Talk:Lance Armstrong

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)

• 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.

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)

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:

8.3 Waiver of Hearing

The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. Where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the Persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the

action taken.

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)

Best known for?

There seems to be an extraordinary, and unexplained, desire on the part of many editors to introduce some sort of competition, with an announced victor, as to what aspect of his life story Armstrong is, or was, "best known for". It is not a requirement of BLP articles to have such a clause, is has clearly been an area of dispute in editing. Is there any reason why we cannot say what he has done (which is objective encyclopaedic information) without needing to classify by impact on the wider public (which is unmeasurable subjective perception)? Kevin McE (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, besides the fact that it is verifiable fact that he is best known for winning 7 tour de frances, but your proposal to limit this language might still be workable. The problem with the language that Hippo is edit warring for is that it is unclear, badly worded, and probably inaccurate. He says "Before being stripped of the titles, he was best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having testicular cancer." What does the first clause do in this sentence? Is he best known for something else now? Of course not. I think he is trying to to say that he no longer won the titles (which is only partially true), but it is a muddled mess. Can anyone reverting this change please explain (1) what you think the sentence means; and (2) why we can't word it more clearly?LedRush (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that that is a "certifiable fact". What is a certifiable fact is that before being stripped of the titles, he was best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having testicular cancer. That's for sure. Yet that's what you replaced with the now dubious claim that "Armstrong is best known for winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having survived testicular cancer." The statement that he has repeatedly denied any allegations, which you've also inserted in that edit, is WP:UNDUE, since he has stopped denying and gone into virtual hiding in Kona since Nike et al dropped him. Unless you adequately explain this, it needs to be reverted to Hippo43's version. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, please don't try to guess what people mean. Read my comments in other sections here and in edit summaries. If you don't understand what I think, ask. Despite commenting in discussions here, you haven't explained why your edits have anything to do with BLP or UNDUE issues.

All biographical articles make judgments about what to include and where. Bill Clinton is best known for being a US president, for example, and not for being a keen amateur saxophonist, and so the article on Clinton reflects this. Armstrong is most best known for being banned and stripped of his race victories. Before this went down, he was notable, and best known, for winning the TdF 7 times after having cancer.

If there is a way to word part of this more clearly, please suggest it. --hippo43 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring your version. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He has denied it repeatedly, as reliable sources confirm. These sources are already in the article and don't need to be brought out in the lede. Just look at the sources which have Armstrong denying the allegations. He denied them vigorously as recently as a few weeks ago, so your claim that he's gone into virtual hiding (and therefore isn't denying anything anymore) is patently absurd.

No evidence has been presented that he is best known for having been stripped of his titles. Seeing as the news coverage for the wins was several times more heavy than the coverage of the doping claims, it seems highly unlikely to be true. Do you have any RSs that back up this dubious claim.

Unsourced claims about living people are BLP violations and must be reverted, especially when they possibly defame a person. If you want to make these extraordinary claims, find some sources to back them up.

Also, a lede is supposed to accurately reflect an article. We spend enough time talking about how Armstrong has denied or countered claims of doping that it seems absurd to me that we could insert such a huge amount of info on doping in the lede, and NOT have an assertion of innocence by him, especially one that is backed by literally thousands of RSs.LedRush (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Denying it during the period when he still had sponsor/UCI/WADA/press support and before the details of the evidence were made public and examined is virtually meaningless now that all that has happened, and none of the evidence has been challenged by reliable sources. What is significant is that he has not denied doping since then, and his only public action in response has been to remove "7 time winner" from his Twitter account description. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a very strange, largely unsupportable, POV that has no bearing at all on this discussion. I would also say that we should remove the twitter mention (seeing as it is WP:UNDUE and seems to have been included as some sort of POV evidence). It is pretty outrageous how WP rules are being suspended on this page.LedRush (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Facts that need to be included: he won/was regarded as winner of seven tours, he was subsequently disqualified from those results after a doping enquiry, he recovered from cancer. There is no need, and little if any NPOV grounds, for trying to impose an order of current or past "known-for-ness" to those facts. Kevin McE (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.LedRush (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin, pretty much. Record 7 tour wins, substantial doping allegations, which he refused to legally challenge, tour wins all stripped, banned from cycling, loss of sponsors, law suits underway, prize money demanded back yeah that should do it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

4 words for the wins, 26 for the doping? That's a bit WP:UNDUE, no? Seeing as there are millions of articles about him denying doping allegations, that needs to be there.LedRush (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The most notable thing about Armstrong now is that he is a banned-for-using-drugs former cyclist who won lots of stuff after he had cancer and got really famous. Not that he is a famous cyclist who won lots of stuff after he had cancer then got banned but says he didn't do it. This is a matter of editorial judgment more than simply counting sources. Not presenting the doping ban first is seriously misleading to a reader who comes here wanting to find out who this Armstrong dude is.

