GreatWhiteShark

If it is proven that he was cheating, what PED(s) use is, during any of those titles, then he loses the ones it was proven that he cheated while winning them.

txags92

I understand that he was punished under the rules at the time...but why is the public perception so different of the two men? Merckx was ejected from a Giro and tested positive for banned substances two other times. How many times was he doping and not caught? How many drugs/doping methods was he using that he was not caught for? How many of those methods were only legal because the authorities couldn't test for them? It is the same set of arguments that people are questioning Sky about now...are they using something new? If it is new and not banned, is it still an unfair advantage? etc. etc.

The problem I have is not that Lance was punished. Fine, they caught him, he was banned. Ok...he was punished according to what the code at the time says...so why is he persona non grata, and Merckx who was punished according to the rules he competed under is celebrated as the best ever and brought on stage? Why are two guys who were clearly career dopers (during a time of ubiquitous doping in the peleton) and who may have gained an advantage over their competitors by that doping treated so differently in the court of public opinion? And before you bring up the people Lance went after...yes, I think that was wrong. But I bet if anybody had been trying to chase Merckx out of the sport for his doping, he would have tried to crush them too, just like he tried to crush those he rode against. Highly competitive people who are at the peak of their sport are often arrogant a-holes. I would bet that nobody who raced against Merckx liked him very much at the time. Now, decades later, they can all be friends and pat each other on the back, but I bet during the years they were racing, everybody thought Merckx was an a-hole too.

MRT2

As they say, it isn't the crime, it is the coverup. Lance didn't just cheat, but lied, intimidated witnesses, and abused the legal system to defend his position. IMO, had he just won a title or two, and gone away, or alternately, fessed up earlier and, perhaps taken a suspension, he would have been welcomed back into cycling. His hubris was his undoing.

GreatWhiteShark

THANK YOU!! Great post

Keith99

The Giro test is one Merckx disputes to this day. And I believe him.

Why?

Drugs back then were taken while racing, to improve the result for a race or stage. As Merckx pointed out that stage was one where there was nothing for him to gain.

lenA

Any placebo stories out there?

canam73

I was correcting the poster that I quoted in that Merckx is on record of having failed tests for substances that were banned at the time. Whether he was actually guilty or not doesn't change that.

Sixty Fiver

Merckx also admitted to having taken drugs on the order of his team doctor without realizing he was taking a banned substance and stated that had he known what it was he would have refused because he did not need it.

The French hated him passionately and their testing was also suspect as they would not allow second parties to review them... this was done at a time when Merckx was pursuing his 5th win and had been subjected to death threats.

It would seem that Merckx was a very clean rider and was so much better than his competition that performance enhancing drugs were something he did not feel he needed to take while those around him were doing everything possible to keep up.

Coppi admitted that he took everything and anything he thought would help him as despite his superior abilities the riders of that day were jacked out of their boots on everything from cocaine to speed.

Merckx and Coppi were honest... they were products of their time and Merckx has always been outspoken against doping and he ride in a time when riders dropped dead because of drug abuse.

Armstrong was not honest and unlike others, he used his wealth and influence to screw people over and maintained his lies to provide more gain for himself.

mprelaw

He tested positive for cortisone the very first year he won the TdF.

He produced a script for it for "saddle sores". Most people think that the script was post-dated.

He also didn't have a TUE for it, but apparently, UCI didn't care.

There also was no testing done for EPO during much of his run.

Other Postal riders, including Levi, also lost their results during part of that era.

If we're going to restore Lance, we might as well restore Landis' title, too.

Maybe Andy should return his yellow to Contador, too.

mprelaw

How much more proof do you need beyond a full confession?

GreatWhiteShark

As I am posted before, I am not a bicycling fan, and I have short and long memory challenges, and it has been a while now, tons are falling apart all around The USA and The USA Media does a horrible of journalism, though I kept up with it, so I am not sure exactly what confessed he to. Did he actually admit to using PEDs, time the time frame that affect those races and which ones and how many?

GreatWhiteShark

What a lot people forget, I imagine defenders not even bothered with, is that taking some types of PEDs are ILLEGAL. Did Lance Armstrong commit a crime(s) in just admitting to it, I am not sure if The PEDs he used are Illegal and The PEDs that might have been was used in The USA, not a lawyer. Though, if I had to guess, then I would be surprised if it was NOT Illegal and just because sports are so dirty and win at all costs and next to no governments' regulations. Be yet again, a celebrity breaks the law and barely much said about it, let alone law enforcement focusing on it (forget about found innocence in courts, partly because of their resources and wealth).

MRT2

I take it you missed his TV interview with Oprah.https://www.oprah.com/own_tv/onc/lanc...trong-one.html

gsteinb

what's with the font shtick?

kenji666

Classic quote from a cheater: "...That’s how things were at the time. It’s not helping anyone to have lines struck through the roll of honour,” Ullrich said.

BigJeff

Is the same level of scrutiny going to be applied to Lance's peers of his day?

If everyone was doing it, how far back in the field was the first non-cheater?

Is Ullrich going to be discovered and deleted from the books as well?

kenji666

Yes, as far back as it takes, yes

Athens80

No.

BigJeff

This would not only improve bicycling, but all athletic sports.

As a "fan" or casual enthusiast, watching professional sports which are obviously saturated in PEDs is like watching "professional wrestling". Nobody aspires to change/improve their lives to compete in a sport that is rooted in steroids/PEDs.

If the "average" professional sport leveled the playing field by removing "drugs" the "average Joe" would be more likely to do a double take and think "hey, I could do that" and strive to improve themselves until they could compete.

In a level playing field, the best will still rise to the top. There will still be professionals, with top tier competitions... it will just mean more.

gsteinb

where are you?

I believe this covers it:

Oprah: Did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling performance?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: Was one of those banned substances EPO?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: Did you ever blood dope, or use blood transfusions to enhance your cycling performance?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: Did you ever used other banned substances like cortisones, testosterone, or human growth hormone?
Lance Armstrong: Yes
Oprah: In all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned substances or blood dope?
Lance Armstrong: Yes

Considering the DOJ is on Lance for about what his net worth is, the restoration of his Tour titles have to be pretty low on his list of priorities at this point.

Rowan

And this is the whole point. If there is just one rider who was clean in the field, then he is the winner... in more ways than one.

Frankly, people who support Lance most likely also think Madoff as a hero, too. Both engaged in long-term deception that occurs a lot in the rest of their fields, and they became wealthy men out of their activities. Madoff was the darling of the investment set in his prime. Armstrong was the darling of the cycling/sporting set in his prime.

But they got found out.

Are the suspicions cast over the financial sector and cycling justified based on the behaviour of these respective individuals? Sure is. Do we deregister all the investment advisers based on Madoff's behaviour, and ban the riders based on Armstrong's actions? Well, yes, the ones that are found to have behaved dishonestly. Do we let the likes of Madoff trade again and Armstrong compete again when they led the most insidious forms of deception in their activities? Hell no.

See the parallels here...

kenji666

When will they retest the urine samples of Lemond and Hinault?

canam73

I don't believe any/many were kept.

asgelle

I'm curious, if they did as you suggest, what testing protocol should they use and what prohibited substances list should they apply? What should they use for results management? Why?

Zinger

That's pre EPO era but if they really wanted to dig, I suppose they could go back to the early '90s and really go through the era. Somehow I don't think they'll bother.

Back in the days of the Red Zinger Classic in Colorado in the late '70s promoter Mo Siegel never sent samples to the lab because it was too expensive. They just gathered the samples from podium winners and randoms and threw them away, lol.

Too bad Phil Anderson was distracted by an invitation from a young lady to join her at her place after winning the Vail criterium stage in '78 and missed doping control. He was the only one who was ever suspended. They didn't actually start sending samples to the lab until the then-Coors Classic in '83.