Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

What should be done with this sub-article?

See Lance Armstrong doping allegations, linked from this article. It seems to have been mostly written when the allegations were just that, allegations, and not proven, meaning it's not somewhat out of date. That said, it is useful to have a record of some of the specific complaints that were made against Armstrong. I guess it needs to be rewritten, and probably renamed too. Robofish (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, i think that sub article should be proposed for deletion (something i suggested many months ago). All the information in the sub article is repeated on the main article page, but was restructured, tidied up and made far more organised. The sub article should go in my opinion. Dimspace (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The current article should go, but perhaps the USADA investigation of Lance Armstrong needs its own article. It seems as notable as the Operación Puerto doping case, especially considering the claims of a conspiracy involving the UCI. Floyd Landis doping case is also a separate article at the moment. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Good suggestion. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could incorporate the allegations and the USADA investigation and its aftermath into an overarching article covering the whole affair? It could be headed with "Lance Armstrong doping controversy" or something similar. Meanwhile, the specific USADA investigation into pro cycling could go in its own article, which I think may be more befitting in light of the fact that Johan Bruyneel and others were also charged alongside Armstrong, and in the case of Bruyneel arbitration is still pending. It would also give us scope to cover the sanctions against other riders and personnel, which thus far hasn't attracted as much attention (understandably). Thoughts? WelshDaveRyan (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It's hardly a "controversy" any more. Things may change, but the USADA investigation has been mostly about Armstrong. Yes others were charged, and sanctioned, and Bruyneel's fate is still to be determined, but without Armstrong the topic probably wouldn't warrant a separate article at all, so it's appropriate to have him named in the title.

Contrary to what I was thinking above a few days ago, now that I've started the doping article, I see a sharp contrast between the story of the allegations prior to the case, and the case itself. But, again, this discussion belongs else where, probably at Talk:Lance Armstrong doping case. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I used "controversy" more in a historical sense, but you're right - perhaps "scandal" or such like is better. On the other point, you are correct inasmuch as Armstrong has garnered most of the attention, but while he has been the most high-profile subject of the investigation USADA themselves regard it as an investigation into the US Postal team as a whole. (The section on their website concerning the evidence is titled "U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team Investigation", for example) As such, I feel it is more reflective of the facts that it should be described in such terms rather than focusing solely on Armstrong - particularly given that any developments in the investigation will no longer concern Armstrong (given he is already sanctioned) and any further action against Armstrong would be outside the scope of the investigation. The last point in particular leads me to believe a separation between the Armstrong-specific scandal and the wider USADA investigation would be appropriate. As you say, though, this best belongs on the talk page for the other article so we can continue it there. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Lance's actions

He also sued, bullied, and ruined the life of many people that said he was doping when he knew what they were saying was true.

This needs to be in the lead section since its what he did do and its worst then the doping since almost ev1 in his sport was doping and there are refs to back it up. What do you all think? Theworm777 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's veryPoV. We report what reliable sources say, not how we feel. Are you sure that's what the source you;ve seen say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thats what the sources says. Lance himself said he bullied and ran over people to Oprah. Its all here in this artical on ESPN[1] about him and what he said he did to Oprah. Theworm777 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He also called London Sunday Times reporter David Walsh as well as Emma O'Reilly, who worked as a masseuse for the USPS team and later provided considerable material for a critical book Walsh wrote about Armstrong and his role in cycling's doping culture.

Armstrong subsequently sued for libel in Britain and won a $500,000 judgment against the newspaper, which is now suing to get the money back. Armstrong was, if anything, even more vicious in the way he went after O'Reilly. He intimated she was let go from the Postal team because she seemed more interested in personal relationships than professional ones.
"What do you want to say about Emma O'Reilly?" Winfrey asked.
"She, she's one of these people that I have to apologize to," he said. "She's one of these people that got run over, got bullied."
"You sued her?" Winfrey asked.

"To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many people I don't even," Armstrong said, then paused, "I'm sure we did."

major POV issues on this one Dimspace (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, he said it and its published by reliable secondary sources...put it in Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This article here specifically states that he referred to himself in the interview as being "narcissistic." ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I see good reasons to include, and no reasons to exclude. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say there should definitely be reference to what he said in the interview, and any verifiable facts surrounding that (background etc). However, I think it's best going in the body of the article rather than the lead and I think the statement about being "even more vicious" re. O'Reilly is best left out unless it's got RS support. It sounds like it's veering into original research and POV. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the article lacking?

Its a good article, dont get me wrong, its been covering quite a saga, perhaps unprecedented in sport. I started to notice a lot of public responses in reliable secondary sources of people, many sportsmen themselves who have spoken strongly against doping and the scale of the denials and the way he used lawyers to silence people and the involvement of livestrong and the lie it was built on. What about a section for that, sort of a public response to the sheer scale of the lie. Look at the Accolades section, so many. He would have got none, not one if they knew. No wonder people are talking Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Also, with regard to the apology: I thought that this was a huge deal, given that he denied doping for 10–15 years. The article has (barely) two short paragraphs on the topic of his admission/apology. Shouldn't this be a much larger section? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
If there are well considered comments, they might be worth adding. We should avoid the predictable cliches produced when a journo sticks a mike under (eg) a tennis player's nose as he comes off court, and asks "So whaddya think of Armstrong?" Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Blade: I think there's definitely grounds for putting the public response to the doping case on record, and it would be to the benefit of readers to do so, but perhaps the new Lance Armstrong doping case article that Born2cycle has created would be more appropriate for it? It just seems to me to fit the context better. Alternatively, we could perhaps split it between the two, with this article dealing with general reactions to his public persona as a whole and the doping case article dealing with specific reactions to the case and in particular the admission. That could potentially get quite problematic though in terms of drawing a line between the two. Provided we've got good RS support for the comments then I'd say it's a worthwhile addition, whichever article it ends up in. (See, I can agree with you as well sometimes!) WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
WelseDave, agree about a split and with the others too that a comments section, classy and relevant, warranted Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead...again

