Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 3

message: --Beaker342 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subaru 

message: Didn't see it mentioned, so I will: in the course of 6 TdF wins, Lance won 20 solo stages. (I heard that someplace or other...)  Trekphiler 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff 

message: During a dispute over the content of the 'Allegations of drug use' section, an anonymous editor created a Lance Armstrong/proposal article in an attempt to settle the argument. The dispute has died down, but the 'proposal' article remains, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I have not tagged these two articles for merging yet because I want to hear other viewpoints first. 
For purposes of this discussion, 'original entry' refers to Lance Armstrong and 'proposal' refers to Lance Armstrong/proposal.
Options:
* Delete the proposal without modifying the original entry at all.
* Rename the proposal as the main article and delete the original entry.
* Merge the two by making the 'allegations' section of the original entry into a new article named 'Allegations of drug use against Lance Armstrong', linking that article to the original entry, then moving the 'allegations' section of the proposal into the original entry as its new 'allegations' section.
* Merge the two articles in some other fashion.
* Start all over from scratch and delete the proposal completely.
I look forward to hearing your comments. Any and all suggestions are welcome. ddlamb 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think the proposed artical looks better, however, I don't think that working it a seperate artical is going to work in this case...I'm not going to touch the controversy section myself (I can't spend all my time on wikipedia), but if you think that it's better then go for it... --T-rex 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Seeing how the entire "Reasons for success" section is unsourced, this might be a useful article: A study on Armstrong: Texas professor discusses cyclist's success Poulsen 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A study on Armstrong 

message: Has anyone seen details of the settlement between Armstrong and The Sunday Times? Moriori 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sunday Times settlement 

message: I just wanted to tell you guys, My dad knew Lance Armstrong as a teenager in the 80s. They raced almost everyday, And, My dad always lost because how good he was. They met in 85' during the "President's Triathlon Dallas" Wich lasted from June 8-9th 1985. They parted either in 1992 0r 1990 or maybe even 1991. My dad's not sure. Maybe we should mention this somewhere?-68.113.192.98 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to me to be something relevant enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.  --CaptainGetts 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance as a teenager 

message: I came here from WP:3O. 
About the book L.A. Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong, it seems that could be handled by including the sentence and then including another sentence with a source to show that it has been discredited and dismissed. The three paragraphs at the top of "Factual information deleted" are more complicated than I am up to handling right now. Maurreen 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you two have a larger problem between you than I am up to dealing with. I think it would be wise to agree on a cooling off or look for help via dispute resolution or a page related to the article.Maurreen 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greg LeMond article had not been covered anywhere, nor had the book and the masseuse's claims or the fact that WADA continues to see him as a proven drug abuser. Socafan 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Greg LeMond's statements were covered.  I have already said that the book needs to go in as soon as we can get some reliable secondary sources which discuss its reliability. Let's not forget that Armstrong probably is the most tested athlete in history, and not one single drug test has ever proved positive. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that was covered was one hearsay issue. You only added an out of context apology. As you know very well, many cyclists who were never tested positive are known to have abused forbidden drugs. Socafan 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And as you know very well, unless they have tested positive we absolutely may not imply otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WADA regards him as tested positive. Period. Socafan 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently not, according to Steve.  I am more inclined to trust him since he does not appear to have an agenda beyond building a great encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: As shown above, important information about the alleged drug abuse of this athlete is getting suppressed, thus the POV-section tag. Removing it is vandalism. A request for arbitration has been filed because JzG in my eyes abused his admin powers in order to violate the three revert rule in order to push his POV, remove a POV-tag, block another user while in a conflict of interest and pretend to own another user's talk page. Socafan 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: JzG posted this at my talk page although it obviously belongs here, so I move it:
a few people have told you now why we have a particular problem with biographies of living persons.  In this case, the overall tone of the section must reflect the fact that Armstrong has never had a positive dope test, has never been banne dor suspended for doping, and has either won or had dropped every court case which even tangentially relates to doping.  He is an international figure, very rich, has superb lawyers, and is a friend of the most powerful man on the planet.  If we say a single word about him which is not impeccably sourced and stated in the most studiously neutral terms, this project could be wiped out overnight.  That is why I care about this, even though I don't care much about the subject.  Your agitation is wholly misplaced.  What you need to do is not keep saying the same thing only louder, you need to say it better, and that means going to the Talk page of the article and discussing a properly neutral form of words, and in particular showing how reliable that book is (or rather, isn't) as a source.  Your claim to be pursuing "factual content" is weak - for example, you don't appear to have included the fact that LeMond apologised to Armstrong and said his remarks had been taken out of context  something I'd have considered relevant.  How hard did you try to verify the neutrality of what you were inserting?
:George W. Bush cannot sue anyone for reporting very well known allegations that do not come from me - by the way, I do not even know Armstrong - but from other wikipedia articles like the one about Greg LeMond or the Armstrong articles in other languages. I compared them and noted that this here is like a fansite - criticism minimized and countered with "he was never tested positive" even though it is very well known that many cyclists who were never tested positive did abuse drugs. Socafan 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography of living person 

message: Lance bashed the French on an award show. You better protect the article for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
Protect from who? Protect the article from people who see right through his egomanical antics? How come there is no article on here about his personal life or how he one of the most cockiest athletes? This man had no purpose other than to agitate when bringing up the soccer team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
Well this article is trying to achieve neutrality and you can basically say any athlete is cocky.  He won the tour de france seven straight so he can back it up and be cocky, the others that won 5 straight were cocky as well because they knew they were that good.
Yeah he's doing that to agitate the French because the French are agitating him, he passed all the drugs tests they wanted him to but still are trying to dig up dirt to try to discredit him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts and discuss the article instead of personal feelings. Socafan 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts and discuss the article instead of personal feelings. Socafan 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: May I ask what changes, exactly, you're looking to make to the article? 24.136.38.121 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I removed this - it's inappropriate to include mention of every news story to come out about a prominant public figure. If this gets meaningful play over the next few days, we should include it, but if it's a one-day story, it's not really notable. 24.136.38.121 05:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect article 

message: Because the protection was questionable, and seemed to be adding to the bad faith surrounding this article, I've removed it, and returned to the version from late last night. This was, admittedly, a version I had just edited. Please note that I am not doing this as an endorsement of that version - there are still things I don't like about it, and there's a lot to be improved. My hope, however, is that all parties can discuss and come to an agreement on how to improve it, rather than edit warring, being incivil, and abusing admin powers.  This applies to both JzG and Socafan - JzG should not use his administrative powers in this dispute, and Socafan should be more civil and consider that the objections are largely to his phrasing of the facts he is presenting, not to the act of presentation itself. Remember that the goal is a neutral presentation of relevant facts. A presentation that clearly exists to lead the reader down one path or another is not neutral, and is not what we want. It should not be difficult to, in all cases, state the accusations, state Armstrong's response, and state what formal investigations, if any, have been conducted, and what their outcome was.  Phil Sandifer 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for any incivility I may have committed, I just see none. I see many by JzG though.   Thank you for trying to help solving the conflict. I am convinced together we can find a neutral version if we discuss it here. Socafan 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that an argument over who has been more incivil will not, in fact, engender more civility. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not argument over who has been more incivil, I asked why you think that I had been incivil and showed that he was. Socafan 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Phil, this is fine, but we do not have an account of the Walsh book.  Please help to come up with suitably neutral wording. Ah, scratch that, just seen your comment above. Just zis Guy you know? 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Magazine covers are fair-use only in articles about the magazine.  Could someone please try and find a free alternative. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: We have three articles repeating essentially the same content.  They are all growing as Socafan adds suspicions and I add balance to the effect that the supicions are unproven.  All three appear to be converging on the same ocntnet, and neither the Walsh nor the Ballenger article has anything significant other than the Armstrong criticisms.  Right now we have the fact that Armstrong is apparently no longer suing Walsh and Ballenger left as an insinuation that they are right - the very same insinuation which got the Sunday Times sued.  Socafan also left the ST lawsuit text at a point which made it seem as if Armstrong had lost, when actually he won, albeit with a motion to have the ST publish a denial denied.  As a regular reader of Private Eye I can't recall a situation where a paper has been required to carry a rebuttal of a book it has discussed, in whatever terms. I think it makes sense to merge them all to one place. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to me like a bad idea - both parties are notable on their own, and deserve their own articles. 128.227.51.27 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In which case, it is time to find something they are notable for besides this one book.  Especially since at present both articles look a lot like POV forks of this one. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other articles are biographies of journalists who have done much more than just written a book about Armstrong and the articles can thus not be merged. The articles about them would not be dominated that much by the Armstrong content had JzG not "added balance" to them. If from the fact that a defamation case is dropped you draw the conclusion that the "defamation" was right that is your problem. Socafan 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two reporters may have published other books, but it seems their Wikipedia articles only exist in relationship to Armstrong's alleged doping practices - I second the proposal of merging the two articles into Armstrong's. Igorrr 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Their articles should be tagged as stubs, and we should wait for someone to improve them. Reducing them to redirects makes it harder for them to be expanded. They are both clearly worth articles. We should therefore not make it harder for people to see that the articles are stubs and improve them. 24.136.38.121 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You describe them as biographies.  A biography normally includes things like the date of birth, some details of the career, and for a journalist perhaps some notable coups and headlines.  All of this should be referenced from reliable secondary sources.  If there are no reliable secondary sources for basic biographical data, then it is the book which is notable.  Where there is a single author the choice of whether to name the article after the person or the book is relatively unimportant, here it would be less so. It would not have been necessary to add balance had the original articles not been quite so self-evidently biased.  Strange as it may seem, I really would rather the Wikimedia Foundation did not get sued. Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what's stopping you from editing their other achievements or publications into their articles if you're so certain they're "both clearly worth" of having an article on Wikipedia? Without Armstrong to write about, they'd just be two other journalists like so many - at this point in time they're not relevant outside the Armstrong doping allegation discussion. Merging makes sense.  Igorrr 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think reporters from L'Equipe and the London Sunday Times are inherently notable. 24.136.38.121 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't know. I can name several journalists from respected media outlets who have to go through life without a dandy Wikipedia article to their name. Again, if you’re so certain they're notable outside the Armstrong discussion, what's stopping you from adding this notable information to their articles? Igorrr 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ballester already has a birth year and the French version has more info. I would say any journalist of such a high profile media who has won a Prix Gondecourt deserves an own article. Socafan 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  What's stopping me is (a) I didn't create the articles, because I don't actually care that much about their subjects and (b) I couldn't find much verifiable biographical data anyway, all the links seem to come back to the book, certainly for Ballester.  Your comment re the Prix Gondecort highlights the true purpose of your creating the article: it still contains nothing about this prize.  It does, however "balance" the fact that Armstrong won his case against the Sunday times by giving somewhat more space to the fact that he lost an appeal to be allowed to rebut the article and its sources - no evidence is presented that such a remedy is usual or indeed has ever been granted. Just zis Guy you know? 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but I replied to 24.136.38.121 why he/she hadn't added the so-called notable information yet, not you. I agree with the merging proposal. Igorrr 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between being able to identify a subject as notable and being able to write an article on them. 24.136.38.121 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're capable of constructing sentences in this discussion, it couldn't be that difficult to add a couple relevant lines on the subject's importance outside Armstrong, no? In any case, this debate is going nowhere it seems. I don't care a whole lot if the two articles will stay or not, but it makes sense to me to merge them with Armstrong's at the moment. In case he hasn't done so, maybe it's best if JzG would propose the merging of said articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or similar and let them argue about it instead. Igorrr 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess, I'm not sure what you're attacking me for here. The ability to judge that a subject is notable (Which amounts to "Hey, he writes for a major newspaper" in this case) is not equivalent to the ability to write an article on the subject. 24.136.38.121 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-reading my comment, I can see how someone could interpret it as an attack. This was not my intent and I apologize. Hugs? Igorrr 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop the argumentum ad nauseam over the Sunday Times libel case. It is absurd that someone who is notable for receiving an important award only deserves an article if it includes information on the award. Does the Albert Einstein article have information on what a Nobel prize is? Socafan 22:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I came here looking for why he retired, his public statement at the time (when it happened) what lead up to it, public reaction, etc, and left disappointed [there's no such section].  Please add!  I read the whole article.  Thank you.  82.131.191.184 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I came here for a write-up about his retirement 

message: The following comment from Jimbo should, I think, remove any lingering doubt in the minds of anybody in respect of where the responsibility lies in respect of content:  The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of ALL KINDS, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. . Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has ever made any claims about Armstrong here, you are trying to abuse a rule in order to impose your POV on others that drug abuse allegations need to stay out of your fanzine. Socafan 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you appear to be the only one marching in step, perhaps it's you who is pushing a POV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, there have been at least four editors plus an anon complaining about POV here.    Socafan 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons]] 

message: The section about the investigation into Armstrong's reportedly positive test results in 1999 is not neutral as it gives undue weight to the view of UCI over that of WADA, Le Monde, and LNDD. Socafan 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the legal status would have more weight than allegations. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with legal status. There are reports and there is a dispute between two sides. Both can ban athletes. It is undue weight to write ten lines about what UCI and its investigator say and hardly anything on the other side. Socafan 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WADA and Le Monde can ban athletes? Phil Sandifer 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course WADA can, it is the world anti doping agency, just read the article. Socafan 11:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV section 

message: As JzG repeatedly uses administrative to get an advantage in a content dispute here and at other articles, even after having been warned for it by another administrator,  I asked for help at the administrator's noticeboard.  Please help to resolve the conflict. Socafan 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual this bears little resemblance to the truth.  Socafan, if you don't want to get blocked for WP:3RR, try not reverting.  You reverted three separate admins, and then went to the admin noticeboard to complain about being blocked for it.  Are you honestly surprised that you got no takers?  Just zis Guy you know? 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were three different admins, why was it you who had to block me even though you had already been warned for abusive of admin power? Policy is very explicit: Block policy#When blocking may not be used: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. First thing you did after blocking me was pushing POV related articles where we were in a content dispute and where you had violated the same rules about biographies of living people you had claimed to have blocked me for. I cannot present difflinks as you now made Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter) redirects even though your proposal to merge them had failed and a third opinion had helped with the content. Socafan 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of administrative power by [[user:JzG|JzG]] 

message: *Do we need to invoke protection to ensure the points are sorted out on the talk page without a revert war?--A Y Arktos\talk 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you not first try to inform the parties on how to resolve content disputes? Removing POV-tags and requests for citations is vandalism, and wholesale reverts without discussion are extremely impolite and not helpful. Socafan 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The first three were content disputes. Removing POV-tags and requests for citations of unsourced quotes without consensus is vandalism. Socafan 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus is when a clear majority say something should be somehow. A POV tag shows someone sees a lack of consensus. Thus it cannot be undone just like that, a consensus has to be found first, then it can be removed. Tom, why do you repeatedly do controversial edits without discussion? Socafan 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Socafan, what we have here is one editor (you) who insists that the article is somehow biased because it persists in portraying Armstrong as clean, which is his legal status, rather than as a doper who has not yetr been caught, which is your preferred spin on it.   Per WP:BLP and other guidelines and policies you have the burden of proof, and have thus far failed to persuade anybody.  The reasopn the conflict cannot be resolved is because as far as you are concerned resolution amounts to having your own way.  When only one editor, who is clearly pushing an agenda, adds a POV tag which none of the other editors consider is justified, it can be removed.  In this case reinserting the tag, along with certain other bits of innuendo and editorialising, amounts to WP:POINT on your part and is likely to get you blocked again.  Consensus does not mean unanimity, and MPOV is not NPOV. Just zis Guy you know? 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the rules for biographies of living people were not so important at the articles about two critics of Armstrong that were now redirected to a book they wrote. There have been at least three other editors and an anon complaining about POV here, and removing of a POV-tag more than once by the same editor is explicitly listed as WP:Vandalism. However, Calton who did it three times without even bother to discuss it was not even warned. Socafan 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's one interperetation.  Another is that having attracted unwelcome attention here you created two biographies both of which stated the case in highly partial terms omitting inconvenient facts, as well as adding a link to a disambiguation page also with an innuendo-laden summary, and were corrected there as well.  Acknowledging your own faulst before castigating others for what you perceive as theirs would be a step forward.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had already done that. See "POV section" above. Socafan 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert wars 

message: After reading Do Espirito's comment above, I went to the UCI website and found that Armstrong was ranked 15th end of 1995, with just a fourth of the points of Laurent Jalabert, and he was ranked 9th at the end of 1996, with 1315 points compared to Jalabert's 2019. However, in our text he was ranked 1st in 1996. Just another example of how this is more a fanzine than an encyclopedia article. Socafan 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanzine 

