Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Needs some fixing

I add how Lance did not believe in a higher power or God whatever one prefers. Anywho I like to cited my source can someone do that for me please ? is time magzine a poor source ? his own written book and interview poor sources mbk ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishmonk (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC) http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong (Danny Boy 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Riding style section

I changed the statement about Armstrong's lactate threshold from being "low" (incorrect) to "high," and deleted much of the incorrect and irrelevant nonsense about the high cadence being less demanding than low cadence. There are some arguments that high cadence may be advantageous from an efficiency standpoint but the Armstrong's work rate (power output, Watts, however you want to call it) during his racing was certainly higher than his competitors. Thus he worked HARDER than everyone else, but because of his greater efficiency (due partly to high cadence, maybe) and high lactate threshold, could maintain inordinate rates of external work. If anyone would like to work a discussion of this into the article, please read Coyle's paper (J Appl Physiol, 2005 Jun;98(6):2191-6) before doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.76 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

POV section

As Socafan says, removing a tag without consensus may be considered vandalism. But consensus does not mean unanimity. There appears to be a strong consensus among those editors active in the discussion here, with the single notable exception of Socafan, that there is no POV problem with that section. So, the tag comes out unless and until Socafan can detail precisely why he feels it is justified. After all, inserting tags without giving adequate explanation and against conensus is also vandalism. It's also disruption. So: please detail precisely what statements constitute a neutrality problem, with specific relationship to Armstrong's status as the most tested legally clean athlete in the world. Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not right, there already is a section in this discussion with the same title above, there is an adequate explanation and only one editor expressed some doubt about the POV-tag. As a side note, the claim about most tested legally clean athlete in the world still lacks a source. Socafan 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arm-waving, how about actually answering the question? Oh, and there were two sources, one the BBC. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, your tone is in no way helpful to resolve the conflict. If there are sources, please add them to the article as requested. I do not know which question you want to have answered. I pointed out to you that you were wrong and ask you to reinsert the POV-tag as per policy. Socafan 13:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's like this: there is no conflict to resolve. There is a civil discussion with broad agreement, and then there is you, standing on the sidelines screaming foul. The only way to fix that particular problem is for you to stop it. A good start would be to document, in neutral and reasonable language, the precise reasons why you think the POV section tag is justified. Just zis Guy you know? 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice that you talk about a "civil discussion" right after the vandal who had deleted the tag three times was blocked for incivility and when discussion above clearly shows why I think the tag is needed and that there is no consensus to remove it. My complaint about your admin abuse stands, I showed that four others showed concern about POV here recently, so if you do not see a conflict maybe you just do not want to see it. Please restore the tag immediately. Socafan 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And given that your continued use of the term "vandalism" is an outright falsehood according to the wording of the policy you keep pretending to cite, perhaps now would be the time to stop using it. After all, continuing to use something demonstrated to be false is lying and engaging in personal attacks -- or are the rules different for you? --Calton | Talk 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Any time you want to start addressing the subject is fine by me. Proof by assertion is insufficient here. Just zis Guy you know? 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Concurring with JzG. -- Steve Hart 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not necessarily support the POV tag, as many POV issues are due to compliance w/ the WP:BLP, rather than bias by the editors. However, perhaps someone should clearly state the source of the disagreement about the POV. I'm new here, so I may not be the best person, but here is my take. 1. Armstrong's claim of never failing a doping control while technically true may not be significant given the number of athletes caught doping while passing all of their controls. (I.E.,The San Remo Raids, Operation Puerto, Richard Virenque, David Millar, Marco Pantani, etc.) It has been firmly established that the doping controls may be compromised with near impunity. 2. The fact that Armstrong won all of his court cases may not be significant as no judge has ruled on whether or not he actually used doping techniques. Both the Sunday Times case and the CAS case rulings hinged on the fact that the UCI never sanctioned Armstrong and did not consider the testimony and evidence brought by either the SCA or Mr. Walsh and Mr. Ballinger. So, as long as the POV of the article is "Armstrong has never been convicted of doping offenses" I think it is OK and it needs no tag. If the article's POV is "Armstrong has never doped", then there are significant issues to be hammered out and the POV tag would be appropriate. The POV "Armstrong is a known doper" is certainly inappropriate, by any standard.Nichol@s 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this speaks directly to Armstrong, though, does it? It's material for an article on doping in cycling. Just zis Guy you know? 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how important context is. Armstrong's claims that the judges decision in the Sunday Times and SCA cases vindicate him appear very different when taken at face value and when compared to the context of the situation: i.e., neither judge ruled on whether or not Armstrong doped, but only that he was not banned by the UCI. You are 100% correct that this biography is not the place to argue about doping in cycling, but neither should this article treat his P.R. press releases with unquestioned reverance when there is important contextual information available from reputable sources. The importance of the POV question remains. If the POV of the article is that Armstrong never doped and those who say otherwise are crazy, then we have a problem. If the POV is that Armstrong has never been sanctioned by the UCI, but there are serious and unresolved questions related to the LNDD tests, then we are on safe footing.Nichol@s 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is all a matter of emphasis. Unless and until Armstrong is officially guilty of doping (whihc is unliklely to happen given that he is now retired) the article must on balance reflect the fact that he is legally clean. There are questions, of course, but these questions do not seem to be any different form those in respect of any other pro cyclist. I would be astonished if any pro cyclist had never engaged in any practice which was then or is now illegal, but that is not about Armstrong it's about pro cycling in general. Armstrong is high profile because he's a winner, so there is more noise about the allegations (especially in France, where he is widely detested). In the end we need to be sure that we are not giving the allegations undue weight when compared with the generality of pro cyclists and their behaviour. Just zis Guy you know? 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right about pro cycling in general. However, in the Armstrong case there were concrete dodgy test results that have to be covered, positive EPO and corticoide probes. According to the French version of the article, presenting a medical certificate after having produced a questionable result violated the rules. According to WADA his 99 probes were positive for EPO and the only reason why he cannot be punished is that the test method had not been available at the time and the reglement does not allow to redo tests years later. Happily ever after 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculations over cancer drugs

A sourced sentence about this was removed with a comment about "weasel words". [1] However, I would guess the Kennedy article also covers speculations over who killed him, as widespread and widely reported speculations are notable. How shall we deal with this? Socafan 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By strong consensus terms like "some have speculated" are weasel words and have no place in biographies of living individuals. If the claim is made by a recognised authority, then state it as their opinion. If it is random uninformed speculation, it should be deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You again fail to address the point. The speculations are widespread, widely reported by many recognised media and thus notable. Socafan 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you repeatedly fail to address the point. I wonder how many times I'm going to have to explain this to you? Per WP:BLP, the burden lies with you to support the inclusion. The cited source, [2], does not address the issue. Some have speculated is unacceptable. Name the authorities who have speculated, and give citations. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

