Half of past champions want Lances' wins reinstated

[bikinchris]

I am kind of on the fence about this:

http://road.cc/content/news/124109-half-tour-de-france-winners-say-lance-armstrong-should-get-his-seven-titles-back

But I think about it, I can't think of any sports star in history that didn't cheat. I am sure there are some, I just can't think of them.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I really could care less what past winners want. Most of that is self-serving BS in some respect. And since when did we take a vote on sanctioning riders?

[fiamme red]

He should be reinstated. Otherwise how can you not also strip the titles from Riis (who admitted to doping for his 1996 victory), Ullrich, and Pantani?

[Louis]

With some patience, anything can happen...

MINNEAPOLIS -- The Reds will be allowed to include Pete Rose in All-Star Game festivities next season, even if it is on a limited basis, commissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday.

Speaking exclusively to the Baseball Writers Association of America on Tuesday, baseball's outgoing commissioner was asked if Rose would be allowed to be included in All-Star celebrations next year when Cincinnati hosts the game.

"That'll be up to the Cincinnati club, and they know what they can do and they can't do," Selig said. "They've been very good about that. We haven't had that discussion."

[fiamme red]

With some patience, anything can happen...The difference is that no one has tried to strip Rose of his World Series rings, MVP award, batting titles, or MLB records.

[Louis]

The difference is that no one has tried to strip Rose of his World Series rings, MVP award, batting titles, or MLB records.

Doesn't he get an asterisk?

[mtechnica]

He should be reinstated. Otherwise how can you not also strip the titles from Riis (who admitted to doping for his 1996 victory), Ullrich, and Pantani?

+1 it seems unfair to take the win away from one known doper and not the next; they will probably never know for sure who the best placed clean rider was anyway so why bother.

[FlashUNC]

Hmmm...likely dopers in their own right want someone else re-instated in the event a precedent gets set and they get their titles stripped? Surely that's not a motivation for these guys at all...

Stephen Roche is a ridiculous apologist for dirty racing. Need go back no further than what he said about Paul Kimmage just before the Festina Affair in the 1998 tour:

He's using this whole thing to give himself profile. What he's doing is encouraging parents not to put kids on bikes because he's making this drugs thing sound more widespread than it actually is. The Tour de France is the biggest annual sporting event in the world and all Paul Kimmage is doing is bringing it down. He's a sensationalist journalist.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2012/10/1/3436624/rough-ride-by-paul-kimmage

Don't shoot the messenger Stephen, and don't excuse the guys on jet fuel.

[bikinchris]

He should be reinstated. Otherwise how can you not also strip the titles from Riis (who admitted to doping for his 1996 victory), Ullrich, and Pantani?

Those guys are Europeans. Lance was an outsider. Lemond spoke French to them. That might be the difference.

[Louis]

Those guys are Europeans. Lance was an outsider. Lemond spoke French to them. That might be the difference.

Lemond was a doper too? Wow!

[sailorboy]

+1 it seems unfair to take the win away from one known doper and not the next; they will probably never know for sure who the best placed clean rider was anyway so why bother.

except for the fact that Lance took out a multi-million $ insurance policy hedging that he would win. Did all the other stripped winners do that?

I'd think the insur. co. lawyers would have a thing or two to say about reinstating those titles.

[pbarry]

Pat McQuaid supports the notion of reinstatement. It must be a good idea.

[bikinchris]

Lemond was a doper too? Wow!

Not going to go there. Lemond was an "outsider" but he tried to curry favor and spoke French well enough for them to like him.
Lance was never liked for even one day. Probably because he was a throbbing purple headed you know what. Riis, Ulrich etc. were at least European, so they weren't looked at as hard as the others.

[Louis]

If only Rapha would hire Lance to be their lead spokesperson - we'd all be in Internet mad-dog posting, raging, all hating all the time, heaven.

[sante pollastri]

Lemond was a doper too? Wow!

of course,how can a not doped man win a TDF stage?
and he won THE TDF......

[CunegoFan]

He should be reinstated. Otherwise how can you not also strip the titles from Riis (who admitted to doping for his 1996 victory), Ullrich, and Pantani?

Nearly everone in the top ten during Armstrong's reign has been busted for doping. One of the last remaining riders, Menchov, was just busted. Taking Armstrong out of the results while leaving the rest is ridiculous. It is trying to blame Armstrong for the whole era.

[CunegoFan]

Those guys are Europeans. Lance was an outsider. Lemond spoke French to them. That might be the difference.

The difference is that Travis Tygart was offended that Armstrong remained an atheist after surviving cancer.

[pbarry]

Get a room.

[bikinchris]

The difference is that Travis Tygart was offended that Armstrong remained an atheist after surviving cancer.

That too. I bet the mural in his Spanish home really got to Tygart. How can an atheist have a religious mural?

[thirdgenbird]

"leave it blank to symbolize the era"

Explain that to me, How is removing someone who used performance enhancing drugs more symbolic of the era than leaving lance, the most successful and well know user of the era, at the top of the list?

The whole notion that those seven years were "an era" is also beyond silly. Blood doping and drug use didn't show up and leave with armstrong. This story would probably be completely different if four cyclists split those seven wins so why are we stopping with the lance wins?

What lance did was against the rules and wrong, but as far as victories are concerned, how is he different than the other cheaters? You can hate him for what he did off the bike, but what does that have to do with race results?

As long as those spots stay empty, everyone will know who once filled them. Heck, the fact that there are seven empty slots just make his story less forgettable.

FYI: I grew up a jan ullrich fan.

[tiretrax]

He should be reinstated. Otherwise how can you not also strip the titles from Riis (who admitted to doping for his 1996 victory), Ullrich, and Pantani?

I need to read no further. You got it. And how can LA get banned for life, but not Riis, etc.

[sante pollastri]

"leave it blank to symbolize the era"

explain that to me, how is removing someone who used performance enhancing drugs more symbolic of the era than leaving lance, the most successful and well know user of the era, at the top of the list?

The whole notion that those seven years were "an era" is also beyond silly. Blood doping and drug use didn't show up and leave with armstrong. This story would probably be completely different if four cyclists split those seven wins so why are we stopping with the lance wins?

What lance did was against the rules and wrong, but as far as victories are concerned, how is he different than the other cheaters? You can hate him for what he did off the bike, but what does that have to do with race results?

As long as those spots stay empty, everyone will know who once filled them. Heck, the fact that there are seven empty slots just make his story less forgettable.

Fyi: I grew up a jan ullrich fan.

+1

[merlincustom1]

He should be reinstated. Otherwise how can you not also strip the titles from Riis (who admitted to doping for his 1996 victory), Ullrich, and Pantani?
Because there was no prosecution of Riis. LA refused to participate in the adjudication process. As such, there charges were deemed admitted, the reasoned decision announced, and the sanction required by the rules imposed. Kirk O'Bee was banned for life for a lot less. Had LA submitted to arbitration and/or otherwise took a deal, he'd likely have had an 8 year ban and fewer titles stripped. His constant whining of "why me?" can be answered by looking in the mirror.

[jr59]

"leave it blank to symbolize the era"

Explain that to me, How is removing someone who used performance enhancing drugs more symbolic of the era than leaving lance, the most successful and well know user of the era, at the top of the list?

The whole notion that those seven years were "an era" is also beyond silly. Blood doping and drug use didn't show up and leave with armstrong. This story would probably be completely different if four cyclists split those seven wins so why are we stopping with the lance wins?

What lance did was against the rules and wrong, but as far as victories are concerned, how is he different than the other cheaters? You can hate him for what he did off the bike, but what does that have to do with race results?

As long as those spots stay empty, everyone will know who once filled them. Heck, the fact that there are seven empty slots just make his story less forgettable.

FYI: I grew up a jan ullrich fan.


This and the Pete Rose comparison sum it up very nicely.

[sante pollastri]

In my personal rank,Lance Armstrong is one of the best pro rider ever,more than other great champions who won 5 TDF,but not great as Pantani,IMO.
And the doping facts,true or supposed,don't care me at all.

[CunegoFan]

Because there was no prosecution of Riis. LA refused to participate in the adjudication process. As such, there charges were deemed admitted, the reasoned decision announced, and the sanction required by the rules imposed. Kirk O'Bee was banned for life for a lot less. Had LA submitted to arbitration and/or otherwise took a deal, he'd likely have had an 8 year ban and fewer titles stripped. His constant whining of "why me?" can be answered by looking in the mirror.

The adjudication process was a farce. It was all designed to blame Armstrong and Bruyneel for the decisions made by individual riders, who USADA would have us believe all stopped doping in 2006 out of the goodness of their hearts. Multiple riders who were given six month bans in the off season rode for Riis, so where is USADA's prosecution of Riis? The "go to" doctor for team CSC was Dr. Fuentes. Where is USADA's prosecution of Fuentes? Most of those let off with a slap on their wrist rode for domestic teams, so where is the prosecution of those teams' facilitators? Where is the prosecution of Carmichael, Weisel, Eddy B. and all the others who came out of USAC?

[FastforaSlowGuy]

The adjudication process was a farce. It was all designed to blame Armstrong and Bruyneel for the decisions made by individual riders, who USADA would have us believe all stopped doping in 2006 out of the goodness of their hearts. Multiple riders who were given six month bans in the off season rode for Riis, so where is USADA's prosecution of Riis? The "go to" doctor for team CSC was Dr. Fuentes. Where is USADA's prosecution of Fuentes? Most of those let off with a slap on their wrist rode for domestic teams, so where is the prosecution of those teams' facilitators? Where is the prosecution of Carmichael, Weisel, Eddy B. and all the others who came out of USAC?

Sorry, but I just don't see any relevance in the "why prosecute me when you don't prosecute him." Try that one on the cop next time you get pulled over from a long line of speeders. The answer will be something like "I guess you're the unlucky one." It's called prosecutorial discretion, and it happens every single day. USADA is under no obligation to prosecute Riis (why would they?), and their prosecution strategy was pretty plain vanilla. You start building out a picture of the case, quickly realizing who will be the "easy" targets and who will hold out. Nail the easy ones, flip 'em, and then go after the tough targets.

None of this has anything to do with stripping his yellow jerseys, which was call made not by USADA but by ASO. Their call, not Tygert's. Yes, USADA build the record against Lance, and ASO has to decide how to react from that. Maybe some of that is ASO hating Lance, maybe some of it is an attempt to embarrass the UCI (known tussle there). Either way, it's not a call for the investigators to make.

Bottom line in all of this is that Lance got hit harder than other riders because he was far more combative (which always gets you smacked harder in an investigation), acted like a prick throughout his career, and had more leverage over his team's operations than other riders on his team. In any kind of investigation/prosecution, that's a toxic combo. Frankly, I partly blame his legal counsel for this. They had to know that the slash-and-burn tactics would mean a heavy punishment if they lost.

[CunegoFan]

Sorry, but I just don't see any relevance in the "why prosecute me when you don't prosecute him."

It is relevant because doping in cycling is not a problem with individuals. It is a systemic problem. There was a twenty year period where nearly everyone at the top of the sport was using blood vector doping. There is scarcely a major win during that time that was not blood doping assisted. Going back years in the past to ding the results of a few riders is a useless waste of resources that could be better spent on longitudiinal testing today. It is also a farce that tries to blame everything on a few individuals rather than face the facts that everyone involved in the sport is culpable.


None of this has anything to do with stripping his yellow jerseys, which was call made not by USADA but by ASO. Their call, not Tygert's.

Actually it was USADA. They acted as the judge, jury, and prosecution in the case because it never went to arbitration. USADA is the one that came up with the penalty. There was no judge that had to sign off on whether it was appropriate. The UCI decided to leave the placings blank instead of move riders up. The ASO followed the UCI, which has official results management.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

Yep, you're right that it was USADA>UCI>ASO. I had that mixed up. If I recall, UCI generally adopts the sanction imposed by a national body, and ASO simply made the decision not to shuffle the results for those years.


They acted as the judge, jury, and prosecution in the case because it never went to arbitration.

Armstrong could have contested this in arbitration, which would have put this in front of a judge-like panel. Maybe they would have walked it back to a 8 year or less ban. We'll never know because he opted not to do that, probably in part because it would have exposed him to legal risks that could bleed over to his other cases. His choice. Also his choice not to cooperate during the investigation. There are consequences for that, and I have zero sympathy for him or any other rider that chooses to run that risk.

I'd love to see WADA pull out all stops and do an investigation along the lines of USADA's, but for the whole of the sport. Given how widespread the problem is, the resources required would be mind-boggling. It would occupy WADA's full attention for years. So logistically it's not possible, and there is zero chance that each national body will do their own. That's why I come back to the commission approach: admit wrongdoing, and maybe get WADA on board to simply waive or significantly reduce sanctions. That doesn't help with all the national drug charges folks would face, so I don't see the commission being likely.

Instead, cycling has left us all something to gripe and argue about for the next gazillion years.

[oldpotatoe]

With some patience, anything can happen...

OT but Pete did nothing to alter the game, even when he bet on the Reds.

Not the same as doping/cheating in any other sport. Pete had a beef with Giamatti and Dowd, or they had a beef with him; they didn't like being lied to, took it personally and banned Pete for life..and forced the HOF selection committee to make him permanently ineligible.

[FlashUNC]

OT but Pete did nothing to alter the game, even when he bet on the Reds.

Not the same as doping/cheating in any other sport. Pete had a beef with Giamatti and Dowd, or they had a beef with him; they didn't like being lied to, took it personally and banned Pete for life..and forced the HOF selection committee to make him permanently ineligible.

This is way OT, but Pete bet on his own team, and we're to assume that had no outcome on the games?

Pete knew his entire career that gambling on games was baseball's cardinal sin, and the penalties would be harsh. There are signs in every clubhouse, and everyone knows about what happened to the 1919 Black Sox.

Rose had decades of advance warning and precedent. All he had to do was literally read the sign in front of his face:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Then when the hammer came down, he proceeded to lie for the next two decades about it. Punishment fits the crime with him. If anyone should be let back in, it's Shoeless Joe, not Pete.

[oldpotatoe]

This is way OT, but Pete bet on his own team, and we're to assume that had no outcome on the games?

Pete knew his entire career that gambling on games was baseball's cardinal sin, and the penalties would be harsh. There are signs in every clubhouse, and everyone knows about what happened to the 1919 Black Sox.

Rose had decades of advance warning and precedent. All he had to do was literally read the sign in front of his face:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Then when the hammer came down, he proceeded to lie for the next two decades about it. Punishment fits the crime with him. If anyone should be let back in, it's Shoeless Joe, not Pete.

He played to win, whether he bet or not. Now if he had done the Black Sox gig, played to lose, that would have been different. Again, his betting had no effect on the outcome of the game.

BTW-he wasn't the first to bet on baseball..3 others did, and got very short suspensions. Can't find their names.

"Ueberroth reinstated two Hall of Famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, who had been banned from working for Major League Baseball by Kuhn because of their associations with gambling casinos"

[fuzzalow]

Bottom line in all of this is that Lance got hit harder than other riders because he was far more combative (which always gets you smacked harder in an investigation), acted like a prick throughout his career, and had more leverage over his team's operations than other riders on his team. In any kind of investigation/prosecution, that's a toxic combo. Frankly, I partly blame his legal counsel for this. They had to know that the slash-and-burn tactics would mean a heavy punishment if they lost.

Agree with all except laying blame on legal counsel. I'd speculate that they chose the strategy they did either because they were overruled by the client or they knew to play for the bigger picture in the longer game. It would change the complexion of all the legal difficulties that would ensue to make difficult to prevail against were there to be stipulated facts and possibly an admission of guilt already on the books.

To look at it in more real, and perhaps cynical, terms: counsel chose the strategy that was deemed best to protect their client's overall assets by sacrificing the awards and trophies that the sporting bodies had the power to strip but had no power to seek damages or claim assets. And to give potential and all future claimants access to any admission or hard facts obtain from the legal record would just make it virtually impossible to defend against in all future proceedings.

[FlashUNC]

He played to win, whether he bet or not. Now if he had done the Black Sox gig, played to lose, that would have been different. Again, his betting had no effect on the outcome of the game.

BTW-he wasn't the first to bet on baseball..3 others did, and got very short suspensions. Can't find their names.

"Ueberroth reinstated two Hall of Famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, who had been banned from working for Major League Baseball by Kuhn because of their associations with gambling casinos"

So Shoeless Joe hit .375 in the 1919 World Series, with 12 hits -- a record at the time -- 6 RBI and and no errors in the entire series. So he should be re-instated, no?

Fact is as a manager bet on games. Thats a huge no-no.

[oldpotatoe]

So Shoeless Joe hit .375 in the 1919 World Series, with 12 hits -- a record at the time -- 6 RBI and and no errors in the entire series. So he should be re-instated, no?

Fact is as a manager bet on games. Thats a huge no-no.

I agree it was a no-no, bad idea, poor form, Pete being stupid in public, something he still does..big mouth. BUT I don't think the punishment fit the crime is all. All sorts of personalities got involved, then Giamatti's untimely death, then Vincent, etc....it wasn't a simple 'bet on baseball' crime, IMHO. It has spanned 4 commissioner's tenures.

[93legendti]

So Shoeless Joe hit .375 in the 1919 World Series, with 12 hits -- a record at the time -- 6 RBI and and no errors in the entire series. So he should be re-instated, no?

Fact is as a manager bet on games. Thats a huge no-no.

Yes, agree 100%.

There's more to betting than wins and losses...perhaps the phrase "point spread" rings a bell?

The rule was no betting on baseball. No exceptions that I have heard...

It's hard to imagine a claim that a baseball manager betting on baseball games, any games, isn't a threat to the integrity of the sport. The manager knows which players are available on a given night. He decides which players to use, when to steal, hit and run, bring the infield in, guard the lines, pitch out, when to pitch hit, sacrifice, take pitches, etc. A manager's ability to alter a pennant race, whether or not his team is in the race, is huge.

Believing one who lied about betting on baseball, that his bets were only for his team to win, without regard to point spreads, or managerial decisions, is rich.

[CunegoFan]

And while baseball was ostracizing Rose for "threatening the integrity of the game," it turned a blind eye to massive steroid abuse. :rolleyes: How much integrity do all those stats have now?

[Mr. Pink]

With some patience, anything can happen...

Pete Rose will probably make the Hall when he's dead, which isn't too far off (his death, I mean). That's his penalty, to never be able to make that speech on the lawn at Cooperstown. That's a heavy, heavy penalty for a great ballplayer like him. The veterans committee will never allow him to be inducted alive, and maybe for years after. You would witness an induction with no members sitting behind him. And probably protest signs in front of him. Won't happen.

[Mr. Pink]

"Ueberroth reinstated two Hall of Famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, who had been banned from working for Major League Baseball by Kuhn because of their associations with gambling casinos"

That's not fair. Both got into trouble because they played golf and schmoozed with high rollers while on the payroll for casinos. Hardly in the league of being a manager betting on his team's games.
That was also a different time, when players had to hustle up income after their careers were over, because they didn't make the stupid money most mediocre players do today. Mantle came from a time when players had to hustle up work in the off season, salaries were so comparably low to today's.

[Tom]

I have no issue with what they all were doing, but ratting out the guys that are doing exactly the same thing as you because they're getting a little too good at it is where I draw the line.

Edit: Or they go to another team.

[Ti Designs]

And yet, y'all still watch... A third of the posts are about the tour and who's doing what. They're all cheating, that's what they're doing. Can anyone here sat definitively who won the Tour de France in the past 15 years???

[PQJ]

Can anyone here sat definitively who won the Tour de France in the past 15 years???

Yes, the ASO. And the French Fifth Republic.

Who or what is this Lance fellow anyway?

[harlond]

It was always a stupid idea to strip titles long after the fact. It accomplishes nothing and harms the sport IMO. We follow the races to see who wins. If nobody wins or you can't know who wins, there is a disincentive to watch or care. That's contrary to the interests of the sport.

[Mark McM]

Actually it was USADA. They acted as the judge, jury, and prosecution in the case because it never went to arbitration. USADA is the one that came up with the penalty. There was no judge that had to sign off on whether it was appropriate. The UCI decided to leave the placings blank instead of move riders up. The ASO followed the UCI, which has official results management.

You make it sound like no due process was followed. In fact, when Lance Armstrong sought an injunction against USADA for due process concerns, a US federal court re-affirmed that due process had been and was being followed.

The reason that the records for Riis, et al. have not been stripped is because the rules don't allow it. The rules only allow the authorities to go back 8 years to impose sanctions. The reason that Armstrong's sanctions went back further is that USADA found that there was an ongoing doping conspiracy that continued into the 8 year period.

[CunegoFan]

You make it sound like no due process was followed. In fact, when Lance Armstrong sought an injunction against USADA for due process concerns, a US federal court re-affirmed that due process had been and was being followed.

I am referring specifically to the penalty imposed, which was never ruled on by a federal court. A fair penalty in line with precedent would have been four years, two plus another two for aggravating circumstances. In this case the "prosecutor" was given carte blanche to impose penalty it wanted without review.


The reason that the records for Riis, et al. have not been stripped is because the rules don't allow it. The rules only allow the authorities to go back 8 years to impose sanctions. The reason that Armstrong's sanctions went back further is that USADA found that there was an ongoing doping conspiracy that continued into the 8 year period.

There is no WADA rule to toll the SOL because of a "conspiracy." Modern doping by its nature involves carefully scheduled doping over a long period time. If all it takes to toll the SOL is to term someone's doping a conspiracy then the SOL ceases to have any meaning except in the case of retirement. That clearly was not the intention of the WADA rules. When USADA actually had to go to arbitration against Bruyneel, it dropped its attempt to go back beyond eight years. It also had to drop all evidence outside of the eight year window. That is very telling.

[54ny77]

Bob Roll won the hearts and minds of his adoring public.

And yet, y'all still watch... A third of the posts are about the tour and who's doing what. They're all cheating, that's what they're doing. Can anyone here sat definitively who won the Tour de France in the past 15 years???

[merlincustom1]

I am referring specifically to the penalty imposed, which was never ruled on by a federal court. A fair penalty in line with precedent would have been four years, two plus another two for aggravating circumstances. In this case the "prosecutor" was given carte blanche to impose penalty it wanted without review.



There is no WADA rule to toll the SOL because of a "conspiracy." Modern doping by its nature involves carefully scheduled doping over a long period time. If all it takes to toll the SOL is to term someone's doping a conspiracy then the SOL ceases to have any meaning except in the case of retirement. That clearly was not the intention of the WADA rules. When USADA actually had to go to arbitration against Bruyneel, it dropped its attempt to go back beyond eight years. It also had to drop all evidence outside of the eight year window. That is very telling.

Ironically, when LA refused to participate, USADA's hands were tied in terms of the lifetime ban, because the totality of the infractions pointed to such a result. This really isn't a case of the "prosecutor" just getting what he wants, since the undefended accusations were deemed admitted and the rules pointed to life based upon the number and nature of the offenses committed. Again, Kirk O'Bee got life for a lot less. The federal court's involvement ended when they dismissed LA's jurisdictional claim that arbitration was an improper forum. There's no requirement for the federal court to rule on the propriety of the penalty when the defendant loses by default and doesn't appeal.

USADA's attempt to extend the statute of limitations was based more on a concealment theory than a conspiracy. That was always the weakest part of their case, although IIRC they did cite a case where an extension was upheld on similar facts. But again, LA chose not to defend. The Brunyeel case is telling, because it shows that had LA participated he could have salvaged a lot. You really can't blame USADA for not throwing him a bone since he spent likely hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to have the case thrown out before arbitration. His lifetime ban and stripping of titles is entirely of his own making once he took his ball and decided to go home.

[slidey]

Big Mc only ever has the best ideas! :cool:

Pat McQuaid supports the notion of reinstatement. It must be a good idea.

[CunegoFan]

USADA's attempt to extend the statute of limitations was based more on a concealment theory than a conspiracy. That was always the weakest part of their case, although IIRC they did cite a case where an extension was upheld on similar facts.

The case they cited relied on the athlete lying during oath in his arbitration hearing and conspiring with his girlfriend to deceive the arbitration. It would not have held up and they knew it; that's why they gave up such claims against Bruyneel.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . because they were all juiced themselves.

BBD

[wc1934]

"Ueberroth reinstated two Hall of Famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, who had been banned from working for Major League Baseball by Kuhn because of their associations with gambling casinos"

You are kidding right - AFTER their playing days were over, Mays and Mantle were greeters at casinos - wouldn't exactly link them to mafiso.

Rose on the other hand, bet daily on the games he was involved in and was heavily in debt to a Staten Island bookie. As someone previously stated, bookies are concerned more about the point spread (much more action) than the actual outcome of the game.

[bikinchris]

. . . because they were all juiced themselves.

BBD

I think that point has been made. pretty much everyone was juiced (in every sport). when you suspect the competition is juiced, you are going to do it also.
The only way to stop it completely is to place every athlete in isolation when not training and follow them when they are.

[pbarry]

. . . because they were all juiced themselves.

BBD

Read the original piece carefully:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10972429/Lance-Armstrongs-Tour-de-France-victories-should-stand-say-former-champions.html

[mcteague]

That too. I bet the mural in his Spanish home really got to Tygart. How can an atheist have a religious mural?

What has one thing got to do with the other? I am an atheist and have many masses on CD, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, etc. Beauty is beauty regardless of what inspired it.

Tim

[Pete Mckeon]

It is as Dave says is reality that more than less used "things,'. The draw of $$$$$s and fame are very driving for racers and aids:)


QUOTE=pbarry;1587095]Read the original piece carefully:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10972429/Lance-Armstrongs-Tour-de-France-victories-should-stand-say-former-champions.html[/QUOTE]

[rain dogs]

What positives would come from re-instating the wins?

1. Having a name beside a number
2. ____________
3. ____________
4. ____________

and that's about it... nothing. Nothing positive would come out of it.

What negatives? There only need be one:

1. Further reinforces the idea that no matter how far you push the ethical line, how many times you lie about it, how many people you sue, how many competitors you try to destroy, how much corruption you try to influence, how many corporate sponsors you can recruit to build a fake legacy, how many people's suffering you use as a shield, how much further you go (at all the above levels combined) than what came before you....

you still win. you're still the name at the top. you still have your mansion. you still have a fortune and time will forget it all, because afterall "I didn't invent any of this."

So, that would reinforce growth. The growth of the deterioration of sport. And if that continues, without correction, at some point, whether it is in 10 years or 100 it will have grown too great, gone too far and we'll have further to correct and more to have lost. It was never clean, but it always has gotten worse.

So, there has to be a zero growth point. A stopping point. It can be this or it can be later. I'd argue, this is a very good point to stop at; to stop the deterioration from fair sport to farce.

[rain dogs]

Lance's current trick in his bag of tricks is to make this about only doping. Because he knows, and I know and you know that the history of doping is long and it's the least ethically reprehensible thing he did.

But do NOT, not for one second, think he didn't do all those other things so that he could dope and get away with it, because doping is harder today than yesterday, than last year, than last decade.

That's the growth of the deterioration.... into more

And if anyone is blind to that, then they're still a fiddle, and Lance is still the fiddler.

[bikinchris]

I think therein lies the true source of the hate for Lance. The iron fisted, hateful fervor which he went after anyone who didn't tow the line made a real name for him.

Funny how other TDF winners get a pass for the same kind of stuff.

[pbarry]

I think therein lies the true source of the hate for Lance. The iron fisted, hateful fervor which he went after anyone who didn't tow the line made a real name for him.

Funny how other TDF winners get a pass for the same kind of stuff.

Are you referring to your first sentence, (which I totally agree with, and would add the Livestrong "shield" to) or doping in general?

[bikinchris]

I think therein lies the true source of the hate for Lance. The iron fisted, hateful fervor which he went after anyone who didn't tow the line made a real name for him.

Funny how other TDF winners get a pass for the same kind of stuff.

Are you referring to your first sentence, (which I totally agree with, and would add the Livestrong "shield" to) or doping in general?

