Should Tom Simpson be striped of his titles?

[Dave Davenport]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rich p]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

 

[ufkacbln]

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]

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]

What part does the question play on modern cyclists?

 

[Buddfox]

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]

Love it!




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.



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!




I did!

Care to admit it?



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?

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? )