As with a few others on here, I spy a few problems with the lead into the main article. However, it's not so much on the grounds of POV or such like so much as there's a fair bit of repetition going on. In both the first and last paragraphs, we have it stated that he was stripped of his titles, banned for life and that ban was not appealed either by the sporting bodies or Armstrong himself. Surely we only need to say that in one paragraph, be it the first or the last? Repetition for repetition's sake just seems like a waste of data. I'm not sure how to resolve the issue without redrafting most of the lead (which is a major pain), but I feel for the sake of readability it's worth a look at least. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, as they say, 'good writing is rewriting' Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I've had a first stab at a redraft. Admittedly there's still a fair bit of work needed, but for now I've moved most of the substantive stuff about the USADA investigation and his subsequent ban/the aftermath into the last paragraph and added a bit about what he was noted for prior to the ban (putting the fact that he has been banned for doping offences first and foremost, in an attempt to avoid veering into POV territory). Feel free to change it about as needed - likewise, I'll have another look later today and see what I can improve upon. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
yeah go for it, Im so busy even writing this is taking up time lol Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Armstrong caught lying again

Armstrongs game plan is in tatters, so over, but he cant see it yet. lol. "US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) chief Travis Tygart says Lance Armstrong lied in his confessional interview with Oprah Winfrey, and the shamed cyclist has until February 6 to "cooperate fully" if he wants to lessen his life ban. Tygart says Armstrong would lie about his comeback because under the statute of limitations for criminal fraud, he would still be open to prosecution for fraud".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-26/deadline-set-for-armstrong-to-tell-full-truth/4485610 Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Protect the page

In light of his recent confessions I think we should protect this page which may be victim for vandalism. I will be honest even I was tempted to attack the page due to his recent news.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Lead section

Armstrong's status as an athlete who won competitions by doping should appear in the first sentence of this profile. It is what he is now most famous for having done during his career and it is what he will be remembered for long after he is gone and has entered the history books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikespe (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to expand the first sentence. The second sentence already spells out the issues, and does it more accurately and without the POV/NOR/BLP issues surrounding your attempted addition to the first sentence. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
As pointed out above it is currently in the second sentence, which is the same style used in other similar articles. Compare Floyd Landis and Marion Jones. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that Armstrong is an athlete famous for doping to win competitions is not a point of view. Saying that is NOT what he is most known for is a point of view. Barek, do you work for Lance Armstrong or are you a biking enthusiast who once looked up to him -- and now can't get over the fact that he is an athlete known, primarily the world over at this point, for doping? It sounds like you have a POV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikespe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 January 2013‎

If he had cheated without ever being successful (as many others did), he would not be notorious as a cheat. His fame arises from the "successes" that he had: his infamy arises from the way in which he obtained them: his sporting career gives a context without which the doping is irrelevant and would be unknown by the general public. The current phrasing is appropriate: opprobrium and righteous indignation should not dictate encyclopaedic content. Even the article on Adolf Hitler begins Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party; do people really suggest that we should be more judgemental in this article than those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Genghis Khan? Kevin McE (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence currently reads, "Lance Edward Armstrong (né Gunderson; born September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist." In my opinion, that's not a problem. The problem is the first clause of the second sentence; "Armstrong had won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times...". No, he hadn't. The notion that the past perfect here (had) somehow ameliorates the disingenuousness of this statement is risible. It's as if we said, "Columbus had discovered a Western passage to India." He thought he was going to, and for quite some time after he landed in the Americas he continued to believe he had, and others did too, but that doesn't mean there was ever a time when he had. Lance Armstrong never won a single Tour de France because he cheated. He didn't go back in a time machine and then cheat; he had always cheated. When his titles were revoked, they were revoked retroactively. Armstrong officially never won. You can say he was awarded yellow jerseys, etc. (and you don't need the past perfect to do it), but you can't say he won. He did not win--ever. TheScotch (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

He finished with the lowest aggregate time, was awarded all the prizes, and that situation endured for several years: he did win, and was subsequently disqualified. He is not, today, the winner of those events, but that is a different issue. The Columbus analogy is not relevant: there was no authority in the 15th century to award the western passage to India, but there was an authority who could, and did, declare Armstrong as the winner of various races. Kevin McE (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this for a new opening:

Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist best known for having a record seven consecutive Tour de France wins (between 1999 and 2005) rescinded because of his use and distribution of performance-enhancing drugs. He has been banned from professional cycling for life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikespe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that has the same BLP/NOR/BIAS issues as your initial edits. Nothing is hidden in the existing wording, and it maintains a more neutral presentation of the facts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(@ Erikespe) To claim that, you would have to be able to prove, through reliable sources, that the majority of people who have now heard of Lance Armstrong had managed to remain unaware of him throughout his career; that the first that they had heard of his wins was the headline that they had been removed. It is for us to report the grounds for somebody's fame/notoriety, not to try to ascribe proportions to multiple notorieties. Do not confuse what is most discussed in January 2013 with the whole of a biography. There was a short time when Bjarne Riis was the most notorious, most discussed, self-confessed doper who had previously won a Tour: his article remains sensibly proportionate, and the introductory sentence says what his career was, not how he conducted himself in that career. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bjarne Riis entry is so biased it practically reads like a press release for the man. Someone should work to edit/repair that Wikipedia entry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.47.7 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better version:

Lance Edward Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson, September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist whose record seven consecutive Tour de France wins (between 1999 and 2005) were rescinded because of his use and distribution of performance-enhancing drugs. He has been banned from professional cycling for life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.47.7 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This new lead version is infinitely superior to what is on the page now. If there are no objections, it should become the new lead set of sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikespe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just declare that to be the case. You need to present reasons as to why you believe it to be the case, and see if you persuade consensus to change. It is a gross misrepresentation to state that his Tour titles were removed as though they were the results effected. Cycling happens outside July. Kevin McE (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, you are not making sense: " It is a gross misrepresentation to state that his Tour titles were removed as though they were the results effected." His tour titles were removed. He is not considered the winner of any of those races. It's a lot like you take a test in school. You get an A-plus. Afterwards, the teacher discovers that you cheated and gives you an "F". You can't say that the result didn't change. You were caught, and the results did change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.21.30 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you only may attention to the first half of a sentence, you really are not qualified to comment on whether it makes sense. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Apologies: my comment was indeed lacking sense due to a missing word. Make that, It is a gross misrepresentation to state that his Tour titles were removed as though they were the only results effected. Kevin McE (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone edited the lede section again and it sounds a bit better actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.157.59 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a bias has been re-introduced to the lead section. There's a mention of his cancer charity and the first sentence doesn't highlight the fact that he is infamous for "winning" a record number of Tour de France races by doping. It looks like someone who works for him may be editing this Wikipedia page. Makes sense that someone in his employ would be. Hopefully there can be a concensus to remove this Lance Armstrong PR from what is supposed to be an unbiased profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.157.59 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the second sentence covers his drug use and disqualification pretty well.I don't think we're down=playing it. As a non-American looking at a global encyclopaedia, I see the Livestrong Foundation content as more of an issue because of its non-notability. It only exists in the US, so it's irrelevant to at least 95% of the world's population. (Apart from the Armstrong connection, is it really well known in the US?) His drug cheating will maintain his infamy globally "forever". I'd be tempted to take mention of Livestrong out of the first paragraph for that reason. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rescinded awards

These are now listed under their own sub-heading. Therefore, do they really still need the strike-through marks (as they had had, when they were included within the "Accolades" section)? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so. the rescinded bullet was put in purely to address an accessibility issue. its also in line with stripped race wins, medals etc. Dimspace (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. You are saying that we should keep the strike-through marks? Even though the list is in a category (sub-heading) entitled "Rescinded awards"? Is that what your position is? Just clarifying. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The strikethrough should be removed. 130.15.24.88 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Also agreed. --occono (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I meant stay. The accessibility issues have been addressed while retaining visual clarity of the awards being stripped. This is also in line with other removal of awards and wins by strikethrough througout the rest of this article and other articles. Dimspace (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Strikethroughs need removal. Readability and visual clarity remains poor due to their inappropriate use. Large sections should never be striked, they should be used to to highlight key words or components within a sentence or structured table. I disagree with Dimspace that one would find large sections of strikethroughs regularly in other articles, especially as these awards are already sectioned off within its own sub.66.189.183.88 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding strikethrough? I also noticed that the rescinded results of Levi Leipheimer are also struck through fully whilst being sectioned off into hidden space, just like was done for ARmstrong here. Azx2 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
According the the MOS: "In articles, do not use strikethrough to remove objectionable text. Either comment it out with "" or remove it entirely. By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion), so struck-out text is read normally along with any other text. (Editors who participate in Wikipedia policy and deletion debates are advised to turn on the sounding of text attributes when doing so, as struck text is very common in Wikipedia-internal discussions.)" Azx2 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

New article: Lance Armstrong doping case

I've created a new subarticle called Lance Armstrong doping case based almost entirely on cut and pastes from this article. I've also greatly reduced the corresponding sections in this article. It's a start, but both articles need a lot of attention...

I also retained and referenced the existing Lance Armstrong doping allegations article. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good start.

At the risk of asking for a lot of unwieldy edit work, is there a case for merging the allegations and case articles together? We could use the material from the allegations article (or some of it anyway, there's a fair wedge in there...) as background in the case article and so keep it all within one article. The only reason I suggest it is because in light of Armstrong's admission I'd say the whole thing comes under one topic, as a lot of the allegations also came up in the USADA reasoned decision from what I remember. If it's going to be too much hassle to do though then fair enough. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposal for that merge has already been made, there, where this should be discussed. My view at this time is I'd rather see efforts made to improve the case article. I also think that if we were to properly incorporate the allegations into the case article, then we'd have to edit much of it out.

A key point to the story, in my view, is that despite all the allegations, Armstrong escaped scrutiny not only from anti-doping authorities, but also from the press and public. One cannot fully appreciate this without seeing how many allegations there were. In retrospect it's absurd, but there it is. I suggest there is a lesson in the breadth and depth of all those allegations.

