Should Tom Simpson be striped of his titles?

[ufkacbln]

Who'd have thought it!!!!! You're wrong again!!!!

 

[Hover Fly]

Amphetamines were used by WW2 pilots to keep them awake and alert....if one of today's pilots tested positive for speed there would be an out cry and it would lead to some heavy sanctions. Different times different norms. So the answer is no, Simpson shouldn't be stripped of his titles.

The USAF still issues dextroamphetamine and newer stimulants such as modafinil, under controlled conditions, to it's pilots.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123007615
The British MOD bought 20odd thousand modafinil tablets prior to the last Gulf war.

 

[smutchin]

Anecdotal as in the Post Mortem results, the finding by official investigators of the empty vials in his jersey pocket and the supplies found by the same investigation in his luggage?

You mean they found all that proof in and around his dead body and yet they didn't punish him? Shocking.

d.

 

[PaulB]

It stuns me to find there are people on a website I have time for discussing the ringpiece on a cow's arse on a day of cycling such as this! Get a grip of yourselves!

 

[festival]

!

Ok. I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
Now, can you just go away and spend as much time as you like (a year would be nice) thinking up your next badly thought out post

 

[ufkacbln]

Love it!

The anti drug enforcement of today did not apply in the era of Simpson. so the question is irrelevant.

Amphetamines were illegal in 1967, and had been enforced for two years. He would have been censured by the authorities of the time had he been found positive. Other cyclists had been banned or removed form races at this time for amphetamine abuse. The question is therefore entirely relevant as despite your erroneous claim there was in fact drug enforcement in Simpson's era.

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.

Your idea.... the judgement is simple as he was taking amphetamines at a time they were illegal in the sport. Guilty by the standards of the day and the enforcement of the day. Applying today's rules in a vain attempt to get out of this difficult corner is entirely your idea, not mine!

Please get facts right before you start a thread you don't understand.

I did!

Care to admit it?

am sure there are plenty of people on here willing to educate you.

It appears that my grasp of the situation is in less need of educating than yours?


I suppose that this extremely ironic petulant little flounce is easier than admitting that you were wrong?

Ok. I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
Now, can you just go away and spend as much time as you like (a year would be nice) thinking up your next badly thought out post

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Cunobelin has finally got someone who knows even less than him to bite! Chapeau! I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability...

In the meantime, there was some quite exciting news in the world of pro-cycling today.

 

[ufkacbln]

Cunobelin has finally got someone who knows even less than him to bite! Chapeau! I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability...

In the meantime, there was some quite exciting news in the world of pro-cycling today.

What was that?

I heard there was a race in some far off foreign land involving a couple of Brits - but it was overshadowed by the death of Simon Ward

 

[Accy cyclist]

Tom Simpson died in a horrible, public way, and paid for his mistakes with the ultimate price - his life.

People who have cheated and still live should be sanctioned against, as they have not been made to accept responsibility for their actions.

Denigrating an iconic human symbol of the tour, and a cherished sporting hero will not make anything better. His lasting legacy is a poignient reminder to all of the sacrifices made by racing cyclists, and the price they pay for their mistakes.[/quote

We have a culture of wanting to rewrite maybe even correct history. We've heard of giving posthumous pardens to world war one soldiers and the pendle witches. Both tragic events, but to interfere in the decisions of the day would as you say take away their/his legacy.
Tom Simpson was before my time but i know that he's very well thought of, and should remain so.

 

[asterix]

Can I nominate this thread for the

'Bad Taste Thread of the Year' award?

Please.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Can I nominate this thread for the

'Bad Taste Thread of the Year' award?

Please.

Seconded, but there have been some other candidates so far this year too, so it might not make the final.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Can I nominate this thread for the

'Bad Taste Thread of the Year' award?

Please.

What was that?

I heard there was a race in some far off foreign land involving a couple of Brits - but it was overshadowed by the death of Simon Ward

is there a category for 'troll of the year' as well...??

 

[mr_hippo]

He would may have been censured by the authorities of the time had he been found positive. Other cyclists had been banned or removed form races at this time for amphetamine abuse. The question is therefore entirely relevant as despite your erroneous claim there was in fact very limited and selective drug enforcement in Simpson's era.
But Tom Simpson was not tested. Early drug testing was rather hit and miss, if as most of us in those days suspected that nearly all cyclists doped then in the late 60s/early 70s there would not be enough finishers to stand on the podium.
Applying today's rules in a vain attempt to get out of this difficult corner is entirely your idea, not mine!

You started it by saying should Tom be striped or even stripped! You are trying to apply today's wholesale banning to a historical event. I do not know how old you are but suspect that you were not around in that era, I and a few more on this forum were! Doping was rife in those days, we can never put a percentage on it but suspect that it was quite high. In order to compete at that high a level, you had to use something but that did not make it right - legally, morally or ethically!
How much was drug use a contributing factor in Tom's death? We do not, and will never, know. How much sheer guts and determination did he have in that fatal climb?
In an earlier reply to one of my posts, you said that not wearing a helmet in those day. was not illegal so by that standard are you saying that all post-war winners who took amphetamines did nothing wrong and therefore cannot be penalised and their wins should stand?
Now, go and find a boy scout so that he can help you get out of the knots that you have tied yourself in.

 

[PpPete]

The trouble I'm having is your linking of a dead cyclist from the 60s to a currently competing athlete.
.

Surely that should read recently competing athlete?

 

[rich p]

Surely that should read recently competing athlete?

I stand corercted! PreviouslyPedanticPete!!!