If they pin this on him it will tarnish the sport of cycling
All the GC contenders were doping in the time period in question. He is the only one still denying it.
If he was doping (which everyone thinks is extremely likely) it doesn't make a difference to cycling. He still rode amazingly to win those races, and everyone he beat was doing the same thing. He was the best climber of the decade for sure.
I
As for the role model stuff, I'm not really that bothered about it. He has raised the profile of the sport through his success (and the circumstances in which it happened), however, and that's a good thing. We all love a story like that.
Talk to a cancer sufferer. "It's not about the bike" is called "The Book" between cancer sufferers. They all read it, they're all inspired by it and it gives hope.
If he had won the TdF 7 times but not had cancer, this would be a very different discussion. Lance is a far bigger figure than just as a cyclist.
Look at who they would award his yellow jerseys to:
2005 - Ivan Basso - Banned after being heavily implicated in Operacion Puerto.
2004 - Andreas Kloden - Was part of the T-Mobile Team that nearly had to withdraw from the 2006 TdF when almost half the starting 9 riders were implicated in regard to Puerto.
2000, 2001, 2003 - Jan Ullrich, who won in '97, was also caught in Puerto and was practically forced to retire having been kicked out of the '06 edition of le Grand Boucle.
2002 - Joseba Beloki, who was also implicated in Puerto and was never proven guilty, however there have long been suspicions regarding Beloki.
1999 - Alex Zulle of Switzerland, was part of the 1998 Festina Affair when the entire Festina team was kicked off the race. He admitted to taking EPO.
So practically all of them were drug cheats. Either Armstrong is a genetic freak, or a doper. Personally I'm inclined to believe he wasn't, considering his proven physical superiority in areas such as the heart. To this day he still competes at a high level, and I really can't see Armstrong risking his reputation at 39 by doping in amateur triathlons. USADA are out to get him because they're under the impression that he's been flunking their tests for years, but I really think they should give it up.
I've read the book and it's an inspirational story, no doubt. Don't get me wrong, I think what he did under the circumstances was absolutely remarkable.
I don't want to derail the thread, but my stance is that I don't don't expect sports people to be role models any more than any other well known figure (I call it the Charles Barkley rule). On the flip side of that, I don't like them thinking rules don't apply to them because of their status either.
With all due respect my friend, irrespective of what you think (and notwithstanding that you have made up a name for the rule), it's unrealistic to think sports stars aren't role models. They are. It has ever been thus. Advertising makes it so. They may not be held out by authority figures to be role models, but children wear what they wear, drink what the sports star tells them to drink, eat what they tell them to eat etc. That the parents busily buy the kit, ride the bikes, drink the sports drinks etc reinforces this.
For me, the only line to draw is between cheats and clean riders. If they have to go down to 23rd place to award it to a clean rider I would do that.
What about crimes like murders and rapes that receive new evidence 20 years later. They re-open the case. I say that is they ever get new evidence (or new tests or techniques or anything) about any rider, they should pursue it.
Think about it - you're a tour rider, close to the top. Scenario A: You know that all you have to do is stay clean for the period of your wins, then admit it all and still keep your tour wins. Scenario B: You know that the authorities will pursue you for the next 50 years, and one day they are going to strip the wins off you. Don't you think that makes a difference to the future of the sport.
That's not quite true. Think about bail vs remand custody. If there is strong enough evidence for a serious enough crime, the accused is likely to held in custody (even under the presumption of innocence). If the case is weak or the incident is minor, they are granted bail.
So in this case, and the Beale case, if there is enough evidence for a serious enough crime, they should be stood down until it is resolved. If not, then I agree with you.
Reputation? What reputation?I honestly have never been a fan of Armstrong, and I also think there may be some conspiracy theories to why he has never been caught. When you have former team mates say they have SEEN him do it, then how can you not think he's guilty.
Anyway, this could fuck up cyclings reputation which is already hanging by a thread.
No.Is it right that testicular cancer is a possible side effect of performance-enhancing drugs?
Oh look - there's an elephant in the room!