So what happens to Lance's wins?

[TubularBills]

The statue of limitations period for doping is 8 years. So 1999-2002 are safe. The other three Tour wins are up for grabs. Although passing them to Ullrich and Basso (and to a lesser extent Kloden) would just make a mockery of cycling.

It would be a bit of justice if his total wins were reduced to 4 - that would at least remove him from the pantheon of 5 time winners, Perhaps that would be enough of a shadow. Also agree that the 2nds shouldn't be elevated - just leave it blank - that in itself is a bitter pill.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't see how they could possibly wipe his name from the books. But will that matter? He's going to go down as a fraud, a sham, whose records were set on blatant cheating. It's akin to Barry Bonds and his roid fueled home run record that everyone knows means nothing, and no one will hold him up in the future for much of anything.

Ali should not be compared to any cyclist. He was bigger than boxing and bigger than sports. He put on a playful act for the fans, and backed it up with never before seen talent, determination, and guts. His persona got under the skin of a few of his opponents, upsetting Frazier, and tricking Foreman. But Ken Norton, perhaps his biggest nemesis, was never offended or irked by Ali. They showed mutual admiration and support, during and after their careers.

I hope the Olympics are gone before then.

I'm hope they are back to full amateurs, no pro-league sports nor athletes, and entirely non-profit.

 

[Polish]

Regardless of the statute of limitations, there is no way Armstrong can be held up as the record holder after all is said and done.

The USA Statute of Limitation has nothing to do with ASO Historical Records.

ASO Historical Records list Riis, Ullrich, Marco and Alberto as TdF Champs.
And of course Eddy, Fausto, Bernard, Lance and Anquetil. Joop too.

The last 100 years will NEVER be 97 asterisks and 3 LeMonds lol

Hopefully, some day, Floyd will be reinstated.

 

[Sanitiser]

Although UCI lawyer Philippe Verbiest has stated that the statute of limitations for removing Riis as winner of the Tour de France has expired, "you cannot strip him of the title but it possible not to mention it anymore ... Because of what he admitted, he is not the winner of the Tour de France. Riis did not win." Tour spokesman Philippe Sudres also stated that: "We consider philosophically that he can no longer claim to have won.".[7] Riis' victory no longer stands in the Tour de France record books.[8]

You were saying?

 

[Polish]

You were saying?

The ASO is the official keeper of the TdF History/Record.

Not the UCI or Wikipedia or the FDA.
Statutes of limitations, French or otherwise, do not apply.
Unless the ASO says they apply. Or not.

http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE/docs/guide_touristique_2010_histoire_7.pdf
Nombre Coureurs Distance Temps du Moyenne
Année d'étapes Engagés parcourue vainqueur horaire Vainqueur Âge
Classés en km (km/h)
...
1990 21 198 156 3504 90 h 43’ 20” 38.621 G. LeMond (Usa) 29
1991 22 198 158 3914 101 h 01’ 20” 38.747 M. Indurain (Esp) 27
1992 21 198 130 3983 100 h 49’ 30” 39.504 M. Indurain (Esp) 28
1993 20 180 136 3714 95 h 57’ 09” 38.709 M. Indurain (Esp) 29
1994 21 189 117 3978 103 h 38’ 38” 38.383 M. Indurain (Esp) 30
1995 20 189 115 3635 92 h 44’ 59” 39.193 M. Indurain (Esp) 31
1996 21 198 129 3765 95 h 57’ 16” 39.227 B. Riis (Den) 32
1997 21 198 139 3950 100 h 30’ 35” 39.237 J. Ullrich (Ger) 24
1998 21 189 96 3875 92 h 49’ 46” 39.983 M. Pantani (Ita) 28
1999 20 180 141 3870 91 h 32’ 16” 40.276 L. Armstrong (Usa) 28
2000 21 177 128 3662 92 h 33’ 08’’ 39,569 L. Armstrong (Usa) 29
2001 20 189 144 3458 86 h 17’ 28’’ 40,070 L. Armstrong (Usa) 30
2002 20 189 153 3278 82 h 05’ 12” 39,920 L. Armstrong (Usa) 31
2003 20 198 147 3427 83 h 41’ 12” 40,940 L. Armstrong (Usa) 32
2004 20 188 147 3391 83 h 36’ 02” 40,553 L. Armstrong (Usa) 33
2005 21 189 155 3593 86 h 15' 02" 41,654 L. Armstrong (Usa) 34
2006 21 176 139 3657 89 h 39' 30" 40,784 O. Pereiro (Esp) 30
2007 21 189 141 3570 91 h 00' 26" 39,228 A. Contador (Esp) 24
2008 21 180 145 3559 87 h 52’ 52’’ 40,492 C. Sastre (Esp) 33
2009 21 180 156 3459,5 85 h 48’ 35’’ 40,315 A. Contador (Esp) 26
Nombre Coureurs Distance Temps du Moyenne
Année d'étapes Engagés parcourue vainqueur horaire Vainqueur Âge
Classés en km (km/h)

 

[Sanitiser]

Philippe Sudres is the ASO spokesman so they've either gone back on their word or they don't consider that pdf as a 'record book'.

 

[Master50]

First I think Botany is right. This is a fraud case. Once that has reached a conclusion, it will be up to the various anti doping bodies to take the evidence from that case and apply it within an anti doping framework. From that date look back on his wins and apply sanctions IE if the case is concluded in this calendar year then subtract the statute of limitations from that day backwards.

Berzin thinks Pat can protect LA but I don't think Berzin knows SFA about the powers of the UCI president. Even the US president has little power until War is declared.

Alp. You bring up an interesting point. Until Pros were allowed into the Olympics their doping issues were pretty much accepted. The big problem was with the Communist countries. Their Olympic level athletes were by any other measure pros. They were paid by the army and spent all their time on a bike. Anti doping was applied in the amateur ranks but we all remember the stories about the russian and German federations helping with the performance of their athletes. It is ironic that the most power in cycling was with the amateurs. Most of the money and the rules were applied to FIAC or the amateur part of the UCI. Pros were governed differently and anti doping was at best a joke for professionals. FICP did have an anti doping mandate but there was no reason to clean up pro cycling since %99 of their doping was about pain management and exhaustion from the demands of 200+ days of racing.
The whole thing changed when Pros were allowed in the Olympics. Cycling now had to reconcile the culture and apply rules that had never really been enforced. Now all of a sudden the pros still had ridiculous calendars but were now expected to race clean. AT the same time the money was getting good for the top tier and doping suddenly made you faster and stronger.
Take all that in context and we are here. I doubt you will ever get that genie back in the box especially since amateurs are doping for the glory. Masters racers are getting really dirty while at the same time pros are truly getting cleaner.

Then there is WADA

 

[joe_papp]

Awarding titles to 2nd place cyclists is dangerous game that sends the wrong message. Better to declare no winner.

I agree...especially given the lag-time b/w the final podium presentation and a doping-related revision of the standings. While a "clean" 2nd place finisher elevated to first might be able to leverage his Tour "win" for a nicer contract upon conclusion of his current one, he has no opportunity to ride any post-Tour criteriums, do the media circuit, sign lucrative endorsements to capitalize on the momentary fame, etc...plus, in the case of someone like Schleck, you don't know that he's not worried about the plasticizers in his blood, and that he wouldn't prefer NOT to be elevated to first in the first place!

Better to leave the title vacated.

 

[joe_papp]

...Alp. You bring up an interesting point. Until Pros were allowed into the Olympics their doping issues were pretty much accepted. The big problem was with the Communist countries. Their Olympic level athletes were by any other measure pros. They were paid by the army and spent all their time on a bike. Anti doping was applied in the amateur ranks but we all remember the stories about the russian and German federations helping with the performance of their athletes. I...

So that misconceptions aren't repeated as fact...the US, especially after the arrival of Eddie B, attempted the same kind of state-sponsored doping programming for its Olympic athletes, in the form of utilizing our labs to test clearance times for various doping products on our own athletes who'd be using them, while the USOC covered-up positive tests to ensure that those stars in whom they'd invested so much would still compete.

OK, the doping facilitation was not as blatant or sophisticated as in the Eastern Bloc, but that's not for lack of desire - especially in cycling. In the US amateur (pre-1996) Olympic preparation was where the bulk of the administrative and coaching and sports science resources were focused - not on some PDM-like pro class (which didn't exist here - do you remember Project '96 and the money spent developing the Superbikes 1 and 2 for the now-defunct US National Team Pursuit squad?).

I'm not sure how we ended up on this topic from Lance's wins, but, having been there on the ground and knowing what happened, I just wanted to make sure that no misconceptions recirculated concerning the doping done w/ the consent + assistance of the USOC vs. that which took place in the Communist countries.

A good book though on the East German sports system is "Faust's Gold."

 

[AngusW]

The ASO is the official keeper of the TdF History/Record.

Not the UCI or Wikipedia or the FDA.
Statutes of limitations, French or otherwise, do not apply.
Unless the ASO says they apply. Or not.

http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE/docs/guide_touristique_2010_histoire_7.pdf
Nombre Coureurs Distance Temps du Moyenne
Année d'étapes Engagés parcourue vainqueur horaire Vainqueur Âge
Classés en km (km/h)
...
1990 21 198 156 3504 90 h 43’ 20” 38.621 G. LeMond (Usa) 29
1991 22 198 158 3914 101 h 01’ 20” 38.747 M. Indurain (Esp) 27
1992 21 198 130 3983 100 h 49’ 30” 39.504 M. Indurain (Esp) 28
1993 20 180 136 3714 95 h 57’ 09” 38.709 M. Indurain (Esp) 29
1994 21 189 117 3978 103 h 38’ 38” 38.383 M. Indurain (Esp) 30
1995 20 189 115 3635 92 h 44’ 59” 39.193 M. Indurain (Esp) 31
1996 21 198 129 3765 95 h 57’ 16” 39.227 B. Riis (Den) 32
1997 21 198 139 3950 100 h 30’ 35” 39.237 J. Ullrich (Ger) 24
1998 21 189 96 3875 92 h 49’ 46” 39.983 M. Pantani (Ita) 28
1999 20 180 141 3870 91 h 32’ 16” 40.276 L. Armstrong (Usa) 28
2000 21 177 128 3662 92 h 33’ 08’’ 39,569 L. Armstrong (Usa) 29
2001 20 189 144 3458 86 h 17’ 28’’ 40,070 L. Armstrong (Usa) 30
2002 20 189 153 3278 82 h 05’ 12” 39,920 L. Armstrong (Usa) 31
2003 20 198 147 3427 83 h 41’ 12” 40,940 L. Armstrong (Usa) 32
2004 20 188 147 3391 83 h 36’ 02” 40,553 L. Armstrong (Usa) 33
2005 21 189 155 3593 86 h 15' 02" 41,654 L. Armstrong (Usa) 34
2006 21 176 139 3657 89 h 39' 30" 40,784 O. Pereiro (Esp) 30
2007 21 189 141 3570 91 h 00' 26" 39,228 A. Contador (Esp) 24
2008 21 180 145 3559 87 h 52’ 52’’ 40,492 C. Sastre (Esp) 33
2009 21 180 156 3459,5 85 h 48’ 35’’ 40,315 A. Contador (Esp) 26
Nombre Coureurs Distance Temps du Moyenne
Année d'étapes Engagés parcourue vainqueur horaire Vainqueur Âge
Classés en km (km/h)

They've got Armstrong's age wrong every year. And Ullrich's too.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

So that misconceptions aren't repeated as fact...the US, especially after the arrival of Eddie B, attempted the same kind of state-sponsored doping programming for its Olympic athletes, in the form of utilizing our labs to test clearance times for various doping products on our own athletes who'd be using them, while the USOC covered-up positive tests to ensure that those stars in whom they'd invested so much would still compete.

OK, the doping facilitation was not as blatant or sophisticated as in the Eastern Bloc, but that's not for lack of desire - especially in cycling. In the US amateur (pre-1996) Olympic preparation was where the bulk of the administrative and coaching and sports science resources were focused - not on some PDM-like pro class (which didn't exist here - do you remember Project '96 and the money spent developing the Superbikes 1 and 2 for the now-defunct US National Team Pursuit squad?).

I'm not sure how we ended up on this topic from Lance's wins, but, having been there on the ground and knowing what happened, I just wanted to make sure that no misconceptions recirculated concerning the doping done w/ the consent + assistance of the USOC vs. that which took place in the Communist countries.

A good book though on the East German sports system is "Faust's Gold."

and we all know Joe knows doping.............

 

[Master50]

I'm not sure how we ended up on this topic from Lance's wins, but, having been there on the ground and knowing what happened, I just wanted to make sure that no misconceptions recirculated concerning the doping done w/ the consent + assistance of the USOC vs. that which took place in the Communist countries.

A good book though on the East German sports system is "Faust's Gold."

Just equal time I think. A lance thread always launches a doping thread and vice versa. It is part of the topic since without the doping there wold be no thread about keeping his wins. Circular logic.

I did not mean to imply that Amateur cycling was clean just that no body really cared what the PROs were up to. The best drugs came from Olympic Sports.

 

[Polish]

Philippe Sudres is the ASO spokesman so they've either gone back on their word or they don't consider that pdf as a 'record book'.

The ASO can go back on their word. They can go forward on their word.
They can do a Can Can on their word. They ARE the word of the TdF.

The ASO did briefly "erase" Bjarne from the Official Winner List.
They quickly reinstated him after some "WTFBacklash?" occurred.

And the ASO knows that they would TARNISH the TdF forever if they tried to remove Lance's Name from the Official Records.

And c'mon guys - the "statute of limitations" in the legal sense does not apply to the ASO procedure of listing the TdF winners. The ASO couild use the term as a reason, sure. Smoke and mirrors.

If the ASO decided to erase Lance's name from the 1999 event they could.
12 years or more after the race - they still could de-list Lance. They can do what they want. Of course they wouldn't. Tarnish the race Big Time.

 

[Anonymous]

To be honest if you look at the top 10's from 99-2005 who the hell would you give the titles to?

 

[Granville57]

To be honest if you look at the top 10's from 99-2005 who the hell would you give the titles to?

Which to me raises the question:
Why aren't all the top contenders of any Grand Tour tested equally throughout the race? Same tests, same days, everything, all of them.

This idea that everyone gets to move up a spot because someone above them on the ladder tested positive, but they themselves weren't subjected to the exact same tests at the exact same times is farcical!

Did anyone go back and do carbon isotope testing on Pereiro's samples from 2006? Were Andy's 2010 samples put through rigorous levels of extra scrutiny to ensure that he would warrant any title bequeathed to him as a result of this convoluted process? If not, why not?

It's not difficult to figure out who the potential GT winners are. As the race evolves, the list gets shorter and shorter. So test them all, more and more as the race goes on. Even with the surprise of Pereiro, he was still in yellow for enough days to have given plenty of samples.

Well, I'm sure there are people that are much smarter than me that will figure it all out in a way that will make sense to everyone. I'm sure of that.

 

[TubularBills]

To be honest if you look at the top 10's from 99-2005 who the hell would you give the titles to?

Whoever placed 11th.

 

[Anonymous]

Which to me raises the question:
Why aren't all the top contenders of any Grand Tour tested equally throughout the race? Same tests, same days, everything, all of them.
:

The Answer

Cycling is cleaner than ever. One of the cleanest sports in the world

Answer your question

 

[Hugh Januss]

Not quite

Whoever placed 11th, was most likely just as dirty.

Fixed that minor omission for you.

 

[Mambo95]

Whoever placed 11th.

1999: Kurt van de Wouwer (who?)
2000: Manuel Beltran (Ha!)
2001: Didier Rous (Has form)
2002: Ivan Basso (this isn't going well)
2003: Denis Menchov (well, he's never been caught)
2004: Pietro Caucchioli (another fail)
2005: Christophe Moreau (maybe he'd gone straight by then)

Shall we try 12th place?

 

[ksmith]

Just leave it as it is, cycling is not just about the tour,are people going to look into the spring classics? Other races? Where does it stop? At what year?
Doping has allways been there.
P.S. with all the hand wringing in the cycling world today with Landis,how ironic the Super bowl is on this weekend, I bet there's no talk on Sunday did the winners dope? How many teams in the past dope? I guess we care more

 

[pedaling squares]

... the Super bowl is on this weekend, I bet there's no talk on Sunday did the winners dope? How many teams in the past dope? I guess we care more

Baby steps ksmith, baby steps. First the NFL wants to stop its players from torturing animals, discharging firearms in night clubs, and sexually assaulting young women. Maybe then they'll tackle the lesser matter of PED's.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

La flamme rouge

 

[Sanitiser]

Just leave it as it is, cycling is not just about the tour,are people going to look into the spring classics? Other races? Where does it stop? At what year?
Doping has allways been there.
P.S. with all the hand wringing in the cycling world today with Landis,how ironic the Super bowl is on this weekend, I bet there's no talk on Sunday did the winners dope? How many teams in the past dope? I guess we care more

First of all 7 TdF's is the record if a known doper has this record it tarnish the history of the TdF and cycling.

 

[JPM London]

To be honest if you look at the top 10's from 99-2005 who the hell would you give the titles to?

I give up - can't take the suspense any longer! Who? Tell me. Please...