Does Lance Armstrong deserve his records?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Lance actually tested positive for doping, while we still have no such test for Barry Bonds. Therefore, does Lance Armstrong deserve to keep his records and wins?

[Fleshdancer]

1. He tested positive?

When did this happen?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Last year they re-tested samples from 1999

The tests were positive. The tests were unavailable at the time, and because of legal restrictions, the test cannot be used in a legal manner. However, if we're basing our opinions of Barry Bonds on little more than anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure why we shouldn't be doing the same for Lance.

[Fleshdancer]

8. I for one don't really care about Armstrong or Bonds....

In my world, they're just all playing games and getting paid way too much for it. Having said that though, the problem with the Armstrong story is this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/26/MNG9PEDPPE1.DTL

The frozen samples reportedly were tested last year only for research purposes and identified only by an anonymous numbering system. The French newspaper said its reporters were able to track the numbers on the six samples back to Armstrong, but there is no independent evidence to verify that was done.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. My whole point is this...

We don't even come close to having that much on Barry Bonds, and yet we take it for fact that he did it.

[motely36]

2. I didn't know he tested positive

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. See above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5183684&mesg_id=5183696

[motely36]

5. Then no...

he does not deserve the records...But I do think Barry does.

[seemunkee]

6. Please post where there was a positive test

I know there was a company that was trying out a new more sensitive test and came up with a positive for an old sample from Lance but it was never verified as being a true positive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Since the test was not legally binding

I don't believe that such a verification actually exists or was sought except by Lance Armstrong. How exactly does one go about verifying such a test? You don't - it's bullshit put out by Lance himself. The test was the one you're talking about.

Still, the point remains. We have NO positive test for Barry Bonds whatsoever, so this is far and away more evidence, yet we don't seem to give a damn about Lance Armstrong's records.

[Ravenseye]

11. The accusation borders on bullshit

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-1.html

It might be true, it might not, but you can't say it was prooved that Lance doped. There hasn't even been official validation that the samples talked about were his i don't think. It was a B sample, being used in a test of a new test to calibrate it. It could easily have been a false positive based on the new test, and it was an anonymous record that is only tied to Lance by a single source of the French writer of the original piece, who claims it's Lance's.

Kind of specious to use that as a reason to say that Lance doped.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_accused_of_EPO_doping

"EPO is naturally produced in the body. It is present at low levels in normal human urine, and natural levels in a human doing high-altitude training (a known "trick" of Mr. Armstrong) could be unusually high. Therefore, false positives can be obtained by setting the sensitivity threshold too low. This is especially true if the number of control samples (for calibration purposes) is limited, as is the case with the 1999 urine samples. These calibration issues are a reason EPO wasn't officially tested for earlier."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Once again, this is far and away more than we have against Bonds.

That is the point.

[Ravenseye]

13. I feel the same way about Bonds

I think the visual evidence is striking, but I see no reason to deny his records based on unfounded allegations on either of them.

To continue what really amounts to a pretty ignorant and baseless accusation of Armstrong in defense of Bonds is kind of trashy imho. Show me a valid test on either of them and then I'll consider it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. I'm more exposing the double standard here.

I think they're both guilty as sin, quite frankly, but without evidence, I'm not willing to hang either of them. I just get pissed with how people will adamantly defend one but not the other.

[Ravenseye]

16. Well...two things...

1) I think people for some reason care more about Baseball records than Tour de France records. Lance winning the Tour de France so many times means about as much to American's as the whole Americas Cup sailing challenge. Outside of a small fraternity of competitive bikers nobody honestly cares. Whereas people are a bit more passionate about Baseball.

2) I think personality has alot to do with it. Barry Bonds has ticked off tons of people in his day. Much of that is just an inability to really handle the press. Lance Armstrong on the other hand is much more 'media savvy'. Sadly those kinds of attitudes are presented by sports writers and next thing you know everyone in america is wearing a livestrong bracelet and thinks Barry Bonds is an asshole.

Combine those two and the double standard makes more sense. With no real evidence that either doped, one is defending records we don't care about and we think is a nice guy, and the other is challenging records we do care about and we think he's an asshole.

It's not fair, but it's easily understood.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I agree

Although most reports I've read say Armstrong is an asshole too, just not to the media.

[Ravenseye]

18. exactly. media savvy

you can be a right dick in reality and be good to the media and people will thing you're great. you can be a super guy in reality but be unable to handle the pounding of the media and everyone will think you're an asshole.

Unfair, but it happens.

[leeroysphitz]

10. No. They should take all of his records. Especially his

blue grass, and country records. Let him keep the Sheryl Crow albums though...

[k_jerome]

14. there is also the fact that blood doping was illegal in...

in armstrongs sport. there is strong cirmcumstantial evidence against him and the specter of performance enhancement has always swirled around him.

in bonds case, it was not against the rules of his sport.