Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 1

Initial text
Jan Ullrich is the man for the tour of 2004! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.94.204 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2004 (UTC)
 * Tyler Hamilton ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 July 2004 (UTC)


 * Ullrich WAS the man for the tour. ):- Moriori

More on EPO
CyclingNews reports on even more EPO tests getting thrown out: 

They undertook additional tests under the guidance of the Belgian scientists dealing with Rutger Beke's case. All three triathletes were shown to have extremely high protein levels in their urine after strenuous exercise, which according to recent findings by Belgian and Australian scientists, is one of the main causes of false positive EPO tests. Dr. Mujika also pointed out that, "Athletes throughout the world are at risk of falsely testing positive for rEPO, given that the new criteria established by WADA are not known and the major issue with the test, which is the lack of specificity of the antibodies they use, causing cross reactivity with urinary proteins that have nothing to do with EPO, still remains. It all suggests that the change of criteria is just a desperate manoeuvre to save the urinary EPO test, despite the fact that it has recently been questioned by Belgian and Australian scientists."

As for anonymity, apparently the samples were DATED, which makes it much easier to determine whose samples are being tested: Le Journal du Dimanche said four positives were on urine samples taken at the '99 Tour prologue. Armstrong was tested that day because he won the prologue, while Beltran, Hamburger and Castelblanco were picked for tests on a random basis, the newspaper said.

This is yet another black mark against the whole procedure, as established practices of chain-of-custody and anonymity are not being followed. This whole 5-years-after-the-fact testing is blowing up in WADA/UCI's faces.

About Doping

 * There is now a Lance_Armstrong_2 page which shows the doping section cut down to something reasonable.

I think it is not going to ve very profesional if we keep on adding and erasing the paragraph about Armstrong's relation with EPO. Please leave a single line about it, something arbitrary like:

"Armstrong has been once related with EPO in France by the L'Equipe newspaper, but at the same time his success in several editions of the Tour has been widely recognized."

Agreed. The "Allegations of Drug Use" section is now as large as the rest of the article combined. Users like User:David.Monniaux keep expanding the doping section into more detail on every infraction, and insist that the introduction itself should have an entire paragraph devoted to suspicions and rumors without substantiation. Trying to rebut this increases the size even more. If a user keeps adding accusations, is it unfair to say they "have it out" for Lance?


 * As I understand it, he was related to EPO more than "once by the L'Equipe newspaper". I do agree that the section about doping is overlong and extremely confusing and should be rewritten with one coherent view of the matter, rather than this "accusation / rebufal" style. On the other hand a single line like "Armstrong has been once related with EPO in France by the L'Equipe newspaper, but at the same time his success in several editions of the Tour has been widely recognized." does not make the subject justice, in my opinion. Rama 09:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that one-liner refers to just the latest allegations. This is the Lance Armstrong page, so we have to consider how many rumors and allegations to allow. If we got rid of everything not proven, we'd just have the corticoids in the saddle sore cream. I think it is fair to make the entire section be shorter than the Tour de France section, since this page is about his life and achievements, not all the nasty things people have said about him.

By the same reasoning, we should take every article about any somewhat controversial personality and edit out the controversy section, saying something like "Mr X is considered by many to be a great guy, yet some people don't like him." Come to think of it, this would greatly simplify writing biographies.

Let us summarize the facts:
 * 1) He was found to have used corticoids without declaring them to sports authorities beforehands, as regulations impose. He then told a story about some saddle sore cream and produced a prescription, and sports authorities considered it ok even though he had violated the rules. A number of sports people have said that bogus prescription for external corticoids are an old and widely used trick for masking injections of corticoids. A disproportionately high proportion of riders are deemed to suffer from asthma &mdash; which enables them to get prescriptions of corticoids and other drugs.  Thus, one may validly conclude that prescriptions for external corticoids are not a proof of innocence.
 * 2) Armstrong has consulted with Michele Ferrari, a man cited by many in cycling as a doping doctor. Ferrari has been sentenced for sports fraud by Italian justice. (Of course, guilt does not extend by association.)
 * 3) Armstrong has had unusual performance and breathing characteristics since his victory over cancer.
 * 4) Journalists have published a book in which some former Armstrong aides say that they have witnessed doping-related actions. (Of course, that may just be a bogus testimony; yet, as far as I know, Armstrong has lost his case for stopping publication.)
 * 5) L'Équipe has published information, which, if true (i.e. non bogus sample numbers), indicates with high probability that Armstrong took EPO in 1999. (Incidentally, former cyclists such as Philippe Gaumont have commented that in 1999 everybody took EPO anyway, because it was undetectable &mdash; they just made sure their hematocrit was 50% at most.)

This would not be deemed to be proof by a court of law. However, this would certainly be called circumstancial evidence suggesting the need for further enquiry. And, certainly, such information should be reflected in the article.

Armstrong strongly denies having doped himself. However, he has very strong financial and personal interests to do so. Also, it is a fact that major riders have declared not to have doped themselves, before being proved to be doped (Marco Pantani and Richard Virenque come to mind). Thus, one may validly question Armstrong's credibility in his denials.

