French still bitter that Lance Armstrong is better than them.

Axon wrote:

But there are guys who finished the Tour in those years who everyones acknowledges they are clean. If we want to promote a clean sport surely they should get the trophy as opposed to getting smeared along with the cheats just because your feelings and memories are hurt?

They don't want to do that because, as you said, it requires going back to 7th place to do it. If they void out his wins but don't reallocate them, I think most people are going to assume that's how it's always done. If they void out his wins and then reallocate the trophy back seven places, that's going to make the sport as a whole look awful. If 60% of your top riders in a race are cheating, that's going to be hugely damaging to the reputation of the sport as a whole and would be worse for cycling than the good press they'd get by promoting a rider who didn't cheat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...

5 time winner Miguel Indurain believes Armstrong and wants him to appeal.

Indurain told Radio Marca that the entire case was “bizarre” since Armstong never tested positive for doping. Indurain says “it is strange they take away his tours because of the testimonies of some teammates.”

I take your point, ClockworkHouse, and quiet frankly the guys involved might not want it in that way at all either. However it would be nice at times like these that the media while focusing on the cheater didn't allow a narrative build that there either aren't clean guys in the sport or that their achievements aren't worthy of praise. At the very least the clean cyclists in that last 15 odd years should be singled out and held aloft as good examples and not dismissed as only finishing 7th. That in its own way might be reward enough for these guys.

Minarchist wrote:

I think we know what has to be done, men: Jens Voigt, 13-time tour winner! Give that man a medal! Or a bunch of them!

Spoiler:

Got to meet him two weeks ago. Awesome, awesome dude.

Yes, more focusing on these guys and less on the people who seek unfair advantage. Winning shouldn't be everything, its the manner of your victory is what counts in my eyes.

Why do I find it funny that the BBC keeps referring to him as "the Texan" in their articles?

Maq wrote:
Renji wrote:
clover wrote:
Renji wrote:

Just read the original post again, man the irony of this thread is delicious :D

Yeah, that one didn't age so well.

Actually I remember finding it pretty offensive at the time as well, but the one time I called out French bashing on the forums it was dismissed on the basis that it was just friendly ribbing so I gave up. As a "Frenchie" (grew up there) it gets old pretty quick.

I was discussing with a friend yesterday I'm still not sure where the US gets off France-bashing on military grounds:

(a) The Resistance were pretty badass
(b) The French actually won their wars in South East Asia. The best the US managed was a scoreless draw.
(c) Without the French the US is still flying the Union Jack.

The reputation the French get for military incompetence largely stems from their performance in World War 2. In particular, it has to do with the rapidity with which they surrendered to the Germans in 1940. Prior to that, they had a pretty decent track record as a great power.

Even their performance in World War Two can't really be evaluated out of historical context. France had been bled white during World War One. The appetite for war, as a result, was pretty low. Rather than conscripting the population again to keep France on a wartime footing, they attempted to solve their German problem through technology (the Maginot Line). In the end, that turned out to be a mistake.

To say that losing to the Germans in spectacular fashion in 1940 is somehow the only data point that matters is also a bit unfair. They kicked the living snail snot out of the British Expeditionary Force, the Poles, and the Russians until the Soviets used two years of bitter defeat to buy them enough time to get a crash course in modern warfare. And even well into 1944, they were putting a serious hurting on Allied forces despite overwhelming deficits in men and materiel.

Anyway, I digress.

Paleocon wrote:

To say that losing to the Germans in spectacular fashion in 1940 is somehow the only data point that matters is also a bit unfair. They (the Germans) kicked the living snail snot out of the British Expeditionary Force, the Poles, and the Russians until the Soviets used two years of bitter defeat to buy them enough time to get a crash course in modern warfare. And even well into 1944, they were putting a serious hurting on Allied forces despite overwhelming deficits in men and materiel.

Fixed for me, I initially thought that "they" referred to the French.

(b) The French didn't really win in Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu anyone?), they were just smarter about leaving.

(c) In addition to all the great things Paleo said, the French were also coming off a few straight centuries of warfare. They had a 117ish year long war with England, all Napolean's conflicts, WWI, WWII, other European struggles, you get the idea.

Americans really enjoy ribbing on a people who surrendered, and who Americans got to rescue in dramatic (Normandy) fashion. A large part of American military tradition is based on World War II. A large part of our culture is based on us being heroes and bad asses in World War II. Making fun of French people is an unfortunate side effect of our infatuation with that particular part of history.

In cycling news, it's still messed up.

Squee9 wrote:

(b) The French didn't really win in Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu anyone?), they were just smarter about leaving.

(c) In addition to all the great things Paleo said, the French were also coming off a few straight centuries of warfare. They had a 117ish year long war with England, all Napolean's conflicts, WWI, WWII, other European struggles, you get the idea.

Americans really enjoy ribbing on a people who surrendered, and who Americans got to rescue in dramatic (Normandy) fashion. A large part of American military tradition is based on World War II. A large part of our culture is based on us being heroes and bad asses in World War II. Making fun of French people is an unfortunate side effect of our infatuation with that particular part of history.

In cycling news, it's still messed up.

I also think it is pretty fair to say that our own fighting contribution to the defeat of fascism was little more than a thumb on the scale when compared to the wholesale ass-whuppin the Soviets put on the Nazis beginning in 1942 and continuing in fairly uninterrupted fashion through to the fall of Berlin. A strong case could be made that the Soviets could have won the war without us. The converse (that we could have won without the Soviets) is simply laughable. So, in that sense, the myth of our own military prowess has its beginnings on some fairly shaky ground.

Just wanted to pop in and say that this whole thing is such a mess and a bummer for everyone involved with the sport including the fans. Ah well, hopefully the sport will move in a positive direction, and we can just quarantine that part of cycling history off.

Also, as an American, the whole French bashing thing makes absolutely no sense to me. The only way I can explain it as that there are some very immature and stupid people who live in this world because there is no logic guiding this behavior.

I think the decision to leave the winner rolls vacant for that entire period is one that reflects an acknowledgement that the problem of doping was endemic. It recognizes that it is a sullied period of cycling history and that there were no winners.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Just wanted to pop in and say that this whole thing is such a mess and a bummer for everyone involved with the sport including the fans. Ah well, hopefully the sport will move in a positive direction, and we can just quarantine that part of cycling history off.

Also, as an American, the whole French bashing thing makes absolutely no sense to me. The only way I can explain it as that there are some very immature and stupid people who live in this world because there is no logic guiding this behavior.

So I guess Freedom Fries weren't your thing?

Paleocon wrote:

I think the decision to leave the winner rolls vacant for that entire period is one that reflects an acknowledgement that the problem of doping was endemic. It recognizes that it is a sullied period of cycling history and that there were no winners.

I still think it's a bad way to address the problem. Nothing will change until the cycling governing bodies get more proactive. To be fair, this is a problem in many other sports, but it is more pronounced in individual sports based purely on athleticism. The sport's in a tough spot either way.

Squee9 wrote:

So I guess Freedom Fries weren't your thing?

No, they weren't.

Squee9 wrote:

Lance Armstrong finished first in a competiton several times (one of the applicable definitions of win). Did he perhaps deceive or break rules to gain an unfair advantage? According to a lot of people, yes. Did he win unethically, unfairly, and unjustly? Up to you.

That bit of mental acrobatics reminds me of this scene in The Other Guys:

Ershon: You could let me go, and I'll give you ten million dollars each. It's not a bribe.
Gamble: Of course it's a bribe! You're offering to pay us money to not do our job.
Ershon: (shakes head) Not a bribe.

Anyway, here's my favourite bit of Live Strong news:

@hellobuglers[/url]]BREAKING: Former team-mate of Lance Armstrong claims the under-fire Texan rode the 2002 Tour de France on a Kawasaki 350.

Squee9 wrote:

Nothing will change until the cycling governing bodies get more proactive.

If I've been reading Axon's posts correctly...they have been.

Thanks SpacePPoliceman I'll just keep saying Biological Passport and Bradley Wiggins over and over while huddled in the corner

Paleocon wrote:

I think the decision to leave the winner rolls vacant for that entire period is one that reflects an acknowledgement that the problem of doping was endemic. It recognizes that it is a sullied period of cycling history and that there were no winners.

But Paleo that isn't really fair either. There were guys who were clean and stayed clean under that massive peer pressure during that period. We owe them the credit they deserve and not to be tarred with the same brush. I admit earlier that going all the way to 7th in '99 would be absurd but lets at least acknowledge they exist.

