Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 9

United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#Lance_Armstrong_case
If you're going to edit Lance_Armstrong, make sure to also edit links to it, such as United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency. I'd put a hidden note in the section that the other section leads here, but the Lance Armstrong article is locked. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

12/2012: Lance Armstrong still under scrutiny
How to weave this material from ESPN into the article?

Link to ESPN article. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of awards
Tufts university have stripped Armstrong of his honourary degree. At the moment I have gone with strikethrough along with reference to them withdrawing his degree. Possibly more awards that will be stripped in the future, so dont know what we are going to go with, removal or strikethrough. Personally i prefer strikethrough as it shows history a bit better. Dimspace (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think strikethrough for all results shows history better - what he won/earned, what he was stripped of/unearned.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The strikethroughs are confusing. It is not at all obvious what it means when an item in the Accolades list has a strikethrough. I suggest that either a clear note, beyond the attached reference, be added when Accolades have been rescinded or, better yet, add a separate subsection for "Rescinded accolades". --Crunch (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All three awards so far stripped have cited links to the removal of the award, I think thats enough. Personally dont think theres a need for a seperate subsection, the guy has more subsections than he deserves, and the danger of a rescinded subsection is it could inadvertantly give the impression that those awards not in that section had some sort of indorsement from the awardees when in fact its probably just either not been reported or they cant be bothered to rescind them. Dimspace (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

serial cheat
I still have a problem with this claim from the lead of the article:

I cannot find these quoted words in the USADA report. The cited source is the BBC article, which says:

Note that they quoted "serial" but not "cheat". This suggests "cheat who led" is BBC's words, not words from the report as our article indicates. That's misleading and wrong. Unless I'm missing something, it needs to be corrected one way or another.

The BBC article also states:

Note again that the word "cheat" is not part of the quoted words attributed to Tygart's statement.

In fact, if you look at the statement itself, and search for "cheat", this is all you will find:

You will not find the word "serial" in the statement anywhere.

In any case, I can't find anything that demonstrates that Tygart or the USADA has ever referred to Armstrong as a "serial cheat". --Born2cycle (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The actual quote was
 * in their original statement of decision. This was reworded by the media to calling him a serial cheat. Will try and find which part of the documentation its in. Im just struggling to find the exact bit. Dimspace (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I know the BBC said the USADA said Armstrong was serial cheating. My question is about BBC's accuracy on that point. Did the USADA actually say that?  Or was that the BBC's twist on what the USADA's words meant?   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * it was the BBC's twist, but it was also the Mails twist, the Times, The New York Times and countless others, Pretty much every media source took "engaged in serial cheating" and said they called him a serial cheat, which effectively with a slight change of tense they did. It could be clarified a little better to use the original text rather than the media interpretation Dimspace (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunday Times lawsuit
I wasn't sure where to put this in the article, so I will leave it here if anyone wants to add it Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC):
 * In December 2012 the London Sunday Times filed suit against Armstrong for $1.5 million. The publication had previously paid Armstrong £300,000 to settle a suit in 2006 after the paper had published claims that Armstrong had used performance-enhancing drugs.  In its suit, the paper is seeking a return of the original settlement, plus interest and the cost of defending the original case. [Ref] Associated Press, "Sunday Times suing Armstrong", Japan Times, 25 December 2012, p. 15.


 * Ive added it to the LA Confidentiel section as its in relation to the Times publication of extracts from that that the original case comes from Dimspace (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Armstrong's denial of doping in lede
ESPN is reporting Armstrong may admit to PED use, but confirms that he has continually denied doping allegations. The last discussion on the subject ended in third-party editors from the BLP board agreeing that we need to mention Armstrong's denials in the lede, though we never agreed here to accept that advice. Reliable sources continue to state that Armstrong has repeatedly denied PED use. Can we please do so as well? If he does make an admission, as the article suggests he will, we can make his long-standing hypocritical denials equally as prominent in the lede.LedRush (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think most editors agreed with an inclusion of his consistent denials in the lede. What most of the argument was about was that he had denied doping post USADA reasoned decision when the last time he denied from memory was June 13th. I agree that denials should be in the lede, as it does then lend emphasis to his eventual confession. (although lending emphasis is not a good thing from NPOV point of view) Im sure once the interview is aired it will be come clearer, and we will have no problems with something like "On january 17 2013 after consistently denying doping throughout his career, armstrong confessed to.. " etc Dimspace (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oprah interview etc
This article will be subject, no doubt, to thousands of edits in the wake of the forthcoming interview with Oprah. I suspect the article will become fully protected at that time, or just beforehand. For those who care about the integrity of the page, please continue to post edit requests here, and keep the faith with the article. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep stay cool editors and delete any prematures Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a lock will be necessary. The attack dogs have been told to heel, apparently. And even the most ardent believers have finally woken up to reality.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If your edits are an indication, we should lock it. You can't use one source as gospel, put it in the lede, delete any reference to past denials, and start cramming anything you can about talking to staff and Oprah to boot.  We don't know what his "confession" will say.  Will it be a full and complete admission of guilt?  Will he try and hide behind something?  Will he make some kind of conditional "apology".  We just don't know.  We are not a news organization and we shouldn't be in a hurry to plaster this in the lede.
 * I fully expect some kind of admission of guilt in the interview, and at that time, we can amend the lede to say what that admission is.LedRush (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect to the previous editors of this article, Armstrong is more remarkable as a cheat than as a cyclist. Winning a sporting event by cheating is not 'winning' it is success at cheating.   Armstrong was a remarkably successful cheat but a completely unremarkable cyclist.   The content of the article should reflect this. RUSE2R (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * LedRush, there is more than one source. The NY Times, for example, cites two sources who were at the interview, independent of the AP source, saying that Armstrong admitted to using PEDs during his cycling career.  It's not our place to watch the interview first hand and report on it as primary sources.  It IS our place to report what reliable sources like the NY Times, SF Chronicle, ESPN, Associated Press and Washington Post are all saying about it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But they haven't seen it yet either. Just wait. Two days isn't long. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're all citing a mysterious "source familiar with the situation" or similar. (Why is that?) At the very least we should do likewise, and certainly not state it as though its fact. I'd prefer that we remain almost silent on this until the interview is aired, or until some named person puts his or her hand up. Moondyne (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the reporters have not seen it yet! They are not PRIMARY sources... they are SECONDARY sources! The primary sources in this case are the ones who saw the interview (as we will be when we watch the interview for ourselves)... the ones who were in the room... the ones the reliable SECONDARY sources are quoting! But your point about citing "mysterious" sources is well taken, and I've modified it accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

At most, we could say that leaks suggest that he may have confessed: all news sources I have heard present it in such terms. While that might make it easy to anticipate what we will be able to write in two or three days, there is not the clarity nor the unconditional reports to justify absolute assertions yet. We are not a newspaper, we have no obligation to try to be first with any news. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While in general I agree that WP is WP:NOTNEWS, in this case I agree with Born2cycle's edit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I too agree with NOTNEWS. But that doesn't mean we can't or even shouldn't report well sourced information just because it is news! In fact, we can't be first by definition - we're citing RS that were first (and second, third, etc.) --Born2cycle (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about to correct the word "taped" to something else because I doubt if tape is used these days. Digital on disk or solid state seems far more likely. But when I checked the sources I found that they use that term. Is pre-recorded material these days really taped? Or is this just sloppy language? HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything is—or soon will be—digital, but "taped"/"filmed" are still correct terms for recording visual media for home/theatre consumption. Like many other words, the meaning changes to fit the times. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First up, I think locking early thursday might be a good idea, it will be chaos otherwise. On a side note, thank you whoever created the "alleged confession" section in a good place in the article. Its a good pointer for editors where to put stuff related to the oprah interview and confession etc. Onto the confession as it stands. I would have no problem with adding to the "possible confession" section. Armstrong's interview with Oprah Winfrey was conducted at a Hotel in Austin on Monday January 14th. After the interview it was widely reported in the media that Armstrong had confessed to doping throughout his career. " that covers us as far as saying we are purely recording the media reaction.Dimspace (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Just wait till we see the interview." - what about No Original Research?
The statement -- "Just wait till we see the interview." (or something similar)-- has been made in edit summaries repeatedly. It's nonsense. WP editors are not to be PRIMARY SOURCES. We don't need to see evidence for ourselves to to cover it in an article. In fact, if we did that, that would violate WP:NOR!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And anonymous leakers of as yet unbroadcast information, who for all we know may not have any solid grounds for their claims as to what might have been said, are not reliable sources. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What a load. Wait until reliable resources see and report on the interview in definite terms, attaching their names to it.  B2C, that is just about the most disingenuous argument I've ever seen.LedRush (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You grossly insult my comment, and then largely agree with it. Please either move your comment to the place it belongs, or explain what you find to be so objectionable. Kevin McE (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because this particular meeting happens to have been a taped interview doesn't mean we can't report on what happened there until "reliable sources see and report on" it.  This was the top story on national news yesterday and we act like it hasn't happened.  That's just ridiculous.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't we have info on it in the possible admission section? Are you "forgetting" that?LedRush (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is the lead paragraph which continues to say he has repeatedly denied doping despite a torrent of reliable sources saying that's no longer true. See section below. By the way, I just watched the clip of Oprah on CBS News this morning and she clearly states that while she was prepared to "go deep" with information from a variety of citations including the USADA's Reasoned Decision, she says she didn't have to do that because he was "pretty forthcoming".   She did say he did not respond as she expected, but in context the clear implication was this was because he was more forthcoming than she expected.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A "clear implication" is speculation, no matter how clear it is to you. Please stop it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. But that was in the "By the way" paragraph of my comment, not a basis for my argument. You know, the part you conveniently ignored. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you already know what I think about editors treating Wikipedia as a breaking news outlet without waiting for time and sanity to provide encyclopaedic content. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about that, and how I use WP with respect to breaking stories. I actually rely on WP to give me the whole story in a balanced fashion with the latest important updates, all backed up properly with citations.  Right now a user can go to Google News, type in Lance Armstrong, and get a whole bunch of stuff that he has to sift through.  Now, I have the time and inclination, so I've been doing exactly that, but I presume others do not.  When I'm in that situation - short on time and/or inclination - I expect to be able to come to WP to get up to date on the main issues, and I suspect others expect to do that too.  Yet they come here and the lead paragraph still says Armstrong has always denied doping.  It's a farce.  That's not encyclopedic. The term "encyclopedic" carries some baggage with it associated with the fact that the traditional encyclopedia was published once a year, thus inherently had no "news" in it.  We're very different in that regard, of course.  Not only are we electronic and can be quickly updated, we have an army of volunteers ready to do that.  Better still, this army of volunteers is self-monitoring because we edit through collaboration, and one of the things we check and double-check is that information is properly sourced, and properly balanced.  This works great when it's allowed to work.  But when a few editors insist on slowing down the progress, even when it's properly sourced, that's just harmful to who and what we are, and the service we provide our readers.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting problem. I watched the article evolve on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Naturally we had an article very quickly. For the first few hours, maybe days, a lot of what was there was crap, breached WP:BLP, and was probably actionable. It's OK, now, but that's weeks and a lot of editing later. Our editing cycle, while heaps faster than printed encyclopaedias, is still not instantaneous. The media gets things wrong. It did for Sandy Hook. It cannot be depended on instantaneously for dramatic events. And coming back to Armstrong, what we're getting is some anonymous "informants", mixed up with Oprah's marketing. I'm not comfortable with either. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the AP and NYT reports that anonymous sources say Y happened, and we say that Y happened, that's a problem. But if we say the AP and NYT reported that anonymous sources said Y happened, we're good, even if it turns out Y did not happen.  That's not crap.  That's doing the best we can, certainly much better than saying nothing out of fear that maybe all the cited sources are wrong. At Sandy Hook I presume at some point we said the shooter's wife was a teacher at the school as an example of the crap.  Well, if we said which sources said that, that would have been fine, because they did say that!  That she was not a teacher there, it turns out, is beside the point!  It's not our job to get the story right, but to report what the reliable sources are saying accurately. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even repeating, in good faith, incorrect and libellous claims made by others is still libel, at least in some jurisdictions. Attributing the claims to others, especially anonymous others, is not an excuse. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure the AP, Washington Post, NY Times etc. are not very careful about avoiding libel. Give me a break. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Right now the final sentence in the lead paragraph says: "He has repeatedly denied ever doping." I request that be updated to the following, which is strongly supported by citations to multiple reliable secondary sources.


 * On January 13, 2013, after years of repeated denials,, the Associated Press and the NY Times reported that anonymous witnesses claim Armstrong admitted doping to Oprah Winfrey in a taped interview to be aired on January 17th   . According to CBS News, Armstrong also indicated a willingness to testify against others involved in illegal doping, which the NY Times says will include UCI officials but not other riders  .  Armstrong was also widely reported to have apologized to Livestrong staff.

signing belatedly. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources saying that unreliable sources have claimed something is not encyclopaedic. We report established facts, not rumours and speculation.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but reliable sources like the AP and NY Times do not report information based on single unreliable primary sources - that's why we they are reliable sources. It's not rumor.  The NY Times in particular is very careful about getting independent verification of anything they report.  Besides, this is a situation where anyone else who was present, including Oprah and Armstrong himself, who both Twitter, could easily and quickly deny and correct anything incorrectly reported by the media.  If this meeting and confession had not been taped, nobody would ever see the video.  We would have to rely solely on this type of information, forever.  The encyclopedia is dominated by information so sourced.  Anyway, the bottom line is, this information is relevant, salient, supported by multiple RS and does not violate BLP... it should go in.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For as long as most sources hedge their report with "it is reported that...", it is rumour. It may very well be a true rumour, but that won't be verified until the material is in the public forum.  Lack of denial is not confirmation.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not hedging nor rumor to report that multiple witnesses present at an event said X about what happened there. That's what the citations say.  That's normal reliable source reporting.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On our own Current events portal for today we have: Yet if you click on Lance Armstrong you're taken to an article which still states he's always denied doping. Absurd. This is not encyclopedic. This does not serve our readers well. It's amateurish. It's embarrassing. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press reports that the U.S. cyclist Lance Armstrong has admitted to doping in his career during his interview with Oprah Winfrey, yet to be aired. (The Washington Post)
 * At the moment, I dont think we can change it in the fact that that we are just going on reports, we dont know how fully he has confessed, one rumour says he has confessed from the early nineties, another says confessed post cancer etc, and its not totally clear yet. the main issue i have with the proposal is mainly the length and detail it goes into which just makes the lede even bigger. Its tuesday. The interview airs in 48 hours, its really not a huge deal to wait till then, but once it airs i would propose for the lede something short and sweet such as "On January 14 in an interview with Oprah Winfrey (reference) Armstrong admitted to doping after consistently denying it throughout his career" - the nitty gritty and the details can go in the doping admission section. Dimspace (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think however we should add to the possible admission subsection "Armstrong's interview with Oprah Winfrey was conducted at a Hotel in Austin on Monday January 14th. After the interview it was widely reported in the media that Armstrong had confessed to doping throughout his career." that has no POV issue, it is widely reported and factual. The rest we can sort out on friday. Dimspace (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think we are getting rather obsessed with being 100% up to date, when at the moment wikipedia will not really be a great source for Armstrong news anyway. 48 hours isnt going to hurt anyone, and then we can get it bang on. Dimspace (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just heard that Oprah will be stretching the interview over two nights. This really is beginning to look far more like marketing by Oprah than anything else. I'd be willing to bet that those anonymous leakers to the media were doing it with Oprah's full endorsement and encouragement (and probably payment). HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. She says he "did not come clean in the manner that I expected" and then "I can only say I was satisfied by the answers." wtf? Moondyne (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think she expected him to come clean with or without contrition, and he did the opposite of what she expected. She also indicated she was prepared for (and so expected) him being evasive abd so she came with all kinds of information to get him to open up, but she didn't need it because he was so forthcoming.  So him being forthcoming might be all she meant as not the manner she expected, or forthcoming without contrition.  --Born2cycle (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, just how far can you stretch your speculative mind? All in the one post you first speculate on what Oprah expected, then you speculate on what Armstrong did, then on the impact that had on Oprah, then on how it explains what she has said. This is Wikipedia. We don't speculate! HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting any of that go into the article, which is where we don't speculate. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Am looking forward to watching it but at the same time, fairly sure of being disappointed. Moondyne (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian National broadcaster site. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/armstrong-admission-could-kick-cycling-out-of-olympics/4466638 Talk show host Oprah Winfrey has confirmed cyclist Lance Armstrong admitted to doping during an extensive interview... Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gross misrepresentation of what she said in that interview. "I didn't get all the questions asked, but I think the most important questions and the answers that people around the world have been waiting to hear were answered," she said.  "I can only say I was satisfied by the answers."  You might choose to interpret that as her confirming that he admitted it: you might be correct in doing so, but you cannot assert that that is what her deliberately vague and evasive comments (which are not designed to give us information, they are designed to promote her programme and so maximise advertising revenue for her channel) absolutely meant.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I pretty much agree with Born2cycle down the line. The AP and the NY Times have their own internal mechanisms for ensuring the reliability of their stories. That's the basis of WP:RS. When we start doubting the reliability of established RS's and insist on going directly to primary sources then the foundation of the encyclopedia starts to crumble. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish someone would who disagrees would explain why, or accept the edit request. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Several people have explained why. You disagree. That's OK. So, it's already Thursday afternoon where I am. Can't be too long before those reliable sources can report on what is actually said in the interview (or at least Part 1). Then there should be some real meat to add to this story. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While i dont doubt the edit request will prove to be accurate, in my mind the interview is 12 hours a way, we are as well waiting till the interview is broadcast and then editing as an accurate reflection, with no source issues, no pov issues. it will all be over soon.. :D Dimspace (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is becoming academic at this point, but it's an important point all WP editors should understand.  Neither now nor after the interview can we put anything in the article based on what we ourselves see.  We have to cite sources, before, and after, the interview is aired.  Everything in this edit is as relevant and properly sourced to reliable sources as can be anything that is inserted after the interview.  Period. In the mean time, the now absurd statement, contradicted by myriads of sources, "he has repeatedly denied ever doping", without qualification, remains in the article.  That's a problem.   --Born2cycle (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But he has repeatedly denied ever doping, and after the interview what those reliable sources will be reporting will be quite different from what they are reporting now. Rather than anonymous sources, which many here regard as delivering us undue content, they will be directly reporting what Armstrong himself has said. There's a big difference. HiLo48 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course what they report after the interview will be different. So what?  What they're reporting now, and have for days, and can be reliably sourced per our own standards, contradicts "he has repeatedly denied ever doping".  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Post interview broadcast it will simply become "On January 14 in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong confessed to doping after consistently denying it throughout his career". Simple. We can change it in oh, 9 hours.. Dimspace (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But we could also have changed it to something very close to that 2 days ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I submit that we still don't know exactly what Armstrong said/will say in the interview. What we've had so far is reliable sources telling us what anonymous people, obviously plants set up as part of a marketing exercise by Oprah, claimed that Armstrong said. It's titillation, not good information. Those same reliable sources sometimes tell us about Hollywood romances, and babies, and their weird names, but we generally don't bother using that information here, because it's undue. The same needs to apply to Oprah's marketing material. Being "reliably" sourced must never force us to use "information". HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Olympic bronze
The IOC have stripped Armstrong of this too per this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional Source. L'Equipe and HLN Dimspace (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't "Medal|Disqualified" be used in the medal template instead of removing the event altogether? 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not been removed. In line with other wiki pages its been removed from the info box. Its still in the Palmares section with the rest of teh disqualified results. Dimspace (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be in the infobox's medal record part, compare Tyler Hamilton and Marion Jones. High profile stripped medals should remain in the medal infobox as they gives context to any remaining medals, and because they are important "results" in their own right. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the statement from the IOC.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Lugnuts. Up until now, almost the only verb we had seen for what had been done was the one universally used by the media and, not surprisingly, most members of the public - "stripped". It's common, but really very informal. We now know that the IOC used "disqualified", so we can and should use that word too. I don't think "stripped" is very encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. "Stripped" is fine for talk pages, but "disqualified" is the proper word for removed sports results and should be used in the article. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Prison Time?
CBS Television reported earlier in the week that the former rider had offered to pay more that $5 million to the US government in compensation for an alleged fraud against the US Postal Service, which for years sponsored his cycling team. No deal

The network also said he had offered to cooperate as a witness in a US investigation but the Department of Justice turned down his request, raising the prospect that he could yet serve time in prison. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * incredibly speculative by CBS, embarassingly so. The statute of limitations is incredibly grey over wether he can even be charged with perjury in the SCA case, less so in the case of fraud against USPS. the only way lance will do time is if its an alternative to forking out $30m Dimspace (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think its on the cards now. 'New York: Lance Armstrong could face the prospect of jail time and the repayment of millions of dollars following his reported admission that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career, legal experts said'.
 * bnlive.in.com/news/lance-armstrong-could-face-jail-term-if-he-admits-to-doping/315993-5-23.html


 * And 'The crux of the matter is whether Armstrong, having been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, will finally admit that he was a drugs cheat. Such a confession would overturn more than a decade of strenuous denials.
 * "If I were his lawyer, I'd be telling him not to do it. I think he's crazy," said Peter Keane, law professor at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, of the cyclist's decision to give the interview, which will be aired Thursday. "He's in considerable jeopardy of some sort of criminal prosecution ... for which he could go to prison," Keane said.'
 * http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-13-oprah-interview-may-cost-armstrong-jail-time
 * Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Video confession online
Armstrong admits doping during seven Tour wins, with EPO, Blood, testosterone, steroids. See it Here. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-in-interview-with-oprah-winfrey/4470662

This is significant from the interview. ' Armstrong said the narrative of how he recovered from aggressive testicular cancer to win the Tour de France seven times was "just this mythic, perfect story". "And it wasn't true," he added. "All the fault and all the blame here falls on me. I didn't invent the [doping] culture, but I didn't do anything to stop the culture."

This too sets the record straight and IMHO she should sue him. quote. 'However he confirmed former masseuse Emma O'Reilly's revelations about how team doctors back-dated a prescription for saddle-sore cream to cover up his corticosteroid use. He apologised to O'Reilly, saying "she got run over"

Make the edit changes. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Acessibility issue
This article uses struck-though text to differentiate information form normal text. This is not accessible to readers who use assistive technology. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the hidden section titled "Voided results from August 1998 onward" the strikethrough can be considered redundant. The use in "Accolades" can be replaced by text (or perhaps a footnote), e.g. "(Rescinded after the doping sanctions were confirmed)". The use in "Grand Tours overall classification results timeline" may be a reasonable exception, indicated as a possibility in the headnote of the guideline. However, as the (important) information is also in the voided part of the palmares, the table could presumably be removed without loss of essential information. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On the grand tour results timeline I would agree that that can be removed. I was the editor who brought over the information from the old "career achievements" page and put that page forward for deletion, and i brought the tour results across purely so I wasnt deleting information, but in light of his results its a pretty pointless peice of information, so if there is agreement that can be deleted. On the removed awards, I think it needs to be very obvious which ones are removed, and not sure a footnote would suffice in conveying that information as effectively as strikethrough. What may be better is to at the foot of that list bullet a rescinded awards list. I have removed the rescinded ones to the foot of the list, does that partly solve as now scren readers will pick up "rescinded awards" prior to reading the awards. ?Dimspace (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea with the separate section. They are still struck through though, but the guideline is not completely clear on whether the strikethrough in itself is a problem, or if it is a problem only if the information is exclusively conveyed by striking through the text. If the latter the article should be completely accessible now (and if not the strikethrough can be removed), excluding the now pointless Grand Tour table which should be removed completely. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its my understanding that screen readers do not pick up the strikethrough, but they will pick up the text "rescinded awards" while normal viewers see the strikethrough to emphasise removal Dimspace (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2013
Begin article as follows:

Lance Armstrong, the first loser of seven Tour de France titles...

Antifragility (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Move page
Shouldn't this page be moved to the fiction section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.216.7 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Politics section is not significant...delete?
The politics section has pretty nearly nothing of interest that warrants a separate section. Some vague murmurings about running for governor by a guy whose fame is almost entirely based on cheating don't seem worth the space. Friendship between two public figures--Armstrong and Bush--is maybe just mercenary posturing. I am not suggesting any original research here; the material can be tucked away in personal life or something.

I recommend deleting the politics section. --Taquito1 (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, the politics section is based apparently on a single, long outdated news report that really has little relevance. I also think the collaboration of sponsors section is largely pointless, I dont know why its ever even been there, working with sponsors is not a new concept Dimspace (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Same could be said of the "Physical attributes" section.. Whats that all about ? Dimspace (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Firstly, Armstrong hinted himself he could run for governor of Texas in interviews, and this is significant, considering that his popularity could have significantly helped him in an election campaign. Secondly, there is a political dimension in the attitude of Armstrong at the time of his Tour de France victories and the "friendship" with the US president at the time, GW Bush. Don't forget the context: his seven victories coincide with the row with the French government over the decision of voting against the resolutions allowing the Iraq war. Armstrong was part of the Bush administration's propaganda at the time. Some journalists still point this out. --62.232.221.98 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Dubya know he was a druggie? HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oprah interview
The article currently states: In part two of the interview, aired the following day, Armstrong said that while doping, he neither felt that it was wrong nor felt bad about what he was doing. I am pretty sure that that happened in Part 1, not Part 2, of the interview. Does anyone know for sure? Can someone make the appropriate correction? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know for sure that he said it in part 1, but I'm a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. We have to find the latter to back it up.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was actually only one interview, and it happened several days earlier. It was split into two parts for broadcasting by Oprah for commercial reasons. We don't need to differentiate as to when Oprah broadcast it. We can just say "the interview with Oprah on..." Not the broadcast date, but when it happened. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. OK, so the article needs to be edited.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to describe the event as just one interview. Hope it meets approval now. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of emotion or remorse, Psychopathy
I added the following text and links discussing his lack of emotion or remorse during the interview:


 * Many in the news have commented on his lack of emotion or remorse during the interview, with some describing him as a psychopath.

I also think the mention of psychopathy is appropriate to the situation. Sanpitch (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe not. Quote from link.
 * Armstrong said the millions of people who supported him throughout his cycling career and during his work with the Livestrong foundation had "every right to feel betrayed."


 * "It's my fault, I will spend the rest of my life trying to earn back trust and apologise to people," he said.


 * "The important thing is that I am beginning to understand. I see the anger in people."
 * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-in-interview-with-oprah-winfrey/4470662
 * Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's the emotion that he said it with: none. He's a classic psychopath, who will lie and do whatever he can to get by. The only reason that he came forth now is that he's been forced to. You're enabling him in a small way by removing the link to the psychopath articles. Sanpitch (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you Sanpitch. I think hes trying to regain initiative, thats why jail for him would be satisfying for many. Though I believe Pharm strong has underestimated the response he will get i.e respected sportsmen like Novak Djokovic are totally disgusted with him and said so. This also from a local champ. 'Former Australian cyclist Robbie McEwen, who won two of his three green jerseys during Lance Armstrong's seven-year dominance of the Tour de France, says he will never forgive the confessed drug cheat'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of your opinions on this matter are at all relevant. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither is yours, what's your point?92.162.247.130 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to defend him (I do think he has psychopathic tendencies...and I have studied it. I am a clinical psychologist - but I don't deal with this - I deal w/ sexual issues mostly). Anyway, if you want to be 100% accurate here, he did cry (however fake) when describing his son defending him to classmates. So the "lack of emotion" is not true. Also, the cited articles are not by psychologists or people who do research on psychopaths. If Robert Hare said something, it would be more reliable and credible. I mentioned something about Bernie Madoff being a psychopath once on a talk page - and people went ape shit....even though he REALLY showed no remorse and committed a far bigger crime than Armstrong (and his psychopathy was in external articles as well). He may have some psychological issues that appear similar to psychopathy. Narcissism is blatantly obvious...but that's just my "original research" Angelatomato (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be veering well and truly into the land of original research here. Unless we've got a suitable academic/clinical article (I'm not fussy either way) discussing this hypothesis, I'd steer clear of putting anything in the article. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference
Reference number 11: " " is outdated since there is no bio information on the website anymore. Does someone knows another reference about his early career? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty?
Or is the wiki community taking that shoddy USADA report as proof of guilt?  Greatestrowerever  Talk Page ''' 20:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We report verifiable facts. USADA have found him guilty of doping and stripped him of the Tour titles, amongst other things.  We aren't here to pass judgement on the validity of any such decision.  Do you have something within the framework of our policies to add to this?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment in italics below I made was removed by an unsigned editor 66.168.247.159 (talk). Unsigned editor dont do this vandalism, this is not a page for POV supporters of Armstrong. Learn how the talk page works, its not a forum. Read the comment in relation to its above posts. The comment I made below explains simply the Wikipedia policy on POV and verifiability. He is a cheat, and it can be verified, read the article. Do some research. This is a vandalism warning to you 66.168.247.159 (talk). BTW please learn to sign in. The comment is not a BLP violation as you stated in the edit history. Here is the proof from the article, 'The USADA report called Armstrong a "serial cheat who led the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen'. That verifiable comment is the definition of a huge (professionalised and successful doping programme that that sport has ever seen) cunning cheat (serial cheat).


 * Truth is not mandatory, verifiability is. Its verifiable he is and was a huge cunning cheater
 * Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone calling a person "a huge cunning cheater" and that same person being referred to as a cheater in an encyclopedic article are very different things. As the USADA has undertaken its decision based purely on evidence in its possession, without the intervention of an independent third party such as a court of law or assessment of said evidence therein, any statements by USADA are by their very nature POV. It has a vested interest in proceedings, being as it is judge, jury and executioner. As such, while statements concerning the USADA report referring to Armstrong as a "serial cheat" are NPOV, actually describing him as such in the article as a fact is not. In support of this, I would direct you to the following quotes from WP:BLP:


 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."


 * "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."(emphasis added)


 * Judgements of character such as "huge cunning cheater", however earnestly held, do not qualify as the above. As I have said before, Wikipedia is a repository of fact, not opinions. Statements that USADA regard Armstrong as a "serial cheater", or that contemporaries of Armstrong have disputed this depiction, are statements of fact. Stating that Armstrong is therefore a "huge cunning cheater" because of the USADA report is, in contrast, an opinion and does not belong on the article.


 * On a wider note, I would recommend that if you have any concerns about possible vandalism of your additions then you should report these to the mods so that they can address it and reverse as required, rather than by calling anonymous users out on the article talk page. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @ WDR re 'As the USADA has undertaken ...without the intervention of an independent third party such as a court of law or assessment ...It has a vested interest in proceedings, being as it is judge, jury and executioner' . Thats a bit rich. Armstong said 'no' to it going to court. USADA has jurisdiction by law BTW from the US Govt. The prime cycling body agreed. BTW I never wanted the comment I made in the article. Its a variation of what he is. A serial cheater (must be cunning to get away with it for 7 tours) Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, no, it isn't. Under the framework in which it operates, USADA is incapable of fulfilling the function of an independent court or tribunal, much as a District Attorney is incapable of being one or the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK is incapable of being one. There is a straightforward conflict of interest. The fact it has jurisdiction from Congress to serve in this function does not mean that the process is not without question, nor does the endorsement from UCI or WADA. If you would like some justification for this position, google USADA v Jenkins and you will find a source soon enough. But that is off-topic. The point remains that there is sufficient dispute over the positions of the parties involved and the findings made that your desired statement of "serial cheater" as fact fails the NPOV test. That is all there is to say. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said above, we report verifiable facts. USADA have found him guilty of doping and stripped him of the Tour titles, amongst other things. We aren't here to pass judgement on the validity of any such decision. Do you have something within the framework of our policies to add to this? If not, what is the purpose of perpetuating this discussion?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Look Armstrong is over, legally. USADA named him a serial cheater. Period. Game over. Who is USADA? The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) was created under Title 36 of the United States Code. This is a federal mandate. The USCO made USADA. USADA is responsible for implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code in the United States. The Code works in conjunction with the following international standards: WADA Prohibited List (Outlining the substances and methods prohibited in sport. The International Standard for Testing (IST) International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) .. International Standard for Protection of Privacy and Personal Information. Also the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)  has subsequently confirmed that it will not appeal and said it took legal opinion that found that USADA's stance was correct. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The USADA opinion is proof of the USADA opinion, nothing else. If their opinions are attributed, that's fine.  But their opinions cannot be used in the encyclopedia's voice.LedRush (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The basis of the USADA decision is basis for Armstrong to not challenge their findings, for the UCI and WADA to accept and not appeal the decision, for ASO to relinquish his titles, for all his sponsors and the charity organization he founded to drop him. That adds up to much more than just the USADA opinion.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not much more, and definitely not even close to enough to use Wikipedia's voice to make such hotly disputed claims.LedRush (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hotly disputed? Where? What reliable sources seriously dispute the claim that he was a serial cheater?  Lackeys paid by Armstrong and incredibly gullible fans blinded by the myth who have not even read the report are not RS, of course.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Its hotly disputed in only one place I know of FaceBooks Lance Armstrongs supporters page lol. Its sad people dont get it yet, this whole train wreck is spawning law suits but you LedRush say, I quote " The USADA opinion is proof of the USADA opinion, nothing else." Dude wake up Blade-of-the-South (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't like WP policies, either get them changed or don't edit. This is really simple, guys.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP policy is to follow RS. 2nd time I'm asking: what RS, of the countless that covered the story, dispute the USADA claim that Armstrong was a serial cheater?  An article in the NY Times?  Time Magazine?  Sports Illustrated?  Outside Magazine?  SF Chronicle?  Velonews?  An Austin paper, for crying out loud?  Anywhere?  Show me the source! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the reliable sources that say that Armstrong is definitely a serial cheater, and not that that is a label attached to him by another organization? As for the fact that this is a disputed claim, every article that talks about this talks about how Lance denies the allegations, how he hasn't failed any tests, etc., etc.  You're better than this, B2C.LedRush (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the label is attributed to the USADA - they're the ones who said it! The point is, no one is seriously challenging it.  No RS is calling it outrageous, unsubstantiated, premature, or inappropriate in any way. No RS disagrees with it.  No RS challenges the USADA about this.    --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume in a cycling context Miguel Indurain's claim that Armstrong is innocent on the BBC News website is considered a reliable source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066. I also presume an article by AFP in which a number of sports lawyers in Switzerland have questioned the validity of USADA's decision is also a reliable source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXRtTjrOJHCr_R560oCLWn6O50Pg?docId=CNG.cd877b51d07bcdf238629c4deaff0f61.1b1. Granted, you may take a completely different view to either of these sources and their authors - that is the beauty of civilised debate. However, it is evidence enough that this is not a settled matter and there have been questions raised of the procedure, as occurred with USADA v Jenkins. The fact that USADA is itself beyond the remit of a judicial review and therefore cannot be challenged in the courts (as evidenced by Armstrong's failed lawsuit in which the judge himself raised doubts about USADA's motives but was statute-barred from intervening) does not mean everyone agrees with its methods. That does not stand up to scrutiny. So long as there is dispute on the subject, from credible figures within the sport, Wikipedia should reflect this. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, of course no one would question that what the USADA says is the USADA's opinion. However, many people have questioned the process and/or disputed the result.  But RSs won't usually make statements one way or the other on an issue like this.  They usually just report what people have said.  Of course, WP should never use an encyclopic voice for things which are only opinions of other people.  The article is now correctly phrased (though it places horribly undue emphasis on doping claims and several POV issues, particularly in the doping sections and the lede).  However, the suggestions that we could use WP's voice to make the statement that Armstrong is a serial cheater is just absurd.LedRush (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the concept of "guilt" as it applies to this discussion. Doping is not a criminal offense (lying under oath is, and he may yet face charges for that, but that's irrelevant), so there's no court this could possibly go to except possibly the CAS, which as I understand it is pretty much the final court of appeals for violations related to sporting events. Unless Armstrong appeals the decision to the CAS (I'm not sure if he still can do so), he's already gone through the process that is in place for determining the validity of the allegations against him - the arbitration process that he declined to participate in. Under that process, his refusal to contest the allegations is essentially equivalent to an admission of "guilt." Whether anyone here agrees with that process is not really relevant - or shall we go through and put "allegedly" in the articles of every athlete that's ever been sanctioned for doping without their case going to a court? 167.24.104.150 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The concept of guilt referred to is no different than in any other context - namely, that a case has to be proven before a duly appointed judge of fact in order for a verdict of guilt to be passed. A refusal to engage with a process has not been held to be an admission of guilt (irrespective of what WADA's John Fahey claims to the contrary) since the Court of Star Chamber was in operation. The burden is, and remains, on the prosecuting authority (in this case USADA) to prove its case discharges the required burden of proof before the relevant adjudicator. Merely claiming that it has discharged the burden of proof is simply not good enough. I could just as easily produce a 200-page document filled with apparently credible testimony to the effect that the Earth is actually flat, and claim to have proven thus beyond reasonable doubt - it does not mean anyone should take it seriously. At present, the basis for Armstrong's disqualifications is USADA telling the world that the testimony it received is credible and proves his guilt, and the UCI and WADA accepting USADA's claims at face value. It cannot be any stronger than that because the witnesses have not been tested under cross-examination. As such, while under some definitions it may be appealing to describe Armstrong as "guilty", from a legal perspective it does not have a leg to stand on. Other athletes have been before arbitration panels or the CAS and found guilty or innocent accordingly, so this is a problem particular to this case. Until such a time as it is actually heard by a duly authorised court and a verdict passed one way or the other, it remains one person's word against another. It's frustrating but if we intend to uphold Wiki policy then we're stuck with it. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, guilt only applies in case of criminal charges. This is not a criminal charge (and I'm no legal expert, but if it were a criminal charge, Armstrong's refusal to fight it would I'm guessing be most similar to a no contest plea). As for this going to any other kind of court, there was no arbitration proceeding because Armstrong refused it. He hasn't appealed to the CAS, and neither has any other party involved in this case. So, what are the USADA supposed to do, hold a hearing without a defendant? There isn't anything more they can do to establish the facts of the case, since Armstrong is refusing to contest the allegations they've brought against him. By the way, you say "duly authorized court." Duly authorized by whom? As this is neither a criminal charge nor a civil proceeding, the UCI have jurisdiction here, and they've delegated it to the USADA (the issue of jurisdiction, at least, has been resolved by a proper court in Texas), with an appeal process in place in case any party involved in the case disagrees with a ruling... so while they aren't a court, they are about as "duly authorized" as it gets in this situation. 167.24.104.150 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Guilt can also apply in disciplinary proceedings in certain professions, it should be noted, but this is beside the point. What I was trying to say, and what seems to be being obscured by debate over the use of "guilt", is that in order for Armstrong to be found guilty/liable/whatever you want to call it of doping, that needs to be established by an independent trier of fact. That has not happened - USADA isn't independent, and the UCI and WADA sure aren't either. (Nolo contendere only applies in very limited circumstances, by the way, as the article makes clear) If USADA was serious about establishing this by way of an independent judgment, they could have drafted their articles to make arbitration or a courtroom hearing the default course of action rather than summary judgment based on their opinion only. The inability of USADA to proceed with a trial properly is the fault of no one other than USADA - if they so wished, they could bring it before the CAS to secure a binding judgment, and one can only speculate on why they have avoided this course of action in favour of a model akin to "guilty until proven innocent". As for duly authorised court, I was referring to a dedicated tribunal equipped to judge on issues of fact independently as opposed to an appointed prosecuting authority (which USADA is, by Congress rather than the UCI incidentally). This is not a particularly controversial concept. Also, the appeal process prescribed by USADA is limited only to the arbitration hearing of the type Armstrong refused and therefore again presumes guilt, which is hardly comparable with an actual court system. So again, USADA's processes do not discharge this role and thus it cannot be deemed to pass binding judgments. The mechanism simply doesn't stand up to the job. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of USADA arbitration is it is independant, they do not answer to US Cycling, they do not answer to teams, ie they do not get funding from teams etc, they do not even answer to the UCI governing body of cycling, just like they dont answer to the ITF (Tennis), NFL, NBA or anyone else. USADA hearings are held by independant arbitrators. "he inability of USADA to proceed with a trial properly is the fault of no one other than USADA" - Completely untrue, the reason it was not brought to a "tribunal" (not trial) is because Armstrong chose not to contest his case. In that event a decision was made without him and that decision was that he was guilty of the offences he was charged with. He could have chosen to go to fully independant arbitration. He then could have chosen to appeal that decision to the Court of Arbitration for sport. He chose not to. Therefore judgement was made in his abscence. Armstrong chose not to defend the charges in an independant arbitration. really... Dimspace (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * USADA is the non-profit, INDEPENDANT and non-governmental entity responsible for the testing and results management process in the U.S
 * The UCI had the option to refer the report to "The UCI INDEPENDANT Commission"
 * WADA was established in 1999 as an international INDEPENDANT agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world.