As someone else pointed out above, stating that he survived cancer is not necessary and not neutral. He had cancer.

His denials are not necessary in the lead. He has been found guilty and banned - the fact that he has said he didn't do it is not surprising or noteworthy enough for the lead. If we state that Armstrong himself says he didn't do it, should we also list all the people who say he did do it? All the evidence against him? And has he actually denied doping since the USADA decision was confirmed and the evidence released? --hippo43 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The most notable thing about Armstrong is that he was the world's most famous and successful cyclist. You even seem to concede that counting sources would confirm this, despite many of his wins coming in the early days of the internet. The lede needs to present a NPOV of why he is famous and what has happened to him, summarizing the article and putting equal weight in the lede to things that are in the article. Now, the article has way too much on doping (this, of course needs to be dealt with extensively here, but we don't need this much detail). But my proposals accomplish all of WP's goals and guidelines on this. Your proposal (especially your insistance, against consensus here) that we say he is best known for being banned. I've already agreed that we don't have to say "best known" for anything. However, we should mention that he was the world's most famous cyclist seeing as that is WHY is famous, and is supported by thousands and thousands of sources, including sources ALREADY in the article, which the lede should supmmarize.LedRush (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you trying to guess what I think is foolish. I did not say anything about what I thought counting sources would reveal. I said what we put in the lead about a person's significance is partly down to editorial judgement. There is no consensus in this discussion yet, and certainly no consensus for the change you want.

There is no requirement to list events in chronological order in the lead - if something is a bigger deal than something else, it gets listed first. Being a banned former cycling champion who cheated is what Armstrong is most notable for. Before being famous for cheating and being banned, he was famous for winning the TdF 7 times after having cancer.

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't include anything about him being 'best known', but that we should mention that he was famous for being the most famous cyclist?? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. --hippo43 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Gawd, is this still dragging on. I see no reason to include best known for anything. best known is a very subjective term depending on who you are and what your perspective is, he could be best known as winning the tour seven times, or best known for being a cyclist, or best known for being a campaigner against cancer, and even best known as not being known at all, because beleive me, there are millions of people in the world who dont even know who lance armstrong is. I know at least a dozen people (thats not a made up figure i could name them) who didnt even know who Lance armstrong was until the recent publicity (ridiculous I know, but beleive me, not everybody had even heard of him). What he is best known for is entirely subjective and wiki is not here to be subjective, its here to be objective and report facts. there is no factual evidence of what lance is best known for. Dimspace (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall we go with "best known for being banned for life and stripped of his titles. Prior to this he was best known for winning seven tour de france and splitting up with his wife. before this however, he was best known for recovering from cancer to win the tour having previously been best known for doping so much that he got cancer. Before doping he was best known as a triathlete. He doesnt have to be best known for anything. Dimspace (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

hes also NOT famous for being the worlds most succesful cyclist, because he never was. He was the worlds most succesful tour de france winner. For a start, Merkx won five tours, five giros, a vuelta, paris nice 3 times, 3 time world champion, 19 YES NINETEEN monuments.. Armstrong isnt even close to the most succesful cyclist. Most succesful Grand Tour rider of his era, yes. Dimspace (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He will be remembered as a cheater, never forget that. He stole he lied he cheated, he is a nobody Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are demonstrating why you should not be allowed to edit this article.LedRush (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a personal attack dont do it be civil thank you. Further points, 1/ I will not edit such an article only help on the talk page. Why? been there done that, its a time waster. This article has all the ingredients and editors for a protracted silly fight. You being one of them. A lone persistent editor who reverts and adds without discuss, based on biased interpretations of Wiki protocol. 2/ Two if people like you continue to think he is a champion when he cheated to become one then you miss the point. I personally think you Led are biased and are 'for' or 'pro' this cheater. And talk like this enrages you. Why? Led leave the article alone. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

this is starting to do my head in. I stepped back from editing this page, post usada reasoned release because i didnt want to get involved in edit wars. Ive now gone back on that decision, partly because the page is in such need of revising and in areas rewriting and also because having studied this whole story in depth for ten years and having written a number of well respected articles im as well informed as any to do some work. I note that an awful lot of the cleaning up of the page as far as organisation of sections goes I have done, and none of it has been undone by editors. Its getting endlessly boring though with arguing over positioning of things like his wins, or cancer when there are far more fundemental issues to be addressed like the whole US postal section being tour centric and a mess. I also question LedRush NPOV as he seems determined to try and portray Armstrong is as positive light as possible, already removing huge peices of the usada report and continually changing the lede despite numerous editors (finally) agreeing on how it should be structured. Ledrush, if you want to help get the page readable, great, lets discuss changes in talk, and then on agreement implement them, but a single editor who is adding, changing and reverting without discussion is not helping. Im guilty of making changes, but I do try and detail the reasons for my changes extensively in talk before making them. Dave Dimspace (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to pare down the article, and it gets reverted. Every single editor on the BLP board agrees on how the lede should be approached, but the edit warriors here ignore the neutral advice. It is clear that some editors here, like Blade and B2C, are so biased that they should be allowed anywhere near a BLP article, but instead of addressing the serious issues of this article, some are focused on rearranging the deck chairs. To be clear, I am not an Armstrong apologist. I strongly suspect he cheated (to the tune that I would bet huge amounts on this) and I understand that all these charges, conclusions, and consequences MUST be addressed here. But we have policies on WP that tell us how to deal with them. All neutral editors agree on the conclusions. When your only support is of rabidly biased editors, you should rethink your position.LedRush (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Led you, I and others know a lot of things can be referenced reliably but does that make them worthy of being there in the article? Take this: You stated above 'it is verifiable fact that he is best known for winning 7 tour de frances.' Led that was before. Now its all different. You get the responses you do because you come across as NPOV dude Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@ledrush - there is a huge difference between paring down the article and removing valuable information. For example, in the USADA section, your idea of reducing the size was removing an entire section covering the original armstrong lawsuit against USADA and its rejection. That is not paring down, that is removing factual sourced evidence that is relevant to what follows.

Definition of editing

* To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.

* To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable

you are not editing to correct, revise or adapt, you are editing by removing sections that portray armstrong in a negative light and because of that your NPOV is questioned. Again you have edited the lede, despite the fact that this lede has been discussed at length by multiple editors and its content agreed on. Why do you as a sole editor have the right to run roughshod over other editors decisions to change the facts to suit yourself? Dimspace (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede - Decision needed

Can we please make a decision on this for once and for all. Certain lone editors including Ledrush are constantly reverting the lead to

Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. Armstrong won the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005. In 2012, he was banned for life and disqualified from all his results since August 1998, for using and distributing performance-enhancing drugs.[4]

This has been discussed at length by multiple editors and a lede agreed, can we now make a final decision on how the lede should be worded. its getting farcical. Dimspace (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

So 3 editors is a consensus; and 2 editors are "lone"? Um...ok.

We need to think of what will be easiest for a reader to understand, and what presents the information in the best way for those readers. In terms of understanding and logic, it doesn't make sense to talk about being banned from something without first explaining why we are reading the article and what important results we are talking about undoing. The language as presented above very succintly gives this information in an easy to understand way. No one can read that and not understand that Armostrong had all his results stripped because he doped, and the information is easily digested by a reader new to the topic.LedRush (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I count in excess of ten editors involved in the discussed. I count two editors that dont involve in discussion. Dimspace (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I only count one editor involved in this discussion. Do you have any substantive points to make?LedRush (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2012(UTC)

Things change, he was once more notable for cycling, no longer the case. People who had zero interest in cycling now associate him with one thing: being "a serial cheat who led the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". The reality is that even though he may have crossed the finish line a bunch of times, his "winner" status no longer exits. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with your premise and your conclusions, that's not really relevant to the article. The idea isn't to note which he's more notable for: the idea is to present the information in a clear, easy-to-understand and logical way. I think we are all in agreement as to what information goes in this part of the lede.LedRush (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that your way is easier to understand. I think "Prior to losing his titles, Armstrong had won the Tour de France seven consecutive times, from 1999 to 2005, after having testicular cancer." is perfectly clear. Saying he won seven times in a row in a separate sentence without qualification is clear too, but misleading, and, thus muddling. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Im with Dimspace need for a decision. The concensus is against Led. Led on this thread its you vs 4. Plus your last revert by ‎Semitransgenic. Thats you vs five now at least. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So you count Semi, but not the guy who made the initial edit. Your fairness is again beyond reproach. Do you have any reasons for your opinions?

B2C - I was talking about understanding the entire concept. It is confusing and illogical to talk about being banned from cycling and losing one's titles before knowing (1) that he won titles; (2) why we care about the person being banned; and (3) why people first cared about the article's subject.LedRush (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

4 to 1 on this thread Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I vote for having the Tour de France first, then give the reason he was banned. There is plenty of time for the reader to understand who Lance Armstrong is, what he did in his career, and why he was banned. Looking at another article randomly, I noticed that Barry Bonds' article lists who he is, what his accomplishments were, then legal and drug problems. Marion Jones is another article that lists what she won before stating what she was banned for. Portillo (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bonds was a team member, not an individual athlete competing head to head, there is no issue of forfeiting wins. In the case of Jones, the second sentence reads: "She won five medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia, but forfeited all medals and prizes dating back to September 2000 after her October 2007 admission that she took performance-enhancing drugs as far back as the 2000 Summer Olympics." The Ben Johnson is similar to the Jones one. However, if the consensus shows that the current version is tolerable, then this is no necessity to change it. If consensus can't be arrived at on the talk page, best move it to the relevant content dispute notice board. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with the Johnson and Jones forumulations that you propose.LedRush (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile Portillo edits the lede while discussion is still ongoing. What part of Discussion do you not understand?

would settle for "Armstrong had won the Tour de France a record seven times but in 2012 was stripped of all results since 1998 and banned from the sport for life for using and distributing etc.. " I dont feel any need for the years to be included as its information available elsewhere in the article, I think seven wins has to be referred to as the past tense, and the stripping of titles needs to be in the same sentance. This fits in line with Johnsonn and Jones. Dimspace (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we also need to look at the repetition in para 3 of the lede. " He was a member of the US Postal/Discovery team between 1998 and 2005 winning the Tour De France a record seven consecutive times. " Does this need to be repeated twice in the lede bearing in mind that he now isnt the winner of those 7 tours, surely once is enough? Dimspace (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposed compromise. And we should change the formulation of the second mention of wins.LedRush (talk) 16:55, 20 November 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)

United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#Lance_Armstrong_case

If you're going to edit Lance_Armstrong#USADA_Investigation_2011-2012, make sure to also edit links to it, such as United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#Lance_Armstrong_case. 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?

Lance Armstrong's legal woes are far from over on several fronts, including an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Postal Service, the longtime title sponsor for his cycling teams and once inextricably linked to his racing success.

A federal judge last week rejected months of arguments by attorneys for the dethroned former Tour de France winner and unsealed documents related to an investigation of possible doping-related contract fraud by the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG).

A subpoena issued to Armstrong in June 2011 by the OIG is among the documents now on public record. His legal team initially resisted compliance with the subpoena, and the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of Columbia entered the fray to enforce it. The two sides eventually reached an agreement for the requested materials to be supplied and stated that the requirements of the subpoena had been met. However, Armstrong's lawyers have continued to fight the release of any filings.

Last Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson ordered the documents released.

...

Sources have confirmed that Armstrong's former teammate -- and key public accuser -- Floyd Landis is the plaintiff in the federal whistleblower suit, but Landis will not comment on the subject. Armstrong's lawyers have argued the OIG investigation is clearly related to that civil case, but Judge Robinson last week ruled there was no legal basis for keeping documents related to the OIG subpoena from public view.

The Department of Justice civil division is still weighing whether to intervene in the whistleblower case, a move that historically increases the chances of successfully proving government money was misused. In the event of a win, the government can recoup damages of as much as three times the amount allegedly misused -- which in the USPS cycling team's case would mean treble damages applied to more than $30 million. Most qui tam cases are settled before trial and the plaintiff is entitled to a percentage of any settlement.

Link to ESPN article [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)