Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Professional Cycling For the Fans Follow the Tour de France,the Giro de Italia, the Spring Classics, or other professional cycling races? Here's your home...

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-31-13, 07:23 PM   #1
sprince
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Bikes:
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France Titles?

Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France titles? Ullrich thinks so, I agree...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullr...-france-titles
sprince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-13, 07:33 PM   #2
MRT2
Senior Member
 
MRT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Bikes: 2012 Salsa Casseroll, 1997 Bianchi Advantage, 1994 Trek 930.
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Sounds like Ullrich has his own problems.
MRT2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 01:01 AM   #3
dahoss2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bossier City, La
Bikes: 70's Motobecane, 89 Centurion Ironman
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprince View Post
Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France titles? Ullrich thinks so, I agree...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullr...-france-titles
Maybe Ullrich will become an American citizen, run for President, then you can vote for him. Really do not think the powers involved with the TDF give a Rats @$$ about what Ullrich thinks but at least you do.
dahoss2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 03:53 AM   #4
sprince
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Bikes:
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoss2002 View Post
Maybe Ullrich will become an American citizen, run for President, then you can vote for him. Really do not think the powers involved with the TDF give a Rats @$$ about what Ullrich thinks but at least you do.
I'm no fan of Armstrong or Ullrich, but he does make a valid point about the ridiculousness of trying to revise history.
sprince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 06:35 AM   #5
Rowan
Has opinion, will express
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Revising history?

Armstrong cheated. Yes, he cheated better than everyone else. But he didn't leave it at that. He bullied a whole slew of people to hide what he and his team did. He lied, a lot. He made a lot of money out of those lies. He was aggressive and nasty about it all. He got everything that was coming to him.

History is being written as it should be, then, now and into the future.
Rowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 06:43 AM   #6
lenA
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Coast of Wisconsin
Bikes: 2011 Surly LHT 2005 LeMond Zurich
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
naturalized citizens can't run for president
lenA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 07:12 AM   #7
rumrunn6
Senior Member
 
rumrunn6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint
Posts: 14,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
how is it cheating if he did what everyone else did, only better? he won 7 times. no one can change that.
rumrunn6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 07:15 AM   #8
MRT2
Senior Member
 
MRT2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Bikes: 2012 Salsa Casseroll, 1997 Bianchi Advantage, 1994 Trek 930.
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunn6 View Post
how is it cheating if he did what everyone else did, only better? he won 7 times. no one can change that.
He had access to the best drugs?
MRT2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 07:51 AM   #9
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Bikes:
Posts: 6,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunn6 View Post
how is it cheating if he did what everyone else did, only better? he won 7 times. no one can change that.
You could also say murder is murder. But some people convicted serve short sentences and get out on good behavior while others are executed.

Oh, God, where is the justice?!?
canam73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 11:00 AM   #10
RJM
I'm doing it wrong.
 
RJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,534
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
Revising history?

Armstrong cheated. Yes, he cheated better than everyone else. But he didn't leave it at that. He bullied a whole slew of people to hide what he and his team did. He lied, a lot. He made a lot of money out of those lies. He was aggressive and nasty about it all. He got everything that was coming to him.

History is being written as it should be, then, now and into the future.

Don't forget, he kicks puppies and kills babies.



Frankly, I agree with Ullrich and really think it is lame to not have a winner for all those years. Armstrong won 7 times and that isn't going to be forgotten anytime soon.
RJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 01:34 PM   #11
sprince
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Bikes:
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
History is being written as it should be, then, now and into the future.
So this year's TDF should have been the 93rd instead of the 100th? Or would Froome be the 93rd winner of the 100th edition. It's hard to escape the silliness of it all. A more logical way to handle it is to change the name from "Lance Armstrong" to "Lance 'The Cheat' Armstrong" or simply append an asterisk.
sprince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 01:52 PM   #12
Keith99
Senior Member
 
Keith99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprince View Post
So this year's TDF should have been the 93rd instead of the 100th? Or would Froome be the 93rd winner of the 100th edition. It's hard to escape the silliness of it all. A more logical way to handle it is to change the name from "Lance Armstrong" to "Lance 'The Cheat' Armstrong" or simply append an asterisk.
Does Maurice Garin become a 2 time winner? And does Henri Cornet go from being the youngest winner ever to never having even been on the podium.
Keith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 02:02 PM   #13
Zinger
Trek 500 Kid
 
Zinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Posts: 2,516
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
I'm not especially disagreeing with Ullrich but I really doubt they're going to do that in the current anti-doping atmosphere. It would send the wrong message of tolerance at this critical time. If they are inclined to do anything they'd probably strip Pantani and maybe Ullrich too if anybody goes back to '97 and tests those samples too.
Zinger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 02:05 PM   #14
Street Pedaler
Senior Member
 
Street Pedaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NW Louisiana
Bikes: 2011 Trek Madone 5.2 (RIP), 2013 Trek Domane 5.9
Posts: 732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I find it pretty silly that, basically, what Lance was banished for was out-cheating the cheaters. And, even after his public crucifixion, look at all of the suspicion that was flying around this year about Froome and Team Skye. You'd have a very long way to go to show me where Pro Cycling is any better off because they, in effect, simply ran off a bully.
Street Pedaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 05:12 PM   #15
txags92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can never reconcile how Lance's doping is treated compared to how Merckx's doping. One tested positive for dope multiple times, is still celebrated as the greatest cyclist ever, and was invited to be part of the podium celebration for the 100th edition. The other never tested positive, admitted later that he doped, and is now banned forever from even being mentioned as a winner? Besides their personalities, what is the difference between the two? Do we absolve Merckx of any wrongdoing because "everybody doped back then?" Well how do we know he didn't have newer drugs or better dope as has been suggested about Lance here? And now that it has been well established that most if not all of the top contenders racing against Lance were doping too, how does the Merckx argument stand up? Both raced (and doped) during a time when doping was ubiquitous, and both destroyed their competition. So why is one celebrated as the greatest ever to ride a bike and the other is treated as a turd in the punchbowl of the sport?
txags92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 05:30 PM   #16
pedromj
Commuter
 
pedromj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Anywhere
Bikes: BTwin Triban 3A
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I did not see any reference/source about the positives of Merckx so I can not tell a word about him but, about Armstrong, the point is that the drugs he used was banned from the competition. In the past there were drugs, yes, but they was not banned because they was not considered harmful (or whatever other reason), so cyclists used them and they were not breaking the rules. Armstrong did use banned drugs, he broke the rules, he was punished for that.

PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.
pedromj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 06:32 PM   #17
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Bikes:
Posts: 6,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromj View Post
I did not see any reference/source about the positives of Merckx so I can not tell a word about him but, about Armstrong, the point is that the drugs he used was banned from the competition. In the past there were drugs, yes, but they was not banned because they was not considered harmful (or whatever other reason), so cyclists used them and they were not breaking the rules. Armstrong did use banned drugs, he broke the rules, he was punished for that.

PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.
Merckx was ejected from a Giro and caught 2 other times for testing positive for drugs that were banned at the time.

You do have to dig as deep as Wikipedia to find it, though.
canam73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 06:39 PM   #18
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Bikes:
Posts: 3,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by txags92 View Post
I can never reconcile how Lance's doping is treated compared to how Merckx's doping.
I don't understand why people find this so hard to understand. Unlike Armstrong, WADA and the WADA code were not in existence when Merckx rode and he never agreed to abide by it. Merckx was subject to the rules and sanctions in place at the time exactly like Armstrong. What opinion anyone has of them is entirely their own decision.
asgelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-13, 06:43 PM   #19
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Bikes:
Posts: 3,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromj View Post
PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.
You need to re-read the WADA prohibited list. Not only are specific drugs prohibited, but classes of drugs and methods are included as well. It's highly unlikely that there is anything not covered on the list that would have any real effect.
asgelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-13, 03:09 AM   #20
Rowan
Has opinion, will express
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pedaler View Post
I find it pretty silly that, basically, what Lance was banished for was out-cheating the cheaters. And, even after his public crucifixion, look at all of the suspicion that was flying around this year about Froome and Team Skye. You'd have a very long way to go to show me where Pro Cycling is any better off because they, in effect, simply ran off a bully.
This is the key and what the Armstrong sycophants keep glossing over.

The secondary message that the Lance supporters seems to want to send is that being a win-at-all costs bully is acceptable. It isn't.
Rowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-13, 03:11 AM   #21
Rowan
Has opinion, will express
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by txags92 View Post
I can never reconcile how Lance's doping is treated compared to how Merckx's doping. One tested positive for dope multiple times, is still celebrated as the greatest cyclist ever, and was invited to be part of the podium celebration for the 100th edition. The other never tested positive, admitted later that he doped, and is now banned forever from even being mentioned as a winner? Besides their personalities, what is the difference between the two? Do we absolve Merckx of any wrongdoing because "everybody doped back then?" Well how do we know he didn't have newer drugs or better dope as has been suggested about Lance here? And now that it has been well established that most if not all of the top contenders racing against Lance were doping too, how does the Merckx argument stand up? Both raced (and doped) during a time when doping was ubiquitous, and both destroyed their competition. So why is one celebrated as the greatest ever to ride a bike and the other is treated as a turd in the punchbowl of the sport?
As I recall, this is incorrect.
Rowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-13, 03:17 AM   #22
Rowan
Has opinion, will express
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by canam73 View Post
You could also say murder is murder. But some people convicted serve short sentences and get out on good behavior while others are executed.

Oh, God, where is the justice?!?
The issue is that sentences are based on mitigation or aggravation in the committing of the crime, and a demonstration of remorse.

There were no mitigatory circumstances in Armstrong's case and his remorse has been too late, at best, and feigned at worst.

If people bothered to research, there are various other penalties, both within the sport, and in life, that are being handed out to the people who have admitted doping in that era. Anyone would think those riders have got off scot free. They haven't. The most recent I can think of is Stuart O'Grady, who has been stripped of his membership of a prestigious peak sporting body in Australia.
Rowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-13, 03:21 AM   #23
Rowan
Has opinion, will express
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
You need to re-read the WADA prohibited list. Not only are specific drugs prohibited, but classes of drugs and methods are included as well. It's highly unlikely that there is anything not covered on the list that would have any real effect.
While this is true, the issue has always been that the dopers have been one or two steps ahead of the technology used to detect the substance or method. The biological passport goes some way to helping detect anomalies.
Rowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-13, 07:03 AM   #24
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Bikes:
Posts: 6,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
The issue is that sentences are based on mitigation or aggravation in the committing of the crime, and a demonstration of remorse.

There were no mitigatory circumstances in Armstrong's case and his remorse has been too late, at best, and feigned at worst.

If people bothered to research, there are various other penalties, both within the sport, and in life, that are being handed out to the people who have admitted doping in that era. Anyone would think those riders have got off scot free. They haven't. The most recent I can think of is Stuart O'Grady, who has been stripped of his membership of a prestigious peak sporting body in Australia.
I always appreciate it when somebody explains my own point or joke back to me.
canam73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-13, 07:11 AM   #25
La Tortue
Senior Member
 
La Tortue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
Anyone would think those riders have got off scot free. They haven't. The most recent I can think of is Stuart O'Grady, who has been stripped of his membership of a prestigious peak sporting body in Australia.
ROTFLMAO
Oh my! Please tell me this is sarcasm at its very best.
La Tortue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 PM.