|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 23, 2012 10:22:59 GMT 10
On the radio this morning they were discussing Lance Armstrong's banning and being stripped of his wins. The discussion was on whether the runnerup should now receive the title and it spun off into other sports, most notably the NRL and Storm being stripped of their premierships.
What do you think, should the runner-ups in sports be declared the winners if the actual winner/s are found to have cheated? How would that even work, would they get the trophy/prize money or just the title? Is that fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Oct 23, 2012 10:42:21 GMT 10
In the tour of course not. Most of those finishing after Lance were drugged and banned too. You have to go back to Cadel in one year to get a clean rider and he came 8th. There is no winner simple as that. In the NRL you can't do it either. That team (ie. Melbourne Storm) being in there had an effect on the results of the minor premiership and the finals series. Who knows if Parra and Scum Manly would have even made it to the GF without the Storms general influence on the comp. Who is saying the teams who finished 9th wouldn't have won from 8th... Those years simply cannot have a winner. Anyone who says otherwise is just a whinging Scum or Eels fan  |
|
|
|
Post by Nico on Oct 24, 2012 10:33:45 GMT 10
Been going on 7 years and wasn't caught? completely dodgy. Like Loz said the tour is full of dopers, it seems harder to find someone who isn't! No winner.
I think that the runner up has to just get over it. That's life we all get cheated out of something at some point.
|
|