Perhaps the current presentation is inadequate, and the doping section could be summarized; yet, I think that the proposed changes amount to bowdlerization and censorship.


 * I think the "reasons for success" should be summarized too. Because, there are 2 versions : whether he's doped, whether there are "reasons for success". The "reasons" article is twice as long as the "drug allegations" one. That should be more balanced.

Remember, we are not here to judge whether or not Armstrong was doped up. We are here to present widely available information on him. David.Monniaux 13:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that section deserves a mention of Dr. Ferrari, as well as the numerous allegations coming from former USPS employees. Peoplesunionpro 04:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the logical fallacies from the Drug Use section. I have given specific reasons for each instanced below.

Removed paragraphs on Armstrong/Simeoni. Red Herring: The information, while valid, has nothing to do with the stated topic of the section (doping). If it is to be reintegrated it belongs in a separate section, though its importance is questionable. Criticism of Armstrong’s actions in this instance also holds no importance to the issue of drug use either, serving as a distraction to the arguments.

Removed mention of Christophe Bassons book. Appeal to Authority/Innuendo/False Dilema: Bassons possesses no training or education to give him any insights into the nature of physical characteristics. Implying that Armstong has unnatural performance when compared to Bassons proposes the False Dilemma that individuals of similar physical characteristics will either have similar performance or one will have cheated.


 * Disagreed. No logical fallacy here. We have somebody who has been a professional rider (so who knows first-hand the performance of professional cyclists) who is surprised that the performances of Armstrong are so much outside the norm. In the past, several riders with performances outside the norm were found to have been doped; in fact, unusual performances were a good indication of doping.
 * Remember, this is not about giving proofs of guilt, but explaining how reasonable people can have reasonable reasons to suspect Armstrong. This is very different.


 * Perhaps you are unfamiliar with logical fallacies, but it is quite clear that this falls into such a category. First, what is Bassons Profession? Cyclist. Thus we may assume that he has greater knowledge of the physiology involved in the sport than the average Frenchman but still far less than someone trained and experienced in the field of Athletic Physiology. Thus using his as an authority is invalid. Second, do his implications hold true to experience? They do not. Only the first Tour de France is currently in question; there is no evidence to suppose that Armstrong used drugs since (if, indeed, he used them then). Thus, if Armstrong was capable of doing as well on subsequent runs as the first, during which it is known that he did not do drugs, it may reasonably be supposed that he did not need drugs in the first instances either. A valid authority cannot place antidotal evidence above quantitative evidence. Thus, in practice Bassons has shown himself to be ill equipped as an authority. Further still, to overkill the point, Bassons ceased competition in 2001, thus he lacks four years of experience necissary to objectively judge Armstrong's performance. At the absolute best, at the time of formulation Bassons might have had a valid opinion but it is no longer so.


 * To use Bassons as a valid source is like asking René Dreyfus about the inner workings of an automobile that he is not personally familiar with. He can make general assumptions and extrapolations but that information is hardly worthy of specific claims. A general claim that Armstrong's performance is so high as to indicate the use of drugs is valid information, if it can be collaborated as a significant trend in public thinking (as opposed to the random ravings of two people). Even then, it must be clearly identified as public opinion and not as objective conjecture. You'll still need to find valid professional opinions, however, if you want it to be more than conjecture.


 * Additionally, when you edited this information it back in you added more questionable material. Random people's opinions on general trends are invalid, especially when similar traits occur across all sports. Take a look at world records, almost all of them have been set within the last few years, and all of them have been broken repeatedly. These opinions may be included, but only when properly cited and identified.


 * Thought 20:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm actually fairly versed in logical fallacies. The opinion that the ever increasing time averages on the Tour are explained by widespread doping of increasing quality is a popular thesis, reflected by many press articles, even going into satirical shows like the Guignols de l'Info. This opinion is also asserted by a number of ex-cyclists. This opinion is also corroborated by a number of objective facts, including judicial cases: there have been a number of teams where trafficking of prescription drugs and even narcotics was proved before courts of law, with evidence such as entire stashes of illegal drugs inside team cars. Thus, there are valid reasons to consider this conjecture as validly based (note that I said conjecture). [Note that Bassons and others seldom say that Armstrong or such or such rider was doped up, unless that person was caught for it &mdash; they obviously do not want to get sued, so they leave the reader to connect the dots.]
 * Remember, again, that Wikipedia is not about making judicial cases. It is not about gathering facts in order to prove a point. It is about reporting what is widely said or known on the topics that it discusses. A number of books and press articles have published fairly reasonable conjectures on Armstrong, fitting with proved facts about other cyclists. We should echo them. If we are to remove all unproved facts and conjectures from Wikipedia, we should as well suppress entire sections (parts of mathematics, most of the religion section, etc.). David.Monniaux 06:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Except that you just made the argumentum ad logicam fallacy! The particular fallacy I cited, appeal to authority, has nothing to do with if the statement is correct or false, rather that the source of the information is invalid. Thus, it is irrelevant how much collaborative information you have on the subject; the source is the question, not the topic. Since you failed to further defend Bassons, I will take it that you agree that he is not a valid source (or, at the least, not the best). You kindly indicate that you are aware of several valid sources; if you were to cite one of those specifically then that would take care of the fallacy while preserving the information, thus increasing the quality of wikipedia.
 * Remember, wikipedia is not about reporting rumors and random happenstance, but rather valid information in the clearest, most logical manner possible. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a definitive work, the best sources for and instances of valid information aught to be presented, as opposed to highly dubious works that happen to be instep with the general idea. It isn't like there is going to be a bonus round for which you need to save your best information; give the best information you can with the best sources you have. But, since the information has been removed it might be best to post those sorts of claims under an entry pertaining specifically to drug use in sports, especially since as you stated they seldom accuse Armstrong specifically.
 * Thought 17:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This, I'm afraid, begins to exceed my patience. I've had it enough of people who use a variety of latine locutions in a pretentious and pompous way, and with dubious criteria. If I may say, using pompous words in conversation is by itself a kind of appeal to authority ("You may not be well-versed in logical fallacies, but here I am and I declare that you do the following fallacy") &mdash; reminds me terribly of the 17th century physicians that Molière denounced.
 * From my point of view, there have been suspicions about Lance Armstrong published in major newspapers and reprinted by major worldwide media. These suspicions are logically sound. We have to report these, period. Since on Wikipedia we prefer to attribute sayings to people, I mentioned Bassons, because I happened to have read his book lately; but numerous other people have expressed their suspicions about the Tour de France racing faster and faster after having slowed down after drug busts.
 * A number of former racers (Menthéour, Gaumont, Bassons etc.) have said that to their best knowledge most pro racers are doped up, and that in those circumstances it was very probably impossible that the winner of the Tour should not be doped up. This makes sense logically &mdash; if a number of racers have performances exceeding normal undoped performances of top athletes by a wide margin (and we know a number of racers are doped up, because this has been proved in court), then it means that the winner of the races has performances greatly exceeding those of normal top athletes. This seems to indicate (but not prove) doping &mdash; in the same way that a hematocrit rate above 50% indicates (but does not prove) doping.
 * If we took the criterion that we should remove widely publicized rumors (i.e. sayings that do not contain actual proofs that they are true), we should remove most of the religion section (after all, it's just a lot of commentary on rumor about some alleged gods), discussion of all mathematical conjectures, etc. This position cannot be held in an encyclopedia. David.Monniaux 07:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed mention of accusations regarding Armstrong’s donation: Ad Hominem Circumstantial: Appeal to Motive special case. While the accusation has been made (and thus might have a place here), the accusation itself is a logical fallacy and Wikipedia attempts to record valid information, not wild conjectures.

Thought 18:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed a great deal of information from the doping section (information that may very well have been factually corrrect). I left the direct statements from the parties involved and a short summary noting that the allegations remain disputed. My reasoning: While it may very well be possible to write several books examining these accusations, an article which only devotes short paragraphs to the aspects his life is not a suitable place for them. I'd also everyone to consider the fact that knowledge of whether Armstrong doped is only noteworthy if the answer is exceptional. If Armstrong did not dope and none of the other riders did, it only deserves a short mention. Likewise, if "everyone on the Tour dopes" and Armstrong did as well, we do not need a doctoral thesis examining the issue. We should only devote significant space to the issue if there is evidence showing Armstrong's conduct was remarkable (he doped and no one else did, or everyone else doped and he did not).

Requests

 * 1) Weave in information on the "livestrong" foundation. Yes, it's not just about the irritating bands.
 * 2) I read some wear that lance is an athiest, would that be worth including in the artical?--Zath42 09:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought I'd heard that too, but wasn't he wearing a cross that was dangling out of his jersey when he was climbing the mountains? Cmprince 16:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) The cross was given to him, as I understand it, by a cancer survivor. However, as Armstrong's spirituality has little if anything to do with his accomplishments, I see no reason to speculate about his possible atheism.


 * CelebAtheists has him listed, with some sources (his biography and interviews etc): . Vclaw 16:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on this, his beliefs (or lack of them) don't seem to be easily pinned down. Saying anything categorically about it in the article would seem to be speculation. Cmprince 17:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No information on doping allegations
I think this article is too much of a lovefest. Certainly some mention of doping allegations as well as refutations should be included here.


 * ONLY if we include similar allegations for all the other tall-poppy sportsmen and women who have had druggie allegations made against them by hate filled people.


 * I think that "hate filled people" is a blind allegation, and that adjectives like "vociferous" are also out of place. Le Monde is a serious newspaper of generally moderate stances. I think there has been considerable media distraction so as to turn this into a France vs US jealousy quarrel, or a Le Monde vs Armstrong feud, but Wikipedia should refrain from that. David.Monniaux 07:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This part of the article seems to put serious doubt on the allegations, partly because the urine sample used was old, saying that a scientific should therefore refrain from considering them from absolutely sure. It seems to me that is sort of biased, since it does not emphasize at all what is scientifically known, that is : at -20°c, all bacterias and stuff susceptible to have any effect on the chemical composure of the sample are not effective, and the only known effect they have on EPO is to actually decrease the amount of exogen EPO in the considered sample. I daresay that is why the director of Châtenay-Malabry's laboratory is so categorical about the results. And I agree with David as to the media distraction, french scientists have better things to do than looking for ways to annoy american sportsmen...

No. The drugs allegations are more serious and persistent than a few "hate filled people"; especially w.r.t. his association with Michele Ferrari. They're largely hearsay, but they need mentioning, as must the lack of any substantive evidence against him.


 * So where do we draw a line? If someone happens to associate with someone else, he/she isn't automatically guilty of any offending by the associate. Anyway, Armstrong has never tested positive for an illegal drug. Someone said the article was too much of a lovefest, so someone amended it by adding a drug paragraph. The last line in the paragraph under discussion says ........ many still hold doubts about the legitimacy of Armstrong's achievement. Sheesh. Where's the balance in that? Many have NOdoubts, so I've said so." Moriori
 * (Did you notice how Armstrong was spat at during the time trial yesterday?), I saw an interview between Armstrong and one of the US interviewers (Larry King? Letterman?) where he was asked if he had ever taken drugs. He replied that of course he had, especially when he was fighting cancer, but in case anyone hadn't noticed he wasn't actually racing a bike at the time. He was also asked if he had used drugs at any other time, and answered by saying he didn't need drugs to ride well, but couldn't answer that question for some of his competitiors .Moriori 21:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Added by herve661: the issue of wether he was doped or not is extremely important. If true, it would be one of the biggest impostors ever, and I think we should report everything known about doping. There are as I said countless proofs and testimony of doping in cyclism on a large scale. Not reporting it would be biased.

BTW, l'equipe is in no way a tabloid. This is just talking Lance Armstrong's wordings without any actual check. You almost never see accusations like against Lance Armstrong in front page. It was not sensationalism, if such a great champion is really doped and they have proof of that, they are just doing their work.

Incorrect information on performance-enhancement denials
The quote in the article with regard to Lance's answer to the doping question is incorrect. I am afraid to change it without consulting the community (as many are quite emotional on the subject), but it is wholly incorrect. In point of fact, Lance has never unequivocally denied using performance enhancing substances. Now, he has to be guarded because when he had cancer, he had to take EPO to stay alive, and he currently requires testosterone injections due to the fallout from his ordeal with cancer. But in every press conference he has had, he is continually asked the same question: "can you categorically deny using performance enhancing substances in your lifetime" and he always responds with a very interesting answer: "I can absolutely confirm that we don’t use doping products. Now, that is not a denial. First of all that answer is only in the present tense and does not speak to the past. Also, keeping in mind that some types of growth hormone (which can permanently effect an athelete's strength development) also tend to cause testicular cancer, one has to wonder if as a young aspiring racer, Lance danced with the devil and got burned. Certainly, since he has had cancer, he has become the most drug tested athelete in sports, and has never used anything, or he would be caught. But he has never, EVER denied using "performance enhancing" substances before he got cancer. Not once. He has denied doping, i.e. EPO etc., but never development-altering drugs. Human Growth Hormone is not a doping agent. Take a look at http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul26news2, former USPS team doctor claiming he was fired for not providing doping agents the year before Lance joined. I am not saying Lance took drugs. I am saying that he has NEVER categorically denied taking them, and the Wikipedia entry to this effect is factually incorrect. He has repeatedly made a limited denial. At some point, some Wikipedian needs to put the truth in here... and bear the brunt of Hell which hath no Fury like Lance Fans. Good luck! Gambrill 20:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- The above information is incorrect. Lance does not use testosterone. In the June 2005 Playboy interview, Lance says: "You also produce less testosterone. The one that remains picks up a bit of the slack for his buddy who's gone, but not all of it. Since 1996 I've had chronically low testosterone, and I can't do anything about it."

The interview continues: ''PLAYBOY: It's a banned substance. You couldn't race if you replaced the testosterone you lost.'' ''ARMSTRONG: I have to wait until I retire. It's not a question of being manly or being a sexual god, but I worry about osteoporosis. Chronically low testosterone leads to brittle bones.''

--- 1st Response: Those claims by the former USPS doctor have been vehemently rebutted by Tyler Hamilton, one of the people the doctor has accused. See http://www.velonews.com/tour2004/diaries/articles/6685.0.html or http://www.tylerhamilton.com/

As for the insinuation about human growth hormone, where is any evidence for that?

And NO product "permanently" increases anyone's strength, despite your unfounded allegation above. Additionally, it is unclear how taking growth hormone would help an endurance athlete. Not to mention your insinuations about 1996 or prior admittedly have nothing to do with Lance's success since 1999.

Finally, I recall reading circa 2000 that cyclists have something like 3 times the normal incidence of testicular tumors -- most of which are benign. Apparently having a bike seat jammed into your crotch for thousands of miles of rubbing causes problems. No need to trot out the unfounded GH boogeyman. -- 1st Rebuttal: Tyler Hamilton is now a convicted doper, and Dr. Ferrari, Lance's doctor of ten years, has now been found guilty of sports fraud in a doping investigation. Not that Lance is guilty by assosciation, but neither is he "innocent by assosciation" as you imply above. For more information about how Growth Hormone and testosterone help endurance atheletes and permanently affect human development, see the following article by Prentice Steffen, MD, FAAEM at Velonews. gedankenexperiment: If Growth Hormone DOES NOT permanently affect development, why is it given to people with pituitary conditions to help them grow taller? If the effects are not permanent, does this mean someone given GH (Growth Hormone) their entire life who has achieved a height of 6 feet tall will shrink if they stop taking it? Please read the NIH article. Information about Lance's refusal to deny using strength enhancing products or to categorically deny doping should be in this article. I will not add it though for fear of being banned by wingnuts. Gambrill 18:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rebutting your Rebuttal: Your rebuttal was very misleading, Tyler Hamilton is NOT a "convicted" doper, that case is still under investigation, it's a new test and the first substancial 'positive' test, questions of the reliability of the test, for all we know Tyler Hamilton could be a chimera. Dr. Ferrari has been found guilty in the doping investigation, but was NOT "Lance's Doctor" he was a friend and consulted on training programs, but was never Lance's primary sports physiologist, physician, coach, trainer, podiatrist, research fellow, or any other form of a "doctor".

2nd response Futher to Gambrill talking about persons using growth hormone's to increase one's hieght is not physiologically linked to the fitness or endurance abilities hence short poeple being top class sportpersons too. I would like anyone who tries to write about doping to try to at least get the facts about the products physiological effects first and not just spout off.Yes it is true that GH effects do last your whole life but fittness and ability change constantly so it can't have a permanment effect on those.It is also irresponsable to say that lance has never denined taking perfomance enhancing products when in his book he does say he took EPO as a medical product and never while competing as an amatuer or professional.To say that medical an sports are one in the same just proves that the knowledge base used for the comment is seriously tainted and needs to be corrected first, maybe the writer would like to try having cancer and not having medical treament and see if he survives.The original statement that was posted is more jealousy than fact finding as performance enhancers are just that. If people cant understand the differences,and therefore the answers then maybe they need to spend more time reading articals and talking to experts and less time shouting about what has and has not been said by the athelete's concerned


 * No original research. --Alterego 18:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sacrifices
I received a newsletter this morning with the following quote by Dan Miller -- 'I love having goals and see what it can do to transform results in people's lives. But a goal obsession can blur our view of a larger mission. As Lance Armstrong held his trophy high over his head Sunday, he said, "This is more important than anything." That appears obvious. His former wife Kristin still lives in Texas and did not respond to interview requests from The Associated Press. Probably busy taking care of Lance's three children, Luke, aged 3 and the twins, Isabelle Rose and Grace Elisabeth, not yet 1. My own son is a professional bicycle racer - we know what winning requires. But if Kevin had raised the trophy yesterday in Paris and along the way opted out of being "daddy" to my three grandkids - I'd grab the trophy and melt it down as a paperweight.'

It would be interesting to elaborate on the personal sacrifices Armstrong appears to have made in pursuit of his goal of winning at apparently all costs. H2O 21:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Dan Miller? Who is Dan Miller?Moriori 22:22, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dan Miller is a Tennessee-based business consultant/career coach who holds seminars, publishes a weekly email newsletter, and two self-published workbook/tape series entitled "48 Days to the Work You Love" and "48 Days to Creative Income". He will be publishing his first mainstream book later this year.  I used his materials when I started my business last year and found them very helpful. H2O 18:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- 1st Response: Not sure when that newsletter was sent, but Luke was born Oct 1999 and the twins were born Nov 2001 according to http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Armstrong_Lance.html so that would appear to date it in Oct or Nov of 2002, except it says "his former wife", in which case it would be talking about 2004 with Luke now almost 5 and the twins coming up on their 3rd birthday. If that's the case, Lance has said repeatedly that he wants to spend much more time with the kids and is even skipping the Olympics to do just that. And prior to the divorce, both parents were raising the kids together.

There is no indication that he has opted out of being the "daddy" to his children; although he was apart for a few months due to his ex-wife staying in Texas. Previously, she would come along and bring the kids to Spain and France. The divorce changed that for 2004.

Also, "daddy" has certainly provided for his kids by becoming a multi-millionaire. If daddy has to go to work in Europe and mommy won't come along with the kids like she used to, should we blame daddy for that? He can't race the TdF in Texas, but she can sure stay at their various luxurious residences in Europe. And he's even giving up his last shot at the Olympics to be with them.

In House Joke
your in-house trivia is unencyclopedic. When editing you said  ......it helps to be familiar with her music before editing out the humor. More precisely, people need to know the joke before they know what it means. Millions of people have never heard of Crow, they have never heard her songs, they wouldn't have a clue what is supposed to be meant by many pundits have noted: If it makes him happy, it can't be that bad which you say is humour. It could not be obvious to everyone exactly what the joke is supposed to be, and anything not obvious to the reader has no place in any article. Moriori 00:39, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Response:

"anything not obvious to the reader has no place in any article" -- the whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide the reader with information that may not be obvious. I have never heard of a definition for an encyclopedia that fits with your implication: "a collection of painfully obvious information".
 * .You sure got that wrong. I need to comment on your statement that the whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide the reader with information that may not be obvious.  It is exactly the opposite. We must INFORM people, not present them with information they may not comprehend.  Where possible, we should cover the 5 Ws -- Who, What, Where, When and Why? Your "joke" wasn't obvious WHY it was a joke, and even when explained there would have been some people still wondering why it was a joke. In fact there were, as this thread shows. Incidentally, why did you remove your user ip, 4.3.129.173? As you didn't have a talk page, I addressed you via your user ip under the subhead above. Makes it easier to follow the threadsMoriori 23:25, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, feel free to add a couple lines of background information to explain the joke. One could say, "many pundits have taken a line from her hit song and quipped..." In my opinion, that makes it somewhat less amusing, but perhaps it would assuage the easily ego-bruised who chafe at finding out they didn't get a joke they should have known. Some people actually *laugh* when they get the punchline.

And horrors, how awful is it to include jokes that are not "obvious to everyone"? I'd love to see your redactions for the entry on Humor.


 * How helpful is it to the understanding of the reader, as opposed to the entertainment? Providing information in a clear and helpful manner is an encyclopedia's primary goal, not evoking mirth. I'd say that this joke can only confuse the reader, and should clearly be left out. &mdash; Matt 08:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's not underestimate the reader. Besides, there is information there: a connection to a hit song that got immense amounts of radio play, and the fact that many people who follow cycling have made that same joke.

Ever had a professor who said something funny in the middle of a lecture just to see if the class was awake?

Everyone likes educators with a sense of humor. Let's not try to be dry and stuffy before we hit our seventies, please.

As a champion on the side of humor and general silliness, I am obviously on the side of Goodness and Yoda and so forth. Do you really want to be on the unfunny side of the Force?


 * Yes, I want to be unfunny; I'm British. You refer to "immense ammounts of radio play" &mdash; where? In the US? Maybe. In, say, Kenya? I doubt it. Humour is hugely culturally specific; yes, in a lecture it might add something, but rarely in an international encyclopedia. &mdash; Matt 09:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: Oh my Lord, your over-explanation of the joke de-funnitizes it. Matt Crypto's edited version: Many Lance fans have quipped, "If it makes him happy, it can't be that bad", a joke making reference to one of Crow's hits containing the lyric, "If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad".

I think I speak for myself when I say the humor-impaired "editors" here surely would not be any fun to be stuck in an elevator with, regardless of the amount of Vaseline present. I think I'll leave the butchered version intact as a testament to Showgirls, until someone else puts it out of its misery.

(update conflict as the above was being posted; added more below)

UPDATE 2: Your appalling lack of Pythonesque sensibilities doesn't excuse your lack of pop culture awareness; Sheryl Crow Topped the UK LP chart when that song hit the Top 10. Anyhow if our standard is going to be "do people in Kenya know about it?", we may as well delete anything referring to our wealthy Western lifestyles and add more articles on how to wrangle wildebeest.
 * Eh? My concern is about culturally-bound in-jokes, which attempt to amuse, not presentation of knowledge, which informs. As for "humour-impaired", I hate to break it to you, mate, but the joke isn't even funny, sorry. &mdash; Matt 09:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify one thing : I edited out the "joke", not because I didn't get it (I own "Tuesday Night Music Club", and am more than sufficiently aware of the song referenced), but because it was a really, really, lame, unfunny joke. Really, really unfunny.  OK? GWO


 * After reviewing your home page, it's apparent that the kind of things you seem to find amusing -- namely, the "email poem from Radio 4's "I'm glad you asked me that"" and your own ascii art poem -- hardly qualify you to be the arbiter of broad-appeal humor. Additionally, anyone who actually OWNS "Tuesday Night Music Club" automatically gives up the right to lecture anyone else on good taste.  Didn't you read the liner notes?
 * Bite me, anon boy' GWO 16:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I see you used IP 4.3.128.41 for this entry. Are you IP 4.3.129.173 as well? If you are, did you see my earlier response to you, where I said : '"....I need to comment on your statement that the whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide the reader with information that may not be obvious.  It is exactly the opposite. We must INFORM people, not present them with information they may not comprehend.  Where possible, we should cover the 5 Ws -- Who, What, Where, When and Why? Your "joke" wasn't obvious WHY it was a joke, and even when explained there would have been some people still wondering why it was a joke. In fact there were, as this thread shows." Just wondering, because it was up the page a bit among earlier comment. Moriori 02:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Unneeded category?
Someone removed "Cyclists" as a category, with the edit comment "removed unneeded cat". Just because Armstrong is an American cyclist means he's not a cyclist? Shouldn't all cyclists be in the cyclists category, and only American cyclists in the American cyclists category? I understand that "American cyclists" is a subcat of cyclists, but so what?

I'm adding it back, and would appreciate an explanation if it is removed again. --Serge 20:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no need to add articles to a category if they are already in a subcategory of that. From Categorization:
 * '' In the "vertical" dimension, you should probably be more frugal. A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in.  For example,  Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her.  We know that all Queens of England qualify as Famous Britons and as Royalty, and all of those folks qualify as People.


 * Otherwise, the logical conclusion would be to add Armstrong to Category:American sportspeople, Category:Sportspeople, Category:American people and even Category:People, which would just get silly. Vclaw 22:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand the reasoning behind the general rule, I'm just not sure it applies in this case. No one is going to click on Category "People" and expect to find particular people there, including Queen Elizabeth, or Lance Armstrong, for that matter.  But we do have a category called "cyclists".  How do we decide which cyclists are categorized there?  Unless we decide that no individual cyclists should be categorized there (then what is it for?), it seems to me that all cyclists should be there.  Otherwise you have Jan Ullrich, but no Lance Armstrong.  What's up with that?  Anyway, do you see what I'm talking about?  --Serge 00:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I would say that no individual cyclists should be categorised there. The category is for allowing you to find the subcategories, i.e. by nationality etc. I notice that for example Category:Football (soccer) players has such a rule. Someone asked about this category on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling recently, maybe worth discussing it there to get a consensus. Vclaw 01:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree we should decide one way or the other. If we do go with no individual cyclists under "Cyclists", then "American Cyclists", "German Cyclists", Australian Cyclists", etc. should all probably be direct subcats of "Cyclists".  But as long as there are any individual cyclists categorized under Cyclists, certainly Armstrong should be among them. --Serge 01:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 2
I think this paragraph should be mostly moved down to an "awards" section. The reason is that most of these listed are corporate (American corporate) "awards" rather than meaningful neutral awards. It represents a particularly American corporate POV to highlight the successes of their own prized and invested athletes, and likewise it seems like its advertising here. -SV|t 18:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Early career
"competing in seniors' competitions from the age of 16"&mdash;from what age did he compete in juniors' competitions? JHCC (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for Success

 * Because cycling is considered more than just the Tour by Europeans, European cyclists compete in several major races before and after the Tour (like the Giro and the Vuelta). Armstrong exclusively concentrated on the Tour. His method and consequent victories have drawn to a lot of attention to the sport, but has gained him a lot of disdain from cycling fans.

I'm deleting this because of its inaccuracies. Pro cyclists don't necessarily race in several major races because of a cultural attitude, but rather because it's part of their job. Other European cyclists concentrate solely on the Tour as well, and race as little, or less than Armstrong does. His rivals all concentrate purely on the Tour de France, so I don't see this as a reason for success... at least not in recent years. And he raced in other major events regularily during his Tour de France winning seasons. Peoplesunionpro 13:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Few of Armstrong's rivals focused on the Tour like he did. Even this year, 2nd placed Basso did the Giro.  Vino has been in a lot of races, trying to win, not just prepare for the Tour.  Ullrich, Leipheimer, Landis, maybe a few others.  But I'm sure even Armstrong would agree that his concentration on the Tour is a significant factor in why he won, and is a reason for his success.  However, he's not the first to concentrate on the Tour like this.  Indurain did the same, for example.  --Serge 18:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The current article fails to reflect the changes in Armstrong's physique that played were particularly suited to winning the Tour de France. As a result of the cancer treatment, Armstrong lost a significant amount of muscle (as a pro-cyclist he had very low body fat, so weight lost through treatment was almost entirely muscle) and was able to change his riding style from a more powerful rider, to one that relied on high cadence. This was significant as it is more suited to the Tour's hill stages, where large gears make it difficult to attack or defend attacks. Armstrong's racing weight is approximately 19 pounds lighter than before the cancer. An article in Bicycling Australia (July/August 2005) quotes Armstrong as saying, "When I came back I began racing at almost 30 pounds less than before the treatments.  I am a pretty willful guy, but I never would have had the self-dicipline to loose 30 pounds".


 * Just a note: Indurain, as suggested in the article did not climb by brute force.  A quick look a the Luz Ardiden stage of the 1990 Tour de France will confirm this;  Paul Sherwen mentions in almost all of his commentaries of Armtrong climbing, even suggesting that Armstrong adopted the technique after chatting with Indurain.

Unique physical attributes? How unique?
I would like to see a source reference for some of the claims in this paragraph:


 * A key contributor to his success may be his unique physical attributes. Armstrong's heart is reportedly 30% larger than average, and his lungs have the capacity to absorb twice as much oxygen than normal. This unique combination means more oxygen-rich blood reaches his muscles, helping him fight fatigue and exert more energy than his competitors. His seemingly super-human capabilities are then, in many ways, super-human. It is estimated that there are only a few thousand people in the United States with the same such physical capabilities.

While Armstrong's physical attributes may be "super" compared to the average person, and how do they compare to the average Tour rider? That a world class athlete has above average physical attributes from genes should be no surprise to anyone. What might be significant is how those attributes compare to other world class athletes, not to the norm.

If the source of this is the Discovery Channel or CNN story on him, I thought I heard the doctor say "only" "1 in 100 Americans" has the same physical attributes as Armstrong. By my calculations, that's not just a "few thousand people in the United States", but almost three million. --Serge 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for this statement from someone knowledgable about the sport?


 * "However, whether his competitors were similarly physically gifted is not known, but the fact that his strongest competitors lost only a handful of minutes in over 2500 miles of racing indicates to some that any advantage could not be very significant."


 * The grand tours reward simply a win, not a win by a large number of minutes. Once the leader has the margin he thinks it will take to win, it's not his responsibility to increase the lead; rather it's the other contenders' responsibility to catch up with him and thus you'll see the yellow jersey sitting on the wheel of his toughest competitors, matching their moves, but not taking any risks.


 * I think most people who followed Lance's Tours closely would agree that he did about as much as he could each year in terms of how much time he won. For example, in the final TT this year he admitted he was going all out in the OLN interview aired this week:


 * "I suffered – first of all it was a very hard course, hilly, technical – never flat, ever. Starting fairly conservatively and going through the first time check 7 seconds down I had a little bit of a panic there, but there again, having a guy like Johan in my ear saying ‘Looking good’ – him knowing that Basso and Ullrich were slowing down – him confirming to me that I was continuing to get stronger and taking time out of them – that was enough…"


 * Despite the suffering, he beat Ullrich by only 23 seconds. He might have stretched that out a couple more seconds if he had not slowed down a tad for safety reasons at the end when Bruyneel told him his margin.  In a much shorter TT, in Stage 1, he beat Ullrich by over a minute.  If he could have done so in the final TT, he would have.  He had nothing to save for.   After over an hour of riding, he was only 23 seconds ahead.  That's not much.  Heck, the top 20 were all within 4 minutes.  That just isn't consistent with having some "super human" advantage that the others do not have.  That's just one example.  Another example, again from this year, is that he admitted to trying to win a mountain top stage, but being unable to beat Basso.  On one stage he could (after a rider in break already won), but on the ones that would have counted for stage win, he couldn't.  In earlier years, we remember the incredible efforts where he quickly put in a minute or two on his rivals at a mountain top finish, but he often could not shake rivals on certain mountain climbs until the very end, even though he was clearly trying.  Beyond that, look at his performance in other races.  Or the difficulties he always had on certain climbs, like Ventoux.  Very good, sure, but not that remarkable.  If he really had the physical advantages claimed in this article, then he would be dominating in all races, at least as much as Eddy Merckx was in his time.  But he didn't even come anywhere close to accomplishing that.  Sure he didn't try.  But why didn't he, because he knew he had to focus on the Tour, on peaking for the Tour, in order to win it each year.  Look, I'm a huge Armstrong fan, and I don't mean to take anything away from him.  Quite the opposite, really.  But winning was no cakewalk for the man.  He had to work hard for every second that he gained on his rivals.  He wasn't kidding when he titled his book, Every Second Counts.  His understanding of that fact, perhaps better than anyone else, explains why he won more than any physical advantages do.  When this question came up in his interview with Letterman (or was it Charlie Rose?), he himself basically discounted it:  "I like to think it's the hard work I put in" (from memory; might not be exactly what he said).  Look at his winning margin in 2003.  Only 61 seconds!.  You think that was strategic?  Ha!  It seems to me, and I suspect to Armstrong too, that the other reasons on this list, mostly the focus and hard work, are much more significant factors in explaining his success than the "unique physical attributes" stuff.  If you want to believe he could have beat rivals like Pantani, Ullrich or Basso by 30 minutes or an hour (after 2500 miles that's still not a very big difference), go ahead, but I'd bet Armstrong himself would be the first one to contend that there was no way he could have done that, in any of the years.  --Serge 02:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How unique? Evidently able to win the TdF from the Twilight Zone: "high gear and brute strength. Armstrong maintained a high speed even..." Yes? Trekphiler 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Got trouble in understanding, help
I'm translating this page for Wikipedia Chinese Version, and I cannot understand the term "10/2" line in the sentence "The date of October 2 was eventually commemorated by Armstrong and Nike, through the "10 / 2" line of merchandise, of which part of the proceeds would go to the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which was founded in 1997. " Help, Thanks. 谢谢！ --60.232.175.144 15:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Truth


 * 10/2 represents October 2 in the US. It's the tenth month, second day of the month.  Bollar 15:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually it's the term ---"10 / 2" line of merchandise--- bothering me.--60.232.175.144 21:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. Nike 10/2 is a product line name like Nike Air Zoom, Nike Shox, Nike Free, Nike Speed.  Does that help?  Bollar 22:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks a lot.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)