 * With all due respect, asserting that USADA is a competent, independent trier of fact simply because it is independent from other parties is completely bogus. USADA is acting as prosecuting authority in this matter, which renders it prima facie incapable of being independent. How, exactly, can it reach an objective, impartial decision upon a case it has itself prepared and prosecuted? It can't, any more than a District Attorney can pass judgment on a case brought by his department. It is a blatant violation of due process and judicial impartiality, and this is why decisions made by it without recourse to a properly independent forum is by definition POV and therefore not suitable for being reported as fact by Wikipedia. That really is the long and short of it. Given that arbitrators are only involved in athlete appeals against USADA presumptions of guilt, it is also incorrect to claim that "USADA hearings are held by independent arbitrators" - the charging hearings and summary decisions do not come anywhere near the arbitration process.
 * Also, it is in fact quite correct to say that USADA bear responsibility for it not being possible to proceed with a trial (or tribunal hearing) against Armstrong, as it is their own articles which prevent any hearing other than an arbitration appeal against their presumptions of guilt. They could, if they so wished, quite easily redraft their articles to instead say that if no reply if offered it will proceed to summary judgment by a court or tribunal and therefore become a binding judgment. They have not, and appear to have no interest in doing so. As such, they act as the only procedural bar to such an outcome and so it is entirely their fault that such a judgment cannot be reached. That may not be a particularly welcome statement, but it is an accurate one. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The process followed by the USADA was not created by them. It was created by everyone involved in creating WADA and the WADA rules, rules that all signers of the WADA Code obligate themselves to follow.  The WADA rules say that a national anti-doping agency (like USADA) can bring charges, and the athlete has the right to ask for a hearing in front of three arbitrators, one chosen by the USADA, one chosen by the athlete, and a third one chosen by the first two arbitrators.  The Athlete can waive his right to such a hearing, and that's what Armstrong chose to do.  USADA work with no more presumption of guilt than does a DA.  If the accused chooses to not contest the charges, then there is no trial, and the charges are presumed to be valid.  Armstrong made a political gamble.  He knew what the evidence was.  He knew what the outcome was.  He bet he would be worse off if it all came out in a hearing than if it came out only in a report.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. He picked death by a thousand cuts gambling on surviving it. Such a gutless cheater tactic. Im not proposing that be in the article, but for those who seem to want to still glorify him, its not on. He got a good sporting reputation by cheating other non cheater riders of their victories. Never forget that. He made money from cheating. Never forget that. Others did cheat but some did not. He is the alpha cheater. Im not proposing that be in the article either, so dont run with that as a distraction. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Born2cycle - with all due respect, you have completely contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you claim that "USADA work with no more presumption of guilt than does a DA"; on the other, you claim that in the event of no response being made "the charges are presumed to be valid". That is quite clearly a presumption of guilt. Were a DA placed in a similar position in which a defendant refused to respond to charges, they would not be able to ask the court for that to be considered a guilty plea. The court would enter it as "not guilty" by default, until such a time as the DA positively proved their case. In addition, while the WADA Code sets out that a national anti-doping authority can bring charges and must provide for hearings to take place, it does not prescribe a method for this - that is purely the choice of the national anti-doping authority, in this case USADA. As such, if the method chosen does not provide a satisfactory outcome from a finality perspective that is purely down to USADA's choice of forum, not WADA. The remainder of your comments are POV assertions on which I can make no real comment.
 * As interesting as this discussion is, it does seem to be going around in circles so I propose the following instead: if a consensus is reached that it is appropriate and in accordance with Wikipedia policy to describe Armstrong as guilty/liable/etc., and sufficient evidence is raised to support this, then I will concede the issue. If it is not, then I would advise leaving the article as it is and concluding this discussion. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Also, the appeal process prescribed by USADA is limited only to the arbitration hearing of the type Armstrong refused and therefore again presumes guilt, which is hardly comparable with an actual court system." - I'm not sure why you say that the arbitration hearing presumes guilt; it doesn't, to the best of my knowledge. And that's not the appeal process I was referring to - I was referring to the right to appeal the decision to the CAS, which Armstrong has also not exercised. By the way, I'm not sure what specific change to the article this discussion revolves around, but I understood the OP's post to mean that whatever it is is already in the article; I'm fine with the article as is. 167.24.104.150 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"USADA is acting as prosecuting authority in this matter, which renders it prima facie incapable of being independent" (WelshDaveRyan). Clearly then you dont understand how USADA works, and you are putting forward an argument without any knowledge of the actual facts. USADA put forward the evidence to an arbitration panel. The arbitration panel comes from the American Arbitration Association. Then either using a single arbitrator, or three arbitrators if requested (which it was). They get the arbitrators from selected from a pool of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS") Arbitrators who are also AAA Arbitrators. So the arbitration process is NOT handled by USADA, it is handled by the American Arbitration Association. In the case of Armstrong, and in the case of Bruyneel etc going forward, the AAA put forward the chair, and then both USADA and the Defendant get to pick an arbitrator from the list of available arbitrators, therefore ensuring a fair arbitration process. In Armstrongs case he chose not to go to AAA arbitration, and therefore the arbitrators had no role to play and so USADA were able to enforce the "sporting" decision to strip him of titles. Had he gone to arbitration in front of the impartial American Arbitration Association, he would have also retained the right to appeal their decision to the Court of Arbitration for sport. You claim that as a result of this "It is a blatant violation of due process and judicial impartiality". This is simply not true. He had the option to go to independant arbitration. A texas court ruled that he would not be prevented due process. Ive no idea what cause you are fighting here, but to make the claims you are making you have to have an understanding of how the arbitration process works which it seems you dont. If you want more information, read the USADA protocol on arbitration http://www.usatf.org/about/legal/antidoping/usadaprotocol.asp Dimspace (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the following change be made:
 * * instead of "Three days later, Armstrong, while publicly maintaining his innocence, decided to not officially challenge the USADA sanctions"
 * * replace with "Three days later, Armstrong, while publicly maintaining his innocence, decided to not challenge the USADA sanctions before the American Arbitration Association"
 * That would clarify the actual position and clarify the independance of the Arbitration organisation Dimspace (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * just by way of example, here is a judgement from the AAA (American Arbitration Association) between USADA (prosecuting) and Mark Jelks (defending) This is exactly the same form of arbitration that Armstrong would have recieved. Dimspace (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WelshDaveRyan wrote: "while the WADA Code sets out that a national anti-doping authority can bring charges and must provide for hearings to take place, it does not prescribe a method for this". Dave, I suggest you review Section 8.1 of the WADA Code, which outlines what a fair hearing is, and Section 8.3, which states:

That's exactly the process followed by USADA. The type of hearing USADA offered is the same they always use (and will use for Bruyneel), and meets the WADA Code "fair hearing" criteria. I remind you that Armstrong, like all pro cyclists, agreed to this process as well. That he doesn't like it now is irrelevant. He never complained about the process when it was used against others, like Hamilton and Landis. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I really dont know where we are trying to go with this. USADA did exactly what the WADA code requires. The hearing would have been held in front of the American Arbitration Association with a texas court ruling that he would have recieved fair arbitration. With possibility of Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for sport. That is the opportunity for two independant arbitration hearings. Armstrong chose not to. No Arbitration. USADA able to make a decision without arbitration. They then provided a reasoned decision in line with the WADA guidelines. The UCI upheld that reasoned decision. Wada upheld that reasoned decision. I think this matter is done. There is effective evidence that the American Arbitration Associated would have offered fair and impartial arbitration. I dont see why we need to rehash this over and over. Can we consider this one closed now, or is it worth mentioning somewhere that the arbitration would have been by the AAA? Dimspace (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm going to sum up my responses very briefly as this has gone on long enough:
 * Dimspace: I am familiar with both the facts of the Armstrong case and the nature of arbitration, so please refrain from inferring ignorance on my part. It is both inaccurate and not very becoming of civilised discussion. My reference to USADA being incapable of serving as an independent judge of fact was in relation to the summary decision it made to strip Armstrong's titles, not the theoretical appeal to the AAA. You have therefore completely missed the point I was making. The points you have made regarding the nature of the arbitration panel, while accurate, have no bearing on the aspect of the procedure I took issue with, which is USADA's summary decision. Given that the Armstrong case did not proceed to a hearing, and under the chosen model was incapable of proceeding to a hearing if arbitration was rejected, this is the only decision which could have binding force in law. My "cause", as you so put it, is nothing other than to clarify the fact that USADA's decision has no legal force beyond the sporting decision to strip him of his titles, and therefore references to him as guilty of doping (as was proposed at one point) are not appropriate. This is something we appear to be in agreement on at least. Re. the impartiality of AAA or similar organisations, I have never queried this and do not seek to now, and would ask that you do not construe my statements as criticism of them.
 * Born2cycle: With respect, you have omitted that Part 8.1 leaves the choice of the "fair hearing" model to the national anti-doping authority, as I had already pointed out. It is the model of hearing which Armstrong appears to have objected to, and which has prevented a binding decision warranting a label of guilt or liability to be reached. The terms of Part 8.3 are therefore irrelevant as to what has caused the inability to refer to Armstrong as guilty of doping (from a legal perspective at least) in relation to the findings of USADA. That is all, and I really don't see why this has proven such a contentious point.
 * As has already been said, the perceived wish to change the article to say Armstrong is guilty of doping (or similar) has subsided so I am quite happy to consider this closed now. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're presuming the legal-court-of-law meaning of guilt/guilty. Within the relevant context here - the adjudication process specified in WADA Code and agreed to by all relevant parties, including Armstrong - Armstrong has been found and proven to be guilty of doping.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as a statement like this is attributed to the USADA or whatever relevant bike club, it's fine in the context that he has denied guilt and didn't participate in the process. Otherwise, the implication of "guilt" would be misleading.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between "guilt" in a legal court and "guilt" in arbitration proceedings, i really dont see where you are going with this and im totally befuddled that a single word has dragged out into lengthy discourse. It was not originally USADA's remit to judge guilt, it was there job to provide the prosecution evidence and the AAA to determine guilt or innocence. By turning down the arbitration process, despite it being ruled by a federal judge that he would have recieved a fair hearing, then the case was uncontested and usada were in a position, based on the evidence they had to judge or presume guilt. Yes, it could easily be reworded to "usada found armstrong guilty of doping" to "armstrong was adjudged by usada to have doped..." but its really splitting hairs over a single word. Armstrong agreed to usada rulings when he started cycling and applied for a licence. He further submitted to usada decisions when he turned down the option of independant arbitration. Just as contador was found guilty of doping by bodies authorised to make that decision, armstrong was found guilty by bodies appointed to make that decision. I really dont see your point. Dimspace (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dimspace: Asserting a difference does not make it thus. If you look at the disambiguation page for "Guilt" on here, you will find two definitions of guilt applicable to this. Both are legal terms and both (Culpability and Guilt (law) concern guilt in a legal court - there is no distinction between courts and arbitration proceedings. Unless USADA possesses the characteristics of an independent adjudicator, therefore (and in this instance it does not), applying either of those terms to its rulings is inaccurate. That is the whole point of this discussion - accuracy matters. It's appropriate to apply such terminology to Contador, in contrast, because he actually went before the Court for the Arbitration of Sport and was held liable by said court. As such, the case was actually heard by someone not connected with either party and so could therefore be deemed to have reached an impartial decision. (It's worth noting he was initially cleared by the anti-doping body before the CAS got involved, which further shows the distinction) Again, accuracy matters. I make no apologies for seeking accuracy. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WDR you're mental gymnastics are incredible. Hes guilty of doping. If hes not he would challenge because his life is a train wreck now and he cant avoid it. He knows it and most of the world does too. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blade, just read the dictionary. This doesn't require mental gymnastics, just a library card or access to the internet.LedRush (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Read them, verdict, he is guilty Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blade, it's hardly "mental gymnastics" to understand what a word actually means in a given context and apply it correctly. The fact that this may not sit with your interpretation of what it takes for someone to be declared "guilty" is frankly none of my concern. However, I will grant you one concession as I think this has gone on long enough: if you can find a valid RS which actually describes USADA as an independent adjudicator of fact, and therefore capable of passing verdicts such as guilty or liable, I will concede the issue. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dave, I agree its been a long thread, heres the thing, you find a valid RS which shows the USADA has no jurisdiction to impose penalties and sanctions that are legally binding (and are currently being used in multiple law suits against LA) and you find a valid RS which shows that LA is innocent and can successfully legally appeal penalties and sanctions imposed. I learnt long ago in health care suits, the law has the final say. LA has been saying nothing on that legal score has he. Any speculation and subsequent justification of that he will emerge phoenix like from his ruined life are fluff my friend, fluff. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blade, with all due respect, you have completely missed the point. You wish to include a statement in the article that Armstrong has been found guilty of doping, a statement which is currently not present in the article. The burden is therefore on you to find a source which corroborates that claim in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I, on the other hand, am arguing that the article as it stands is sufficient. Nonetheless, if you seek a valid RS suggesting that the legal process has not been carried out in full, I would direct you to the fact that the IOC has used this as a reason for delaying any decision regarding his bronze medal from the 2000 Summer Olympics. Given that all such notification would trigger is a 21-day appeal window, it is a curious omission by USADA and UCI. But that is another matter. As I said, if you wish to amend the article as you describe you need to supply a valid RS to back it up. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa slow down, I have never said I want any statements in the article. Im here to counter pro LA people from diluting the article. You may not be one of them BTW. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as there is a discussion from people who don't think the term should be used unless RSs support it (even though at least some of these people believe LA did dope) and some people that argue that guilt "can" be used without any evidence, your characterization of pro LA people seems strange, at best.LedRush (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @welshdave The trouble is, youve run out of steam and to an extent credibility with this argument because of the huge holes in your original argument, for instance claiming the tribunal would have been run by USADA and therefore not be indepedant, when it was then clearly pointed out to you that the tribunal is chaired by the AAA. Because your earlier arguments had so little foundation, and were largely grossly innacurate, it makes it hard to take any notice now, even though youve moved the goalposts considerably from your original argument. As has been said above, provide some relevant reliable RS that declares him innocent then fine, but there are numerous reliable sources from local newspapers up to statements by the UCI and WADA that he is "guilty". Dimspace (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dimspace: With all due respect, that is a prime example of how to twist what I said to suit your argument and to completely overlook what I actually said. As your memory seems to be somewhat questionable on this, I refer you to the following statements from my response on 15 November at 18:33 as proof of what I actually said on the subject of the AAA. You can check their accuracy by scrolling up the page:


 * "My reference to USADA being incapable of serving as an independent judge of fact was in relation to the summary decision it made to strip Armstrong's titles, not the theoretical appeal to the AAA."


 * and


 * "The points you have made regarding the nature of the arbitration panel, while accurate, have no bearing on the aspect of the procedure I took issue with, which is USADA's summary decision."


 * and again


 * "Re. the impartiality of AAA or similar organisations, I have never queried this and do not seek to now, and would ask that you do not construe my statements as criticism of them."


 * (emphases added)


 * If you seek to criticise me, at least do so for something I have actually said rather than what you believe I have said. The goalposts have remained consistent throughout, contrary to your assertion; my point is, and has always been, that to declare Armstrong "guilty of doping" in a legal context (and as I've already pointed out, the only two forms applicable to this are in a legal context) is inaccurate because USADA is not an independent adjudicator in its own right. The assertion was that this claim should go in the article irrespective of this, where currently it does not exist within the article, and therefore the burden of proof rests with those seeking to include it, not on me to prove why it shouldn't go in. Given you have attempted to take me to task over legal processes, I find it somewhat ironic that you have overlooked this given it's a core part of legal process and indeed normal debating etiquette.
 * However, in order to show good faith and in response to your request for sources questioning the decision, I have already provided two which you did not query at the time and so will repeat them here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066 and http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXRtTjrOJHCr_R560oCLWn6O50Pg?docId=CNG.cd877b51d07bcdf238629c4deaff0f61.1b1. Both, as far as I can see, fulfil RS requirements.
 * I trust all of the above clarifies the situation. I apologise if it is blunt in places, but I do not particularly appreciate being accused of saying things I haven't actually said, claims of "gross inaccuracy" and playing fast-and-loose with debating etiquette by way of claims of "moving the goalposts" and such like. I have endeavoured to maintain consistency and fairness throughout - despite, it should be said, some attacks bordering on the personal - and ask only for the same in return. That is surely the point of having talk pages. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dave RE this by Dimspace 'As has been said above, provide some relevant reliable RS that declares him innocent then fine, but there are numerous reliable sources from local newspapers up to statements by the UCI and WADA that he is "guilty". This is the crux of it. It cant be got around, you are Dave fiddling with the details only Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Blade, asserting that something is the "crux of it" does not make it thus. I have not at any point, and nor do I seek to now, wished for the article to claim that Armstrong is totally innocent of the charges brought against him - for the very simple reason that I don't know one way or the other whether he is. What I take issue with, and I will say this for the last time because I am getting fed up of repeating myself, is putting a claim in the article that he is definitely guilty in the legal context of the word (which is the only one applicable in these circumstances) when it is quite clear that is incorrect. As I have said before, if you wish to include such a claim then by all means find a relevant RS that shows USADA to be an independent adjudicator comparable to a court and be done with it. If, however, as you have said above you don't wish to do this then I for one suggest we call it a day as we are clearly debating a change to the article that isn't going to happen. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Welsh, you claim, "[the legal context] is the only one applicable in these circumstances". I've searched for your basis for this. All I can find is this argument from 13 December:

You do understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, yes? Just because the most common use of a term is not encyclopedic and does not have its own article in WP does not mean we can't use it in our articles! My dictionary simply defines guilt as "having committed a specified offense". The USADA has found that Armstrong committed the offenses specified in the original charging letter. He is guilty in the obvious context of a sports doping investigation process, and it's perfectly appropriate to point this out in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blade, I am quite aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You seem to be missing a fairly fundamental point, however, in that it is not what we construe the statement as meaning so much as what the reader construes it as meaning. It's all part and parcel of WP:DECISION. You contend that the reader will assume the meaning of the word "guilt" that you ascribe to it; I contend that in light of this being described as a legal or quasi-legal process in a number of RSs, that is an assumption too far. The reference to the WP disambig page was meant as an illustration of this. Unless you can back it up as being a verifiable fact with a suitable RS, therefore, you are going to struggle to make a case for its inclusion. The article as it stands is hardly deficient without it. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not Blade. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies - skim-reading on my part. Rest still stands though. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

References to Armstrong's guilt in reliable sources

 * "When the question as to how come, since USADA had found Armstrong guilty of so much systematic doping, he never failed a test, Ferrari’s answer was simple." --Born2cycle (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a source for "USADA says Armstrong is guilty", not "Armstrong is guilty". Key wording there is "USADA had found Armstrong guilty" - considering they were the prosecuting authority, that opinion is pretty much a given. It doesn't establish that it was a verdict they were entitled to hand down, which is the problem I've pointed out since the start of this discussion. You're going to need something a bit stronger than that I suspect. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)−
 * Heading corrected. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And improved. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Improved yet again. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The stunning part of Lance Armstrong giving up his fight against doping charges lodged against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency is not the guilt implicit in the surrender, it is the surrender itself. The guilt part, everyone was ready for. Because by now, it requires supernatural powers of denial to think Armstrong, a seven-time Tour de France champion, could conquer the most drug-soaked sport of them all by being the only clean one."  The usage of "guilt" here is clearly a reference to being guilty of cheating in sport by using PEDs, not a legal use of the term.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's a pretty neat trick to admit guilt by denying guilt, but once-legendary cyclist Lance Armstrong pulled it off Thursday." --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Peter Flax, editor in chief of Bicycling magazine, believes Armstrong is guilty of the charges " --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The end came quietly, with a pair of early morning statements that said more about the guilt of Lance Armstrong than a thousand pages of evidence." --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * " all of whom say Armstrong is guilty of doping." --Born2cycle (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Much as your collection of sources is shaping up nicely, do any of these actually prove either that (a) the reader of this article would assume the same context of "guilty" as you allege rather than a legal context, or (b) that USADA was otherwise suitably equipped to deliver a verdict of guilt outside of expressions of opinion? As far as I can see, all of these sources fall foul of WP:RSOPINION, and in particular this section:




 * Again, if you want to put a statement in the article along the lines of "Armstrong was found guilty of doping" (which is the only reason I can see for prolonging this discourse) as opposed to the current form the article addresses the issue, then you need a source which sets out that (a) USADA was in a position to assess the case, i.e. independent (which as far as I can see it wasn't) and (b) that this decision has binding force in its own right. The very fact that the article is worded as it is, with no reference to guilt or innocence, would suggest to me that thus far no one has found a satisfactory source, or else the edit would have been made. I may be proven wrong, but if there wasn't one at the time I don't see how one is going to appear now, so what exactly are we achieving with this debate? WelshDaveRyan (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not statements of opinion. These are statements of uncontroversial fact, the fact that Armstrong is guilty of doping.   There is no question about this in any recent reliable source. There is question and controversy about whether Armstrong is guilty of violating any laws, but that is a separate issue.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the idea that the USADA is not independent is baseless. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the USADA has any interest in finding Armstrong or anyone else being guilty of doping, unless they are actually guilty of doping. Of course the USADA decision is binding, per WADA code; at least as binding as any court decision that can be reversed upon successful appeal.  Again, no question of this in any RS either.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dave there is something a little wrong in your thinking. DimS & B2C are correct with the above. You have some sort of block Dave, sorry but thts how it looks and I have tried to see it your way Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle: The very fact that USADA was prosecuting authority in this matter is a prima facie bar to any claim of it being able to make an independent judgment on a case it is bringing. By default, there is a conflict of interest there, and merely ignoring that is not going to solve anything. Also, asserting something as "fact" when all your supporting evidence is "X says this" and "Y says that" is a particularly meaningless exercise - particularly when figures such as Miguel Indurain, among others, have expressed their belief in his innocence . A mere tit-for-tat battle of the sources is no means of establishing a fact, and if you cannot see that by now then frankly nothing I say is going to make the slightest difference. If you wish to propose an amendment, put it to a vote and be done with it. At present this feels more like grandstanding than a discussion of whether the article is up to standard.