Also, the case itself, in both parts (FDA and USADA), hinged almost exclusively on, first, Landis' statements and testimony, and then on those of other witnesses, not on the plethora of earlier allegations (though they came to light again in some of the testimony). So I see a strong distinction between the "early" (career-long) allegations, and the "case" itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - only just spotted the earlier proposal. Skim-reading fail on my part. I see your point and it's a fair one - I'll put my response in the merge proposal section above instead and in the meantime see if I can come up with anything useful for your new article. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with the principle, I think whats resulted is a bit messy.
  • My first point of contention. The USADA and Federal Cases have been lumped together as "armstrong doping case". They were in fact two very different enquiries with very different purposes. The federal case was looking to see if fraud had been commited against a government agency by cheating, but also looking at money laundering, business relationships etc. The Usada case was purely a doping case. The federal case to my mind should have remained part of the main article as did sca etc, but could be slimmed down as there isnt really much to say about the federal case.
  • The usada section I fully agree with splitting. And it gives room to editors with a thorough knowledge of the case to further develop the article, something we were prevented from doing on the main article because of balance/weight arguments by other editors
  • The Oprah confession I strongly feel should be on the main article. The usada case began effectively with the charging of armstrong and ended with the reasoned decision. The confession is post investigation and appeal process, and is a key part of the Armstrong biography. The situation we have at the moment is the main armstrong article covers none of the eventual confession at all.
The purpose of sub pages should be to expand on topics that are of an unreasonable size or weight for the original article. Which USADA investigation is and will continue to be. The confession I think should remain on the Armstrong page, and the Federal investigation is debatable, but its as meritous as the sca case etc and mainly unrelated to the USADA investigation. Dimspace (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I will add that I have a great deal of stuff to add to the USADA section that I havent previously added on wikipedia knowing it would cause balance and weight issues. Dimspace (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically i think federal enquiry should remain in the main article but be condensed, its seperate to the usada enquiry. confession i think should be on the main page as its a key career point, usada page can then be purely a usada page and developed with sources, court docs from the original texas court case etc. Dimspace (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm in agreement, but much of this needs to be discussed at the talk page for the subpage. It will get lost and archived here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have moved my comments over there. Basically I think the USADA related article should be entitled "USADA Cycling INvestigation" which is the official title, and encompass not just Armstrong but the other riders and staff that were charged. Dimspace (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Won" the tour de France

I dont think "won" is an appropriate word since it was done illegally and Armstrong has admitted as such. A more accurate choice would be "declared the winner" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.86.145 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right -- Toml (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Even after the admissions, RSs still say that he won them. However, because of concerns like yours the words have been changed to indicate that he won it at the time but that he is currently not considered the winner.LedRush (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"currently not considered the winner" suggests he might sometime in the future be once again considered the winner. I suggest "no longer" is more accurate than "currently". --B2C 21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
How about simply "cheated his way to winning ...", to the point and entirely accurate. No doubt some people here will call it judgemental but wake up guys, he admitted it. NB. while at it, can it say clearly in the opening sentence of this page, "former cyclist and self-confessed drugs cheat and fraud", as the guy admitted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.30.51 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames

I have followed cycling for years. I have never heard Armstrong referred to as either "Boss" or "Big Tex" ... unless a source can be provided, it should be removed. --65.51.209.126 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources added. Pinkadelica♣ 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

~~ They have all been used, although theres a huge argument over how frequently they have been used and how relevant they are. The Boss was in peloton nickname and was rarely used, Big Tex was rarely used, Mellow JOhnny was the nickname he used for his bike shop etc, but Ive yet to hear Armstrong himself ever be referred to as Mellow Johnny. The most common recent nickname is "cancer jesus". Theres a case for none of them being included as none of them were regularly used in race commentary or articles as they would be with other riders. Dimspace (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Q. Did you take EPO? A. Lance: YES

Still the fanboys live in self denial of their former hero. The words cheat and fraud are accurate, to the point, and importantly self imposed by his own confession. Calling it POV is silly as it is FACT not opinion, if you can't tell the difference then you must either support cheating or just shouldn't be editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.31.170 (talk • contribs) 19:42, April 25, 2013‎

I'm sorry, but who/what is this unsigned comment the progeny of? Azx2 15:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The talk page history is but a tab away. Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Doping

Edit the first paragraph so that the word "doping" links to Doping in sport.

—Thanks, 72.244.200.30 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Paragraph one, line two: change "had won" to "had been named the winner of" to correct grammer as to reflect historical accuracy R. Morrison 71.169.156.254 (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. --NeilN talk to me 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

correction of "allegations"

Numeral 4 should read: History of doping - since Mr Armstrong has confessed himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.179.107 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

USA Vs Armstrong

The US government has fired back at Lance Armstrong in a federal court filing after the doping-disgraced American cyclist had asked for the dismissal of a civil fraud lawsuit against him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-25/us-postal-armstrong-lawsuit-doping-oprah-winfrey/4979254'

With potential triple damages to be recovered under the False Claims Act, Armstrong could be hit for $120 million if he loses the case.'Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

New book

The new book, Wheelmen: Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France and the Greatest Sports Conspiracy Ever by Wall Street Journal reporters Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell will likely be a valuable source for this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jan Ullrich suggesting reinstatement of Armstrong's titles should be there in this article

I think Jan Ullrich suggesting reinstatement of Armstrong's titles should be there in this article, because it has significant importance. Ullrich was, arguably, Armstrong's biggest Tour rival, and was himself involved in a doping a scandal. He later admitted it (which has also been included in the article). If you want to remove it, please talk first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.253.125 (talk • contribs)

It is FAR too prominent as it is. It does not belong in the lede at all, and should be cut down to a single sentence in the body of the article, if mentioned at all. Jan Ullrich's opinion is hardly a neutral point of view since giving the titles back to Armstrong would also lead to a re-evalution of other disgraced cyclists, including Ullrich himself. Thomas.W talk to me 10:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
A clear case of WP:UNDUE here. Agree with Thomas W. that, as a maximum, this could be mentioned in a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE. Jan Ullrich's comment deserves no mention here. It is one opinion of many,--say UCI president, Pat McQuaid; three-time Tour de France winner, Greg Lemond; rock star, Sheryl Crow. (talk)

TP header structure

just a heads up that I cleaned-up the structure of the header here on the talk page to conform to the best example that's the Albert Einstein tp (which is cited in the MOS I believe, as example of how to best structure the various components). I kept the tags like "not a forum" and the like and actually didn't delete anything so much as just reorder/rationalize it. Cheers. joepaT 22:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

600 doping tests

It is well known that Armstrong himself first came up with his number of 500 doping tests, later changed to 600. He had a clear agenda by claiming this, since his defense against doping allegations was based on the number of passed doping tests. Proper analysis shows that the more likely number is 275, less than half than Armstrong's claim (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/how-many-times-was-armstrong-tested_256685). However, I suggest we sidestep the exact number completely by changing 'approximately 600 drug tests' to 'drug tests'. I lost my old account, so I can't change this. AapjeBokito (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Remembered my account, so I made the change. Aapjes (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The actual total is around 240. I actually spent a lot of time going through records and data ( the difference with velonews approximation is they count uci and usada seperate where a lot of the usada samples were on behalf of the uci for the bio passport. [1]. (although as a "blog" thats not admissable as a reference. While its certainly true it wasnt 500, i think rather than removing it should be rewordded to "armstrong claimed to have been tested over 500 times" (he started at 300, then it went up and up) . as for a long time he actually used this as a key part of his defence Dimspace (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted Youtube content

The reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_yMRjlnAw8 is probably copyrighted content (I am no specialist on the issue). If it is, it should be replaced, as Template:Youtube states: "Do not use this template to link to material that violates copyright law. Links to such material must either be replaced with a non-copyvio link or removed immediately." Badzil (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

as a news peice, it almost certainly falls under fair use as far as Youtube goes. and if no copyright claim has been made on YT then its reasonable to link to it based on news reporting/fair use. Dimspace (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add at bottom of Marathon section

In October 2012, Bloomberg quoted NYRR CEO Mary Wittenberg saying that she expected that Armstrong's 2006 and 2007 New York City Marathon results would be removed from their records. “Lance doesn’t have a place in running because we will stick to the rules and support USADA," she said. [2] However, as of April 2014, Armstrong's results still appear in the the NYRR archives for these two marathons. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggio (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Neilaldenarmstrong

Above editor's unexplained and unsourced text additions, and username (identical surname to this article's subject) have led me to revert his/her last edit; possible COI?? Quis separabit? 18:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Five paragraphs are enough

A user wrote two points in two different paragraphs, making it a total of seven paragraphs on the top. [4] Five paragraphs on the top are enough for an article for this length. It won't be right to write those points in that way. Neilaldenarmstrong (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. If you think there are too many paragraphs you can consolidate provided it is appropriate. I found your editing suspect because of your refusal to provide valid edit summaries as well as your insistence on adding the surname "Armstrong" to your username, which happens to coincide with that of the subject of this article. Quis separabit? 23:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That revert was wrong, for which I am sorry. I am not an editing suspect. It just so happened that I chose the name of Neil Alden Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, as my username, and I got interested in editing Lance Armstrong's article too. Neilaldenarmstrong (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 10//2

The majority of available reliable secondary sources merely mention this clothing line and it's connection to Lance Armstrong and Nike. I suggest mentioning it in the article about Armstrong, and redirecting this page. SarahStierch (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Maybe better in the Nike article, but does not seem to be sufficiently notable for its own article. --B2C 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


  • The 10//2 stub has no citations right now. However, some kind of wobbly sources do exist on running these searches -
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

10//2 seems to have had some possible road traction 2005 to 2007. But the product line may have been discontinued a while ago e.g. - [5] - or perhaps not, see - [6] - altho this may be a blog with an auto updated date - has a pic with 10/2 on a top. I'm not sure. If someone thinks it worth their time they could troll these searches and maybe cobble something. Based on what I sniffed, I'll merge/redirect 10//2 to Lance Armstrong in the next few days unless there is a weighty counterproposal. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Merged. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

change 'before' in 'íf not'

The second sentence is wrong. Lance has not won any tour de france because he was disqualified.

Therefore i propose to change the word 'before' into the words 'if not'.

Lance Edward Armstrong (born September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. Armstrong had won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times between 1999 and 2005 IF NOT he was disqualified from all those races and banned from competitive cycling for life, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.171.99 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed change makes no sense grammatically. --NeilN talk to me 12:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Source #82 ("Le coup de blues de Christophe Bassons". Humanite.fr. July 17, 1999. Retrieved 2012-07-23.) does not seem to exist. Did it ever exist? Are any more sources out of date? Please verify the sources. Argenflux (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: Please note that you can initiate a conversation without using {{edit semi-protected}} template. If you are willing to make a change, then make it in "Change X to Y" format. And, the source cited at #82 appears to have been moved to a different url or deleted. For now I've makred it with {{verification failed}} template. If you've access to some source as replacement to present one, then please suggest the same. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

I would like to add information. Lance was barred from participating in the Hincapie Gran Fondo event by USA Cycling. He was planning on doing this event and joining other past teammates. I can provide more info and sources. Thank you. Davmer64 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Davmer64 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the sources and the text you want to add. --NeilN talk to me 00:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Add documentary:

The Lance Armstrong Story - Stop at Nothing] http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048wq0z/storyville-20142015-2-the-lance-armstrong-story-stop-at-nothing


Limpack (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Hi there. The "Documentaries" section is for notable documentaries only. This means they require a Wikipedia article on the documentary itself. Stickee (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox should list retracted Tour de France victories

Armstrong's 7 Tour de France victories from 1999-2005 have been officially retracted, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed in his infobox on Wikipedia. It's misleading to remove them completely. Instead, they should be listed and crossed out. See for example Matt Leinart's 2004 BCS National Championship. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect true history, not official history as designated by the Tour de France. The truth is Armstrong won those races (however unfairly) and they were later (rightly) retracted. The most accurate way to display that history is by listing the victories with a line through them.

GreetingsThree (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some merit in that suggestion. Armstrong was treated as a hero after each of those victories, and that was part of the reality of history. As well as crossing them out we would need an annotation as to why. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong's Tour de France victories should be shown and uncrossed through as it is physically impossible to rewrite history, he is and remains 7 time winner of the Tour de France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongriffin87 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be rewriting history to claim that he never held those titles, which he did until they were retracted. However, it is not rewriting history to state the fact that right now, he isn't the victor of those races anymore (as he has been disqualified). Crossing out the victories seems like a good compromise to state both facts (that he held the titles, but that they were retracted). PS: this is similar to how an university can retract a degree when it is discovered that the student plagiarized material for his thesis. Aapjes (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Not an expert here, but couldn't the introduction be more concise (Armstrong is an important person, but his story can be summarized in less words/paragraphs) and less heavy on simply the doping charges? I realize that is key to his legacy, but there is more to the story, especially in the years of his success and his charity, than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.122.118 (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

Hi All? There is no such cyclist as as an 'all-rounder' they move from one discpline to another bringing their strengths from one to the other. Three week cycling does not in any way describe a 'Cyclocross' rider or, in fact, Vice Versa. Thanks. MarcinSandringham (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

MarcinSandringham, thanks for the edit request! Since I don't have much experience with professional cycling, what do you think the term "All-Rounder" should be changed to? APerson (talk!) 00:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Platinol

The reference to Platinol should be removed from "cisplatin (or Platinol)" in keeping with wikipedia policies, as it is merely a brand name of cisplatin and the link re-directs to the same cisplatin page; thus acting more as advertisement rather than providing additional information about Lance Armstrong. Additionally, none of the other chemotherapeutics have their trade names listed. 109.1.113.221 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

George Carlin

In his final, final standup Carlin called out Amstrong on his drug abuse 4 years before he was caught. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pseLTrcXJFU this has to be worht mentioning? right?DoctorHver (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Carlin wasn't alone in believing Armstrong was doping. As the article notes, Armstrong was accused of using PEDs multiple times between 1999 and 2012. It wasn't like the 2012 verdict came out of nowhere. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph Titles -> Victories

I've changed the openign parahraph from:

Lance Edward Armstrong (born September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. He previously held seven consecutive Tour de France titles from 1999 to 2005, but was stripped of his titles in 2012 after a protracted doping scandal.

To:

Lance Edward Armstrong (born September 18, 1971) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. He previously won the Tour de France seven consecutive times from 1999 to 2005, but was stripped of these victories in 2012 after a protracted doping scandal.

Unlike, for example, a boxing world title a winner of a bike race (except a World Championships) isn't normally considered to have won a title in the sporting sense. I feel it's more accurate to say he won the Tour and then was stripped of those victories. Rehnn83 Talk 10:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Please delete source no. 25 (the Youtube video is not available). 43.252.220.241 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Inomyabcs (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Politics Section

Really all the objective evidence is that Mr. Armstrong is, if anything a Democrat currently yet this section mentions Bush about half a dozen times, and the word Republican without any mention of the word Democrat. it even includes photo of Armstrong with Bush when there are many pictures of Armstrong with Clinton, when Clinton was president as well as Mr. Armstrong at Clinton Foundation events. Federal Election records show the Armstrong Foundation, when Mr. Armstrong had complete control, only gave to Democrat candidates (about a half dozen). Recipients include, Lampson, McDonald Obama, all Democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000044961&cycle=2014 The only political endorsements Mr. Armstrong has ever issued are for Democrats as well. http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/11798/mayor-lee-leffingwell-endorsed-by-willie-nelson-lance-armstrong My point is not to label Armstrong's politics, but to ask that at editor take a look at this section and the objective data and make it more neutral. The political giving of his foundation when controlled by him is objective data that needs inclusion -- it is all to Democrats.Carwon (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lance Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lance Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Necrosis source is dead.

As the title says, the source for the bit on Lance's cancer causing necrosis of brain tissue (in the career section) is no longer accessible through the current link. Needs to be updated or removed. Dangatang (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dead reference

The following comment was left anonymously at the top of the talk page:

Reference 180 is a 404.

I have moved it into a new section to keep things tidy. Reference 180 did indeed prove to be dead and so I have removed it. It is the cite indicating all of his deleted results. Maybe a better one ought to be found. Unfortunately, I can't help. Op47 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016

Change "prior to" to "before" in "Armstrong prior to the 2009 Tour Down Under" because the language is unnecessarily inefficient.

NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Can you please correct the information? Lance did not start the Livestrong Foundation. The Livestrong Foundation already existed, and Lance came and put his name on it ,and that is when they changed the name to the Livestrong Foundation. I ran the half marathon that the Livestrong Foundation puts on in Austin every year, and they clearly sent out an email to all people on their email list explaining that the organization existed before Lance Armstrong was their celebrity representative and that it would continue to exist after Lance Armstrong withdrew his association with them.

Thank you. 2601:600:8E00:18CE:ADA3:4BFD:F2C8:91D2 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 2601:600:8E00:18CE:ADA3:4BFD:F2C8:91D2 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

There appears to be a typo late in the article at the end of the "Whistleblower lawsuit" section, reading "Februari 2017" when it should read "February 2017". Planttheidea (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank-you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Lance Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lance Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Lance Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Change "Note 1" to this:

Other top riders in those seven Tours have been involved in doping scandals. Several riders were banned and some also had their results stripped; some subsequently admitted to doping. Those riders include Jan Ullrich, Andreas Klöden, Joseba Beloki, Raimondas Rumsas, Alex Zülle, Ivan Basso, and Alexander Vinokourov. UCI's Management Committee said that "a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over that period". And so, while noting that their decision "might appear harsh for those who rode clean", UCI decided "with respect to Lance Armstrong" that the 1999 to 2005 races would have no official winner, rather than being allocated to other riders.

Changes:

  1. 1 Added quotation marks for "a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over that period" - NPOV
  2. 2 Changed order - riders were banned, some had their results stripped; some admitted to it. Including... 103.78.181.154 (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Done Eteethan(talk) 01:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

The second phrase of the article starts with 'Armstrong is the 1993 professional world champion, and won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times from 1999 to 2005.' But this is not true as his titles were withdrawn because he was caught using prohibited substances that actually made him win all these titles. While the article admits that it still declares Armstrong the winner of these titles. I suggest removing the phrase or modifying it in the following form: ' Armstrong was the initial 1993 professional world champion, and was the initial winner of the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times from 1999 to 2005' Costudor (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You're referring to the second sentence—not phrase—in the lead paragraph. First, let's look at the second clause of that sentence. It appears to be factual as written because he did win it seven consecutive times; that the wins were later voided may be all-important, but it doesn't mean the wins didn't happen in the first place. (One would need a time machine to make something un-happen.) Since the subsequent banning and voiding are covered in the two sentences that follow, the lead paragraph seems quite clear, with nothing misleading or unclear unless the reader reads only the first two sentences. I'd also note that the phrase "initial winner" seems nonstandard and just strange, at least in that context. As for the first clause, the part about the 1993 championships, I see nothing to indicate that the medal for that was voided or withdrawn, so the wording "initial champion" would be not only strange but inaccurate. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017

Request to add the new Mockumentary Tour de Pharmacy (2017) to Lance Armstrong Filmography MasterMind212 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

Adding this source for the sentences : He visited urologist Jim Reeves Almost none. We told Lance initially 20 to 50% chance, mainly to give him hope. But with the kind of cancer he had, with the x-rays, the blood tests, almost no hope , which are tagged citation needed.

http://www.velonews.com/2011/02/news/inside-cycling-with-john-wilcockson-armstrong%E2%80%99s-25-year-journey-is-over_160347

This is an article written by someone who has been commenting cyclism for over 40 years and written a book on Armstrong. Seems like a reliable source. 2600:E000:6A:AB50:DDD2:C4C1:E21B:241A (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@2600:E000:6A:AB50:DDD2:C4C1:E21B:241A:  Done Also added a book reference. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lance Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

Please change the start of "Note 1" to "Other top riders in the 1999-2005 Tours..."

Currently it is: Other top riders in those seven Tours... 2405:205:140B:F8A3:6C2D:767C:283B:FC48 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Truth in intro

Changed the first paragraph, to make it clear that he is a cheater who never won anything, because he cheated from the beginning. He never actually won any of these races, any more then if he had ridden a motorcycle. The way the paragraph was written made it sound like he won, but was later punished for something, and his fine was to take his real actual wins away. That is not what happened. The wins were voided which means that they never happened. Just like a marriage can be annuled, making it never have happened. So I tried to write a version that makes it clear he was never a winner, but rather was a cheater from the start of his career. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Revert last changes - vandalism. 2003:5F:6B10:9098:DDB8:EB24:6A2A:BFBA (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done  spintendo  10:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong didn't read The 48 Laws of Power

If he had, he would "stopped in achievement", he would not have said many of the bad things he did, he would have gently swayed away his enemies; yes, he would not only have his titles but not be viewed as ruthless, destroying lives and ruining careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.233.122.185 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

In § Team RadioShack: 2010–11, in the clause "He rallied for the brutal Pyreneean stage 16", please correct "Pyreneean" to "Pyrenean". Ishiki-houga (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Biased

Article keeps mentioning how he 'won' Tour de Frances, but he never won any... all the supposed victories were taken away because he only 'won' them because he was using doping. Can someone please correct the language.--2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:5D (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well he did win them, and then he was stripped of his titles. Language here is just fine, and the controversy is covered in excruciating detail, so there's no bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That sort of language bothers me too, but I've never been able to think of a better way to express it. The article does mention his drug cheating in the very first sentence, so any reader will know about that from the start. Do you have a suggestion for how it could be better worded? HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Like it or not, he won those races. You could add "(the first title of many he would later be stripped off as a result of doping)" I suppose, but it's covered sufficiently in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
In other sports, such as athletics (track for Americans), if a runner finishes first and is declared the winner, but is later disqualified for, say, interference as seen in video evidence, he may temporarily be seen as the winner, but Wikipedia would not describe him as such. What makes this different? HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, 'fraid you're wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. It seems to depend on how long after the event the disqualification occurs. HiLo48 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Well legally they were voided, meaning they never were legally his (An action, document, or transaction which is void is of no legal effect whatsoever: an absolute nullity — the law treats it as if it had never existed or happened.). So no, he never won those titles/races. He cheated, he never had any right to them, he only managed to deceive people for a number of years. --2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:5D (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggested alternative wording for the third paragraph:
Returning to cycling in 1998, he was a member of the US Postal/Discovery team between 1998 and 2005. With the help of an advanced doping program he achieved a number of apparent victories in the Tour de France, as well as a bronze medal in the 2000 Summer Olympics, but when his cheating was discovered, these were all voided. Armstrong retired from racing at the end of the 2005 Tour de France, but returned to competitive cycling with the Astana team in January 2009. He continued his program of systematic doping abuse throughout the rest of his career and his third place finish in the 2009 Tour de France later that year was also voided. Between 2010 and 2011, he raced with Team Radio Shack, the UCI ProTeam he helped found. He retired for a second time in 2011.--2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:5D (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
No, the victories weren't apparent, they were actual, and were later rescinded. This is all covered in the article. And I'm not sure what the "law" has to do with this, it was down to UCI and other bodies, none of which (as far as I know) represent "the law" in their various jurisdictions. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
No, they were not, like I said, they were void, meaning they are considered to never have existed. Read the article. That's the legal side, private parties are also ruled by law, not only judges, so I have no idea what your weird jab at the law is supposed to lead to? Anyway I understand that you were a big fan of Armstrong and are still in denial about his cheating, but your sympathies don't determine who won the tour de france in these years, the ASO/UCI/CAS do. Please stick to the facts. (but if you don't want to listen the the legal reality, then what other basis should we determine whether to consider whether Armstrong won these races? Morally you also don't have a case, and looking at the press they overwhelmingly seem to have accepted the decision of the UCI, so what else is there?) --2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:11D (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
As the section of the article about his career is written chronologically, it is perfectly reasonable to say he won the various Tours. Just as it is perfectly apt to relay information about the doping in the lead and with massive coverage further into the article. If a reader simply reads one sentence of an encyclopedic article and walks away with that context-free factoid, unlucky. And for the avoidance of doubt, you don't understand anything at all about me, in fact in stating your personal beliefs about me and them being so far wide of the mark is indicative that this conversation is really no longer worth pursuing. If you logged in, then you'd probably be able to edit the article yourself if you have sufficient edits. Good luck in your pursuits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
it is perfectly reasonable to say he won the various Tours. -> Except that he didn't win any tours... So why should the article say he did? Anyway, I don't have an account so I can't do it myself, that's why I asked here. --2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:11D (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a simple solution to not having an account. Sign up. I'm always cautious about signing up for something new, but I can assure you, Wikipedia is one of the safest. I haven't had a problem in over a decade of membership. Go for it. As for this article, I'd be looking at how we have handled this for other cases of disqualifications. I suspect The Rambling Man is right for any situation where the disqualification happened some time (maybe at least the next day) after the event. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Well my problem with creating a wikipedia account is mostly in the appalling way that anonymous edits (reverted without even giving a reason) and new users are usually treated, while I think the openness of the project is essential for its survival so I think I should give the good example by trying to contribute anonymously without trying to build some kind of online 'status' and try to have my arguments judged on their merits (On the Dutch version it's worse)
Anyway, what would Rambling Man be right about? I haven't heard one argument from him why cheated first places should be counted as victories in this article. Please at least give some arguments...
What happens in these other articles is not relevant without qualitative arguments to back it up. Especially if it's not a policy. --2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:17D (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong/proposal listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lance Armstrong/proposal. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lancegate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lancegate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate Entry

In notes at the bottom, there is a duplicate entry. I would edit it myself but I don't want to mess up the reference markers. Goatonastik (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation for death of Eddie Gunderson Charles

The following obituary may be suitable citation for the death of father Eddie, Gunderson Charles:

https://obits.dallasnews.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?n=eddie-gunderson&pid=158244700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoodastronomer (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tour de France Wins

Could somebody please correct this page. Lance Armstrong did not win a Tour de France race. He was stripped of his titles.

The first paragraph of the lead of the article has carefully chosen wording that clearly explains the situation. It puts his iconic status in the past tense, and explains that he was stripped of all his titles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

I want to make a few changes to some grammar mistakes I found JackSparrow113 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

"Armstrong" instead of "Livestrong" in section 3.6 Snazzypad (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Livestrong" is an organization, which Nike cut ties with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Buried lead

Normally I would dive in and make a bold lead, but for this article, I'm fairly confident that the present lead is the result of painful deliberations.

Here's how it presently begins:

Lance Edward Armstrong (...) is an American former professional road racing cyclist. Armstrong was stripped of his seven consecutive Tour de France titles from 1999 to 2005 after a doping investigation and his admission to using performance enhancing drugs.

The second paragraph is largely chronological, ending here:

In 1996, he was diagnosed with a potentially fatal metastatic testicular cancer. After his recovery, he founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation (now the Livestrong Foundation) to assist other cancer survivors.

But to my eye, this buries the lead. In my own mind, the story reads more like this, combining the elements above:

Lance Edward Armstrong (...) is an American former professional road racing cyclist, cancer survivor, celebrity humanitarian, and disgraced sports icon. During his seven consecutive Tour de France titles from 1999 to 2005, his personal and professional story, which circulated around the world, was one of triumph over extreme medical adversity, his having attained his greatest feats of road endurance after emerging emaciated and frail from chemotherapy treatments against potentially fatal metastatic testicular cancer, first diagnosed in 1996; on the back of this remarkable story, he founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation (now the Livestrong Foundation) to assist other cancer survivors. Armstrong was later stripped of his seven consecutive Tour de France titles after a doping investigation and his admission to using performance enhancing drugs.

I didn't completely get that into wording suitable for this article, but the bones are clear.

I'm sure there are conflicting camps here and the present lead represents a workable compromise. But to my eye the current detente buries the lead on the real Lance Armstrong story.

That's my two cents, and now I'm off again to worry about other pages. — MaxEnt 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/the-legend-of-the-500/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lance_Armstrong/Archive_10&oldid=1142767111"