"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Is Riis the 1996 TDF Winner if 100% Were Doping?

What if 100% of the cyclists from that race admitted to doping? Would that change whether you thought of Riis as the worthy victor? Or would it make no diff?

Where is the "It's in the past, and winning the tour by default 11 year after the fact is worthless" option?

I agree with Cypress on the specific case of Riis. Actually I'd say pretty much any case of retroactive title-stripping. Anything after the race has ended is really too late; the moment is gone.


But in general terms, this strikes me as a take on the "level playing field" argument, which I don't buy.

The net effect is, I don't really give a crap about pro cycling results, past or future. Actually I would extend that to pretty much any pro sport; it's just the nature of these arrangements to do anything necessary to win.

Where is the "It's in the past, and winning the tour by default 11 year after the fact is worthless" option?
The funny (or not) part is look at the results of the race...you are down to 5th or 6th place before you can even ask if the guy might have been clean.

Philosophically, it they all doped and thus had the same advantage then they couldn't cheat each other. If they all doped and we all either knew or should have known then we weren't cheated. If doping was simply as given within the peleton or at least as common as it appears to have been then the dopers were really competing against dopers- a fair but chemical competition.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jun07/jun07news2

Riis has been removed from the record books. He is no longer the winner of 1996 TdF

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jun07/jun07news2

Riis has been removed from the record books. He is no longer the winner of 1996 TdF

Holy ****, are you serious? omfg, someone give this news flash its own thread!

i said no only because the extent of each rider's doping is unknown. i believe the vast majority of them were doping, but some were doing more than others. Which would still make it unfair. i have no clue who would have won, and it may have been Riis, but i dont think its accurate to assume that doping raised everyone's level equally.

Removing Riis' name from the TdF winner's record is merely symbolic. They don't have the authority to strip his title (as admitted) as that power is the UCI's. It's kind of like returning the symbolic yellow jersey. In ten years, almanacs and the like will still say Riis won.

The problem that comes to my mind if you say everyone else was doping at the time, is then it comes down to who can dope the best ($$$$). So people are basically buying the title instead of earning it.

Not sure if my logic makes any sense, just the first thing that comes to my mind.

I agree with Cypress on the specific case of Riis. Actually I'd say pretty much any case of retroactive title-stripping. Anything after the race has ended is really too late; the moment is gone.


But in general terms, this strikes me as a take on the "level playing field" argument, which I don't buy.

The net effect is, I don't really give a crap about pro cycling results, past or future. Actually I would extend that to pretty much any pro sport; it's just the nature of these arrangements to do anything necessary to win.

Not totally sure if this is what you're thinking by no level playing field, but I'm assuming you're saying that some guys might have access to better drugs than others. The problem with that is there's no level playing field even without drugs. one team might have more access to better technology for power training, hr training, analysis, perhaps they can afford better nutrition or altitude tents or maybe some athletes live at altitude or near mountains and others live in flat lands. There are a million things that make it so one guy can always have some advantage over another. If they're all doing drugs, the fact that some guys dope better than others is no different than some guys having altitude tents or others having better bikes, etc.

i said no only because the extent of each rider's doping is unknown. i believe the vast majority of them were doping, but some were doing more than others. Which would still make it unfair. i have no clue who would have won, and it may have been Riis, but i dont think its accurate to assume that doping raised everyone's level equally.

Read my above post.

You'd have to study who had the best dope! If Riis's dope wasn't as good as other riders', maybe he deserves it?

Well, even if Riis had the best dope, isn't that at least offset by having Godefroot as your DS?

Not totally sure if this is what you're thinking by no level playing field, but I'm assuming you're saying that some guys might have access to better drugs than others.

I'm merely saying I don't buy the idea of "everyone [is doping | should be allowed to dope], thus, it is a level playing field".

I did not mean to suggest that the field is or ever has been level, with or without dope. Even removing altitude tents and bikes from the equation, some factor on some level (financial support, genetics, training, diet, etc.) takes it out of level -- that's the nature of athletic endeavors. But that does not mean that anything and everything should be allowed.

Everyone's doped in the past, are doping now, and will be doping in the future. Theres no way around it.

What do you think is making these cyclists admit to having doped? No one could ever have proved Riis doped. He gains nothing by it and possibly hurts his current team (which might be searching for a new sponsor for 2009). So why do it?