Should Lance lose his 7 Tours

[gilbertador]

Yes:
The new winners are:
1999 - Zulle
2000 - Ullrich
2001 - Ullrich
2002 - Beloki
2003 - Ullrich
2004 - Kloeden
2005 - Basso

No:
They all doped and so the best thing to do is leave Lance in with an asterisk

I dont really know what is the best thing to do, obviously it should be recognised that Lance doped however it would turn the results into a total mess and the names that would replace Lance are hardly clean. Even then I think Lance by actually being a distributor is worse and therefore removal of his wins is justified.

If the statute of limitations is an issue I would opt to remove the 2004 and 2005 results.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This thread might close early.... I voted all 7 for willful pursuit of cheating in a highly orchestrated manner. I would be fine with revoking wins based on the commonly held notion there's a statute of limitations in play.

All the grand tours need to have an asterisk after every one of them sometime around Lemond's last year. Unfortunately, I think that might mark Hampsten's Giro win. But again, this problem gets back to the UCI's corruption and dope-friendly atmosphere.

 

[Panda Claws]

But if you want to have a clean winner in those years, you would need to scratch the top-10 off the charts and not just Lance though I agree that his doping and spreading of doping was much worse.

 

[Benotti69]

I think they should establish first use of EPO in a GT then from there to present day.

Maybe when they get rid of the UCI mafia we can start believing results.

 

[The_Z_man]

All the grand tours need to have an asterisk after every one of them sometime around Lemond's last year. Unfortunately, I think that might mark Hampsten's Giro win. But again, this problem gets back to the UCI's corruption and dope-friendly atmosphere.

Why would that mark Hampsten's Giro win? He won it in '89 when LeMond only had 1 TdF win.

 

[hrotha]

Handing down those titles to anyone else would be dumb.

I'm kind of torn on this issue. On the one hand, it's kind of silly to have a 10-20 year gap in the palmares of the most important races, when it's not like many of them were won clean before. On the other hand, doping is still worth it for many even if they get caught, so retroactive testing and the almost certainty of having all their palmares nuked out eventually might help.

 

[Big Doopie]

Why would that mark Hampsten's Giro win? He won it in '89 when LeMond only had 1 TdF win.

actually 88. and lemond's last tour was 90. from there on out epo took over.

 

[Red Rick]

Wipe them, and make sure nobody else gets them, it's a weird thing to give the title to the #2 that was caught on another moment, or to a clean #43, who never raced to win the whole thing

 

[Microchip]

All Seven (7)

 

[hfer07]

sadly, the truth came too late to do address it properly. I still believe he should be stripped off his titles, but for the History books, he should remain there as "winner carrying an asterisk" with a note indicating the findings of the investigation-therefore the new generations will know the "why" he was removed from them.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why would that mark Hampsten's Giro win? He won it in '89 when LeMond only had 1 TdF win.

I can't keep the dates straight in my head. Thanks for the clarification. Hampsten's win gets no asterisk then!

 

[mtb Dad]

Strip them. But leave his name on the lists with "disqualified and banned for life" next to it. Forever. Good warning for others.

 

[ElChingon]

I don't like the options, not sure what the real answer is but if they were to not be wiped then Floyd's and Contador's should be slotted back in, with an asterisk or what ever as well as the prize money.

I don't see a clear answer, wiping it and passing it down only leaves more issues, Ulirch's Puerto case which years were those applied to, Zulle ugh..., Beloki another Puerto case, Kloden Friburg (sp?) Clinic, Basso another Puerto case... we're going to have to dig deep to find a righteous winner.

 

[sniper]

armstrong made a beginner's mistake:
if you dope, you make sure you don't get caught.
armstrong got caught.
So yeah, strip him of those titles, and give them to dopers cleverer than armstrong.

Ironic that his Comeback turns out to be his dumbest act.
How foolish to come back.
Shouldn't have come back.

Glad he did though

 

[The_Z_man]

I can't keep the dates straight in my head. Thanks for the clarification. Hampsten's win gets no asterisk then!

Big Doopie was right, it was in '88, not '89, which was when Fignon won.

 

[MrMaillot]

I don't really think you can do anything except from put an asterisk alongside the victories in the history books. After all, I don't really think you can work out who the "real" winner is, after most, if not all of the names in the opening post were caught or named at some point.

 

[ElChingon]

armstrong made a beginner's mistake:
if you dope, you make sure you don't get caught.
armstrong got caught.
So yeah, strip him of those titles, and give them to dopers cleverer than armstrong.

Ironic that his Comeback turns out to be his dumbest act.
How foolish to come back.
Shouldn't have come back.

Glad he did though

No, the mistake was first letting others know what he was doing, then walking around like he was untouchable. Narks are a dime a dozen, no one will keep a secret even, except... well that's for another day.

 

[The Hitch]

Beloki was clean. Give 02 to him.

 

[taiwan]

Give them to Michele Ferrari

 

[Benotti69]

Give them to Michele Ferrari

Give them to the chemist/Lab technician/Pharmacist who invented epo and the lab rats they tested it on.

 

[LanceInMyPants]

Strip Armstrong's titles and give them to each year's lanterne rouge.

And the winners are:

Durand
Perraudeau
Casper
Flores
De Clerq
Casper
Flores

 

[silverrocket]

I reluctantly have to vote he remains listed as winner with a giant asterisk next to his wins, and that all records he set also be listed with the "non doping" record. For example Armstrong shouldn't get to keep records like "most consecutive tour wins" and those related to stage wins and days in yellow. This is not ideal, but neither is giving wins to Ullrich, Basso, Zulle, Beloki, or Kloeden, and neither is just having a 7 year blank spot in the winners circle. This could get so messy, it's no wonder the UCI tried to sweep it all under the rug.

 

[silverrocket]

I think whatever happens there must be consistency. Since Contador and Landis lost their titles and had them handed over to Schleck and Pereiro, if Armstrong is proven guilty of doping to a TdF win then the UCI must also hand over his wins to the second place person, unless that person too is proven to have doped in that TdF. They must either hand Armstrong's titles over to the runners-up, or they give Landis and Contador their titles back.

This means that if Ullrich did indeed only start doping after 2005 (yes, IF) he must retroactively be awarded Riis' 1996 title, as well as Armstrong's 2000,2001 & 2003 titles. Since there is also Basso's admission that he "intended" to dope in 2005, and some evidence Pantani doped in 1998, Ullrich might also get those titles too.

Of course this won't happen, but as a longtime fan of the long suffering Jan Ullrich, it would be sensationally delicious irony to see him retroactively become the first 7-time Tour de France champion!

 

[mwbyrd]

But if you want to have a clean winner in those years, you would need to scratch the top-10 off the charts and not just Lance though I agree that his doping and spreading of doping was much worse.

"I agree that his doping and spreading of doping was much worse." REALLY?????????? Come on. Are we really going to put all of this on LA?

I think the bigger issue is the UCI and the likes of USADA who allowed the doping situation to get out of hand. Remember, we all loved watching it and the UCI enjoyed watching their coffers grow every year.

 

[Aristarchus]

If Lance loses his Tours, beyond the statute of limitations, then it opens up a can of worms regarding other wins. I'm thinking of Riis, in particular, whose guilt isn't questioned. And I seriously doubt he's alone. The dirtiness of the sport no doubt runs right across the podium every year, so chopping off the head doesn't make up for it, imo.