LA Times article

Added more specific details of the evidence presented in the SCA case. I tried very hard to present the evidence fairly. I noted that the judge ruled in favor of Armstrong, but refrained from ruling on whether or not Armstrong doped. Also noted that the evidence was acceptible in arbitration hearings, but possibly would not be admissable in other court settings. The point of the addition is to provide references to the primary sources that have not yet been referenced namely: the Ashendon analysis of the LNDD test, the Andreu/Vaughters IM conversation, and the LA Times graphic of the results of the LNDD test. Nichol@s 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a recurrent theme: the Sunday Times case is similar, I think. There is a world of difference between saying there is some circumstantial evidence for doping, and saying that doping did or did not happen. Just zis Guy you know? 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with your contribution, the SCA case is now listed twice in this section; once initially referring to Le Monde, then listed again referring to LAT. Maybe they should be merged. The SCA case is also different in that people involved in previous allegations were called to "testify" in this case (e.g. because they were cited in LA Confidential). Quite messy -- Steve Hart 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I share that concern, actually. The LA Times section and the Le Monde section preceeding it deal with the same information and probably should be merged. I was hesitant to edit that much w/o consultation, but agree that the merger is warranted. I am most concerned that the links to primary sources provided by the L.A. Times remain and that the verbiage be carefully neutral. The Ashenden analysis of the LNDD test and Vrijmann's rebuttal are the key sources of the current allegations. Also, the final two quotations from the LA Times should remain intact, as they do an excellent job of objectively describing the allegations & Armstrong's response to them.24.21.169.185 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Give it a try. I think you should start with what the case was about, which is in the Le Monde paragraph. From what you wrote I think you should start with the outcome of the case, instead of the Michael Ashenden comment. And you should consider adding a quote from Armstrong. If you become uncertain about the outcome, you can always post it here. -- Steve Hart 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the LA Times graphic, and as a side note, I can only say "wow". The result of the anonymized samples, when later put together, gives a string of 8 positives and then 6 negatives for one cyclist - which is a most extraordinary event (probability is maybe one chance in 1000). This means that either their was indeed some sort of deliberate fraud (reordering the samples, false test results), or this validates the chain of custody and the even test itself with high probability. This is irrelevant for the Wikipedia article, except as a note that the Vrijman's report fails to indicate such facts (lack of facts establishment, a critique from WADA on the report). This explains why the Vrijman's is controversial: see [3] current UCI Vice-President says "this report brings nothing. It was ordered by Hein Verbruggen. Meanwhile, we had a change of president. It's another area." - translation mine. --213.41.133.220 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Archived

Pace Leclerq, who I think we all recognise was unfairly tarred with the Socafan brush, I have archived out the trollfest and hopefully retained active discussion of substantive issues. Apologies if I missed anything. Kudos to Lecerq for accepting that this a genuine error was made in the heat of the moment. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, i'm glad this metadiscussion is resolved now, though it was quite straining. And JzG is right, a reasonable discussion should move on again. But i don't think i have the energy right now to help in the process of enhancing this article; i really wouldn't know where to begin, there's so much unbalance in the facts and in the way they are portrayed. And obviously you guys are happy with the status quo, so i don't want to evoke some bad mood.

Now i'm registered for english wp, i'd only like to post a source especially from german media like Spiegel or Frankfurter Allgemeine sometime, because there's a lot of high quality journalism here who is critical but certainly not biased in the issue in question (right now they're roasting former german 'hero' Jan Ullrich) and could give you a somewhat wider perspective at your disposal. Hope that's okay. Bye Leclerq 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Content from French version

There are some issues in the French version not covered here, I am not sure about the quality. There is something about a French rider Christophe Bassons who allegedly left the 1999 Tour due to pressure by other riders because of his anti-doping stances. And in 2005 Armstrong's assistant of the years 2002 to 2004 Mike Anderson declared he had found a bottle of steroids in Armstrong's bathroom and was laid-off soon afterwards. Happily ever after 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Christophe Bassons did more than "allegedly left" the Tour, he ended up in tears, and decided to abandon his first Tour in 1999; at the end of 1999, his teammates refused to share bonus money with him (even though, thanks to the some UCI points he got for the team, he did as well as others); in 2001, his team director barred him to participate in Le Tour, because other riders didn't like his "anti-doping" statements, and he ended his carrier on the same year. --213.41.133.220 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong reportedly told him to leave the Tour and expressed satisfaction when he did. [4] [5] Happily ever after 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Backing up Floyd Landis

Hi there, in my opinion there should be a little bit of Information about Armstrong backing up Floyd Landis in his recent doping case. Yes there were others too, but as predecessor and other winner of the tour that should have some significance. The article about Landis gives this [6] source. Cycling fan22 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people backed Landis up prior to the B sample - if Armstrong speaks up again post-B sample, maybe. Phil Sandifer 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yes there were others too, but as predecessor and other winner of the tour that should have some significance." Did you see that one? That's why i brought it up in the first place. Besides, i don't think there were so many others, the majority drew conclusions right after the positive A-Sample. OT: if i should use some weird language that's only because i'm relatively new to it. Nevertheless i hope you'll get what i mean Cycling fan22 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Most everyone I saw interviewed was distressed, but waiting for the B sample. Phil Sandifer 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that? I don't recall anyone with a comparable significance defending Landis this vigorously Cycling fan22 09:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I find extremely hard to believe that Armstrong, as a professional rider, was completly unaware of the dreadful record of the Phonak team with respect to doping: 3 riders have been found guilty of doping in 2004 (Hamilton, Oscar Camenzind and Santi Perez); and in 2005 in the team, one, Santos Gonzalez, "was pulled out of the Spanish Vuelta last year after blood tests showed irregularities", another, Sascha Urweider, "tested positive for testosterone and was fired"; in 2006 two (Santiago Botero and Jose Enrique Gutierrez) were not allowed to race because they are been linked to the doping scandal in Spain. I mean, at the very least in 2005, Armstrong should have asked "hey guys, where is my old teammate and dangerous rival in 2004, Tyler Hamilton" (and got the answer: "tested positive more than one time, suspended foir 2 years"). With this context, you can't blindly jump defend Landis ; as a multiple champion who loudly claimed he never doped, I expected at least a sentence like "... but in the unlikely case Landis cheated, he should be punished, as it's a profound disrespect to spectators and competitors" --213.41.133.220 11:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are no other sources, e.g. of a group of significant folks defending Landis that all-out like Armstrong, there should be some (contained) remark stating his support. Indication of significance for the article:

--Armstrong is one of the biggest american cyclists and Landis' predecessor as winner of the TdF

--He had him in his Team back then

--He already charged the french laboratory with unproper methods in his own case.

That's why it is mentionned in the article about Landis. So are there any sources stating that other high profile personalities defended Landis in a comparable manner? Cycling fan22 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

For the first reading:

• in Political possibilities section, there is a lot inproper references. These links shouldn't be external links, but internal references.
• Personal Statistics is really important?
• inproper references in the first sections too (like Carrier)
• "After Ferrari's conviction on doping charges, Armstrong severed all links." (for example a statement reference from him?)
• In the Livestrong and the Lance Armstrong Foundation section, quotations couldn't be referenced?

Anyway it's a really great article. I think it can even be a FAC. Good work! NCurse _work 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a good article, it is tendentious, showing him as if he was the one great cyclist of his era that had nothing to do with doping in spite of the fact that he was proven positive and WADA confirms it. Happily ever after 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's spelt FAQ

He was not proven positive. Please show a reference. Anyway he was the one great cyclist of his era. Not of the history of cycling, but his era. NCurse _work 04:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The World Anti Doping Agency as well as the laboratory confirmed that what the French newspaper had found out about his test was correct. You can call that great, I call it fraud. The sources are in the text: Armstrong's B-probes confirmed positive Wada rejects UCI report that had questioned validity of the findings They don't get him because the method of analysis was only invented years after his 1999 success, and the rules say A-probes have to be destroyed after a short period and tests years later cannot lead to any sanctions. However, his B-probes were positive, and there were 6 of them. After reading of cyclists who say they rubbed salt on their testicles in order to get them inflamed and the doctor signing them that they need certain medication and after so many other top cyclists being expelled from the Tour even though they never were tested positive I find very hard to believe that any of the winners in recent years did it without illegal drugs. Happily ever after 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

...Except all the more recent races Armstorng won under intense scrutiny. --Kriskey 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong name accuracy

I question the accuracy of the opening line of the article, where Lance Armstrong is said to have had the surname Armstrong from birth. My understanding is that Lance Armstrong adopted the surname of his step father, Terry Armstrong, at the age of 3. Prior to that, he would have used his biological fathers surname, Gunderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Having just read ``It's not about the bike," I would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.192.41 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tour de Lance" nickname of whom or what?

At the moment "Tour de Lance" is given as a nickname for Lance Armstrong, but I see no mention of this in the main sources of this phrase such the Time Magazine Article. From the meaning of the French, it would seem to apply to the race itself, due to the dominance that Lance Armstrong had during the time he competed. Drawing attention to this fact might be a time to mention that this same dominance lead to a certain amount of illfeeling from among some spectators, as mentioned in the same article. --Timtak (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When did Armstrong turn professional?

A recent edit suggests that Armstrong turned pro in 1991. Can anyone find literature to substantiate this claim? According to the discovery team web site, he has been a pro since 1992, not 1991. [[7]]. Based on this, I am going to roll back to edit to read that he turned pro in 1992. (Dixianity 09:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Went to Clark High School?

It states he went to Clark High School. I am almost certain this is incorrect. He attended and then left Plano East Senior High School. There is no Clark High School in Plano. By the way, he graduated from Bending Oaks Private Academy. This information was in here back c.Nov 2006 but was removed for unknown reasons. (this page has both many vandals and many edits). --ProdigySportsman 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I don't know what high school he went to, but should his high school really be in the introduction? Is it all that important? Butterboy 06:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I've lived in Plano and the surrounding areas since 1981, and know for a fact that there is an R.C. Clarke High School on W. Spring Creek Parkway, Plano, TX 75023. I pass by it on a regular basis. And I agree with Butterboy, so what if he did? Plano schools suck and Lance does not fit the mold as required by Plano society to be "sucessful". His mother did the right thing and let him compete and finish school elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanoLifeinaBubble (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Family history

The article is poorly written at the start of the family history section. Who was divorced and married several times, him or his mother? The mistaken use of his mother's name rather than his needs to be correctedBritt 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I edited out, "then he had the biggest dick in the world and it blew up into little worms and then he gave sheryl crow gonaria and she gave it to pamela anderson in a threesome that lance,sherly and pam had. and they all died. and pams titie exploded." from the cancer section. THank you. AMFilmsInc 13:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Doping

Not sure this line needs to be included or if it does should it be in the intro? Doping allegations dogged Armstrong throughout his career, but he has consistently denied ever taking performance enhancing substances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely no evidence to back up this allegation, not encyclopedic and possibly libellous. Allegations should never be included in a Biography if they were then John Seigenthaler Sr may be the Kennedy assassin. Rumour has no place in Wikipedia. (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

The statement is demonstrably true: many European newspapers and some North American ones have made these allegations for years. The allegations may be stupid, but they exist and have played an important part of Armstrong's bio. Cmprince 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think rumours and allegations belong in the first part of a Biography, please provide some backup or even 1 source! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.38.77 (talk) 13:49, May 18, 2007

Footnote 6 explains it. You have a fair point that the references need tidying and standardising, I will work on it when I'm in that kind of mood one day soon! The fact that there were allegations throughout Armstrong's career is very important, no denying that! Severo^TC 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumors do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, but allegations do when they have been addressed by Armstrong himself and has fought them off. There's an entire well-cited section in the article called "Allegations of drug use." This is not the same as saying he's a user, or citing a singular nutcase (like, say, Dick Pound) that makes an allegation; this is reporting a well-established chain of allegations from a number of international sources. Cmprince 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dick Pound doesn't become a nut case just because everyone caught red handed by WADA denies everything, accuses WADA of fabrication and claims Dick Pound has a personal agenda against him. If we'd take this standard for criminal proceedings, the DA offices would be full of nutcases. How do they get those ridiculous ideas that there's criminals out there??? --84.46.9.51 06:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. This is the same anonymous user who added this statement and this statement. Errabee 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

on doping: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_accused_of_EPO_doping isn´t that source good enough that he obviously doped back in 1999. the test was conducted in 2005 with technology previously not available. thanks for consideration. It is kind of sad that the only "see also" is "List of doping cases in cycling"! Eddie Merckx has that and Cycling records. Bernard Hiault just has cycling records. I will add cycling records to reduce the impression that the only thing that Armstrong is associated with is doping. --Timtak (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC) The 5.21.10 edit by Sloane made it look like someone in the media at cyclingnews.com was saying that the UCI admitted taking a $100,000 bribe from lance armstrong. In context in our WP article, that absolutely would have what 99% of readers would have understood (I at first thought it was outright libel or vandalism to this page). But if you actually read the claim in its source though, it says that Armstrong publicly donated $100K to the UCI in 2005 (a pretty serious charge, too, I think). This is what I took out: "UCI president Pat McQuaid admitted they had received $100,000 from Armstrong in 2005. " If it can be properly explained, I will not object to its reinsertion. Jack B108 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New picture?

Ya, I know this is random, but any chance we can get a new picture for him on the front page? The current one is butt ugly... DurotarLord 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find an appropriately licensed one, go for it :). Severo^TC 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a photo of the sportsman somewhere on the page - rather than a post-career one with a politician. And it would also be nice if the people on the photo could be recognized... The commons page on Lance Armstrong has a couple of photos.217.229.96.110 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about these?

http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/lance_armstrong/lancepic/ http://news.com.com/i/ne/p/2005/520lancearmstrong500x406.jpg http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/lance_armstrong/lancepic/ http://www.speed-skating.net/photos/lance_armstrong_01042007.jpg http://www.sites.si.edu/images/exhibits/Sports/images/Lance-Armstrong_jpg.jpg 60.242.169.170 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is really necessary because there are two of the same photos on this page. That's not really a good effort. --Will James (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the section entitled "Cancer", it states that Lance Armstrong "went on to win his first Tour de France title" after his battle with cancer. However, in the section entitled "Tour de France success" it says "Before his illness, Lance Armstrong had won several Tour de France stages". Now, I assume that this means that after his cancer he won the whole thing, but before it he only won parts of it, but I think this needs to be clarified better. If you don't pay attention to it, it seems like a contradiction. Also, we really need many more sources on this. The entire cancer section doesn't list so much as one source. DurotarLord 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. As a cycling fan, I understand this without reading it twice. How would you rephrase it for people that hadn't followed any cycling before? Severo^TC 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one test statement is inaccurate

The article says "Throughout his career only one test showed indications of the presence of doping products . . . ." I don't believe this is accurate. The tests discussed in the Investigation section were positive. The report concludes that the procedures needed to prove a violation of the rules were not used -- it was a research study. The report does not say that the samples were negative or that they weren't Armstrong's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.132.30 (talk) 04:34, May 18, 2007

Precisely. Armstrong's claims that the Vrijman report cleared him are hogwash. All the report does is demonstrate that the procedures used in doping testing were not used. It doesn't indicate the least (and indeed, being a lawyer, Vrijman wouldn't be qualified to assess this) that the results were actually wrong. Quite the contrary, I know doping investigators unassociated with the case who are perfectly convinced the result is genuine. --213.209.110.45 12:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for success

