I'm just sitting here struck slack-jawed dumb after reading in CyclingNews that Bjarne Riis, who admitted that doping helped him win the 1996 Tour de France, has been reinstated as the official winner.
“We cannot rewrite history. Therefore we recognise Bjarne Riis as the winner of the 1996 Tour de France. But with an asterisk,” said Philippe Sudres, media director for the Tour de France to Danish magazine Politiken.
“Now he appears again in his earlier spot, but not exactly the same as the other winners. Immediately under his name we have written that he has admitted to doping during the Tour in 1996, but that the admission came so late, that according to the rules it cannot influence the result. Thus, on these grounds we have reinstated him as winner.”
Being a lowly blogger, I don't have access to the official media guide. So I did the next best thing and checked the official online history at the official Le Tour website.
I went right to the 83rd edition of the Tour de France in 1996. Riis is reported as the winner. No asterisk. No explanation about doping. The heroic aspects of his achievements — such as beating five-time defending champion Miguel Indurain — pale in light of his subsequent disclosures.
Here's my suggestion on how the history can be rewritten:
“When Indurain failed to win the time trial to Val d'Isère it became clear that he was not
at his bestdoping. Coming to the front was Danish rider Bjarne Riis. Third in 1995, Riis was clearly the best climber using EPO in the race as well as a solid time trialer. And after winning stages to Sestrières and Hautacam, he held a firm grip on the yellow jersey, easily becaming the first Danish Tour winner to use performance enhancing drugs. “
As I wrote last year in “Who gets 1996 Tour title?”, maybe the real problem lies with how far down the list of finishers one has to go to find an untainted cyclist.
Recent Comments