sogood wrote:Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Properly dealing with the dopers, the traffickers and those complicit in such actions, as well as coercion to dope, is very much relevant for the future.
All those involved in just this one case are all still currently involved in competing, directing, managing and/or aiding current athletes and teams. The ones found to have engaged in such activity are the cancer the sport needs to eradicate.
But that's the point. They are far better to draw the line and try to eradicate going forward than try to do the impossible and pick on individuals from the past. Any one dare to mention the Merckx name, or any of the past greats? Fact and we all know it, the sport of cycling was completely tainted up to the recent past. If the authority cares to pick fights, then they'll virtually have to take on every one. As others have mentioned, taking out LA, then who's to say the next in line for the TdF title was not tainted? It's a hopeless case.
The only balancing message here is that the Yanks are just as big on doping as their Euro counterpart, but at a higher sophistication level.
I did not read your original statement to be solely about the issue of re-assigning who won past races.
So given that that's what you were solely referring to, then the line on that has already been drawn for us and the rules pertaining to the re-awarding/assigning of titles are clearly detailed in the WADA code.
For straight forward "doping only" offences, then the present rule is there is an 8 year limitation on removing a rider's name from the results sheet. However, since LA has been found to have done a lot more than just dope (i.e. trafficking, cover up, coercion), then that limitation is backdated accordingly (as per the rules).
The rules that were in place for Merckx were different, and even if we apply the current rules, it would be moot, as is would be for Vaughters, or Riis for example since the limitation period has expired.
Whether we consider the rules on that need changing is another matter (since it's clear that the awarding of a titles goes to an acknowledged doper, but one who has past the limitation period). We may not like it, but that's the current rules.
So what I am saying is that the line has already been drawn for us (as is the line on what constitutes doping has been drawn for us).