The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Still there's the issue that, even if others were using, Armstrong and his teams were album to 'use more' without getting caught. Whether this is due to the genius of Ferrari or UCI leadership looking the other way, remains to be seen. But isn't just a little interesting that Landis, Contador & Hamilton got caught only after they were no longer riding on Lance's team?BroDeal said:Armstrong will eventually get credit. The UCI refusing to give the wins to the second place finishers helps him immensely. USADA overplayed its hand and the lifetime ban will look progressively more ridiculous as time reveals more about what his competitors were doing. You cannot have a seven year stretch with no winner. That is an acknowledgement that the whole era was rotten. It extends for a decade before Armstrong and a it is still going a decade after. Everything will be put in context.
BroDeal said:The UCI refusing to give the wins to the second place finishers helps him immensely.
Netserk said:If a noob asks who won the 1994 Tour, everybody will answer Indurain. I can't see why that should change in 30 years. He and all the others mentioned here will for a large part always be remembered as Tour winners. Rightly so.
elapid said:I agree, but don't agree. Public perception is everything, and that's the card LA is playing (and has played since he knew the writing was on the wall). He will be remembered as the winner of those 7 TdFs, but most of us here know that his argument that it was a level playing field is BS. So while I agree that he will likely be remembered as the winner of those tours, I don't agree with the "rightly so". The reason he won those tours was because of his response to EPO and blood transfusions, as well as having his team doped for the only goal of winning him those tours. He was never a good enough climber or TTer to win any stage race without the juice. The playing field was not equal - he knows it, we know it, but the general public, and particularly his fans, do not know it.
BroDeal said:Armstrong will eventually get credit. The UCI refusing to give the wins to the second place finishers helps him immensely. USADA overplayed its hand and the lifetime ban will look progressively more ridiculous as time reveals more about what his competitors were doing. You cannot have a seven year stretch with no winner. That is an acknowledgement that the whole era was rotten. It extends for a decade before Armstrong and a it is still going a decade after. Everything will be put in context.
What hurts Armstrong is that he was too greedy. If he had stopped at five like Indurain then he would be lumped in with the other five-time winners, who all used drugs. Seven is such an outlier that everyone looking back will have to deal with the issue of his results being way out of line. His lack of other GT wins, even attempting to win another, plus lack of racing other than the Tour will also hurt his legacy. No one will want to put him above riders like Merckx and Hinault, so they will have to explain why he is not as worthy.
The one who is likely to be screwed is Landis.
poupou said:Who won the 100m in Seoul?
Benotti69 said:A pharmacist
Oldman said:How's that working for Pete Rose in a sport everyone in the US knows?
BroDeal said:Armstrong will eventually get credit. The UCI refusing to give the wins to the second place finishers helps him immensely. USADA overplayed its hand and the lifetime ban will look progressively more ridiculous as time reveals more about what his competitors were doing. You cannot have a seven year stretch with no winner. That is an acknowledgement that the whole era was rotten. It extends for a decade before Armstrong and a it is still going a decade after. Everything will be put in context.]
The real context is this:
1. Armstrong cheated - he loses and gets no credit for diddly squat! It is as though he wasn't even there. Unless it can be proven second place also cheated, he gets the title, the money and the entry in the record book.
2. The USADA penalty was totally appropriate for the most intentional, organized and cynically organized conspiracy to cheat. That LA should get any reduction is absurd,
That is context!!!!!
RobbieCanuck said:Carl Lewis - Johnson cheated so he didn't win diddly! The record book should assume Johnson wasn't even there, a non entity, a nothing, just as if he false started!
The interesting question is what kind of doping programme was Lewis on? No proof, NO asterisk on the record book that Johnson won and Carl gets the gold by default, regardless of the speculation about Carl.
Should be the same for all of LA's TDF "wins" Second place gets the money and the gold medal and if it can be proved second place doped in that particular TDF it goes on down the line etc.
The official record books must assume the caught dopers did not exist in the race.
RobbieCanuck said:The real context is this:
1. Armstrong cheated - he loses and gets no credit for diddly squat! It is as though he wasn't even there. Unless it can be proven second place also cheated, he gets the title, the money and the entry in the record book.
RobbieCanuck said:2. The USADA penalty was totally appropriate for the most intentional, organized and cynically organized conspiracy to cheat. That LA should get any reduction is absurd,
What hurts Armstrong is that he was too greedy. If he had stopped at five like Indurain then he would be lumped in with the other five-time winners, who all used drugs. Seven is such an outlier that everyone looking back will have to deal with the issue of his results being way out of line. His lack of other GT wins, even attempting to win another, plus lack of racing other than the Tour will also hurt his legacy. No one will want to put him above riders like Merckx and Hinault, so they will have to explain why he is not as worthy.
BroDeal said:Give up on the most sophisticated doping program public relations con. There has been nothing to show that Postal's program was much different than T-Mobile's or Kelme's or Liberty Seguros' or Rabobank's or ONCE's or TVM's or Festina's or...
zlev11 said:where's Joseba Beloki been? he should be trying to claim his 2002 TdF title. or maybe he doped and he knows it so he'll gladly pass it on to Rumsas. oh, wait. who was 4th in that Tour?
Race Radio said:What other teams did transfusions in 2000? Telekom did not start them till 2004. Few teams brought EPO to the 99 Tour as they were scared of the police. The Retro testing made this clear. USPS hired Motoman.
BroDeal said:Riis was doing transfusions years earlier. Everyone quickly adapted to having others carry their dear. Postal used Motoman. Others used their wives and girlfriends.
JMBeaushrimp said:I disagree.
Leave them in the record books with a big-@ssed asterix by their names, with as much information about their malfeasance as can be provided for in the footnotes.
Let history remember their names, and let history record their shame and cheating. Use them as examples (explicit or implicit, "pulling a Lance" etc.).
Quietly trying to have them fade into the background does nothing for clean sport. Long term socio-historic public shaming is what they deserve, and is what the organizing bodies of sport have earned.
Trying to ignore the fact they existed is a form of bureaucratic omerta...