# Should Tom Simpson be striped of his titles?



## ufkacbln (21 Jul 2012)

Given the ferocity of some posters to see Armstrong found guilty and stripped of his titles, is it not a little hypocritical in that we still celebrate the career of Tom impson.

British cyclists have erected and maintained plaques, refer to him as Britain's best ever cyclist and te first truly great British professional cyclist.


Yet we know unequivocally that he took drugs to enhance his perfomance!

Surely we should be vilifying him rather than celebrating?


----------



## Belly (21 Jul 2012)

Do you mean the stripes on his world champion jersey?


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jul 2012)

Surely "World Champion" is a title, as is the "Winner of....."?

He is listed with stage wins, and wins at major classics, surely these should no longer stand?


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (21 Jul 2012)

You could, but he's dead now, so who will it penalise?


----------



## Noodley (21 Jul 2012)

Grow up.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jul 2012)

History that at the moment records victories gained.?

Surely it is simply inappropriate to celebrate the achievements when they were achieved with the help of drugs.

It is about a fair and non-hypocritical playing field. Drugs cheats should not be on the historical record as having achieved the titles.... or is it OK with some and not others?


----------



## summerdays (21 Jul 2012)

What percentage of cyclists at that point in history were using drugs to enhance their performance?


----------



## Noodley (21 Jul 2012)

Yawn :troll:


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (21 Jul 2012)

summerdays said:


> What percentage of cyclists at that point in history were using drugs to enhance their performance?



Yes I was thinking about this. By most accounts it was rife and seen as being very much the thing to do, so if you were to strip Simpson's title, then you'd have to take away practically everyone else's too, and by the end, the only people still eligible for, say the Tour De France Title would probably be the most lowliest of domestiques, and even then, how could you ever prove conclusively who was 'clean' and who wasn't?


----------



## subaqua (21 Jul 2012)

as noodley says.

its way too far back in history. and as MDB says it was rife then so knowing who was clean or not is a non starter.


----------



## Hip Priest (21 Jul 2012)

We have anecdotal evidence that he doped, but you'd need conclusive medical evidence conducted under stringent modern procedures in order to strip him of any tites. And as others say, it'd be pointless. Simpson raced in Anquetil's era, and Anquetil was fairly open about his own doping and that of the entire peleton.

So I'd say let's leave the past alone.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jul 2012)

summerdays said:


> What percentage of cyclists at that point in history were using drugs to enhance their performance?


 
Is it relevant... if a title or win is gained using drugs, then surely it should be removed?

It has for many others?


----------



## black'n'yellow (21 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Is it relevant... if a title or win is gained using drugs, then surely it should be removed?
> 
> It has for many others?


 
You would need conclusive proof, which wasn't available then, isn't available now and won't ever be available at any time in the future. A sensible person would stop here. Unless you are just trolling, in which case, carry on...


----------



## david k (21 Jul 2012)

Why is this a new thread and not part of the Armstrong thread to which it refers ?


----------



## rich p (21 Jul 2012)

david k said:


> Why is this a new thread and not part of the Armstrong thread to which it refers ?


 Why is it a thread at all, is the question you should be asking david.

Having had his fingers burnt, his intellect found wanting and revealed his total lack of analytical insight in the Armstrong thread, he now seems intent on proving it all over again.


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (21 Jul 2012)

Here's a hypothetical, based on the way Sky have controlled the tour this year. Say, hypothetically, that Froome failed a drugs test - should Wiggins be stripped of the hypothetical yellow jersey he'll be wearing (hypothetically) in Paris? After all, it seems reasonable to assume he wouldn't have controlled Nibali without Froomie.


----------



## raindog (21 Jul 2012)

Popping an amphetamine before a stage isn't really in the same league as having a fridge full of boosted blood ready to inject.


----------



## Andy_R (21 Jul 2012)

[Devil's Advocate] If the top echelon was rife with doping, then no-one had an advantage. [/Devils Advocate]


----------



## oldroadman (21 Jul 2012)

Andy_R said:


> [Devil's Advocate] If the top echelon was rife with doping, then no-one had an advantage. [/Devils Advocate]


 
Correct. If everyone is doing something similar, then it's a level playing field, If yu ever see the finish picture from 1965, look at the eyes, and draw whatever conclusions. Having met a couple of people who were GB domestiques to TS that day, the question was "who was not taking something". As one mentioned, "we did waht was necessary as Tom was flying and he needed the best possible chance".
Times have changed. History is history. Silly and uninformed comments by know-nothings continue.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (21 Jul 2012)

Ever since the earliest days of Le Tour, people have been taking little pick - me - ups to help them along, and as has already been proven on this tour with Schleck and co, nothing it seems has changed. The difference now is that you don't HAVE to take these things just to stay in contention (as far as we are aware anyway). It isn't a universal thing now.


----------



## mr_hippo (21 Jul 2012)

How many of today`s banned or specified substances were on the list in those days? Indeed, how many were invented then?Shall we expand the OPs argument to include convicted homosexuals who were fined or imprisioned for performing what now are legal acts? Should we repatriate all relatives of those who were transported to the colonies for minor offences by today''s standards and issue full pardons?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin is feeling sore because he got exposed as not knowing as much as quite a few other regular contributors here on the Armstrong thread. And in fact, if he'd read all the discussion in the other thread he'd already realise that for most of those people the basis for his 'argument' here is just misguided. But then it did seem clear that he hadn't actually read everyone else's contributions...

Conclusion: poor attempt at trolling.


----------



## asterix (21 Jul 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> How many of today`s banned or specified substances were on the list in those days? Indeed, how many were invented then?Shall we expand the OPs argument to include convicted homosexuals who were fined or imprisioned for performing what now are legal acts? Should we repatriate all relatives of those who were transported to the colonies for minor offences by today''s standards and issue full pardons?


 
As I have read, the issue of doping was considerably worsened by the use of amphetamine in WW2, by all participants. With that in mind, the moral issues against its use were probably much weaker in the 1960's particularly as its negative effect was not then universally acknowledged.

But, yes this thread .. well, what can you say?


----------



## festival (21 Jul 2012)

The anti drug enforcement of today did not apply in the era of Simpson. so the question is irrelevant.
While I would agree he seemed to have flaws in his character, he was living in different times and should not be judged by today's rules.
Please get facts right before you start a thread you don't understand.
I am sure there are plenty of people on here willing to educate you.


----------



## Norm (21 Jul 2012)

I think that, were the drugs illegal in the time of Simpson or legal in the time of Armstrong, then the OP might have a point. But they weren't.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> Why is it a thread at all, is the question you should be asking david.
> 
> Having had his fingers burnt, his intellect found wanting and revealed his total lack of analytical insight in the Armstrong thread, he now seems intent on proving it all over again.


Tosh!

There is a serious question here, If we are to correctly vilify the present drug cheats and (when proven) remove their titles) surely it is simply rank hypocrisy to celebrate the achievements of other drug cheats?

Do we condemn them all, or just selected ones?

Answer the question?

Do you think that Simpson who is a proven drugs cheat deserves the accolades he is given?

Or is that too complex a concept?


----------



## Nearly there (21 Jul 2012)

When Simpson was racing the taking of substances to enhance performance was probably the norm everyone was probably at it.


----------



## Norm (21 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Do you think that Simpson who is a proven drugs cheat deserves the accolades he is given?


The answer has been given several times. He wasn't a cheat because he wasn't breaking the laws of the time.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Jul 2012)

User said:


> there were already doping laws by 1967 and I'm sure amphetamines were on the banned list...


Simpson was World Champion in 1965, he passed the drug test afterwards and no allegations of abuse were made against him.

Neither did he try to ruin the careers of other riders because they spoke out against doping.


----------



## rich p (21 Jul 2012)

I really don't know why I'm doing this!
Every account I've seen about Tommy Simpson, from all the books and articles I've read, to Wikipedia, give Simpson's amphetamine abuse large negative coverage. Of course it would have been better if he hadn't taken them and he might still be alive if he hadn't done so. 
The trouble I'm having is your linking of a dead cyclist from the 60s to a currently competing athlete.
If you ever posted or read the plethora of anti-drug threads over the past number of years in the Racing section you'd appreciate that the regular posters are consistently anti-doping whomsoever is the miscreant. The misapprehension that we only want Armstrong to receive his due desserts is common among people who rarely post in the Racing section. 
What you fail to understand, either by refusing to read the background or wilful trolling, is that to conflate amphetamine abuse 50 years ago bears no relation to the alleged USPostal systematic blood-doping programme.
It's tantamont to conflating a kid stealing some sweets to Brinksmat.
So, yes, Simpson took drugs which were generally regarded as a slap-on-the wrist punishment.

*THIS WAS NOT A GOOD THING - JUST SAY NO!!*

That really is my last post in this thread.


----------



## Crackle (21 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Tosh!
> 
> There is a serious question here, If we are to correctly vilify the present drug cheats and (when proven) remove their titles) surely it is simply rank hypocrisy to celebrate the achievements of other drug cheats?
> 
> ...


 
What's too complex a concept is historical context. Perhaps if you'd phrased your question differently it might have some value but really, trying to conflate cycling 50 years ago with cycling today is ludicrous, it's just not worth making the effort to address, bravo to Rich for even trying.


----------



## Chuffy (21 Jul 2012)

Whatever. FM has said anything that needs saying.

EDIT: and Rich P.


----------



## mr_hippo (21 Jul 2012)

Tommy Simpson did not wear a helmet, should he be fined?


----------



## Alun (21 Jul 2012)

People should be fined for mentioning helmets in a non helmet thread.


----------



## Norm (22 Jul 2012)

User14044mountain said:


> Different times different norms.


It would have to have been a different norm, as WWII was over 18 years before I was born.


----------



## PaulB (22 Jul 2012)

Surely this is the most stupid and pointless thread to have appeared on here? Have people got nothing better to do than dredge up stuff like this?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

User14044mountain said:


> Amphetamines were used by WW2 pilots to keep them awake and alert....if one of today's pilots tested positive for speed there would be an out cry and it would lead to some heavy sanctions. Different times different norms. So the answer is no, Simpson shouldn't be stripped of his titles.


 

Yet amphetamines *were* illegal at this time, despite the ill-informed claims otherwise

Simpson was doping illegally and committing offenses, and his drug use is proven unequivocally!

They became illegal on 1st June 1965 and the first three offenders removed from the Milk Race (and other races) later the same year.

So the case is not as clear as some would have it.




Hip Priest said:


> We have anecdotal evidence that he doped, but you'd need conclusive medical evidence conducted under stringent modern procedures in order to strip him of any tites.


 
Anecdotal as in the Post Mortem results, the finding by official investigators of the empty vials in his jersey pocket and the supplies found by the same investigation in his luggage?

I would suggest that is about as good as it gets!


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Tommy Simpson did not wear a helmet, should he be fined?


 
Helmets were not compulsory at that poin, so no offence was committed, so no sanction required.

Amphetamines however were illegal at this point so an offence was committed - therefore sanctions ae appropriate..

Rather a poor analogy?


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Helmets were not compulsory at that poin, so no offence was committed, so no sanction required.
> 
> Amphetamines however were illegal at this point so an offence was committed - therefore sanctions ae appropriate..
> 
> Rather a poor analogy?


 Give it a rest :troll:
You're just making yourself look ridiculous.


----------



## mr_hippo (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Amphetamines however were illegal at this point so an offence was committed - therefore sanctions ae appropriate..


What, then, should we do about riders who took amphetamines before they were made illegal? Let their records stand?
I think you have had enough rope but if you need more - try ebay!


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> Give it a rest :troll:
> You're just making yourself look ridiculous.


 
Not as ridiculous at those denying he was cheating and illegally using drugs though?

The question is still open and being avoided......

He was using drugs illegally yet we have a tribute on Mt Ventoux, we also allegedly still have tributes from present day ridrs and celebrate his achievements as the "first great British professional cyclist"

Surely as a proven drugs cheat we should not be celebrating any of this?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> What, then, should we do about riders who took amphetamines before they were made illegal? Let their records stand?
> I think you have had enough rope but if you need more - try ebay!


 
Please read the post again - the answer is already there, maybe not what you wanted, but, as you did not understand it, I will simplify it.

If the act is illegal then there should be sanctions, if the act is not illegal then no offence is comitted and therefore you cannot sanction.

I can't answer the question any more clearly


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not as ridiculous at those denying he was cheating and illegally using drugs though?


 
Who'd have thought it!!!!! You're wrong again!!!!


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Jul 2012)

Tom Simpson died in a horrible, public way, and paid for his mistakes with the ultimate price - his life.

People who have cheated and still live should be sanctioned against, as they have not been made to accept responsibility for their actions.

Denigrating an iconic human symbol of the tour, and a cherished sporting hero will not make anything better. His lasting legacy is a poignient reminder to all of the sacrifices made by racing cyclists, and the price they pay for their mistakes.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2012)

Incidentally I just heard that the Duke of Wellington has been outed as a habitual user of opium and that the Battle of Waterloo has been awarded to Napoleon.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> Who'd have thought it!!!!! You're wrong again!!!!


----------



## Hover Fly (22 Jul 2012)

User14044mountain said:


> Amphetamines were used by WW2 pilots to keep them awake and alert....if one of today's pilots tested positive for speed there would be an out cry and it would lead to some heavy sanctions. Different times different norms. So the answer is no, Simpson shouldn't be stripped of his titles.


 
The USAF still issues dextroamphetamine and newer stimulants such as modafinil, under controlled conditions, to it's pilots.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123007615
The British MOD bought 20odd thousand modafinil tablets prior to the last Gulf war.


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Anecdotal as in the Post Mortem results, the finding by official investigators of the empty vials in his jersey pocket and the supplies found by the same investigation in his luggage?



You mean they found all that proof in and around his dead body and yet they didn't punish him? Shocking. 

d.


----------



## PaulB (22 Jul 2012)

It stuns me to find there are people on a website I have time for discussing the ringpiece on a cow's arse on a day of cycling such as this! Get a grip of yourselves!


----------



## festival (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> !


 
Ok. I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
Now, can you just go away and spend as much time as you like (a year would be nice) thinking up your next badly thought out post


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

Love it!




festival said:


> The anti drug enforcement of today did not apply in the era of Simpson. so the question is irrelevant.


 
Amphetamines were illegal in 1967, and had been enforced for two years. He would have been censured by the authorities of the time had he been found positive. Other cyclists had been banned or removed form races at this time for amphetamine abuse. The question is therefore entirely relevant as despite your erroneous claim there was in fact drug enforcement in Simpson's era.



> While I would agree he seemed to have flaws in his character, he was living in different times and should not be judged by today's rules.


 
Your idea.... the judgement is simple as he was taking amphetamines at a time they were illegal in the sport. Guilty by the standards of the day and the enforcement of the day. Applying today's rules in a vain attempt to get out of this difficult corner is entirely your idea, not mine!




> Please get facts right before you start a thread you don't understand.


 
I did!

Care to admit it?



> am sure there are plenty of people on here willing to educate you.


 
It appears that my grasp of the situation is in less need of educating than yours?


I suppose that this extremely ironic petulant little flounce is easier than admitting that you were wrong?




festival said:


> Ok. I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
> Now, can you just go away and spend as much time as you like (a year would be nice) thinking up your next badly thought out post


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin has finally got someone who knows even less than him to bite! Chapeau! I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability...

In the meantime, there was some quite exciting news in the world of pro-cycling today.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Cunobelin has finally got someone who knows even less than him to bite! Chapeau! I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability...
> 
> In the meantime, there was some quite exciting news in the world of pro-cycling today.


 
What was that?

I heard there was a race in some far off foreign land involving a couple of Brits - but it was overshadowed by the death of Simon Ward


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Jul 2012)

ComedyPilot said:


> Tom Simpson died in a horrible, public way, and paid for his mistakes with the ultimate price - his life.
> 
> People who have cheated and still live should be sanctioned against, as they have not been made to accept responsibility for their actions.
> 
> ...


----------



## asterix (23 Jul 2012)

Can I nominate this thread for the

'Bad Taste Thread of the Year' award?

Please.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (23 Jul 2012)

asterix said:


> Can I nominate this thread for the
> 
> 'Bad Taste Thread of the Year' award?
> 
> Please.



Seconded, but there have been some other candidates so far this year too, so it might not make the final.


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Jul 2012)

asterix said:


> Can I nominate this thread for the
> 
> 'Bad Taste Thread of the Year' award?
> 
> Please.


 


Cunobelin said:


> What was that?
> 
> I heard there was a race in some far off foreign land involving a couple of Brits - but it was overshadowed by the death of Simon Ward


 
is there a category for 'troll of the year' as well...??


----------



## mr_hippo (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> He would *may* have been censured by the authorities of the time had he been found positive. Other cyclists had been banned or removed form races at this time for amphetamine abuse. The question is therefore entirely relevant as despite your erroneous claim there was in fact *very limited and selective* drug enforcement in Simpson's era.
> *But Tom Simpson was not tested. Early drug testing was rather hit and miss, if as most of us in those days suspected that nearly all cyclists doped then in the late 60s/early 70s there would not be enough finishers to stand on the podium.*
> Applying today's rules in a vain attempt to get out of this difficult corner is entirely your idea, not mine!
> 
> ...


----------



## PpPete (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> The trouble I'm having is your linking of a dead cyclist from the 60s to *a currently competing athlete*.
> .


 
Surely that should read *recently* competing athlete?


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

PpPete said:


> Surely that should read *recently* competing athlete?


I stand corercted! PreviouslyPedanticPete!!!


----------



## Dave Davenport (23 Jul 2012)

I wasn't going to bother getting involved in this thread but..................

Where's everyone watching the road race Saturday? We've opted for the pub.
Oh, and Rich. Are you off on tour soon? We're going Tuesday week.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> He would *may* have been censured by the authorities of the time had he been found positive.


 
Your assumption and no more valid or verifiable.




> Other cyclists had been banned or removed form races at this time for amphetamine abuse. The question is therefore entirely relevant as despite your erroneous claim there was in fact *very limited and selective* drug enforcement in Simpson's era.


 
At least his is an improvement to denying it existed at all

*



But Tom Simpson was not tested. Early drug testing was rather hit and miss, if as most of us in those days suspected that nearly all cyclists doped then in the late 60s/early 70s there would not be enough finishers to stand on the podium.

Click to expand...

* 
The point being avoided was that the evidence is unequivocal that he was doped to the eyeballs and had jersey pockets and luggage brimming with amphetamines...... are you really claiming that that sort of evidence would have been ignored in those days?

Second question is whether you are suggesting that doping was acceptable in these races?
Yyou are also wrong in that testing at the time was only 30% positive, so the claim that nearly all cyclists doped is not evidenced at all.





> Applying today's rules in a vain attempt to get out of this difficult corner is entirely your idea, not mine!


 
Let me make this very, very, very, simple.

Amphetamines were banned in 1965
Simpson was abusing them in 1967
He was committing a doping offence in 1967
The offence was committed in 1967 and in cases where this was proven the riders were removed from races and had their titles stripped for doping. UNcomfortable though it may be the qusetion is based on three very simple pieces.

1. Simpson was doping
2. This was illegal
3. The sanction at the time was being stripped of your titles

Given that 1 and 2 are unequivocal it simply remains to answer the third pint without trying to alter it to suit your own interpretaion


----------



## Boris Bajic (23 Jul 2012)

I propose (perhaps controversially and certainly with a degree of gauche insensitivity) that on the basis of the wakey-wakey pills issued to allied aircrew on night operations in the early Forties, the UK and her allies be stripped of their victory in 1945 and the title be handed to the runner-up.

In this case, Germany. 

I think it only fair that if these things are going to be enacted retrospectively, the thing should be done properly.

I hope this post has helped, although I fear it may not have done so.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> You started it by saying should Tom be striped or even stripped! You are trying to apply today's wholesale banning to a historical event. I do not know how old you are but suspect that you were not around in that era, I and a few more on this forum were! Doping was rife in those days, we can never put a percentage on it but suspect that it was quite high. In order to compete at that high a level, you had to use something but that did not make it right - legally, morally or ethically!


 
Wrong, as explained so many times it was the censure in 1967, trying to avoid this is really rather silly, but at least you recognise the issues of legality, morality and ethics, all of which show that doping is wrong



> How much was drug use a contributing factor in Tom's death? We do not, and will never, know. How much sheer guts and determination did he have in that fatal climb?


 
Really rather irrelevant as he was doping, that is a simple positive or negative.



> In an earlier reply to one of my posts, you said that not wearing a helmet in those day. was not illegal so by that standard are you saying that all post-war winners who took amphetamines did nothing wrong and therefore cannot be penalised and their wins should stand?


 
You really need to read both the original post and the second reply when this was clarified, however as you still cannot understand the concept I will explain again..........what was actually posted was that as it was neither wearing a helmet nor taking amphetamines an offence it cannot be censured.

Amphetamines became illegal in 1965 and therefore can only be formally censured after this date. Any claim that this endorses or approves their use prior to this date is a bizarre misinterpretation on your part.




> Now, go and find a boy scout so that he can help you get out of the knots that you have tied yourself in.


 

Irony?


----------



## PaulB (23 Jul 2012)

You should try and cultivate a life, Cunobellend. You really should.


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> I wasn't going to bother getting involved in this thread but..................
> 
> Where's everyone watching the road race Saturday? We've opted for the pub.
> Oh, and Rich. Are you off on tour soon? We're going Tuesday week.


Hi Dave, we got back last weekend. Fantastic trip and all the different elements like plane, ride, ferry went well. Always surprised it all fits together! The Santander-Pompey ferry was blissfully smooth with dolphins and 2 whales performing for us.
Hope your goes equally well!
I have a bunch coming round to my house for the road race and post-race bbq and beer.

Sorry to derail the thread with OT chit-chat just as it was getting really rivetting!
p.s. Portugal is a great country with such friendly people. The beers average but the wine was superb.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

PaulB said:


> You should try and cultivate a life, Cunobellend. You really should.


 

Thank you for such an informed, erudite and valuable contribution..... how can one possibly ignore such style and poise

Shame that you have such low personal standards


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Let me make this very, very, very, simple.
> 
> Amphetamines were banned in 1965
> Simpson was abusing them in 1967
> ...


Get your facts right.

Simpson won the Worlds in 1965 when he passed whatever test he took at the end of the race. Riders who tested positive were disqualified for that race only, they were not stripped of their titles. In fact the punisment in the TdF was often nothing more than a fine and a ten minute time penalty. 

Your arguments are based on something you know nothing about.


----------



## PaulB (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Thank you for such an informed, erudite and valuable contribution..... how can one possibly ignore such style and poise
> 
> Shame that you have such low personal standards


Shame that you... are on here, really.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

PaulB said:


> Shame that you... are on here, really.


 
I refer the gentleman poster to my previous (and now confirmed) assessment


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Get your facts right.
> 
> Simpson won the Worlds in 1965 when he passed whatever test he took at the end of the race. Riders who tested positive were disqualified for that race only, they were not stripped of their titles. In fact the punisment in the TdF was often nothing more than a fine and a ten minute time penalty.
> 
> Your arguments are based on something you know nothing about.


 

Can I confirm that you are unequivocally stating that no titles were stripped from a ride between 1965 and 1967 for doping, and that anyone who states this was the case is mistaken and does not know what they are talking about ?


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Can I confirm that you are unequivocally stating that no titles were stripped from a ride between 1965 and 1967 for doping, and that anyone who states this was the case is mistaken and does not know what they are talking about ?


Riders who tested positive in any particular race had that win taken from them. If you claim all or any previous race wins where they did not fail a test were stripped then you obviously do not know what you are talking about. Simpson passed all the tests he took after his wins so he was never stripped of a win.


----------



## david k (23 Jul 2012)

What part does the question play on modern cyclists?


----------



## Buddfox (23 Jul 2012)

It's a slightly stretched analogy to the current situation with Lance Armstrong. Someone who is known to have doped (I'm not getting into that) who may not be stripped of his titles (speculation at this point) but would be being punished many years after the alleged offenses (who knows at this point?). But who has a questionable personality and approach to dealing with third parties and defending his own reputation.

vs someone who is known to have doped, who hasn't been stripped of his titles (why not, the OP asks hypothetically), who would be punished many, many years after the alleged offenses (what would it achieve?). But who is an icon of the sport, died in tragic circumstances, and is not around to defend himself should that even be necessary.


----------



## festival (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I never said they were not illegal, I never made any factual claims, I tried to convey the culture of the time towards use of drugs and the acceptance by teams, race organizers, officials etc.
Nothing you have put forward challenges that, can't be bothered anymore, as bradley said, cut! ( he did say cut, didn't he? )


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

david k said:


> What part does the question play on modern cyclists?


 
.... it is more to do with hypocrisy.

The question is that given his doping history should we be honoring this "iconic human symbol of the tour, and a cherished sporting hero" or condemning him for illegally doping in contravention of the rules in place at the time?

The only comparison is the attitude of some who seem keen that cheating and doping should be condemned, and the instigators punished and titles stripped, but not in the case of Simpson.


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> .... it is more to do with hypocrisy.
> 
> The question is that given his doping history should we be honoring this "iconic human symbol of the tour, and a cherished sporting hero" or condemning him for illegally doping in contravention of the rules in place at the time?
> 
> The only comparison is the attitude of some who seem keen that cheating and doping should be condemned, and the instigators punished and titles stripped, but not in the case of Simpson.


 Do you actually read any of the replies?
What has any of this got to do with chasing a currently competing athlete? Everyone has agreed with you that TS shouldn't have taken drugs but you seem to miss the points about attitudes at the time, convention, public opinion, interpretation by authorities, scale of abuse despite the infinite patience shown by many to an obvious wilful troll.
God, why am I here again. Help! Groundhog Day! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Riders who tested positive in any particular race had that win taken from them. If you claim all or any previous race wins where they did not fail a test were stripped then you obviously do not know what you are talking about. Simpson passed all the tests he took after his wins so he was never stripped of a win.


 

That is fine, your original claim was that titles were not stripped and that was not the case.

The question still mains about the other titles such as "Most successful British Post War cyclist", and the other accolades?


----------



## mickle (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin, you're flogging a dead horse.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> Do you actually read any of the replies?
> What has any of this got to do with chasing a currently competing athlete? Everyone has agreed with you that TS shouldn't have taken drugs but you seem to miss the points about attitudes at the time, convention, public opinion, interpretation by authorities, scale of abuse despite the


 
Such irony?

The question is simple why do we accept Simpson's doping?

The attitudes of the time, convention, public opinion, and scale of abuse though are inetersting diversions, so lets tackle them?

The attitude at the time was that doping was illegal and that it was an offence to dope (that also covers the interpretation by the authorities)

Public opinion at the time was also anti-doping following a number of high profile deaths and increasingly so after Simpson's death was televised in such a graphic way

Scale of Abuse - in which context does this have any real validity?
Do you mean that it is OK to dope a little, and if so how do you quantify that?
Do you mean that there is a defence that Simpson's doping was in any way justifeid " because others were doing it" and it was widespread?


----------



## david k (23 Jul 2012)

Seems distasteful to use the death of a cyclist many years ago to prove a point. I say let the man rest in peace.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Jul 2012)

I ate a Co-Op Truly Irresistable Beef Bourginon made with finest Angus beef three days ago. The last few days I have never felt better. Riding to work saturday I positively flew there and back nearly 40 miles. I felt I could ride fast forever. However I suspect I might have unwittingly doped given that Bertie ate some "finest" beef.

Back to this thread. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. TS was of his time. Leave the guy and his family alone.


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Such irony?
> 
> The question is simple why do we accept Simpson's doping?
> *This proves to me that you either don't read the replies or lack the basic intellect to understand them - I have answered this in post no. 32 - QED, over and out, a toute a l'heure mon ami.*
> ...


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> *This proves to me that you either don't read the replies or lack the basic intellect to understand them - I have answered this in post no. 32 - QED, over and out, a toute a l'heure mon ami.*


 
Do you understand the concept of plural, or is this a case *that you either don't read the replies or lack the basic intellect to understand them*?

The idea of using a plural denotes that there are more people you there than you... and have opinions different to yours!


There is on typical post that describes Simpson as



> *an iconic hero of the Tour and a cherished sporting hero*


 
Is an acceptance or condemnation of his doping, what do you think with your vast intellect?



. and why are you avoiding defining what you meant by "scale of abuse" and whether this justifies doping


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

I have seen no-one who doesn't think Simpson took amphetamines, I see no-one who thinks this was a good idea. What the fark are you arguing about?
No-one, not even me, can order people not to think he was an icon. Some folk still belieive Hitler and Thatcher were a force for good but hey - live with it.
As to scale of abuse - I've lost count of the number of times on this thread that people have patiently explained ( as if to small child) that amphetamines, whilst being banned, were not treated with the same opprobrium that systematic and scientific blood-doping in collusion with doctors and DS's now is. 

Someone order me to stop talking to this troll. Please. I need help. It's like a drug. I should have my titles ( ISTC - Intellectual Superior to Cunobellin 2012) stripped.


----------



## BJH (23 Jul 2012)

Sorry but this thread is nonsense.

TS is said by anecdotal evidence to have been a user as we're most in his day. He is also said to have had amphetamines on him and in him when he died. 

It's fair to say that you could potentially strip him of his finishing place on that years Tour if he had manged to get there.

There is no proof that he doped during ANY of his victories that would stand up in a case by WADA, therefore the discussion makes no sense. This isn't Lance.

Time to leave his memory to rest and drop this crap - please ?


----------



## stewie griffin (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin, why are you trolling?
As a relative newbie here I don't get it, you have a post count of 8 odd thousand, so I guess you like it here?
Why post such a ridiculous question the day before one of the happiest days to be a follower of British cycling?


----------



## Boris Bajic (23 Jul 2012)

Moderators or similar, this initially amusing thread has become a little glum and vitriolic.

I am no expert, but I believe that what we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men... you just can't reach.

I don't like it any more than you men....

Sorry, I was somewhere else for a moment there.

But please, put this increasingly nasty thread out of our misery.

The debating chamber of the House of Commons is beginning to look fair-minded and adult.


----------



## Scoosh (23 Jul 2012)

<Mod Hat on>

Personal abuse is NOT acceptable on CC.

This thread is locked.


----------

