Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 2

Yellow background
What's the reason for the yellow background? It doesn't look very professional. McPhail 16:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee, what could be the reason for a yellow background for an article about Lance Armstrong? What a puzzler!  Hey, that Sports Illustrated cover with Lance on it has a yellow background too!  Hmm... coincidence?  I wonder... what could be the reason?  ;-)


 * I think it was a nice touch. My vote is for the yellow background.  --Serge 17:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately there isn't, and won't be, a vote. --Alterego 17:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Rare athletic physical attributes
I'm deleting the following statement:
 * However, the fact that Armstrong shared the Paris podium with eight different riders in seven winning Tours could also indicate that none of his competitiors consistently demonstrated such a wide range of eclectic attributes, especially as he rode only to win the Tours, not to win them by large margins.

"The fact that Armstrong shared the Paris podium with eight different riders is much better explained by the other "reasons for success" than the sheer speculation about having any genetic physical advantages not just over the average Joe (which is undisputed), but over his chief rivals (which is sheer speculation and thus has no basis for mentioning in an encyclopedia). --Serge 02:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Serge, that's fine. It was only inserted to balance your addition which said "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 that the advantage, if any, could not be very significant." So two bits of speculation have been excised. Wikipedia wins, as it hopefuly always will. Moriori 09:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

French bias
With the L'Equipe article, isn't there a French bias against a popular American athlete ?Hektor 16:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Lance has always been more popular in France than in Texas... 82.224.88.52 16:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you ever been to Austin?

The French media has been considerably softer with respect to Lance Armstrong than, say, with respect to Richard Virenque (who was caricatured so much that his "à l'insu de mon plein gré" claim has become a common joke about hypocrites). I must say that on this occasion like on many others, I think that the accusations of anti-americanism are over-used cliché that the US press uses to weed off valid criticism. David.Monniaux 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Miguel Indurain seems to think so: They have been out to get him in France for a number of years," Indurain was quoted as saying on the website todociciclismo.com on Tuesday. Hektor 03:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Armstrong has a long history of being a phenomenal cyclist, but also a long history of being arrogant and condescending. He insulted Marco Pantani, saying he only won a crucial stage because he let him win in 2000, and made fun of his big ears. Ask Christophe Bassons, who he turned into a pariah in 1999. Ask Jan Ullrich, who he accused of unsportsmanlike behaviour in 2003, only because Jan was momentarily stunned after Lance fell flat on his face. Ask Filippo Simeoni, who he turned into a pariah in 2004. That breakaway, when Lance sent the whole team behind him and finger-taunted him, said more about Lance than every Tour win. Ask Andreas Klöden - in 2004, Klöden had been in the attack all day, and Lance drafted until 20m from the finish line, oversprinted him just for kicks and blatantly broke the rule that Yellow Jersey wearers always concede the win.
 * He may be arrogant, but you have some of your accusations mixed up. Kloden was WAY ahead in 2004, nobody was drafting off him.  Lance came from way behind in the last 250m and just barely passed him at the line.  There is also no "rule" that the yellow jersey concedes anything.  If that were the case, the yellow jersey would never win any stages, including Merckx and Hinault.
 * In 2004 Lance went after Simeoni by himself, he didn't send his team. This was out of loyalty to his personal friend, who Simeoni accused.  Simeoni himself was an admitted doper for 5 years.
 * In 2003 he thought Jan did not sit up and wait, while Lance waited for Jan in 2001. This was cleared up in 2005 and Lance apologized for it publicly in several interviews.
 * In 2000 he DID sit up to let Pantani take Ventoux out of respect, which he regretted because of Pantani's behavior afterward. If you want to argue that Pantani could have won anyway, go ahead, but Lance clearly  stayed next to him and sat up at the line.  They both had insults for each other; Pantani was far from a boy scout.
 * Don't know about Bassons, but in 1999 Lance had not won anything yet so he wasn't the "Boss" that could do anything.

I am not saying that Armstrong is guilty, but I want to make clear why so many people have an agenda against him. The press is ripping into Armstrong not because he is a Yankee, but because in spite of his stellar success, he has also a very cruel and cold side. Onomatopoeia 21:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In 2000, Pantani did not start the whole incident. It started with Armstrong publically saying he let Pantani win the stage. The Tour has a history of overall leaders letting others go for stage wins, but they never go out and say "I let the other guy win", insinuating that he would have won the stage if he tried. Peoplesunionpro 15:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well maybe, but as far as I remember there was always a patron logic of Corleone type in this kind of road cycling events. Anquetil, Merckx or Hinault were not always nice and compassionate people.Hektor 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well maybe, but as far as I remember there was always a patron logic of Corleone type in this kind of road cycling events. Anquetil, Merckx or Hinault were not always nice and compassionate people.Hektor 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"isn't there a French bias against a popular American athlete ?"


 * For the troll who posted this line above: why don't you go and ask random people on street in Texas and then in France about what they know more about: who is Lance Armstrong or what are the ingredients of a BigMac?


 * Hehe, as a frenchman, I'd say both these posts are trolls :)

Spliting Lance's entry
The yesterday allegations about Tour de France's 1999 makes me wonder if the whole affair could not be easier to read if we had another wikipedia article about Lance ; I don't create it myself because I'm not proud about the two titles in my own mind : So-called drug-addicted Armstrong or Lance after retirement. BTW, French being my native language, I write now few remarks about those matters : fr:Christophe Bassons devrait aussi faire l'objet d'un article ici sur le wiki anglais car l'on y remarque que ce texte français rappelle que Lance admettait, dès 1999, suivre le même style de traitement médical que les meilleurs du peloton de l'époque d'autant que, sur le podium en 2005, Armstrong a félicité au micro du podium des Champs son équipe pour avoir les meilleurs médécins.

Autre entrée à créer, celle sur Thibault de Montbrial, que j'ai entendu ce matin sur la radio RMC mentir lui-même tout en accusant Armstrong de mensonge. En effet, il prétend que Lance a affirmé ne s'être jamais dopé alors que sa phrase habituelle, encore reprise sur son site hier, ne parle que de performance enhancing drugs. Il est vrai que l'avocat français, par de tels effets de manche dans les médias (l'équipe encore aujourd'hui), cherche surtout à défendre les dix millions de dollards de la compagnie d'assurance, sa cliente. 82.224.88.52 10:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

C'est marrant, c'est le même qui défendait Bruno Roussel à l'époque de la crise de Festina... Au moins il doit s'y connaître maintenant...

Independent body
Since there are enough frozen extracts left, the next stage is expected to let some independant body

Independent of what? David.Monniaux 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?
In the "Allegations of drug use" section is says "thus he could not confirm that the positive result was transmitted to the world anti-doping agency that this result concerned Lance Armstrong". Should it not simply and unambiguously say ''"he could not confirm that Armstong was the subject of the test which provided the positive result"'.? Or is it trying to convey/suggest something else? Beats me. Moriori 03:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The laboratory does tests on numbered anonymous samples and thus does not know whether they are Lance Armstrong's or not. L'Équipe obtained (or claims to have obtained), in addition to the lab results, copies of the sampling records, with the athlete's name, his signature and the sample number. David.Monniaux 04:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Right David, the crux is that no-one knows if the samples were Armstrongs. I am amending that incoherent passage to my unambiguous suggestion above, namely that ''"he could not confirm that Armstong was the subject of the test which provided the positive result"'. Moriori 08:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's be coherent then, if no one knows, well neither does the people at the lab. Therefore, the "...and the identity of the sample provider is clearly not anonymous..." should be removed.


 * Considering that Lance had 17 tests in the 1999 tour (by far the most), if there is any way to determine that multiple samples came from the same anonymous person, his anonymity would be removed.

I think there are two issues here: On point #1, we have to be prudent. So far, I've not seen any actual scientific criticism (just doubts) about the studies of this laboratory, which has a worldwide reputation and is the one who designed the urine EPO tests. Point #2 is, I think, more interesting: obviously, l'Équipe had to acquire the necessary documents by "unofficial" means, so they possibly may have been hoaxed. David.Monniaux 09:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether the study was scientifically sound.
 * 2) Whether the samples were Armstrong's.
 * "Can one be certain that in samples deep-frozen for years, there were no biological changes, no aging processes that could falsify the result?" said German National Anti-Doping Agency chief Dr. Roland Augustin to sid. "That has not been sufficiently determined scientifically."
 * This is certainly a criticism, saying that the science is not developed to the point to be able to make the determinations they are making.

Added by herve661: why should we judge if "the study is scientifically sound" - which is I think almost impossible to do if you are not an expert, when you will normally never question that for other tests performed by that laboratory. Of course they are almost certainly lying when they say "we didn"t know it was Lance Armstrong" or "we would have revealed it if we had known it before", but they are still right that EPO was found. There are countless proofs and testimonies that at least a large majority of cyclists are doped. Everybody is convinced of that except the Tour de France organizators, I hope wikipedia won't take the same attitude of denial.


 * EPO is naturally present in everyone. The question is whether it was synthetic.  There are false positives even for fresh tests; a five-year deep-freeze might confuse the results even more.  Thus we cannot say that they were right.  It is not an exact science; the 2004 tests were about a tune-up specifically to make it MORE reliable because it is not as reliable as they would like it to be.
 * Where are your "proofs" that a large majority of cyclists are doped? The lab only found 12 positives, and there are what, 189 or more riders every year?
 * Not everyone is convinced of that. It seems the people who are convinced of it are the ones who read French news which contains sensationalistic stories which LACK proof.  Most Americans believe Lance, so even if all of France thinks he's a cheater, they are outnumbered 5 to 1.


 * Unfortunately, what is true or not does not depend on the proportion of people who believe it is. Most Americans also believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, didn't they?
 * The indications that a majority of cyclists are doped come from a variety of sources, though they are no outright proofs of this.
 * First, there have been a number of court cases in France and elsewhere where people have been convicted of trafficking narcotics and prescription drugs, giving out medicines for doping purposes, etc. Remember, this is not tabloid journalism &mdash; these are police/justice/customs investigations where proofs have to be laid out before a court of law, with defense attorneys and all. Entire teams (or almost entire teams) were found to have organized doping systems in place. See for instance the Festina and Cofidis scandals. In the 1998 tour, a team even fquit when the Tour was in Switzerland because they feared a police investigation in France.
 * Second, the performances of riders have steadily risen, even exceeding those of the 1998 tour where teams were found to have used performance-enhancing drugs. This is troubling, to say the least.
 * Third, a number of former cyclists have come out and "blown the whistle". You may say "sour grapes", but what they said fits perfectly with the judicial findings, so they have some credibility.
 * David.Monniaux 13:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There are false positive for every test. With the same logic, that means we can't say someone was doped ever.
 * Proofs are: cyclists saying they have been using drugs all the time, and describing how they used it. Putting it in the freeze, their wifes have even tasted it in some cases. Willie Woots has been arrested with lots of drugs in his car before the scandal at the tour de France, and said later everybody was doped. At the giro d'Italia, cyclists just threw their drugs through the window when the police came, journalists have found drugs in garbage near cyclists hotel. Cyclists have been even filmed shooting themselves. Etc. etc.
 * herev661.

Removed essay
Monniaux seems to like to print libel included from French tabloids and ignore any problems with the analysis. In his appeal to authority, he accepts the word of the head of the testing lab that there was "no doubt", which is not a claim that should ever be made about any experiment. This is basic science and does not require a political title as "director" to understand.
 * I don't accept it. I quote it and attribute it to that person (who, apart from being director of the lab, is professor of pharmacology by trade). You're the one posting entire paragraphs of inferences without sources. How hard is it to say, instead of "the scientific method of the laboratory is wrong, bla bla": "professor Foobar of University of XYZ, quoted by the Foobar Times (August 28, 2005), declared that he doubted the results of the laboratory because of ..."?
 * Experimental sciences do not work like mathematics. There is no exactitude, only degrees of approximation.  Listing the various ways his own experiment may be mistaken is the duty of any honest scientist.  You deleted my link to the article on Rutger Beke, which establishes that the EPO testing used by WADA/AMA does indeed have false positives.  That alone should call into question the French director's proclamation of 100% certitude.
 * Additionally, this was a research experiment, not a doping test. They are working on developing the EPO test to make it better, because there are various shortcomings.  This is the purpose of the 2004 testing, to improve existing test to make it MORE RELIABLE.  Meaning it is not currently completely reliable, contrary to the director's claims.  They ALSO had no A sample for control -- this is NOT disputed, it is a fact.  It is an experiment without a control sample to check their own results!


 * Besides, we're not talking French "tabloids". L'Équipe, first of all, is a broadsheet paper. The information was reprinted in Le Monde and all major newspapers. Unless you're calling all the French press "tabloids", you're obviously talking of what you don't know about.
 * L'Equipe has consistently printed rumors and libel about Armstrong. They print it because it sells newspapers.  All newspapers have a problem with sensationalism, not just in France.

All the issues have been discussed in VeloNews and Cycling News. When I link to these articles which have expert quotes, he STILL deletes the summary of what they said.
 * No. I just removed a paragraph that discussed issues with testing methods that had no obvious link to the problem at hand.
 * The obvious link is that doping agencies are starting to violate their own protocols. This calls into question their integrity.

It's obvious that Monniaux has it out for Armstrong as he insists on including libel and deleting any questions about problems with the process.
 * Personal attack, again?
 * Is it true or not? You have expanded the doping section in great detail on some issues to include innuendo and rumors.  Doping is now as big as the rest of the entire article.  It is an observation backed up by the history logs that you have an agenda which includes posting information meant to tarnish Armstrong's reputation.
 * I merely posted information that was found in the general press, French or otherwise. The doping allegations on Armstrongs are found everywhere, yet the article was surprisingly discreet.

The Tyler Hamilton info was included because experts are quoted about the post-facto ability of the UCI to convene a panel to decide that someone is guilty even when they passed the test. Many articles also mention their problematic "qualitative" guidelines.

Despite the links to online articles which source the information, Monniaux complains they are unsubtantiated, yet he posts summaries without linking to the sources for his own information.
 * False. The information is from the l'Équipe article being discussed, which has a precise date.
 * I fixed your summary and you changed it back. I QUOTE the director from YOUR summary and you get rid of it and add stuff he did not say, at least not in your linked article.

Information about EPO testing (how many days EPO is detectable; false positives) is covered in the offsite links and easily verified by anyone who wants to look it up instead of ignoring the facts. This is not my analysis, this is my SUMMARY of the publicly available information.

As for the lab ID numbers, the way they matched them up is by comparing them to Armstrong's medical files. Having a different ID number on each vial does not change this; looking at the "oral hearing" forms tells you which numbers belong to which riders. Those files have been sitting around unchanged for six years.
 * I don't understand what you mean.
 * They = L'Equipe
 * This is how I understand the system: they take samples, they put a number on them, which is recorded on a sampling sheet. This sheet is signed by the athlete and stored by the sports federation and possibly other bodies. They send samples to the lab with only the numbers on them.
 * Essentially, what you suggest is that those bodies (sports federation etc.) leaked the persons to which the numbers corresponded to the lab. This is a fairly grave accusation, in the favor of which you do not provide any kind of clue or quote.
 * If L'Equipe got their medical ID numbers, then obviously the information was leaked. I don't know what you don't understand about this.
 * In the United States at least, "confidential" information is often very easy to obtain. Companies who have to shred confidential documents often use temp workers for this!  And in Europe, the "doping police" often pick through garbage.  Dumpster-diving can garner a lot of information.
 * The "doping police", as you say (you probably mean the journalists who expose doping cases, I suppose) indeed goes through garbage. I doubt that administrative services like this laboratory do the same. So it would need some journalists digging out the information, then handing it to the lab so that the lab skews the results. That's a conspiracy theory.


 * When you talk about "libellious" accusations, I think you should be yourself more prudent. You are basically accusing a pharmacology professor of scientific dishonesty (about testing methods),
 * That is correct. False positives mean that when he claims 100% accuracy, he is lying.
 * I've not seen that he used the phrase "100% accuracy". He said there was "no doubt", which in the context of experimental sciences means "no doubt beyond reasonable doubt".


 * outright lies (about him not knowing the athlete to which the numbers corresponded),
 * I believe that HE didn't know. I don't think he does the day-to-day work himself.  But there are some obvious ways to determine which samples were Lance's.  He gave 17 samples in 1999, so if they have multiple samples from one person, they don't need an ID number.  There was only one person with that many tests in the whole bunch.


 * and basic dishonesty (about skewing results in some kind of "witch hunt").


 * The basic dishonesty comes in when they have no control samples, no 'A' samples, the test is known to produce false positives, they work with samples so old that nobody else has gotten anything out of them, they work with samples sitting around so long that tampering is a much stronger possibility due to a lax chain of custody, and yet still claim the testing is completely valid without explaining how they could possibly determine that.
 * Actually, they did not pretend that there was no tampering. They said they were sure there was indication of exogen EPO in the samples submitted to them. Note that they have always said that they don't know whose samples they are. They don't take any kind of position whether or not these are Armstrong's.
 * Furthermore, they don't need control samples for the purpose of their studies. Remember, these tests were conducted in order to compare a newer analysis technique with older methods on real-life examples (at least this is what they say). These are not anti-doping or judicial cases where you need B samples.
 * In fact, everybody, including l'Équipe, has said that such findings would not be usable for disciplinary purposes, at least in France.


 * These are grave accusations, especially with respect to some person who has in the past never been suspected of such things (to my best knowledge).
 * So you're saying once you SUSPECT someone, it's okay to accuse them? What?
 * Not at all. I'm saying that this lab has a very high credibility and you should have some good external backup before accusing them of fraud.


 * You seem also to suggest that other officials have leaked information to the lab.
 * I suggested it is possible. Someone obviously leaked to l'Equipe, didn't they?  I further suggest that there are many people with access to the doping sheets, and many people with access to the lab samples, and that there is likely some overlap between those two groups since they both work in the same field.


 * Finally, you seem to suggest that this is all a big French conspiracy, involving major newspapers (repeat, we're not talking tabloids), possibly the Ministry of Sports, and a national laboratory.
 * Not at all. I'm suggesting there was either experimental error or possible tampering and now everyone is reporting the same sensationalistic news.
 * On Wikipedia, we're not into reprinting conspiracy theories without sourcing them. So unless you can provide quotes of scientists giving arguments for doubting the lab's results, or sourced information explaining your fuzzy theories on sample numbers, you should keep your own theories out.
 * "Can one be certain that in samples deep-frozen for years, there were no biological changes, no aging processes that could falsify the result?" said German National Anti-Doping Agency chief Dr. Roland Augustin to sid. "That has not been sufficiently determined scientifically."
 * Besides that, I am not the one making an extraordinary claim. The French lab is.  Therefore they need extraordinary evidence, but as Dr. Augustin says, it has not been sufficiently determined what changes happen to such old samples, so we need to establish THAT first.  Deep freezing may change the pattern of electrical charges on isoforms released by the body, invalidating this test.  Besides that, we know that for some people, their own EPO sppears to be synthetic on current tests.
 * That's subjective. Actually, in Europe, it's saying "Armstrong is perfectly clean" which is the extraodinary claim. The public opinions, in the majority, are convinced that Armstrong is guilty.


 * Finally, I invite you to keep personal and nationalistic attacks out. David.Monniaux 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Calling you "French" is not an attack. Is it?
 * It implies that my edits are skewed because of my citizenship, thereby buying the theory pushed forward by Armstrong's entourage and relayed by the US press that this is all a nationality-motivated witch hunt. You may notice that I don't edit out your own postings by calling you "American anonymous user".

I removed the following:

''There are serious credibility questions underlying these accusations. Firstly, the supposedly anonymous ID numbers on the samples were the same as the medical ID numbers assigned to the riders originally, which have been unchanged for six years. The reason for an anonymous sample is to eliminate human bias by the experimenters because not only athletes, but labs as well, can be dishonest. Secondly, the EPO urine test is unable to detect usage more than a fews days after injection; exactly when the samples were frozen, whether there was any interruption in their storage, whether there was any tampering, and exactly what kind of degradation takes place after five years or more have not been established. Thirdly, the EPO test is known to have false positives even in fresh samples, which makes it disingenuous for a lab director to make the "no doubt" claim that several are making, let alone when the samples are extremely old, the methodology for handling such has not been rigorously established, and the identity of the sample provider is clearly not anonymous.

Scientific integrity requires any experimenter to honestly list the various ways the procedure could be inaccurate; therefore, any proclamation of certainty without doubt is not science, but politics.''

This sounds to me like some opinionated essay on the test procedures, with some derogatory opinion upon the test laboratory. This essay reflects only the personal opinion of the contributor who wrote it. I'd be much more comfortable if the above musings were attributed to known personalities (say, the scientific doubts should be sourced to some specialist scientist). David.Monniaux 09:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the following:

''UCI testing guidelines allow "qualitative" test interpretation, which means that instead of establishing a cut-off number below which a sample is defined as "negative", certain technicians or officials may label a sample as "positive" based on a subjective feeling or whim. This happened in the Tyler Hamilton case, wherein the lab declared him to have passed the Olympic test controls, only to have a panel convene to decide he was going to be officially declared to have failed them. .''

The relevance of these information is uncertain. The displayed purpose of the study conducted was to compare 3 different methods (two older ones and one more recent, based on some mathematical model) on real-life samples of a major tour obtained before EPO taking became detectable. This is not as if the study had relied on a single "qualitative" method. David.Monniaux 09:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed again a similar essay by an anonymous user. Message to user 69.231.50.25.
 * 1) Please provide sources for your analyses. For all we know, you're not a notable expert on doping and analyses, thus your opinion is not worthy of being mentioned in the encyclopedia. Please find reputable sources for your claims.
 * 2) In addition, some of the statements in the essay were blatantly false: in the documents printed on page 2 of l'Équipe, one sees that the laboratory report does not bear identification number for cyclists, but identification numbers for each sample. These don't have obvious relationships with each other.
 * 3) Finally, please do not drag the nationality of the contributors into this case. As far as I can see, you hail from California; thus, you can equally be suspected of pro-American bias. I know that the US press has tried to turn the Armstrong case into a case of anti-americanism, but, in my humble opinion, this has little to do with it. The French press, since the 1998 Festina scandals and following events, can be really harsh and suspicious on doping issues, including against French athletes. Remember also that a number of doping cases were uncovered against French teams by French justice/customs/police enquiries (trafficking in prescription drugs and narcotics etc.), which gives a pretty high sensitivity to the issue. David.Monniaux 13:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Error regarding argument against Armstrong using EPO
I refer to the below:

"... EPO, like other performance enhancing drugs, is somewhat addictive: a year or so later after taking it you would be worse off than if you had never taken it at all...".

Neither the statement that EPO is "somewhat addictive", nor the contention that ..."you would be worse off if you had never taken it at all..." are correct. Additionally, the generalization that performance enhancing drugs, which can include everything from aspirin to cocaine, are alike in their addictive potential, is confusing, and also incorrect.