I think the fan-site tag should be removed from this section. The info there has citations, and I recall hearing the information in an interview with Armstrong's trainer. There is no biased information at all that I can see. Cobratom 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no citations in Training methodology and preparation, Coaching, Riding style, Strength of his team and Support of broader team. Physical attributes is hardly overwhelmed by citations either. Indeed, WP:BLP essentially says that we should remove this section, on sight without discussion. Success is a POV title in itself. As regards hearing information in an interview read this. In my opinion, the Reasons for success section is the weakest part of the article. Severo^TC 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's missing citations then that's the tag it should have. Not "fan-site," as the information is unbiased, if uncited. And my "I heard it somewhere" wasn't being offered as a legit source, just offering some creedence. As for "success" being a POV, I don't see how you can say that. Participating in a sport and winning chamionships I think is a definition of success, what else would you call winning that many Tour de France's? Weakest part of the article aside, the article being autobiographical would certainly allow for information on his physical attributes lending to athletic success, no? Cobratom 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You could put a fan site tag there, an original research tag there or a no references tag. Pick and choose really, because the section has a chronic lack of references. The only way the information can be proved to be unbiased is if it is cited: to me it reads like a fan site section (hence biased) and I agree with the editor who has tagged the section. Cite it and it will be fine. SuccessI consider POV as it's too broad, really its Success in the Tour de France, but that's just an ugly bloated title. Severo^TC 11:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

SO what you're saying is that any uncited material is biased? If that was the case both issues would be included in the same tag. If the article stated that "Lance Armstrong has succeeded in cycling because he is awesome and the greatest cycler ever," then I could see it being listed as a fan site. Cobratom 02:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Any uncited material could be deemed as biased, yes. Severo^TC 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Citing" his awesome training procedures etc. as a "reason for success" is likewise fanboyish praise. The section is an unadulterated attempt to discount the doping allegations by providing tons of alleged alternative reasons for the success, thereby it is testimony of scientific illiteracy of the authors. --213.209.110.45 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lance's Reformation

I am not a cycling expert but have been a keen follower since the days of Indurain. Two things I propose adding. Firstly, that prior to his first Tour de France win Armstrong, though a successful cyclist, was not considered a major contender. Secondly, I believe his chemotherapy caused weight loss and notably changed his physique to better suit tour riding. I could be wrong. Does anyone want to correct me? --Chrisjwowen 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this article. A few questions though: a major contender for what? I presume you mean Grand Tours? There's more to cycling than just the Tour de France! I think his build post-cancer was better suited to Tour riding in that Armstrong became one of the best climbers in addition to being a fine time trialist. But was this due to chemo, or did Armstrong do something else? I don't know, but before adding it you should find out and cite it! Once again, thanks for taking the time to look at this article. Regards, Severo^TC 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the Grand Tours including Le Tour. Perhaps betting odds could show he wasn't remotely thought of as a contender as before his treatment. Thanks - Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.178.194 (talk) 22:42, July 30, 2007

A cyclist friend also posited that weight loss was an important factor, and it sounded very compelling. No quicker way to get skinny than chemo perhaps. However, Coyles' lognitudinal study says "Total body weight during laboratory testing ranged from ~76 to 80 kg from 1992 through 1997 as well as during the preseason in 1999 (just after cancer)." Specifically his preseason body weight in 1997 (just prior to cancer) and in 1999 (post cancer and year of first TDF win) was 79.5 Kg and 79.7 Kg respectively. However, when he started winning Tours, his racing body weight reduced presumably due to a harder training regimen, or at least due to other factors than the direct results of cancer and or chemotherapy. In other words, yes he did get thinner, but the weight loss was not due to chemo.--Timtak (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I remmeber reading from his book that due to his cheamo he lost nearly all his musscles which he then had to rebuild and he rebuilt them purposefully for his style of cycling, kind of making him a genitcaly modified biker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.207.78 ([[User talk:{[[User:172.141.207.78}|172.141.207.78}]] ([[User talk:172.141.207.78}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/172.141.207.78}|contribs]] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=172.141.207.78}

WHOIS])|talk]]) 11:58, August 8, 2007

That sounds interesting. I wonder if that is verifiable independently? Severo^TC 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that "he lost nearly all his muscles", let alone "due to his chemo". First, he might have lost muscle mass, which is something distinct, and happens to anyone who has built up a signficant amount of muscle mass and stops training -and when under chemo, training is usually the last thing on your mind. If he had lost actual muscle, there would be no rebuilding it. What happened to him would be equivalent to any long-term patient. Given that, what he did afterwards was a sports-specific training course. But any professional athlete will train in a way specifically suited for his sport. If he DID have an advantage due to his cancer, and I think he did, it is that his testosterone levels are not fluctuating as much as with other athletes. This is a significant advantage, since it eliminates one factor in having a good or a bad day. Of course another athlete has an advantage on a high-testosterone day, but risks overstressing himself, and will lose out on a low-testosterone day. Armstrong should have a much more even performance curve. --213.209.110.45 10:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an asteroid named after him

12373_Lancearmstrong, did not know where to put it. Thanks, Marasama 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry I first read STEROID. :p --152.77.8.1 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Kate Olsen - Lance Armstrong relationship

Should I add it, or wait until their relationship has been confirmed? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.219.173 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Is it not Ashley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.221.94 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine!

Please do refrain from adding irrelevant - let alone unsourced - material concerning Armstrong's personal life. This is rather un-encyclopedic. We do not need to know about every single woman he has dated since the downfall of his marriage. :-( --Fromgermany 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertising?

The line "Armstrong's athletic success and dramatic recovery from cancer inspired him to commemorate his accomplishments, with Nike, through the Lance Armstrong Foundation" Sounds like blatant advertising- in order to be fair, should we also mention Trek, the USPostal team, Discovery channel,etc. or just remove it? He does mention nike were especially good to him in his autobiography though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.83.28 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Gunderson arrested for 7 pounds of marijuana

Lance Armstrong's biological father was arrested in January 2008 in Henderson County, Texas for possesion of 7 pounds of marijuana and 40 grams of hallucinogenic mushrooms. DAum! was it good pot? I wonder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Jerseys

Are all those cute little pictures really needed? Beach drifter (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Source: http://www.cedarcreekpilot.com/local/local_story_031125529.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.209.82 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about where he was born?

I was reading this article in order to find out where Lance Armstrong was born but lo! this piece of information is missing! I subsequently found that Lance was born in Plano, Texas. Someone please add this at the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkb34 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sperm

Concerning the part of the page that says he banked sperm three years before he had chemotherapy, I recall a fairly dramatic passage from his book where he banks sperm immediately before his cancer treatments. Was the book passage wrong? It certainly doesn't read that way, but if it is it's a whopper of artistic license. If the book passage is correct, he never banked sperm before he knew he had cancer, and this wikipdeia entry is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.47.204 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rides like a wilda beast and loves dudes?

can somone fix the fact that it says "rides like a wilda beast and loves dudes" in the "riding style" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmakers (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Live Strong

This article needs to mention something about the Live Strong armbands (maybe under the surviving cancer section.    Juthani1   ^tcs 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Success and cancer

The sections "Success" and "Reasons for success" seems to be redundant and should probably be merged. Also both section have a sub-section about the "benefits" of testicular-cancer for athletes. I have not read the paper but based on the journal name this may be speculative and something that should be considered for removal. Labongo (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed, since data has been withdrawn http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2008/09/09/2008-09-09_scientist_my_research_on_lance_armstrong-1.html

Labongo (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actovegin

Why no mention of the Actovegin contraversy? 76.10.173.75 (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cycling career

This is a very strange article for an encyclopedia. For an article about one of the greatest cyclists ever, (POV I know, but this a discussion page) there seems very little about his actual cycling career. His Tour de France successes are mentioned in the lead, but never referred to again. The article spends far too long discussing the reasons for his successes and claims of drug use, but where are the details of his various victories (and defeats), apart from in the tables at the end of the article. As I say, very strange. --Bikeroo (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, the section "Allegations of drug use" is way too big and out of proportion compared with the whole article, and thereby the article is not balanced. I'm Dutch not an American, but this article seems to me me a litle bit negative and POV towards Armstrong. Demophon (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Vrijman report

