below is the disputed section. Discussion, please. My proposed insertions in italics, deletions with strikeout. Once again, it is not just what is said that matters but how it is said. Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism, we must be very conservative regarding what we write about living subjects.

---

Doping is a chronic problem in pro cycling. Armstrong has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world. UCI pursues an aggressive in and out of season doping test regime. Numerous allegations of doping have been and continue to be made against Armstrong, in common with may pro cyclists, but all remain unproven. He has never tested positive and was cleared by an official inquiry.

This isn't an opening paragraph, it's a collection of disjointed statements. The statement about cycling in general is unnecessary, and it makes no sense to present Armstrong's defense prior to the statement that he's been accused. Armstrong's level of accusation is unusual among cyclists, so I object to "in common with many pro cyclists," and I object to saying that they are objectively unproven - many people, like it or not, think they are proven to their satisfaction. He has not been globally cleared by an inquiry either - only on 1999 EPO use. 24.136.38.121 15:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point. It is unfair to start on about Armstrong and doping allegations without making it plain that doping is without question the no. 1 issue in pro cycling, with almost every top team having lost members (or in some cases the entire team) to doping bans. To state that X has been accused of doping when the same is true of pretty much every other person in the same position is to single out X unfairly. An allegation of drug abuse againsta footballer, say, is a much bigger deal, because it is much less common. But I am open to suggestions. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no - I agree that it's worth noting that doping is a chronic problem in cycling, but the accusations against Armstrong are pretty extraordinary. 24.136.38.121 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In 1999, tests showed traces of corticoid triamcinolone, but these were far below the positive test level. Corticoid triamcinolone is an ingredient of a legal topical skin ointment used to treat road rash and saddle sores. ^[1]

We should perhaps mention that it was an ingredient of an ointment he was cleared to use. 24.136.38.121 15:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The knockers make a big deal out of the fact that no certificate was provided in advance. I'm not sure how relevant that is; actually given the anti-Armstrong feeling in France I'd be inclined to accept the negative test at face value. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the existence of the certificate is clearly notable, and should be accurately described. 24.136.38.121 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In August 2005 the sports paper L'Équipe stated that that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won his first Tour, had retested positive for EPO in 2004. In October 2005 UCI appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman, who was the head of the Dutch anti-doping agency for ten years, to investigate the handling of urine tests by the French national anti-doping laboratory, LNDD. Vrijman's report exonerated Armstrong^[2] and said that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the LNDD may have "behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing," and may also have been against the law. ^[3]. The report said that tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."^[4]. The recommendation of the commission's report was that no disciplinary action whatsoever should be taken against any rider on the basis of the LNDD research. It also called upon the WADA and LNDD to submit themselves to an investigation by an outside independent authority.^[5]

In June 2006, French newspaper Le Monde reported claims made by Betsy and Frankie Andreu during a deposition that Armstrong had admitted using performance-enhancing drugs to his physician just after brain surgery in 1996. Armstrong's statement also suggested that Betsy Andreu may have been confused by possible mention of his post-operative treatment which included steroids and EPO that are routinely taken to counteract wasting and red-blood-cell destroying effects of intensive chemotherapy.[3] The Andreus' testimony was related to litigation between Armstrong and SCA Promotions, a Texas-based company that was attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus; this was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. The Andreau's allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols [4], or his medical history, although according to Greg LeMond there exists a recorded conversation in which Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's contact at Oakley Inc., said to Greg LeMond, "You know, I was in that room. I heard it."[5]. The context of this is unclear and no charges have been brought as a result.^[6]. LeMond later apologised to Armstrong, calling him "a great champion" and stating that his comments had been taken out of context^[7].

LeMond's apology is relevent, but not to this fact - it's more relevant to his accusations against Armstrong. That he taped the conversation is weird, and should be noted, but I don't think this is the place for the full explication of how very weird Greg LeMond's behavior in terms of Armstrong is. 24.136.38.121 15:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right. Please feel free to sugest alternative wording. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. You reverted. :-P 24.136.38.121 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Michele Ferrari

Filippo Simeoni and Amstrong had been treated by the same doctor, Michele Ferrari. Simeoni testified that Ferrari had helped him with doping. Armstrong stated that he thought Simeoni was lying. During the 2004 Tour de France, Armstrong and his team stopped Simeoni from breaking away from the peloton. Simeoni sued Armstrong for "sporting fraud" and suit and counter-suit for defamation ensued. All the cases were dropped without trial.^[8] After Ferrari's conviction on doping charges, Armstrong severred all links.

The bulk of this dispute is not between Simeoni and Armstrong. I agree with the addition (Though I would tinker the phrasing), but the bulk of this should be on who Ferrari is, and what Ferrari is known to have done for other riders. 24.136.38.121 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest away. I am just the janitor here :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm... /points to the version that you reverted this morning. 24.136.38.121 16:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Phil told me he sees a problem: [6] is problematic - it suggests that Carmichael is prima faciae a bad egg, and offers no real context for the accusations - were they investigated, by who, etc. Repeating accusations with no hint of response is not a neutral presentation of facts, even if they are sourced. Phil Sandifer

Thank you for pointing out this specific point. If you have better phrasing to suggest you are very welcome to do so. All I think that needs to be shown is that in several teams Armstrong drovein there were doping cases, involving the physicians that had treated him. Carmichael had to go to court because cyclists sued USA cycling over allegedly health-endangering treatment by Carmichael and Wenzel. It was reported Carmichael came to an out of court agreement with the athletes, Wenzel and USA cycling still are at court. It is not neutral to write that Armstrong was never tested positive, leaving out well-known information about abuse that took place in his teams, by people who treated him and whom he defended. Socafan 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, can you list all the current TdF teams which have never had any doping allegations attached to them or their riders? Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't find settling out of court to be a substantial finding of anything. If that's the extent to which that line of accusation has progressed, I don't find myself sufficiently persuaded of its verifiability, except perhaps in the Carmichael and Wenzel articles. 24.136.38.121 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is not neutral to report "he was never tested positive" without reporting the numerous incidents around his teams were doping is known even though there were no positive tests either. As a sidenote, this probably holds for most professional cyclists. Just most of our articles about cyclists do not have a section "drug abuse allegations" with an intro "never tested positive". Socafan 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your case is somewhat weakened by the fact that the entire section is reporting just that. And by the fact that he has never been found guilty of doping (to say nothing of successfully suing a paper which implied he was guilty of it). Just zis Guy you know? 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who has not been proven guilty can sue anyone who implies to know that he is guilty. That does not change anything about the numerous facts that cast doubt on the view that Armstrong unlike many many other professional cyclists has never used prohibited medication. Socafan 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He did. He won. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He won one lawsuit while many others were dropped or he lost. Socafan 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Which are the ones which went to trial and he lost? Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He lost about presenting his view in the book, and he lost the appeal, too. Socafan 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he won the lawsuit, the Sunday Times apologised. He was not granted a right of rebuttal of the sources, but I know of no instance where such a remedy in law has ever been granted so that's of highly questionable significance. Once you demonstrate that such a remedy would be usual, it can go in. Your constant efforts to portray the case as if Armstrong lost are tiresome and legally dangerous to the project. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He won "the" lawsuit, right, the one you fancy so much. One of many. He lost another one and again on appeal. It was a differenct case, so the fact that he won one case and lost another one in no way presents it as if he won or lost both. Socafan 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite the cases he lost. Are you saying there was a separate suit to get a rebuttal in the book? Can you show that such a suit has ever succeeded? The most important fact here, especially as far as a Wikipedia biography goes, is that the Sunday Times implied that the allegations were true, and Armstrong successfully sued them. It means that the implication that the allegations are true is a libel - not fair comment, a libel. That is very important here. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You know the source for the appeal he lost that also writes he had already lost the first case. Please stop your argumentum ad nauseam. Here is a case where someone was granted a rebuttal in a book and I won't allow you to waste my time searching others. Socafan 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, assembling those "numerous facts" to advance the position that he was doping is original research, and the point being advanced is potentially defamatory. If someone puts together a selection of facts and reports that they suggest Armstrong used prohibited medication, we can report that, subject to due weight and notability. (Then we can report Armstrong's law suit.) The people to collect facts and advance opinions are journalists, not amateur encyclopedia writers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Numerous people reported numerous facts that were widely reported and that may or may not lead you to the impression that he likely cheated or not. Assembling widely reported facts in no way is original research, and I see no legitimate reason to make it seem like that. All wikipedia articles are assembled, and there is no rule at wikipedia that articles about particular people some see as heroes must be assembled as a fansite would do. Socafan 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research to include widely reported facts in articles. Socafan 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What conclusion do you see that was drawn? Socafan 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The selection of facts implies that he used drugs, but through guile and bullying avoided getting officially caught. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The selection of facts implies."? The facts were widely reported, they are thus notable. If you draw from them your personal conclusion that he abused drugs that is ok, but do not put it in the article. And do not accuse others to draw illegitimate conclusions if they just present facts. Socafan 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As you know, you can present the facts in more than one way. You choose to present the facts as if Armstrong is a doper who has never been caught. Others choose to present them as if Armstrong is legally clean. Since that is his legal status, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue weight absolutely require that the text of the article do not imply otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Being legally clean and being an abuser is not a contradiction as many cyclists who were never proven guilty have admitted to have used forbidden drugs, and recently many cyclists were excluded from the Tour even though they were not tested positive. I do not want to present Armstrong as a doper who was never been caught. I want to present things as they are. Armstrong is a cyclist who on the hand was never banned from any competition for abusing drugs, and I never presented it differently. On the other hand there are many allegations, even from the World Anti Doping Agency. It is not up to wikipedians to decide who is right. I have not made up my mind personally, and I do not really care that much. But I do have made up my mind about people who delete factual information from articles and twist wordings in order to present an athlete they seem to like as a fanzine would do. Neutrality is a very important principle here, no matter if this about an athlete, Mother Theresa or Idi Amin. Socafan 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Being legally clean means we may not imply otherwise. Or we will end up in court, as the SUnday Times did. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not imply otherwise anywhere and I ask you not to pretend that we did. Socafan 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Several editors appear to disagree with you. Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no one except you claiming that any text implies he was legally not clean. And you just make this completely unsubstantiated accusation ad nauseam. Socafan 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he's not the only one. I said as much above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a completely unsubstantiated allegation. At no place did anyone ever imply that Armstrong was legally not clean. You made some unsubstantiated allegations above, revealing that it was you who drew conclusions rather than the text and then you left discussion for wholesale reverts again, even after complaints at your talk page. This is just bad taste. Socafan 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