message: First off, I initially removed the POV tag after cleaning up the intro plus more (see old version). I see the tag is restored, but this time in a subsection. I'm more than fine with that (no consensus is no consenus). However, I suspect that some of the current disagreement (which I have no dog in) might be resolved with some background information:
What actually happened in the LNDD/Armstrong Lie case was that LNDD, France's top anti-drug lab, tested a number of frozen B-samples from 1999 (the A-samples were destroyed) for EPO using various new technologies and methods, as part of a planned 2004 research project. This was an internal project, it was not part of the program for testing riders. They came back with 12 samples they believed were suspect. What l'Equipe (a well-respected newspaper) did was basically to obtain the ID-numbers of the samples and compare them with ID-numbers they had identified as Armstrong's (they got all of Armstrong's ID-numbers). The newspaper found that 6 of the 12 ID-numbers matched Armstrong's (the other 6 are reported to belong to either, a) a well-known French rider, or, b) 3 different riders; l'Equipe didn't look into this, others have). So l'Equipe printed that story and all hell broke loose. However, there are three problems with the conclusion that Armstrong was on drugs:
# The chain of evidence is broken. There are specific rules for how samples should be handled and stored, in order to preserve the integrity of the samples. When the samples got transferred to the research program they no longer were handled according to the guidelines. Additionally, to use as evidence you need to test both the A and B-samples using the same method. And the suspected rider must be allowed to inspect the sealing of the B-sample before it's tested.
# The method they used for testing the samples is (or was), AFAIK, not approved for anti-doping programs because the accuracy of the results has not been verified by others.
# There is a disagreement in the scientific community on whether samples frozen for as long as 5 years can still produce accurate results.
The end result is that Armstrong is legally not positive and there is disagreement in the scientific community on whether the new tests are accurate. Now, feel free to compare that to WP:BLP. Also, WADA has never claimed that the results indicated Armstrong used drugs, as have been suggested. The Tour de France director and others have claimed that though.
Two important links which goes deeper than the news reports:  
However, I agree that the "Investigation" subsection gives undue weight to the view of UCI and needs to be re-written. A couple of points: The report is not the view of UCI, it's the view of Vrijman, UCI has not (AFAIK) approved the report yet, see  (btw, this report should be linked to from the article, instead of all these second hand news reports). Further, strictly speaking, the report doesn't "exonerate" Armstrong in any other sense than that it says that the results cannot be used as evidence. Also, you should all be aware that there's a big political battle over jurisdiction (read money) going on in the background between WADA and UCI which plays into this.
I will also like to say that the nitpicking I see about whether Armstrong used an approved cream or just a cream is rather silly. The fact is that the result was not in the positive range. All results that are not postive are in the not-positive-range, but they still vary depending on the rider and the day. We're not born that equal. -- Steve Hart 05:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not as clear as I should have been. First, the subsection "Investigations" goes into great length about the misdeeds of LNDD without connecting LNDD to the 1999 EPO test mentioned in the section two paragraphs above it. Indeed, this is the first time LNDD is mentioned in the article, so it is not clear why anyone should care about them in the first place. The stakes of the investigation are not made clear. As for NPOV, two things bugged me. The first was the snarky line about Lemond that has since been changed slightly. Why should it matter why Lemond recorded the conversation? Either he did or he didn't. Any speculation as to why he did is just that - speculation. The second related to LNDD. The article says that LNDD claimed to be able to match samples, implying that such a match is inherently impossible without explaining why. Either it is possible or it isn't. Or it is possble but we can't know that LNDD followed proper procedures as to eliminate any suspicion of fraud. The article should say that LNDD claimed to match samples but for a variety of reasons that claim cannot be verified. Both these passages seemed emblemmatic of a general snarkiness that the article showed towards Armstong's critics. --Beaker342 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * While I agree about most of the analysis in this section, I would point out that (1) "scientific community on whether samples frozen for as long as 5 years can still produce accurate results" should be more substantiated ; in fact Christiane Ayotte was cited in Vrijman report, but she has never implied such a thing, and even actually said: "But the results are reliable. If they found it [EPO], that's because some of it was left." (2) About the 'breaking' chain of evidence, we are discussing three things there, the technicalities required by UCI or WADA rules (for a legitimate reasons), the fact that the samples may have not properly handled, and the fact that they cannot be traced back to Armstrong and others. While the first one is correct, the others are not necessarily true. Actually, knowing that the laboratory is the leading laboratory for EPO research, it is very likely that on contrary they treated samples from 1998, 1999 like pure gold, as they would be given very few chances to use them again, and they may not have another important source of samples as old as 1999 with EPO. In fact each sample took 2 days and a half to analyze, and there were 150 samples . The fact that LNDD kept the tracking codes of the samples, is in line with this (destroying tracking codes would mean irreparably destroying some information forever). (3) Note that the outcome, is that Armstrong cannot be punished by UCI, WADA, IOC for the alleged use of EPO; but it does not follow that the alleged evidence presented would not be accepted as valid by the legal system (French justice as opposed to the sport organisations), which has its own different rules about a "chain of evidence", which may not require UCI/WADA/IOC technicalities. For instance the discussion about missing A samples could be largely offset by the fact that 6 of the B samples had been positive, and by considering that the source, storage, or handling of the A samples is not different from B samples. As a result, IF for instance the director of Le Tour had sued Armstrong or others, or IF Armstrong had sued L'Equipe or WADA or Dick Hound, the outcome would be unclear. Disingenuous observers have noted that Armstrong did not in fact sue L'Equipe, and instead, the year later dropped all suits without getting  judicial success against the people he was the most vocal about, only after getting a few indirect successes out of France.  Oh and last point, (4) the other cyclist names whose samples had been alleged to include EPO had been revealed by the "Journal du Dimanche"   --213.41.133.220 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A well thought out response. I'll refrain from excessively commenting, just one question: How do you propose we handle legal validity of the alleged evidence when this case has yet to be settled in French courts (and probably never will), without turning into speculation? -- Steve Hart 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  After thinking about that, I don't see a way out. As you said, the issue will probably never be settled in courts. The bottom line is that L'Equipe has done as good a work as they can do investigating the case, then the WADA (Dick Hound) seemed williningfull to nail a high-profile competitor (even at the cost of breaking confidentially/ethics rules), but the UCI reacted with the Vrijman report which amount to a first class cover-up in my opinion even if it raises some points in the process. Technically, the best way I would see is to present/quote the L'Equipe analysis, and the UCI analysis separatly, if it is admissible for Wikipedia. At the end of the day, now UCI carries a huge responsibility for all this, and for the continued existance of doping in cycling, and maybe it's the wikipedia page for UCI that could be updated with a "Doping Controversy" section.  --213.41.133.220 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically I agree, and I think we should keep it short and tight. I also agree that the UCI article should have a Controversy section, since it seems that their unwillingness to deal with the issue is part of the reason it's still a problem widespread problem. -- Steve Hart 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If at court the test may have been enough, why did no one sue? It is so sad here and at the Landis article that it seems there are no fairy tales in cycling either. Happily ever after 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the ones who could sue (UCI, Le Tour organisers, French sport ministry maybe, ...), are not really so interested into verifying the truth of these specific doping allegations --213.41.133.220 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Steve, yes, absolutely.  It is a UCI problem and a cycling proiblem, not an Armstrong problem.  Singling out one rider or another is invidious. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The positive tests are an Armstrong problem. Socafan 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or would be, if there were any. Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WADA and LNDD seem to think that the 1999 EPO tests were positive and you know that. Socafan 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A background on the POV controversy. Can we move along? 