Yes, other sports stars in general and past tour winners are known to have an iron fist and will not stand for anyone to deviate from their will. Lance is only one of them. I am not trying to make excuses for Lance's behavior, just saying that when you treat people like crap, it often comes back to bite you.

[pbarry]

Yes, other sports stars in general and past tour winners are known to have an iron fist and will not stand for anyone to deviate from their will. Lance is only one of them. I am not trying to make excuses for Lance's behavior, just saying that when you treat people like crap, it often comes back to bite you.

This a getting a little grey. LA's systematic teamdoping program, choreographed and scripted public statements as a cancer survivor, demonization of any foe, (real or not), and a fiight-to-the-death legal posture are unprecedented in the sports world. Comparatively, Barry Bonds is a junior apprentice in Machiavellian behavior.

Who are the other Tour winners who behaved in a similar manner, with "an iron fist", in order to preserve their I-ride-clean charade?

If you are instead speaking of ruling-the-peloton, (not doping/cover-up), then BH was one of the best/fiercest. I thought we we still talking about your original post tho.

[harlond]

What positives would come from re-instating the wins?

1. Having a name beside a number
2. ____________
3. ____________
4. ____________

and that's about it... nothing. Nothing positive would come out of it.

What negatives? There only need be one:

1. Further reinforces the idea that no matter how far you push the ethical line, how many times you lie about it, how many people you sue, how many competitors you try to destroy, how much corruption you try to influence, how many corporate sponsors you can recruit to build a fake legacy, how many people's suffering you use as a shield, how much further you go (at all the above levels combined) than what came before you....

you still win. you're still the name at the top. you still have your mansion. you still have a fortune and time will forget it all, because afterall "I didn't invent any of this."

So, that would reinforce growth. The growth of the deterioration of sport. And if that continues, without correction, at some point, whether it is in 10 years or 100 it will have grown too great, gone too far and we'll have further to correct and more to have lost. It was never clean, but it always has gotten worse.

So, there has to be a zero growth point. A stopping point. It can be this or it can be later. I'd argue, this is a very good point to stop at; to stop the deterioration from fair sport to farce.I can't think of anything good about having a race with a winner.

When the NFL or the NBA or MLB or the Premier League loses fans and revenues because of doping, I'll believe your negatives. Until then, it's pretty far from obvious that reality agrees with you.

[bikinchris]

it's not necessarily all about cheating (although that's a major part of it). Frankly, if Lance was universally loved by everyone but still doped, he would probably have his 7 wins on the books.

And Yes, Bernard Hinault was one person I was talking about.

[bikinchris]

I can't think of anything good about having a race with a winner.

When the NFL or the NBA or MLB or the Premier League loses fans and revenues because of doping, I'll believe your negatives. Until then, it's pretty far from obvious that reality agrees with you.

I think the NFL, NBA and MLB and other sports DESERVE to lose face and revenue from doping. They look the other way (including the sports announcers who point fingers at cycling) and cycling is the only sport that gets a bad rap. They aren't even trying to slow down doping in those sports.

[CunegoFan]

This a getting a little grey. LA's systematic teamdoping program,

That is USADA propaganda. Pretty much all teams had teamwide doping programs. Postal restricted doping assistance to those who could ride the Tour. Other teams were a free for all where everyone on the team was doped. Bruyneel got his nickname from team ONCE's "take whatever you want" product distribution because he took far more than his fair share. Other teams were using homologous blood doping. Postal did not. Other teams were freezing blood. Postal did not. As far as team doping, Postal's was fairly tame.


choreographed and scripted public statements as a cancer survivor,

Every team and rider has a PR fairy tale to explain doped performance. Indurain lost a bit of weight. Bugno was lactose intolerant and had an ear issue. Chiapucci trained more in the off season, including cyclocross.


demonization of any foe, (real or not), and a fiight-to-the-death legal posture are unprecedented in the sports world. Comparatively, Barry Bonds is a junior apprentice in Machiavellian behavior.

Who are the other Tour winners who behaved in a similar manner, with "an iron fist", in order to preserve their I-ride-clean charade?


Off the top of my head:

Ullrich sued Franke
Leogrande sued Sonye and Decanio.

Go to the Britain and you'll find all sorts of bogus suits for slander and libel. It is a cottage industry there. Max Mosely is still filing suits against Google for linking to video of him in a Nazi themed sadomasochistic orgy.

I place Bonds threatening to cut his girlfriend's t*ts off as quite a bit more serious than denying doping.

[pbarry]

That is USADA propaganda. Pretty much all teams had teamwide doping programs. Postal restricted doping assistance to those who could ride the Tour. Other teams were a free for all where everyone on the team was doped. Bruyneel got his nickname from team ONCE's "take whatever you want" product distribution because he took far more than his fair share. Other teams were using homologous blood doping. Postal did not. Other teams were freezing blood. Postal did not. As far as team doping, Postal's was fairly tame.



Every team and rider has a PR fairy tale to explain doped performance. Indurain lost a bit of weight. Bugno was lactose intolerant and had an ear issue. Chiapucci trained more in the off season, including cyclocross.



Off the top of my head:

Ullrich sued Franke
Leogrande sued Sonye and Decanio.

Go to the Britain and you'll find all sorts of bogus suits for slander and libel. It is a cottage industry there. Max Mosely is still filing suits against Google for linking to video of him in a Nazi themed sadomasochistic orgy.

I place Bonds threatening to cut his girlfriend's t*ts off as quite a bit more serious than denying doping.


If you can't judge shades of grey, then I don't know what to say, (on-topic), except:
LA = Bahamontes???

GB has a very strict libel/slander code. Bringing up cases there is another red herring..

BB is still a choir boy in the scheme of doping, no matter how you try to spin it.

We'll never agree on this subject, but we do on other things, and both ride bikes, so :beer:

[mack]

···· lance armstrong!

[Tony Edwards]

I was a big fan of Lance in his heyday, despite thinking, even at the time, that he was probably doping. It is now transparent, with the benefit of hindsight, that every seriously competitive cyclist in that era was cheating, and that the Tour has been a bastion of doping in various ways for decades. While there is no question Lance was a prolific and committed doper, he was also the hardest-working, fittest cyclist of his era. Is he a model human being? No. Do I think it's possible for a model human being to win the Tour de France? No. The area in which Lance's behavior seriously offends me (his litigiousness against people who accurately called a spade a spade) has nothing to do with his winning Tours de France. Accordingly, I think his remarkable seven TdF wins should be recognized as such. We may not love him, but he deserves to be recognized as a winner.

[harlond]

I think the NFL, NBA and MLB and other sports DESERVE to lose face and revenue from doping. They look the other way (including the sports announcers who point fingers at cycling) and cycling is the only sport that gets a bad rap. They aren't even trying to slow down doping in those sports.
Cycling treats Nibali like a defendant and basketball treats LeBron like a hero. Yay.

[jr59]

I was a big fan of Lance in his heyday, despite thinking, even at the time, that he was probably doping. It is now transparent, with the benefit of hindsight, that every seriously competitive cyclist in that era was cheating, and that the Tour has been a bastion of doping in various ways for decades. While there is no question Lance was a prolific and committed doper, he was also the hardest-working, fittest cyclist of his era. Is he a model human being? No. Do I think it's possible for a model human being to win the Tour de France? No. The area in which Lance's behavior seriously offends me (his litigiousness against people who accurately called a spade a spade) has nothing to do with his winning Tours de France. Accordingly, I think his remarkable seven TdF wins should be recognized as such. We may not love him, but he deserves to be recognized as a winner.

Well said!

[rain dogs]

he was also the hardest-working, fittest cyclist of his era.

Who can provide proof for this? Lance claims it, but what does that mean? It's subjective. It's his narrative.

The area in which Lance's behavior seriously offends me (his litigiousness against people who accurately called a spade a spade) has nothing to do with his winning Tours de France.

These behaviors have everything to do with him winning the Tour. He did those things so he could win the Tour. If he was caught doping he wouldn't win the Tour. He was able to influence the UCI to test his competitors more closely which eliminated competition. He was able to avoid sanction after his positive test in 1999 because of his part in corruption - he would have been kicked out of his first Tour back, and been banned. He took people to court to avoid sanctions... which would result in a ban and two years away from the Tour. He built a narrative of the "clean cancer survivor" to procure corporate dollars that funded his technological edge.

As I said, fiddle and the fiddler

[Tony Edwards]

Who can provide proof for this? Lance claims it, but what does that mean? It's subjective. It's his narrative.

It is empirically, provably true, and in no manner subjective. We know this because he won seven tours, under circumstances in which every other competitive rider was doping. A win is a win, and there is nothing subjective about one, much less seven.

These behaviors have everything to do with him winning the Tour. He did those things so he could win the Tour. If he was caught doping he wouldn't win the Tour. He was able to influence the UCI to test his competitors more closely which eliminated competition. He was able to avoid sanction after his positive test in 1999 because of his part in corruption - he would have been kicked out of his first Tour back, and been banned. He took people to court to avoid sanctions... which would result in a ban and two years away from the Tour. He built a narrative of the "clean cancer survivor" to procure corporate dollars that funded his technological edge.

As I said, fiddle and the fiddler

I don't agree. He didn't need to sue anyone for defamation - all he had to do was keep repeating the line that he was not doping. He had, after all, never tested positive (with the exception of the one instance in which it appears he did test positive, but the UCI let it go after he produced an ex post facto prescription for a saddle sore medication and made a large contribution to the UCI). I think this was strictly optional, stupid behavior that was consistent with his internal wiring as a proud, arrogant, combative person. It's not as though the other riders of the era brought lawsuits like this, and they, for the most part, were also able to keep riding without sanction. I find his litigiousness really offensive, but again I don't believe it had any causative impact with respect to his wins.

I guess I keep circling back to the idea that the UCI can't legitimately award these wins to someone else (because every other top rider was doping too), and to me it makes no sense to say that nobody won. If fans want to put an asterisk by the wins, fine, but honestly I think that's less warranted than with, say, Barry Bonds' home run record, in that Lance effectively had no clean competition at the time he was cheating.

[professerr]

***

[lil_champ]

To me, the dumbest thing is the argument that these guys all doped because Lance made them. They were handed that defense by USADA in return for implicating him, because all they cared about was busting Lance and making him sound even worse. If guys like Levi, Tyler, Floyd, and George were only doping because Lance and Johann made them, why did they continue to dope when each of them left and went to new teams? Everyone doped, Lance was just the biggest a-hole.

[Charles M]

I would guess that half of the other half wouldn't mind a reinstatement either given the relative "training levels" of the competition...

[pbarry]

Read the Telegraph article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10972429/Lance-Armstrongs-Tour-de-France-victories-should-stand-say-former-champions.html

Only two "recent" Tour winners were in favor of reinstatement: Schleck and Pereiro. The others mentioned in favor were Roche, Zootemilk, Gimondi, Janssen, and Bahamontes.

[Saint Vitus]

*

The scarlet letter of professional sport.

[PQJ]

It is empirically, provably true, and in no manner subjective. We know this because he won seven tours, under circumstances in which every other competitive rider was doping. A win is a win, and there is nothing subjective about one, much less seven.


How do you know Lance didn't just take way more drugs than anyone else?

[Tony Edwards]

How do you know Lance didn't just take way more drugs than anyone else?

What makes you think he did, or that, if so, that alone would have won him all those yellow jerseys? To me it's just nonsensical to refuse to acknowledge that he was the best rider of his era.

[FlashUNC]

What makes you think he did, or that, if so, that alone would have won him all those yellow jerseys? To me it's just nonsensical to refuse to acknowledge that he was the best rider of his era.

He was the best at riding one race a year, with a team purpose built for it.

Before the jet fuel U.S. postal program, he was a good racer for the hilly semi-classics and the rare Tour stage, but that's about it.

Wasn't until he came back in the fall of 1998 and nearly podium'd in that Vuelta that people started to take notice that he had changed significantly as a rider.

[PQJ]

What makes you think he did, or that, if so, that alone would have won him all those yellow jerseys? To me it's just nonsensical to refuse to acknowledge that he was the best rider of his era.

I don't know that he did or didn't, and I don't know what effect it did, could have, might have, or didn't have. But the same way that we are all hard wired to impose different limits on our self destructive behavior, maybe Lance, because he's Lance, or because he felt that he cheated death once so he was invincible, had no qualms ingesting all manner of PEDs in copious amounts, whereas Jan drew a line somewhere else.

It's pure speculation, no different than saying that he trained harder than anyone else, or that he was the best when he had a team with one purpose and one purpose only.

My biggest gripe with PEDs is that it bastardizes things to the point where we just don't know. Lots of unknown unknowns. Maybe Postal was 1,000,000,000 times more juiced than every other team. Maybe Lance and Co. really were just very, very lucky. Froome and Contador this year are a case study in the luck vs. unluck dept.

[bikinchris]

He was the best at riding one race a year, with a team purpose built for it.

Before the jet fuel U.S. postal program, he was a good racer for the hilly semi-classics and the rare Tour stage, but that's about it.

Wasn't until he came back in the fall of 1998 and nearly podium'd in that Vuelta that people started to take notice that he had changed significantly as a rider.

I disagree. If any other cyclist had the below list of palmares, they would be happy with their career.

Palmarès

1991
1st
Junior National Road Race Champion
1992
1st Stage 6 Settimana Bergamasca
1st Stage 4a Vuelta a Galicia
1st Stage 2 Trittico Premondiale
1st First Union Grand Prix
1st Overall Fitchburg-Longsjo Classic
1st Stage 2
2nd, Züri-Metzgete
1993
1st
World Road Race Champion UCI Road World Championships
1st
US National Road Race Champion
1st Stage 8 Tour de France
1st Overall Tour of America
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Overall Kmart West Virginia Classic
1st Prologue
1st Stage 1
2nd Overall Tour du Pont
1st Stage 5
3rd Overall Tour of Sweden
1st Stage 3

1994
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Stage 7 Tour du Pont
2nd Liège–Bastogne–Liège
2nd Clásica de San Sebastián
1995
1st Stage 18 Tour de France
1st Clásica de San Sebastián
1st Stage 5 Paris–Nice
1st Overall Tour du Pont
1st Mountains Classifaction
1st Stages 4, 5 & 9
1st Overall Kmart West Virginia Classic
1st Stage 4

1996
1st Overall Tour du Pont
1st Stages 2, 3b, 5, 6 & 12
1st La Flèche Wallonne
2nd Liège–Bastogne–Liège
2nd Overall Paris–Nice
1998
1st Sprint 56K Criterium
1st Overall Rheinland-Pfalz Rundfahrt
1st Overall Tour de Luxembourg
1st Stage 1
1st Cascade Cycling Classic

Note that I stop at where his results have been wiped. Yes, he was a classics rider before cancer AND he was built very different. Before, he had the upper body of a triathlete, after he had the upper body of a concentration camp survivor.

[Tony T]

How do you know Lance didn't just take way more drugs than anyone else?

If Jan had just taken just one more mm, who knows? :)

[FlashUNC]

I disagree. If any other cyclist had the below list of palmares, they would be happy with their career.

Palmarès

1991
1st
Junior National Road Race Champion
1992
1st Stage 6 Settimana Bergamasca
1st Stage 4a Vuelta a Galicia
1st Stage 2 Trittico Premondiale
1st First Union Grand Prix
1st Overall Fitchburg-Longsjo Classic
1st Stage 2
2nd, Züri-Metzgete
1993
1st
World Road Race Champion UCI Road World Championships
1st
US National Road Race Champion
1st Stage 8 Tour de France
1st Overall Tour of America
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Overall Kmart West Virginia Classic
1st Prologue
1st Stage 1
2nd Overall Tour du Pont
1st Stage 5
3rd Overall Tour of Sweden
1st Stage 3

1994
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Stage 7 Tour du Pont
2nd Liège–Bastogne–Liège
2nd Clásica de San Sebastián
1995
1st Stage 18 Tour de France
1st Clásica de San Sebastián
1st Stage 5 Paris–Nice
1st Overall Tour du Pont
1st Mountains Classifaction
1st Stages 4, 5 & 9
1st Overall Kmart West Virginia Classic
1st Stage 4

1996
1st Overall Tour du Pont
1st Stages 2, 3b, 5, 6 & 12
1st La Flèche Wallonne
2nd Liège–Bastogne–Liège
2nd Overall Paris–Nice
1998
1st Sprint 56K Criterium
1st Overall Rheinland-Pfalz Rundfahrt
1st Overall Tour de Luxembourg
1st Stage 1
1st Cascade Cycling Classic

Note that I stop at where his results have been wiped. Yes, he was a classics rider before cancer AND he was built very different. Before, he had the upper body of a triathlete, after he had the upper body of a concentration camp survivor.

No argument that he wasn't a good American rider. Even the best American rider we had in that generation. But the class of world? The best rider of that generation period? Um. No.