L. A Confidentiel

In 2004, journalist and long-time Armstrong critic David Walsh and French cycling journalist Pierre Ballester published the 375-page L. A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets De Lance Armstrong, which contained significant circumstantial evidence of doping, including restating the EPO and triamcinolone allegations. In an interview with VeloNews, Walsh states that: "it is not relevant what I think. (Pierre Ballester and I) have done what journalists are supposed to do: we have asked questions. Many, many people have helped by providing answers. We then write a book and the reader gets the chance to make up his or her own mind. What matters is the evidence of those who worked and rode with Lance Armstrong. The people who have been in his world." [7]. Armstrong issued suits for defamation in the UK and France over the book.[8] He also sued the Sunday Times over a 2004 story by Walsh concerning the book. Finding in Armstrong's favour, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance and rejected arguments that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect.[9]

This needs to be in there, yes, but the current phrasing is wretched, and doesn't serve to add any new information. What accusations came up in LA. Confidentiel that were actually new? If it was all summary of past accusations, then it probably doesn't need to be in the article, actually. 24.136.38.121 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell most of it is old, but I haven't read the book. I am relying on secondary sources. If you can find a secondary source that discusses the book in detail,. with an assessment of its credibility, that would be a significant asset to the article. I just added the outcome of Armstrong's suit against the ST for the Walsh story which implied that the book contained proof of doping, rather than proof of grounds for suspicion of doping. To be clear, I think that suspicion is well-founded, but it is beyond dispute that proof is absent thus far. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - frankly, a large number of European cycling fans do think it's conclusive that Armstrong doped. I mean, personally, I agree with you. Hell, I'll be even more strident - I don't think he doped. But I'm willing to see a thorough laying out of the facts that doesn't declare a conclusion, and to trust the reader to make a reasonable conclusion on the evidence. 24.136.38.121 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think every pro cyclist dopes. But I also know that we cannot imply that Armstrong does dope unless we can provide reputable secondary sources which say so, and that does not inlude L. A. Confidentiel as is made perfectly clear in the July 1 ruling. What people think is irrelevant, really. Do grounds exist for suspicion? Absolutely. Do these amount to proof? Absolutely not. And we may not imply otherwise, as the judge said. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a separate question from whether L.A. Confidentiel is a notable source. We cannot say "Armstrong doped (citation of L.A. Confidentiel)." We can say "The book L.A. Confidentiel claimed X, Y, and Z. Armstrong disputed this, and sued for libel..." 24.136.38.121 16:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Current wording says pretty much that. What would you change as of now? Just zis Guy you know? 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the section is that much of it was original research - a selection of individual facts presented together to make an implication. Further, the implication it makes about doping is not something we should say in a living person's biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're focused on a couple of very high profile instances that got extensive coverage - the 1999 EPO accusations, the Ferrari accusations, and the Le Monde/LeMond accusations. My concern is honestly with lumping these all into one section - treating them as discrete instances seems to me more condusive to presenting a history of the controversy instead of trying to present a perspective one way or another on whether he doped. Phil Sandifer 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. So you would weave them into the chronology of his career? That would do a lot to address the concerns of having a section which might be seen as loaded. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research, there are sources for all allegations. Removing a POV tag in spite of an obvioulsy ongoing content dispute is incivil. Socafan 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be easier to document those incidents objectively than to craft five balanced paragraphs on allegations of drug use. It doesn't give undue weight, and it leaves the research to the journalists. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, does anyone other than Socafan thinkg the POV-section tag is justified? Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how it is justified, and if compelling reasons can't be given here, then the tag should be removed. Moriori 01:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasons why the POV-tag needs to stay are outlined above. If you cannot refute them, it needs to stay. If the discussion remains controversial, straw polls might help. Socafan 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for the tag to remain. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is incivil to write there is no reason without giving any argumentation for it. Socafan 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Following Socafan's latest edits I think the POV tag is now justified; I did not realise that it was a statement of intent, I thought it was a comment on the existing text.

The fundamental question I think we need to answer here is this: should the section follow Socafan's version (Armstrong is a doper who has evaded punishment) or the alternative view (Armstrong has never been found guilty of doping, despite various allegations of differing degrees of credibility having ben made). Just zis Guy you know? 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure both ends couldn't be achieved by sticking to the facts. For instance, when writing that Mr. Armstrong has never tested positive for doping, we could include that Richard Virenque, Marco Pantani, Johan Museeuw, and David Millar have also passed every doping screen they have been given. This would record the fact that none of Mr. Armstrong's positive tests have been validated with the background information that there is a historical context for cyclists to be convicted of doping practices while passing all of their controls. The POV that Mr. Armstrong has engaged in doping practices should be avoided. BUT this article need not do the work of his attorneys and PR team. Careful inclusion of relevant facts can take the commentary/editorializing out of this article.Nichol@s 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The text should not be owned by anyone but present in neutral form the controversy about the allegations. Socafan 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Which rather invites the question of why you seem so determined to do the opposite :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As accusing each other of unbiased edits in no way helps to resolve the conflict I invite you for the umptienth time to make specific points on the article. Socafan 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Phil Sandifer's idea above, of integrating the Ferrari and Le Monde accusations into the chronology of his career? Does anyone object to me implementing that? Or is there a better way to go? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the article cannot mention Armstrong's association with Ferrari. While those who point to their association as evidence of Armstrong's doping may be committing the logical fallacy of guilt by association, it's not our place to decide what is and is not a valid argument. The accusations exist and have been widely reported in the published press, e.g. [10]. To not include them because some of us don't find them convincing violates NPOV as I read it. See "information suppression" [11]. "Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way...Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it...entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible." A more complete entry would mention that Armstrong's detractors point to his association with Ferrari to bolster their claims that he dopes, while also mentioning Armstrong's (reasonable) explanation that their relationship is innocent.--Beaker342 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidlines on controversies such as this are not always clear. At WP:BLP, it says to beware of claims of guilt by association. But elsewhere it says that widely publicized allegations are fair game: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." It seems to me that because the Ferrari allegations are so well-known it would be doing the reader a disservice to omit them. --Beaker342 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[Maybe the "The bits currently under discussion" might be the appropriate place for this?] First of all, there's already a discussion on Ferrari above, last post only a few days old. Consider moving your comment (and mine) up there. Second, making the connection Armstrong -> Ferrai is turning it upside down, it's Ferrari -> Armstrong. Ferrari has been in the business since the mid-80s and has worked with a lot of riders. More importantly, Ferrari was acquitted on the charge of providing illegal drugs to athletes. You propose that we should write that a rider may have used drugs because he has worked with a person acquitted of providing drugs. So, you can possibly mention that Armstrong got a lot of press because of Ferrari (provided you can cite a primary source discussing how he got a lot of press), but we cannot make the drug connection. Thirdly, guilt by association really must be avoided. It is our place to decide what is and is not a valid argument, we need to follow WP policy. Feel free to propose a change in relevant policies if you don't agree with them. [reworded on edit] -- Steve Hart 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of the earlier discussion. First, I don't understand why an account of an allegation of doping is identicle with an allegation of doping. Second, right or wrong, both Armstrong and Ferrari are controversial figures. Court rulings don't change this fact. Niether does the fact that the controversy surrounding Armstrong stems in part from an application of gulit by association. To omit mention of these controversies is to omit historically relevant information and is a serious disservice to the reader. Why is deleting all mention of the Armstrong/Ferrari controversy preferable to giving a balanced account of it? --Beaker342 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we cannot add information of speculative nature because of WP:BLP. In the case of Ferrari it is pretty speculative, particularly since Ferrari got acquitted of that charge (though convicted on sports fraud). Just because you know somebody who's guilty or charged with something doesn't mean you are guilty too. But I see your point, and the press coverage is a pro-argument.

[as for the comment placement, it's preferable to build on previous comments on the topic to avoid recycling arguments, but you may have moved it so high up that noone else will notice this. I won't move your comment though, only you should do that] --- Steve Hart 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Corticoide

The allegation is 1) that the certificate was only presented afterwards. Usually it would have had to be presented in advance. [12] I read that this happened to several athletes so it was accepted. [13] 2) His masseuse claims the certificate was forged. [14] 3) It is a bit strange that all this is reported at all if the traces were below the positive level anyway. At the German wikipedia someone explained that high levels indicate direct abuse. Subnormally low levels indicate use of something in order to hide abuse. Unfortunately the user who made these claims that would explain why there is a problem with a below positive value at all has not yet replied to questions. Socafan 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So high levels indicate guilt, and low levels indicate an attempt to hide guilt. None-at-all indicates what - obdurate heresy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Read again please: "Subnormally low levels." Your tone is not helpful.

The source is here: The corticosteroid test was introduced 10 days before the 1999 TF. Not only did LA fail the test but about 16 other riders. The UCI did not want another Festina scandal that occurred the previous year. The way out was the T/E ratio (testosterone/epitestosterone) which in a normal drug free person is about 1:1 but is considered detecting the use of steroids if it exceeds 6:1, now reduced to 4:1. Here is a comment by a scientist on the T/E ratio. The T/E ratio is manipulated by drug takers so it is within non suspicious parameters. LA's level of 0.2 is suspect as he would have no testosterone to recover and may indicate suspicions of an over manipulation.

Only a forum, so it cannot be used at wikipedia. I do not know where the interview came from, but I will try to find out. Socafan 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again this is innuendo. UCI have banned whole teams, favourite riders, heroes. The implication that just this once they decided to let a load of people off is a very curious one. Especially since corticosteroids are an extremely common (benign) medication. The business about when he produced the certificate has a strong smell of original research. Just zis Guy you know? 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are sources for the fact that he produced the certificate afterwards and that his masseuse claimed that it was forged. What is your explanation that there is any fuss about a test that was below the positive level? The above listed one seems reasonable to but we cannot include it in the article without a proper source, maybe it is just cleverly fabricated. Socafan 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are also sources for Armstrong being legally clean. Those are the ones which must be seen to have most weight. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are ten accusations against someone who has yet not been found guilty it is ridiculous to repeat ten times that he has not yet been ruled guilty just in order to give that side more weight. Readers can and must judge on their own. Socafan 13:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't so much "not been found guilty" as "been found not guilty," which is different. Phil Sandifer 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Found not guilty can be said of someone accused of a murder when it turns out someone else did it. "Found not guilty" is POV when there is just a test for drugs. Many cyclists who never tested positive are known to have abused forbidden drugs. The masseuse stands to her claim that the certificate was fabricated. Socafan 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent? Or rather, in this case, guilty despite being repetaedly proven innocent? Sorry, no. Not in this encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 07:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Because the protection was questionable, and seemed to be adding to the bad faith surrounding this article, I've removed it, and returned to the version from late last night. This was, admittedly, a version I had just edited. Please note that I am not doing this as an endorsement of that version - there are still things I don't like about it, and there's a lot to be improved. My hope, however, is that all parties can discuss and come to an agreement on how to improve it, rather than edit warring, being incivil, and abusing admin powers. This applies to both JzG and Socafan - JzG should not use his administrative powers in this dispute, and Socafan should be more civil and consider that the objections are largely to his phrasing of the facts he is presenting, not to the act of presentation itself. Remember that the goal is a neutral presentation of relevant facts. A presentation that clearly exists to lead the reader down one path or another is not neutral, and is not what we want. It should not be difficult to, in all cases, state the accusations, state Armstrong's response, and state what formal investigations, if any, have been conducted, and what their outcome was. Phil Sandifer 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for any incivility I may have committed, I just see none. I see many by JzG though. [15] [16] Thank you for trying to help solving the conflict. I am convinced together we can find a neutral version if we discuss it here. Socafan 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that an argument over who has been more incivil will not, in fact, engender more civility. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not argument over who has been more incivil, I asked why you think that I had been incivil and showed that he was. Socafan 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Phil, this is fine, but we do not have an account of the Walsh book. Please help to come up with suitably neutral wording. Ah, scratch that, just seen your comment above. Just zis Guy you know? 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Magazine covers are fair-use only in articles about the magazine. Could someone please try and find a free alternative. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see this edit [17] and this one [18]. Apparently it is now a state secret that Armstrong is suing Walsh and Ballenger :-P

The article on David Walsh (sports reporter) is currently very dodgy per WP:BLP in my opinon. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of your previous edits violated the rules about biographies of living people. For the same violation you had blocked me. Socafan 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to back that assertion with some facts? Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that this edit falsified the name of the person and removed without any legitimate reason a category, it also lacks neutrality, gives undue weight to UCI's view over WADA's, and it is unsourced negative material. The second edit does not specify what Armstrong sued the newspaper on, sheding a bad generalized light on the journalist. Although google easily shows the cases were dropped you cited a one year old source about defamation suits. Again undue weigth on UCI over WADA. Shame on you to even ask a question with such an obvious answer. Socafan 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Q: Has Lance Armstrong ever been convicted of doping?

A: No.

Q: Did Lance Armstrong win his case against the Sunday Times?

A: Yes.

Anything which implies otherwise is undue weight. WADA's opinion is at odds with Armstrong's legal status, and with the inquiry which pointed to serious material flaws in WADA's systems. The Sunday Times prited an article which endorsed WADA's perspective, Armstrong sued them and they lost. Will you be paying the Foundation's legal fees if the same happens here? Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WADA and UCI have different opinions on doping and particularly on the Armstrong case. Cycling is a sport where drug abuse is widespread, and UCI does not have an interest to ban all the stars - or to admit that it was fooled for seven years. Just consider that people like Carmichael who was accused of treating athletes with forbidden substances work for UCI. Thousands of newspapers reported what WADA thinks about Armstrong's alleged drug abuse, and no one can sue anyone over accurately reporting what third people claim. Socafan 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. And the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency backs UCI and states that WADA is deeply flawed. Just zis Guy you know? 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to trust whomever you like. Don't try to impose your view on others. As UCI is only for cycling but WADA for many sports and cycling is a sport where drug abuse is known to be very widespread even though tests are rarely positive I personally would not tend to trust a cycling organization more than others. Socafan 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You are missingt a very fundamental point here: WADA's view is at odds with Armstrong's legal status. Officially, he is clean. Squeaky-clean, in fact, since he's also been the subject of an official inquiry which entirely vindicated him, despite the well-known hostility of the French to Armstrong. WADA's opinion must, therefore, carry less weight than Vrijman's. Otherwise we will get sued, like the Sunday Times did. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WADA is the world anti doping agency, backed by the olympic committees of hundreds of countries. No one can sue us for reporting fact that were already mada available to the public by many others. Socafan 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But they can sue uis for leaving the impression that Armstrong is guilty of dpoing. As the Sunday Times found out. Just zis Guy you know? 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reporting facts neutrally and "leaving false impressions" are two different things. Please help with the first option. Socafan 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I've been trying to do all along. Just zis Guy you know? 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

We have three articles repeating essentially the same content. They are all growing as Socafan adds suspicions and I add balance to the effect that the supicions are unproven. All three appear to be converging on the same ocntnet, and neither the Walsh nor the Ballenger article has anything significant other than the Armstrong criticisms. Right now we have the fact that Armstrong is apparently no longer suing Walsh and Ballenger left as an insinuation that they are right - the very same insinuation which got the Sunday Times sued. Socafan also left the ST lawsuit text at a point which made it seem as if Armstrong had lost, when actually he won, albeit with a motion to have the ST publish a denial denied. As a regular reader of Private Eye I can't recall a situation where a paper has been required to carry a rebuttal of a book it has discussed, in whatever terms. I think it makes sense to merge them all to one place. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems to me like a bad idea - both parties are notable on their own, and deserve their own articles. 128.227.51.27 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case, it is time to find something they are notable for besides this one book. Especially since at present both articles look a lot like POV forks of this one. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The other articles are biographies of journalists who have done much more than just written a book about Armstrong and the articles can thus not be merged. The articles about them would not be dominated that much by the Armstrong content had JzG not "added balance" to them. If from the fact that a defamation case is dropped you draw the conclusion that the "defamation" was right that is your problem. Socafan 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The two reporters may have published other books, but it seems their Wikipedia articles only exist in relationship to Armstrong's alleged doping practices - I second the proposal of merging the two articles into Armstrong's. Igorrr 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Their articles should be tagged as stubs, and we should wait for someone to improve them. Reducing them to redirects makes it harder for them to be expanded. They are both clearly worth articles. We should therefore not make it harder for people to see that the articles are stubs and improve them. 24.136.38.121 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You describe them as biographies. A biography normally includes things like the date of birth, some details of the career, and for a journalist perhaps some notable coups and headlines. All of this should be referenced from reliable secondary sources. If there are no reliable secondary sources for basic biographical data, then it is the book which is notable. Where there is a single author the choice of whether to name the article after the person or the book is relatively unimportant, here it would be less so. It would not have been necessary to add balance had the original articles not been quite so self-evidently biased. Strange as it may seem, I really would rather the Wikimedia Foundation did not get sued. Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what's stopping you from editing their other achievements or publications into their articles if you're so certain they're "both clearly worth" of having an article on Wikipedia? Without Armstrong to write about, they'd just be two other journalists like so many - at this point in time they're not relevant outside the Armstrong doping allegation discussion. Merging makes sense. Igorrr 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think reporters from L'Equipe and the London Sunday Times are inherently notable. 24.136.38.121 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. I can name several journalists from respected media outlets who have to go through life without a dandy Wikipedia article to their name. Again, if you’re so certain they're notable outside the Armstrong discussion, what's stopping you from adding this notable information to their articles? Igorrr 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ballester already has a birth year and the French version has more info. I would say any journalist of such a high profile media who has won a Prix Gondecourt deserves an own article. Socafan 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's stopping me is (a) I didn't create the articles, because I don't actually care that much about their subjects and (b) I couldn't find much verifiable biographical data anyway, all the links seem to come back to the book, certainly for Ballester. Your comment re the Prix Gondecort highlights the true purpose of your creating the article: it still contains nothing about this prize. It does, however "balance" the fact that Armstrong won his case against the Sunday times by giving somewhat more space to the fact that he lost an appeal to be allowed to rebut the article and its sources - no evidence is presented that such a remedy is usual or indeed has ever been granted. Just zis Guy you know? 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I replied to 24.136.38.121 why he/she hadn't added the so-called notable information yet, not you. I agree with the merging proposal. Igorrr 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being able to identify a subject as notable and being able to write an article on them. 24.136.38.121 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you're capable of constructing sentences in this discussion, it couldn't be that difficult to add a couple relevant lines on the subject's importance outside Armstrong, no? In any case, this debate is going nowhere it seems. I don't care a whole lot if the two articles will stay or not, but it makes sense to me to merge them with Armstrong's at the moment. In case he hasn't done so, maybe it's best if JzG would propose the merging of said articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or similar and let them argue about it instead. Igorrr 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I confess, I'm not sure what you're attacking me for here. The ability to judge that a subject is notable (Which amounts to "Hey, he writes for a major newspaper" in this case) is not equivalent to the ability to write an article on the subject. 24.136.38.121 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment, I can see how someone could interpret it as an attack. This was not my intent and I apologize. Hugs? Igorrr 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the argumentum ad nauseam over the Sunday Times libel case. It is absurd that someone who is notable for receiving an important award only deserves an article if it includes information on the award. Does the Albert Einstein article have information on what a Nobel prize is? Socafan 22:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The bits currently under discussion

My take on things, FWIW.

1. The corticoid bit should not be phrased to specify that he produced it "after." It is implied by the situation, and the only reason to specify it is to insinuate.
2. The quote should be the full quote - it matters to a discussion of doping allegations that it was his only positive test.
3. The LeMond thing either needs context or to go - it comes out of left field at the moment, and isn't really directly related to the doping allegations. Perhaps a separate section on Armstrong's feud with LeMond?
4. I'm hesitant to include the link, but part of this is being unable to read it. Regardless, the onus is to show why the link is an important link to a notable source, and I don't see that being done yet.

Phil Sandifer 13:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wot Phil said. Exactly that. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The certificate was produced afterwards, and the rules at the time were it had to be presented in advance.

The purpose of the quote is to specify things about the corticoide probe, so it is irrelevant whether he had other tests at that time. Furthermore, the quote is old, and WADA now says that he had other positive tests, so it can be even seen as misleading. And velonews is just a fanzine, there is absolutely no need to use quotes from other media. Quotes should be used when someone important said something that is important in the way it was said. Neither is the case here.

LeMond did say he was threatened by Armstrong over the doping allegations he had made. It was widely reported, was sourced and is relevant here.

I am ok with removing the link, I am not ok with wholesale reverts. This is not a fanzine. Socafan 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The certificate was accepted, that is what matters. He is legally clean despite WADA's assertions, that is what matters. This is the only test known to be positive, and the statement is attributed to a relibale source. That is what matters.