The section on the Vrijman report is, sorry to say, fanboy nonsense. Neither does it actually report accurately the results of the Vrijman report, nor do the statements actually make sense in any way. Vrijman has about as much relevance as to the scientific merit of the tests as the plumber next door. What Vrijman did and could assess was whether the regulatory parameters of an official doping test were given. Whether or not that is the case, however, is of no relevance whatsoever to the question whether the test results are credible or not. I stated this already a while ago, but it seems that some people like to cling to every straw....--213.209.110.45 (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to take Armstrong’s side here, because I’m convinced the sonofabitch was doping, but testing according to regulations has everything to do with credibility. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument is a non-issue, since it is self-defeating. There would be no doping tests if there would be no research for doping tests, and anti-doping regulations do not and cannot apply to research. Anti-doping regulations can only cover tests once the credibility of the METHOD has already been established - and to establish said credibility, it is imperative that anti-doping regulations NOT be followed -otherwise the sheer number of experiments required for validity of the method cannot be done. Testing according to regulations thus has nothing to do with credibility at all, but with legal validity, much like an illegally conducted paternity test, while no basis for a lawsuit, will still establish paternity. What one does with the knowledge then is the critical issue. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an incredible bit of twisty-bendy logic right there. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. What IS twisty-bendy logic is to believe that WADA regulations have any relevance for credibility of a test result. That's like saying the doctors at the local hospital are all quacks who are making up results because they certainly don't follow WADA regulations. Doping regulations have no relevance for whether a test result is credible. They exist for legal reasons. While in doing so, heeding doping regulations prevents some form of conspiracy against one or the other party, that doesn't mean that such a conspiracy is credible in a given situation and neither does it mean that there aren't other means to protect against such conspiracy which, for example, are perfectly practical in the context of a scientific study but not in the context of a sports even. The very simple fact is that you're getting the context wrong. The test conducted on Armstrong's sample was in the context of an R&D background. That means that entirely different standards and procedures are relevant than WADA regulations. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall look

can any experienced wikipedia code writer fix it up so that the text under the first sub-section meets up with the top? i think the image of the olympic success etc is in the way. -- Will James (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cut out "Reasons for success" section

I removed the "Reasons for success" section because it is full of uncited assumptions and original research. If it is re-inserted, please use valid sources and cut out the hero worship. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Height?

The infobox has two seperate Imperial heights. Which is right, and why are there two? 168.7.242.114 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific allegations

This section starts with two of the most non-specific entries one could muster, "Armstrong has been criticized for his treatment of Christophe Bassons an outspoken anti-doping cyclist", which is hardly specific or an allegation, and "Armstrong has been criticized for working with controversial trainer Michele Ferrari" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they'd be better off put somewhere else, but Bassons and Ferrari both need to be in the article. Wulfram (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I just feel like we could do better with the allegation section - maybe making it even longer and longer. All wiki entries should have such enormous allegation sections, because they are real and therefore really something to put in an encyclopedia. For example, the Wiki Entry on Iron Man's enemy, Mandarin, is really long. Which is good, because he is significant. But where is his allegation section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.113.156 (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Breaking collarbone

I think the comment about being back on his bike three days after surgery is misleading. This reference relates to reports that he spent half-an-hour on a spin bike three days after surgery but didn't resume full training until a much later date. That was a pubicity stunt and shouldn't be taken as meaning he was back preparing for competitive cycling. This article in the independent says he was out for 5 weeks. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-can-lance-armstrong-ride-high-again-1687699.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriom (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That "put him out for five weeks" claim is absurd. He crashed at the end of March, and was racing in the Giro five weeks later on May 9. The writer of that article, obviously not a cycling specialist, must have meant Armstrong was out of races for five weeks - but that would have been true even if he hadn't crashed and broken his collar bone (he had no races scheduled in between those two races). He might have spent only 1/2 hour on the trainer (not a spin-bike... please) 3 days after the operation, but he quickly built up on that and was on the road within a week. If he hadn't, then there is no way he would have been ready for the Giro. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of bicycle

What kind of bicycle does Lance use? And what kind of accessories? I didn't find it in the article. --BluesD (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comeback goals - Questionable assertion not supported

In the comeback section, the article says Armstrong "will return to pro cycling with the express goal of winning the 2009 Tour de France." But the reference says nothing more than he "hopes to compete in the 2009 Tour de France." The next sentence appears to correctly cite his goals. Either the first sentence should be stricken or a reference provided that supports it. The Alberto Contador article has the sentence and reference repeated, so it needs to be corrected as well. EricE (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead ans changed "winning" to "participating in". --EricE (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pioneered radio use among bicycle racers?

There's nothing in the article about this story [8] which implies he was one of the first to use a two-way head set radio, including during his first Tour win in 1999. I would like to know when he started using this, what frequency the system used, and where is the antenna mounted? Physicsjock (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article says they were introduced by the Motorola cycling team, which wouldn't surprise me as it may have involved Motorola radios. The bit about successfully using them in the 1999 Tour... well, they'd already been around for several years by then. This article, from 1999 but before the TdF, talks about their use up to this point. Severo^TC 12:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that article is from 2002, and it gives an example of Ullrich not using a radio in the 1997 TdF. But I agree; while Armstrong may have been among the first riders to use a race radio with the Motorola team and perhaps the first TdF winner to do so, it's not really his story but rather Motorola's story (or perhaps Jim Ochowicz's story). Really, one of us should add it there, but I don't have the time now to do more than add a small blurb. - AyaK (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

Same as happened with Mark Cavendish. The sheer quantity of Armstrong's palmarès isn't going to be as big as Cav's when their careers are both ended (matter of fact, it might not be as big by quantity right now), but it's big all the same. It was also suggested during discussion of the split with the Cavendish article that this be done with Armstrong, Mario Cipollini, Eddy Merckx, and others. Now, Career victories of Lance Armstrong might not be the best title, because unlike the Cavendish palmarès, the events listed on this article aren't actually all victories (and fairly so, because podiums and such are often notable). It probably needs a little pruning (I don't think anything but the Tour should be in there for 2009), or a title like Lance Armstrong palmarès. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Actually not all of Cav's are victories, either. Didn't notice that at first. That one might need a different title, too. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting off. Can't we do something like Career accomplishments of Lance Armstrong, and the same with Cavendish? This way, since everything listed is not wins, we'll cover any notable accomplishments. --Cdman882 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I support splitting off, and suggest Career achievements of Lance Armstrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Cavendish or Armstrong, I think we should make career wins of cyclists more uniform and comparable across ALL listed cyclist. Just take a look at Eddie Merckx's career and you will see that this discussion is more about a site wide uniform cyclist layout than Armstrong's career. After all Merckx had a LOT MORE professional race participations (and wins) than Armstrong. How about adding for example Win rate? 193.212.51.164 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Standardising the way to present palmarès has already been raised at WT:CYC although not yet with any definitive answer. The problem with win rate is that for all cyclists except for Merckx, it's pretty meaningless. Severo^TC 08:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Split to Career accomplishments of Lance Armstrong (and moved the Cavendish article to that name). I think I'm gonna say there's a general consensus in support of this for cyclists whose palmarès are of any substantial length. Perhaps a category is in order then? What would it be called? Category:List of career accomplishments by cyclist ? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 1.2 Cancer, needs improvement

I think this section is filled with too much medical detail for an encyclopedia entry. There should be more of a general overview of his dramatic illness and treatment. It would be easy enuf to write this, as the whole story is given in L.A.`s autobio "It`s Not About the Bike".Jack B108 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree it is too medical. Maybe whoever put it in didn't know where to edit. Sometimes that is hard to do with medical info because the editor doesn't want to leave out anything important.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This section and this article are really hurt by the two paragraphs added by 24.36.182.76 in an apparent series on 8-29-2009. The writing is of poor quality, the statements give the appearance of bias, and there are no (zero) references added. Therefore, this added material will be removed by me. Humans injected with parvovirus by Chris C., wow! [LOL]. Anti-doping tests should have been looking for testicular cancer? Lots of implication and unsourced allegations: this is not for the Wikipedia, sir/madam.Jack B108 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Source or delete.

"There is a correlation between Armstrong's cancer and human parvovirus. This same virus was contracted through improperly administered injections by a junior teammate of Armstrong's name Greg Strock. These injections happened at in the USCF training camps as part of an illegal performance-enhancing doping program administered by Chris Carmichael, Armstrong's long time coach. Carmichael later settled with Strock and was later removed from his lawsuit against the USCF. There's an implication that Armstrong may have acquired this cancer-causing virus through doping at that camp. Armstrong's cancer should have been picked up by his competition doping tests in 1996, but for months his cancer went undetected for some reason. Lance continued to sail through drug tests without having the cancer detected even though his tumor was excreting a hormone that is specifically looked for. Other athletes disease prognosis has been significantly improved because of the early detection offered by in-competition testing. Lance's failure to be caught for the tumor hasn't been adequately explained." The above requires a source or should be deleted as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.79.46 (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Specific allegations

"The blood test for testicular cancer checks for elevated levels of three biological markers (alpha-feroprotein, lactate dehydrogenase and the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin). With an excretory testicular cancer tumor, the levels of these chemicals will be higher than normal. At the time of Armstrong's testicular cancer, his levels were enormously high. How were these levels not detected by Armstrong's doping tests? Since synthetic forms of the beta-hCG are banned and usage of these is connected with anabolic steroids, these high levels should have been caught in the drug tests. It's possible that Armstrong was taking a screening substance to hide steroid abuse in 1996. It's also possible that it was picked up by the lab and not reported, or that the report was suppressed by the UCI. A junior team-mate of Armstrong named Greg Strock launched a lawsuit against the USCF alleging that Chris Carmicheal, Armstrong's coach, injected him with corticoids during the time when he and Armstrong were being coached together. Strock was infected with a parvovirus through the course of these injections. This same parvovirus has an 85% correlation with the type of testicular cancer that Lance had. Carmichael settled the case with Strock out of court and paid an undisclosed compensation to him, but the details are not known. A surprise introduction of a test for corticoids was announced one day before the 1999 tour, and Lance tested positive for corticoids on just the second day that the test was ever administered. Two weeks later, the failed test was explained as a medical exemption and no sanctions were ever taken. Ominously, on Armstrong's doping form which was filed on the day that the urine sample was taken, there were no medical exemptions listed. The prescription was issued retroactively. One of the biggest indicators of physical endurance and athletic potential is an athlete's VO2-max score. In the SCA court case, Dr. Ed Coyle entered testimony that showed results of a long-term study on Armstrong. The highest value ever entered for Armstrong until 1993 is 81.2 L/min. His scores in 1999 were just 71.5. These are high scores, but far from what would be required for dominant multiple Tour wins or the types of athletic performances that Armstrong produced. For example Tour winners like Indurain score 94 and Lemond 95. Armstrong unaccoutably rode at a faster average than these much more naturally gifted athletes. This kind of unexplainable increase in ability is widely considered a surefire fingerprint for doping. This kind of unexplained improvement is the entire basis for the call for use of a "biological passport" which would analyse an athlete's unchangeable athletic potential characteristics rather than look for specific chemicals. One of the known artificial ways to increase a VO2 max score is through raising hematocrit levels with a substance like EPO. An EPO program is estimated to increase an athlete's performance by 20-30%." What are these point related to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.79.46 (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The person that`s been going great-guns since 8.29.09 with the 4 paragraphs of anonymous (who is the Wiki editor?) allegations and implications above has landed on the wrong website: this is an encyclopedia, not "The Star" or some other tabloid. Material must be verifiable, sourced, and concise. Especially for living person Bios. The last paragraph about VO2 max makes no sense: as written, we see L.A,`s readings drop from 81 in 1993 to 72 in 1999. So is the anon Wiki editor saying that L.A. used EPO in 1993 but by 1999 had given it up? Yet 1999 was the year he first won the TDF! Makes no logical sense.Jack B108 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Looking for "sourcing"? Surely, you guys jest. A simple web search of "Greg Stork" and "Chris Carmichael" yielded 841 results, including this, an ACTIVE ONGOING FEDERAL LAWSUIT in the United States of America, where the US media, the same organization that imposed a 100% blackout on this news. http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/six-years-later-strock-case-comes-to-court_9763 In fact, Chris Carmichael's own WIKIPEDIA page states as follows: <<Controversy Some cyclists he had trained later sued the USAC for doping them and named him and fellow coach Rene Wenzel in their allegations, Greg Strock in 2000, and Erich Kaiter in 2004. Both reportedly made out-of-court settlements with him but the case against the USAC continues as of April 2006.[2] [3]>> Talk about burying your head in the sand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.208.195 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article states 4 beats per minute heart rate

This is an impossible statement. Other sources state 32-34. Also it says "That's right, 4 beats per minute, nameen!" which is clearly vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboom84 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Professional Teams

US Postal became Team Discovery Channel in 2005. 1999-2005 is listed only as US Postal. The team was largely the same entity, riders, management and such, but the title sponsor did change over that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.127.123 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the same team, and as the infobox states, only the name of the team in the first year he rode for the team is mentioned in the infobox. This issue has been discussed a lot at WikiProject Cycling in trying to find the balance between stating the exact name of the team every year and indicating when someone has changed team. Severo^TC 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it back to Discovery. He did not ride for US Postal in 2005, so to state as much is incorrect and misleading, irrespective of what the footnote says. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, who may not understand the specifics of cycling team names. There might be consensus for this among some regular editors at the cycling project, but broader Wikipedia consensus is for accurate information to be included - project conventions do not supersede policy. --hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Either presentation is accurate. Either presentation is inaccurate. Armstrong rode for the same team in 2004 that he did in 2005. The infobox currently suggests that he changed teams, which is verifiably false. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On a different note: section number 6 is called "Teams and Victories", and simply refers to a separate Wiki article. This is completely misleading! (Not to mention annoying.) It does NOT on that page list his teams, or team results. (Though there are oddly two of his junior teams listed.) I suggest a re-word of the section 6 title, if not removal with the link going in the "See also" section. It must drive other folks nuts too when you go to a section or link for something the title claims to include, and you get an effective dead end. --gobears87 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Armstrong on Cycling Hall of Fame

I posted it, but it was deletad. The cycling hall of fame listed Armstrong as the 3rd greatest cyclist of all time, behind Merckx and Hinault. This fact should be mentioned here: http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/alltime25.asp So please tell me who deleted it and why? There is no reason to hide this fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.248.137 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cycling Hall of Fame.com appears to be a self published website/fansite, not an official hall of fame sanctioned or recognised by any cycling authority. Therefore I don't think his inclusion on this list is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in this article. Barret (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the section "about us"? http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/comp_info.asp I don t know if it s recognised by any cycling authority, but it s definately not just a self published fansite. 12:13, 05 March 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.227.220 (talk)

Using the "About Us" page, it still looks like a self-published fansite. Severo^TC 08:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Filippo Simeoni & Christophe Bassons

Why isn't there anything about his treatment of Simeoni and Bassons in this article? It clearly shows his enforcing of the omerta. Simeoni - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/jul/24/tourdefrance2004.tourdefrance1 Bassons - http://www.humanite.fr/1999-07-17_Sports_Le-coup-de-blues-de-Christophe-Bassons Even their Wikis have info on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcky-boy (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2006

