What do we do with witches? Make them ride the TdF without a team and unassisted. Maybe the whole TdF edifice needs demolishing. Start again, simpler, more sustainable. Sponsors might flee anyway.

We were too level headed, easy when covered in sand.

Linus, I'm not sure about the spectator attraction of "freaky sports" (genetic or surgical modifications or augmentation as well as drugs?) and your alternative is only really OK if we accept the Darwinian consequences like Tommy Simpson (Mt Ventoux 13 July 1967). While amorality is an option, it is unlikely to be one that attracts the kind of audience that would keep the grand tours viable.

UCI and Le Tour must make some sort of response and so must riders, and also spectators and fans. Or is TdF too big to fail like our banks were? If this has "raised the stakes" then you would think sponsors would be demanding a lot of "procedural clarity" at least, if not moral and legal. Disqualify and ban whole teams, including managers, (and sponsors?) if anyone caught using PEdrugs.

Agreed. There's an army of scientists and clinicians who waste their expertise with drug testing when they could be doing something useful.

Athletes should be able to use any drug that's legally available to the public.

So, Russell, if anyone "should be able to use any drug that's legally available to the public", how is anyone to know when an illegal drug is used? Or, how is one to know when an illegal dosage is used? Or...?

That statement has no meaningful interpretation for any competition, sport of other.

Alex,

Eh, you've missed the point, entirely.

"..how is anyone to know when an illegal drug is used?" Why, the same way that law enforcement 'knows' when any citizen uses illegal drugs, and aren't athletes members of the public. Implicit in your comments is the assumption that there's something special about athletes, there isn't.

More explicitly, modern gladiators can dose themselves up with any legal compound they like, rather like the majority of the public, and earn their living subject to the usual legal parameters. Are you suggesting that entertainers such as athletes should be subject to a discriminatory enforcement regime?

Russell what you miss in logic is that you said "Athletes should be able to use any drug that's legally available to the public".

That can't be verified without testing, both for the drug and for the dose. Meeting your own statement's restriction requires testing.

Alex,

You're still missing the context, you're assuming that there must be a separate testing regime for athletes, which is precisely what I'm arguing against. In other words you're "assuming what is to be proved". The jargon for that is "begging the question".

If the use of vitamin Q is unrestricted and therefore It's freely available to the public and it also enhances athletic performances, so what, there's no reason to test for it. However cyclists should be subject to the usual restrictions in regard to alcohol consumption ie treated like anyone else.

Seamus, as one who spent endless nights watching this bloke claim his victories, I can't tell you how distressing this whole affair is. Kindly don't demean people in my position by being an insulting prick.

John,
I have no control over how people feel when they read my posts and if you feel insulted by it I'd be curious to know why. The intent of the post was to expose the lack of critical faculty in this whole affair. The hagiography towards Armstrong blinded many to the obvious and while these people were often quick to defend with intransigence their absence is certainly noted now.

The evidence is that Armstrong is a conspirator, a bully and a serial liar. People who 'believe' in him are accepting and abbetting that behaviour which has done actual damage to people (simeoni, betty andreu, tyler armstrong emma o'reilly, greg lemond and others). Whilst you might feel insulted their reputations and in some cases lives, are tangibly affected by their dealings with Armstrong.

It's time for those who 'believed ' in him to step up and wash their hands of his abhorrent behaviour. These are the 'fanboys' of which I wrote.

I think the term was described as the witch of the witchhunt, not lance as a witch. You could take witch in 3 ways:

1. Witch as a turn of phrase, the subject of an unfair trial (this is the sense used by the author)

2. witch as a sorcerer/sorceress, denoting the historical use of the term

3. witch as a female practitioner of magic

4. witch as a pejorative term for woman (as in old witch, presumably derived from fairy tale imagery)

5. witch as a misogynistic term for the PM (as in ditch the witch)

I think everyone but you took the author to mean sense 1. I believe you took it as sense 4-5. You can take it as you wish but since everyone else took it to mean sense 1 and does not believe that use of the term witch was designed to advance patriarchical hegemony why are you attempting to force your point of view which appears strident, misapplied and non-sensical?

I'm still baffled as to your logic a sit seems to derive from calling Lance Armstrong the term witch as in sense 4 or sense 5,when it clearly logically derives from a turn of phrase as in sense 1. To extrapolate outrage from this is hilarious.

I can assume you have the answer to your question then?

If you read the title and the whole article to the end, you'll find 'witch' appears as 'he [Lance] is a witch' exactly twice (meaning: magical or unfairly persecuted, so I am told) and a couple of times as the term 'witch hunt' in the sense of unfair persecution. The fact that he seems guilty of misconduct by evidence gives the term 'he is a witch' a different meaning - I suppose noboby expects the Spanish Inquisition.

...and among metaphors, witch has which positive and flattering connotation that applies to Lance? Modern dictionary choices (excluding old-English dictionaries):

witch |wi ch |
noun
1 a woman [or man] thought to have evil magic powers. Witches are popularly depicted as wearing a black cloak and pointed hat, and flying on a broomstick. < metaphor
• a follower or practitioner of modern witchcraft; a Wiccan priest or priestess. < 'actual'
• informal an ugly or unpleasant old woman; a hag. < metaphor
• a girl or woman capable of enchanting or bewitching a man. < metaphor
2 an edible North Atlantic flatfish that is of some commercial value. • Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, family Pleuronectidae. < 'actual'

It has been said that Lance Armstrong was targeted for testing more than any other cyclist. If this is so, it is surely reasonable to suspect that the doping was systemic

A quick check indicates that over three weeks of racing Armstrong’s biggest win seems to be about seven minutes. Assuming that nobody else was doped, this doesn’t appear to be much of an advantage. And where the results were closer, does it suggest the Armstrong was not much of an athlete?

I would assume that all of the teams finishing within a few minutes of the winning team were doped..

Note that Jan Ullrich's victory margin, of 9' 09" was the largest margin of victory since Laurent Fignon won the 1984 Tour de France by 10' 32" and that the biggest winning margin (since 1947): 28 min 27 sec (Fausto Coppi--Stan Ockers in 1952).

Guess they were all doped?

Chris,
you wrote:
'USADA has performed such an intensive investigation of him, but paid scant attention to other riders'
This is because Lance Armstrong was at the centre of the scandal - along with Johan Bruyneel and Michele ferrari. As lance Armstrong was the lead rider and won 7 Tours de france why would it not be logical to focus on the kingpin. Moreover, he was the role model and patron of the TDF. Anyway, does it make the affect the quality of the evidence? USADA also took action against Landis and Hamilton by the way.

'Also, I can't believe they used patches. I use testosterone patches (by prescription, not doping!) and there's warnings all over them saying if you're in competitive sport they will result in positive tests'

That's sort of the point actually, they knew that the patches were illegal in sport, hence their culpability.

'. It's quite easy to detect the differences in C14/C12 ratios as far as I understand'

My knowledge of this is limited but I do know that in europe the tests were conducted by the UCI, not USADA. I've recently read Tyler Hamilton's book and the method employed there was to put on a patch after a race and some hours before testing was known to be conducted - the idea being thatthe exogenous testosterone would be metabolised and excreted before testing was likely. I don't know what the quality of the UCI's testing is now, but I assume it's about to get a whole heap better.

Yeah I understand focusing on Lance as he was the winner, but still, the other guys seem to have got a slap on the wrist - it doesn't do much to increase confidence in the sport. Not to mention Tyler Hamilton has to be pocketing some income from his book, no?

Also, I confused my ratios - it's usually testosterone to epitestosterone (a metabolite) they measure, although I think there is some research into radiocarbon dating.