Axon wrote:

But Paleo that isn't really fair either. There were guys who were clean and stayed clean under that massive peer pressure during that period. We owe them the credit they deserve and not to be tarred with the same brush. I admit earlier that going all the way to 7th in '99 would be absurd but lets at least acknowledge they exist.

Well, we know they were clean in the same sense that we knew for years that Armstrong was clean. The fact that people never failed a test is apparently meaningless. Even Armstrong, who apparently cheated all the way through his 7 tour wins (and the Olympics, etc) only failed a single test.

billt721 wrote:
Axon wrote:

But Paleo that isn't really fair either. There were guys who were clean and stayed clean under that massive peer pressure during that period. We owe them the credit they deserve and not to be tarred with the same brush. I admit earlier that going all the way to 7th in '99 would be absurd but lets at least acknowledge they exist.

Well, we know they were clean in the same sense that we knew for years that Armstrong was clean. The fact that people never failed a test is apparently meaningless. Even Armstrong, who apparently cheated all the way through his 7 tour wins (and the Olympics, etc) only failed a single test.

Armstrong bullied Christophe Bassons out of the Tour de France and more or less cycling altogether in '99, a year in which Armstrong had two positive results (I think there is a third in 2004 but I'm open to correction). By your logic Bassons, a man nicknamed "Mr. Clean, was doping just as much as Armstrong who, just to remind ourselves, orchestrated the world most sophisticated doping operation.

Simple fact is some were clean and by all mean maintain a certain level of scepticism about any professional athlete if you wish but at some point when they have provided multiple samples that tested negative and their team mates, adversaries, support staff and fans say they were clean we have to operate under a reasonable doubt. For example, I have to accept that Stephen Roche, Ireland's only winner of the Tour, was probably taking EPO.

And, no, never failing a test isn't meaningless either. As a weight of evidence it may not be great but failing a test multiple times combined with sworn testimony of an army of people tends to tip the scales in one particular direction.

Oh, and it wasn't as if there hasn't been suspicions about Armstrong for years at this point either. This thread alone aside, David Walsh (another Irish reporter), for example, as far back as 2001 directly confronted Armstrong over several issues at that point so to suggest that its only now after 13 years that we know the truth is just demonstrably false.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/11/16/165308529/episode-417-lance-armstrong-and-the-business-of-doping

great short podcast about this.

The somewhat scary part is for this of to happened the level of people involved.

There was one point where some people would just consider Lance Armstrong and doping = conspiracy under the rule if it sounds ridiculous and would need to involve to many people then how could it happen.

I just re-read my original post. Wow. I was an angry, angry man.

The reputation the French get for military incompetence largely stems from their performance in World War 2. In particular, it has to do with the rapidity with which they surrendered to the Germans in 1940. Prior to that, they had a pretty decent track record as a great power.

Bear in mind, too, that the French split. The Vichy government was collaborationist, and the Resistance was jockeying for control of ground operations in France. The British put a lot of propaganda effort into making DeGaulle look bad; part of the reputation may come from that period as well as the Communist tendencies of France in the next few decades.

Doping is so pervasive in cycling that I would be inclined to let all the results stand, since nearly everyone in contention was doping during the period. Essentially, I think it was a level playing field even with the doping.

This is the increasingly inaccurately named thread, isn't it?

I like that it remains for posterity.

When is the Oprah interview? I'm assuming everyone reading this thread has heard about it.

Good for her. That's f*cking amazing.

I have no use for the Oprah interview or anything like it, to me it's all just more attention whoring. Shut the f*ck up, Lance, and give your charity the smallest chance of surviving by breaking visible association with you. Even Niketown hides those yellow jerseys in the back of the store now.

I just want to see him cry like a little girl. I want a gif of it.

Minarchist wrote:

When is the Oprah interview? I'm assuming everyone reading this thread has heard about it.

It's unavoidable apparently. On the radio news in my part of Iowa because of Lance's prior annual participation in RAGBRAI.

My annoyance is profound.

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

I guess his "cleansing moment" feels more real with cameras stuck in his face like he used to get? Or maybe he knows he's more convincing in front of cameras. It worked well enough for all those years.