RFC on team name presentation

Cycling teams frequently change names, as title sponsors change. Armstrong rode for the same team (same organization, same management, largely the same ridership, the only thing that really changed was the sponsor name) from 1998 to 2005. In the infobox for this article, one editor wishes to display that Armstrong rode "1998–2004" for the first name of this team and then "2005" for the second name; the other point of view advocates displaying "1998–2005" for the first name. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I don't think there is any gray area at all here: Discovery needs to be listed here (ASAP) as the 2005 title sponsor of this team. They were paying the bills in 2005 (millions), yet they don't get any credit?! Legally and financially--Discovery Channel, not the US Postal Service--was the 2005 team sponsor and we need to get their name on this entry now. I am sorry I didn't notice this omission earlier. Pro cycling teams are named by sponsor, not by roster. Jack B108 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So take this to its logical extreme - do six different team names for the last four years need to be present on Mark Cavendish's article (if this is the precedent which is to be set)? That gives a grossly inaccurate picture of Cavendish's contractual history. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a spurious comparison - this article isn't about Cavendish or anyone else, and to use another article as the basis of your argument shows its weakness. The desire to have a consistent format across cycling articles, though understandable, doesn't supersede the need for clarity and accuracy in individual articles. Wikipedia is not consistent, and is not dependent on precedents set in other articles - the consensus at the cycling project does not trump policies. Cavendish and Armstrong are very different figures - Armstrong is world famous, and Cavendish entirely unknown to virtually everyone but dedicated cycling fans. It seems obvious to me that the current format isn't suitable for Cavendish's article either - the infobox needs to reflect that he rode for Team X one year and Team Y the next, and to clarify that this was a name change only. --hippo43 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent? So we don't have a Manual of Style that aims to standardize style guidelines in all articles? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jack - which team did Armstrong ride for in 2005? Discovery. It's not in any doubt. The convention that has been adopted for cycling does not replace the need for factually accurate information, in line with various Wikipedia policies. This article is something of a unique case, as LA is known so much more widely by non-cycling fans, probably more than any other rider. The idea that readers will want to click through to the US Postal page to find out that the team name changed in 2005 is just ridiculous. --hippo43 (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is just ridiculous that you think "1998-2005 US Postal," with the footnote in the infobox, is not factually accurate information. It is. Armstrong did not change teams between those years. He did not ride from 1998 to 2004 for one team and then change teams to ride for someone completely different in 2005. Who did Armstrong ride for in 2005? The same team he rode for in 2004. The same team he rode for in 1998, which was known as US Postal at the time. If cycling teams never changed names, we wouldn't need this discussion, but they do, and to give the impression that one team under two names are two distinct entities is wrong. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, technically, that it is factual information. However, it is badly laid out, completely misleading and unclear to readers unfamiliar with pro cycling teams and sponsorship. No one is saying he "rode from 1998 to 2004 for one team and then changed teams to ride for someone completely different in 2005". What we are saying is that he rode for US Postal from 1999 to 2004 and then for Discovery in 2005. That is unarguable. There is no debate at all about the name of his team in 2005 - it was Discovery Channel. To say he rode for US Postal in 2005 is incorrect. To say, via a barely visible footnote, that he rode for "the team which was known as US Postal in 1999" in 2005 is technically correct, but it is unhelpful gibberish. It is more about some editors' fixation on neatness and supposed consistency, and preserving an unworkable and misleading infobox format than it is with providing clear, helpful inforation to readers.

Unless you want to try to make the argument that readers won't (correctly) assume that Armstrong rode for someone different in 1997 than he did in 1996, I don't see how it's possible that no one will think "he rode from 1998 to 2004 for one team and then changed teams to ride for someone completely different in 2005." This is not Team Columbia-HTC becoming Team HTC-Columbia, an uninitiated reader will absolutely conclude that "US Postal" and "Discovery Channel" are two discreet entities, when they are not. Have a look at the articles of Darin Erstad and Garret Anderson, longtime members of a baseball team that has changed names repeatedly in recent years. Would such a setup be pleasing to any/all here? I wouldn't mind it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the cycling infobox needs to be changed to deal with this anomaly, though this isn't the place for that discussion. The infobox needs to reflect the difference between a rider changing teams and a team changing its name. It is particularly misleading if a reader compares Armstrong with, say, Roger Hammond, as it would appear they rode for different teams in 2005. --hippo43 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Teams and team names (sponsors) need to be distinguished, which is difficult, since the name with which we identify teams is the team name. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Professional team(s)1
1992–1996 1997 1998–2005 2009 2010–	Motorola Cofidis U.S. Postal Service → Discovery Channel (in 2005) Astana Team RadioShack

I am quite torn in this question, one part of me wants to show both team names, while another wants to keep it as one entry in the infobox:

1. If only one team name should be showed, I would actually prefer it to be the last one. This is because the last name is what sits freshest in our memory, and would also be the current name of the team for active riders.
2. If all team names should be showed, I have proposed a suggestion (as seen on the right), which will make a gap in the years column when there's only a name change. While it after the changed team name, are shown which years it applies. That way one can show that he rides for the same entity, and that the entity only have changed its name.

The suggestion is open for enhancement or only comments, but I think it is the right way to go! =) lil2mas (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Professional team(s)1
1992–1996 Motorola Body text line 1 Body text line 2 1997 Cofidis Body text line 1 Body text line 2 1998–2005 U.S. Postal Service 1998 U.S. Postal Service 1999 U.S. Postal Service 2000 U.S. Postal Service 2001 U.S. Postal Service 2002 U.S. Postal Service 2003 U.S. Postal Service 2004 U.S. Postal Service 2005 Discovery Channel 2009 Astana {{{2}}} 2010– Team RadioShack {{{2}}}

I basically agree with Nosleep. What is more important and what information are we trying to convey in the infobox: the team a rider rode for or it's sponsors? Surely the team s/he rode for. The team information in the infobox is factually verifiable and doesn't overemphasise the sponsors at the expense of the team, but as mentioned I can see potential misunderstandings. How about some kind of hide/show button for the team name in each year, so that in the collapse form only the headline team name is shown, but then this can be expanded to show the team name in each year? I have put together a (very) draft version which should give an idea of what I mean. Severo^TC 09:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think collapsible is the way to go - still too complicated. The infobox needs to show at a glance which team the rider rode for every year. Expecting readers to click to expand for more info is, IMO, still misleading and too much effort.

I really like lil2mas' approach, though I think it needs to be tweaked. It's tidy and doesn't take up more space. However, saying "1999-2005: US Postal" is still incorrect; the infobox needs to show "1999-2004: US Postal" and "2005: Discovery Channel" while still showing that this was only a name change. Not sure what the best way to format this would be, but I'll give it some thought. --hippo43 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What Hippo said. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is good that there is a discussion about this now. There are examples where the situation is worse than with Armstrong: for Erik Dekker, the infobox should say according to the current practice "1992–2006: Buckler", even though Buckler was only the name in 1992, and since 1996 the team was known as Rabobank.

But this should not be a list of problems, but a list of possible solutions. So: what about this?