 * Blade: Resorting to personal attacks is quite frankly poor form. If there is something you take issue with, then explaining what the problem is tends to be more constructive than simply going "you're wrong". As far as I am aware, I have no "block" as you allege - what I do have is an understanding of what it takes to establish a verdict of guilt, and that is evidence assessed independently of the person making the statement of case. That is a fairly basic point, be it in a legal or quasi-legal context such as a disciplinary hearing - a party cannot be prosecutor, judge and executioner, because that fails any test of due process in the book. The mere fact that you find this a hindrance to amending the article as you see fit is of no consequence to the validity of that point. As I have said before, and will say for the final time as I am at the end of my tether with this, I do not seek to advocate anything other than encyclopaedic accuracy. If at some point in the future Armstrong is actually declared by a court to have been guilty of doping, then by all means change the article to say "Armstrong was found guilty of doping". All we have to date is a statement of case by USADA with which WADA and the UCI have seen fit to agree with. That is not sufficient. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indurain? The guy who won five times in the height of the EPO era? Gee, I wonder what interest he might have in denying Armstrong's guilt? His legacy is put into question by all this too. Besides, he clearly knows nothing about the situation. He simply shared his opinion, based entirely on wishful thinking, as far as I can tell. He takes issue with evidence being based on testimony and calls this "changing the rules". In other words, he is rehashing the tired old argument... it's not about whether you dope or not, it's about whether you pass the tests. Talk about old school thinking (and never mind that Armstrong did fail tests). He expresses the epitome of what's wrong with the sport. Finally, he's surprised Armstrong did not keep fighting and predicts Armstrong will come back and appeal. Wow. What a knowledgeable "figure". LOL! Bringing up Indurain's statement about Armstrong's "innocence" as if it is significant speaks volumes about the vacuity of your position. And the supporting evidence for the fact that Armstrong is guilty of doping is not "X says this" and "Y says that" - it's "X says this" and Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J all support it, and, most importantly, nobody denies it! Nobody has denied any of the events proving Armstrong's guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever that are documented in not only the USADA's Reasoned Decision, but also in Hamilton's book. Nobody. Not even Armstrong. All of this has been published for several months now, and not one reliable source has challenged any of it. As to USADA's independence, I repeat: There is not one scintilla of evidence that the USADA has any interest in finding Armstrong or anyone else being guilty of doping, unless they are actually guilty of doping. The USADA is a prosecutor of sorts, but is still an independent one. They have no political or financial connections to those they are prosecuting. That's independent. They are not biased against Armstrong. Why would they be? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle: With all due respect, all that response has demonstrated is your inability to participate in a civil discussion. You have, within the space of 3 paragraphs, potentially libelled someone, engaged in character assassination, asserted your opinion as incontrovertible fact on no grounds other than it being your opinion (saying something is "clearly X" does not make it thus...) and engaged in yet more attacks bordering on personal. I do not understand what you seek to achieve by doing this, because it does not strengthen your argument so much as suggest a vendetta and that your proposed edits consequently are from a less than neutral POV. In any event, this all puts up a smokescreen to the real point of my example: namely, that if there are questions from figures within the sport (as the article indicates is the case) then it is not a consensus and implying the contrary is just completely bogus and unbecoming of an encyclopaedic article. Likewise, it is somewhat irrelevant how many pieces of testimony are collected - they remain testimony evidence, and without the benefit of cross-examination untested evidence as well. Citing Hamilton's book, meanwhile, is a questionable decision given he was recently convicted of libel in Switzerland because of it, and likewise claiming no one has denied any of the events is also questionable considering at least two figures are proceeding with arbitration and so their case is likely to rest on such a denial. Likewise, Armstrong has consistently denied doping so implying that having made no statement since then implies an admission is a leap of logic the likes of which I have not seen in some time.
 * Re USADA and my statement regarding conflict of interests, I would recommend that you look up the meaning of "conflict of interest" again. Irrespective of whether they had any particular ill will towards Armstrong (and I have not suggested that they do), by seeking to prosecute the case they have by definition assumed a position in conflict with seeking to adjudicate on a matter impartially. A prosecutor, after all, is seeking to win the case as much as a defendant. So much as a District Attorney cannot declare a verdict on a case they are prosecuting without it being declared void, so USADA cannot viably both prosecute a case and declare a verdict on that same case. It's pretty straightforward.
 * As I have said before and will say once more for emphasis, if you feel your case for amending the article is sufficiently well supported, put it to a vote and be done with it. If, on the other hand, you wish merely to engage in tit-for-tat then I am afraid I see little point in continuing this further. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have never claimed to have a neutral point of view. Anyone who does is either delusional or lying.  Our obligation is to express a neutral point of view in material added and modified in the article, not on the talk pages. Secondly, WP is not a democracy.  We reach decisions through consensus, and we often develop consensus through discussions, like this one. Third, if we are to draw analogies  between the WADA process and the legal criminal process, we need to recognize that in a criminal case, the case of an accused is only heard and judged by an "independent" judge or jury if the plea is not guilty.  A pleading of guilty is acceptance of the prosecutor's charges.  Similarly, in the WADA process, the accused has the option to challenge the "prosecutor"'s charges, so that the case is heard by an independent arbitration panel.  But the accused can also not challenge the prosecutor's charges, thus accepting them.  That's what Armstrong chose to do.  To then complain about fairness because the prosecutor is not "independent" is just bizarre.  It didn't have to be that way.  By all accounts, Indurain was not the only one surprised by Armstrong's decision.  So was the USADA.  But, that was his decision, and he had the right to make it, just as he had the right to contest the charges.  Because those charges were not contested by him, nor challenged by anyone with any knowledge of the facts, nor by the UCI,  it is reasonable to say that Armstrong is guilty of doping.  And the article should say it.  You have yet to identify a single reason why it shouldn't.   Am I missing something?  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dave there is only one question to ask. One. Why didnt LA challenge? Why is this THE question? Because he has lost so much, so so much that any hope of being found innocent would have been grabbed at by any sane person with money to burn. I still say your nit picking with terms, legal this, process that. Are you infact LA himself, or a vested interest or associate? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle: I'll respond to your points in kind.
 * 1. I never said you claimed that - as you point out, it would be a lie or act of delusion to do so. What I questioned was whether your motivation for making said changes is in fact to express a neutral point of view in the article, rather than altering it to reflect a less-than-neutral POV on the topic. As it stands, I believe the article is perfectly adequate in expressing the facts in an NPOV manner, and so I query what benefit altering it to an explicit statement of "guilty of doping" achieves - particularly when there are good procedural grounds for questioning that statement.
 * 2. No, WP is not a democracy. That being said, where consensus cannot be achieved (as is evident with this discussion) changes can be and often are put to a vote to establish a majority. I was merely suggesting that as a means of resolving this.
 * 3. Unfortunately, your statement about pleas is incorrect. A defendant can choose not to enter a plea and the case will also proceed to trial on that basis - it is less common but it does happen. It's what is known as a non-admission, i.e. the burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case. Armstrong's actions, were this a comparable criminal or civil trial, would be considered a non-admission at best and given the express denial he made at the time would probably actually be considered a denial of the charges. In any event, repeating the process at length does not address the salient point, and one I made quite a while back now - namely, that the process itself that USADA/WADA follows in assuming "guilty until proven innocent" (which is the effect of their charging presumption) and not proving its case before an independent tribunal is deficient insofar as seeking to ascribe legal or quasi-legal status to it is concerned. It fails the due process standard. That in itself is a pretty good reason why the article shouldn't say it - and in any event, the burden is and remains with you to establish why it SHOULD go in the article, and why the article as currently stands is not correct. Thus far, I do not believe you have done so.
 * Blade: You are asking completely the wrong person, seeing as (amusing as your question was) I am neither Lance Armstrong in disguise nor someone with a vested interest or an associate of his. I am a student lawyer from North Wales. What you call "nit picking" I call getting your facts right, which in a legal or quasi-legal context is rather important. We can speculate over Armstrong's reasons for refusing to engage with the process until the Apocalypse, but as far as this article is concerned unless something is a verifiable fact or expressed as being someone's opinion, it doesn't belong in the article. To do otherwise would be setting out to deceive the reader. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Welsh, Armstrong is guilty of doping. Because people like you think there are "good procedural grounds for questioning that statement", when there aren't, makes it particularly important to say it in the article.  Reflecting a NPOV does not mean avoiding stating the obvious until every last holdout finally concedes the point.  The only source that you've named that still is holding out is Indurain, who had no way of knowing the facts. Armstrong agreed to follow the WADA process.  The result of that process was that he was found guilty of doping.  There was nothing undue about it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong missed the deadline to lodge an appeal over being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for systematic doping, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-29/armstrong-opts-against-appeal/4446944 Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Once a symbol of perseverance in the face of the most incredible odds, Lance Armstrong now seems destined to go down in history as one of the most brazen dope cheats that sport has ever seen. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-22/lance-armstrong-downfall-of-a-sporting-icon/4327974 Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle: So, in effect, what you are saying is because you have failed to provide any convincing evidence that the article needs to be amended, that in itself is reason alone to amend it? I trust you can see the sizeable hole in your logic there. On a number of occasions now, I have invited you to provide reasons as to why the article as currently stands is deficient and why altering it to include a statement along the lines of "Armstrong was found guilty of doping by USADA" would benefit the article, and I have in turn provided reasons why that statement is incorrect. Merely saying "there aren't" grounds for questioning the statement does not mean there aren't, by the way - you actually have to say why, and thus far your argument has rested solely on assertion rather than explanation. Until such time as that changes, I see little point in prolonging this discussion. If you feel you have sufficient grounds for proposing a change, do so to those who put edit protection in place or put it to a vote or whatever course of action you see fit.
 * Incidentally, if you had taken the time to read the article (or even carry out a Google search) you would know that Indurain is not the only one to question the USADA verdict, and likewise that the process adopted by USADA has been called into question. I provided one source for this earlier in the discussion - kindly read it.
 * Blade: Much as the first article you cite is certainly an interesting development, it does not in itself change anything that I have said. As such, I do not see what relevance it is to this question, although I would recommend it being added to the article as a general point if this has not already happened. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dave you have the stamina of the Welsh rugby team. You do have a point about the guilt thing. He didnt have a trial, I get that. How would you write it? He says hes innocent but wont challenge. There must be precedent for his behaviour. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Blade, the article contains numerous references to Armstrong's guilt. No trial is implied in any of them, so far as I can tell.  Do you not agree?   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave, I'm simply pointing out that referring to Armstrong's guilt in the article is appropriate and supported by material in reliable sources. I see no specific change that needs to be made at this time regarding this.  Regarding the article mentioning others questioning the USADA's guilty-of-doping verdict, do you mean Tim Herman, Armstrong's legal representative, who described the USADA's reasoned decision regarding Armstrong's guilt as a "hatchet job" before it was released?  Nobody, not even Armstrong or anyone on his team, has questioned anything substantive about the USADA guilty verdict and reasoning, since it was released.  That's significant.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Born, for what its worth IMHO based on XP, a non qualified legal opinion btw, LA would be found guilty if he took this thing to court, say in a slander case. That he wont reminds me of schoolboy playground stuff, 'no you didnt yes you did, no you didnt etc'. Daves a budding lawyer and he may have a point of law that needs expressing (may need clarification I admit it seems complex to me). I am happy the article has numerous refs to LA's guilt. My opinion of LA as a human is rock bottom due to his response to things after getting caught..... he didnt go to trial, as a tactic, but one maybe based in part on economic survival, (legal / litigation floodgates would open). But Daves point could be incorporated if it hasn't already. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even in a legal case, going to trial is not required to establish guilt (the accused may plead guilty, for example). But in a sports doping case, guilt or innocence is usually determined without any kind of legal case, much less a legal trial.  Instead, it is determined by something like the process described in the WADA Code, which all relevant parties have contractually agreed to follow, which is what happened in the Armstrong case.  The notion that simply using the word guilt implies a legal finding by a court of law is entirely without merit.  It presumes a court of law context which is absurd, especially when we're talking about doping in sports.  Armstrong was found guilty of doping by the WADA process, and he and everyone else who could (UCI) has chosen not to appeal that guilty verdict at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). So the guilty verdict is automatically upheld by the court of relevance here.  Armstrong even tried to claim in a court of law that this process violated his legal rights; that legal argument failed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What you write is pretty much what I agreed with all along, unless Dave has a new angle I still hold to it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Born: with respect, your argument is becoming more tenuous. A guilty plea is still submitted before a court and is thereby within the legal framework. It is therefore a requirement that a court or tribunal is required to establish, conclusively, a verdict of guilt or liability. The same applies to sports doping, much as you attempt to claim otherwise - it is in effect a disciplinary process, and such processes operate within a quasi-legal framework at the very least. By definition, anything seeking to impose sanction or penalty operates in such a manner, and USADA's references to burdens of proof and the like within their reasoned decision merely confirm this. As such, it is open to scrutiny on such a basis, as happened following the LaTasha Jenkins case here: http://law.pepperdine.edu/dispute-resolution-law-journal/issues/volume-ten/Straubel%20Article.pdf (If you have not read it before, I would recommend doing so - in particular it queries whether this is a simple matter of contract law). You are also being somewhat presumptuous, I would argue, in claiming that a reader of the article would not interpret a statement such as "Armstrong was found guilty of doping" and conclude this was the judgment of a court or tribunal. That, surely, is for the reader to decide - and given that it is the most common context in which people encounter the term "guilty", I would argue it is entirely with merit to suggest that they would do so. If there is scope for the reader to interpret it in that way, and thereby conclude USADA acted in a capacity it did not possess, then for the avoidance of confusion or inaccuracy it does not belong in the article. The article as currently stands describes the outcome as being one of USADA stripping Armstrong of his results from 1 August 1998, and WADA and UCI declining to appeal against this decision. That, to my mind, describes perfectly well what happened in as straightforward a way as possible while maintaining NPOV status. Whether or not individuals or bodies describe Armstrong as "guilty" in light of that is fair enough, provided it is within the "Reactions" section as befits such comments. But seeking to state as a verifiable, objective fact that he was "found guilty by USADA/WADA/etc" serves only to open a can of worms on the topic, for very little gain as far as I can see. You have thus far failed to provide any grounds for altering my point of view.
 * To answer your question of whether I was referring to persons such as Tim Herman, no, I wasn't. I was actually referring to figures within the AFP article such as Antonio Rigozzi who referred to the ratification by UCI as "giving precedence to politics over law" and Alexis Schoeb who has claimed this is "not got a classic anti-doping procedure but an Armstrong procedure". Both are sports lawyers with no connection to the case, so that is significant. In addition, British rider Roger Hammond has claimed that Armstrong never demanded he take PEDs, which somewhat contradicts the accounts given that it was a demand of his. Source is as follows: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165. Re. the Texas case, that was statute-barred by an act of Congress so the fact that the argument "failed" is of little consequence. The terms of the Sports Act made that a given, as the judge concluded.
 * As a final point, if you do not believe any changes need to be made to the article then I think it's time we finally brought this discussion to an end. Agreed? WelshDaveRyan (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the article does and should refer to Armstrong's guilt. There is no basis to remove such references, or prevent the inclusion of more.  In sports doping cases guilt or innocence is determined by following the WADA process.  That's what happened with Armstrong, and guilt was established accordingly.  You need to concede this. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The argument [above] reminds me of why I haven't contributed to Wikipedia for so many years (lost old password/e-mail, sorry). As far as I can see, we have consensus from all but one person that Armstrong was guilty of doping. The counterargument is, briefly, as follows:

''I think that people associate "guilt" with a particular criminal procedure executed by a court of law. In particular, I think that people have in mind a judgment against an individual resulting from a hearing (possibly paper) in which neither party acts as judge. nemo iudex in causa sua is a well-established principle of natural justice.''

Unfortunately, this is irrelevant:

1) "Guilt" has a far wider dictionary definition. If you think that the word "guilt" is, uniquely among all the words in a typical article, going to be interpreted as having a domain-specific meaning, you have to show this;

2) Anyway, there's a perfectly cromulent analogy in criminal law. It's closest to the case where a government department fines you for something because it has evidence and you've decided not to contend it, e.g. parking tickets and other on-the-spot fines as issued regularly under English law. There, the government department is judge and prosecutor, but there is no question of shenanigans;

3) But it's not really public law at all. It's regulated contract law between LA and the sports bodies. Have these bodies broken any agreement here? Because if they have, we need to see at least one reliable source suggesting this - on the balance of probabilities is fine.

To summarise, LA is regarded as "guilty":

a) according to dozens of mainstream articles, which all use the commonly understood definition ("I'm guilty of taking the last slice of cake") - and appear to be undisputed by any other reliable sources;

b) according to the procedures he chose to submit to - these also appear to be undisputed;

c) finally, as if this wasn't enough, by virtue of his own admission - that this confession was voluntary appears undisputed. He confesses to his own guilt, as the comment below rather gleefully notes. Know when to quit. (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

BWAHAHA! Confessions establish guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.226.133 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @KWTQ: I'll take each of your points in turn, if I may.
 * 1) Yes, guilt does indeed have a wider dictionary definition. I am perfectly aware of this. However, in the context of a statement such as "Armstrong was found guilty of doping by USADA" (which is the example I gave on 31 December) that is pretty clearly a legal/quasi-legal context and so a domain-specific meaning would apply. That is the sole reason I have queried any mention in the article of Armstrong being "found guilty", because the process followed by USADA/WADA (irrespective of the rationale behind it or consent to it being used) does not meet the due process standard.
 * 2) Such power only arises in very limited circumstances, referred to as strict liability offences. The only requirement of such offences is that you are, in effect, "caught in the act". In light of Armstrong being accused of offences dating from 1998 to 2010, and such accusation being based upon testimony evidence rather than being "caught in the act", the analogy does not stand. Armstrong's case was more akin to a disciplinary process, and in such processes a breach has to be proven to a required standard before a neutral adjudicator and evidence open to scrutiny. It is on both of these points that USADA's reasoned decision, being taken "in-house" and based upon unchallenged testimony evidence without cross-examination of its source, falls down.
 * 3) There was certainly a dispute over jurisdiction in the early stages between USADA and UCI, and the AFP article I mentioned above suggested that the statute of limitations had been broken, so both of these could be deemed as "breaches of agreement" (more the statute of limitations point that the jurisdiction point, admittedly). In any event, the nature of the sanction imposed (lifetime ban) is not an appropriate remedy for breach of contract, and so describing the basis of the process as such is questionable. Breaches of contract are remedied by way of damages for the most part, or rescission, neither of which applied in this case - he was not asked to pay compensation and he had already retired as a professional cyclist, so any "contract" had arguably expired.
 * And for the last three points:
 * a) Not in dispute - as I said above, it was stating that he was "found guilty" as objective fact I took issue with;
 * b) See the AFP article for areas where this has been disputed;
 * c) This happened since I last commented on the article (due to my home internet going down on 12 January), and does indeed seal the deal so to speak. However, this is outside of the point that I took issue with - namely, whether USADA were entitled to hand down a verdict of guilt based on their process. I contended, and still contend, that it was deficient in that regard and therefore statements that they had "found Armstrong guilty" would not be verifiable fact. That he has since confessed makes this a totally academic point, but at the time I felt it was worth making for the sake of ensuring the article complied with WP policy. For the record, I did not seek to claim that Armstrong was in fact innocent and apologise if this is how I came across. I will leave it at that. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WelseDave, Im a big fan of the Law due to its ability to have the Final Say. You make some astute points esp imho a) c) as an academic point, well done Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)