Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 6

Off Topic Discussion
Could someone please see this edition where one of my comments was removed? I am within the topic of the article in question, this was totally uncalled for by User:LedRush. Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I kindly request a neutral editor to take a look at this discussion since User:LedRush is stubornly deleting my comments and trying to restrict my opinion -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than this one ?LedRush (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude get the hell off me, I am trying to get back to the main discussion regarding the article, I can't do that with you proofreading and deleting what in your opinion is not ok, let it go, this is the talk page not the article itself, you don't have to be reading guidelines at the drop of a hat man. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 21:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Coyle/Hamilton book
Somehow the information in the new Coyle/Hamilton book will have to be incorporated.

For source material, we can start with these two excellent reviews in Outside magazine.


 * LANCE ARMSTRONG: CASE CLOSED, by Bill Gifford.
 * LANCE ARMSTRONG’S SECRET IS OUT, by Christopher Keys

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what it would really allow us to add: these are the allegations of one man, and can only be presented as such. We could add to the bit that already says that Hamilton has made accusations to say that they are repeated in his book, but that's about it.  But thanks for the reference: I enjoyed reading the reviews. Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed. it can be included that further allegations are made by tyler in his book, but thats all that should be on lances page. I dont think book reviews of a book are suitable as references for wikipedia purposes. On tylers page, quoting certain sections with page number etc may be acceptable, but not on lances page putting lines from book reviews. Dimspace (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the allegations of one man? How can you say that after reading these reviews?  Keys addresses this directly:


 * According to Dan Coyle (who has collaborated on a book with Armstrong ), these "allegations" (Hamilton's account) are corroborated and supported by 9 other former teammates. It's misleading and inaccurate to say these are the allegations of one man.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Updated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying the book is not a valid source, what i said was in anwswer the the original point, reviews of a book are not valid sources for wikipedia. Quoting a passage from the book that contains a specific allegation is different to quoteing a section from a book review that says what is contained in the book. Book reviews are by their very nature not neutral. Dimspace (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A book review is simply a secondary source about a primary source (a book) and is not inherently unreliable. It depends on what in the book review is being cited.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 USADA charges
Please change:


 * Armstrong's decision to stop fighting USADA means he forfeits, in the eyes of USADA, all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.[117][124] As of August 24, 2012, the UCI was waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[125]"

TO:


 * According to Section 8.3 of the WADA code, Armstrong's decision to stop fighting the USADA means he waives his right to a hearing in which the USADA would be required to present evidence supporting the charges in the charging letter. Because Armstrong failed to challenge the USADA's charges, the USADA must provide a reasoned decision to the relevant parties (Armstrong, UCI, WADA), which they have said is that he loses all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and that he is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.[117][124] As of August 24, 2012, the UCI was waiting for a reasoned decision from USADA, before any action would be taken.[125]

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of the linked sources - while interesting - are primary sources and not appropriate as the only sources for such wording. This is still developing; there will be more written about this in reliable sources, and there is no deadline. But at this point, the requested edit would not be consistent with policy. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What policy prohibits using only primary sources for a paragraph like this? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY, already linked above, is pretty clear on the subject. In addition, I was remiss in forgetting to mention WP:OR; we may look at primary sources and interpret what the words seem to mean to us, but that doesn't mean that is what will actually be put into practice. Most especially in a developing case such as this one, any interpretation we put is going to be fraught with peril. When something actually happens and is reported on in reliable sources, we can be more definitive in this article. Frank  &#124;  talk  00:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please spell it out. What I see: " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.". That's exactly how I used it in the above.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have cherry-picked the one sentence from that link that appears at first glance to support your assertion, but it is taken out of context. For the all-important context that is necessary, search for the following words sprinkled throughout the section: do not, unless, misuse, and interpretation. Frank  &#124;  talk  16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it.  Please quote the exact words that you believe prohibits the use of primary sources in a paragraph such as mine above.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Already did, above, in bold text. There's nothing more I can do. Frank  &#124;  talk  22:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're being obstinate. What you have in bold text above is plainly not a quote of the exact words that prohibits the use of primary sources in a paragraph such as mine above.  Your refusal to quote any full policy statement that supposedly supports your position suggests no such statement exists.  I certainly can't find one.  For example, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" - I did not do any of that in the paragraph above. On the other hand, it does say this supporting what I did do:
 * I did use the primary source with care (i.e., I was careful to not analyze, synthesize, interpret or evaluate). I did not misuse the primary source.  If you think I did, then explain.  Otherwise, it's impossible to take your objection seriously.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You need not take my "objection" seriously; all that is required is to adhere to policies which have already been outlined; in this case I refer specifically to WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Merely pasting text from a primary source document without editing it does not mean it is being used carefully. Really, pulling one (or a few) sentences from a rule book does not qualify as neutral wording. It is precisely what is prohibited by policy, to wit: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. - To present section 8.3 is to imply that it is the only section of the rulebook - and indeed, the only rulebook itself - that applies to this matter. That is clearly not the case, as the UCI, FCF, WADA, and USADA all have something to say on the matter. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. - Again, clearly this does not apply here; the facts of one section of a dry set of rules from a worldwide organization are not sufficient to decide what will or may happen without the requisite "further, specified knowledge". Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. - Again, this certainly applies to Armstrong. Frank  &#124;  talk  19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything you say in general about primary sources is accurate and I completely agree. But every statement you make about how you think it applies to the material I proposed inserted above, or to the material you just reverted, is utter nonsense. Below you expounded on how the cited material does not mean Armstrong admitted anything. True enough, but nothing I proposed meant that he admitted anything, so this entire point was irrelevant. Similarly, you now expound on how presenting 8.3 is inappropriate - when no one is presenting 8.3 (it is only being cited to substantiate the undisputed fact, which is supported by secondary sources I cited above and in the material you reverted, and is not contradicted by any type of source anywhere, that Armstrong's failure to challenge the USADA charges means he waives his right to a hearing). You personally may dispute this, but unless you can provide some kind of source that disputes it, it's irrelevant. You also inexplicably contend that "presenting Section 8.3" (apparently meaning citing the WADA code and that section in particular) implies "that it is the only section of the rulebook - and indeed, the only rulebook itself - that applies to this matter". No, it is not the only section that applies to "this matter". But Section 8 is the only section of the rulebook that substantiates the undisputed fact that Armstrong's failure to challenge the USADA's charges means he waives his right to a hearing where USADA would have been required to present evidence supporting the charges. Nobody challenges this. UCI's only statement also relies on 8.3 - which goes on to say that the USADA must explain their reasoned decision. Since none of your statements apply to the actual material in question, I still cannot take your objection seriously. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply put, there is no question that Armstrong had a right to a hearing - a hearing where the USADA would have been required to present evidence supporting the charges spelled out in the charging letter - and that Armstrong waived this right by not officially challenging the charges by the (extended) deadline. For a secondary source, the question of how Armstrong turned this into a PR positive (at least for now) is the subject of this piece in Bloomberg:  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This illustrates the problem with using primary sources. Let's say that everything you've asserted is correct - and I have no information to the contrary. The problem is that there are facts, and there is reality. It may well be true that Armstrong has waived some right...but that does not mean that he has admitted to anything, tacitly or otherwise. Perhaps he is preparing some other action in some other venue outside the USADA. There are any number of perhaps situations...and we are not privy to them at this point. It may be that there are no other actions he is going to take. But for us to draw any conclusions based on the information we now have is original research. Frank  &#124;  talk  16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Admitted" is your word. The wording I request to insert does not say that.  It says only as much as is obviously supported by the cited sources.  I was quite careful about that.    --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From that article: [Accepting the USADA's charges by not challenging them is] "a hefty price to pay [losing Tour titles, etc], but consider the alternative: hearings expected to include eyewitness testimony that he took testosterone and the blood booster EPO, got illicit blood transfusions, and conspired to help his entire team dope. Armstrong accepted these sanctions as the lesser of evils—a way to limit his liability, as any large corporation might, even if it meant absorbing a hit to the credibility of his brand." --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My main problem is the current wording, especially "Armstrong's decision to stop fighting USADA means he forfeits, in the eyes of USADA, all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998." The problems with this are: 1. His decision does mean he waives his right to a hearing in front of a panel of three arbitration judges where the USADA would be required to submit evidence supporting their charges that he violated WADA anti-doping rules. This is true not only in the eyes of the USADA, but anyone who has taken 30 seconds required to read Section 8.3 (page 49) of the WADA code, which states:

2. The fact that the result of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges that he violated the WADA anti-doping rules means that he will lose his titles since 1998 and be banned from all WADA sports for life is not only in the eyes of the USADA, but in the eyes of countless secondary sources, including the Bloomberg source I cited above.

The current wording is very misleading about the actual situation. The wording I proposed above corrects this.

I suppose it can also be rectified by removing the "in the eyes of USADA" clause, but even the "stop fighting USADA" wording is misleading. The only reason there has been any fight at all so far is because Armstrong chose to take the case to federal court, where it was dismissed, twice. There did not have to be a fight. All he had to do was make a simple official statement asserting his innocence and denying the charges, thus invoking his right to a hearing (if the USADA chose to pursue the case). None of this is clearly conveyed in the current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert??? Getting the facts right
I object in the strongest terms possible to this revert, especially the claims in the edit history: "first is a primary source and a blog entry (we do not interpret or synthesize), and second repeats same primary source)". First of all, nothing that was reverted in that edit is based on the primary source (WADA Code Section 8) - the primary source citation is there supplementing what was said in the referenced secondary sources. Secondly, nothing in the primary sources had to be interpreted or synthesized to support the reverted material. Finally, all this was repeatedly explained above, and I've asked for explanation in return from Frank, and he has provided none.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate you seem to feel that Wikipedia is about facts, which it is not; it is about verifiability. I have engaged your comments above, and separately I broke out an entire subsection in the article (Lance_Armstrong) that contains four entries that are quite negative about Armstrong but are properly sourced and don't cross the line into bad sourcing or challengeable material. You have repeatedly tried to insert links directly to the WADA code which are inappropriate, and you appear to be trying to interpret what possible future moves Armstrong may or may not be able to make (or will or will not make), which we cannot do. In any case, the material you are attempting to add has been challenged and removed; the proper course of action is to open a discussion on the matter and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Frank  &#124;  talk  19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, by "undisputed fact" I mean not only verifiable material, but material for which there is no source that contradicts it. That's what you are removing from the article!
 * "You have repeatedly tried to insert links directly to the WADA code which are inappropriate...". This is our main point of disagreement, apparently.  You seem to interpret policy to prohibit all use of primary sources, even where the primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, and it is being relied on to augment the secondary source, which is exactly what WP:BLPPRIMARY allows ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies"), and exactly how the cited primary source was used in the material you reverted.  If I re-insert the material will you revert again?  If so, we have to move on to some sort of DR, because I can't see how to make progress with you since your arguments in objection, though valid in general, don't apply to the material at issue.    --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need for DR; you haven't yet achieved (or even attempted to achieve) any form of consensus on this page on which to base a resolution of a dispute. You've made some proposals and comments on this page and multiple others (I am not alone!) have objected to them. You then went and added them (or variations thereof) against those objections and were reverted. Where is the consensus on which you based your edits to the article? Where is the attempt to generate it? When you make a proposal and people object, that's an indication there is no consensus, and it then becomes time to make an alternate proposal. Frank  &#124;  talk  19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to achieve consensus with you, which is normally done through reasoned discussion, because your objections don't make sense, as I've explained above. I have spent way too much on this relatively simple matter with you, so I've asked for assistance at the NOR board No_original_research/Noticeboard.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't achieve consensus with one other editor on a page as busy and frequently edited as this one. Have you missed the multiple alternate viewpoints - from multiple editors - to your posts on this page? Frank  &#124;  talk  19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are the only one who has engaged me about this particular material - both in this section and the preceding one.  It's a specific issue about the particular material I initially proposed in the previous section, and the variant which you reverted.  No one else has said a peep about it, and we've been discussing it for several days.  If you're confusing this with other disagreements above, that explains much.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing anything. There have been others who have questioned or otherwise not fully agreed with your comments above. Because they haven't chosen to engage in a particular conversation does not mean they agree with you (or with me). It means they haven't chosen to engage. Nothing more, nothing less. But when they did choose to do so, they did not tend to agree with your point of view. Again - that's not what consensus is about. Frank  &#124;  talk  20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to your original point, questioning my revert, as I went back and re-read it, it's really quite simple. Take a look again. Both paragraphs I removed contain explicit interpretation - one by you and one by a third party. Yours is that his decision "means that..." which is very explicitly an interpretation. It is not shared by all, and indeed as has been pointed out above, he is still listed as the Tour winner for 7 years. I understand that may change; it hasn't yet. The second interpretation is by the USADA, which announced that "their decision is that..." and about which we do not care. So they've "decided." So what? Their decision is not binding on the Tour de France itself. Again - I understand it may change. But for one organization to "decide" he forfeits titles does not make it so, and for us to even report it as much as we currently are is really on the edge of violating BLP. Frank  &#124;  talk  20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is not shared by all"? Really?  Sorry, but I call b.s. Let's look at the full "means that" statement: "Armstrong's failure to challenge USADA's charges that he violated anti-doping rules also means that he waives his right to a hearing, allowing the USADA to proceed with their decision without presenting evidence supporting the charges in a hearing where Armstrong would have been able to present his own witnesses and question those presented by the USADA."  There are countless sources that agree with this statement, and not one that disagrees with it .  This underlined assertion about the Italicized statement should be trivial to refute, if it can be, by providing just one reliable source that disagrees with the statement.  If it can't be, that means your assertion that the statement is "not shared by all" is unsupportable.  While it's true that Armstrong is still the official Tour winner, nothing in the material in question (what you reverted) says anything to the contrary.  Again you are making valid but irrelevant points!  Why do you continually and repeatedly waste our time like this? So what, you ask, about USADA's decision to sanction Armstrong?  Seriously?  Yes ASO can theoretically do what they want, but to ignore USADA in this matter would mean ignoring WADA code, and that would be unprecedented and highly controversial, to say the least.  You do realize that because the USADA merely issued the charging letter, there was no question that Armstrong was immediately banned from participating in all WADA events, including the European triathlon in which he was planning to participate, and that the TDF is a WADA event? I agree we have to be careful to not say he has actually lost his titles (which some sources have said... speaking of getting the facts right - note that the "lost his titles" assertion is abundantly verifiable but I'm not suggesting we include it, though all those headlines does speak volumes about the practical formal inevitability of all this), because that has not actually formally happened yet (per the WADA Code Section 8.3 that you strive to not mention in the article even as a citation, the USADA must still send their reasoned decision in writing to Armstrong, UCI and WADA, as confirmed in multiple secondary sources about UCI's statement), but to ignore or somehow downplay the significance of Armstrong's decision to not challenge USADA's charges and waive his right to a hearing where USADA would be required to present the evidence supporting the charges, would be even worse, not to mention it being a blatant violation of NPOV.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, this USADA process is controversal in the way it is applied here. If you stricly focus on the rules, you are not going to see the problem. This is similar to Assad's perspective on the events in Syria, he only considers the official laws in Syria which means that the opposition are all terrorists.
 * You can have expeptional cases that can prove that the rules cannot always be applied in the way they usually are, you have to look at the bigger picture to see this, intepreting the facts narrowly in terms of the existing rules can then lead to a conflict. Clearly in this case, there is a big potential for such a conflict, and the UCI will have to make a very important decision on how to deal with Armstrong. This is not going to be a simple matter of just applying the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's how Armstrong wants you to see it, and I see he has been extraordinarily successful in that respect. In fact, how well his PR tactics have worked (so far) is the topic of this Business Week article.  But the issue relevant to this article, and in particular to the question of whether the reverted material should be included, is whether reliable sources see it differently.  I've provided sources supporting that they do. There is a whimsical hope floating out there among the fanboyz and apologists that somehow the UCI and/or ASO will ignore or dismiss the USADA's findings and decisions.  That wish has no foundation in reality.  Am I wrong?  Where are the sources?     --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the head of the UCI has already said that they will ban Armstrong if the USADA provides the relevant evidence (as they must per WADA Code Section 8.3).:.
 * So they've already announced they will be following the rules. There is no hint whatsoever from anyone that "this is not going to be a simple matter of just applying the rules."  Without supporting sources, I have to conclude that you just made that up. Yes, of course it's theoretically possible that the USADA does not have the evidence.  But in light of their claim about the charges being supported by "over 10" US teammates, and that this is corroborated by Dan Coyle stating that Tyler Hamilton's damning account has been verified with nine other riders, it's practically impossible that the USADA does not have the evidence.  Unthinkable, really.  Also, it's not like the UCI can just ignore what the USADA sends them.  The most they can do is appeal the decision to CAS.  However small the probability is that this will happen, the likelihood that CAS will also side with UCI is astronomically small.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * UCI can look into what USADA sends them and then reach the conclusion that the case against Armstrong is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The case is build only on witness statements, and these witnesses statements were solicited. In such a case, without recordings of all the hearings of all the witnesses from start to finish, you don't have a case. It needs to be clear that witness x did not know what witness y had already testified. Basically, the evidence must show that y's corroboration of what x is saying cannot be explained by anything other than the statements being true.


 * Now, if USADA indeed has a strong case against Armstrong, you have to wonder why the justice department isn't persuing him. In the US this is a criminal matter for which you can go to jail. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for engaging in a reasonable manner. Of course you know the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies only to criminal cases.  In civil cases, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence".  But this isn't even a legal civil matter (Armstrong tried to make it one but the judge dismissed that case) - it's a sports code violation case governed by the WADA Code.  There is a standard that must be met IF the charged athlete challenges the charges, but in this case that didn't happen.  It's like pleading no contest in a court case - the prosecution is not obligated to present its case.  Since Armstrong did not challenge the charges and waived his right to a hearing, all the USADA is required to do is present "a reasoned decision explaining the action taken" (see WADA Code Section 8.3 "Waiver of hearing" on p 49 of the WADA Code).  Normally, since the Athlete did not challenge the charges, the USADA could simply presume the charges are valid and the decision to ban him and strip of all his titles would follow with a mere reference to the WADA rules, because the charges are so serious.  It's a mere formality.  This is why so much of the press has already announced his titles have been stripped.  But because of all the publicity and noise created by the incredibly effective Armstrong PR machine surrounding this case, I suspect the USADA will never-the-less present evidence supporting the charges in the "reasoned decision" they send to Armstrong, UCI and WADA.  But it's really important to understand that the USADA is under no obligation to do so, because of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges and waive his rights to a hearing. Why there is so much reluctance to state this undisputed and well-supported-in-reliable-sources fact in the article is confounding.   --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortune magazine gets it. Why doesn't Wikipedia?
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/04/lance-armstrong-sponsors/

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

because at the moment, regardless what is quoted in the press, armstrong has not yet been stripped of all his titles. Im with you, im a long time critic of Armstrong who has written some scathing articles on him, but we have to go with the facts. At the moment the facts are that USADA has made the decision that all titles be stripped and life ban be implemented, at the momment, this decision has not been verified by the UCI. Once it is, dont worry, there will be a mad scrum to remove his titles from him. But in the meantime you are banging your head against the wall, whatever you say and sources you provide it does not change the undeniable fact that the UCI and ASO have yet to strip those titles from him. 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)


 * Where have I said or suggested that the article should say that Armstrong has been stripped of his titles? Have you even been reading my comments?  On that particular issue, I've only said the exact opposite! Even this quotation does not say that.  What I want the article to say is what Frank reverted, and none of that material said or implied that Armstrong was stripped of his titles.  Please review it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are (once again) quoting an opinion piece rather than an actual news article. Really it's unclear what you perceive to be so bad about the current wording other than it is a revert of your edit. Why not just propose new wording and work to get a consensus version? I am not (nor is anybody that I can see) saying or implying that only the current version is acceptable. I'm just saying that the version I removed was unacceptable. That doesn't mean all editing on the article must cease. Your current crusade seeks only to get your version approved; what the goal should really be is to improve the article. You've yet to suggest a way to do so. You are only complaining that your edit was removed as if it is personal (which it's not) or it is Armstrong fanboy apologism (which it also is not). Frank &#124;  talk  19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been trying to do that, but, again, it's very difficult to adjust what I'm saying when your stated objections don't make sense. But I'll try again.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

um, because Wikipedia is written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?169.231.21.125 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 USADA Charges, Take 2
Under the new subsection, Interpretation and reaction, this is the first bullet:
 * The USADA considers that Armstrong's failure to contest the charges means that he forfeits all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.

While not incorrect, this wording is misleading because it suggests that USADA is alone, unique or at least unusual in having this view, and the situation is open to interpretation. That's misleading because this view is consistent with WADA Code. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the NY Times, as is stated in this NY Times article (not opinion piece) which is already cited in the article:

This view is also is not contradicted by any reliable source, so far as I know. So, I think we need to be clear that Armstrong's failure to challenge these charges of very serious violations of anti-doping rules means, per the WADA Code, that he must be stripped of his titles and banned from all WADA sports; that the only way that can be avoided is by ignoring or dismissing the WADA Code, and no one is even suggesting or hinting that might happen.

Therefore, I propose removing that bullet from the Interpretation and reaction section, rewording it as follows, and inserting at the end of the main 2012 USADA Charges section just above it. This is the proposed revised wording:


 * According to the WADA Code, Armstrong's failure to contest the charges means that he forfeits all awards and prizes earned after August 1, 1998, including his Tour titles, and is banned from any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code.

The NY Times reference would be cited there too. I also propose adding a reference to the WADA Code. Yes, it's a primary source, but this is a classic case of a reference to a primary source in order to augment what is said in a secondary source in which the primary source is discussed, per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, ...".

Any objections? If so, why? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is better than the previous attempt but reads awkwardly at best and most certainly does not represent consensus. (You don't make a proposal and wait 21 hours and implement it as if that is consensus.) I don't have better words popping into my head right now; perhaps someone else will come along and improve it. Frank  &#124;  talk  18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree there is room for improvement in the wording and also hope a word crafter will help. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are thanking me for. I think the edit is only marginally better than the previous one, and you still have not achieved consensus for the change. You merely posted it here and assumed that silence is assent, which is not at all true. Then, you express the hope that someone else will come along and clean up the mess. Unfortunately, the last time that happened (when I did so), you seemed to think it was an attack on you. Meanwhile, the article has not been improved. And after all this, you're saying "thanks"? Frank  &#124;  talk  00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging and not reverting. But simply stating an edit is not an improvement is not helpful. Please explain why you believe it's not an improvement. Similarly, simply claiming consensus has not been achieved is also not helpful.  What specifically about the edit do you believe is contrary to consensus, how, and why?   Thanks, again.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I pared down the wording. I think it reads better; hopefully you agree. I also added a paragraph about what comes next.  The best secondary source I could find for this for now is a lawyer's blog, but his analysis is easily verified by the primary source, including Section 15.4 of the WADA Code, which is also cited.  I believe this combination clears the verifiability hurdle, especially since these particular points are not controversial (no reliable sources disagree).  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The pared down wording is an improvement; the other edit is absolutely inappropriate and I removed it per WP:CRYSTAL. My claim that consensus has not been achieved is self-explanatory; if you don't have consensus, you don't have consensus. Posting a proposed change and hearing nothing in return is not consensus. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've worked with a lot of difficult editors over the years, but I have to say, you are among the most difficult, and a contender for #1 at this point. If that's your goal, keep up this obstinate approach, and congratulations will be in order.  Hopefully, that's not your goal.  If so, please give me something substantive to work with.  Don't just declare a suggestion or edit to be "not an improvement", "not consensus", or "violates CRYSTAL" - explain why you believe each to be the case, and suggest what could be changed, removed or added to overcome each objection.  Work with me, not against me.  Please?  As to the CRYSTAL objection, you do understand that merely discussing a process that must be followed is not a violation simply because it's in the future, don't you? In an ongoing court case while the jury is out, it's not a violation of CRYSTAL to point out that the outcome will be either guilty, not guilty, or a hung jury.  This situation is no different. If you think such situations are violations of CRYSTAL, please cite the words in CRYSTAL that you believe mean that.   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the WP:CRYSTAL objection. The text implies that there is only a certain small set of outcomes that are possible.  We really don't know—this is a legal and procedural battle that remains to be resolved.  Now, if you want to flesh out an article on USADA and/or WADA with information on their appeals process… Kerfuffler (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting other outcomes are possible not covered by the reverted text? Such as?  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the three sentence in the text:
 * Once the USADA produces its "reasoned decision" per WADA Code Section 8.3, Armstrong, the UCI or WADA may appeal to CAS.
 * If there is no appeal, then WADA Code Signatories like the UCI and ASO (owner of the Tour de France) are obligated to abide by USADA's sanctions per WADA Code Section 15.4, Mutual Recognition.
 * If there is an appeal, CAS may rule in favor of USADA, overturn their decision, or assign jurisdiction to the UCI.
 * 1 - All announcements USADA has made so far are informal. The formal "reasoned decision" has to go to Armstrong, WADA and the UCI, any one or more of which may appeal. That's indisputable.
 * 2 - The UCI and ASO are both WADA Code Signatories. That means they are obligated to abide by the USADA decision if it is not appealed.  Again, indisputable. Note that this statement does not preclude the highly unlikely possibility that they will simply ignore the WADA Code (it's highly unlikely because ignoring the WADA Code would probably cause the IOC to kick cycling out of the Olympics).
 * 3 - What can CAS do besides one of those 3 possible outcomes if it does get appealed to CAS?
 * Now, where exactly is the problem? Don't we want readers to know where this is going? I know I did, and I'm glad I found out.  Why not share the wealth?   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the purest case of WP:SYNTH I've seen. You're effectively saying, “becaue their policy says X, then Y must happen”.  In the real world, there are no such guarantees.  As to what I think might happen, Wikipedia is not the place for my speculation. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm saying they are obligated to do X if Y doesn't happen by the policy they have pledged to follow.  I'm not saying anything about what they will actually do. How could I know that?  Do you really not see and appreciate the difference?  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Any way you slice it, it's a forward looking statement, and makes an implication about the future, which is WP:CRYSTAL in a nutshell. Such statements are heavily discouraged, because there are a zillion (I counted!) confounding factors that could throw things off.
 * And in any case, the primary purpose of this type of content on Wikipedia is to document what happened, not what we think might or should happen.
 * I feel like this is getting to the point of repeating myself, and I detest doing that, so I will only reply if I feel I have something new to say. Silence != assent. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Obligated to..." is not the same as "did". That is the point of WP:CRYSTAL - we are here to report what they did do. We do absolutely see and appreciate the difference, which is precisely why we are letting you know that what you are trying to put in the article doesn't belong. Frank  &#124;  talk  12:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point! What USADA/ASO/UCI/CAS/IOC DID do (way back when, not in the future), when they signed the WADA Code, is obligate themselves to follow the future decisions of other WADA Code signatories, unless those decisions are appealed as having been made in violation of the Code.  This is a very important point quite relevant to this story, and one about which many seem to be unaware.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not what your text actually says. It says that X, Y, or Z will happen.  You could write something like, “WADA signatories, including USADA and UCI, are required to comply with each others' decisions.  Disputes are resolved with a binding &#91;&#91;WADA#arbitration|arbitration process&#93;&#93;.[ref]”  (Obviously WADA#arbitration would have to be written.)  This is less of a WP:CRYSTAL infraction, and more informative, but I still wouldn't write it myself.  (Oh, wait.) Kerfuffler (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It says if W occurs (an appeal), then either X, Y or Z will happen. It says this based on the easily verifiable analysis of WADA Code by a dispute resolution lawyer.    This is exactly the kind of properly referenced "discussion about whether some development may occur" that CRYSTAL explicitly allows (see below).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of the clause you quote is to allow you to quote/paraphrase what a reliable source says about the topic. You're not quoting or paraphrasing there, you're WP:SYNTHing it by piecing together bits of information from various sources.  Ergo, the clause you cited does not apply. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The material about the WADA Code says all comes from one source - a dispute resolution lawyer.   Paraphrasing who a reliable source said about this is exactly what I was doing! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is not paraphrasing. I'm done.  You can have the last word, but silence != assent. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Kerfuffler has explained the violation of WP:CRYSTAL quite well. We are not here to decide what process "must" be followed; we are here (on this page) to write an article about Lance Armstrong, in which - as in all articles on Wikipedia - we write what has been written elsewhere in reliable sources, in our own words. We do not interpret, predict, or conjecture. You imply that we are supposed to educate readers "where this is going", which is unambiguously antithetical to what Wikipedia is about. You may disagree with what I'm saying, but doing so won't change Wikipedia's policies. If you find you cannot edit within those policies, it would probably be far easier for you to find some other venue to frequent. Frank &#124;  talk  03:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We both support policy and CRYSTAL in particular. We just disagree on whether the text in question is a violation of CRYSTAL.   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This, for example, is straight from CRYSTAL:


 * That perfectly describes the text I inserted: "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"... And relevant discussion was properly referenced. Interpreting CRYSTAL to mean any "forward looking statement [which] makes an implication about the future" is inappropriate, which is how Kerfuffler has described his understanding, and with which you apparently agree, is plainly inconsistent with what is actually said at CRYSTAL. If you disagree with what CRYSTAL says, and think it should agree what you have said here, I suggest you take it up there.  Good luck with that.      --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've asked for assistance resolving this CRYSTAL interpretation disagreement here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are inserting has nothing to do with "the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur", and in any case, you didn't insert "discussion and arguments about it" - you declared what may happen. In point of fact, a great many things may happen, and we don't know which ones will happen, which is the reason WP:CRYSTAL exists in the first place. It was perfectly appropriate to create Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton six months before the wedding since it had been announced by Buckingham Palace. It would not be appropriate to create articles about pending nuptials of Hollywood celebrities based on rumor, or about sports figures being traded to different teams, etc. There are planned future events, and there are possible future occurrences. There's a difference. Discussions of possible future outcomes of Armstrong's situation fall into the "possible future outcomes" category that WP:CRYSTAL prohibits. Frank  &#124;  talk  18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's entirely about whether some development will occur. At any rate, I understand the point of CRYSTAL (and have more years - stop treating me like some newbie). I don't see the harm to WP, Armstrong or anyone if this material is included.  It's inclusion can be justified by IAR if nothing else.  Unless you can explain how it causes harm?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is not to explain how it "causes harm". The point is to explain why the policy shouldn't be followed; that responsibility lies with you. IAR most certainly does not apply; ignoring policy - which is what would be required to put your predictive text in - does not improve the encyclopedia. Frank  &#124;  talk  03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An encyclopaedia correctly describes the facts as they stand: seeking to unwrap future contingencies is a journalistic, not an encyclopaedic, function. Six months before the wedding referred to above, it was reasonable to set out in a wiki article what was already in established plans: the meaning and implications of choices and decisions not yet made, or not yet in the public forum, about what uniform William would wear if he chose to wear a uniform, or what proportion of UK weddings feature younger sisters as chief bridesmaids before the allocation of Pippa to that post was public knowledge, is not encyclopaedic. unsigned by 02:17, 10 September 2012


 * Yes, Frank, the point IS to explain how the material harms the encyclopedia (if it does, and concede that it doesn't if it doesn't). The "rule" link at IAR links to Policies and guidelines.  About that it says to ignore [policies and guidelines] if they "prevent you from improving the encyclopedia".  In this case the material gives readers more verifiable and relevant information, and causes no harm.  That is, it improves the article, and thus the encyclopedia. But I still deny it violates CRYSTAL in the first place.  I'm just saying that for anyone who believes it does violate CRYSTAL, per IAR that policy should be ignored in this case anyway. Otherwise you're invoking rules for the sake of invoking rules, rather than for improving the encyclopedia, which is exactly what IAR is designed to prevent. So if your only argument is that the material should not be included because it violates some policy, and you can't explain how it harms the encyclopedia, you're admitting IAR should apply.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting speculation and forecasting into WP does harm by lowering its credibility (in as much as WP has any). That's WP:CRYSTAL in a nutshell.  Too many things just do not play out the way you think they will. —Kerfuffler 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm admitting no such thing, and your argument is an obvious logical fallacy. (You are saying that "if my argument is A then I am admitting B", which is not at all true. My argument is A simply because my argument is A, nothing more.) WP:IAR is not a blunt instrument to be used in any case you feel like the existing rules shouldn't apply. The point of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:BLP, and common sense are all the same: predicting what may happen is an absolutely losing battle. I can say with pretty high confidence level that it won't happen in this article; attempts to enter predictions into the article will meet with increasing resistance. As I've stated above, if you feel like you can't edit within the existing policies without bringing up WP:IAR as your only defense, you will almost certainly find more success elsewhere. We've been editing this encyclopedia for about the same time and number of edits; I can tell you I've have never invoked WP:IAR. That includes four years as an admin and two years as a checkuser. Let me repeat: I've never invoked IAR. Have you? And if so, did the edit(s) stand? Frank  &#124;  talk  03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want WP:CRYSTAL in a nutshell, I present the first sentence: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Everything you guys are saying is consistent with an interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL that omits unverifiable, as if verifiable (and relevant) speculation is unacceptable too.  When the speculation is relevant and verifiable, it can often improve the article, and even if it doesn't it's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.  In any case, this material in question does not speculate at all.  It simply paraphrases the WADA Code which all relevant parties have agreed to follow.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tour de France titles on article
I am removing the titles of the Tour de France that appear under his infobox, this article needs to be modified to demonstrate the following facts:

1.Armstrong decided no longer to contest the allegations of doping and by definition conceding to such accusations.

2.The media has reported explicitly "Armstrong stripped of his Tour de France titles", this means that it is our duty to replicate such information, not to interpret it.

3. In most articles the rule of thumb is to follow the media reports and to use them as a source. Any claim of "let's wait to see what happens" will fall under WP:CRYSTAL.

4. I know it is hard for many out there to face the fact that Armstrong cheated, but, this is not a place to portray his best or worst side. It's only a place to show in a neutral way the information surrounding the subject and the information now is that he has been stripped of his titles and that he is not fighting such actions, the interpretation of being fed up or that he is admitting is not for us to make.

Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 14:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. This is already in there.
 * 2. This is factually incorrect. In fact, the media have explicitly contradicted this by explaining the current controversy.
 * 3. I think you misunderstand WP:CRYSTAL. Saying we should wait and see what happens is the opposite of WP:CRYSTAL.  Saying that we know he'll be stripped of his titles eventually, even though media reports haven't reported this is WP:CRYSTAL.
 * 4. It is not a fact that Armstrong cheated, and your claim that it is shows that you are not NPOV. It is a fact that he has been accused of cheating, and it is a fact that the USADA has concluded that he cheated, though I don't think they've released their findings yet.  It is also a fact that other agencies have either come to different conslusions or waiting to read teh USADA report.  It is unlikely that any claim that Armstrong did or didn't cheat will be a fact upon which WP can conclusively report.  As such, we will report what the media does, attributing such statements.LedRush (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with LedRush on this. I think it's premature to remove the Tour de France titles from the infobox, considering the official Tour de France website continues to list Armstrong as the winner for those years, whereas Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 title, is no longer listed. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, don't start reading me guidelines just to cover the fallacy of your argument. WP:CRYSTAL implies that there should not be speculation about the future. Regarding my edition I am not speculating, I am executing something that the media have widely covered. I paraphrase "Armstrong has been stripped of his Tour de France titles", they have been using it on websites and newspapers. Therefore, this article should reflect such changes in the record of an individual that has quit fighting the accusations and allegations. Our interpretation should be one of : yes, in fact he has been stripped of his titles and this should be shown in the infobox or at least this should be indicated WHICH IS NOT! . WP:CRYSTAL in this case it's taking place by an omission in the information provided in key areas of the article that are at a glance of utmost importance for most readers. So I believe the above arguments are flawed if not biased. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 19:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He hasn't been stripped of his titles yet. Any claim in the article that he has will be WP:Crystal.  Instead, we merely report what is reported by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not getting it, he might not be officially stripped of his titles, he is being "symbolically" stripped, this is not like the Olympics that he can just return the medals, but the bottom line is that the guy is a cheater. I don't understand what we need to have this article reflect such thing. Is not like they are going to have a special ceremony in which he returns the titles, you know, it's ridiculous, I hate when people don't have common sense. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the issue deals with who is doing the symbolic stripping of the titles. The sources that have reported his titles are being stripped by USADA are the same ones that also discuss whether USADA has the authority to do that in the first place. This Washington Post article, for example, says "Armstrong can still hold out hope that he’ll ultimately be able to retain his Tour de France titles, as race organizers and the international cycling body wrestle with USADA over who has the authority to strip the cyclist of his wins." SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "the bottom line is that the guy is a cheater." You simply should not be editing this article if you can't rein in your personal opinions.  Until the agencies figure out who has authority to strip him of his titles, the best we can do is what we've done: say that the USADA has stripped him of his titles but everyone else is waiting to see what they will do.  Also, please stop your personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How can anyone in the right mind think that he can retain the titles when he cheated? If that was the case then anyone can just take a shortcut and still be a winner and retain the titles, by definition the mere fact that he is not contesting, and that the USADA has officially stripped him should be enough to acknowledge that he no longer holds those titles. What are you guys waiting for, for him to have a press conference confessing that in fact he cheated? This makes no sense at all. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

USADA can claim that they are stripping him of his titles, but until the Tour de France says that they have the right to do so (and they have said they are reserving judgement for now until they discuss it further with USADA), the ultimate authority on whether or not Armstrong still has his titles is the Tour de France. USADA can't simply say they are taking away titles that they didn't give in the first place, unless the Tour de France says they can - which they haven't. Plus I should reiterate that Armstrong is still listed as the winner on the official Tour de France website. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Armstrong has explicitly and repeatedly denied cheating. The USADA can say he cheated, and we attribute that opinion to them, but all it is is the opinion of the USADA.LedRush (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Yes, Armstrong has denied doping in legally inconsequential public statements.   But when officially faced with charges backed up by evidence, he refused to deny those charges officially.  The USADA has charged him officially, and his only official response has been regarding a dubious technicality based on supposed lack of jurisdiction, which the federal court dismissed.  He did not officially challenge or deny the actual charges.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Legally inconsequential public statements is an opinion and has no place in this article. Armstrong has denied the charges, and it has been reported that way in numerouse reliable sources. Simply because he hasn't done what some folks might want him to do or expect him to do does not mean he has not challenged or denied the charges; it is clearly demonstrated that he has done so. Frank  &#124;  talk  16:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Camilo you make a rather large assumption that people are not capable of being impartial over the portrayal of the page. " I know it is hard for many out there to face the fact that Armstrong cheated, but, this is not a place to portray his best or worst side" If you want to know where Im coming from, I have been one of armstrongs biggest critics for many years, search for my twitter account (not hard to find), or google a couple of things "dimspace the legend of the 500" or have a look at this article i did recently http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/ and you will see i am in no way having any problems facing the fact he cheated, however, i have already deleted many many edits that either removed his titles, or unfairly changed peices of information to his detrement. Its fair to note however, that i have a very in depth knowledge of this affair having read every document and peice of paper, so if people try and sneak in pro armstrong pr over the next few months i will also be zapping that equally quickly. But even as a so called armstrong "Hater" i fully agree with everyone that you cannot yet strip his results from the page as the governing body and the various race agencies have not confirmed the decision. Dimspace (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What if they never come forward to strip his titles? Will that give legitimacy to his winnings? -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 16:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP is not in the business of deciding whether people cheated or whether their titles are legitimate. We just report the facts, with sources.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

French cycling federation have said they would like the years results left blank in the event of a ban and will be seaking compensation. Have added it to the article in the 2012 section. Theres no reason for it to be added to the lead para, and im not sure how much impact FFC have on an ASO decision although one assumes as the national federation the ASO will be expected to follow their recommendation. Dimspace (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

LedRush wrote above: "It is a fact that he has been accused of cheating, and it is a fact that the USADA has concluded that he cheated, though I don't think they've released their findings yet. It is also a fact that other agencies have either come to different conslusions or waiting to read teh USADA report. It is unlikely that any claim that Armstrong did or didn't cheat will be a fact upon which WP can conclusively report. " All that is mostly accurate (not the part about other agencies coming to a different conclusion - that's pure conjecture as far as I know), but it misses a huge point: It is a fact that USADA charged Armstrong with violating anti-doping rules, and it is a fact that Armstrong chose to not challenge those charges and waive his right to a hearing where the USADA would be required to present evidence supporting these charges. That is, because of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges, the USADA is under no obligation to present the evidence. In fact, Armstrong doesn't want the evidence presented. As Brad Wieners writes in Bloomberg News, this is what Armstrong gains by giving up his titles: avoiding "hearings expected to include eyewitness testimony that he took testosterone and the blood booster EPO, got illicit blood transfusions, and conspired to help his entire team dope. Armstrong accepted these sanctions as the lesser of evils—a way to limit his liability, as any large corporation might, even if it meant absorbing a hit to the credibility of his brand." The article is not conveying this currently, and this needs to be rectified. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But are those facts, or are they the editorial opinions of the writer?-- JOJ Hutton  16:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The following are facts verifiable via multiple primary (WADA code and court documents) and secondary sources (innumerable articles), and not contradicted by any reliable sources:
 * USADA charged Armstrong with violating anti-doping rules
 * Armstrong chose to not challenge those charges and thus waive his right to a hearing where the USADA would be required to present evidence supporting these charges. In other words, because of Armstrong's decision to not challenge the charges, the USADA is under no obligation to present the evidence in a hearing.
 * Observers like Bloomberg's Wieners believe the only reasonable explanation for Armstrong's decision is that he he does not want the evidence presented.
 * One way or another, the article should be clear on these important points. Currently, because of this revert, it is not.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 is not a fact, and is quite silly, actually. Nothing I said was wrong, and nothing presented even argues against what I said.  BTW, other agencies have explicitly come to a different conclusion, and are consequently waiting before making their own judgmeents.  This is found both in court filings and reliable secondary sources.  But that's not really important for the immediate discussion.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Add to Category:Disabled sportspeople
His monorchidism condition coincides with his career as a sportsman including the seven Tour victories. It's a disabling abnormality correlated with sexual dysfunction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.68.157 (talk • contribs) date
 * Add to people with monorchidism, maybe, yes, but disabled sportspeople, i dont think morochidism, by any stretch of the imagination, would be classified as a disability. 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)
 * It's an amputation, a removal of a bodily extremity. Testes produce testosterone. In men, testosterone plays a key role in the development of muscle and bone mass and is essential for health and well-being as well as the prevention of osteoporosis. Its external administration to a competitive athlete is considered a form of banned doping.
 * That's WP:SYNTH. Show a medical study that shows a link between monorchidism and reduced cycling performance, and you might have something.  You can't just make it up. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the only editor with any interest in applying cases of monorchidism to that category wants to gain consensus (which is the ultimate arbiter in Wikipedia), he will have to present a multiplicity of reliable medical/social science sources that explicitly describe monorchidism as a disability. When/if that happens, the inclusion of such cases in the category will be unchallengeable: until then, the consensus that not every bodily imperfection is a disability will prevail, and opinion to the contrary will remain a no doubt well intntioned one man campaign destined to failure.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For info, editorial by a fellow cancer survivor saying that he has not seen any evidence that Monorchidism causes any loss of athletic ability http://www.tbnweekly.com/editorial/viewpoints/content_articles/091812_vpt-03.txt Dimspace (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

UCI chief questions USADA delay on Lance Armstrong file
See here:

"UCI chief questions USADA delay

The chief of world cycling's governing body is questioning why American anti-doping authorities have not sent him the file of evidence that prompted them to erase Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life.

Pat McQuaid, the International Cycling Union president, said the United States Anti-Doping Agency had not given the UCI a date to expect the details, and he sounded impatient to receive them.

"UCI assumes that USADA have the file, the full file, as they've already made a decision based on it and therefore it's difficult to understand why it hasn't arrived yet," McQuaid said.

Armstrong has long denied doping but chose last month not to fight drug charges by USADA, which wiped out 14 years of his results. USADA believes Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including EPO, steroids and blood transfusions."

Count Iblis (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, USADA is likely editing the Armstrong Dossier to fill in some gaps. Count Iblis (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * UCI now sending the file by 15th October. Rumours are its to be far worse than ever expected, but that is just rumour. The delays are partly because its such a lengthy case file to put together, but also there are still upcoming hearings on Bruyneel etc, so they have to ensure what goes in it does not effect those cases Dimspace (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

USADA report and stripping titles
Okay, this report on the BBC website was published today. It clearly states "The UCI now has 21 days to lodge an appeal against Usada's decision with Wada or they must comply with the decision to strip Armstrong, who now competes in triathlons, of his seven Tour de France titles and hand him a lifetime ban." So I guess 31 October is the deadline, then we can remove all the stolen titles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Once the dust has settled it would seem quite sensible to consider whether this entire article should be in line for a major rewrite. Based on the vast amount of testimony, all publically available at http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/, LA seems shaped up to be one of the biggest fradsters in all of sport, never mind just cycling - and almost all of his career (every tour, every win) is painted in an eniterly new light when you read what was going on behind the scenes as he doped his way to the top. SFC9394 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I think there is a big argument for locking the page now (just today theres a whole host of edits been undone) to save editors the insane amount of work needed in undoing edits, and a group of editors with knowledge of the whole situation to start working on proposed edits ready for the UCI retifying any decision. This will be a considerable amount of work, but I am happy to play a part in the discussions. Firstly an agreed proposal for the page structure, and then assigning editors to either individually or together re write the various sections bringing them up to date. I also think there is now an argument for bringing back the "specific doping allegations against lance armstrong" article and seperating it from this article. The doping writing is going to be huge and very very extensive and we risk having an incredibly long article that isnt cohesive or readable. Dimspace (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note this might be a good place to ask other editors on a standard approach we take regarding removal of results. I have today edited the articles for all six riders banned by usada and having results stripped. And in all six cases i have used the strikethrough model and hidden tags. Would be good to have a consensus going forward. My hunch at the moment is that with the exception of world titles and olympic medals results wont be re-allocated Dimspace (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted on your talkpage, it seems a bit odd to strike results of the umderlings in this scheme, while we are awaiting UCI ratification on Armstrong's results. Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The complete report. This is posted on Yahoo!, so the link will eventually go dead.  Anyone have a better link to the report pdf? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see someone posted a link to the USADA document above. Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEvin, I did reply on your talk page. Big difference between the two, Barry etc have signed affidavits accepting their bans, the stripping of their results, prize money etc. Armstrong has not, the UCI have not yet accepted his ban, so its not yet enforced. If you hunt me down on twitter etc, you will know im certainly not an armstrong apologist. read some of my articles on cyclismas, ive done a huge amount of work trying to bring down the myth that surrounds him. But when it comes to wiki i am impartial, while also being dedicated to making sure that when his page is finally edited it is accurate and not swayed by hate, but equally importantly, not watered down by the livestrong army. Dimspace (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Vindication - but the Lance Armstrong apologists are now trying as hard as ever to water the truth!!
This article remains a sham thanks to those who still have an agenda. Back in 2004, I added stuff about his drugs use and it was removed, uncited unsourced,a BLP violation etc.

But even now when I was proved right; those who still refuse to admit it still connive to make this article theirs. Talk about avoiding the elephant in the room!! The very first line of the article's lede just says he's a professional cyclist. And?? This is not watering down, this is content homoeopathy!! And it runs runs throughout this article.

The first line should say:


 * Lance Armstrong was an award-winning American professional cyclist who was stripped of all his titles following the revelations he had taken performance enhancing drugs throughout his career.

That is the summation. It was the cycling that made him famous not his charity work! There is so much apologist stuff at work in this article it beggars belief. Even the page is protected (lol so much for the encyclopedia where anyone can edit) to keep out those who do not agree with the apologists party line! His cycling career, as we now know but I knew long before the editors who protect this page, was based on a lie. He was never an Indurain, LeMond or Fignon because he did not have the physiology they had. He built his entire career on fraud, but this article wants to play down that part and give all his other works equal status. Ridiculous, it was his cycling that created him which is now also sadly his downfall. This article does not reflect this at all instead it is soap box for his defence and his image. There has to be precedence. Which is lacking here, apparently he threatened any rider who spoke out by telling them he was powerful enough to get them kicked out of pro-riding for good. He is not a nice man. But reading this article you would think otherwise.

Unprotect this article now and let the real story out...86.149.183.127 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, he has not "been stripped of all his titles", so of course we cannot make that edit. If that happens...the article will be changed accordingly. And, regardless of whether or not that happens..."uncited, unsourced, a BLP violation, etc." will (and must) continue to apply. Frank  &#124;  talk  11:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Frank, et al, are correct here. Technically, UCI is responsible for actually revoking the titles.  They have contractual obligations that restrict their options in how they proceed, but the matter is not quite settled yet. —$Kerfuffler plunder thunder$ 12:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok to adress this from my point of view. I am far from an Armstrong apologist, read some of my articles on cyclismas, follow me on twitter, and you will know that I am one of the most vocal anti armstrong people there is. Ive written articles about his corruption of us cycling and business links, his lies about the 500 tests and more besides, im open about that. HOWEVER wikipedia is a neutral source of information and im perfectly capable, if not better than many of putting my personal feelings about the man aside to create a factual and unbiased account of him for this article. There is no point whatsoever in the anti lance brigade slaughtering the page with bile, but there is equally no point in the apologists tryng to paint a positive portrait of the man. For that reason, i am in fully in favour of the page being locked. That said, I think the article is a complete and utter mess, its had so many contributions over the years that its turned into a lengthy, repetative pile of rubbish that basically needs a complete and utter rewrite from top to bottom. Editors deciding firstly on sections, then addressing each section deciding on the content, and finally making a whole scale update of the page. I have suggested several times that a group of editors get together and start work on this project, and i am willing personally to put considerable time into it myself, but so far people seem more obsessed with arguing over jurisitriction, usada, the uci without coming forward with any constructive ideas. I tried a month ago starting a discussion on a potential draft of the opening paragraph in the even the UCI ratify the sanction. Nobody bothered to comment or reply. There is no point however of editors moving forward with a rewrite if they have to spend half their time undoing edits by the various sides opposing each other. Frankly i think everyone is going to end up going around in circles and the article will become an even bigger mess before anyone addresses the issue of how we move forward with a coherant and cohesive article. Dimspace (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * for example, the opening few paragraphs could easily be stripped down to a short into as follows.
 * Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. He was World Champion in 1993 and went on to win the Tour de France a record seven consecutive from 1999 to 2005. In 2012 Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and all results from 1999 onwards along with being banned from the sport for life.
 * Armstrong is also a cancer survivor having recovered from testical cancer in 1996. He went on to form the Lance Armstrong Foundation for cancer support.
 * That is really all that needs to be in the opening paragraph. The LAF is detailed later on in the article. The USADA case is dealt with at length later on in the article. All the career stuff is dealt with later on in the article. The opening paragraph only needs to deal with the pure basics. Tghe information in the current opening paras about teams etc can easily be moved into the career section which at the moment is purely a list of things he won,, he won this race then he won that race, then he competed in.. its boring, its repetative and its irrelevant. Dimspace (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with trimming down the Lead. It's currently 5 paragraphs and WP:Lead recommends 3-4. Also, as is normal with Wikipedia articles, the "controversy" material seems to have grown to an undue proportion. The last paragraph (which accounts for about half the Lead) covers the controversy from June 2012 to the present, which is definitely undue for an article about someone's life. (Side note: I came here after reading the NYTimes article. Crazy stuff) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * exactly. All of the career stuff, the LAF stuff, the doping scandals stuff can be moved into the relevant section, but that in turn will mean those sections need to be overhauled as well. I will do a sample of how the opening paragraphs can be incoporated into the relevant sections later and see if we cant get this a bit neater pending a UCI response. Dimspace (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Post-USADA Doping Confirmation - Subjectivity and heated language
This article has clearly been tainted by prejudice and anger and non-objectivity can be seen all through this, the first sentence labels Armstrong as a cheat primarily and a cyclist secondarily. No other ex-doper is treated in this manner in a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.121.186 (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * as i have said above, its fairly clear the entire article needs a thorough rewrite from top to bottom. nobody seems interested in getting involved in that though Dimspace (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He is a cheat, the USDA has proven it and Armstrong wont defend. What does that say --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction request: 1000 page Reasoned Descision
The second paragraph describes the USADA report as a "1000 page reasoned decision report." In fact, the USADA's document is around 160 or so pages, but they say it is supported by 1000 pages of documentation.

I don't think giving the page count adds much to the entry. What I've described above is easily verifiable by looking at any news report or simply downloading the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.26.132 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the reasoned decision is 202 pages, the supporting evidence is over 1000 pages. But read above. we are looking at full cleanup of the article. Dimspace (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong, others may now lose Olympic medals
The International Olympic Committee is looking into the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's case against Lance Armstrong to see if there is enough evidence to open an investigation that could result in the stripping of Olympic medals. Armstrong won a bronze in 2000.

"It has been the policy in the past wherever there was enough information to proceed we would proceed," IOC executive board member Denis Oswald of Switzerland said. "All cases which have been now established will be reviewed."

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/Armstrong+others+lose+Olympic+medals/7380178/story.html

--Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please keep Disgraced in the beginning
The article needs to be blunt and clear in the beginning. It should not sugar coat anything and just be blunt and honest!! The article should not in any way present Lance Armstrong as a hero. By not including disgraced, the article is not be honest with reader, and it should arguably stay there. The USADA release overwhelming amount of evidence. Disgraced should undoubtedly stay in the beginning as a eye opener, upon reading the article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would not adhere to WP:NPOV. Frank  &#124;  talk  19:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And we need to be careful about editorializing as well. To be NPOV the article should not say that he is a hero or that he is disgraced. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * to cite examples. Marion Jones page . No use of the word disgraced, she is an athlete who then had her titles removed, and that is how it should and will be described. Disgraced is an emotive word, and also an opinion. Wiki is not here to form opinions. Dimspace (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed this man is so disgraced, lets be real here, he is shaping up to be the most dishonest bold audacious drug cheat ever. And that can be referenced. I have a feeling the public is turning on him, so the article should reflect the USADA stance. He is disgraced --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPCRIME for why we should not refer to him as a disgraced, dishonest drug cheat. It doesn't matter what the public thinks in this case. Until there's a conviction, he's innocent until proven guilty. (Yes, I know, it's a stricter policy than even newspapers have, but that's Wikipedia for you.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

He is a proven cheat now, its on the books Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually we don't need the word "disgraced" - the evidence in the article is more than sufficient for readers to form their own opinion. (Our article on Hitler doesn't use the word "evil" for the same reason). Emotional text diminishes the value of our articles and of the encyclopedia in general. Manning (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)