By Nick Powell
Lance Armstrong was stripped of all seven of his Tour de France titles, and they were not passed on. Bizarre, you might think. But Armstrong felt this was right as it was “the peloton’s decision” to cheat.
It seems a fair argument to say that there were too many cheats for there to be a clear winner; but is that necessarily true? Traditionally if Tour de France winners had cheated, the title would be handed down to the runner up, or the first person that hadn’t cheated. And of the 141 riders that crossed the line in Paris at the end of the 1999 tour, surely there will be individuals who didn’t cheat?
How would that group of people feel now? if you went to them and; “Guys, I know you didn’t cheat, but just to let you know, the other 130 riders have let you down, so no-one is allowed to win”. That year they had to endure 3 weeks of incredible suffering potentially bringing up the rear of the group, all because they didn’t take drugs.
The argument of the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale, Cycling’s governing body) is clear, why open a case into finding a winner, which could potentially last years and will have a harmful effect on the sport. To find a winner who will not feel the enjoyment of lifting the title in Paris, will merely accept a replica trophy that has likely done the rounds, and see their name on a few lists. Not having a winner can also draw a line under the tainted period.
That is all well and good. But in my opinion, by leaving a seven-year void, you are merely emphasizing the doping culture of cycling. As if to say, literally all of the 1316 starters (of which there were 1014 finishers) of Tour de France’s between 1999 and 2005 cheated.100% of them.
That’s just not right. It will be tough for the UCI to see the investigation figures in 90% region for cheats is likely, and maybe even one or two years where everyone has cheated; but I cannot believe that there were no clean riders in that period.
And Because I strongly feel there were some clean riders in that pack and they should be honoured. No doubt all of them would have been offered drugs, some would even have had to sit in the team room while their team-mates were injecting themselves.
It will be an arduous process to identify these winners, it will have to be absolutely thorough, so they don’t make the mistake of ultimately awarding the title to another cheat, but I believe that in the long run, a great deal of good will come out of it.
It means we won’t have to awkwardly move the conversation on when a new fan questions the blank space in 20 years time, or explain there was no World War 3. We can record the name of a worthy winner.
The most important aspect about closing this exercise, though, is that it shows that cheats lose, and honest people win. For the next era of cycling, after this is buried in the back of our minds, that is absolutely integral
Until the 22nd October 2012, every single Tour de France post-war had a winner. That day, it all changed. Between 1999 and 2005
there was "No winner"
Lance Armstrong was stripped of all seven of his Tour de France titles, and they were not passed on. Bizarre, you might think. But Armstrong felt this was right as it was “the peloton’s decision” to cheat.
It seems a fair argument to say that there were too many cheats for there to be a clear winner; but is that necessarily true? Traditionally if Tour de France winners had cheated, the title would be handed down to the runner up, or the first person that hadn’t cheated. And of the 141 riders that crossed the line in Paris at the end of the 1999 tour, surely there will be individuals who didn’t cheat?
How would that group of people feel now? if you went to them and; “Guys, I know you didn’t cheat, but just to let you know, the other 130 riders have let you down, so no-one is allowed to win”. That year they had to endure 3 weeks of incredible suffering potentially bringing up the rear of the group, all because they didn’t take drugs.
The argument of the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale, Cycling’s governing body) is clear, why open a case into finding a winner, which could potentially last years and will have a harmful effect on the sport. To find a winner who will not feel the enjoyment of lifting the title in Paris, will merely accept a replica trophy that has likely done the rounds, and see their name on a few lists. Not having a winner can also draw a line under the tainted period.
That is all well and good. But in my opinion, by leaving a seven-year void, you are merely emphasizing the doping culture of cycling. As if to say, literally all of the 1316 starters (of which there were 1014 finishers) of Tour de France’s between 1999 and 2005 cheated.100% of them.
That’s just not right. It will be tough for the UCI to see the investigation figures in 90% region for cheats is likely, and maybe even one or two years where everyone has cheated; but I cannot believe that there were no clean riders in that period.
And Because I strongly feel there were some clean riders in that pack and they should be honoured. No doubt all of them would have been offered drugs, some would even have had to sit in the team room while their team-mates were injecting themselves.
It will be an arduous process to identify these winners, it will have to be absolutely thorough, so they don’t make the mistake of ultimately awarding the title to another cheat, but I believe that in the long run, a great deal of good will come out of it.
It means we won’t have to awkwardly move the conversation on when a new fan questions the blank space in 20 years time, or explain there was no World War 3. We can record the name of a worthy winner.
The most important aspect about closing this exercise, though, is that it shows that cheats lose, and honest people win. For the next era of cycling, after this is buried in the back of our minds, that is absolutely integral
Comments
Post a Comment