Armstrong charged and banned

[Boris Bajic]

What makes you think they'll be handed to anyone else?

It's a race. There is a winner. If you remove from the results anyone who is shown to have competed in contravention of the rules, you are left with a winner.

Maybe that won't happen. I'm not a part of Pro Cycling, so i have no way of knowing.

 

[yello]

You think he'll keep them, like Bjarne Riis?

I have no idea. My guess? The titles will be stripped but not awarded to anyone else. Officially, there'll be no winner.

 

[zimzum42]

The wikipedia 'talk' page for LA is warming up, there's mans out there can't wait to get stuck in to that page of praise!

 

[Boris Bajic]

That's surely a distraction to the main point. When you have the evidence you have to proceed until the end, otherwise no justice is done, no message is sent and the public remain unenlightened. If they have to declare no winner for those seven tours then so be it.

It may not be the main point, but it is not a distraction. We are not the executive body in this matter, just a bunch of Internet chatters.

One of the main questions for me (among any others) is the matter of who gets the spoils if the person originally declared the winner is stripped many years later following an investigation.

In the case of Pro-Cycling in the 90s and 2000s, it is rather like choosing which fox would be the best choice to guard a hen house.

I love the extremes, the agonies, the beauty, the courage, the skill and the blunt intrusion of reality of Pro Cycling, but never for a moment did I think the sport clean.

Frankly I still don't, but I love it all the same. I loved watching LA win his tours, but it will mean nothing to me whether he's stripped or not.

I've also been impressed by Vino, Pantani (very), Ullrich, Millar (D), Riis and many other dopers. I marvel at what they do.

It matters not a jot to me that the sport has been (and may still be) filthy with cheats. But if we're going to start stripping titles from the man who won 13 years ago, we do meet the issue of which other doper or probable doper gets declared the winner in his place.

If they declare no winner, they are making a most unusual statement and implying that the event wasn't a competition after all.

 

[400bhp]

Stripping someone of a title does not automatically mean someone else will take their place.

You're essentially just putting a star next to the name and putting a footnote.

 

[thom]

Any reason why the evidence cannot be made public?
Of course Armstrong will use his usual theory that if he says something loud enough and often enough it has to be the truth, backed up by the usual threats of course.
The Armstrong worshipers will pay no heed to the evidence, they won't let the facts get in the way of their devotion of the cheat, but it would be good to get it out into the open.
Mr Phil "Lance is my mate" Liggett seems to be keeping his head down.

No reason, which is why Tygart has said it will all get released... !!! ...!!!

 

[davefb]

I have to say, I do think it's a bit barmy to keep on with this in a way, just because of the time lapse and lack of evidence..
There's loads of other athletes with big question marks over their careers ( and other cyclists, which would be the travesty of naming them as tdf winners in place of armstrong).
Sad though, I mean we should be celebrating a great come back from massive adversity , but instead its still the cheating .

Also to balance the 'well he obviously is guilty' is the issue of the cyclists that are getting seemingly better treatment of their admitted crimes by dobbing him in it...

Just wish they'd got a positive test if he was so obviously cheating.

 

[thom]

http://audioboo.fm/boos/932360-gary-imlach-on-lance-armstrong-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4

 

[Alun]

There has been a winner of the TdF since 1903, other than in the war years when it wasn't run for obvious reasons. I can't see ASO declaring "no winner", it's like saying the FA Cup final was a draw.

 

[johnr]

This one will run and run, and unfortunately I think most of the main actors will be people either trying to get on the gravy train, or keep their secured places aboard.

In an ethical world, the UCI leadership having nailed their colours so firmly to Pharmstrong's mast and failed, would do the decent thing and resign. But I think we all know that McQuaid and his cronies are not going to give up their international jollies easily.

The 'moral authority' above them is the Olympic body and they're all cut from the same cloth (for me, one of the highlights of the last Olympics was the approbrium heaped on Sepp Blatter by the crowd when he had the affrontery to present the medals at the women's football.) Whatever the McQuaid UCI does they are not going to order him to 'put his house in order'.

Within cycling, so many of the senior players are tainted that it is difficult to see a 'coalition of the righteous' ever being formed with the determination and cohesion to carry out a thorough and necessary house cleaning (isn't it sadly ironic that the flag bearer for clean cycling carries the logo of the Murdoch empire?).

It's certainly a golden opportunity for an investigative journalist to build a career, but they're unlikely to come from the ranks of the cycling press caravan who are almost all fanboys (sic) wedded to the same expenses-fuelled juggernaut as those they purport to hold to account and primarily motivated by their desire to keep their place within that world.

Sadly, one of the strongest likely outcomes could be that multi-national sponsors say 'stuff the lot of you' and walk away causing an implosion of pro cycling.

My hope is that within the cycling world a small cadre of courageous individuals will take on the task of cleaning it all up, and that the base of 'warts and all' fans like ourselves will have people to support in their gargantuan task. We are legion!

 

[yello]

Or he could be so fed up of it all, doesn't believe there is any chance of getting a fair trial, and so there is no point to fighting it, as the outcome has already been decided before it begins.

That's one interpretation, I'll give you that.

He was offered a path to challenge the allegations in a closed hearing in front of an independent panel (one of the 3 members who he himself would have chosen). He then would have had the option of appealing to CAS if he didn't like the panel's decision. He had a chance - even in his own terms. He knew refusing to go to arbitration would automatically lead to a guilty verdict. He deliberately chose the path that offered no chance.

We're not talking about disobeying your mum here. We talking about an internationally recognised, legally sanctioned body performing in the role that they were specifically set up to perform in. He can refuse to recognise their authority all he likes but simple fact is that they have it.

 

[Alun]

Stripping someone of a title does not automatically mean someone else will take their place.

You're essentially just putting a star next to the name and putting a footnote.

As with Bjarne Riis?

 

[Alun]

Isnt it the 100th TdF in 2013? Quite ironic that no-ones actually won it yet

Too cryptic for me, I'm afraid!

 

[NickM]

...We are not the executive body in this matter, just a bunch of Internet chatters...

Armstrong's place in cycling history, and its worth, will be determined by the perceptions of those who follow cycling - the consumers of the product. Most of whom no longer buy his version of events.

...If they declare no winner, they are... implying that the event wasn't a competition after all.

It wasn't, if it was falsified by doping. It was akin to a circus - a spectacle, and nothing more.

 

[Hont]

Just wish they'd got a positive test if he was so obviously cheating.

Apparently they did. And they hushed it up. Which is why we're at where we are now. 11 years later.