Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 7

More team Armstrong damning Testimony
Im for another article now. So much material. Breaking. White admits to doping with Armstrong team, I am sad to say that I was part of a team (postal) where doping formed part of the team's strategy, and I too was involved in that strategy, the statement said. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/white-admits-to-doping-with-armstrong-team-20121013-27jyq.html Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of intro paragraphs and content being moved to the relevant section within the article
'Opening Paragraph'
 * Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. A former World Champion, he also won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times between the years of 1999 and 2005. After leaving cycling, Armstrong has also competed in the Marathon, Triathlon and Ironman competitions.


 * In June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged Armstrong with having used illicit performance enhancing drugs, and in August they announced a lifetime ban from competition as well as the stripping of all titles. This sanction however has yet to be ratified by the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the sports governing body.


 * Armstrong is also a Cancer survivor having contracted testicular cancer in October of 1996. He is the founder and chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation for cancer support.

That really is all that is needed in the opening paragraph, a brief summary of who he is. There is an extensive menu directly below with links to all the sections of his biography. Anything more than that is just a needless duplication of information.

'Early career section.'
 * Suggest splitting it in 1993 to read "Motorola 1993-1996" - This fits in line not only with the custom on other wikipedia pages for lengthy bio's to be split by team, but also on his own page which post comeback is categorised under AStana, and then Radioshack. Theres no consistency within the article itself. At the end of the Motorola section, or the start of what would then become the US Postal section there needs be text dealing with his signing for and dismissal from Cofidis. At the moment there is absolutely nothing to explain his year at cofidis whatsoever.

'Tour de France section'
 * This section then to renamed US Postal/Discovery 1998-2005. This once again fits in with the style later in the article of having episodes of his career referenced by the team. This section can then be developed to be more of a career story than purely the tour de france. he did ride other races

'Astana Sections/Radioshack Sections'
 * can then remain unchanged and his career history is actually chronological rather than a hotch potch.

'Collaboraton of sponsors section'
 * what is this section even about. Armstrong did nothing different to what previous teams had done regarding equipment. He didnt invent the idea of sponsors collaborating with the team, you can go back 50 years and find trade teams, along with sponsors that were fully involved. Its like he invented the wheel, he didnt. Its a really bizarre section.

Will look at possible edits to the USADA section once i can cross reference all the links repeated in the opening paragraphs and the USADA section. Dimspace (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest you wait until the USADA sentence is complete and he is stripped of all Tour titles (and perhaps more). The result of that will shape the article.  Ideas in advance are interesting, but probably nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wether he is stripped or not wont change much of the context of what is already there. We arent suddenly going to start deleting entire sections. The trouble is, at some point in the next 21 days the UCI are going to make a decision. When that happens we are going to get a huge influx (of sometimes well meaning) people editing the page like crazy removing bits, adding things all over the place. It makes sense, in my eyes, to try and get some sort of structure in place in advance of that. For instance, if he is banned by the UCI its not even clear where the details of that goes, does it go int the excessive opening paragraphs, does it go in the usada section, does it go everywhere :D No skin of my nose if other editors dont want to prepare for that, saves work for me :D Just trying to be pro-active rather than re-active. Dimspace (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dimspace on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well if we can get a couple more editors to sign off on this, then i will go ahead and make the above changes (except removing the collaboration section), then perhaps we can all pick a section to tidy up and make a bit neater, then if and when the uci make a decision we havnt got much work to do. Dimspace (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks grand, and very sound reasoning: there should be some acknowledgement of Livestrong and charity awareness work, and of his pre- and post- road racing triathlon. Willing to help, but would not consider myself well informed on those areas I have just mentioned.  Agree entirely that race career should not be presented as though cycling were all about 3 weeks in July.  We will need strike a diplomatic balance between leaving no doubt about scope of his misdeeds and appearing to stick the boot in by over-detailing them.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's sufficient consensus here that you can just be bold and do it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * will look to it tommorow. Its not initially about removing information, or about changing information its just about organising the information in a better (and more consise) way. Will do the above changes and generally tidy up tomorrow, then we can regroup and perhaps look at each section individually and see what can be done. the main thing will be, when/if the uci make a decision it will be clear where it goes and how it is reported. (The reason i asked for a couple more editors to sign off is just because Lance has been a very heated subject in the past and its easier going forward to appear as a collective in agreement than a rogue hater/worshiper) Dave Dimspace (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, made the basic structure edits and slimmed the opening in line with this. Will work on a Cofidis section to explain that later, and redo the intro to US postal covering his signing for the team (and try and make it a bit less Tour centric)
 * Cofidis section needs putting in, or the details of the Cofidis contract added to the start of the US Postal Section. USADA decision needs adding to the USADA doping section. Postal section needs making less Tour Centric. Dimspace (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems Semitransgenic has undone all the edits saying there was no consensus for change of lead Dimspace (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no point in gutting the lead in this fashion. Semitransgenic  talk. 14:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you like to give an opinion as to why not? The current lead is overly lengthy, repetative, and 99% of the information is contained elsewhere in the article. It is generally wiki policy in the cases of persons with lengthy careers for the opening section to be a consise summary with the article containing the infomation. You also undid all the other edits?Dimspace (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the lead changed since you proposed the version above, address the changes instead of ignoring progress. Also, a lead is supposed to summarise the entire main body, but your version provides an even shorter summary, why is that? Considering how much content is given over to the inquiry in the main text, the lead should provide proportionate representation of said content. Additionally, the WP:RS sources are there, they are good, continually removing them is unwarranted. Semitransgenic  talk. 17:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Break
Support trimming the Lead by Dimspace (reverted in this edit). The Lead in its current state is far too long, and goes way over the short 3-4 paragraphs recommended in WP:LEAD. In its current state, the Lead also has problems with WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:BLP, and WP:RECENTISM, as it devotes over half its length to the events of the past three months (which is completely inappropriate for an article about someone's life). The trimmed version is concise and neutral as a Lead should be. It covers the most notable aspects, as well as the recent controversy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to provide a "summary of its most important aspects...[and] should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." This criteria is currently unfulfilled. Shortening the lead further makes it even less informative. Also the second sentence reads "After leaving cycling, Armstrong also competed in marathon, triathlon and ironman competitions," is this so important that it needs mentioning ahead of other content? It's merely a footnote in his career. The reality is, multiple WP:RS sources attest to the fact that he is now considered cycling's biggest drug cheat, it is not a BLP violation to state clearly in the lead. Semitransgenic  talk. 12:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead of an article is not meant to render reading the rest of the article redundant, which is virtually the case at the moment. Consensus for the Dimspace version has been clearly established, but that is not to say it is some immutable ideal.  Indeed, I made some minor grammatical corrections to it: it is equally plausible that additional information for it could be agreed.  I will return to that, and if Semitransgenic continues to editwar on the matter, then editwarring sanctions can be initiated.  If, on the other hand, he would like to propose here specific key sentences that he thinks could usefully be added to the lead, I'm sure we would appreciate that and give them due consideration, as we have Dimspace's suggestion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too many BLP issues. Using explosive words like "former World Champion" and "stripping of titles" is BLP as he has never been stripped of any title, nor is he banned from any competition. -- JOJ Hutton  18:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What??? Of course he is a former world champion. Philippe Gilbert is the current WC: anyone else who has ever had the title is a former WC.  And he has been stripped (dear but I hate that word in this context) of titles and banned by USADA, which is what the lead says, but that is to be ratified by UCI, which the lead also says.  Absolutely nothing in that lead which is challenged as fact. I'm at a loss as to what you think theacrunym BLP stands for when you say that some phrases "are BLP": if you think they are potentially libellous, they are not.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And by what source says that the agency has the authority to strip and ban him? By all measures, he is still in possession of his titles and is still competing in competitions. His retirement from competitive cycling was by his own accord, but he is still competing in other races. So the facts don't align with your BLP assertions that he has been stripped of his titles.-- JOJ Hutton  20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The World Anti Doping Code. He is not still competing in any official event in a sport that is a signatory to that code: any Olympic sport that knowing sanctioned his participation at the moment would be, at least in theory, putting its Olympic status on the line.  It is not "my assertion" (and you still don't seem to understand the acronym BLP): it is USADA's, and is presented in the text of the lead as USADA's.  Read the information: you will see that USADA have never requested any other body to disallow his previous results or prohibit his future participation: they have declared it to be done by virtue of their announcement.  No further procedure is necessary for it to happen: we are simply waiting for the UCI to say that they are challenging that decision.  UCI cannot overturn it: they and they alone (now that Armstrong has forgone the right to do so) can ask the CAS to review it, and only if they do so before the end of the month.  If they announce that they will not challenge it (the "ratification" that we are awaiting), then there is absolutely no further appeal, and we can set about striking through results with absolute confidence.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your link says nothing that can be seen. He just competed in a triathlon, so he is still competing. He retired from cycling competition so that is why he hasn't competed. Every race he has ever won, still lists him as its winner. If that changes in the future, we cannot know, but you are asserting that he has already been stripped of all his titles and that he is banned. Its not the case. You are violating BLP. Perhaps you need to understand BLP.-- JOJ Hutton  20:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The code is clear that NADOs have results management authority. Please provide details of the triathlon he has just competed in: if it was sanctioned by a national authority, the consequences could be huge.  You finally have used BLP in a context that could be justified by its meaning: but stating that the USADA have stated something cannot be libel against Armstrong.  I'm saying exactly what the NYT is quoted as saying in the article: do you think their libel lawyers are quaking in their boots?
 * "USADA announced today that Lance Armstrong has chosen not to move forward with the independent arbitration process and as a result has received a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present, as the result of his anti-doping rule violations stemming from his involvement in the United States Postal Service (USPS) Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy (USPS Conspiracy)": not my words, but USADA's. Note, they say " has received a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998", no might, could or will.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you might want to tell the race officials of those competitions that he has been stripped of his titles because he is obviously still being considered as the winner in all those races. Tells me that the agency has no authority to strip him of any wins at all,but this is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Also, banning a retired cyclist from competition is like cutting the head off a dead cat. Makes a statement, but doesn't effect anything at all. And it looks like he is still competing and looking to qualify for Kona. -- JOJ Hutton  00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are trying to personalise this as anything I should do. Where are you taking evidence from that he is still considered winner in those races? I have already explained that the letour.com archive section is way out of date if that is what you are referring to (and other race's pages are generally far less professional), I have explained that a cautious "wait and see" stance is being taken by all sorts of bodies within cycling as they are subject to the UCI.  I have already included the qualification "sanctioned by a national authority" in describing events he is banned from.  I have provided the text that says the sanctions are already in place, and the documentation from the world body that shows that USADA have the authority to do that.  What on earth more do you expect?  This looks more like a case of you simply wanting the lead to say something other than what it already says rather than you having a reason backed with evidence.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On the opening paragraphs, it could be argued the locked version is too short, equally the original version was far too long. Think its worth bearing in mind that this is an ever developing story and the opening section will probably be changed, updated and edited multiple times over the coming weeks. This whole thing is likely to go on for a good while yet. But there will be a lot of extra details, uci decision, cas appeal, aso decision etc, that if put into the opening paragraph will just get repetative. Main thing is we all reach consensus. Dimspace (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify the racing thing. USADA are a NAD (national anti doping agency) answering to WADA. Because of his ban he cannot compete in any event that subscribes to the WADA Code. So any organisations that are signatories to the wada code can not allow Armstrong to race. You can find full details on all the signatories here http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/Code-Acceptance/ its very extensive. Among the signatories are the ITU (Internation Triathlon Union) WTC (World Triathlon Countil) which owns Ironman. Hes also not allowed to compete in any events that are governed by the US Olympic Committee, or US Cycling. But theres nothing stopping him taking part in unsanctioned events, fun runs etc. The triathlon he competed at at the weekend was an unsanctioned event. He can also appear at races like Leadville whos organisers have actually moved at least one race out of governance so he can ride. Dimspace (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lock
I've locked the article for 3 days so you can hopefully achieve a consensus as to the lead. As the notice says, I'm not endorsing a particular version, and I don't believe the locked version violates WP:BLP, as Jojhutton believes. That said, the material Jojhutton objects to (the middle paragraph about stripping) is somewhat problematic as it's hard to match the paragraph to statements in the body. It would be good if that could be ironed out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What would people think if we replaced
 * "...in August they announced a lifetime ban from competition as well as the stripping of all titles. This sanction however has yet to be ratified by the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the sports governing body."
 * with
 * "...in August they announced a lifetime ban from competition, which if ratified by the Union Cycliste International (UCI), would strip Armstrong of his titles."
 * ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be overstating UCI's authority on the matter: they can challenge it before CAS, but they cannot overturn it. We are being (wisely, I believe) cautious in avoiding saying that the titles are not yet removed: as I understand it, no-one can really deny that they have been, as the WADC invests authority in the national bodies to do that, but no-one will definitively say that it has happened until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.  Which will be at on the 22nd day after UCI received the dossier unless the matter is in the hands of the CAS by then.
 * On a more pedantic level, that phrasing would also be inaccurate as the ban refers to future participation, and the removal of results, self-evidently, to the past. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess that's what I get for knowing so little about competitive cycling. I was just trying to find a wording that would work as a compromise between you and Joj. Maybe you can take a stab at it? If we can find a sentence that you both agree on we can form an edit request and be done with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, but without wishing to sound arrogant (and the current phrasing was drafted by Dimspace, who is more knowledgeable on the matter than me) I fear that that would be trying to compromise between the truth and misunderstanding. We are already precious close to understating the current state of affairs, because the reaction within the sport has been rather conservative and beholden to the UCI, and I think that our editorial hesitation is wise, but the simple fact is that the penalties are already in place, and the only thing to wait for is whether it is challenged. See the tense in the USADA announcement that I have quoted in the #Break section.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying there. I think I'm convinced. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actually fully in favour of a lock (have been asking for it for a while), it gives us a few days to draw up a consensus, initially of how the article should be structured and then develop the content to not only be an accurate representation of Armstrong career, but also allow room to edit things over the coming weeks as the situation with the UCI, IOC, ASO, WADA and whoever else wants to throw their two-pennorth worth in develops. At the moment there is very little to be done with the USADA section. I have checked it thoroughly and apart from lacking information on the reasoned decision (which is fairly easy to write), it covers everything that happens. What I will try and do over the next day is present drafts of a more cohesive Motorola section that flows into the Cofidis contract and then leads neatly into the US Postal history. Dimspace (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum to the Motorola Section. In August 1996 following the Leeds Classic, Armstrong signed a 2 year, $2m deal with the French Cofidis Cycling Team. Joining him in signing contracts with the French team were teammates Frankie Andreu and Laurent Madouas. Two months later, in October of 1996 he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Dimspace (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum/suggested change to end of the cancer section. His last chemotherapy treatment was received on December 13, 1996. In the February of 1997 he was declared cancer-free but shortly after came the news that his contract with the Cofidis team had been cancelled. Again it was former boss at Subaru Montgomery who came to the rescue offering him a contract with the US Postal team on a salary of $200,000 a year. By January 1998 he was already engaged in serious training for racing, moving to Europe with the team. A pivotal week (April 1998) in his comeback was one he.. etc etc Dimspace (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong and Race Fixing
The scams Armstrong has done may need an article on their own. Breaking: The ABC's Four Corners program has uncovered evidence given in a United States court case suggesting that Anderson was present when Armstrong offered a member of an opposing team a $50,000 bribe to help fix a series of three races which carried a $1 million bonus for any rider who won them all.

Armstrong won all three races and the bribe - it is alleged - was paid to the opposing team in cash. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-15/australian-legend-witnessed-armstrong-bribe/4312558 Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * theres barely a race goes by where some kind of money doesnt change hands. Its incredibly common, paying other riders to let you win, paying other teams to work for you to chase down a rider. As for the Armstrong thing, its fairly common knowledge in cycling circles. It was the thrift series in, 93'ish. trouble us, much as I love Mike Anderson, his testimony "suggesting" that lance paid a bribe wouldnt be enough to satisfy wikipedia. It would need an awful lot more than that. Dimspace (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that this kind of stuff was a normal occurence in professional bike racing. What a joke. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh without getting to sidetracked into discussion its been going on for years. As far back as the fifties teams were paying other teams. More recently, Robert Millar getting done out of the vuelta after spanish teams colluded, very recently Vinokourov alleged (they found emails) to have paid Kolobnev to let him win Liege Bastogne Liege. Its very common. 3 man breakaway, 2 italians, one spaniard, the italians will often make financial deals. Or two riders in a break, one can sprint, one cant, one will often offer money to the other. Very often teams have paid other teams. Its not so common recently, but certainly in teh 70's to the 90's it was rife. When you think a domestique may be on around 30,000 to 40,000 euro a year.. 50,000 to 100,000 to let someone win a major race is very appealing Dimspace (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

USADA Reasoned Decision Link is here
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf The file includes sworn testimony from 26 people including Armstrong’s former teammates: Canada’s Michael Barry, who competed for US Postal from 2002-06 and announced his retirement from cycling, Frankie Andreu, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie. EMvague (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Seperate Article to cover doping
I strong think there needs to be a sub-article to cover the USADA Lance Armstrong doping. Especially because there will be just too much information to fit in the main Lance Armstrong article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC) There is just a 'mountain' of information that will undoubtedly be able to create another article. It would also be better for readers who are more interested in reading a more in depth article about the doping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CREATE. Frank  &#124;  talk  00:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * maybe but dont think this article cant mention it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There used to be a seperate article but it was deleted. See Articles_for_deletion/List_of_doping_allegations_against_Lance_Armstrong --Racklever (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought is that at some point there needs to be a "USADA Investigation" article created, just as there is one for Puerto etc. The USADA case covers not just lance but other people that are being prosecuted/banned as well as countless suspended riders, and the high posibility of further cases opened by other national federations. Australia already discussing an armistice, Belgium reporting Bruyneel. Dimspace (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dimspace, Lance !! I dont like him being called Lance here, hes very fast becoming reviled. Do you understand the scope of what he has done. We must not sustain the fake hero thing, the con he created when the evidence is out he is a liar cheat doper bully and scammer Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Im actually far from that. At the risk of advertising external websites, heres a couple of recent articles I have written. one an extensive look (and i mean extensive) into his business dealings from the nineties onwards (which maybe shows how much knowledge i have in the subject) http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/ and another destroying the myth of the 500 tests claim, just google cylismas legend of the 500. I have actually been active in the campaign to reveal the truth for many years, and am firmly, you could say anti lance, I would say anti doping and corruption. That said, im very good at being organised, impartial and constructive when it comes to wiki (thanks for undoing the first few words though) Dimspace (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest there is a case to be made to restore Articles_for_deletion/List_of_doping_allegations_against_Lance_Armstrong, edit it, and rename it to "List of doping violations by Lance Armstrong". It would be interesting to review what was on that list back in 2010 that is now way beyond mere allegation. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think an article about the "Lance Armstrong team scoping scandal" probably would be appropriate. I also think an article about professional cycling and the performance enhancing drug controversies of the 1980s and 1990s in general would also be appropriate.  It's starting to appear that professional cycling of that era may have been the most corrupt and dishonest professional sport in human history, at least on that scale. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Born2cycle, re deleted article. Yes. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cla68, to be fair to cycling, I suggest the NFL, the MBL, the NHL and other sporting orgs do even less than the corrupt UCI does, which at least has to appear as if it's doing something to combat doping once in a while. For all we know all the other sports are way more corrupt and dishonest, because their hurdles are even lower.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Cla68 re 'most corrupt and dishonest professional sport in human history'. Its certainly up there, agree Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

UCI
Its possible Armstrong bribed the UCI and got use of a blood analyser to keep ahead of detection. Ashenden said there was a worrying triangle involving Armstrong, the UCI and a drug-testing laboratory in Lausanne.

He added: "We know Armstrong paid the UCI more than $100,000 and around that time the UCI gave the Lausanne laboratory free use of a blood analyser worth $60-70,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/16/uci-donation-lance-armstrong

Watch that story. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Tour titles status as at 17 Oct 2012
OK, according to Reuters, UCI are required to respond to the USADA "reasoned decision" by 31 Oct 2012. They have two options - accept the USADA report (and thus strip Armstrong of his titles), or dispute the report's findings and take the matter to the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport. Reuters. Manning (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is straight out of the WADA Code to which the UCI is a signatory. Realistically, I don't see the UCI taking this to CAS.  On what grounds?  Over 20 witnesses are lying?  They want this to go away, not to prolong it.  Plus, there is always the looming threat of the IOC deciding to take cycling out of the Olympics due to the corruption, which is probably more likely if the UCI does not accept this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I mainly posted this for the benefit of the numerous folks clamouring to have his status as TDF winner removed already, which we can't do until UCI formally accept the report. But agreed, I cannot see any outcome other than the UCI accepting USADA's report in full. Manning (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

USADA Reasoned Decision
Whoever can go through the USADA's reasoned decision, should try to contribute as much as they can to this article. It will be alot of work, and weeks of writing also. I think people throughout wikipedia should start sifting and adding things from the USADA's reasoned decision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PRIMARY. It is not our position to sift through primary source material and spend weeks transcribing it to Wikipedia. Frank  &#124;  talk  19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * i have read through a massive amount of it. Not just the 202 pages of the main reasoned decision, but i have also read through the bulk of the supporting evidence (including the non english testimonies which i typed out by hand to put into translate). That said, it has nothing to do with this page. This page is and will be, the lance Armstrong article. If and when (and its a matter of if anyone has the time) a constructive article can be produced it would be a seperate "2012 USADA doping investigation" article and not part of the lance article Dimspace (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Its a damning body of work, esp the testimonies of fellow riders. You cant have a Lance Armstrong article without this being in it to some degree. Its part of his life story. He has lost his Tour titles. Think about it. Otherwise retitle the article to 'selections of Lance Armstrong's life' (no bad stuff allowed) --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also a primary source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As of yet, Armstrong has not lost his titles, notwithstanding posturing from various groups implying the contrary. I'm not at all saying it won't happen, but it hasn't yet. Frank  &#124;  talk  03:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. letour.fr website is not an official source. See and . Lance has been stripped of his titles by USADA. UCI can appeal to the CAS or gain jurisdiction over the case but until then, Lance has lost his titles. Withenemies (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the official web site of the Tour de France is not an official source for results of the Tour de France? Perhaps there is another interpretation of what you are trying to say; if so, please state it plainly. Otherwise, the official web site of the Tour de France lists Armstrong (and Contador) has having won; I don't know of any policy under which this web site operates that permits us to state otherwise. Frank  &#124;  talk  20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an official publication of ASO: its archive is certainly not regularly revised. It still lists Bernhard Kohl as 3rd place and KoM winner in 2008, although he has been officially removed from that status for some years. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation to support this claim about Kohl? Frank  &#124;  talk  03:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its difficult to maintain discussions on cycling when so many participants know so little about cycling. Note 2008 entries on pages 4 and 7, and read his article or any of the 417,000 pages thrown up by googling "Kohl doping". Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what participants know about cycling is quite beside the point. What we need to know about is WP:CITE and WP:RS. The links you provide above - when translated through google - state that the final results for the 2008 Tour have not been published. There's no conflict here; when (and if) they are published, pages here are easily changed. The same applies to Armstrong and perhaps an entire team's worth of articles. Frank  &#124;  talk  14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This very minor sub-thread is simply about redressing your assumption that letour.fr is a reliable official source. It might be official, but unfortunately it is so chronically out of date that it is not reliable, or even internally consistent: its treatment of the Kohl case was offered as evidence of that.  Results that have indisputably been removed for many years are still displayed on letour.fr's history section, because it has never been revised, therefore the fact that they have not redacted Armstrong's results means nothing.  Withenemies was incorrect in saying that it is not official as a site, but you were equally wrong in assuming that just because it is an official site it is accurate or up to date.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just saying that thetour.fr is not an official source when you want to know the official classification. Of course it is an official site. You showed the Kohl case, i showed the contador case (still listed as fifth at the 2011 TDF) . Withenemies (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You (both) are suggesting that letour.fr does not know who is the official winner of its own races. I am asking for a citation to support that. The citation you provided (two pages of one document) did not do that. It merely stated that 2008 results have not been re-stated. I am absolutely not assuming that the official site is either accurate or up to date; I am, however, assuming it is reliable, as in a reliable source. The USADA may have "stripped" Armstrong of his titles, but...the people who run the event in question have not done so and it has not been reported in any reliable sources that they have done so. I fail to see how anyone can purport otherwise. When and if they do, it's a whole different story and I'll be totally on board at that point, but...it simply hasn't happened and any assertions to the contrary require citations to support them. Given that Kohl's situation is years in the making, I suspect this may take a good many months or years, but...there's nothing we can do about that. Jumping the gun isn't acceptable. Frank &#124;  talk  01:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you choose to assume that it is reliable, and not trust more frequently updated sites on the basis of that assumption, there is little anyone else can do about your assumption. It ought to be reliable in the information it gives, but ASO has evidently simply never got around to updating it in the face of some later disqualifications, as has been demonstrated (although it has done so in the case of Contador's 2010 disqualification).  If you don't believe the evidence that results have been changed without this site being changed, you are welcome to remain in that error, and unless you accept that other sites can be more accurate, you are doomed to do so.  letour.fr ought to be reliable, but if it isn't then it is not worth citing.
 * However, this has little or nothing to do with the current article. Although the ban and disqualifications have been handed down, everyone is waiting to see whether that is challenged by the UCI before any retroactive changing of Armstrong's results.  Wikipedia is doing this on our pages, so are many other publishers (leaving aside the enormous ineptitude of ASO in relation to the TdF site).  But the article says that the ban and disqualifications are awaiting ratification, so where is the problem? Kevin McE (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the folks who run the race say he won, who is ASO to say otherwise? I am not mindlessly accepting letour.fr as the only possible reliable source, but neither do I think that because some number (greater than 1) of sites claim something different makes it so either. You are also asserting it has updated based on Contador's disqualification; yet the evidence proves otherwise. They specifically state that they haven't updated the results. That means, to me, not that the site hasn't been updated, but rather that they really haven't changed anything. Sure, some certifying body is now saying someone was not qualified to participate in or win an event; however, those who actually run the event - while they may claim to honor such disqualifications, do not appear (yet) to have actually done so. Just because a number of sources (let's even assume they are reliable sources) say someone's titles have been stripped doesn't mean that the body that issues them has actually done so. Frank  &#124;  talk  23:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The ASO are the people who run the race. As I have already said, if you remain intransigent in your trust in that poorly updated site, I can only abandon you to your option to remain uninformed.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the name calling doesn't help the matter; show me something that supports ASO as the folks who run the race, and show me where ASO has said Kohl's results are null and void, despite them also saying the results haven't been re-stated. I can be educated. But just claiming you're right and I'm ignorant isn't the way to do it. Frank  &#124;  talk  06:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The USDA money trail is revealing. As further information on the Armstrong case was revealed yesterday, it became clear that the investigation turned on a meeting between investigators from different countries at the Interpol headquarters in Lyons last November. Crucially, American investigators were able to see bank details of Ferrari's Swiss company, Health & Performance SA. More than $1 million was paid by Armstrong into this account, much of it in the years after Armstrong had stated publicly that he would never work with Dr Ferrari again. --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

While the Reasoned Decision is itself a primary source, there are tons of reliable secondary sources that have covered it, and explained it. As long as inserted material is mostly based on that, we can also supplement it with references to the primary source. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. The UCI has admitted accepting a donation of more than $100,000 (£62,000) from Armstrong in 2002, but has strongly denied that it was connected to any cover-up of a positive test. Dr Michael Ashenden, acknowledged as the foremost expert in blood doping and the man whose test caught Armstrong's US Postal team-mate Tyler Hamilton, told BBC Radio 5 Live's programme "Peddlers – Cycling's Dirty Truth": "The UCI should never have accepted money from Armstrong under any circumstances.

"But if they took money after they were aware there were grounds to suspect Armstrong had used EPO it takes on a really sinister complexion.

"http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/16/uci-donation-lance-armstrong. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem in intro
This is the 2nd paragraph, currently.

The implication here is that the USADA sanction needs to be "ratified" by the UCI. That's incorrect. There is no source for this, and I suggest because no source for that exists. The sanction is in effect immediately, as is indicated by Armstrong's inability to participate in officially sanctioned triathlons. The UCI needs to ratify nothing. It's true they have right to appeal, as does Armstrong, but without an appeal and an overturn by CAS, the USADA decision is it.

I suggest the following instead:

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me - as you state, UCI don't get to ratify, only to launch a challenge if they feel there are sufficient grounds. I suspect they are taking their time just to give the impression they properly analysed the USADA report. Manning (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Point of grammar: it should be "...the sport's governing body." Frank  &#124;  talk  01:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yup, id go with that, its still concise but effectively sums up the current situation. Dimspace (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good one: done Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins editing this fully protected page
I didn't see any discussions or edit requests, but two desperate admins make major changes to the article, seemingly without discussion. Was there a discussion that I am currently not seeing? If so, I guess the edits were within policy. But if not, the edits appear to violate the spirit of WP:FULL. JOJ Hutton  19:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies. I was in no way "desperate", nor were my edits "major changes" to the article, simply an update based on news today.  I'll happily remove my edits if you think they violate some kind of policy.  As far as I could tell, the edits I made simply reflected truth and were fully cited.  Of course, if that goes against policy, I'll undo my edits.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually "desperate" should have been "seperate". Typo. And any edits made to a fully protected page should be discussed. Admins should never misuse the tools to edit a page that others do not have the same ability to edit. JOJ  Hutton  19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, I've removed the separate/desperate edits so the article is back to being inaccurate and containing MOS failures. Hopefully that's the end of this discussion.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, a sermon and a riot act all in one. I expect my de-sysop is in the mail. From what I understand, the lock was for the lead, and our edits have nothing to do with that. "Admins should never misuse the tools to edit a page that others do not have the same ability to edit"--I don't know where that came from; it seems pretty obvious that admins can use the tool to edit a page that etc., and a bit of good faith would be nice. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong resigned, sponsors dropped him
In these fully cited edits, I and User:Drmies tried to reflect the fact that Armstrong has resigned from being director of LIVESTRONG and has been dropped by sponsors Nike and Radioshack. Pretty non-controversial stuff, fully cited. Anyone object that information being added so the article is factually correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, obviously. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not information, it's the manner in which it was edited. Admins should never place themselves in a position in which they appear to abuse the trust that we have given them with the tools. And yes, when articles get a full protection, they may appear out of date. That's why we have edit requests, in order to attempt to keep the article as up to date as possible. The best thing that you should have done was just make a quick proposal on the talk page and if nobody appears to object, then the information could be changed. Better yet, you could have made a formal edit request, then let an uninvolved admin make the changes. That way, there won't be any possible impropriety. You aren't the first admin who has ever done this, but every time I see it, I say something. JOJ  Hutton  20:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes sir. Now, do you object to the well-cited information, for which dozens more reliable sources are available, being added? We have a responsibility to the world, after all... Drmies (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(uninvolved admin note) Since the material is well cited, I'm assuming there is no objection to including it. I've restored the material deleted by the rambling man. --regentspark (comment) 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (another uninvolved admin note) - JOJ, do you have any idea how dispiriting your "all admins are evil" mentality actually is? These were perfectly valid, uncontroversial edits, and had you applied AGF this would have been obvious. Instead you have made a fuss, thrown terms like "impropriety" around, and generally been a total git. This is very sad behaviour for such an experienced contributor. Manning (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yoiks, looks like another editor is up to these dirty tricks. And not even an administrator. What now? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Protection just ran out, haha. I gotta run--can you have a look to see under which user name requirement ought to be blocked? Drmies (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I am against obstruction to NPOV well cited reliable sources. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be very careful about how its worded about sponsors dropping as there is a lot of PR guff going on. Livestrong - He has NOT stepped down as a director as you state, simple dropped down from position of Chairman, he is still on the board. Nike, they have purely ended their personal sponsorship with him, but continue to sponsor Livestrong and sell Livestrong merchandise of which Lance gets a share. Honey Stinger, he wont appear on their packaging but he still owns shares in the company and they will still sell their products at Livestrong events. FRS, he has stepped down from teh board, but still has a shareholding in the Company. SRAM, his relationship has fully ended, no longer holds shares. At the moment, I would be very careful about how you phrase it and theres also serious questions marks over the sources. Basically all the sources are just rehashes of the same old press releases. Most of the companies involved in sponsoring Lance employ a public strategies company called Bazaar voice to represent them. Bazaar voice is owned by Austin Ventures. THe founder and owner of Austin Ventures is Jeff Garvey, the new Chairman of Livestrong. So although they may be well sourced as in from reputable media outlets they are basically press releases rehashed or quoted directly. Dimspace (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. It's a moot point really in this section, I removed the "offending" edits (mine and Drmies') which started this thread.  It wasn't actually anything to do with the legitimacy of the content, more to do with someone taking umbrage at the article being edited while under full protection.  I suggest you take your comments to the section below, or make an edit request to ensure the truth is reported.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * no worries, and point taken. At the moment I dont think we actually know the truth on all the so called "sponsor" cancellations. At the moment it would appear just to be facesaving and posturing from the sponsors while continuing to support Livestrong which was the main thing anyway. most of his personal deals were due to end as he stepped down from racing anyway. My personal take on it all is its a load of PR guff. Sponsors switching from personal endorsement to Lance Armstrong Foundation endorsement, but wiki is not for personal takes its for hard facts, and at the moment the hard facts are incredibly vague :S Dimspace (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Maintainance
All the controversy aside, this article has numerous errors in spelling and conventions. As the article is currently locked, I'll just list a few that I've found so that someone else may correct them. I'm also including some links that I feel should be made.

Introduction:
 * ¶3 Perhaps a link for "testicular cancer" would be a good idea?

Early Career:
 * ¶1 "At the age...as a swimmer" should be rewritten "At the age of 12, he started his sporting career as a swimmer" (perhaps not the best rewrite, but the existing sentence is terrible)
 * ¶1 ""finished fourth... freestyle" should have a or
 * ¶1 "He stopped swimming-only races" should be rewritten to improve sentence flow.

Motorola: 1992-1996:
 * ¶1 "Formerly the 7-Eleven team... Subaru Montgomery." is an incoherent sentence fragment. It should be rewritten.
 * ¶1 "He surprised the cycling community... that year" needs clarification for when. Possible rewrite: "Later that year, he surprised the cycling community he became one of the youngest people ever to win the UCI Road World Championship in Norway."
 * ¶2 "At the USPRO championship... the cameras" is highly irrelevant (no accompanying image?) and/or against Wikipedia style (NPOV?). If kept, it should at least have an image or external link.
 * ¶4 "He won the Clásica... Tour De France." appears to be a run-on. It should be rewritten.

Cancer:
 * Section needs attention. Numerous inconsistencies in sentence structure, a few issues with verb/subject agreement, overuse of commas, etc.
 * ¶3 Too much narrative?

I'm not going to undertake the immense task of a complete article renovation, but this should be more than enough to give someone else a head start. 173.170.255.211 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. If I can I'll have a look in the next day or two. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree there are numerous bits of tidying up needed. At least now we have some sort of consistency of section titles etc. I have made two small additions today which i had previously noted, adding details on the cofidis signing on the end of the motorola section, and note of the cofidis cancellation at the end of the cancer section. A few thoughts
 * ¶1 It would be useful to have some reference to his support from Thom Wiesel. He was the sponsor of Subaru Montgomery, instrumental in getting his deal at Motorola (Ochs worked for Wiesel), and of course was the chief funder of the Postal team
 * ¶1 THe motorola section is very poorly written, basically just a list of results one after the other
 * ¶1 THe postal section is 99% tour-centric and again very poorly written
 * The real question is how do we approach what is going to be a great deal of rewriting, pick a section each (and all have a different writing style), discuss a section at a time, or make edits and discuss later ? Im still not sure i understand the point in the collaboration of sponsors section. we also need to add to the USADA section details of the "reasoned judgement" issued last week.Dimspace (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

First section
With the current dispute, I think it's relevant in the first paragraph to first mention Lance's foundation and cancer, followed by his cycling career and disputed tour victories. I think everyone will agree that his foundation puts him in a truthful and positive light, while still mentioning his career as a cyclist in a respectable manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.172.239 (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I undid your edits before seeing this, but I stand by my change. He is defined by his cycling career, and in particular for his Tour de France history. Most of the article is devoted to that, rather than to his foundation. Positive light doesn't come in to it. Do we write articles about infamous criminals by striving to say something positive before we get down to what the person is notable for? No. The lede is supposed to be about what defines the person (or whatever the article is about). Meters (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, it is not here to paint anyone in a positive or negative light Dimspace (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Secondary source take on the report's release. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Armstrong is no longer defined by his career, but by the fact that he is the most notorious example of doping in the history of sports. The value parameters of the information contained in the lead entry has changed, and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oprah999 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of results procedure
The UCI are set to announce their response to the USADA evidence this coming Monday. It would be worth over the weekend getting a consensus for procedure for removal/strikout in preperation for a UCI decision to uphold the ban. Note: this is not for arguing or speculating what their decision will be, but for agreeing a policy in the event of..
 * ¶1 InfoBox - Two options
 * Full removal of all results stripped from the info box. This would be in line with wikipedias policy on other athlete pages, although it could be argued that as the results are unlikely to be re-allocated (the aso have alreaedy said they will leave the results blank) it will cause innacuracies of history.
 * Strikethrough of the results in the info box. This will be contrary to other rider pages but could also be argued to highlight the fact those results where stripped from him.
 * ¶1 Palmares/Career Achievements
 * In line with other riders in the USADA enquiry and Contador etc I would propose strikethrough of all results and then a hidden tag on the palmares. I would suggest that in the event of results being stripped there is no need for the existing "career achivements of Lance Armstrong" article. If they are all crossed through and then hidden they can be incorporated into this article without taking up any real estate space as they would be behind a hidden tag

Thoughts? Dimspace (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought. Info Box - Full removal of all results stripped. Palmares - Moving of the palmares to this article with strikethrough and hidden tag and deletion of career achievements article. Dimspace (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with Dimspace Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Related if anyone is interested - I've started a discussion here to discuss what to do when a TDF title is vacated. Manning (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is factually inaccurate. Please take these false results away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.182.83 (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The titles were only withdrawn three minutes ago. It will take a little while to get the whole article amended. Manning (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also in the sidebar his victories are 'Cycling World Champion' and 'USA National Cycling Champion'. Should be the names of the races and specify whether they were road/TT.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.182.83 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody add details about evidence provided by USDA?
I cannot find details of evidence that USDA is bringing. Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh lord.. go here http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/ under reasoned decision you will find 202 pages.. under appendices you will find about a thousand. Enjoy. Ive read the lot. Dimspace (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * maybe he meant to say that there are not much detail of evidence in the article ;-) - anyway, this is my evaluation, there are a lot of details of the doping allegations there were dropped during the years, and much less about the final, definitive allegation by USDA. But, if my reading was not careful enough, excuse me. --Maxbeer (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Olympic bronze
The bronze medal is in the hidden section of the infobox. Is that one of the things that the UCI has stripped or do we have to wait for an IOC announcement on this?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's down to the IOC to do that.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

US Postal/Discovery: 1998–2005
Should this section be refactored to account for the fact that any statements regarding wins are now invalid? Semitransgenic talk. 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the whole article needs seriously tidying up and several sections rewritten as has been mentioned by myself and others several times. Unfortunately no editors seem keen to enter into conversation about what the best approach is and how we tackle it. Can I suggest that editors who wish to play a part in the rewriting of the article (its gramattically a total mess), register their interest and we then discuss how to move forward with tidying it up Dimspace (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * my primary interest is in getting the content up to date, so that it reflects, as accurately as possible, where Armstrong's cycling career now stands, after the stripping of titles. Is it correct to assume that all stage victories etc. can no longer be considered wins? Can we say he won anything between 1998 and 2005? Semitransgenic  talk. 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was concentrating on the lede and trying to make that read well as it is the bit of the article everyone looks at. I don't want to commit to anything else at this time.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My interest is the same, the article needs to be up to date and factual, but i go a step further in thinking it needs wholesale rewrites (for instance, all these awards for sportsman of the year, what the hell do we do with those. The whole Postal years is a confusing mess as to how we approach it, this is a largely unprecented event and im not totally sure what the best approach is. Im actively anti armstrong and have been for many years, nothing would please me more than just to delete the whole article :D but obviously that cant happen. As far as the postal years go, the dillemma is, we cant change history, we can only change how we percieve history. The events did happen, although now they are known to have happened fraudulently. So how in blazes do we deal with it. I think the postal section needs to reflect what happens, but at the same time major rewording so that history doesnt change, but the impression of history changes. For example, "won his second Tour de France" becomes "won what at the time was his second Tour de France". The trouble is, what happened then is relevant to what happened later with the USADA decision, its important to remember he dominated the tour for seven years, but equally important to remember that it was a fraud and he was later stripped of all titles. Im really not sure how to approach the whole sorry mess. Dimspace (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that this be compressed. Just record that he was a member of the team(s), then say that the titles he gained for the period were removed by the UCI and USADA (ref) and then list the ones you consider important with no reference to how close or otherwise these voided victories were.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it might be helpful to check how notable tertiary sources have dealt with previous scandals where a rider has lost titles. Surely it's more important now to consider that the reason he dominated the tour is because he had the best doping team behind him (and maybe even UCI's consent). Probably best to wait and see how other source respond to all of this. Semitransgenic  talk. 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be informative to consider how articles like Ben Johnson (sprinter) discuss wins and subsequent disqualifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnsonn doesnt really apply. he was disqualified a handful of days later and the result re-allocated. These results are being stripped retrospectively and over a huge period of time. Dimspace (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we don't really have a precedent to follow, so we have to figure this one out on our own. I'll look for a "being revised" template to stick on it while we sort out the details. Manning (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Career Achievements / Palmares
Ive proposed this as well on the career achievements article. With his palmares now severely reduced the career achievements article seems redundant because a) he has no significant career achievements that warrant a complete article and b) the palmares is now small enough to be included within this article and the career achievements article deleted. Can we have opinions.. Dimspace (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yes he has, he has achieved becoming the most significant drug cheat in history, perhaps an article dedicated to that would be more fitting? ; ) Semitransgenic  talk. 18:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrasing
In the History of allegations of doping section, the phrase "the only cyclist in his team to come clean of drugs" is unfortunate, since it could mean he "admitted to using drugs" or "stopped using drugs". This should be reworded in the article. - dcljr (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the 2000 bronze medal be struck through as well?
As the removal of all victories/titles covers 1998-2005 shouldn't his 2000 Olympic medal be struck through/removed as well? Hentheden (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Already discussed above. IOC make that decision, not the UCI Dimspace (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and the IOC are currently "reviewing the matter" . Manning (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening Lede
This ones going backwards and forwards a bit as to wether he should be referred to as a cyclist that also took part in Triathlon (both at the start of his career and the end) and Marathon runner etc. Im not going to return it, but I think it should be referred to early on. It was a key part of his early career, and he then went on to win some extremely notable races later in his career. Ironman competitions easily rate up with some of his top road wins. More importantly, with the World Triathlon Council subscribers to the WADA code they are likely over the coming days to announce the stripping of his triathlon titles, which would mean he is not only cyclist who had results stripped, but athlete who had results stripped by multiple governing bodies over multiple disciplines. But thats down to someone to decide, im not going in a back and forth editing argument.
 * Which brings me onto, im going to take a step back from editing this page. Theres some great editors who have been involved in it for months (some years) who seem to share a common direction in getting the page revised and redone, but its becoming an increasing battle with a number of passers by making wholesale changes, some well intentioned, some not so. Its no longer a pleasurable page to edit. It would be nice to get a small group of varied editors together who could just free up an afternoon and tackle the whole thing, but most of peoples time appears to be spent resolving edits, undoing vandalism, or correcting minor grammatical issues that sprawl over pages of discussion, and to be fair, this is nobodies job, it should be pleasurable. Dimspace (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Financial Penalties of being a convicted cheater
Dallas insurance company SCA Promotions is demanding the return of millions of dollars in bonuses paid to Lance Armstrong now that the shamed cyclist's Tour de France victories have been expunged.

"Mr Armstrong is no longer the official winner of any Tour de France races and as a result it is inappropriate and improper for him to retain any bonus payments made by SCA," Jeffrey Dorough, general counsel for the firm, said. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, he won the titles in the years that they happened. Only in 2012 were the titles retroactively stripped. It's like when Joe Paterno's wins as a football coach were vacated. 71.52.199.48 (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting legal question. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OH yes, they are going after the bonus money, its part of the tour contract, if you get stripped of the title you give back the money. Google it, hes going to hurt financially big time, worth watching this fallout, it may bankrupt him Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Its very different to the Paterno issue. The SCA case went to court originally as SCA were suspicious about the methods. Armstrong was quetioned at length under oath about doping, and wether or not he doped. Multiple witnesses also testified such as the Andreau's, Emma O'Reilly etc. SCA lost the case and had to pay up, and the various witnesses were harassed and written off as liars, cheats, or bitter. Turns out they were right all along. But, anyway, because the insurance payout was dealt with through arbitration and under oath, the base fact it that Armstrong perjured himself. Based on that SCA have perfectly valid legal reasons to challenge for the money back. It wont bancrupt him though, $10m to sca, $4, to the ASO, $1m to Times of London, hes payed his lawyers more than that Dimspace (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Second Paragraph
The second paragraph currently shows the Tour DuPont race as "Tour DuPontand" so it should be corrected.
 * space inserted before "and".--Peter cohen (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Strike Though of various results
Based on the way things were handled on Jan Ulrich's page, I believe that rather than removing all victories, someone who can edit should strike through all of his victories. Because the UCI chose not to name other winners, a strike though will indicate to people that they have come to a relevant place for information about the various 'victories'. A link to later in the article discussing the loss of his victories seems appropriate. Ender8282 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is probably a good idea as it shows that he won the titles then lost them, not that he simply never won them in the first place. Hentheden (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with strikethrough although at the moment this is irrelevant. Firstly his palmares are on a seperate page (for now) and secondly the UCI havnt made a decision yet. They are meeting this coming Friday to decide what happens about results, re-allocation etc Dimspace (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the 'major wins' section of the info box. Not sure exactly when the change happened but  listed his TDF (and other) wins.  Ender8282 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * info box should not have wins that are later voided. Palmares is acceptable to use strikethrough. on Ullrichs page its his palmares edited. The one result on his info box was an error that I have no rectified. Dimspace (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong supporters?
Has anyone come out in support of Armstrong, or criticised the decision to strip Armstrong of his titles? Portillo (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sammy Sanchez and Big Mig  have expressed support/disbelief.  Indurain is probably more significant, and might merit mention/inclusion in the article.  Ender8282 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * is likely a better reference for Miguel Indurain. Ender8282 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Portillo (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sean Penn too at a recent event held by Armstrong.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead
I'm going to cite a passage from WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

In other words, the lead needs to be a balanced summary of the entire article, and not something that blares the events of the last few days. Yes, he's been stripped of his titles, and this IS mentioned numerous times in the lead. When I first saw the article, the lead was basically a summary of his banning so I incorporated text from a lead version of the article from a few months back to make it more balanced. 

Users seem to disagree with this and think the whole point of the lead is to exclaim "HE'S BANNED FROM CYCLING!!!" over and over again. -- Scorpion 0422  22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You have my full support. Obviously this article is going to attract a lot of attention in the next few days/weeks, but I'll assist your efforts to keep the article in balance in any way I can. Manning (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, the lead is back now to almost what it was three weeks ago before editors spent ages discussing how to reduce it to fit in line with wiki guidelines. Cancer is now back to being more important that tour results, loads of awards from sports illustrated etc, and the doping story spread over three paragraphs. Genius :D Dimspace (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the lead of a few days ago was discussed between numerous editors if you look at the various threads above, and agreed upon. It was only in the last day that it got rewritten and out of hand. Can I suggest it may have been better to revert to the lead of earlier this week that had been agreed by several editors. Rather than one that was already a mess to start with. The resulting lead is now equally messy. Cancer once again playing too much of a role. LAF is tagged on the end of Para 2 when it should be in a seperate paragraph, and logically that should be where the cancer mention is. Cancer survivor, flows into creating the Lance Armstrong foundation as it was a week ago. If you are going to use that wording at least make it logical..


 * what is interesting, is all the editors who have been working on this page for the past months appear to have vanished, and a whole new bunch of editors seem to have arrived today determined to rewrite the article to their own agenda with little or no discussion. Where have you all been for the past three months while we have been keeping the article free of irrelevance and spam?Dimspace (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dimspace - I came here solely because I knew with all of the media attention this article was going to get a lot of attention and I thought an extra pair of hands might be useful. I'm happy to drop out if the help isn't needed. Manning (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Semitransgenic, at least its now readable and grammatically correct. Much more readable now and most of the hogwash removed. Dim Dimspace (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can i suggest "is an American former professional road racing cyclist." becomes "is an American former professional road racing cyclist and Triathlete" he was a triathlete at the start of his career, and wether people rate triathlon or not he won major tri races at the end of his career (and no doubt would have won more had he not been banned). Dimspace (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Manning, its cool. Im going to step back from editing, shall just put my two pennorth worth in in talk instead. Its just frustrating. The last few weeks we tried to address issues with a page, things are gradually being edited and then a day like to day and understandable chaos breaks out. The majority of edits are made in good faith, but weve largely gone round in a huge big circle. In a couple of days it will all die down and a handful of editors will remain who will tidy everything up. Tis the wiki way :D Dimspace (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * would though appreciate if someone can look at the career achievements and decide if we can now do a merge. The strikeout and hiding has been done over there. The amateur results, and strangely his triathlon results as a junior which im not overly sure are relevant, i deleted one that was before the event was even created, but theres a case now for moving the reduced palmares to here and closing the career achievements (of which there are few) article. Dimspace (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the lead as it currently reads: ''Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist and triathlete. He won the Tour de France seven consecutive times (1999-2005) but was stripped of those titles by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and banned from cycling in 2012.''

We have basically two things to consider: whether this is factually correct and whether it provides the proper emphasis. I'd say that the first clause of the second sentence is at the very least misleading since 1) there is now a consensus in the world at large that Armstrong did not properly win the Tour de France ever and since 2), as far as official racing he is concerned, he did not win the Tour de France at all. It would be far more accurate to say that Armstrong was once considered to have won the Tour de France seven times. This state of affairs is very unlikely to change. As for emphasis, at this point Armstrong is more known as a cheater and a fraud than as anything else. As time passes this is bound to intensify. Since it is now obvious that Armstrong achieved his original fame by cheating and committing fraud, there is no reason he should not be more known as a cheater and a fraud than as anything else. TheScotch (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps it would be better to start out with the doping ban (now his "main" accomplishment) and then mention the 7 TdF titles he was stripped of? Something like this--In 2012 he was found guilty of using prohibited performance-enhancing substances throughout most of his career by USADA+UCI. Consequently he was stripped of all titles/achievements from 1999 and onwards, including 7 consecutive TdF titles, and banned from cycling for life. This paragraph still needs a little work, but I think the order is better. 90.184.243.14 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The text has been changed to "was awarded" instead of won, a change that I support having done something similar yesterday. The lede is still too long per the recommended number of paras in WP:LEDE. The world championship as his most prestigious remaining title should be mentioned there and all the other titles removed.--Peter cohen (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * agree with "was awarded" there are now no tour wins (and therefore no record). Semitransgenic  talk. 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Was awarded' makes no sense at all. He was not awarded these wins. He won them initially, then had them removed with his doping ban. This is factual and widely sourced. I think we would struggle to find sources which say he was awarded the TdF wins, because he wasn't. We can't be re-writing history. First he won them, then he had them removed.
 * For me, his doping ban is now the most significant part of his notability. Then the fact that he had won seven tours after surviving cancer. The reason he was such a notable athlete is because of his apparent success after cancer, not just because he was successful. --hippo43 (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * he won seven tours because he doped, notability for "his apparent success after cancer" has at this point more to do with mythologising and PR than anything else, how about talking about him using this "life after cancer" thing as his "weapon and his shield"? Semitransgenic  talk. 13:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Im flabbergasted as to why, after several editors discussed at length the opening paragraphs being reduced to a relevant, readable and coherant introduction as per wiki guidelines, editors have now chosen to revert to basically the old version of drawn out irrelevant prose. Im confused as to how a group of editors can ignore what was discussed at length by other editors, implemented over a considerable period of time, and simple revert the opening to the drawn out mess it is once more???
 * To comment on the cancer issue above. It is notable that various editors will argue over the positioning of the cancer details. Is he a cancer survivor who went on to win the tour (heroic) or is he a cyclist, who also happened to have cancer. Depending on where the details of cancer appear it gives to very different impressions. So, was his winning the tours made more remarkable by him being a cancer "survivor". Firstly, he had testicular cancer, one of the most common causes of cancer, and one with the highest rate of success in clearing. Is there any evidence to support the claims that "he nearly died" or "was on his deathbed" as quoted in the media. No. Not at all. Are there any long term physical effects from testicular cancer that make his achievements more remarkable. No. And somewhere on this page is a source from a testicular cancer survivor. Cancer is unpleasant, horrible, chemotherapy is an awful awful process, but once clear or cancer, barring losing a testical, there was no physical impairment on lance that made his winning the Tour de France any more remarkable. But depending on how you want to portray the man you either position it prior to his wins to make him the hero who recovered from cancer and went on to win the worlds toughest race, or later in the interview where he is a cycling who also happened to have cancer. Its down to the editors to decide which image of the man they wish to portray in line with wikipedias guidelines. Dimspace (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "We can't be re-writing history. First he won them, then he had them removed.".

It is not an historical fact that Armstrong won the titles. It is, rather, an historical fact that he was once considered to have won them. He is now officially considered never to have won them. TheScotch (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's not much point arguing over what is a 'historical fact' or what he is 'officially considered' to have done. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. There are any number of high quality reliable sources which confirm he won the Tour de France seven times, and similarly plenty which confirm he had those titles removed. Per the sources, he won them, then had them removed. --hippo43 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * those sources, published prior to the doping revelations, will surely be revised. This is a wiki, we have the ability to update historical accounts immediately, the titles have been stripped, the "wins" are non-existent, and we have the sources to support this. Semitransgenic  talk. 10:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether you think sources will be revised is irrelevant. It is both true and verifiable that he won these races. It is also true and verifiable that he was stripped of these titles. The article should reflect what actually happened and what sources state. --hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * we need to reflect what we know now to be true and verifiable. There was once a perception that he "won" various titles, in reality, he didn't, because he was doping. Being stripped of a title infers the stripping of a win, therefore "winning" never took place. Semitransgenic  talk. 15:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find what were once reliable sources listing the Piltdown man as a genuine early hominid. But just as the claims about the hoax were eventually proven false after the passage of many years so have Armstrong's claims to have won the Tour de France been discredited. The sources that claim that the Piltdown man was genuine or that Armstrong won the Tour are no longer reliable because they have been superceded.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, he did win them. He won the races, they gave him the prizes, it was in the newspapers etc. He was later found to have cheated, and was disqualified. There are numerous sources which confirm he won them, and numerous sources which confirm he was later stripped of the titles. As far as I'm aware, there are few, if any, which support your opinion about what his disqualification infers. If you can supply them, and they are more numerous than the sources which say he won the races and was later disqualified, then I would agree with you. --hippo43 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * even Tour director Christian Prudhomme has stated: "Lance Armstrong is no longer the winner of the Tour de France from 1999-2005...We wish that there is no winner for this period. For us, very clearly, the titles should remain blank. Effectively, we wish for these years to remain without winners." Armstrong himself has dropped the claim to being "7-time Tour de France winner." Semitransgenic  talk. 00:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What Armstrong says on his twitter account is not especially important, nor what you think he means by it. He removed the reference to wins, but AFAIK never explicitly dropped any claim or made any comment about it.
 * I respect your point of view on this, but 'no longer considered the winner' is just not the same as 'didn't win it in the first place'. He won the races and was later disqualified and is now not considered the winner. --hippo43 (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hippo. We've had three people disagree with you in this thread and none agree. YOu are thus arguing against the apparent consensus. Unless people turn up to agree with you, I'm going to remove from the article any assertion that Armstrong won the TdF.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tour de France organizers are to officially remove Armstrong's name from race records, all mentions of him winning are to be erased, as far as the official documentation will show, Armstrong was never a winner. Semitransgenic  talk. 14:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about saying he "finished first in ..." that way we don't say he "won" as of course he has never won those events, but he did finish first in time, but finishing first does not definitely mean "winning" and avoids conferring an undeserved sense of achievement on the cheat. Example: if a sports car race had an entry from a prototype, which was uncategorised, and it finished first, then it would be a demonstration of that car and not an actual victory for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.12 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Semi, although the tour will remove his name from the records, that doesn't mean he didn't originally win the race. He is, rightly, no longer considered the winner, but that is simply not the same as never having won it. He won the race, he was then disqualified, and he is now no longer considered the winner. All of these facts can be easily referenced. As unpalatable as it is to many, he did aactually win the race at the time.
 * Peter, I agree with the sentiment behind your view, but there is clearly no consensus on this right now. The article has been in a state of flux for several days, with numerous editors taking different views on this, both in this discussion and in the edit history of the article. We will see what happens over the next wee or so, maybe the article will become a bit more stable. In any case, he did win it (before being disqualified) - this is easy to verify. I am open to phrasing this in a better way if possible, but all of the efforts so far have been essentially original research and unsourced. (Things like 'was awarded', 'his winnings included', 'was considered a champion' - all of these are either mealy-mouthed euphemisms or just untrue.) If I think of a better suggestion I will give it a try. --hippo43 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IP guy, he didn't just 'finish first' - he won. They gave him the trophy and everything. Inventing a new, unsourced version of what happened to suit how most people feel about him now amounts to original research. Just state the (easily verifiable) facts - he won the races, was disqualified several years later, and (depending on what exactly the organisers do now) had his victories expunged from official records, had to give prize money back etc... --hippo43 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But he hasn't won any of those races, that's the point. You can say prior to the exact date, that he won them, but time has moved onto the present and he has never won any of those things. He accepted the wins at the time, but fraudulently, it just wasn't known that he broke the rules. All current sources say that he didn't win. Stating otherwise may satisfy the minority view, but just isn't factually correct to say he won, but can say that he "claimed the win" or was "awarded the win", you can't have it unqualified as that would be untruthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.12 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I really dont understant this argument. It is a historical fact that he won those races. I was in paris for all seven wins, and seven times I heard the star spangled banner playing on the champs elysees. Call be a primary source if you will. There is also no doubt, that seven years after his final victory he was stripped of all seven titles. The fact is, he was a seven times tour de france winner whos titles were later rescinded. Just as Ben Johnson, to quote from his page won two Olympic bronze medals and an Olympic gold,which (were) subsequently rescinded. While i appreciate the argument over wording it is a historical fact that he originally won them. Just as Bernhard Kohl won the King of the Mountains title but was later disqualified, just as FLoyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France but was later stripped of his title. Dimspace (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also say that Peter Cohens claim that he is "going to remove from the article any trace of Armstrong winning the tour, is not only rather radical editorial policy, but i would also say rather lazy editorial policy. Rather than actually take some time to reword it, change the phrasing, adopting the "just delete everything" approach. Most other wiki articles record the athletes as winners who title was later receeded. You also have to bear in mind wiki's role as an encyclopia, of equal importance as what happened, is what happened that later was found out not to have happened. Dimspace (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, who wrote the new first paragraph. Its gramattically very messy.
 * Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is a former American professional road racing cyclist. In 2012 he was banned from professional cycling for life and disqualified from all his results since August 1998, for using and trafficking performance-enhancing drugs.[4] Before being stripped of the titles, he was best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having

testicular cancer.
 * Suggest:
 * Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is a former American professional road racing cyclist. In 2012 he was charged with the United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA) of using, and distributing performance-enhancing drugs during his career.[4] In September of 2012 they announced his ban from all professional sport that subscribes to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code, and forfeit all race results from August 1998 onwards including his seven Tour de France titles.
 * perfectly simple. Why is this all becoming so complicated? And why is all the doping thing then repeated again in paragraph four?Dimspace (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph is good as it is. As far as I can tell, the whole lead is fairly consistent with WP:LEAD - without wading through each part of that guideline, it seems to fit the requirement that "it should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". Can you explain why you think it is so bad?
 * It has doping first, because it's the most significant thing. (We don't need two sentences to explain the doping thing in the opening paragraph, no need to explain that he was charged before he was banned.) Then an explanation of what he was best known for before the ban. Like it or not, he was so well-known because he won the TdF seven times after he had cancer. For clarity, 'won the Tdf seven consecutive times' is a lot better than 'including his seven Tour de France titles'. Then the later paragraphs give a short summary of his career, with more detail than the first two or three sentences. I don't see what the problem is with having further info on doping later in the lead. --hippo43 (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@Hippo43 railroading 1234 your preferred version of the lead while ignoring the contributions of all other editors is not how we build content. Semitransgenic talk. 12:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not railroading anything. Trying to improve poorly-written content, remove peacock terms, stay within Wikipedia guidelines, while engaging in discussion with other editors. Reverting changes which diminish the article is a positive action, helpful for readers. And I haven't ignored the contributions of others - the most recent version of the lead that I edited is quite different from others I have supported in the past. Specifically, for example, I removed 'publicly battling with cancer' to avoid the 'mythologizing and PR' that you criticised above. There have been a huge number of edits to the article recently, some good, some dreadful, and I support the constructive, positive ones. Both of us have made 20+ edits in the last few days, presumably for broadly the same reason - to improve the article at a time when it has received a lot of attention. I'm open to continuing the discussion here to deal with specific points of content. --hippo43 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hippo43 I'm not sure how you perceive a clear contextualisation, in the opening sentence, of Armstrong's disqualification as content that "diminished the article." He didn't just wake up one day to find himself without titles, the USADA are directly related to the topic the subject of the article is now most notable for, so should be mentioned in the first occurrence of the ban matter. Additionally, there were 5 sanctions: 1) use 2) possession 3) trafficking 4) administering 5) assisting - how are you coming to chose "trafficking" as the primary adjunct to "use"? The word "use" clearly suffices as a summary in the opening paragraph, detail can be added further down.  Semitransgenic  talk. 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from. Obviously USADA are important in this. The most significant fact, as it relates to the subject of this article, and which is most relevant for the first sentences of the lead, is that he's banned. He has been banned by USADA, by the UCI, and indirectly by WADA. The detail on how he came to be banned is featured later in the lead and later in the article. I support keeping the first few sentences simple and concise if possible, with the key elements of his notability/fame/notoriety (banned for life, 7 tours de france, cancer) most prominent. More detail here is unnecessary and unhelpful - the nuances of the ban and the story behind it are explained later. (As you say, detail can be added further down.)
 * You are right that there are 5 offences, and we should reflect this as concisely as possible. Stating that he was banned for his 'use' of PEDs implies, to a general audience, that he just took drugs, when actually he was banned for much more than this. I would prefer 'using and distributing' here, but changed it to 'trafficking' as that is more specifically supported by the USADA source and could be referenced, so would be less likely to be removed by fans. You are right that this is not ideal. I think 'using and distributing' accurately covers the scope of his actions - 'using' covers use and possession, while 'distributing' covers trafficking, administering to others and assisting. --hippo43 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's rational. But, as the primary investigating authority, the USADA should be mentioned in the first occurrence of the ban issue. Without their investigation, none of this would have happened. Semitransgenic  talk. 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the first paragraph, gramattically reads really badly. its all back to front and "banned for live for using and trafficking drugs" what sort of line is that.. At least get it properly worded, performance enhancing drugs, not just drugs, drugs is a generic word usually used for things like cocaine etc. Distribution would be far more relevant than trafficking, and as above, USADA should cleary be mentioned in the first mention of doping as they are the agency that issued the ban. It reads incredibly poorly, while actually not getting very much information across, ie, usada made the decision, hes banned from all sports, and it was distribution of ped's not drug trafficking. It doesnt even say what he was banned for life from doing, banned for life from trafficking. Its just poor grammar. Dimspace (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The intro is a lot better, grammatically, than what you just wrote above. PEDs are already mentioned. 'Banned for life' is widely understood in a sporting context. 'Trafficking' is exactly what he was banned for (one of the offences, at least) as detailed in the USADA sources. More detail on who has banned him, and from what sports, is available later in the lead. Who banned him is not necessary in the first paragraph, and is not typically mentioned in articles on other banned athletes. --hippo43 (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * USADA should be mentioned in the first paragraph, the notability of their involvement is undeniable. And yeah, as per Dimspace, it reads like shit. Semitransgenic  talk. 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)  Semitransgenic  talk. 15:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)