There is damn good reason to take away Jan, Riis and Pantani's. Pretty good evidence to take away a few others - everyone post LeMond in the 1990's
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!
For The World said:Here's what I think this topic has become:
How about this as an idea - seeing as though there seems to be no limits as to whose wins can be voided, why don't we go all the way back to 1892 and re-write history so all races have no winners. I mean, removing any trace of the winners will SURELY remove any incentive for new riders to dope, because there won't be any evidence of riders who doped to learn from.
Mr. Vrijman does not agree.eleven said:Well, the difference is that while very small pebbles don't float, positive tests actually DO prove doping.
eleven said:Well, the difference is that while very small pebbles don't float, positive tests actually DO prove doping.
Excellent post.martinvickers said:I just don't care. And i'm really surprised at myself not caring.
Among cycling fans we've long known what Pantani was; one great big pharma experiment. We've known what pro cycling was, a chemical alley. Of course he didn't deserve it, of course, in a just world he'd have been stripped during his lifetime, banned forever and disgraced.
But it does strike me as bizarrely convenient to chase the corpse. Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Roche, Delgado...we have no lack of living dopers to tackle. Hell, Riis is still a key figure in the bloody sport, he needs evicted, with extreme prejudice.
But no. We chase Pantani.
Why Pantani?
The phrase that comes to mind is bibllical.
"let the dead bury the dead."
He can't be punished now. He's beyond our power. On some limited level, he died still champ. he got away with it. And nothing we do will change that.
....
Neworld said:Excellent post.
Attacking Pantani in isolation is weak and without purpose.
Many posters here have alluded to 'burning the whole sport down' and reseting ground zero.
If MP is + then remove his name. But the UCI better bloody well retest all the serum from 1998 forward. Catch the cheats that they can and remove them from the record books and all aspects of cycling going forward.
That would resemble a Lord of the Rings battle scene: a much necessary cleansing.
mewmewmew13 said:They are attacking Pantani because they are hoping to continue deflecting from their disgraced hero...who shall remain unnamed here.
From memory Voigt wore the polka dot jersey and O' Grady won a stage and wore white. So both of them had to give at least one sample each. Want to bet they were clean? Yet the UCI tries to paint them as poster boys of clean cycling.hrotha said:You guys are being way too emotional. They're not going after Pantani - it's just that Pantani happened to win one of the Tours for which they have positive samples. Armstrong won the others, and he's been stripped.
Absolute fairness would require absolutely everybody to be busted. But that's impossible. So, you do what you can with the people you actually catch. Otherwise you can't suspend anyone. Absolutely no one. No, not even that guy.
In the case of Pantani, they can't strip him of his Tour title because those 1998 samples, by themselves, without a B sample or other concrete evidence, are not enough to do anything. And they're not enough to waive the SOL. It's really that simple.
Getting hysterical about Pantani "having already paid", or about "making his family suffer even more", is pointless. Even worse, it does reek of what the Armstrong fanboys have often accused the Clinicians of - inconsistency, hypocrisy and playing favourites.
You strip Armstrong and not Pantani because of the SOL and the waiving thereof, legally justified, not because Pantani "already paid the price".
42x16ss said:It's not McQuaid behind this but I bet he's salivating at the prospect of Pantani getting stripped.
No cherry picking.
With respect to Lance Armstrong and the implications of the USADA sanctions which it endorsed on Monday 22 October, the Management Committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events.
The Committee decided to apply this ruling from now on to any competitive sporting results disqualified due to doping for the period from 1998 to 2005, without prejudice to the statute of limitation.
Samson777 said:Almost...?
If we where to strip every doped tour winner his title, how many would be left? Remember Pélissier.. But of course for the years when doping was not illegal, it makes less sense to strip the titles..
ultimobici said:Less sense? It makes no sense at all. You cannot apply rules retrospectively to any walk of life, be it criminal or sporting. If the speed limit is lowered on a stretch of road now, how is it right to revoke the licence of anyone who drove in excess of that limit 6 days, weeks, months or years earlier?
The samples are outside of McQuaid's control. Let's wait and see if they're positive first, shall we? Even if they doped, they might come out negative.42x16ss said:From memory Voigt wore the polka dot jersey and O' Grady won a stage and wore white. So both of them had to give at least one sample each. Want to bet they were clean? Yet the UCI tries to paint them as poster boys of clean cycling.
I'll take a Pat McQuaid avatar for a year if anything comes of it for them.
if that actually happens I'll sh!t my pants laughinghrotha said:The samples are outside of McQuaid's control. Let's wait and see if they're positive first, shall we? Even if they doped, they might come out negative.
spalco said:As mentioned here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tou...-day-for-quickstep-a-new-winner-for-1998-tour
If some of the 1998 retroactive positivs are found to be Pantani's, should his victory be stricken from the record?
Maybe I'm biased because I still like Pantani, but removing a dead man's palmares seems awfully revisionist to me. What do you think?
the only message it would confirm is that you'll be immune as long as you can put up some legal/economic resistance.del1962 said:If a positive sample is found, then strip him of the result, confirms the message out to potential dopers that even if you have legendary status you are not immune from sanction at a future date.