Menchov

[LegendRider]

I'll take "things that aren't surprising," Alex.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/menchov-stripped-of-tour-de-france-results

[CunegoFan]

Samples from five years ago? I think you could take the blood of any of the big winners who have been racing for eight or ten years, compare it to a present day blood sample, and conclude they must have doped. Cancellara, Boonen, the Schlecks, etc. So it makes me wonder why Menchov. That the owner of his team was feuding with the UCI and McQuaid seems even more suspicious.

I do not see that this does the sport any good.

[rain dogs]

Samples from five years ago? I think you could take the blood of any of the big winners who have been racing for eight or ten years, compare it to a present day blood sample, and conclude they must have doped. Cancellara, Boonen, the Schlecks, etc. So it makes me wonder why Menchov. That the owner of his team was feuding with the UCI and McQuaid seems even more suspicious.

I do not see that this does the sport any good.

Open and shut case?

I agree it isn't great from a PR standpoint. What's the point of stripping Menchov's results from '12. Dude didn't even finish in the top ten.

2010... that's ugly. 1st - stripped. 3rd - stripped. 2nd - Andy Schleck.

I fully support, and think it necessary to have stripped Lance's titles, because when the reward vs the risk of doping was so imbalanced riders need to know the impossible is possible (not that Lance isn't still living large.)

But how deep do you go after that? Do you bans guys for life if you catch them again? Think of Frank Schleck. He got banned. He's got the Fuentes payments. Do they look at his passport with more scrutiny now? from 2010? 2009? 2008? If his old passport looks fishy... do you ban him for life? or do you just leave it, cause the way they're riding they've basically banned themselves.

[PQJ]

On the plus side, Jens never saw anything and is convinced of Menchov's innocence.

[CunegoFan]

I fully support, and think it necessary to have stripped Lance's titles, because when the reward vs the risk of doping was so imbalanced riders need to know the impossible is possible (not that Lance isn't still living large.)


I think this has become ridiculous Kabuki theater. Nearly everyone in the Tour's top ten for a fifteen year period have been caught at one point or another. Stripping results so another rider (who was also caught later or earler) does nothing. The UCI should just be honest, say everyone was blood doping, keep the results as they were originally, and put an asterix over the whole era. In the end, when history is written about the time, that will end up happening anyway.

[rain dogs]

I think this has become ridiculous Kabuki theater. Nearly everyone in the Tour's top ten for a fifteen year period have been caught at one point or another. Stripping results so another rider (who was also caught later or earler) does nothing. The UCI should just be honest, say everyone was blood doping, keep the results as they were originally, and put an asterix over the whole era. In the end, when history is written about the time, that will end up happening anyway.

i don't like that idea. 1. We can be pretty darn sure some of the riders were clean. They've said so. Their teammates have said so. They did nothing exceptional (as in super-human doping exceptional) and finished in the hundreds, or last, or maybe there were none in some years.

So, saying "everyone was doping" would be tragically unjust to those very few.

Also, someone, whether it's 164th, 64th or 6th was clean. But do we need to find out? Can we find out? Is it worth finding out?

I think what has be discovered is monumental enough - the most flagrant lie, the most beneficial multi-millionaire, the most absurd storyline was exposed. Hopefully that causes others to not try and "one up" that in a sporting sense, but instead in a fair sport sense...

I'd like to think young American riders are thinking "I'd like to be an American champion to win the Tour clean, that people will believe in, that I'd be the first to really prove my performance." vs "I'd like to be the first to win 8"

[PQJ]

1. We can be pretty darn sure some of the riders were clean. They've said so. Their teammates have said so. They did nothing exceptional (as in super-human doping exceptional) and finished in the hundreds, or last, or maybe there were none in some years.



I'm not so sure about that, rain_dogs. In that era, doping was the price of admission. I'm sure there were those who didn't dope, but that was tantamount to giving up on riding in Europe at the highest level.

[Dead Man]

Professional cycling has become such a f'ing circus in the last decade. I just find it impossible to care anymore.

Much funner to race your bike than watch other guys race theirs anyway...

[CunegoFan]

Also, someone, whether it's 164th, 64th or 6th was clean.


So what? What difference does it make if someone in 150th place was "clean"...or says he was? Trying to doctor the results to reflect a just order when the entire era was unjust is a waste of time and resources that would be better spent on longitudinal testing today. It is a mug's game. It is futile. It is also impossible.

The era was what is was, and the results should stand as they were. To paraphrase Apocalypse Now, "Charging a man with doping in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."