0

I'm a bit confused about the following sentence:

Even seven Tour de France wins cannot vindicate Lauce Armstrong in the eyes of public-- that the athlete used performance enhancing drugs invalidates all those wins.

It is a sentence which appears as an example for use of "Vindicate," which means 'to clear of accusation, blame with supporting argument.'

My understanding is that 'Tour de France' is a name of team(?) and Lauce Armstrong himself is in the opposite team and he loses seven times; despite this, he doesn't get rid of accusations about his drug use.

I suspect I understand this sentence right, so I would like to ask for help here. If I interpret it totally wrong, what would this sentence mean then?

4
  • 1
    Tour de France is the event. "Even winning Tour de France seven times cannot vindicate..." The sentence does mean what you suppose, though it's a poor example of the usage. There is no way that having previously won would prove there was no cheating. Jun 20, 2021 at 10:11
  • @Weather Vane So there’s why people still don’t believe Lauce wasn’t cheating?
    – Eric
    Jun 20, 2021 at 11:50
  • The Wikipedia article on Doping at the Tour de France says Far from abandoning drugs, riders and their helpers concentrated on finding alternatives that could not be detected. Why would a rider who was previously able to win many times without the use of drugs, begin to use them? But this is OT. Jun 20, 2021 at 12:02
  • @Weather Vane Sorry I don't know your point. My understanding for this sentence now is Lauce has won 7 times and people still suspect he used drugs during the race. It sounds okay to me cuz like u said having previously won would NOT prove there was no cheating. Indeed, that is kinda off the topic.
    – Eric
    Jun 20, 2021 at 13:24

1 Answer 1

0

My understanding is that 'Tour de France' is a name of team(?) and Lauce Armstrong himself is in the opposite team and he loses seven times; despite this, he doesn't get rid of accusations about his drug use.

The Tour de France is the most famous cycling race in the world. It is a race or competition, not a team. Typically 20-22 teams, each of 8 riders, compete in the Tour each year.

Lance (not Lauce) Armstrong was the most successful rider in the Tour, "winning" the event 7 times between 1999 and 2005. His team during that period was sponsored by and named after the US Postal Service. His wins were stripped from him in 2012 after evidence of doping accumulated.

Winning the race does not vindicate Armstrong, because winning was the whole purpose of cheating to begin with. That is, the fact that the cheating was successful does not clear him of blame for the cheating.

3
  • Thanks for adding some historical background and knowledge about the race. I've never heard of it before. So those wins cannot vindicate him because it is doubtful that he may have used drugs to win, like you said winning the race is the reason for drug usage. Thus, winning a race cannot be a supporting factor in this circumstance.
    – Eric
    Jun 20, 2021 at 19:11
  • @Eric, I don't think it's doubtful that he used drugs. I think it's extremely likely. That makes it all the more difficult to vindicate him.
    – The Photon
    Jun 20, 2021 at 19:22
  • Ahh yeah you are right.
    – Eric
    Jun 20, 2021 at 19:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .