Should Tom Simpson be striped of his titles?

[Stig-OT-Dump]

Here's a hypothetical, based on the way Sky have controlled the tour this year. Say, hypothetically, that Froome failed a drugs test - should Wiggins be stripped of the hypothetical yellow jersey he'll be wearing (hypothetically) in Paris? After all, it seems reasonable to assume he wouldn't have controlled Nibali without Froomie.

 

[raindog]

Popping an amphetamine before a stage isn't really in the same league as having a fridge full of boosted blood ready to inject.

 

[Andy_R]

[Devil's Advocate] If the top echelon was rife with doping, then no-one had an advantage. [/Devils Advocate]

 

[oldroadman]

[Devil's Advocate] If the top echelon was rife with doping, then no-one had an advantage. [/Devils Advocate]

Correct. If everyone is doing something similar, then it's a level playing field, If yu ever see the finish picture from 1965, look at the eyes, and draw whatever conclusions. Having met a couple of people who were GB domestiques to TS that day, the question was "who was not taking something". As one mentioned, "we did waht was necessary as Tom was flying and he needed the best possible chance".
Times have changed. History is history. Silly and uninformed comments by know-nothings continue.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Ever since the earliest days of Le Tour, people have been taking little pick - me - ups to help them along, and as has already been proven on this tour with Schleck and co, nothing it seems has changed. The difference now is that you don't HAVE to take these things just to stay in contention (as far as we are aware anyway). It isn't a universal thing now.

 

[mr_hippo]

How many of today`s banned or specified substances were on the list in those days? Indeed, how many were invented then?Shall we expand the OPs argument to include convicted homosexuals who were fined or imprisioned for performing what now are legal acts? Should we repatriate all relatives of those who were transported to the colonies for minor offences by today''s standards and issue full pardons?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Cunobelin is feeling sore because he got exposed as not knowing as much as quite a few other regular contributors here on the Armstrong thread. And in fact, if he'd read all the discussion in the other thread he'd already realise that for most of those people the basis for his 'argument' here is just misguided. But then it did seem clear that he hadn't actually read everyone else's contributions...

Conclusion: poor attempt at trolling.

 

[asterix]

How many of today`s banned or specified substances were on the list in those days? Indeed, how many were invented then?Shall we expand the OPs argument to include convicted homosexuals who were fined or imprisioned for performing what now are legal acts? Should we repatriate all relatives of those who were transported to the colonies for minor offences by today''s standards and issue full pardons?

As I have read, the issue of doping was considerably worsened by the use of amphetamine in WW2, by all participants. With that in mind, the moral issues against its use were probably much weaker in the 1960's particularly as its negative effect was not then universally acknowledged.

But, yes this thread .. well, what can you say?

 

[festival]

The anti drug enforcement of today did not apply in the era of Simpson. so the question is irrelevant.
While I would agree he seemed to have flaws in his character, he was living in different times and should not be judged by today's rules.
Please get facts right before you start a thread you don't understand.
I am sure there are plenty of people on here willing to educate you.

 

[Norm]

I think that, were the drugs illegal in the time of Simpson or legal in the time of Armstrong, then the OP might have a point. But they weren't.

 

[ufkacbln]

Why is it a thread at all, is the question you should be asking david.

Having had his fingers burnt, his intellect found wanting and revealed his total lack of analytical insight in the Armstrong thread, he now seems intent on proving it all over again.

Tosh!

There is a serious question here, If we are to correctly vilify the present drug cheats and (when proven) remove their titles) surely it is simply rank hypocrisy to celebrate the achievements of other drug cheats?

Do we condemn them all, or just selected ones?

Answer the question?

Do you think that Simpson who is a proven drugs cheat deserves the accolades he is given?

Or is that too complex a concept?

 

[Nearly there]

When Simpson was racing the taking of substances to enhance performance was probably the norm everyone was probably at it.

 

[Norm]

Do you think that Simpson who is a proven drugs cheat deserves the accolades he is given?

The answer has been given several times. He wasn't a cheat because he wasn't breaking the laws of the time.

 

[Smokin Joe]

there were already doping laws by 1967 and I'm sure amphetamines were on the banned list...

Simpson was World Champion in 1965, he passed the drug test afterwards and no allegations of abuse were made against him.

Neither did he try to ruin the careers of other riders because they spoke out against doping.

 

[rich p]

I really don't know why I'm doing this!
Every account I've seen about Tommy Simpson, from all the books and articles I've read, to Wikipedia, give Simpson's amphetamine abuse large negative coverage. Of course it would have been better if he hadn't taken them and he might still be alive if he hadn't done so.
The trouble I'm having is your linking of a dead cyclist from the 60s to a currently competing athlete.
If you ever posted or read the plethora of anti-drug threads over the past number of years in the Racing section you'd appreciate that the regular posters are consistently anti-doping whomsoever is the miscreant. The misapprehension that we only want Armstrong to receive his due desserts is common among people who rarely post in the Racing section.
What you fail to understand, either by refusing to read the background or wilful trolling, is that to conflate amphetamine abuse 50 years ago bears no relation to the alleged USPostal systematic blood-doping programme.
It's tantamont to conflating a kid stealing some sweets to Brinksmat.
So, yes, Simpson took drugs which were generally regarded as a slap-on-the wrist punishment.

THIS WAS NOT A GOOD THING - JUST SAY NO!!

That really is my last post in this thread.