Actually DeVicenzo was 45 years old and nearly finished. He won one more tournament. Goalby was much more than a journeyman winning 11 PGA events, 2 more than DeVicenzo in his career and he was 6 years younger. It is true that DeVicenzo had the more impressive career, on a world-wide basis, but there is certainly no concensus on who was the better golfer in 1968.
An interesting story about Tommy Aaron, who wrote the wrong score on the card in 1968. In 1973, on his way to winning the Masters, Aaron was partnered by Johnny Miller in the last round. Miller wrote down a higher score for Aaron on a hole but Aaron caught the mistake. An accident?
That’s your bright line rule. You’ve defined the sport differently than the sport’s own organizers, but you’ve got a bright line rule. If someone breaks that rule, you say they’ve not won. But why should that be the case if there are no bright line rules? Why don’t we just record that Mr Bean got close to the line by taxi, ahead of his competitors, hopped on a bike, and crossed the finish line first? If that’s all that matters, then just put Mr. Bean in the record books with an asterisk and let everyone have their own opinion of it.
Your objection isn’t really with the issue raised by the OP, namely changing the records with a rule breach is uncovered; it’s with certain rules that you don’t agree with. It sounds as if you would agree with stripping Mr Bean of the title if it were found out that he had a hidden motor on his bike or paid someone to ride for him.
Nothing of the kind even remotely happened. No title was ever stripped in the Black Sox incident. The White Sox lost the series, and several Chicago players were punished for intentionally losing.
This is far from exciting, but I think this is where we have to talk about the differences in the way various sports are organized. In leagues owned and run by small groups of billionaires and quasibillionaires, you probably won’t see records and results overturned because the owners run the league and decide what the rules and the records are. In sports with a more rigid independent organization (especially an international one) or in amateur sports with a central controlling body, options like canceling records and stripping titles are more likely to be an option. At least that’s my general impression. I cannot imagine baseball and football rewriting their record books. Most people are very sure Barry Bonds was using a bunch of steroids and so were Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens and others, but there is zero chance any of their records will be stripped because baseball doesn’t work that way. (The fact that baseball was not enforcing its own anti-drug rules helps contribute to the situation.) In football you don’t overturn results because a player cheated. I’m sure the NBA wouldn’t do it either. In tennis, which is basically run by a weird hybrid organization that represents the players and the tournament organizers despite some conflicts of interest, players who cheat are fined and suspended and lose ranking points but results are not rewritten or stripped. In the NCAA or international cycling, it’s another story.
No. I apologize for being confusing and making two arguments, but I do agree with ITR about the “rewriting history” aspect of stripping titles and revoking wins.
I personally think Lance Armstrong was probably doped up, and but he rode his bike over the course of the race faster than his opponents, who were also very likely doped up. I still count that as a win in my book.
IF, years after the races, he had been accused and proven to have used a motorized bike in the race, I wouldn’t consider him a winner. BUT I still wouldn’t demand we rewrite history books pertaining to the race. Any new books that came out would say “Lance won the race, but it was later found that he used a motorized bike. He was therefore convicted of fraud and was forced to return his prize money.” Because that’s what actually happened.
Nowhere should it say “Remember that race you watched in 2004 where Lance Armstrong won? Yeah, that didn’t happen. That guy in second place you never heard of won instead.” Because that simply isn’t factual.
If by “winning,” you mean “finishing first without cheating,” then Lance was never the winner, it just wasn’t discovered until later. I don’t see anything counterfactual about it.
Exactly, that’s what it comes down to. People who feel about doping the way I feel about using cabs or secretly motorized bikes can simply not consider Lance the winner. It all comes down to your definition of that sport, and what it means to “win” it.
The only argument I’m making is that individuals should get to make that call, and record books should stick to the facts. I mean, Lance won. I saw it on tv, he got a trophy, ESPN made a big deal about how great American athletes were for beating up the frenchies, there was Champagne everywhere. I don’t care if he rode on a rocket or teleported to the finish line. Since he wasn’t caught, the event happened. They awarded him a trophy. According to everyone at the time, Lance was the champion.
Now, if a few years later it comes out that he cheated, by all means let everyone know. Publicize it. Shout it from the rooftops. Sue him for fraud, because he lied to get the prize money. And if you personally want to think it, by all means say he didn’t win. Just like I would if I found out he took a taxi. But you can’t pretend that it didn’t happen. That people weren’t showering him with Champagne and confetti and trophies and money because he actually did win the Tour de France.
On Monday. On Thursday, however, they re-staged the finish line with Jacqueline Gareau as the winner.
Honestly, I’m torn there. Rosie obviously didn’t win the Boston Marathon. I’m totally comfortable with saying that. And they caught her pretty quickly considering. Still, the whole re-staging of the finish line, complete with crowds, so that they could get pictures of Gareau breaking the tape, is just too Orwellian for me to condone.
It’s especially bad when it isn’t four days later that they decide to change the past, but a decade later. There’s quite a difference between saying “That unknown lady you never saw running, who we just gave a medal to yesterday, totally didn’t deserve it. Our bad.” and “That guy whose race you watched for a week, who shocked the world and pulled off unbelievable feats of endurance, that hero you’ve been celebrating and looking up to for ten years? Yeah, we’re just going to unilaterally call him an unaccomplished loser now”.
Nobody’s saying that, of course. They’re not deleting the video, they’re not saying it didn’t happen, and they didn’t call him a loser. They’re not longer recognizing Armstrong as champion on account of the fact that they have proof he was cheating. I agree it’s frustrating when you have to discount records people had long believed were legit (although this Armstrong stuff didn’t exactly come out of nowhere), but the alternative is basically a statute of limitations where if you get away with cheating for long enough, you win.
Interesting question, even more so if we consider that upon Johnson’s disqualification, Lewis inherited the gold medal, even though Lewis himself stepped out of his lane. Have a look at 2:46 of the video. :eek: