Should Tom Simpson be striped of his titles?

[ufkacbln]

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]

Do you mean the stripes on his world champion jersey?

 

[ufkacbln]

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]

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

 

[Noodley]

Grow up.

 

[ufkacbln]

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]

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

 

[Noodley]

Yawn :troll:

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rich p]

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.