UKC

Assuming they strip Armstrong of his titles, who do they give the 2005 TdeF to?

Here is the top 10:

1) Lance Armstrong
2) Ivan Basso
3) Jan Ullrich
4) Francisco Mancebo
5) Alexandre Vinokourov
6) Levi Leipheimer
7) Michael Rasmussen
8) Cadel Evans
9) Floyd Landis
10) Óscar Pereiro

Of that lot only Evans and Pereiro haven't been convicted of doping! Maybe Cadel did win a second TdF?

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Wary as we all have to be now of being suddenly arrested for comments on the internet - please note the comment below is speculation not statement:

Cadel Evans is about as close as donkey to race-horse as it gets, in my view.

In reply to Talius Brute:

Yep. I know all about that.
In answer to the question.. none of the above.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

V funny that next on the list are Moreau (er, Festina), and Popovych (now what was his "suspicion score" again?...).

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

null and void it would be my guess.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I think all the names on the various lists of results and records should remain but have a line struck through the dopers.

That, in my opinion, would be more powerful than an astrix or erasure.

I'd prefer to remember these guys as cheating barstewards than forget about them.

Hopefully there will be some sort of truth and recociliation thing set up by whatever is left of the uci after the current fire storm has pasted.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Having gone through the full list, I'm happy - if not confident - to go with no29, Sandy Casar. Congrats, Sandy, you won a grand tour!

In reply to JLS:
No, null and void is more powerful. All that effort for nothing encourages all in the sport to ensure it remains clean.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Take a look here http://s10.postimage.org/4oplin5xz/armstrong1150px.jpg

All the usual suspects with podiums void and who would take their place.

In reply to Pocoyo: Keep in mind to remove Armstrong from his 1st place.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

It's a team event.

If you remove Lance's Team from the whole event, then the whole result is null and void.

No one won it, but -allegedly - lots of people disgraced it.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Who got the 'lantern rouge'? Maybe give it him.

In reply to Pocoyo:



It's Sandy Casar. From now on, in my mind, the greatest cyclist who ever lived.

His grant tour record is:

Grand Tour 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Giro - 13 - 81 6 - - - - - 25
Tour 83 111 16 29 69 71 13 11 25 27 22
Vuelta - - - - - - 19 WD - -

Now ok, he's sh1t at La Vuelta, but other than that (and with discounting earlier generations for their mental cortisone/amphet/pot belge/any other chemical-they-could-lay-their-hands-on use, when you actually look at it with all the dopers taken away, he's the best stage-race rider I know.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: armstrong won still

In reply to Talius Brute:

Evans? Has to be Evans then. Despite the fact that when ever he's riding he looks like a man trying to sh*t out a fridge.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: I had this conversation in the pub a few weeks back. Its seems rediculous that so many of the field were cheating. Although the TdF and cycling has a long history of it.

Tommy Simpson on the Mt Ventoux in 1967 collapsed and died after fueling himself on a heady deit of wine and amphetamin.

I am not a cyclist but the debate is an interesting one as until recently EPO doping was difficult to catch as the only way to catch people was their hemocrite level (red blood cell count). Which the cyclist could monitor easily with a simple pin prick and maintain a level below that.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


In reply to mark s:

He effectively top roped the TDF then claimed a solo flash.

In reply to Calder:

except he got caught peddling peds.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I think it is easiest to assume that they were all "at it" so the original result stands.

My opinion is that dopimg is a game of cat and mouse with new drugs and new tests being developed regularly, if you were judged "clean" at the time then you were "clean". Otherwise, how far back do you take the retrospective testing?

Doping was/is? part of the game and has been as influential as developments such as aero bars, skin suits etc

In reply to 3leggeddog: Doping has been influential at a massive cost. Many young riders died from EPO abuse in the eighties and nineties.

This article is from 8 years ago! http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/feb/16/cycling.cycling1

To give any jusification to it because they were all at it is wrong.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

As soon as we get into the realms of artificially changing human physiology, the sport loses any meaning whatsoever. You can't compare it to changes to equipment. If it stops being about human mental and physical endurance then what is it about?

It's important that we continue to maintain a distinction between advances in bikes and advances in performance enhancing drugs. Shrugging shoulders and letting those results stand would diminish cycling.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
The UCI needs to come up with some clear rules on how to handle this.

First of all you need a statute of limitations - lets say 8 years - so that past offenders can come clean and help the sport improve.

Secondly, and more difficulty, you should only award a race to another competitor if they have been subjected to, and passed, the same tests as the disgraced winner. The simple bit is keeping all samples for the same time as the statute of limitations, so 8 years. But even so that might not have caught LA, and for all the talk of witch hunt, the truth is that the US agencies kept going when Spanish and German agencies gave up. Sorry, but I'd rather have LA as a 7 time winner than Ullrich as a 6 time winner.

However I suspect the reaction form the UCI will "phew, thank god we've got that doping problem resolved, that won't happen again"

In reply to Chris the Tall:

tour de france director favours no winner.


"When you read the Usada report, you can't be indifferent," Prudhomme said. "It depicts an era and a system which are forever soiled. The best solution is to say that there should be no [Tour] winner those years."

Be interesting to see what the UCI decide on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/12/tour-de-france-lance-armstrong-...

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I've always liked Evans. Hope he's actually clean.

Yeah, I can't see the point in stripping results, you'd have to go so far back for some tours. Just leave the results alone.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I've always liked Evans. Hope he's actually clean.

Yeah, I can't see the point in stripping results, you'd have to go so far back for some tours. Just leave the results alone.

Also, really want the UCI to say something about this all, cause they're being rather quiet atm.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Well by that reckoning they should just ban professional cycling full stop, as irrespective of doping, you'll live a shorter life span if you're a professional cyclist. It doesn't matter how you do it, it ain't good for you.

In reply to Alyson:


You mean like with high altitude sleeping in hypoxia tents, combined with all the advantages of low altitude training... ...yup, I agree, its just another form of artifice that renders the whole thing meaningless as a sport.

In reply to a few

I am not condoning the doping. I am looking at it from a realistic standpoint. Doping has gone on and will continue to do so in cycling and many other sports.

The UCI is left with two "fair" options; let the results stand or void the whole race.

In reply to Jimbo W:

I understand what you are getting at, but I think you are wrong. There is nothing that couldn't be done naturally, sleeping in a hotel at altitude.

On the other hand, Mr Beckham et al who recover from injuries in an oxygen tent, those levels of oxygen cannot be found naturally

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Many young riders die in training...

Wiggins made the same point in an interview in the spring, he also said to make no mistake, professional cyclists are taking drugs all the time, it's just that they're not the ones on the banned list. He also pointed out Sky have a no needles policy.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
An interesting article on the subject.....
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/really-won-tours-lance-1...
looking at all the tours from 1999 to 2005 :]
guppy