All I get from this BBC article is that the riders will understand. What will they understand? Why is it better not to reallocate wins? Why not say that the runner up was the real winner now, instead of saying there was no Winner for the Tour de France during those times when Armstrong apparently won?
I’d always assumed before that, when something like this happens, it was some logistics thing, but, according the article, that’s not the case. It claims it’s something about “honour.” But how in the world is it honorable to not recognize the fact that these were the fastest people who didn’t cheat, and thus the actual winners?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they suspect these riders didn’t ride clean, either. Either that, or it is about logistics, but they are too chicken to say so.
Then again, how would it even affect the logistics? What would changing the first runner up to the winner do that would cause problems?
Because it’s likely that they all(or at least the majority) cheated. Even the backmarkers are among the best cyclists on the planet. If the race winner had to dope to stay ahead of his main challengers, the only way for the others to stay up is to also dope.
I have watched a lot of cycling over the years and I think the majority of the riders are clean now. They actually seem to get tired during a three-week race and there isn’t nearly as many crazy attacks going up mountains.
I also think it’s silly to strip Armstrong of the Tour de France titles. I watched him win with my own eyes and everyone was cheating. I personally don’t mind that they doped. I think it was more exciting to watch when they were doping. This year’s Tour de France was quite boring.
Hell, cyclists have always cheated in the Tours. Back in the 1920s, they would use strychnine, cocaine and chloroform.