Lance Armstrong

Professional team(s)1
1992	Motorola
1993	Motorola
1994	Motorola
1995	Motorola
1996	Motorola
1997	Cofidis
1998	U.S. Postal Service
1999	U.S. Postal Service
2000	U.S. Postal Service
2001	U.S. Postal Service
2002	U.S. Postal Service
2003	U.S. Postal Service
2004	U.S. Postal Service
2005	Discovery Channel
2009	Astana
2010	Team RadioShack

In this example, a change in teams is indicated by bold text (and this should be in the footnote of the infobox). By the way, whatever the solution will be, I think we should not link to the teams in the infobox, but we should have the links in the text. I thought there was a guideline/styleguide/whatever on that, but I can not find it now so I am not sure. My examples shows all the years, I am not sure if this is necessary.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Before we had {{ct}}, infoboxes for riders on teams with frequent name changes looked like this old revision of Robbie McEwen's article. I never really had a problem with this, but at the time it was decided to be undesirable. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So...........we have no resolution to this? Super. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two issues - what information to show here, and the layout of pro cycling infoboxes in general. On the first, we have resolution - there is consensus to include Discovery Channel for 2005. On the second, no resolution yet, as this is not the place to make that decision. --hippo43 (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So consensus is to have false information in the infobox. Cool. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"2005: Discovery Channel" is not false, as you know. --hippo43 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1999-2004 some team and 2005 some different team is false. But I'm through fighting. I've begun implementing this idiotic consensus in other articles. Nice to see Cavendish with 7 different teams. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Except it's not false, as numerous editors above have recognised. 1999-2004 he rode for US Postal, 2005 he rode for Discovery. Your assumptions about what readers might read into this are irrelevant. Suggest you take up your concerns at the discussion page for the infobox, to address its design problems. --hippo43 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And your assumptions are Gospel. Yeah, you win, I lose. Congratulations. And nobody reads template talk pages. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is any consensus on how to show this information, certainly not enough to change other articles "as per consensus"... Severo^TC 20:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert me, I don't care. I think my days of editing cyclist bios are probably over. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Johan Bruyneel mention

As a Belgian I am almost definitely biased, but it surprises me how little is mentioned of Johan Bruyneel in this article. Armstrong repeatedly stated it was Bruyneel who originally convinced him to try and win the Tour de France, it was Bruyneel who got US Postal on track, and he has been Armstrong's team manager for over ten years now (US Postal and Discovery Channel; Armstrong then followed Bruyneel to Astana after his comeback and now they started their own team together with Team Radioshack.) In the current article there's barely a mention about him, apart in the section about drug allegations. A small paragraph somewhere could fix that unbalance. I'm sure it's easy to find a few interviews with Lance to confirm their close personal relationship.

You could be right. If you find some good sources which document the importance of their relationship, add them to the article and write it up. --hippo43 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agnostism

I read in book "Lance Armstrong's book: It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life" that he is Atheist,please give references for Agnotism of ArmstrongAmir (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Is there a reason that this page is not semi-protected? If we can put some minor safeguards in against the constant vandalism to this page, I don't understand why we don't. Jack B108 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One day (less really) of semi-protection to this highly vandalized page seems much too timid to me. Why not just protect it for a week? Armstrong is going to be all over the news May 16-23: I hope we guard the integrity of this site at that time, too. Jack B108 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're moaning about. I protected it three days ago after an RfPP request. It's semi-protected until 7 June. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I misread the date. muchos gracias... Jack B108 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraud charges

It seems that federal authorities are considering charging Armstrong with fraud charges, after the allegations of Landis (Doping Investigation May Broaden to Include Other Charges]). Is this sort of material considered acceptable to merit an inclusion in the article at this point? Presumably this should go in the small paragraph regarding Landis' accusations?

Also on that note, does anybody else think the Landis allegations deserve their own page? I note that it is included at the bottom of Landis' page, but given the level of media attention devoted to it and the number of prominent cyclists it alleges were involved, I think it deserves a separate page. What does everybody else think? 202.36.179.66 (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked that very question at WT:CYC, and didn't get much of answer. Whip something up if you feel it merits a standalone article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, No. A whole page based on the word of a proven pathological liar? I've got a whole book by Floyd already, and much of it is lies, according to him. How do you know when he is lying and when he's not? Jack B108 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Doping section given undue weight

The doping section is not written in an encyclopedic manner, is excessively long, and is given undue weight, particularly given that A) Lance Armstrong has never been sanctioned, legally or otherwise, for drug use and B) it is not that notable by comparison to the rest of his career. It should be reformatted into paragraphs and shortened so that it is more reasonable in length and weight. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the doping section has an undue weight problem. Armstrong has the most individual victories in Tour de France history, and yet the drug allegations section has almost three times as many words as the Tour de France success section. (I pasted those sections into a word processing program and used the word count function.) I think the accusations are notable because they've received media coverage, but their weight they are due is limited by the fact that Armstrong hasn't been even indicted, let alone found guilty, of any doping. Certainly, it should received more in-depth coverage than his unprecedented Tour de France performance. --JamesAM (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Detailed coverage is necessary because the matter is controversial and disputed. Much of the current length of the section is down to rebuttals and denials of the allegations, which are difficult to remove without creating NPOV problems. We could always work on expanding on his TdF victories Wulfram (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JamesAM and Titanium Dragon - way too much weight is given to doping speculation. Expanding TdF coverage is not an easy answer, so we really need to look at trimming the doping section. --hippo43 (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a separate article? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just visited this article and noticed how long the section is -- I believe it should be trimmed. It's excessively long. Zodiiak (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the article should be epanded YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the rest of the article should be expanded. What is there is well documented and gives a complete picture. Just because the rest of the article is lacking doesnt mean you should remove something that is complete. Thaf (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MOST of the words are "rebuttals" by Armstrong and his minions. Look at the Marion Jones and Barry Bonds, even Alex Rodriguez pages. It is almost eerie that EVERY charge against Armstrong, no matter how trivial or supported by evidence, has to be immediately followed by Armstrong's "side of the story". Imagine if the Hamas or Hezbollah page were written like that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.208.195 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire "Allegations" section needs to be redone. It could basically be brought down to one paragraph that states something like "Allegations of drug use have dogged Armstrong through much of his career. Armstrong has always proclaimed his innocense, and despite accusations has never failed a drug test." That would pretty much settle it. The section is completely ridiculous by any Wiki standard, it is drawn out and sounds like a Sun or National Enquirer article more than an encyclopedic entry. I mean seriously, specific arguments on a hillside? Really? It seriously looks like there are certain people who can't get their heads around Armstrong having never failed a drug test, and therefore they need to blackball the article by putting up every accusation that has ever come up in the press. This article shouldn't have that. It is really spiteful and immature. RTShadow (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with almost everything you say here, RTShadow. This material needs to stay, and as the crazy editorial fights in WP go, this is actually one of the more settled issues, perhaps demonstrating a slight level of maturity and collegiality among editors. But a one sentence summary of these persistent allegations against Armstrong should be added, at the beginning of the section.Jack B108 (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about whether or not editors are civil to one another, I am talking about the section being a collection of tabloid 'he said this, she said that, but later he denied saying it and she said something else'. Much of the 'referenced material' is odd (questionably sourced opinion pieces), some is third and even fourth party 'I heard him say this' rumors that would not stand up to any sort of standard of truth. Wikipedia is supposed to state facts, it is not for anyone here to make the determination of whether or not Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs, yet the whole section plays out like a courtroom, when in the end, Armstrong has never been found guilty of, nor punished, for any of the accusations that have been brought against him. Furthermore, every single accusation has all been discredited or defeated in some way. To address what was said above here: the idea that "the problem with the section is the rebuttals" is absurd, if there is information that refutes specific accusations, it is going to be included. I guess my problem with a lot of this section is this: If the evidence refuting the accusation is stronger than the accusation itself, and has been settled as such by specific governing bodies of athletics and cycling, why is it still included as 'fact'?RTShadow (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the section is far lighter than it could be regarding various allegations. And RTSShadow, it is a matter of debate over wether lance has ever failed a drug test. Many argue he has, hence why those allegations need to be covered in such depth including all relevant sources etc. Interesting that situations like "lance had 24 tests between fall of 2008 and march 2009" are in fact unverified with no sources outside of lance. Pretty much like the "most tested athlete in the world" claim. The only person to ever say that is Lance or Johann and is wildly innacurate as a statement.90.195.108.38 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)