Talk:Levi Leipheimer/Archive 1

Jewish

Due to his name I'm curious as to if he is jewish perhaps? Mathmo 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most likely he is. Levi is a common jewish name too. 70.253.193.63 18:28, 22 July 2006

No, he is not Jewish. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Departure to Discovery

Do we really need to mention the departure to Discovery in the 2006 section? It's already in the intro and seems redundant. This is the second time I'm removing it. --Serge 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

2007

There are some problems with this paragraph which I'm reproducing here before I edit.

In his first season riding with Discovery, Leipheimer was the team leader in the 2007 Tour of California. From a strong performance in the opening prologue to the final circuit stage he wore the yellow jersey. His team helped him defend the jersey on more than one occasion. On stage 6 fellow teammate George Hincapie crashed and broke his wrist. Upon receiving the news via the radio, Leipheimer called for time-out in order to let those involved have a chance to catch up with the peloton. During the halt, a pack of nine riders broke from the peloton and threatened Levi's lead time. However, the peloton, led by Hincapie and Leipheimer, diminished the gap towards the end of the stage to help Leipheimer keep the yellow jersey, thus giving him the best overall time for the Tour.

1. strong performance in the opening prologue - he won. I'd call that more than a strong performance.
2. the stage 6 incident, although it made for exciting racing, is really not all that unusual or significant to merit inclusion in an article about Leipheimer, but might be mentioned in the Tour of California article.
3. Hincapie crashed and broke his wrist: the break wasn't diagnosed until after the stage so that wasn't the news that Leipheimer receieved.
4. time-out: there are no time-outs in road races!
5. halt: though I didn't watch the stage, I'm sure they didn't come to a complete stop.
6. Levi: use last names in Wikipedia

RosinDebow 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Early Years

"Levi moonlighted as a male erotic dancer to make ends meet during his high school years, biking is expensive."

Is there any reference confirming this claim? 68.105.13.50 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Weight convertion wrong

The weight conversion is wrong, there is 14 lb in a stone (st) so he is 10 st not 9.8 st. As with other conversions on sports people on Wiki these are wrong, height metres to feet. 86.167.29.39 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

how do you pronunciate "Leipheimer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.106.112 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

try looking up on youtube for videos of Levi, you are likely to find commentators saying his name. :) Mathmo ^Talk 07:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, both "ei" combinations are pronounced as a long "i", and the "p" and "h" are in different syllables. - AyaK (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doping in 1996

Can't wait to hear why a contributor is reverting edits about Leipheimer's doping positive at the 1996 US National Criterium Championships. Given that there was no real-time Internet-based media coverage of the event, it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that reverting is ok b/c archival sources are the only available digital references for the (+) test announcement.Joep01 (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The piece has been removed saying that the archive article is a "nonfunctioning archive article" the article works just fine, tested in opera 10.5, firefox, chrome, internet explorer 8 and safari - perfectly valid news archive 94.5.17.58 (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the test and agree that it's a valid news archive...Joep01 (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

the working source is from winningmag.com the website of winning magazine, a popular cycling magazine of the 70's, 80's and early 90's. Lance Armstrong had a regular column in the magazine. 94.5.17.58 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The cited articles are a bit thin - blogs are not usually considered reliable sources and the archive doesn't appear to be a reliable source either. We have to be careful considering WP:BLP. If it can be cited from reliable sources whether online or offline it can be included in the article. Severo^TC 01:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that a web report from the winning magazine website was a reliable source. The "losers trying to f up his page" is innacurate however. If there is a valid article and valid reason to edit the page then so be it. Thank you for at least entering discussion though unlike some.94.5.17.58 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an orchestrated attack: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6813&page=10. Woogee (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

re orchestrated attack. No, it appears to be something that after discussion and investigation on that thread has been deemed valid and worth for inclusion on wikipedia. The source in question, winningmag.com was a reputable cycling magazine at the time of the offence and therefore fits within wikipedias terms of reliable sources of news information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations the blog however admitedly is not relevant as an evidencial source, the news article is. Could an explanation be forthcoming as to why winning magazine is not considered reliable? 94.5.17.58 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then find a link that works. Your link to the Internet Archive is dead, and a blog is not a reliable source. And the moderator there at cyclingnews says he hopes to get it copied from Wikipedia to somewhere else so that it can be used a reliable source there. Woogee (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

i have tested that link in all browsers and it works fine. I would suggest if the article is restored that the blog link be removed as it is agreed that is not relevant evidence. I belive having looked at that thread that a request has been made for a scan of an original newspaper or magazine article of the time, rather than copying the link94.5.17.58 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's strange that you seem to be the only one who can get that link to work. Woogee (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

works fine for meAlexb618 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's working for me now, it seems to be intermittent. But that little blurb makes no mention of sources, and does not say what he was suspended for. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

link tested in - opera: http://tinypic.com/r/2ywea9k/5 - firefox: http://tinypic.com/r/jsm0le/5 - internet explorer: http://tinypic.com/r/icpzbk/5 google chrome: http://tinypic.com/r/fut7ax/5

Source is legit and so is the information, I am sure Bill Peterson (the president of USA cycling) will be happy to confirm this information. 1996 is prior to USA cycling publishing news online. Alexb618 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a very good edit to put this item in there, IMHO, but that's not why I overturned it per se. It may be "true", but the refs are poor. At a minimum, if you are going to put stuff like this into the WP page of a prominent person, the least you could do would be to get the refs in the proper format even (red links are unaceptable in refs). I tried again to get the archive ref to Winning to come up, and...42 seconds later it did. This is possibly hosted on a server that can't handle the massive traffic that Wikipedia is now (probably) directing to it. I won't overturn it again if some acceptable refs are published; e.g., if it was in Winning, find the issue, date and page # along with proper article title and author name and cite it. This person has a high reputation and integrity, so I would advise WP editors to be very careful with their claims and references to those claims made here. Jack B108 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Article protected pending better sourcing

The edit war needs to stop over this issue; and WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy. The spotty nature of the refs is unacceptable in light of such allegations. The minute something in a truly reliable source (well respected newspaper/magazine/journal) is cited, the article may be unprotected. Please find new sources which are beyond reproach, and then we can decide what to do with this. --Jayron32 03:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This incident took place before USA Cycling were publishing news online. The person in question was a virtual unknown at this point so the (very sparse) online media at the time would have barely even noticed. What sort of reference would be appropriate? Bear in mind you will not get a media release from USA Cycling about this given it was 14 years ago. It truly is a sad state of affairs when factual information cannot be published because there is no web based 'well respected newspaper/magazine/journal' reference.Alexb618 (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am making no statements on the sources thus presented, nor on the prospect of future sources. I am only protecting the article to stop the edit war and to uphold the standards of the Biography of Living Persons Policy. If people stop objecting to the sources clearly state they no longer object, then we may unprotect this. I am taking no stand on the quality of sources, and what is necessary to solve the objections. I only note that the objections exist in good faith at this point, and until such time as those objections have been dealt with, the article will remain protected. --Jayron32 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have received the following warning

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Levi Leipheimer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Woogee (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly this is outrageous. I made one undo and i carefully stated on that undo that i considered the source valid and relevant (barely anyone else put any sort of reasoning on their edit), I made ONE and only ONE edit and then entered into conversation on this section. How dare the user give me a final warning regarding discruptive edits. I would be grateful if i can be told a) how to remove this warning, and b) how to if need be report the warner for throwing his weight around based on his own personal opinion on wether or not my edit was valid. I did not vandalise, i undid a revision and gave very clear reasons for doing so. Arrogant F*** 94.5.17.58 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I received the same warning from the same user. Please...Joep01 (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What is outrageous is that you folks are coordinating a revert war offsite to try to simply run roughshod over our policies. When someone has expressed concern over sourcing, you don't continuously revert, you bring it to the talk page, you discuss, and if the sourcing is solid, consensus will support having the information restored. It isn't arrogant to ask you to be familiar with our policies, and I'd strongly encourage you all to go read WP:BLP before continuing here. jæs (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was hardly a 'revert war' - somebody offsite made a claim, then someone else found an article which cited this, and so we thought it should be included on the page about the life of this cyclist. Obviously fans of the cyclist do not want to see this, so they changed it back. Nevertheless, more evidence will be found, and the page will then be able to include this important piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lckyby (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 April 2010

Thirteen reverts in a day in an attempt to ram the information in the article is absolutely not acceptable. I've never even heard of the guy, and couldn't care less about cycling. This is about WP:BLP. But you're right about one thing: find undeniably reliable sourcing and you'll be able to make a case. jæs (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

but i have not made 13 reverts. I made 1 undo, very early in the whole thing, which i justified by stating that i considered the source viable. THAT IS ALL. That is not worthy of a FINAL WARNING. Can the warnee explain exactly what i have been warned for.. Vandalism? No, I made one edit which i explained fully. That is not vandalism. He has warned because of his own personal feelings and opinions. That, frankly is BS. The user in question has been able to hand out warnins left right and centre to who he felt like. I made one undo, IN GOOD FAITH, backed up by a viable reason. And then i came in here and used the discussion board to discuss it beyond that, so the warning is complete and utter BS and you know it.

Seems to me the goalposts will just move on this one.. first of all the excuse was, ooh, the link isnt valid, then it was, "ooh, the link doesnt work", then when proved that it did it was "ooh, yeh, but winning magazine isnt reliable" or "ooh, theres no name on the article" evidence could be provided and certain users (who if i am right are under the employ of one of Armstrongs sports management companies anyway) will find another excuse to undo the revisions and protect their man.

BUt anyway, my warning is BS. I played by the rules, i made one revision and justified that revision, and then i used the chat facility to discuss the matter further. That is not warnable. That is pure bullshit!94.5.17.58 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons is clear. You must have multiple, verifiable references. Blogs are emphatically not acceptable. The winningmag article may be acceptable, but at a minimum should reference date, volume, page, and a supporting reference would be advisable. We take these policies very seriously, and editors who do not respect BLP policy may have their editing privileges removed. The "only warning" was a bit strong, but a warning was certainly in order. See Jayron32's comment above - a discussion is needed here on the source. The objection was raised in good faith, and we expect all parties to respect this. Acroterion _(talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

that may be, but i think a final warning is insane. I made the edit in good faith believing the source was acceptable, and then i did not make further changes instead entering in full discussion in here. If the attitude is to give a final warning for that im surprised anyone contributes to wikipedia. You cannot base action on one person due to the actions on others. 94.5.17.58 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with "insane", but it probably was a bit strong. However, WP policy on BLPs has tightened considerably in the past year and is likely to get much more stringent once flagged revisions are introduced (in whatever epoch it actually happens). Please remember that what might go unnoticed on a blog is extremely prominent on a top-ten site, and due care and strict attention to reliable and verifiable sourcing are essential. Acroterion _(talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I placed the final warnings because of the orchestrated nature of the BLP violations, there was no point in giving four warnings to every meatpuppet making the same BLP violating edit. Woogee (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in wiki-terms, a group of editors or IPs making essentially the same edit are usually treated as one editor for obvious practical reasons, so a number of warning steps will be skipped. As for the IP's issues about the sources used, I don't think we're asking for too much if we insist on two verifiable sources for this kind of thing. We're talking about a living, breathing person, not some abstract object, and we owe it to the subject to demand a high level of documentation. Acroterion _(talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

