bicyclridr4life

This may be a rhetorical question, since there may never have been one.

Who was the last "clean" (drug wise) TDF winner?

I know Greg LeMond claims he was, but during his era, the entire peloton (including Mr. LeMond) were sucking on inhalers, as they "had asthma".

brianmcg123

Well if that disqualifies him, then nobody. I don't ever remember seing Lemond with an inhaler though.

In the second TDF the leading rider was disqualified for using an illegal substance. So whoever won the first one then, Maurice Garin.

Edit: I just looked up who was DQ in the 2nd TDF and it was Maurice. LOL.
Him and 9 other riders for cheating.

Pemetic2006

Chris Froome.

Doge

Are you asking who did nothing, or who didn't break the rules?
So some took PEDs because they had a TUE. That is legal.
Others were known to use illegal drugs out of competition. Cocaine being one. Depending on country and rules this also may have been legal.
I've seen articles saying Lance "doped" before his date given on Opera as he was part of the Eddie B group (I don't think he was) that blood doped in 1984. That was also legal - then and didn't involve drugs.

So "clean" - drug wise is a hard one. Froome took legal drugs. Others got busted for social drugs.
I have not heard of Bernard or Greg using, however Greg I do not believe was tested sufficiently after his return and he was bigger and had acne scars.

bicyclridr4life

Is testing ever sufficient, or even relevant? Lets face it, Lance never flunked the doping tests before or after a stage.

I've never heard accusations of Eddie Merckx or Miguel Indurain, for example, cheating, but that does not mean they didn't, or that I didn't miss the accusations. IMHO those who do use a performance enhancing drug or substance are taking a terrible chance. If they flunk the test after a stage, they are automatically disqualified, and out of the race. What they stand to lose (reputation, their career, sponsors, fans, fines, etc) is greater than what they could ever gain.

RJM

Personally, I think they are all skirting the rules as much as they can and I believe he system is corrupt enough to make positives go away. This new TUE thing that is coming out about Wiggins and SKy smells the same as during the Postal train era.

Stadjer

Merckx had an issue with doping, but he didn't take a terrible chance and it's questionable if it's cheating when everybody takes something every now and then. It wasn't such a big deal back then.

I think we've got go a long way back for clean cycling. Don't forget that use of amphetamine was quite normal in the 50's and 60's, among doctors, lawyers, prime ministers, students. It would be strange to assume that pro cyclists wouldn't use any to get them through a difficult day. I guess it wasn't such a big deal because doping wasn't that effictive. I can't remember the exact story, but there was some discussion wether a Dutch team would go to an event in the US or Canada, can't remember, because they had to take their stuff through customs and they found out they could end up in jail for taking the stuff they felt they needed. It wasn't that they were open about it, but other pro cyclists knew, team bosses knew, journalists knew, pro's get some help sometimes from the drugstore.

It's in the 80's that it got really serious with doping programs, Belgian vets selling hormones, complete teams out of the tour because of some mysterious poisoning.

Doge

Scope being pro I believe a lot of things are banned that they cannot enforce, therefore there is cheating.

So first to truly get things clean, the public needs to want it, and the excitement Lance brought to the Tour may be a reason they, and sponsors may not really want it all that clean. I am not a believer that many PEDs are worse for the athlete's health than what the USA public likes to see in the NFL (who I also think use PEDs).

The other thing, as mentioned, the list it too big and it is too easy to get busted with something. I very much believe some get caught innocently. I know of few amateurs that take zero supplements from protein powder to vitamins. Yet many of the OTC GNC type items may get a rider in trouble.

So my view is remove the stigma. Only have things on the list that really matter and are BOTH dangerous in an amount that can be enforced. Then test all the time. And also get rid of the exceptions. So make insulin available to all (in safe amounts), not just the few. Make inhalers available to all.

hobbs1951

To begin with, historically the rules have changed and are changing, so doping (or whatever term you wish to use) today will be very different to doping yesterday - as will testing.

Use the modern era as the staring point, let's take that from 1998 and the Festina Affair when EPO first headlined in a big way. Since then: take Lance Dopestrong* as the prime example of systemetised doping on a huge scale - with the medical profession/doctors at the centre of the cheating.

I supposed what I'm attempting to say is I don't think it fair to judge the riders of yesterday with the doping rules of today.

I've followed pro cycling and the TdeF since I was 15 years old in 1975 when myself and three friends in the school summer holiday took ourselves to France to watch the 1975 edition - not missed one since

John.

*and US Postal of course.

Noctilux.95

LOL

Pemetic2006

Explain yourself, please.
Thanks.

Zinger

Nutrition and Altitude training.

brianmcg123

Seriously. Sky is US Postal 2.0.

fietsbob

Its Fox TV for England, Australian Rupert Murdoch owns Sky TV.

one4smoke

Can someone explain to me why Armstrong gets such a bad rep? From an "outsider" lookin' in, seems to me he had no advantage during all his TDF wins. Wasn't he simply only doing what everyone else was??

HTupolev

The thing with Armstrong is the perception that he was a jerk about it.

He more or less turned the lie into marketing image for his career and business (granted, he arguably had to given the allegations that were hitting him through his career). It made the reversal more poignant, a lot of fans felt betrayed.

Then there's stuff like the matter of him leveraging Trek to go after LeMond.

CliffordK

Food? Is that illegal now?

High altitude training has long been considered legal. Should one automatically disqualify riders from Colorado or Mexico city?

A hypoxic tent might be pushing the rules a bit.

CliffordK

Everybody cheating doesn't make cheating legal.
Cheating and not getting caught doesn't make cheating legal.

There are thousands or millions of amateur athletes who don't dope. Would levelling the playing field have allowed some of them to climb the ranks?

one4smoke

Not insinuating cheating is/was right. Armstrong simply played the game they all played. Apparently, all things were equal and he came out on top. So logically, if no one had been doping, he still would have came out on top.

Zinger

I said " Nutrition and Altitude training" in jest. It's how the now notorious cycling Dr Michele Ferrari used to explain the results that riders who used him would get.

Zinger

Maybe Lemond wasn't using his business sense by outing Trek's sponsored rider. I would expect no less of a result if somehow you were privy to Trek's management conversations about it.

It's big bucks pro cycling. Nobody is giving up big money easily just to be a good sport.

HTupolev

Sure, but that doesn't mean the optics aren't bad in retrospect.

CliffordK

Were there clean athletes or teams that finished 50th or so, that would otherwise have placed first? One can't say in hindsight.

The interesting thing is it seems like the TDF speeds increase every year.



Well, actually, apparently less change in speed over the last decade or so. Nonetheless, if the current riders are riding "clean", then they likely could have kept up with Lance Armstrong on drugs.

Zinger

True that. Should have been expected by Armstrong once it all came out.

The first of his hired hands that turned him over years before was my eye opening moment. I was wondering how he passed those Colombians so quickly on that Sestriere Climb in '99. lol.

work4bike

They're all dirty, cheating bastards