No information on doping allegations
I think this article is too much of a lovefest. Certainly some mention of doping allegations as well as refutations should be included here.
- ONLY if we include similar allegations for all the other tall-poppy sportsmen and women who have had druggie allegations made against them by hate filled people.
- I think that "hate filled people" is a blind allegation, and that adjectives like "vociferous" are also out of place. Le Monde is a serious newspaper of generally moderate stances. I think there has been considerable media distraction so as to turn this into a France vs US jealousy quarrel, or a Le Monde vs Armstrong feud, but Wikipedia should refrain from that. David.Monniaux 07:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No. The drugs allegations are more serious and persistent than a few "hate filled people"; especially w.r.t. his association with Michele Ferrari. They're largely hearsay, but they need mentioning, as must the lack of any substantive evidence against him.
- So where do we draw a line? If someone happens to associate with someone else, he/she isn't automatically guilty of any offending by the associate. Anyway, Armstrong has never tested positive for an illegal drug. Someone said the article was too much of a lovefest, so someone amended it by adding a drug paragraph. The last line in the paragraph under discussion says ........ many still hold doubts about the legitimacy of Armstrong's achievement. Sheesh. Where's the balance in that? Many have NOdoubts, so I've said so." Moriori
- (Did you notice how Armstrong was spat at during the time trial yesterday?), I saw an interview between Armstrong and one of the US interviewers (Larry King? Letterman?) where he was asked if he had ever taken drugs. He replied that of course he had, especially when he was fighting cancer, but in case anyone hadn't noticed he wasn't actually racing a bike at the time. He was also asked if he had used drugs at any other time, and answered by saying he didn't need drugs to ride well, but couldn't answer that question for some of his competitiors .Moriori 21:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect information on performance-enhancement denials
The quote in the article with regard to Lance's answer to the doping question is incorrect. I am afraid to change it without consulting the community (as many are quite emotional on the subject), but it is wholly incorrect. In point of fact, Lance has never unequivocally denied using performance enhancing substances. Now, he has to be guarded because when he had cancer, he had to take EPO to stay alive, and he currently requires testosterone injections due to the fallout from his ordeal with cancer. But in every press conference he has had, he is continually asked the same question: "can you categorically deny using performance enhancing substances in your lifetime" and he always responds with a very interesting answer: "I can absolutely confirm that we don’t use doping products. Now, that is not a denial. First of all that answer is only in the present tense and does not speak to the past. Also, keeping in mind that some types of growth hormone (which can permanently effect an athelete's strength development) also tend to cause testicular cancer, one has to wonder if as a young aspiring racer, Lance danced with the devil and got burned. Certainly, since he has had cancer, he has become the most drug tested athelete in sports, and has never used anything, or he would be caught. But he has never, EVER denied using "performance enhancing" substances before he got cancer. Not once. He has denied doping, i.e. EPO etc., but never development-altering drugs. Human Growth Hormone is not a doping agent. Take a look at http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jul04/jul26news2, former USPS team doctor claiming he was fired for not providing doping agents the year before Lance joined. I am not saying Lance took drugs. I am saying that he has NEVER categorically denied taking them, and the Wikipedia entry to this effect is factually incorrect. He has repeatedly made a limited denial. At some point, some Wikipedian needs to put the truth in here... and bear the brunt of Hell which hath no Fury like Lance Fans. Good luck! Gambrill 20:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
1st Response: Those claims by the former USPS doctor have been vehemently rebutted by Tyler Hamilton, one of the people the doctor has accused. See http://www.velonews.com/tour2004/diaries/articles/6685.0.html or http://www.tylerhamilton.com/
As for the insinuation about human growth hormone, where is any evidence for that?
And NO product "permanently" increases anyone's strength, despite your unfounded allegation above. Additionally, it is unclear how taking growth hormone would help an endurance athlete. Not to mention your insinuations about 1996 or prior admittedly have nothing to do with Lance's success since 1999.
Finally, I recall reading circa 2000 that cyclists have something like 3 times the normal incidence of testicular tumors -- most of which are benign. Apparently having a bike seat jammed into your crotch for thousands of miles of rubbing causes problems. No need to trot out the unfounded GH boogeyman.
Sacrifices
I received a newsletter this morning with the following quote by Dan Miller -- 'I love having goals and see what it can do to transform results in people's lives. But a goal obsession can blur our view of a larger mission. As Lance Armstrong held his trophy high over his head Sunday, he said, "This is more important than anything." That appears obvious. His former wife Kristin still lives in Texas and did not respond to interview requests from The Associated Press. Probably busy taking care of Lance's three children, Luke, aged 3 and the twins, Isabelle Rose and Grace Elisabeth, not yet 1. My own son is a professional bicycle racer - we know what winning requires. But if Kevin had raised the trophy yesterday in Paris and along the way opted out of being "daddy" to my three grandkids - I'd grab the trophy and melt it down as a paperweight.'
It would be interesting to elaborate on the personal sacrifices Armstrong appears to have made in pursuit of his goal of winning at apparently all costs. H2O 21:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Dan Miller? Who is Dan Miller?Moriori 22:22, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Dan Miller is a Tennessee-based business consultant/career coach who holds seminars, publishes a weekly email newsletter, and two self-published workbook/tape series entitled "48 Days to the Work You Love" and "48 Days to Creative Income". He will be publishing his first mainstream book later this year. I used his materials when I started my business last year and found them very helpful. H2O 18:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
--- 1st Response: Not sure when that newsletter was sent, but Luke was born Oct 1999 and the twins were born Nov 2001 according to http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Armstrong_Lance.html so that would appear to date it in Oct or Nov of 2002, except it says "his former wife", in which case it would be talking about 2004 with Luke now almost 5 and the twins coming up on their 3rd birthday. If that's the case, Lance has said repeatedly that he wants to spend much more time with the kids and is even skipping the Olympics to do just that. And prior to the divorce, both parents were raising the kids together.
There is no indication that he has opted out of being the "daddy" to his children; although he was apart for a few months due to his ex-wife staying in Texas. Previously, she would come along and bring the kids to Spain and France. The divorce changed that for 2004.
Also, "daddy" has certainly provided for his kids by becoming a multi-millionaire. If daddy has to go to work in Europe and mommy won't come along with the kids like she used to, should we blame daddy for that? He can't race the TdF in Texas, but she can sure stay at their various luxurious residences in Europe. And he's even giving up his last shot at the Olympics to be with them.
In House Joke
your in-house trivia is unencyclopedic. When editing you said ......it helps to be familiar with her music before editing out the humor. More precisely, people need to know the joke before they know what it means. Millions of people have never heard of Crow, they have never heard her songs, they wouldn't have a clue what is supposed to be meant by many pundits have noted: If it makes him happy, it can't be that bad which you say is humour. It could not be obvious to everyone exactly what the joke is supposed to be, and anything not obvious to the reader has no place in any article. Moriori 00:39, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Response:
"anything not obvious to the reader has no place in any article" -- the whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide the reader with information that may not be obvious. I have never heard of a definition for an encyclopedia that fits with your implication: "a collection of painfully obvious information".
If you want to be helpful, feel free to add a couple lines of background information to explain the joke. One could say, "many pundits have taken a line from her hit song and quipped..." In my opinion, that makes it somewhat less amusing, but perhaps it would assuage the easily ego-bruised who chafe at finding out they didn't get a joke they should have known. Some people actually *laugh* when they get the punchline.
And horrors, how awful is it to include jokes that are not "obvious to everyone"? I'd love to see your redactions for the entry on Humor.
- How helpful is it to the understanding of the reader, as opposed to the entertainment? Providing information in a clear and helpful manner is an encyclopedia's primary goal, not evoking mirth. I'd say that this joke can only confuse the reader, and should clearly be left out. — Matt 08:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)