So What are thaey gonna do with Lance's 7 non WINS

I mean what will the history books show? Just a big gap for those 7 years almost as if the tour was not run? They really cant show that Lance won. Perhaps his name will still appear but with a huge asterisk next to his name but then, I don't see how that would accomplish lance's demise. After all it would still appear as if he won. They really can't give the title to whoever came in second as they were probably doping as well. Giving the title to a runner up who was also doping would hardly be fair to Lance. But then the Lance haters would say that one would have to prove that the runner up was doping while they required no such thing to go after LA...It is a conundrum

On Jan 21, 9:37*pm, Phil wrote:
*I mean what will the history books show? Just a big gap for those 7 years almost as if the tour was not run? They really cant show that Lance won.. Perhaps his name will still appear but with a huge asterisk next to his name but then, I don't see how that would accomplish lance's demise. After all it would still appear as if he won. They really can't give the title to whoever came in second as they were probably doping as well. Giving the title to a runner up who was also doping would hardly be fair to Lance. But then the Lance haters would say that one would have to prove that the runner up was doping while they required no such thing to go after LA...It is a conundrum

they can leave it blank, but everyone will still know who won

On 1/21/2013 8:37 PM, Phil wrote:
I mean what will the history books show? Just a big gap for those 7 years almost as if the tour was not run? They really cant show that Lance won. Perhaps his name will still appear but with a huge asterisk next to his name but then, I don't see how that would accomplish lance's demise. After all it would still appear as if he won. They really can't give the title to whoever came in second as they were probably doping as well. Giving the title to a runner up who was also doping would hardly be fair to Lance. But then the Lance haters would say that one would have to prove that the runner up was doping while they required no such thing to go after LA...It is a conundrum


What they did with Riis was remove his name and leave
it blank. Then they quietly added it back later.

Kind of funny that Riis is still recognized as a Tour
winner but LANCE isn't. I guess it pays to not be a
raging asshole.

F

On 22/01/2013 16:42, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:37 PM, Phil wrote:
I mean what will the history books show? Just a big gap for those 7
years almost as if the tour was not run? They really cant show that
Lance won. Perhaps his name will still appear but with a huge asterisk
next to his name but then, I don't see how that would accomplish
lance's demise. After all it would still appear as if he won. They
really can't give the title to whoever came in second as they were
probably doping as well. Giving the title to a runner up who was also
doping would hardly be fair to Lance. But then the Lance haters would
say that one would have to prove that the runner up was doping while
they required no such thing to go after LA...It is a conundrum


What they did with Riis was remove his name and leave
it blank. Then they quietly added it back later.

Kind of funny that Riis is still recognized as a Tour
winner

Not to mention Ullrich and Pantani.

On Jan 22, 11:42*am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:37 PM, Phil wrote:

* I mean what will the history books show? Just a big gap for those 7 years almost as if the tour was not run? They really cant show that Lance won. Perhaps his name will still appear but with a huge asterisk next to his name but then, I don't see how that would accomplish lance's demise. After all it would still appear as if he won. They really can't give the title to whoever came in second as they were probably doping as well. Giving the title to a runner up who was also doping would hardly be fair to Lance. But then the Lance haters would say that one would have to prove that the runner up was doping while they required no such thing to go after LA...It is a conundrum

What they did with Riis was remove his name and leave
it blank. Then they quietly added it back later.

Kind of funny that Riis is still recognized as a Tour
winner but LANCE isn't. I guess it pays to not be a
raging asshole.

F

riis was under no duress when he revealed he doped in 96