Ulrich came second to Lance in 3 tours , now he was clean wasn't he? Cant they just leave it be and put a note by the wins saying something like "dope year"....
well, i was riding bikes back then, and hardly doing any drugs at all - the uci will probably be on the phone soon to notify me of my retrospective victories...
Only option would be to declare those years void tbh. You can't take a win away from an alleged drugs cheat and give it to someone else you don't know isn't also a drugs cheat. And once you get out of the top riders- and you would- you get down to team riders who weren't riding for the win, so inevitably becomes unfair.
Or just put an asterix or srtrikethrough on the results indicating 'won by other means'
I thought that they could only take 2 out of the 7 wins. The rest are outside the 8 years rule...
USADA said they'll take all victories since late '98 from him, my guess is UCI will put an asterisk next to him as the winner of all his tours- same as with Riis in '96.
ampthill - MemberI thought that they could only take 2 out of the 7 wins. The rest are outside the 8 years rule...
That seems to be one of the places it gets messy- they have their 8 year statute of limitations, but when pursuing a case against the most recent wins they'd use evidence from outwith the 8 year period, which could end up proving a case of doping from before the 8 years.
Also, they could choose to interpret it as a single offence rather than "doped in 2000, doped in 2001..." it'd be "Doped from year x to y", which would fall within the 8 year period.
All a bit messy tbh but you can count on USADA to choose the [s]fairest and most correct[/s] definition that suits them.
I think it would make this year Wiggo's second victory if we start retrospectively zapping the records.
And does Robert Millar get a TdF victory?
igm - Andy Schleck in '09 surely? I know his brother had a positive result this year but I thought Andy was still clean?
They've already given him 2010...
There is no fair way of sorting it out fairly. Unless they do a thread to needle job on the riders who would be the potential benefactors of this decision.
Stevomcd - just devilment on my part
Seriously though, it would make 2009 Britain's best GC year at the tour thus far (at the time) as Wiggo's would go second.
I think they should both strip him of it officially and just put an asterix by his result and leave it at that
He cannot be a convicted drug cheat and keep them but it could go on for ever trying to find a clean one from that period.
They are just trying to make an example and stamp out all drug cheating. Its a sad situation where they are making such a big deal that every sporting event for years to come will have that doubt of a drug assisted winner.
They have got their teeth into something and not letting go.... maybe some truth there but im about as over it as LA himself.
I've already been awarded sleeping with Sheryl Crow as I was next in line there.
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/more-on-lance-armstrongs-podium.html
Worth a read. Essentially, they were [i]all[/i] at it!
Nice of the French not even to update their website to say that Wiggo won this year, let alone to say that lance has lost his 7
http://www.letour.fr/2012/TDF/HISTO/us/palmares.html
JohnClimber - they haven't even stripped Contador of his yet!