Deleted 'arguments against' paragraph
I deleted the 'one argument against' paragraph because... EPO can be used without testing positive for it.  Other riders have admitted to using EPO after the test came out, but never tested positive (See David Millar). There are other blood boosting drugs available, and new ones unknown to the public, or at least not testable currently, may also be available. Peoplesunionpro 03:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Added atheist category
I don't think it bears belaboring. But given Armstrong's cancer recovery, many journalist asked him about god, faith, etc. getting him through it. I found it striking that he refused to engage in those little polite conceits about his lack of religious belief. For example, at :


 * In his book It’s Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life, Armstrong wrote about the night before undergoing brain surgery: “I asked myself what I believed. I had never prayed a lot. I hoped hard, I wished hard, but I didn’t pray. I had developed a certain distrust of organized religion growing up, but I felt I had the capacity to be a spiritual person, and to hold some fervent beliefs. Quite simply, I believed I had a responsibility to be a good person, and that meant fair, honest, hardworking, and honorable.”


 * In an interview with TIME, Armstrong said: “I don’t have anything against organized religion per se. We all need something in our lives. I personally just have not accepted that belief. But I’m one of the few.” [Humanist Network News]

Slightly later from same source:


 * According to an article in the UK Times Online, he believes it is possible to be a good person while not believing in God. “I think we all have obligations to be good, honest, hard-working, caring and

compassionate,” he said.

A google search will produce about a million similar hits (well 24 thousand). Do editors who work on this page think it would be OK to incorporate some kind of brief reference to this, maybe in the cancer section? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Delisted GA
Cite your sources. slambo 10:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Need to delete some stuff
Is the section titled comeback? neccissary? I understand that it was an issue, but now that it is over it is a rather irrelevent part of his carrer. Also, can we get anybetter pictures(sports illistrated and the daily show)? If you do want to use a sports illistrated cover it would be best to use his sportsman of the year picture (it is more significant and has less clutter about other articals). In section 12 some idiot has vandalized the article and I cant see how to delete it - the offensive text doesn't seem to show up when you go to edit it, only when you view it! Very annoying.

Even more on EPO
The percentage of the type of EPO being tested for that was talked about in said section that I just deleted is either almost always or always (don't remember) below %40 of the total EPO in tested samples if the person being tested on has not taken artificial EPO. Usually this number is around %20. Yet positives only result on this test when it's above %80 (or was it 75-85? I don't remember exactly). There is no such thing as a variable minimum positive percentage under a certain test group, and there is no such thing as altitude training raising said type of EPO levels above %80. (I guess I'll dig up all of the sources later if anyone wishes...)

If not already mentioned in the article, I think it would only be honest to mention how unlikely EPO use is to result in a positive test. Peoplesunionpro 16:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Old proposal page - delete it?
The page Lance Armstrong/proposal was created several months ago as part of the discussion of the drug use section (see Talk:Lance_Armstrong). It's only had 3 edits since then, so it seems nothing is happening with it - I suggest it is deleted. Currently it is just cluttering up categories, possibly causing confusion. --Vclaw 23:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - the way this article has snowballed is completely ridiculous. The doping argument should have gone to mediation long ago. Sections repeat themselves in both articles (Armstrong's family is listed under 'Other interests' and 'Family'). The doping section runs on and on, and its length is probably why the family is listed twice - people became numb after reading the doping section and forgot family was already covered.
 * I'm not sure how to tag them, though. Should they have merge tags? Should this article be tagged for cleanup and the other article deleted? Or something else entirely? It's a puzzle for sure. I would request mediation but I'm not one of the parties who are arguing so hard about the content of that section. If someone else doesn't jump in with constructive suggestions, I'll try to figure out what to do with it after the holidays. It might be a good idea to chunk the whole thing and start over. ddlamb 07:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)