Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France Titles?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France Titles?
Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France titles? Ullrich thinks so, I agree...
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullr...-france-titles
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullr...-france-titles
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bossier City, La
Posts: 628
Bikes: 70's Motobecane, 89 Centurion Ironman
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Restoration of Armstrong's Tour de France titles? Ullrich thinks so, I agree...
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullr...-france-titles
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullr...-france-titles
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm no fan of Armstrong or Ullrich, but he does make a valid point about the ridiculousness of trying to revise history.
#5
Senior Member
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.
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.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,501
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5216 Post(s)
Liked 3,555 Times
in
2,325 Posts
how is it cheating if he did what everyone else did, only better? he won 7 times. no one can change that.
#9
Senior Member
Oh, God, where is the justice?!?
#10
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
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.
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.
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
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.
#13
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,565
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2903 Post(s)
Liked 379 Times
in
305 Posts
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.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NW Louisiana
Posts: 731
Bikes: 2011 Trek Madone 5.2 (RIP), 2013 Trek Domane 5.9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#15
Senior Member
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?
#16
Commuter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 77
Bikes: BTwin Triban 3A
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.
#17
Senior Member
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.
PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.
You do have to dig as deep as Wikipedia to find it, though.
#18
Senior Member
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.
#19
Senior Member
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.
#20
Senior Member
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.
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.
#21
Senior Member
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?
#22
Senior Member
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.
#23
Senior Member
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.
#24
Senior Member
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.
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.