message: Here's a link claiming Armstrong is the most tested athlete.  I'n not sure that counts as an authoritative citation though.  --Doradus 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's an Armstrong quote, the cite needs to quote him actually saying that. But Google today returns only 68 results for "the most tested athlete in the world", and WP is #1. Maybe he never said it, or maybe he said it in one of his books. On a sidenote I think he was tested about 150 times. -- Steve Hart 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for most tested athlete 

message: I have just blocked  on the basis that it is Socafan evading the ban and continuing to edit on this page--A Y Arktos\talk 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evasion of ban by blocked user

message: ::You blocked ME for god's sake! Now i registered here because you guys are a little bit too suspicious for my taste... i'm really not one of those who are harbouring anti-american feelings, but this really seems to be "shoot first, ask later" :-( Leclerq (former 84.56.29.199) 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give you that, the blocking could be a little (little) bit understandable, though i gave you some links in my postings to verify my standpoint and sincerity. But definitely not understandable are the repeated deletings of my comments/postings on August the 31d. You really need to reconsider the atmosphere on that discussion's page. Leclerq 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...messed up

message: Is there a way to add that Armstrong won a bronze medal in the men's road time trial race at the 2000 Olymics in Sydney?  Most athletes on Wikipedia have their Olympic medals listed at the top right hand page of their Wikipedia entry and as far as I can tell Armstrong's Olympic medal is not found elsewhere on this page. User: David Graham, 8 June 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.49.97 (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox cyclist section