How about an "all in" option: Lance calls this witch hunt, so let's have one - history is full of inquisitions or stalinist monsterprocesses - good example-setting result would be all the titles stripped, all results in all races nullified, lifetime jail and give him cancer back!
I wish we could find out who was highest placed in those TdF's and absolutely did not dope at all...
New winner of the TdF 2004 Gilles Bouvard (FRA)RAGT Semences-MG Rover!!
New winner of the TdF 2004 Gilles Bouvard (FRA)RAGT Semences-MG Rover!!
They should give the TDF medals to Dr. Ferrari since it was really a contest of doping technology and he was best.
remove all top 50 from 1990-1995
remove all top 150 from 1995-2005
give Floyd back his 2006 win
No, seriously: I think it is important to strip Lance these 7 wins, just as a signal to every potential cheater that cheating and lying is not worth it and even more than 10 years after you could lose what you did achieve by cheating.
Now the ridicolous side of it was already mentioned numerous times, that the new winners haven't been clean too. But that's bad luck. I think the signal that #LieStrong loses all 7 titles is more important. Call me bitter hater now
remove all top 150 from 1995-2005
give Floyd back his 2006 win
No, seriously: I think it is important to strip Lance these 7 wins, just as a signal to every potential cheater that cheating and lying is not worth it and even more than 10 years after you could lose what you did achieve by cheating.
Now the ridicolous side of it was already mentioned numerous times, that the new winners haven't been clean too. But that's bad luck. I think the signal that #LieStrong loses all 7 titles is more important. Call me bitter hater now
Fidolix
BANNED
- Jan 16, 2012
- 997
- 0
- 0
An article written by Jacob Staehelin.
A short sum up of the letter send to Armstrong etc.
Lance Armstrong was one of six recipients of a 15-page letter yesterday. And it was not cheerful reading for the six - the letter that was sent by U.S. anti-doping authorities, was an accusation of systematic doping from 1998 to 2010.
The fact that Lance Armstrong is thus a serious danger of losing his seven Tour victories is almost the smallest problem (incidentally: good luck in finding a worthy winner instead).
No, there are far bigger bombs in the case. For the five other recipients of the letter was the whole top of the former U.S. Postal team, both with team doctors, coaches, and a certain Johan Bruynell. The man who today heads the Team RadioShack.
Bruynell are accused of systematically fed its riders with EPO and helped them with blood transfusions - and thus the case is the first since the Festina in 1998, when one tries to prove that an entire team's management has knowingly cheated. And the inks in a violent degree Bruynell to - to a degree where it is difficult to believe that RadioShack team will continue when you consider how turbulent a spring the team has had.
And then the big bomb. For the letter also says that they think they have evidence that blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010 for UCI, shows traces of EPO and / or blood transfusions. If so, it opens up the logical question: Why UCI not discovered it?
Can the U.S. anti-doping authorities to prove that Lance Armstrong had doped when he had taken the two blood samples, it would of course mean that the UCI has a very serious problem.
Especially because the U.S. authorities in the letter writes that one can prove that Lance Armstrong in 2001 tested positive during the Tour of Switzerland - but the case was buried. It has previously emerged that Lance Armstrong in 2001 donated $ 100,000 to the UCI, which has since been described as pure bribery. Toxic.
It is believed, smoker who heads UCI. The credibility of the sport has struggled to recover, get a decent blow.
What we must hope for now is that there will be a clear-cut decision. Either for or against. The unresolved is so devastating. But judged the six - and it will lead to demands for life-long quarantine - then UCI the next on the list. Quite deservedly, for it is the forward that it is interesting. So essentially is Bruynell more important than Armstrong - because the man is still in the sport.
What I ask my self is, would the USADA even consider open a case unless they are 100% sure they have the proof, especially considering that all other cases against Armstrong so far turned out without any results?
I always believed the case with the positive test during TDS 2001 was covered up, and the money transfer only made it more pausible.
Will be interesting to hear what USADA have, or if its just another duck hunt based on hearsay.
A short sum up of the letter send to Armstrong etc.
Lance Armstrong was one of six recipients of a 15-page letter yesterday. And it was not cheerful reading for the six - the letter that was sent by U.S. anti-doping authorities, was an accusation of systematic doping from 1998 to 2010.
The fact that Lance Armstrong is thus a serious danger of losing his seven Tour victories is almost the smallest problem (incidentally: good luck in finding a worthy winner instead).
No, there are far bigger bombs in the case. For the five other recipients of the letter was the whole top of the former U.S. Postal team, both with team doctors, coaches, and a certain Johan Bruynell. The man who today heads the Team RadioShack.
Bruynell are accused of systematically fed its riders with EPO and helped them with blood transfusions - and thus the case is the first since the Festina in 1998, when one tries to prove that an entire team's management has knowingly cheated. And the inks in a violent degree Bruynell to - to a degree where it is difficult to believe that RadioShack team will continue when you consider how turbulent a spring the team has had.
And then the big bomb. For the letter also says that they think they have evidence that blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010 for UCI, shows traces of EPO and / or blood transfusions. If so, it opens up the logical question: Why UCI not discovered it?
Can the U.S. anti-doping authorities to prove that Lance Armstrong had doped when he had taken the two blood samples, it would of course mean that the UCI has a very serious problem.
Especially because the U.S. authorities in the letter writes that one can prove that Lance Armstrong in 2001 tested positive during the Tour of Switzerland - but the case was buried. It has previously emerged that Lance Armstrong in 2001 donated $ 100,000 to the UCI, which has since been described as pure bribery. Toxic.
It is believed, smoker who heads UCI. The credibility of the sport has struggled to recover, get a decent blow.
What we must hope for now is that there will be a clear-cut decision. Either for or against. The unresolved is so devastating. But judged the six - and it will lead to demands for life-long quarantine - then UCI the next on the list. Quite deservedly, for it is the forward that it is interesting. So essentially is Bruynell more important than Armstrong - because the man is still in the sport.
What I ask my self is, would the USADA even consider open a case unless they are 100% sure they have the proof, especially considering that all other cases against Armstrong so far turned out without any results?
I always believed the case with the positive test during TDS 2001 was covered up, and the money transfer only made it more pausible.
Will be interesting to hear what USADA have, or if its just another duck hunt based on hearsay.
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
- Aug 12, 2009
- 3,639
- 0
- 0
Results will follow history. Look at the results Valverde and Contador achieved the past two seasons before they were banned. Stripped in their entirety. Removed from the record books. Names aren't there. At all. At least the ones I can find online. Someone had to manually go in and remove them from every stage and jump a rider ahead on the sheets. Contador won a lot of races last year. A lot. The records state he didn't. But we remember the races. Footage can't be doctored.
Same thing will happen if the USADA are successful. Lance's results, especially his 99-2005 ones, will all be removed. All of them. If USADA has the jurisdiction to remove the win, the ASO will alter their records accordingly. They've done it to other riders recently. So what about the third coming? I'd wager those results will be stripped as well. So Lance ends up with a 36th? as his best Tour finish! That's GOLD! He should be stripped from all records. Period. No discussion needed. He doesn't deserve special treatment.
Riis is different. Legal window to strip him of his results had already passed, hence why Bjarne came out openly when he did. Can't officially remove him but you can leave an annotation. Lance will either be found guilty or not. There won't be a the issue of statute of limitations, unlike Riis. Lance loses this time, he loses it all. The whole kitten caboodle.
Same thing will happen if the USADA are successful. Lance's results, especially his 99-2005 ones, will all be removed. All of them. If USADA has the jurisdiction to remove the win, the ASO will alter their records accordingly. They've done it to other riders recently. So what about the third coming? I'd wager those results will be stripped as well. So Lance ends up with a 36th? as his best Tour finish! That's GOLD! He should be stripped from all records. Period. No discussion needed. He doesn't deserve special treatment.
Riis is different. Legal window to strip him of his results had already passed, hence why Bjarne came out openly when he did. Can't officially remove him but you can leave an annotation. Lance will either be found guilty or not. There won't be a the issue of statute of limitations, unlike Riis. Lance loses this time, he loses it all. The whole kitten caboodle.
- Jun 11, 2011
- 473
- 0
- 0
why isn't there a 5th option on the poll?
5. Leave it be, move on
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
everybody on this board that is crying 'cheater' has lied sometime before, rolled a stop sign, put down a lesser figure on their taxes, maybe even cheated on a wife, girlfriend, or boyfriend, and some have done worse.
life is unfair, deal with it.
racing should be simple, first guy across the line wins
5. Leave it be, move on
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
everybody on this board that is crying 'cheater' has lied sometime before, rolled a stop sign, put down a lesser figure on their taxes, maybe even cheated on a wife, girlfriend, or boyfriend, and some have done worse.
life is unfair, deal with it.
racing should be simple, first guy across the line wins
As others have posted, erasing the wins is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. There would be no point in moving the second place riders up since the new winners would all be equally lacking in credibility. The sad fact of life in the sport is that the period from the early 90's to late 00's established institutional drug use as the norm and omerta as the pelotons way of dealing with its reality.
- May 20, 2010
- 718
- 1
- 0
A qualified yes.
Lance has received the benefit (as of now and may continue to do so) of maintaining his palmares despite many and great reservations.
In the event that he is found to have doped, remove his name from all reasonably associated events.
As a result, let those cyclists whose names remain assume those spots vacated by Lance. And allow them the same benefit that Lance received (along with the same responsibility). If retrospective testing reveals further transgressors, allow them the same actions as befall Lance.
The above is subject to qualifiers such as statute of limitations ...
Lance has received the benefit (as of now and may continue to do so) of maintaining his palmares despite many and great reservations.
In the event that he is found to have doped, remove his name from all reasonably associated events.
As a result, let those cyclists whose names remain assume those spots vacated by Lance. And allow them the same benefit that Lance received (along with the same responsibility). If retrospective testing reveals further transgressors, allow them the same actions as befall Lance.
The above is subject to qualifiers such as statute of limitations ...
- Mar 19, 2009
- 1,311
- 0
- 0
I like Alex Zülle's honesty, they should give the 1999 Tour to him imo.
“I’ve been in this business for a long time. I know what goes on. And not just me, everyone knows. The riders, the team leaders, the organizers, the officials, the journalists. As a rider you feel tied into this system. It’s like being on the highway. The law says there’s a speed limit of 100 km/hr, but everyone is driving 120 km/hr or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit? So I had two alternatives: either fit in and go along with the others or go back to being a house painter. And who in my situation would have done that?”
- Alex Zülle, July 1998
Its a lot better than what Lance has to say about doping:
"Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.
I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence." -Lance
“I’ve been in this business for a long time. I know what goes on. And not just me, everyone knows. The riders, the team leaders, the organizers, the officials, the journalists. As a rider you feel tied into this system. It’s like being on the highway. The law says there’s a speed limit of 100 km/hr, but everyone is driving 120 km/hr or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit? So I had two alternatives: either fit in and go along with the others or go back to being a house painter. And who in my situation would have done that?”
- Alex Zülle, July 1998
Its a lot better than what Lance has to say about doping:
"Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.
I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence." -Lance
- Mar 10, 2009
- 6,158
- 1
- 0
BigBoat said:Its a lot better than what Lance has to say about doping:
"Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.
I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence." -Lance
First off , where have you been BigBoat?
Second, maybe if he's busted he'll spill the full story and any un-protected testifiers will fall as well cleaning the plate so to speak. Yea, maybe.
- May 14, 2010
- 5,303
- 4
- 0
I voted to remove
While I was busy preparing this, I see several others reached the same conclusion. It really seems the right thing to do:
1999
1. No winner
2. Alex Zülle
3. Fernando Escartin
2000
1. No winner
2. Jan Ullrich
3. Joseba Beloki
2001
1. No winner
2. Jan Ullrich
3. Joseba Beloki
2002
1. No winner
2. Joseba Beloki
3. Raimondas Rumsas
2003
1. No winner
2. Jan Ullrich
3. Alexandre Vinkourov
2004
1. No winner
2. Andreas Klöden
3. Ivan Basso
2005
1. No winner
2. Ivan Basso
3. Jan Ullrich
That's actually not a bad idea. I for one like it, but it's too whimsical and lyrical and so they'll never do it.
While I was busy preparing this, I see several others reached the same conclusion. It really seems the right thing to do:
1999
1. No winner
2. Alex Zülle
3. Fernando Escartin
2000
1. No winner
2. Jan Ullrich
3. Joseba Beloki
2001
1. No winner
2. Jan Ullrich
3. Joseba Beloki
2002
1. No winner
2. Joseba Beloki
3. Raimondas Rumsas
2003
1. No winner
2. Jan Ullrich
3. Alexandre Vinkourov
2004
1. No winner
2. Andreas Klöden
3. Ivan Basso
2005
1. No winner
2. Ivan Basso
3. Jan Ullrich
LanceInMyPants said: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
That's actually not a bad idea. I for one like it, but it's too whimsical and lyrical and so they'll never do it.
Give the titles to the highest ranked guy who wants it. It comes with a full-on WADA and interpol investigation to make sure this title is gonna stick. We'll check with your DS's, ex-teammates, and all who'll talk dirt about you when under oath.
OK, so who wants the titles? Open an anonimous list of those who's be interested to be the clean winners of those titles. Highest placed will be scrutenied first. And no, there is no immunity for this investigation of course, that would be silly, as you'd find out for free how much will be leaked about your truths, how safe you really are.
It'll take a good pair of balls to volunteer for the titles, by my rules of scrutiny, but it'll make you a legend, the good kind..
OK, so who wants the titles? Open an anonimous list of those who's be interested to be the clean winners of those titles. Highest placed will be scrutenied first. And no, there is no immunity for this investigation of course, that would be silly, as you'd find out for free how much will be leaked about your truths, how safe you really are.
It'll take a good pair of balls to volunteer for the titles, by my rules of scrutiny, but it'll make you a legend, the good kind..
- Mar 19, 2009
- 1,311
- 0
- 0
ElChingon said:
I dont come on often....I guess.
Life is busy even when you dont want it to be. I dont think Lance could possible admit to doping at this point. After givin' the
"Witch hunt, never doped, never tested positive, never drastically increased performance( yeah SURE lance he he he), other riders are bitter jealous has beens, staff are bitter jealous has been's, etc" I dont see how he could possible tell the truth now. It would stand in the face of everything he's ever said in 14 years.
Many of Lance's supporters would not believe he doped if he publicly admitted to doping during the USADA hearing. They would think he'd been tricked into saying that he did.
hmm....Christophe Bassons may have been the only top Grand Tour rider that raced drug free during Lance's reign...... Sure there were lower tier pros that Lance raced who were clean but not guys directly in his line of sight during his Tour wins.
There's no doubt Lance will always be the champ in they eye's of many people. Heck, he did win the races. I don't like Lance for how he's treated others so I'm happy he's being punished or at least stressed out.
One important fact I keep telling myself is that cycling is not a fair sport at any level of competition. Carbon wheels, power meters, wind tunnel testing.....coaching, superior knowledge of tactics are just a few things that are not available to more than a select few. This fact justifies doping I guess, whereas the moral side of me wishes doping was stopped even if its simply not possible.
So what do you do as an anti doping crusader? Give Basons the title or give it to an assured doper (anybody in the top 30 places!!).
MrMaillot said:Moncoutie 2000-2005?
Can someone contact him and ask if he'd be prepared to step forward, accepting his titles, in case he was indeed the first clean rider on the results sheet?
This (it'll never happen unfortunately) would be pretty much the ultimate way to shed the men from the unmen. Who's prepared to expose his moral status by authorities? These races need a winner. The clean rider that did best (if he exists) MUST NOT remain an un-hero, an urban legend. Let it be confirmed. Full scrutiny. The hard way, with all the outspoken anti-dope docs on the case, together. The unbuyable.
These should be prize money and marketing status to be obtained, to make it interesting, something serious not to mess about. Also to claim silver and bronze. If anyone with power wants teh sport to clean up, they'll aid in making money available for these true heroes of cycling. Who kept their cool, stayed true their heart and word, and did the absolute maximum against zombie cheaters on bikes.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
Yes strip them all. Just don't put a name in 1st place. The fantom winner.
That way the other dopers aren't given titles they no more deserve than Lance, while having the later's name erased, scratched-off and ultimately extinguished.
A cycling damnatio memorae. Tally ho!
That way the other dopers aren't given titles they no more deserve than Lance, while having the later's name erased, scratched-off and ultimately extinguished.
A cycling damnatio memorae. Tally ho!
I'd be fine with an asterisk placed next to his wins. It'd be an official acknowledgement that the victories were tainted.
- Jun 2, 2009
- 60
- 0
- 8,680
Strip them unless he admits his guilt
One characteristic of Armstrong is that he's been completely unwavering in his denial of doping. If he's prepared to admit that, like 80 percent of the pro peleton at the time, he was doping, then I think his wins should stay with an asterisk. If not they should all be struck from the records but with no winner (as generally the rest of the GC podium was also doping). In 2005, for example, you have to go down to 7th place on GC before you get to a rider, Cadel Evans, who most people consider to be clean.
One characteristic of Armstrong is that he's been completely unwavering in his denial of doping. If he's prepared to admit that, like 80 percent of the pro peleton at the time, he was doping, then I think his wins should stay with an asterisk. If not they should all be struck from the records but with no winner (as generally the rest of the GC podium was also doping). In 2005, for example, you have to go down to 7th place on GC before you get to a rider, Cadel Evans, who most people consider to be clean.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram