I'm sure this has been talked all about but I can't find the right

I tried searching the group posts before asking this but I kept hitting things that really didn't address my questions.
1. I assume that by now, not only has Lance lost all of his yellow jerseys but the title of winner has been given to someone else. Where can I find a list of the "new" winners?
2. In posts I did read, there was lots of talk about all the winners who have been guilty of blood doping. So the question is, How can the UCI pick a new winner with confidence that they are "clean"? My approach would be to give the slowest person each year where it's known that doping or drugs were used the winner's title. That's because the slowest rider, probably some obscure domestique, either clearly wasn't using doping or was still sub-par in spite of doping.

Ken

There are no winners for those years. Everyone was doping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:07:48 AM UTC-7, Anton Berlin wrote:
There are no winners for those years. Everyone was doping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France

Thanks. If Lance's whole team kept the secret for all those years, it doesn't look like there's much hope of finding a way to test for this at the start or end of a stage. And if it was at the TdF, wouldn't be everywhere? In football or soccer or the like, no one would care. In cycling I think we do care, but it will be hard for me going forward to think that any race is free of doping.

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
I tried searching the group posts before asking this but I kept hitting things that really didn't address my questions.

1. I assume that by now, not only has Lance lost all of his yellow jerseys but the title of winner has been given to someone else. Where can I find a list of the "new" winners?

2. In posts I did read, there was lots of talk about all the winners who have been guilty of blood doping. So the question is, How can the UCI pick a new winner with confidence that they are "clean"? My approach would be to give the slowest person each year where it's known that doping or drugs were used the winner's title. That's because the slowest rider, probably some obscure domestique, either clearly wasn't using doping or was still sub-par in spite of doping.



Ken

Actually it will be interesting to see come 20 yrs or so. Will the books still show LA with an asterisk? Will his name just be removed? Will those 7 years just not have a winner, as if the races were not run? I think it will be the first.

On 5/11/2013 8:41 PM, Phil wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
I tried searching the group posts before asking this but I kept hitting things that really didn't address my questions.

1. I assume that by now, not only has Lance lost all of his yellow jerseys but the title of winner has been given to someone else. Where can I find a list of the "new" winners?

2. In posts I did read, there was lots of talk about all the winners who have been guilty of blood doping. So the question is, How can the UCI pick a new winner with confidence that they are "clean"? My approach would be to give the slowest person each year where it's known that doping or drugs were used the winner's title. That's because the slowest rider, probably some obscure domestique, either clearly wasn't using doping or was still sub-par in spite of doping.



Ken

Actually it will be interesting to see come 20 yrs or so. Will the books still show LA with an asterisk? Will his name just be removed? Will those 7 years just not have a winner, as if the races were not run? I think it will be the first.


No asterisk. Riis doesn't have one.

F