Le Tour, and rewriting history
Discussion
Assuming the UCI strip Armstrong of the titles, who will now be classed as the 'winners' of those 7 years.
Thinking of Ulrich etc who have been caught since. How far down the peleton will the new winner come from, or will the UCI just say ''f
k it' we will put an asterisk by his name with an explanation'.
wont even bother trying to figure out prize money etc
Thinking of Ulrich etc who have been caught since. How far down the peleton will the new winner come from, or will the UCI just say ''f
k it' we will put an asterisk by his name with an explanation'.wont even bother trying to figure out prize money etc
silverfoxcc said:
Assuming the UCI strip Armstrong of the titles, who will now be classed as the 'winners' of those 7 years.
Thinking of Ulrich etc who have been caught since. How far down the peleton will the new winner come from, or will the UCI just say ''fk it' we will put an asterisk by his name with an explanation'.
wont even bother trying to figure out prize money etc
No point in even trying. I think they've said no winner will be awarded for those years. Thinking of Ulrich etc who have been caught since. How far down the peleton will the new winner come from, or will the UCI just say ''f
k it' we will put an asterisk by his name with an explanation'.wont even bother trying to figure out prize money etc
I'm claiming them all, I reckon I was the only person clean riding a bike at the time and I can find people who will testify that they saw you taking pills of some kind around the period in question which may have been aspirin but could also have been something far more conducive to enhancing performance. you cant prove they were just aspirin though and thats your loss.
So, after Landis was stripped of his Tour, Oscar Pereiro was awarded the win.
But, take 2000 for example:
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 92h 33' 08"
2 Jan Ullrich (GER) Telekom +6' 02"
3 Joseba Beloki (ESP) Festina +10' 04"
4 Christophe Moreau (FRA) Festina +10' 34"
5 Roberto Heras (ESP) Kelme +11' 50"
6 Richard Virenque (FRA) Polti +13' 26"
7 Santiago Botero (COL) Kelme +14' 18"
8 Fernando Escartín (ESP) Kelme +17' 21"
9 Francisco Mancebo (ESP) Banesto +18' 09"
10 Daniele Nardello (ITA) Mapei +18' 25"
Almost all if not all, have either been banned or admitted taking EPO or have been implicated in Operacion Puerto etc. - possibly Escartin is the first there who hasn't, but would you give the win to the rider who came 8th, 17 minutes down?
But, take 2000 for example:
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 92h 33' 08"
2 Jan Ullrich (GER) Telekom +6' 02"
3 Joseba Beloki (ESP) Festina +10' 04"
4 Christophe Moreau (FRA) Festina +10' 34"
5 Roberto Heras (ESP) Kelme +11' 50"
6 Richard Virenque (FRA) Polti +13' 26"
7 Santiago Botero (COL) Kelme +14' 18"
8 Fernando Escartín (ESP) Kelme +17' 21"
9 Francisco Mancebo (ESP) Banesto +18' 09"
10 Daniele Nardello (ITA) Mapei +18' 25"
Almost all if not all, have either been banned or admitted taking EPO or have been implicated in Operacion Puerto etc. - possibly Escartin is the first there who hasn't, but would you give the win to the rider who came 8th, 17 minutes down?
pablo said:
I'm claiming them all, I reckon I was the only person clean riding a bike at the time and I can find people who will testify that they saw you taking pills of some kind around the period in question which may have been aspirin but could also have been something far more conducive to enhancing performance. you cant prove they were just aspirin though and thats your loss.
I saw you eating some steak during that period. Clearly that sauce the waiter poured over it was clenbuterol not "green peppercorn". I've told the UCI. You're out.
I clearly was the only clean rider at that time.
In one of these LA threads someone cited the number of clean riders who shared the podium with Armstrong - it wasn't very many.
ETA:
Of the 21 available podium spots over the 7 years Lance won the TDF, there were only 9 unique riders and all but one (Fernando Escartin finished 3rd in 1999, the year of Lances first victory) has been convicted or implicated for doping.
ETA:
Of the 21 available podium spots over the 7 years Lance won the TDF, there were only 9 unique riders and all but one (Fernando Escartin finished 3rd in 1999, the year of Lances first victory) has been convicted or implicated for doping.
Edited by IroningMan on Thursday 11th October 14:50
[quote=
Almost all if not all, have either been banned or admitted taking EPO or have been implicated in Operacion Puerto etc. - possibly Escartin is the first there who hasn't, but would you give the win to the rider who came 8th, 17 minutes down?
[/quote]
if he was only 17 minutes down and the only one that was possibly riding on his own ability, then he would be the one to deserve it.
Almost all if not all, have either been banned or admitted taking EPO or have been implicated in Operacion Puerto etc. - possibly Escartin is the first there who hasn't, but would you give the win to the rider who came 8th, 17 minutes down?
[/quote]
if he was only 17 minutes down and the only one that was possibly riding on his own ability, then he would be the one to deserve it.
nice1two said:
if he was only 17 minutes down and the only one that was possibly riding on his own ability, then he would be the one to deserve it.
pretty sure Escartin has been linked to doping affair in the past. There is no point finding a winner imho, all you end up doing is giving it to the guy who finished highest up the rider but has yet to be implicated in any doping scandal. Even if Escartin is clean, what happens in a year or two when someone comes out with a story that he too was doping, evidence is released and Escartin confesses.... do you give it to the guy who finished behind Escartin until he too confesses and keep repeating the cycle.
There's a big difference between finding a gap in the rules and developing something that, while not in the spirit of the rules, are not actually breaking them, and blatantly breaking the rules and finding a way to avoid getting caught. The former is where you tend to find Chapman and Murray, the latter is where you would find Armstrong and Briatore (to keep your F1 analogy alive).
pablo said:
pretty sure Escartin has been linked to doping affair in the past. There is no point finding a winner imho, all you end up doing is giving it to the guy who finished highest up the rider but has yet to be implicated in any doping scandal. Even if Escartin is clean, what happens in a year or two when someone comes out with a story that he too was doping, evidence is released and Escartin confesses....
do you give it to the guy who finished behind Escartin until he too confesses and keep repeating the cycle.
I'm with you. I don't reckon they should look for another winner.do you give it to the guy who finished behind Escartin until he too confesses and keep repeating the cycle.
However, I think LA should be stripped on the wins as such. There is considerable financial implications, those who supported him were, it seems, cheated out of money.
Derek Smith said:
pablo said:
pretty sure Escartin has been linked to doping affair in the past. There is no point finding a winner imho, all you end up doing is giving it to the guy who finished highest up the rider but has yet to be implicated in any doping scandal. Even if Escartin is clean, what happens in a year or two when someone comes out with a story that he too was doping, evidence is released and Escartin confesses....
do you give it to the guy who finished behind Escartin until he too confesses and keep repeating the cycle.
I'm with you. I don't reckon they should look for another winner.do you give it to the guy who finished behind Escartin until he too confesses and keep repeating the cycle.
However, I think LA should be stripped on the wins as such. There is considerable financial implications, those who supported him were, it seems, cheated out of money.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff