Inconsistencies on doping?

thumperman

Just something I've been mulling over recently and wondered what others thought.
On one hand everyone (almost) hates Lance Armstrong for doping (and being a general A hole I'm sure). But on the other hand people stop at the Tom Simpson memorial to pay tribute to a man who died after taking large amounts of amphetamines to keep him going.
I just find this a bit strange. I know it was different times and I know doping has alway's been there and was even thought of as a legitimate way to win a long time ago but even riders from the 70's/80's who are revered by lots of people were probably "getting it down 'em".
But why revere some and hate others who have basically done the same thing?

Websta24

Not only in cycling, i was reading an article in one of this months cycling magazines about other pro sports.

Man City recently got pulled up on Anti Doping Violations for not stating the whereabouts of players etc...got fined, and that was that. When Lizze Armistead missed a couple of appointments before the Olympics she was hounded by the media and will forever have that stigma surrounding her. Bradley Wiggins' reputation will always be tainted from the recent stories as well.

Currently, UK Anti Doping lists 50 athletes serving bans...5 of them are cyclists. The rest are predominantly Rugby players!!

fenix

As you say - different times.

Cycling is usually the whipping horse for doping - meanwhile wealthier sports get almost a free ride.
Where there is a lot of money to be made - there will be doping.

mattsaw

Lance wasn't the first cyclist to dope, he wasn't the first to use EPO, he wasn't the first to be involved with doping on an industrial scale.

I think what people found to be so distasteful with Lance was his marginally sociopathic approach to controlling the story, the narrative and using smears and threats to influence the actions of those around him.

IMO Armstrong isn't a bit of a **** because he doped, he's a bit of a **** because he's a bit of a ****. And I suspect that that would be true doping or no doping.

I think you could probably also level the same accusation at many obsessively driven and successful people in all walks of life however.

thumperman

Personally I think Lance Armstrong was just a horrible git in general and deserves some crap just for that.
The doping issue dosn't get me as bothered as some people as they'll all push the "grey areas" and those who do "cheat" will hopefully have it burning away at them inside.
I quite like Contador, even though he tried to blame Spanish farmers for his positive drug test. But I'm not really sure why? It's a weird old situation.
As for other sports, football has too much money involved to rock the boat, athletics has Coe and his "friends in high places" to dim the stories down.

trek_dan

Eddy Mercx failed three doping test during his career and is still revered as a hero.

Garry H

Lance just wasn't Euro enough for the fans.

pblakeney

thumperman wrote:

On one hand everyone (almost) hates Lance Armstrong for doping (and being a general A hole I'm sure)

Your answer B is the answer to your own question.

Omar Little

Armstrongs personality and how he treated others dont help him but a large part of the most vocal hate is from those that bought into his myth at the time and are now behaving like a bunch of spurned lovers. There is probably quite a big overlap between this group and those that now only seem to follow cycling for the doping drama rather than the racing.

poptart242

In my opinion, he gets flack because of how he went about what he did. He ruined careers, threatened and bullied his way to the top.

He also happened to dope.

I used to try my hardest to hate on the likes of Contador and Valverde but now that I've been watching for a few years I just take it all with a pinch of salt. I'll be sad to see them retire, because riders like them are just awesome to watch.

thumperman

"Eddy Mercx failed three doping test during his career and is still revered as a hero."

That's the sort of thing I mean. I'm a big fan of Sean Kelly, never heard of him doping myself but supposedly "everyone was at it" by what you hear now.

simon_masterson

There never has been a consistent approach, and there will always be cheating in sport. The problem with stripping winners of their awards retrospectively is those that did cheat but managed to evade a positive test. If it were possible to definitively know who doped and who did not post 1967, the list of winners would be very small. Wiping out the Armstrong years is weird enough (IMO), but if they stripped every blood doper of their title, the list would be virtually blank. Big Mig, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Contador, Landis, Schleck; and that's just the TdF GC winners. It just does not make sense (IMO) to disqualify previous winners in this way; much better to make enforcement better.

kingstongraham

He gets the flak because he was the doping-est rider when doping became the worst crime in sport.

mattsaw

I wonder how much the stripping of his tour titles would have been down to any potential legal threat to ASO from SCA bearing in mind how litigious they were/are over the case.

“Once he loses those titles, in our minds, he’s not entitled to those payments,” Jeffrey M. Tillotson, a lawyer for the company, said. “We’re sending a demand letter to him, which I’m sure he’ll throw away. But fair is fair. We want our money back.”

sloppyschleckonds

thumperman wrote:

Just something I've been mulling over recently and wondered what others thought.

You need to spend more time in the Pro Race forum

webboo

thumperman wrote:

"Eddy Mercx failed three doping test during his career and is still revered as a hero."

That's the sort of thing I mean. I'm a big fan of Sean Kelly, never heard of him doping myself but supposedly "everyone was at it" by what you hear now.

Kelly failed at least one dope test.

thumperman

Ah, did he. I'm certainly no cycling historian. It dosn't surprise me.

I shouldn't have mentioned the LA word. And won't again.

ben@31

In my opinion. Lance got more flak than anyone else because the tabloid media wanted a big sensationalist story to sell. We might loathe him now, but Lance was the big household name at the time, a media scoop.
David Walsh wasn't working for free and how much money did he make from the books he sold ? Lance probably made David Walsh's career and we would never have heard of him if it wasn't for this scandal.
Tabloid journalists don't make any money when there's nothing that happened.
I think it's exactly the same with Amanda Knox and that absolute scumbag of a tabloid Daily Mail journalist Nick Pisa.

ugo.santalucia

Inconsistencies you say... Elvis Presley met his then wife when he was 22 and she was 14... never heard anyone call him a paedo...

shortfall

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Inconsistencies you say... Elvis Presley met his then wife when he was 22 and she was 14... never heard anyone call him a paedo...

Yup. Bill Wyman seems to get a free pass on that front too. And if you Google "Lori Matrix" and "Baby Groupies" you'll be amazed at the range of national treasures who are alleged to have indulged in some very dubious antics and who have some how avoided closer scrutiny.

thefd

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Inconsistencies you say... Elvis Presley met his then wife when he was 22 and she was 14... never heard anyone call him a paedo...

David Bowie.....