I'm also a Wikipedia editor. I didn't like the combative stance
everyone adapted on the controversy, although given the lack of proof,
and that Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia with a neutral
point-of-view, you would seem to be more in the right. The real
question on the discussion page (tab on top of the Lance Armstrong
page), seems to be how much of his 'controversial' status should be
included, and which allegations can be mentioned since he has never
been caught committing any doping offence.
A very interesting argument. I noticed it, but stayed clear of
contributing because I don't have the required neutral POV. I strongly
suspect that he 'was on the junk' at some stage of his career. The way
he endured brain surgery, testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy
and returned to competition far faster and stronger than before,
reminds me of Flo-jo's off-season conversion in 1987-88. Maybe without
the cancer he might have won 10 Tours, or perhaps his already elite
performance levels were boosted by some of his cancer drugs...
There's no doubt that Armstrong was an extraordinary competitor. It's
also true that he was tested repeatedly for performance-enhancing
drugs, and never really (long story) failed a test. It has been said
that he has even admitted drug use in the past e.g.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863 The question of
whether Armstrong was drug-free or not, is all the more important given
his record-breaking Tour victories and loud drug denunciations.
It is also true that:
* the top level of cycle racing is notoriously drug ridden,
* Armstrong worked for a while with the dodgy Italian sports doctor
Michele Ferrari.
* many other cycle riders known to be dirty (and even having died as a
result of EPO etc use) have never been tested positive.
Armstrong is known to be an obnoxious, arrogant and self-centred
personality, (but this is not unusual amongst elite athletes). He's an
unusually ungracious winner, reluctant even to credit team support.
What little diplomacy he learnt was forced on him by his sponsor, Nike.
He appears to enjoy humiliating his opponents. 'It's Not About the
Bike', his autobiography, is one of the most transparently self-serving
books I've ever read, even amongst sports biogs. As someone else said
'he's the toughest of a tough bunch, with little or no fellow feeling
for the rest of the human race'. Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances. He did NOT (as is often
claimed) abandon his ex, Sheryl Crow when she was diagnosed with
cancer. He is pro-Bush, and supports the Iraq invasion.
The French public as a whole like him, but their media hate him for
various reasons, including dominating Le Tour, and supposedly getting
away with doping. Armstrong himself is a stereotypical Texan, and isn't
very sensitive.
As I said, I won't be getting involved in the 'Armstrong Wars'. Editing
disputes in Wikipedia tend to be bitter and tedious.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages, even without registering. If anyone
has the time and interest, it needs a good cycling glossary page. Just
add what you can.
O.
Quoted message said:Just zis Guy said:A Wikipedia editor wants the Lance Armstrong article to say that he's
guilty of doping, although UCI, Vrijman, the courts and the fact that
he's never been caught suggest otherwise. Fun and games.He (the Wikipedia editor) certainly does seem to have somewhat of an
obsession. I found your comments very reasonable and sensible
throughout, if it's any comfort.--
Peter Headland