and so begins the shifting of the goalposts.. you are now (maybe because verification of the first source is close to being available) saying that TWO verifiable sources be obtained. What then, a third perhaps, then the article only being changed on a tuesday when there is an R in the month by someone called zacharia? So Im warned for others actions (despite being the only one who justified his edit and entered into discussion here), and we are shifting the goalposts on required evidence.. Damn wiki is some mighty tight clique isnt it. I also take offence to being called a "meatpuppet" thats hardly a responsible approach from someone is it?94.5.17.58 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors canvassed, from outside the project, to edit Wikipedia for a single purpose are, by definition, "meatpuppets." You may not like the term, I may not like the term, but it's factual. To the point, though, can we stick to the actual topic, instead of the histrionics? You have only one source for a highly contentious allegation that has apparently never been reprinted or mentioned in any other reliable sources since. Is that correct? Are there any other sources that you are aware of? Would you like to take some time to try to find additional sources? The policy for biographies of living persons is generally agreed to require high quality sources, especially for contentious material. Most editors and administrators generally insist on multiple sources. It would help your argument if you could list here precisely what wording you'd like in the article, and list precisely which sources support your verbiage (along with any links if they are online, or reference information if they are not). Otherwise, the going back and forth over warnings and meatpuppetry really isn't going to get you anywhere... jæs (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

and your assumption that i was canvassed? ok, the problem with the article is being from 1996 the internet was in its infancy. the original cycling website no longer exists. Here it is in its archived form. http://web.archive.org/web/19970124202216/http://www.winningmag.com/ if you click on updates/top stories, and then december 4th you will find the article originally linked. This is one of the earliest cycling websites, obvious by its poor quality. Winning magazine was a very reputable cycling magazine of the time. Are you saying that the only evidence would be a printed copy of the magazine? From 20 years ago?

As a paid cycling author myself, I decided to contact USA Cycling today to ask for confirmation of the original sanction, which I expect to receive. Once I do, I will write up an article, sell it to VeloNews or CyclingNews.com or some other "reputable" publication, at which point this silly revisionism should come to an end. But of course it probably won't because some editors will attempt to generate procedural opposition to the inclusion of factual information that presents their hero in a somewhat unflattering light. Stay tuned.Joep01 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here. You apparent unfamiliarity with Wikipedia standards and practices seems to indicate that you believe that people object to the information being added because of some personal connection to the subject. The issue has nothing to do with its truth. Its a serious allegation, and we want to make sure that we get it right before publishing it; especially in a high-profile publication like Wikipedia. I haven't even watched a bicycling race in my life. --Jayron32 04:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope that any reputable publication will ask you for reliable sources for your claims. If you can't provide any here, where will you get them to write the article from? Look, we're not saying the information can't be put here, we're just asking for reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesuschristo are you being daft? I said I would ask USA Cycling, the organization that issued the sanction, to officially confirm it. You're implying that even confirmation from the deciding body wouldn't be acceptable enough for you as a source? LOL.Joep01 (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, if you were to check WP:RS, you'd see that a primary source would not be "acceptable enough" for Wikipedia. That being said, if you do indeed "write up an article [and] sell it" to a reliable publication, you could then propose to use that as a source here. jæs (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Joe, primary sources are what news reporters rely on, not encyclopedias. Relying on primary sources is arguably doing original research. Encyclopedias cover material that has been sufficiently notable to be covered by reliable secondary sources. For this kind of thing one article in a defunct magazine is not enough.

Also, I suggest that if you have information about doping by particular cyclists that you think belongs in a Wikipedia article, it would be most appropriate and effective for you to bring it to the attention of more objective editors on the talk page of that article, rather than editing content yourself, given your bias. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I don't agree. People with biases edit Wikipedia all the time. People edit what they are interested in. Unless Born2cycle is suggesting there is a WP:COI, they are free to edit what interests them, according to WP policies. If an article is published in a WP:RS, citing information from USA Cycling, I believe that would be appropriate to publish, since the magazine editors are exercising oversight and do not wish to be sued for libel. Alternatively, if there is a record of this that is available to the public, in for example an archive of USA Cycling, then a description of the location of the record (box and file number, that kind of thing) would be sufficient. I see no need for, as Acroterion proposes, an underlying reference, newspaper articles customarily lack such. At this time, I see no need for any action, but if an RS is presented which is a high quality source, and it says that Leipheimer was sanctioned, the odds are that this will be sufficient. If there is any question, inline attribution would be the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A year ago I would totally agree with you. However, today, the greater scrutiny given to articles about living people gives me pause. I just don't know that Wikipedia should be the only online source for such a potentially controversial issue about a living person.

In any case, trust me, this is a case of WP:COI. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If we report it with an inline citation, it would not be controversial. What is the conflict of interest? Note that there's a noticeboard for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reporting it with an inline citation does not make it any less contentious:

“ Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ”

We can agree to disagree on whether this tidbit is well or poorly sourced. As to the COI issue, as long as the person in question doesn't keep editing this or other articles with which he has a COI (and I'm talking about professional reputation and legacy, relative to others in his profession), I see no reason to say more than that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Sorry, you haven't said what the COI is yet, I imagine you've read that part of my comments, but you seem to have chosen not to answer it. At present you've presented no facts supporting a COI so it is my view as an admin that there is no COI, subject to change if and when facts are presented. As for the characterization of the future source, neither of us has seen the source which may be added, so we cannot presently characterize it. I would not support adding it unless it was well sourced. A reputable magazine or newspaper of wide circulation would be sufficient for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I see no reason to say what the COI is if it is no longer an issue. I assume the person in question would rather I not go into more detail, so I won't unless I feel I have to. I'm hoping that simply pointing out the COI issue to the person who needs to know is all that is required to address the issue. All edits potentially subject to COI have been reverted.

As far as what is needed to support adding the material in question, I think I agree with you. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though as I said above, if he came up with a source from USA Cycling, a press release or something, I don't think that would be a major problem. If you do not feel comfortable disclosing the information regarding COI on wiki, and if you feel it necessary, you might want to email ArbCom. As this has been put as a "live" dispute at AN/I, I can't assume that just because you've reverted the edits, that this is over. People often do not edit every day. I do not know who is in the right here and will continue to monitor the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"just because you've reverted the edits". I haven't reverted or edited anything in the content of this article, at least not recently. My only involvement here is this discussion with you, including the one comment I made before you showed up, to which you responded.

I realize it might not be over. I'm hoping it is, at least with respect to the person who has a COI issue with the content he was trying to insert into this article. For the third time, I see no point in pursuing that unless it becomes an issue again. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant "you" in an impersonal sense. Anyhow, I agree, nothing more to be done here. I suggest we wait and see. Incidentally, if a week goes by and there is no further dispute, I think it might be a good idea to lower to semi-protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know what is being referred to as the potential COI and I would disagree. The user in question is one of several editors but happens to be the one who is in a position to get a supporting resource. If they can provide valid source information the COI is completely irrelevant. Its very hard to have a COI if you are providing valid, source evidence of a particular event. AS for over? As far as I know there will be no further action until the relevant evidence is provided.94.5.17.58 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could email me the conflict? Obviously hush hush.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO objectively documenting the doping use of a notable cyclist is never COI, since doping use among cyclists is extremely 'hot' in the cycling world. Many people want to know about this. Joep01 might have an agenda, but I don't see how this is relevant if the facts are solid. This information has not been republished as an exposé after Leipheimer became famous, but it seems to have been published at the time. However, due to various circumstances, not the least of which is the lack of Internet use at the time, there is very little proof online. The best course of action is probably for Joep01 to get proof from primary sources and get that information published on a respectable news site or such. They should give Leipheimer the chance to respond to the allegations. If the allegations stand, Wikipedia can state these as facts, without fear of repercussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapjes (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

agree with the above. Having a COI is hard to have if and when the evidence is indisputable. Dimspace (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What if I have a copy of the Winning Magazine in question? Isn't the physical body of knowledge in question, that magazine, a reputable source? Just because the magazine eventually went out-of-business doesn't negate the fact that it had a publication span of some 14 years, I believe. It seems unorthodox for someone to have to try to convince a newspaper man to write a story about a story that has already been written about and published (including unaltered text from a press release from the sanctioning agency) just because some other person doesn't like the <insert objection here> of Winning Magazine. HZ4w0uYd (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if have the mag, great, post the claim and source and let's move on. (Who ever said Winning wasn't a good primary source?) Of course a respected pub such as a Winning from 1996 is completely acceptable in this case. But that would mean the editor would actually have to do the work and go find the source (go the library, find the microfiche, look thru the old stack of magazines under the bed, etc.) All that is needed is the author and article title, year of publication, volume and/or issue, page #--enough to verify the reference. Jack B108 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not a cyclist, just an uninvolved admin hanging around. I would advise putting in a quote parameter in the citation, and include the full text that talks about Leipheimer and doping.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Update on this one: US Cycling have said Levi needs to give permission for the records to be released. That is a coverup and a half.. extract from an email exchange

Subject: RE: Levi Leipheimer 1996 doping suspension confirmation

We have changed legal counsel and moved offices in the many years since 1996, so we do not have any records on site. In any event, if we are able to locate any archives we would need Leipheimer’s express permission to share information. Before we undertake the effort necessary to search for these records it would make your (and our) task easier if you could get the records directly from him or at least get a release from Mr. Leipheimer.

Thanks. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Leipheimer is named in Landis's current allegations, I'm kinda thinking we should unprotect and allow that info to be added. I don't like to edit through protection without discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? So far, we have no confirmation and perhaps no confirmable source for the 1996 charges, and we also have no idea of the outcome of any case, if there was one. We do, of course, have a confirmable source for Floyd Landis' EPO charges against Leipheimer, and those should be added, but that has no bearing on the 1996 charges referenced in this extended discussion. The fact the US Cycling won't confirm anything, far from being "a coverup and a half", as alleged above, may mean that there were charges that did not lead to a conviction after the appeals process. It's not the role of an encyclopedia to guess. -- AyaK (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All I suggested is that the new allegation by Landis be added, and as the edit war seems to have died out here, I suggest unprotection as well. I do not suggest the addition of the 1996 charges; they are not currently verifiable nor likely to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting. It appears you and I are in agreement. -- AyaK (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I, too, suggest unprotection now or by Monday or so. LL may win or make the podium at the AToC again sunday, so that would need to be added. The dope-editors can then add the Landis dirt here, too. Those charges, well-verified all over the 'Net, make the theoretical 1996 charges look minor. But if those unverified charges from '96 again pop up here, sans a ref, it will really be uncool. Don't be uncool (i.e., be a bad editor) Jack B108 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, there appearing to be consensus and the question having been left open for a couple of days, I will unprotect. I had notified the protecting admin, who did not reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

A USA Cycling spokeswoman sent this blog - http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/05/hometown_hero_levi_leipheimer.php - a list of national champions (the ones whose titles weren't retroactively rescinded), and LL wasn't on there - https://www.usacycling.org/forms/natchamps/1986-2000NatChamps.pdf Just adding some stuff.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lckyby (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

so what is needed now for the information on this ban to be cited on wiki. US cycling spokesmen have provided the official winners of the us championships, which obviously contradicts press reports at the time. There is a documented evidence on the winning magazine site of the ban, but US cycling are unwilling or unable to provide the original press release. I see no reason now this one is starting to be picked up by the press why it cant be included. Mods thoughts please 90.215.238.184 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting blog, I'm a thinking that the guy picked up on this discussion! We generally do not consider blogs to be reliable sources. Given the small town nature of the papers that have printed the allegations and given BLP, I'd like to see a more significant periodical pick it up before we put it in. And yes, I am an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First, article content is a decision for regular editors, not admins. The blog/blogger is not the source - he just compiled some sources. The references listed in the blog are the sources. It should be only a matter of a short time before cyclingnews.com or the Santa Rosa Press Democrat picks up on this. In any case, even Ashenden has now acknowledged that given the methodology Landis described and said Leipheimer and others are using, it's no wonder they are showing up "clean" in the tests. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree re the admin thing, but the guy said he wanted opinions from "mods", so I figured I'd indulge him. Agree also that it is only a matter of time now before we see some articles in major periodicals. No opinion on the methodology stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2010

sorry, i meant admin. And i asked admin opinion as they have been the ones involved in this discussion.

I think in all likelehood one of the more major news organisations pick this one up soon, although wether they will be able to get the info from US CYling is another matter 90.215.238.184 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment just posted apparently overwrote another editor's comments, then another editor overturned my edit (wrongly assuming that it was me that caused the problem intentionally--is this a system bug?), so I am reinserting my comments. The San Francisco Weekly published this "blog" by mr. smith, which is no different than a newspaper column. They clearly covered their bases with what they published about Leipheimer and have a good source of info, USA Cycling. This is completely acceptable as a source. I might add that this column was written a lot better than a lot of WP articles, so it's amusing to see them not up to our "standards". Mr. Smith's SF Weekly graciously provided a proper citation for the original Winning mag news item, something that was never done here (Dec. 4, 1996, Online vs.) Jack B108 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So are there any objections to having the 1996 doping information added to the main page now that there is a good source?150.101.103.195 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a newspaper column is not enough. Columns are generally not considered WP:RS. And I am very concerned that the column in question picked up the information from this discussion, called USA Cycling, and did little more. We are warned in WP:RS to avoid "circular" sourcing. I would like to see this information picked up by a significant newspaper or cycling periodical before we insert it. Keep in mind WP:BLP. And there I am speaking as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the article picked up its information from this page, maybe I have missed something though. Are we suggesting that a referenced newspaper article is not sufficient to update a Wikipedia page? Wow.150.101.103.195 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the article mentions only things that we've discussed here, though they've gone a bit further in research. Per WP:RS, "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing." This is a BLP. While professional journalist's blogs under the control of the editorial staff are acceptable, I think I'm not going to far in saying we should await news articles in the high end of the market. This is an area which is conentious and in which people have sued. It behooves us to be careful. I'm a neutral here, I have no connection with bicycling.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see how this article has used Wikipedia as a source? I honestly may be missing something? 150.101.103.195 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the SF Weekly piece is sufficient to put in a carefully qualified statement about this. Even if this provokes mainstream press to look into it deeper, and eventually write about it more, that's not circular sourcing, unless they actually use the information in this article as a source in their article. If they are inspired to do legitimate fact-checking by this article, and then write about what they find in a legitimate investigation, and then this article refers to that work, there is nothing wrong with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be happier if other periodicals were picking it up. I think we inspired them to actually get a copy of that cycling magazine and contact USACycling, by the way. I think we should inline mention that it is from this article. If others pick it up, we can remove that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My Correspondence w/ USA Cycling Regarding LL's positive test

Though it hardly seems like the number one issue we're facing in cycling today, I'd be remiss if I didn't share with you all the fact that USA Cycling did not wish to officially confirm the original sanction against Leipheimer, let alone provide any details. They were both polite and practical in their deflection of my request, suggesting I get the records from Levi himself (or at least obtain a release from him), but disingenuous nonetheless. At the same time, with hindsight it's apparent that they were taking no chances of exposing themselves to any potential liability, or adding one more branch to the firestorm of doping scandal that was about to explode onto page one of sports sections across the world with Floyd's email (only one was leaked). As far as I'm concerned, the myth suggested by some that Levi didn't really test positive because there were no Internet archives from 1996 that reported the fact and therefore it can't be included in Wikipedia is Kafkaesque. Even the emails from USA Cycling imply the existence of records that would need to be searched for in their archive...

The email exchange is reproduced below:

From: Smith, Andrea Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:47 PM To: Joe Papp Subject: RE: Levi Leipheimer 1996 doping suspension confirmation

Hi Joe- We have changed legal counsel and moved offices in the many years since 1996, so we do not have any records on site. In any event, if we are able to locate any archives we would need Leipheimer’s express permission to share information. Before we undertake the effort necessary to search for these records it would make your (and our) task easier if you could get the records directly from him or at least get a release from Mr. Leipheimer. Thanks. Andrea

From: Joe Papp Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:35 PM To: Smith, Andrea Subject: RE: Levi Leipheimer 1996 doping suspension confirmation

Thanks, Andrea. I appreciate your looking into this. I’d also like to know if the suspension was appealed, and if so, whether or not it was upheld, modified, rejected, etc. and who was named national criterium champion in L.L.’s place. Best, Joe

From: Smith, Andrea Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:09 PM To: Joe Papp Cc: Kahn, Keri Subject: RE: Levi Leipheimer 1996 doping suspension confirmation Hi Joe- That was quite a while ago. I’ll see if I can look into it and let you know. AndreaJoep01 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I really wish this angle would be picked up by the papers, just to put us out of our misery. The blog skates the BLP issue, which given the tendency of cyclists to attack/sue over doping allegations, I think we need more cover.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

as a side note worth noting that in the San Fransisco article there is the list of winners as per the official records, which obviously contradicts the original press reports at the time claiming levi as the winner. That coupled with the winning magazine link shows clear evidence that LEvi's title was taken from him, its just now finding reliable source. That I believe is in hand. I wish someone would just ask Levi straight out, he is certainly aware of this thread. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but who knows if what he says would be congruent with the truth. I am content, as an editor and admin, to wait a bit. Tour of France is coming up, there will be considerable coverage of the competitors, especially Armstrong and his associates, if the facts do not develop under that limelight, then they are not worth including. Patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The last 14 Tours de France have passed without any mention, what makes you think this year will be any different? In my opinion only, 'if the facts do not develop under that limelight, then they are not worth including' is not really good enough.150.101.103.195 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Velonews source

This is an unverified quotation from Velonews, volume 26: issue number 1, January 13, 1997, pp 6-7, in the "Velonotes" section, titled "Leipheimer title revoked.":

A USA Cycling disciplinary panel has recommended that Levi Leipheimer receive a three-month suspension and be forced to return his national criterium championship jersey. The decision came after a drug test conducted at the August 18 championship event showed positive. The panel's decision was upheld by USA Cycling executive director Lisa Voight, and the criterium title was awarded Matt Johnson. . . .

If an editor in good standing can verify this, that should be good enough to get it this information in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some sort of verification on acceptable wording for the addition to the entry if the above quotation is considered acceptable, or when a copy of that article is provided.

In 1996 after winning the National Criterium Championship Levi received a three month ban, and was requested to return his US title, along with prize monies from the race, after testing positive for a banned substance widely reported to be Ephedra. The Criterium Title was awarded to second place finisher Matt Johnson. It was claimed at the time that the negative was a result of using a Nasal medicine. (or something along those lines) seems to me as we get closer to receiving the evidence it would make sense to agree in advance suitable wording before a glut of people edit here there and everywhere with unnaceptable edits 90.215.238.184 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO you would need some sort of reference to show that 'It was claimed at the time that the negative was a result of using a Nasal medicine.' otherwise this should not be included.150.101.103.195 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, I was being overly generous to Levi by suggesting that an unsourced defence should be included in the wording. There is reference here http://www.mtstandard.com/news/opinion/article_4363ef99-e516-58b8-a37f-76f4a3ab2df8.html in a letter from Yvonne, Bob and Rob Leipheimer where they claim in a letter to the Montana Standard where they claim it was from using Claritin D. They do however also in that letter clarify that Levi "had a run-in with a banned substance a few years ago in 1997" confirming first hand the fact that he used a banned substance - there are some errors in their letter in that they claim the drug was cleared as acceptable when in fact it was several years before it was put on the legal list, and is now back on the banned list ref: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002037 entry 110 - Ephedrine 90.215.238.184 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So in summary. There is now an online source at winning magazine showing details of the ban along with details of the print copy in velonews. There is online source of the Leipheimer family confirming that Levi used a banned substance, and there is a pdf direct from US cycling showing that Matt Johnson is on the records as being the official winner, contrary to other evidence at the time showing levi as the winner. What else is needed? 90.215.238.184 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, a photo of Lie-pheimer shooting up, cigar in mouth, with his thumbs up to the camera a la Abu Ghraib, the syringe labelled 'EPO' in a comically large font, and a copy of the relevant day's San Francisco Chronicle sprawled out on the table beside him. Till, then, tough titties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.116.157 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

wow.. humour.. do wiki guidelines allow for that? 90.215.238.184 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article now edited with VERIFIABLE sources as per guidelines. If this entry still breaches the guidelines an explanation of what remains to be added would be helpful. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

this was undone with the following comment "17:15, 8 June 2010 67.177.225.129 (talk) (18,333 bytes) (Bahahaha, no fucking way, losers) (undo)" < (denver based ip address) no explanation what is still wrong with the article though. Another user has since undone that revision. Can we please have guidance from admin. The edit made now seems valid with full reference to citations. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say "according to Velonews ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

as in "It was later reported according to velonews that" ? - Im trying to be as careful as i can with the wording here. I do think the event should be recorded in wiki but at the same time, i dont want people using phrases such as "failed a dope test" "banned for doping" etc.

I had considered the phrase "hayfever medicine" reading "hayfever medicine, Claritin B which containts the banned stimulant Ephedra" but i dont know that it is neccessary. If people want to know more they can google. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We probably have an article for Claritin. I am edition from an iPad today which is a pain but I will clean up any prose issues later.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JackB for the cleanup. I did the best I could. I think the result is fair, balanced and well sourced. Hopefully nobody will wade in with "doping" edits now and the matter can rest 90.215.238.184 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Should also be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling - there is also no valid source to the claim that Leipheimer lapped the field in this race. The source cited is simply a list of race results from 1996.150.101.103.195 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

there are several eye witness accounts from that day from guys who raced who can confirm levi did lap the feild (and they where surprised) but yes, it is not listed in the sources, so maybe should not be included. not sure. can be very easily verified. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

not sure about adding it to the list of doping cases. isnt that all pro cases, not amateur, if we started adding amateur violations it would start to get silly. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is 'List of doping cases in cycling' not 'List of doping cases in pro cycling'. I am sure if Lance Armstrong had a doping conviction before he went pro that it would be listed.150.101.103.195 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was under the impression it was pro-cyclists in the article. It may just be that nobody has had the time or the inclination to include the many amateur doping cases. Probably a question for admins on the discussion page of that page. Referring in the discussion there to this article, see if the admins object, and if not include it. probably better to post there, give it a week for admin to respond before inclusion and we can save the arguments that went on here. I say that purely because that page was protected the day that this one was. 90.215.238.184 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. I also think it would be fair to include on that page as he is a pro now. I dont think it would be out of place there to be honest. It is a verified doping case and it is significant enough to be of interest to anyone reading that article (unlike the many relative 'unknowns' who have tested positive and never become successful etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.103.195 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Early Years Prose

Without changing the factual basis of anything in the above-mentioned section (other than to add the detail that Colorado Cyclist was the team with which LL turned professional in 1997), I edited the prose to include transitions and to enhance the overall readability. Please feel free to review the edit to confirm that the section's neutrality was maintained.Joep01 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a couple more corrections for grammar and verb tense and smoothed out the sentence referring to the VeloNews source to make it clear that that publication is what's being cited and they were one of those who reported the findings of the disciplinary committee. All of these edits have been minor ones focused on enhancing the readability of the prose or providing minute factual detail supplementation (ex. naming the 1997 pro team). I hope no one has a problem w/ this since the intent is purely to make the section more readable and not affect the neutrality in any way, shape or form. At this point I'm going to refrain from making another edit to give folks time to read over what I improved. That said, I would like to see this sentence "This Leipheimer family letter claimed that USA Cycling later relaxed its standards regarding the use of allergy medicines." changed to "This Leipheimer family letter claimed that USA Cycling later relaxed its standards regarding the use of allergy medicines in-competition."Joep01 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It amazes me how well-sourced this discussion now is. And it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article any longer, either. Nice work to you all. AyaK (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of extra wording regarding Claritin B: JackB has undone my edit showing that Claritin B is still on the banned list for sport. I think this is an important addition as at the moment the article gives the impression that whatever levi took is no longer banned, when in fact it is. I think its very important that clarification (and it was well sourced) that Ephedryn and Claratin B are still banned despite the leipheimer family claims. 90.195.108.38 (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

agreed, if still this is the case? can you remake the changes? Azx2 20:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Holczer Allegations

Have fun with that section. An off-score co-efficient of 132.8 is all of 0.2 below the limit of 133, the value at which the UCI looks to investigate and sanction the rider.98.236.51.204 (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And the fact that UCI write his team a letter to tell them to remove him from the 2005 TdF. This also fits in with the Floyd Landis allegations about transfusions they undertook together ahead of and during the 2005 Tour. 86.177.8.83 (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Asset to Armstrong in winning the Tour de France in 2000 and 2001?

This is kind of a curious claim, considering Leipheimer didn't ride the Tour in either of those years.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/jul00/tdfrance00/tdfrance00main.shtml#start

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/tour01/#start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.107.142 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Retirement

I have adding Retirement sub-heading to the Career section and build it out some, including quotes from LL + source citations. Azx2 20:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 - how many pictures does Levi Leipheimer need, which ones, and how to lay them out?

my fav' pic of Bottle in TT-mode

As it says in the section title above...it's 2013 now, Bottle is retired - how many pictures does Levi Leipheimer need, which ones, and how to lay them out? And while he's known for his prowess in TT, how many of the pics should be of him TT-ing? Sheesh. Let's talk about this! If no one responds, I'll attack on my own the article and try to rationalize picture use, but I'd really like some feedback and consensus. Ciao. PS. this is the one pic (besides the lead image) that I really like and would prefer it before any of the other TT-shots: File:Levi Leipheimer UPCC 2011.jpg I'd also like to find way to justify inclusion of this image, of Bottle in road-mode: Stage 4 finish 2011 ATOC San Jose (5735723566).jpg. I only wish it wasn't yet another RadioShack-era pic tho... Azx2 23:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind. compared to some articles it's not overloaded with pictures though. Tom B (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom B. Thanks for your reply. So do you think the pictures and layout are fine as-is and no action required? Or would you favor adding pics? Or removing pics? Or just modifying the picture layout? Thx. Azx2 02:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

it's not that bad as is. if someone wanted to add more then perhaps the only places that could accomodate are in the personal life section and below the 2008 California picture Tom B (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK Tom B, so if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that you personally are fine with the image selection and layout as they are, and see no need for changes? And that's certainly a reasonable viewpoint. My one concern in response would be what about the fact that two of the images that sit basically on top of each other are both of LL TT'ing individually, seen from similar perspectives. Do we need both of those images, and do we need them positioned like that - on top of each other? If we were going to eliminate one of the two pics, or replace it w/ another, which would you prefer be eliminated? Levi TTing for Radioshack or Levi TTing for OPQS? If we deleted one of the two, that might make it possible to add to the article another image of Levi on the road bike (Assuming there are some in Commons we can use?). That's what I"m getting at, really, that I think there are too many pics of LL time trialling and that their layout could stand to be improved. If the consensus was for keeping all of the pictures that are there, what then about moving the OPQS pic from the right side, where it's directly under another TT pic, and shifting it to the left w/o changing anything else about it? Would that be an improvement or a change you could get behind? Thanks (left a msg on your talk page, btw...) Azx2 16:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

i'd be bold and make changes. personally i prefer if the cyclist/bike faces in towards page. in portraits you're meant to have people facing in towards page wp:mos, but i'm not sure if bike riding counts. anyway i wouldn't worry too much, just go ahead and make changes Tom B (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK Tom B, thanks again. Cheers. Azx2 19:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

*Done! and FYI, Tom B: I also built out the intro into a proper BLP-intro. I hope you enjoy the new picture layout. I reduced the number of images, replaced a few, staggered the layout, and (aside from the lead image, which I didn't touch) was able to get the eyes/face of LL in each image pointing more or less in the direction of the text w/o having to mirror or rotate 'em! Azx2 20:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1996 is a mess

I live in Columbus, I've been to many Tour of Grandview races including the one levi won in 1996. Had not idea he would become a world tour rider. He did NOT lap the field. I am a fan but that is NOT why I'm deleted that section that I know has been so contentious. I'm not a prolific editor here but have been one for years and I believe in the goal of not having wikipedia pages turn into gossip columns. I just read page after page here and feel like editors here just gave up on holding this page to the ethic of BLP. There ARE standards and they have not been met and what anyone's stand is on former doped riders should not make the slightest difference. We can't just give a wink and a not to "well, you know he did it" mentality. Properly source the material or don't put it up on the Biography of a Living Person. Think about what that means. In fact, living or dead shouldn't make that much difference in what a reader should expect in regards to not only reading what's written but being about to source what is written.

"Team Einstein" has no significance. He was racing as an amateur. Salt Lake Tribune is not linked, although I put the link above ^^ The next reference does not say "Leipheimer wins US Criterium Title" as quoted and makes no mention of the Grandview race. Velo article not linked. Copy a couple of sentences into a google search and the best I get is a reference it in some comment sections and on Joe Papp's Blog. I can NOT believe editors here would let Joe Papp have any say about what's on doping pages. I would think I convicted felon who dealt the Performance Enhancing drugs he rants about should be considered the least reliable source anyone could dream up. There can be no wink and a nod regarding him as any kind of source here. Then there's the cyclingnews article. Cyclingnews is barely above tabloid grade to start with then this Meyerson, who is simply a rider I never heard of on a team I never heard of, repeating something that, objectively viewed is not proven, is not sourced. That's being used as a source here, in a BLP. It's nowhere close to WP:RS He doesn't claim direct knowledge and he should be viewed skeptically when he says it was a test from the "1996 Elite criterium championships". That is factually false. The Elite class crit champion in 1996 was Matt Johnson. https://s3.amazonaws.com/USACWeb/forms/natchamps/1986-2000NatChamps.pdf</ref> And, again, he did not lap the field. So what part of this article should we consider reliable? None, unless someone is using it to imply things that fit their confirmation biases. We should also be skeptical about using anyone as a source that the cycling press has hung the tag of "outspoken anti-doping advocate" on. As in the Joe Papp case, they need a closer look. That leaves the part about the letter to the editor which obviously doesn't belong there without the rest of this. I'm shocked that after so much talk a section of this article with so many problems has been left as is. This is not a place where tags are enough. It's almost as though good editors here got worn down and gave up. Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The section is referenced. Taking prescription medicine without a exemption (TUE) counts as doping in cycling.--Racklever (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Since when does someone get accused of vandalism when they fully document what the problems were with the section of the article before removing it? There was who knows how many pages of discussion on this section and still it wasn't properly sourced. I've been unable to find out what the frigid air national championship was , but it was not the U.S. National criterium championship, and it's improper to have those words in the article if they are not true. The NY Times article does not saying he was national champion. Under a heading called U.S. nationals it lists levi's name. It is NOT clear what is meant by it so it needs another source to clarify. There is no other source because he was not US Nation Criterium Champion. I wrote all of this in my above comments and more. I cannot find valid replacements sources for the bad ones that are here. Given all the talk here about it a fine little excuse for it not being properly done and I'm trying too avoid concluding that there is an extreme prejudice involved here. Again I remind people this is a BLP. Someone point out to me how this meets those standards. It was a good faith edit reasonably argued. I need someone to look at this from the objective viewpoint of a Wikipedia page and not from the viewpoint of "anti-doping advocate". I want the vandalism tag removed from my name.Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Levi Leipheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911050811/http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf to http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Levi Leipheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103170420/http://emol.org/newclub/levieffect to http://emol.org/newclub/levieffect

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)