Here's another thing that matters: You say "please join the discussion and do not make wholesale reverts" - actually it's you who are failing to engage. There are three editors supporting the current version and one (you) reverting to a version which the rest of us all seem to agree is less neutral. You appear to be in a miority of one, in a sensitive area for the project, that of biographies of living individuals. Phil, Tom and I are all administrators, which does not confer special insight but does indicate a good working knowledge of policy. At least one (uninvolved) admin has already suggested that your behaviour is trolling and should not be tolerated any longer. Now would be a great tme to calm down. Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The certificate was accepted even though rules at the time were it would have had to be presented in advance. And the masseuse said at court it was a forgery. Do not cut out the pieces you do not like. I am supporting everything I write with facts while you make unsubstantiated allegations. The fact that you are an administrator does not change anything about this and I already explained that I thing you serve your duties irresponsibly. Do not forget that you were warned by the Phil for misconduct. He lined out his points very nicely, that is the way a discussion works. Socafan 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my support for JzG in this matter. Socafan appears to be very confused about what the Wikipedia policy No Original Research means. Simply citing sources does not imply that something is not original research; quite the contrary. Socafan's writing appears to consistently push an agenda, that of Armstrong's guilt. We must be very diligent in following the precept that there is always a presumption of innocence, especially when determined by a court of law. What "many Europeans" or whomever think is of no consequence for this article. As JzG pointed out, synthesis of facts, even if they are cited and widely accepted, is still original research. Furthermore, Socafan appears to specifically violate precepts of BLP. For example, his statements in the nature of "...cycling is a sport where drug abuse is known to be very widespread..." appears to be very much a claim of guilt by association, something specifically warned against in WP:BLP. Plenty of other example exist in the content of talk. These include giving sources of dubious value, allowing criticism undue weight, mistaking the burden of evidence, etc. I hope everyone involved can take a step back and (like me) re-read four major Wikipedia policies that need to be intertwined here: WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. No implication may be made that Armstrong utilized illegal performance enhancements unless, to take an example directly from WP:Verifiability, "for the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review." To this I would add that if the information is then judged to be legally libelous, it is also invalid. I am aware of no such support, and thus any other implications are original research that could get the Foundation sued. xoa 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is inescapably true that doping is endemic in pro cycling, possibly more than any other sport. The events of this week show that very clearly. The point here is that Armstrong has not only not failed a test,. he has been exonerated by an official inquiry. Of course it is still possible that allegations may one day be proven aganst him, but an awful lot of work has been done trying to nail him and so far it has failed. We alsoi have to bear in mind here that UCI is absolutely not reluctant to ban even its heroes for doping. This year we have Basso, Illrich, the entire Astana-Würth Team (including Vinokurov, one of my favourites, who was cleared but the team was below critical mass) and now Landis all suspended or under investigation. The idea that one of the most prominent riders in the history of the Tour would be somehow given a free pass is, to my mind, absurd. Especially when he is an American who makes no secret of his support for Bush. But the major problem with Socafan's edits is that he appears to believe that any text he wants included must remian in the article until we've persuaded him otherwise. That is a reversal of the real situation: the onus is on him to persuade other editors (including three amdins currently active here) that it merits inclusion, and in what terms. This much is absolutely clear from the relevant policies. Just zis Guy you know? 08:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you can repeat as often as you like that evil Europeans would treat Americans who cycled with Bush not equally as they treat others. Even if their girlfriends protested against the Iraq war. As the claim lacks any substance it is just libellous.

I am actively trying to discuss any controversial points here, and I have never synthesized any facts in order to make libellous accusations. Others just make wholesale reverts, accuse me of pushing an agenda while what they do seems like pushing the article into being a fanzine and abuse administrative power to impose their POV on others. Socafan 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Socafan for 24h for violating the three-revert rule. Which was a bad rouge thing to do but I am thoroughly pissed off with his constant tendentious editing and reversal of the burden of proof. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why it is necessary to include the sentences questioning Lemond's motives and alluding to a personal feud between the two? It seems that the salient facts in the case are that Lemond claims to have a recording of McIlvain contradicting her sworn testimony. It suggests, without evidence, that Lemond is unstable and unreliable. It would be equally improper to include possible reasons for Lemond's taping, namely, the alleged history of Armstrong/Weisel/Stapleton leaning on witnesses a la Prentice Steffan and Frankie Andreu. The article would be stronger and more neutral without the sentence "Why LeMond was recording this conversation is unknown, and LeMond has been embroiled in his own disputes with Armstrong." It cites no facts and has a very strong POV. I don't want to make the change in a contentious article without consensus, so I'd like to know why this sentence is considered necessary. Nichol@s 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LeMond said that Armstrong threatened his life after he had accused him of abusing drugs. This is sourced. It was widely reported and is an important fact about the severity of the dispute between the two. I agree about the "Why he was recoding is unknown" sentence. Socafan 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I quickly parsed what was wrote here, but this is getting circular. A point is what are you going to do about the "legalistic claim", that is the claim that "Armstrong has never been tested positive, so the point is moot". What is going to be done? List all the accusations? Emphasize the strongest one? The whole thing is going a little like "Accuser: Lance did XXX! -- Lance: No I didn't! Lies!", so what can be concluded? As it seems to me, the Equipe article about the EPO test of 1999, is by far the most damning material evidence ... In this case, it seems that the waters were muddied in a controversy between WADA and UCI. It seems to me that, UCI got the upper hand in the media, by keeping the Vrijman report secret and sending it to the press with comments before it could reach WADA. However things looks not so simple because:

• UCI has a strong financial interest in cycling, and hence indirectly as a vested interest against fraud revelations. I don't think people would be happy if they learned that the winner of the flagship event of the UCI for 7 years in a row, had cheated (in fact I can't name an organization in the world who has more financial interest at sake). Not that UCI is trying to capture bigger sport market share with the recent "UCI ProTour" initiative.
• WADA was created partly in the view of the 1998's Tour de France scandal. In a sense, WADA was created because of some UCI failures to properly address the doping problem of cycling. This is still true, as cycling (UCI) is still the worst offending federence for percentage of racers caught for doping.
• As for Lance Armstrong case in 2005, it seems to me that 2 logics conflicted:
  • WADA logic: a newspaper had published an article reporting great evidence that Armstrong had used EPO in 1999. Hence our priority should be on investigating the case, is there proof beyond doubt? With such evidence, we shouldn't allow an alleged cheater to go through.
  • UCI logic: we can't investigate, because our procedure doesn't allow retroactive tests, and because the tests that were made, are not following the established accepted procedure. After all, a legal enquiry has to follow the pre-agreeded procedure.

The whole situation degenerated, when WADA's director was pretty much pro-enquiry, while UCI's director was against it. Now the history, to over-simplify went like this:

• WADA says: UCI, see this article? please do something about Armstrong
• UCI says: no we can't (for valid legal reasons)
• WADA says: ok, you do nothing, in such circumstances, we are entitled to start an enquiry, and we are starting one right now
• UCI says (the next day): wait no, we are starting one now.
  • a few months later:
• UCI says, ok we have the result of the enquiry, its a report and it says somehing like: laboratory did not follow strictly the established procedure, amd there is no legal procedure which would allow to punish Armstrong, and besides WADA, French ministry, and laboratory have all a dubious agenda and should be investigated and punished if necessary.
• WADA says: you did not establish the facts whether or not, yes or no, there is scientific proof beyond reasonable doubt that there was doping or not, and hence with no facts established, you reached useless conclusions, and you ruined any chance at a real serious enquiry.

Notice that, indeed, all this debate, removed the real question: is there, or is there not, proof that the 1999's samples of Armstrong demonstrate use of EPO? The Vrijman's report was used to say it cleared Armstrong - that's a bit of a stretch because it did not answer the question ; from the start, it has no real chance to do so since Vrijman is a lawyer and the specialist he relied on was not a scientist but a metrologist.

--213.41.133.220 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here for a write-up about his retirement

I came here looking for why he retired, his public statement at the time (when it happened) what lead up to it, public reaction, etc, and left disappointed [there's no such section]. Please add! I read the whole article. Thank you. 82.131.191.184 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

POV cleanup

Cleaning up intro of Allegations of drug use section. POV tag removed, plus bad wording elsewhere. This section still needs some work though. Suggestion people: Stay on the facts, don't focus too much on who said what when. :)) Steve Hart 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It's also much more readable now. Just zis Guy you know? 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article goes so far out of its way to defend Armstrong from criticism that it actually refutes a source of allegations against Armstrong (LNDD) without stating clearly what those allegations were. If the article is going to knock down critics of Armstrong, it at least has to explain what they are criticizing him for. In this case, I believe the controversy surrounds LNDD returning a positive result on an old sample.--Beaker342 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects the fact that not only is Armstrong legally clean, he has been cleared by an official inquiry and has successfully sued a newspaper which implied that the circumstantial evidence of doping was compelling. If you can come up with a form of words which explains the LNDD actions in a way which does not obscure these important facts, feel free to suggest it here. Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way to express the significance of Armstrong's not having any of his positve tests validated is to show that Richard Virenque, Johan Museeuw, Marco Pantani and David Millar have also never failed drug tests. It would make sense to put this information immediately following the "never failed a drug test" sentence. Nichol@s 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. For instance, EPO use can only be detected a few days after use, but has an effect lasting longer (by increasing the blood hematocrit level; an example of intriging change of such levels is for instance, [19], noting that the normal range for people is 42%-52%). That's why UCI was forced to set a 50% hematocrit level threshold which does not proove blood doping, hence penalty is only a 15-days exclusion: this amount to admitting that they can't reliably detect blood dopers by normal ways (EPO tests). Self-transfusion is harder to detect, and UCI doesn't test for it. --213.41.133.220 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It could be mentioned in an article about the sport, but not in articles on riders who have not tested positive. -- Steve Hart 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is good work that can be done w/ the SCA case. Two important facts could be added, and these would greatly improve the POV problem without making accusations and sticking completely to the facts of the case. 1) Be clear that judge in the SCA case refused to rule on whether or not Armstrong used PEDs, but ruled instead that the SCA contract required Armstrong to be banned by the UCI. Since he was not, he should be paid the bonus. 2)Cite the L.A. Times article that clearly lays out the evidence presented in the SCA case. Including at least links to the Andreu testimony, the Swart testimony, the Vaughters IM transcripts and other information will present an accurate picture of the specific allegations against Armstrong while still reporting the facts that Armstrong won the case. Nichol@s 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Beaker342, please cite examples where the article "refutes ... without stating clearly what those allegations were". I'll consider putting the POV tag back in in that case.

Nichol@s, I understand your position ref. the Lemond thing, but I'm fine with the sentence as it stands right now. I've added a link to the Lemond article which has a few words on the controversy. However, since this alleged recorded conversation has not been made public, I think we're closer to removing this point rather than expanding on it. -- Steve Hart 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Steve, do not delete POV tags before there is consensus. Socafan 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My mistake. See below -- Steve Hart 05:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By Erin Martin?

Who the ** cares about Erin Martin? Is he an official article scribbler at Wikipedia? Delete his name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

From Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

The following comment from Jimbo should, I think, remove any lingering doubt in the minds of anybody in respect of where the responsibility lies in respect of content: The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of ALL KINDS, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. [20]. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever made any claims about Armstrong here, you are trying to abuse a rule in order to impose your POV on others that drug abuse allegations need to stay out of your fanzine. Socafan 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you appear to be the only one marching in step, perhaps it's you who is pushing a POV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, there have been at least four editors plus an anon complaining about POV here. [21] [22] [23][24] Socafan 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

POV section

The section about the investigation into Armstrong's reportedly positive test results in 1999 is not neutral as it gives undue weight to the view of UCI over that of WADA, Le Monde, and LNDD. Socafan 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the legal status would have more weight than allegations. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with legal status. There are reports and there is a dispute between two sides. Both can ban athletes. It is undue weight to write ten lines about what UCI and its investigator say and hardly anything on the other side. Socafan 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WADA and Le Monde can ban athletes? Phil Sandifer 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course WADA can, it is the world anti doping agency, just read the article. Socafan 11:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative power by JzG

As JzG repeatedly uses administrative to get an advantage in a content dispute here and at other articles, even after having been warned for it by another administrator, [25] I asked for help at the administrator's noticeboard. [26] Please help to resolve the conflict. Socafan 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As usual this bears little resemblance to the truth. Socafan, if you don't want to get blocked for WP:3RR, try not reverting. You reverted three separate admins, and then went to the admin noticeboard to complain about being blocked for it. Are you honestly surprised that you got no takers? Just zis Guy you know? 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If there were three different admins, why was it you who had to block me even though you had already been warned for abusive of admin power? Policy is very explicit: Block policy#When blocking may not be used: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. First thing you did after blocking me was pushing POV related articles where we were in a content dispute and where you had violated the same rules about biographies of living people you had claimed to have blocked me for. I cannot present difflinks as you now made Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter) redirects even though your proposal to merge them had failed and a third opinion had helped with the content. Socafan 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars

• Do we need to invoke protection to ensure the points are sorted out on the talk page without a revert war?--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you not first try to inform the parties on how to resolve content disputes? Removing POV-tags and requests for citations is vandalism, and wholesale reverts without discussion are extremely impolite and not helpful. Socafan 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Resolution of content wars start on discussion pages. The point about the Three-revert rule (which is policy) is that if other editors support your view, they too will make the reversions. These edits in my view were not vandalism, they were content wars.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The first three were content disputes. Removing POV-tags and requests for citations of unsourced quotes without consensus is vandalism. Socafan 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, if I removed the tags against consensus then someone other than you will restore them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have restored the tags. I would expect any removal of tags to be accompanied by discussion as to why they were not appropriate.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A consensus is when a clear majority say something should be somehow. A POV tag shows someone sees a lack of consensus. Thus it cannot be undone just like that, a consensus has to be found first, then it can be removed. Tom, why do you repeatedly do controversial edits without discussion? Socafan 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, what we have here is one editor (you) who insists that the article is somehow biased because it persists in portraying Armstrong as clean, which is his legal status, rather than as a doper who has not yetr been caught, which is your preferred spin on it. Per WP:BLP and other guidelines and policies you have the burden of proof, and have thus far failed to persuade anybody. The reasopn the conflict cannot be resolved is because as far as you are concerned resolution amounts to having your own way. When only one editor, who is clearly pushing an agenda, adds a POV tag which none of the other editors consider is justified, it can be removed. In this case reinserting the tag, along with certain other bits of innuendo and editorialising, amounts to WP:POINT on your part and is likely to get you blocked again. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and MPOV is not NPOV. Just zis Guy you know? 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP, especially for such a hugely public figure, should be followed to the letter. --mboverload@ 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the rules for biographies of living people were not so important at the articles about two critics of Armstrong that were now redirected to a book they wrote. There have been at least three other editors and an anon complaining about POV here, and removing of a POV-tag more than once by the same editor is explicitly listed as WP:Vandalism. However, Calton who did it three times without even bother to discuss it was not even warned. Socafan 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one interperetation. Another is that having attracted unwelcome attention here you created two biographies both of which stated the case in highly partial terms omitting inconvenient facts, as well as adding a link to a disambiguation page also with an innuendo-laden summary, and were corrected there as well. Acknowledging your own faulst before castigating others for what you perceive as theirs would be a step forward. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that any editor clarifies firstly their concerns on the talk page, focussing on the content, before putting up any tags. Having clearly articulated their concerns, without vague refernces to creation of a fanzine might help us all to create a better article.--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I had already done that. See "POV section" above. Socafan 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fanzine

After reading Do Espirito's comment above, I went to the UCI website and found that Armstrong was ranked 15th end of 1995, with just a fourth of the points of Laurent Jalabert, and he was ranked 9th at the end of 1996, with 1315 points compared to Jalabert's 2019. However, in our text he was ranked 1st in 1996. Just another example of how this is more a fanzine than an encyclopedia article. Socafan 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A background on the POV controversy. Can we move along?

First off, I initially removed the POV tag after cleaning up the intro plus more (see old version). I see the tag is restored, but this time in a subsection. I'm more than fine with that (no consensus is no consenus). However, I suspect that some of the current disagreement (which I have no dog in) might be resolved with some background information:

What actually happened in the LNDD/Armstrong Lie case was that LNDD, France's top anti-drug lab, tested a number of frozen B-samples from 1999 (the A-samples were destroyed) for EPO using various new technologies and methods, as part of a planned 2004 research project. This was an internal project, it was not part of the program for testing riders. They came back with 12 samples they believed were suspect. What l'Equipe (a well-respected newspaper) did was basically to obtain the ID-numbers of the samples and compare them with ID-numbers they had identified as Armstrong's (they got all of Armstrong's ID-numbers). The newspaper found that 6 of the 12 ID-numbers matched Armstrong's (the other 6 are reported to belong to either, a) a well-known French rider, or, b) 3 different riders; l'Equipe didn't look into this, others have). So l'Equipe printed that story and all hell broke loose. However, there are three problems with the conclusion that Armstrong was on drugs:

1. The chain of evidence is broken. There are specific rules for how samples should be handled and stored, in order to preserve the integrity of the samples. When the samples got transferred to the research program they no longer were handled according to the guidelines. Additionally, to use as evidence you need to test both the A and B-samples using the same method. And the suspected rider must be allowed to inspect the sealing of the B-sample before it's tested.
2. The method they used for testing the samples is (or was), AFAIK, not approved for anti-doping programs because the accuracy of the results has not been verified by others.
3. There is a disagreement in the scientific community on whether samples frozen for as long as 5 years can still produce accurate results.

The end result is that Armstrong is legally not positive and there is disagreement in the scientific community on whether the new tests are accurate. Now, feel free to compare that to WP:BLP. Also, WADA has never claimed that the results indicated Armstrong used drugs, as have been suggested. The Tour de France director and others have claimed that though.

Two important links which goes deeper than the news reports: [27] [28]

However, I agree that the "Investigation" subsection gives undue weight to the view of UCI and needs to be re-written. A couple of points: The report is not the view of UCI, it's the view of Vrijman, UCI has not (AFAIK) approved the report yet, see [29] (btw, this report should be linked to from the article, instead of all these second hand news reports). Further, strictly speaking, the report doesn't "exonerate" Armstrong in any other sense than that it says that the results cannot be used as evidence. Also, you should all be aware that there's a big political battle over jurisdiction (read money) going on in the background between WADA and UCI which plays into this.

I will also like to say that the nitpicking I see about whether Armstrong used an approved cream or just a cream is rather silly. The fact is that the result was not in the positive range. All results that are not postive are in the not-positive-range, but they still vary depending on the rider and the day. We're not born that equal. -- Steve Hart 05:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not as clear as I should have been. First, the subsection "Investigations" goes into great length about the misdeeds of LNDD without connecting LNDD to the 1999 EPO test mentioned in the section two paragraphs above it. Indeed, this is the first time LNDD is mentioned in the article, so it is not clear why anyone should care about them in the first place. The stakes of the investigation are not made clear. As for NPOV, two things bugged me. The first was the snarky line about Lemond that has since been changed slightly. Why should it matter why Lemond recorded the conversation? Either he did or he didn't. Any speculation as to why he did is just that - speculation. The second related to LNDD. The article says that LNDD claimed to be able to match samples, implying that such a match is inherently impossible without explaining why. Either it is possible or it isn't. Or it is possble but we can't know that LNDD followed proper procedures as to eliminate any suspicion of fraud. The article should say that LNDD claimed to match samples but for a variety of reasons that claim cannot be verified. Both these passages seemed emblemmatic of a general snarkiness that the article showed towards Armstong's critics. --Beaker342 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree about most of the analysis in this section, I would point out that (1) "scientific community on whether samples frozen for as long as 5 years can still produce accurate results" should be more substantiated ; in fact Christiane Ayotte was cited in Vrijman report, but she has never implied such a thing, and even actually said: "But the results are reliable. If they found it [EPO], that's because some of it was left." (2) About the 'breaking' chain of evidence, we are discussing three things there, the technicalities required by UCI or WADA rules (for a legitimate reasons), the fact that the samples may have not properly handled, and the fact that they cannot be traced back to Armstrong and others. While the first one is correct, the others are not necessarily true. Actually, knowing that the laboratory is the leading laboratory for EPO research, it is very likely that on contrary they treated samples from 1998, 1999 like pure gold, as they would be given very few chances to use them again, and they may not have another important source of samples as old as 1999 with EPO. In fact each sample took 2 days and a half to analyze, and there were 150 samples [30]. The fact that LNDD kept the tracking codes of the samples, is in line with this (destroying tracking codes would mean irreparably destroying some information forever). (3) Note that the outcome, is that Armstrong cannot be punished by UCI, WADA, IOC for the alleged use of EPO; but it does not follow that the alleged evidence presented would not be accepted as valid by the legal system (French justice as opposed to the sport organisations), which has its own different rules about a "chain of evidence", which may not require UCI/WADA/IOC technicalities. For instance the discussion about missing A samples could be largely offset by the fact that 6 of the B samples had been positive, and by considering that the source, storage, or handling of the A samples is not different from B samples. As a result, IF for instance the director of Le Tour had sued Armstrong or others, or IF Armstrong had sued L'Equipe or WADA or Dick Hound, the outcome would be unclear. Disingenuous observers have noted that Armstrong did not in fact sue L'Equipe, and instead, the year later dropped all suits without getting judicial success against the people he was the most vocal about, only after getting a few indirect successes out of France. Oh and last point, (4) the other cyclist names whose samples had been alleged to include EPO had been revealed by the "Journal du Dimanche" [31] --213.41.133.220 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A well thought out response. I'll refrain from excessively commenting, just one question: How do you propose we handle legal validity of the alleged evidence when this case has yet to be settled in French courts (and probably never will), without turning into speculation? -- Steve Hart 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about that, I don't see a way out. As you said, the issue will probably never be settled in courts. The bottom line is that L'Equipe has done as good a work as they can do investigating the case, then the WADA (Dick Hound) seemed williningfull to nail a high-profile competitor (even at the cost of breaking confidentially/ethics rules), but the UCI reacted with the Vrijman report which amount to a first class cover-up in my opinion even if it raises some points in the process. Technically, the best way I would see is to present/quote the L'Equipe analysis, and the UCI analysis separatly, if it is admissible for Wikipedia. At the end of the day, now UCI carries a huge responsibility for all this, and for the continued existance of doping in cycling, and maybe it's the wikipedia page for UCI that could be updated with a "Doping Controversy" section. --213.41.133.220 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically I agree, and I think we should keep it short and tight. I also agree that the UCI article should have a Controversy section, since it seems that their unwillingness to deal with the issue is part of the reason it's still a problem widespread problem. -- Steve Hart 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If at court the test may have been enough, why did no one sue? It is so sad here and at the Landis article that it seems there are no fairy tales in cycling either. Happily ever after 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the ones who could sue (UCI, Le Tour organisers, French sport ministry maybe, ...), are not really so interested into verifying the truth of these specific doping allegations --213.41.133.220 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, yes, absolutely. It is a UCI problem and a cycling proiblem, not an Armstrong problem. Singling out one rider or another is invidious. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The positive tests are an Armstrong problem. Socafan 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or would be, if there were any. Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WADA and LNDD seem to think that the 1999 EPO tests were positive and you know that. Socafan 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations for most tested athlete

Here's a link claiming Armstrong is the most tested athlete. I'n not sure that counts as an authoritative citation though. --P3d0 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's an Armstrong quote, the cite needs to quote him actually saying that. But Google today returns only 68 results for "the most tested athlete in the world", and WP is #1. Maybe he never said it, or maybe he said it in one of his books. On a sidenote I think he was tested about 150 times. -- Steve Hart 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

adminship abuse in order to push POV here

Again I was abusively blocked. As Tom admitted on my talk page: "Three times you changed "an approved cream" to "a cream", and then you reverted to re-add the paragraph involving 'because of his cancer treatment'." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule forbidding four different edits at one page, in fact many users do so. What you write just shows again the harrassment of users who do not accept an wikipedia article of an athlete who is from the same country as most editors of the English version to become a fanzine. Socafan 10:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not an admission, it's an accusation. You four times undid the work of another editor. Unsurprisingly, you got blocked for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not undo the work of another editor, I reverted vandalism and I added the sourced and widely reported fact that there are speculations over the medication he was allowed to take for cancer treatment. Socafan 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As WP:3RR makes absolutely and unambiguously clear, three reverts is a limit not an entitlement. As it says, "people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." Time to consider why everyone else but you appears to think it's you who's in the wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism clearly says removing POV-tags more than once is vandalism. Calton did it three times. He was not punished. Nor were you for blocking in order to get an advantage in a content dispute. Just because Armstrong's fans are in the majority here does not mean they have a right to make an encyclopedia article a fanzine. Socafan 11:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I don't give a rat's ass about Lance Armstrong specifically or cycling in general. What I DO give a damn about is self-centered POV warriors whose minimal grasp of policy only goes as deep as rationalizing and justifying their own axe-grinding nonsense. You fit that to a T. As for your claim that you're not trying to spin the article your way -- dude, we're not stupid, and don't treat us as if we were. --Calton | Talk 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We will not make any progress if we just accuse each other of POV-pushing or vandalize this article as you did. [32][33][34] Socafan 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I vandalized nothing, you reading-impaired Perry Mason-wannabe, and your sudden shock SHOCK over POV-pushing would be hysterically laughable if it didn't cause so many problems. --Calton | Talk 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny how it's everybody else who's the problem here. Just zis Guy you know? 12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I showed that four other editors agree with me about POV here. Your disparaging talk is not helpful at all. Socafan 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny how none of them have been around in supporting your edits, then. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tone is in no way helpful in resolving the conflict. The four difflinks I provided [35] [36] [37][38] were all from the last two months. And an admin undid your POV-tag removal vandalism. revert without discussion 1 vandalism vandalism admin undid vandalism Not surprisingly, fans seem to visit this article most frequently. Unfortunately, some do not seem to see that a biased article destroys their credibility and thus does everyone a disservice. Socafan 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. From the page you keep citing, though you somehow keep overlooking this inconvenient paragraph. I will be expecting your apology for your continued falsehoods in calling my in-line-with-policy "vandalism" and your neglect in not actually understanding the policy. --Calton | Talk 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing a POV tag more than once is vandalism. I had provided the reasons to insert the tag here, you did not even bother to take part in the discussion. Socafan 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you having trouble reading the post above? Let me repeat it, highlighting the relevant portions: Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Read it slowly if you have to. Contradicts your handwaving, so, as I said, I'll expecting that apology any time now. Now that it's been demonstrated to you, repeating it can only be considered a lie and a personal attack. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules are absolutely explicit, if an editor removes a POV tag more than once it is vandalism. You did it three times. I had not made any edit in that section that failed consensus, and even if I had you would still have had to let it be removed by another editor. Socafan 14:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Socafan's position, see that AMA request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.56.50.181 of mine after Calton and others didn't want to accept my critical standpoint. 84.56.29.199 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So Socafan gets community banned and an IP user comes to defend him? Hi there Socafan. You're not fooling anything. --mboverload@ 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe it; in the german Wikipedia i'm a registered User (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Leclerq), but unfortunateli it isn't possible to use my login here with you. And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lance_Armstrong&diff=66935331&oldid=66932895) you can see Caltons reverts to censor my point of view. Others did the same, and i'm still shocked about your habits here :-( 84.56.29.199 22:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to be very careful using the word censor. It is used almost exclusively by POV-pushers whose edits have been rejected by consensus. If you have specific points to make, and your edits are rejected, bring them to talk and invite discussion as to how to present them within policy. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word censor without giving it some thought. Again, check this revert of my comment on this discussion's page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lance_Armstrong&diff=66935331&oldid=66932895 and you'll see what i mean. 84.56.29.199 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is argument by assertion. Per WP:BLP the burden os firmly on the editor proposing a change to justify the change; any unsourced or poorly sourced edit to a biography should be removed imediately. We are not unreasonable, we are not trying to whitewash the article, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring that what goes into the article is impeccably sourced and stated in terms of studied neutrality. Armstrong has already sued more than one publisher for implying that he is guilty of doping, and one such case against the Foundation could be disastrous. So assume good faith and work with other editors not against them. Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So after re-registering with my nick from german wikipedia to evade frequent attacks maybe i can finish my posting here. @JzG: You missed the subject big time. For god's sake, check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lance_Armstrong&diff=66935331&oldid=66932895. I didn't touch your article, I commented only on the discussions page AND SOMEBODY CONSTANTLY REMOVED MY POSTINGS. I can nothing but speculate about his motives, but this is censoring, trust me, we have some expertise with that in my country. And it has to be at least against a dozen rules of wikipedia, so citing assume good faith is just cynical. I don't want to lash about, i really just want you to reflect your methods here, and unfortunately censoring my comments and blocking me without careful inquiry is characteristic for them in some respects. Leclerq 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (former 84.56.29.199)

I didn't use the word censor without giving it some thought. And yet you used it anyways. Funny, you wielding AGF like a shield while ignoring it yourself. You also, I noticed, avoided answering the question about whether you are in fact, Socafan. So, straight up: are you the person who called himself User:Socafan on English Wikipedia? --Calton | Talk 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing funny about you to delete my posting as i pointed out. And it's censoring with no doubt. And judging by that there's no point in AGF regarding your attitude; even if you had mistaken me as a troll, there'd be no excuse and no room for simply deleting third party comments on a discussion's page. Talk as much as you want, you won't change the facts. And i'm not Socafan, see the two postings down there. What he was talking about simply seemed familiar to me after what you did. Leclerq 00:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1) And it's censoring with no doubt So we can add "no doubt" to the list of words and phrases you're misusing -- reminiscent of Socafan's self-serving problems with the meaning of words, another thing that seems familiar about you. And, of course, you never explained your peculiarly convenient interpretation of AGF either, I note.

2) And i'm not Socafan, see the two postings down there. The postings below did not in any way address whether you are, in fact, the same user as Socafan, they only asserted you are a specific user on the German wikipedia. Not at all the same thing.

3) there'd be no excuse and no room for simply deleting third party comments on a discussion's page. You mean vaguely insulting comments with no actionable elements, that just happen to be coming from an anonymous IP during a time when Socafan was serving out one of his many blocks? Those allegedly third-party comments? Man, you have a great sense of timing, only showing up when Socafan is banned and all.

So we have a user who defends a banned user (only showing up at times when the user is blocked) by making the same tendetious and tedious misinterpretations of various policies and misusing the terms in the same false and maximally insulting way? Man, why wouldn't I be suspicious? --Calton | Talk 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't compare me to others, what others did is no argument regarding my intentions. 2. I am not Socafan, that's just persecution mania, compare the IP of Socafan to mine if you have it, but leave me alone. 3. Wikipedia policies don't allow you to delete my comments (maybe exempt from very very extreme discussion postings) period. Besides, that was my deleted comment [39], nothing insulting here, not even vaguely. 4. So stop trying to obfuscate some very clear facts, i did nothing wrong and it's you who messed up, obviously you're seeing enemies everywhere and you simply overreacted. So get your facts straight, get your emotions under control and look up what is allowed and what not in WP. Leclerq 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Evasion of ban by blocked user

I have just blocked 84.56.29.199 (talk · contribs · block log) on the basis that it is Socafan evading the ban and continuing to edit on this page--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

...messed up

You blocked ME for god's sake! Now i registered here because you guys are a little bit too suspicious for my taste... i'm really not one of those who are harbouring anti-american feelings, but this really seems to be "shoot first, ask later" :-( Leclerq (former 84.56.29.199) 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have apologised. At least one other user also mistook you for being the banned user,[40] as your edits covered the same sentiment as the banned user plus the use of an IP immediately after a ban is somewhat suspicious by itself - though this time apparently coincidentally.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I give you that, the blocking could be a little (little) bit understandable, though i gave you some links in my postings to verify my standpoint and sincerity. But definitely not understandable are the repeated deletings of my comments/postings on August the 31d. You really need to reconsider the atmosphere on that discussion's page. Leclerq 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)