DrPete 

So, we've all read the expert opinions about how everyone has to dope to finish the Tour. We know that the UCI's tests for a lot of substances are still indirect measures and have plenty of room for dopers to test negative.

It's strange, though. On one side you hear that PEDs will only get you a couple percent performance improvement, then some expert doctor tells you that nobody would even finish the Tour without some chemical assistance...

Say for a moment, just hypothetically, that you could say with 100% certainty that not a single rider in the pro peloton was juiced. How would the 2006 TdF look in a completely dopeless peloton? Would we see more abandonments? More casualties? Bonks? How different do you think it would be, if at all?

Lithuania

i dont think i would even be able to tell the difference but i might have never seen a clean performance.

HigherGround

Given the prevalence of suspensions due to failed drug tests (such as Hamilton and Heras) or police investigations (such as Museeuw and Millar, the Festina Affair, and Operacion Puerto), I suspect most race results would be essentially the same finishing order but with an average speed of a few mph less.

Braveheart

Robbie Mcewan would win.

Enthalpic

On the last days of the tour you would have many guys with colds, flu, mouth ulcers, tendonitis, sleep disturbances, high RHR, etc. Without the recovery aids you get sick.

Then Floyd says stuff like, “overtraining? There is no such thing as overtraining.”

Well maybe if you are on drugs…

merlinextraligh

I don't think it would be even a few mph slower. Take the assumption that the benefit is 2 to 5% increase inperformance. At the speeds these guys ride, a 5% increase or decrease in power is not equal to a 5% increase or decrease in speed. (i.e. it takes more than a 5% increase in power to increase speed 5% at 25+mph.) So I'm betting that the change in average speed would be less than one mph.

Dolomiti

The main speed differences would probably be on the long mountain stages. With less power, the more and more % of energy is expelled before the finish. It's like adding extra miles at the end of a stage.

Then due to less recovery aids, the speed on those flatter stages after a tough mountain stage would probably be a lot lower. The peloton would be more likely to take a 'day off' as they sometimes do in other grand tours.

smellygary

I think about the early years of the race when they used 2 speed bikes on dirt roads. I'm not much of a TdF historian, but I think they went just about as far as they do now. Just back then they would all stop for lunch and wine, have a few laughs, then get going again.

Its the corporate sponsorship that sucks the life and the fun out of everything good.

smellygary

I haven't read them, because I don't care about them. Just like the Olys, World Cup, Democratic National Convention or the neighborhood block party, its all for fun and entertainment.

Dolomiti

The Tour is as short as it has ever been, today. It used to be longer and longer, as you go back further in time.
Not just the Tour... but with all the other big races... they're far too easy for the riders (Paris-Roubaix is wayy overhyped in difficulty, for example). And some would argue that the easier/shorter the ride, the more advantage there is for dopers.

https://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/e...tation_tdf.php - that site has full results of every Tour and every Tour stage in history. Look at the first Tour... most of the stages were over 400km, and lasted between 12-20 hours.

yellowjeep

Those early tours were alot longer that modern tours. Something like 5000 kilometers compared to 3500 km today.

edit: beaten to the punch

edit 2: I just checked, it seems like most of the early tours where around 4500 km on average with the longest being just over 5400 km.

DocRay

I seriously doubt anyone would consider the Paris-Roubaix overhyped.
Drugs have been part of the tour from at least the 50s. Tommy Simpson died of an amphetamine overdose while climbing, he was so wired they had to pry the handlebars away from his dead body. Charlie Gaul went insane on ampthetamines, lived his remaining life as a hermit.

Keith99

I remeber reading once that decades ago two of the top riders agreed that they would do one of the major (single day) races without any of the drugs that made it easier. They performance did not suffer, but they did, vowing never again.

I think drug free you would see more bonks, more days when one rider is feeling good and takes time out of the others. All in all I think things would get more exicting.

Of course it will not happen so we will never know.

I think one of the two riders was Anquetil. Just a measure of how far back drugs go. I am sure that the second time Anquetil broke the hour record that he was so upset about the dehumanizing aspects of the drug testing that he refused to completely comply and hte record was never certified. Guess drugs and testing problems go way back.

Dolomiti

I didn't say the race was overhyped. I said the difficulty of the race is overhyped.
Something is up when one of the top finishers says something like 'I wasn't all that tired at the end, really. The cobbles are uncomfortable but it's not all that difficult of a race."

SaintAndrew

if he felt that good he should have solo'd away to a crushing victory.

smellygary

Pretty amazing, isn't it? And on pretty basic bikes, doing their own mechanical work.

Thanks for the info from both responders.

Mojo GoGo

Merlin,

I respect your insights and enjoy reading your posts but if doping was that ineffective I can't believe it would be so (assumed) prevalent.

I've read that doping is not "necessary" for the classics as they are a one day event but that after such an event the body requires 2-3 days to recover. If this is correct, it would seem like the speed of the tour would have to drop substantially with the peloton taking 2 out of every 3 days off...

ed073

Cadel would win.

merlinextraligh

No, its incredibly effective,at the margin. When the world's best athletes are trained to thier absolute potential, the differences at the top are miniscule, and a 2 to 5% advantage would absolutely be the difference between winning and losing. So if one rider gets that advantage and others don't it would be very hard to compete, hence the compulsion. However, if no one gets the advantage, the drop in speed would, IMHO, be barely perceptable to fans.

My bet was less than 1 mph change in speed. Assume the benefit was 1/2mph up the big climbs. That 1/2mph would give tour winning time gaps up the major climbs. but everybody riding 1/2mph slower would hardly be noticeable.

And to me thats the tragedy, doping is seriously damaging the sport, and might possibly kill it. Without doping, it would still be the incredible spectical, and accomplishment,and the efforts of the top pros would still be superhuman, albeit a very small bit slower.

iluvfreebeer

Say there was such a thing as a totally clean Tour de France--how would it play out?


Easy - Flandis would win.

sunday driver

Doping is seriously damaging everything. And without dope, life is an incredible spectical.

DrPete 

I'm having lunch with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny today if you care to join me.

smellygary

What dope are you on?
Sounds like a Monty Python take on the TdF: Santa Claus with Elves as domestiques, Snow White and her seven Dwarves, Aesop's tortoise doing a pull for the hare! Rudolf the Red Nosed Reinderr doing lead outs. And the Mad Hatter as the team physician!

iluvfreebeer

You're a liar! Everyone knows they spend August in Brisbane!

DrPete 

I wasn't talking about the TdF, I was talking about lunch.