dglevy

Hi all,

This is a perennial debate, no doubt. But I don't recall seeing any threads recently. So I thought I'd throw it up there to see what people have to say: Was this year a pretty 'clean' year, as far as doping is concerned? I came across this thread, which had an interesting quote:

"not once was an 'hors categorie' climb done at more than 6W/kg, whereas that was common in the 90s and 2000s - 6.4 W/kg was the average back then."

Additionally, I recall hearing Brad Wiggins' remark sometime during the TdF, something to the effect of: "You're not going to see the sort of times you saw in the past. This is a new era."

I'm hopeful that the sport is clean, now. It would make a big difference to me if it were. A 30 mph TT is a lot more impressive to me when I know it was achieved through sheer discipline, hard work, talent and toughness.

SunSwingsLow

Im of mixed emotions regarding the end of doping. On the one hand it made for some super fast attacks and lots of them from all ranges of riders. Lots of fireworks. On the other the sport is better being clean but quite frankly slightly less exciting.

I think it was more clean this year.

Kind of Blued

I really don't know, but I would guess that the practice is more individual at this point, in lieu of the organized team doping programs we've heard of in the past.

I know it destroys a long held tradition, but I would really love to see shorter stages. I really think everybody wins, and the Alpe d'Huez stage of this year's Tour was easily my favorite stage to watch because it was in it's entirety. We're currently seeing 140 mile stages with multiple Cat. 1 and HC climbs, and two of the seven hours are on TV (2011 Giro). Consequently, those two hours are slower, with fewer attacks, less decisive, and ultimately less interesting. When three long, vicious mountain stages are put back to back, doping makes the most sense, not to be able to attack and win, but just so a rider can complete the stages with more recovery and less outright suffering.

I'm not saying shorter stages would eliminate doping, or impact it AT ALL for that matter, but it would make the races more interesting to watch and reduce some of the incentive to dope for the purpose of recovering for the next day.

paperbackwriter

Whatever you want to believe, you'll find enough arguments to justify it Take Wiggins' statement, you can interpret it both ways- either he's right or he's just justifying that despite what he was saying back in 2007, he became a legitimate GC contender. Same with Voeckler coming 4th, either it means cycling is cleaning up or Europcar riders catching up. Generally I think that people got overexcited after the Tour, painting Evans as squeaky clean, the race as very believable blah blah blah. Evans' myth always bugged me- don't care much if he's clean or dirty but he always rode for dirty teams and him underachieving until Mendrisio win can hardly be justified by being less doped. For example, in 2007 he was 23 seconds off Contador (don't remember but it was about 3 seconds without bonuses). The same people consider Contador one of the worst dopers, something doesn't add up (unless Evans is way more talented which is... unlikely). And as for the Tour in general, well. Everyone except Evans and Schlecks everyone was either unlucky, injured or forced to abandoned. Schlecks mostly looked at Contador and showed others to pull and frankly Cadel had no reason to be aggresive; I'd wait for the race with more healthy, rested contenders to look at speeds and judge. Unfortunately, the whole talk about doping is so biased and selective and our own perceptions of the race too misleading, it's quite dangerous to draw conclusions- and probably not worth it.

As for shorter stages, I also didn't agree in the other thread but again- fresh legs may actually make races less exciting. You won't get big time differences, spectacular bonks and maybe you won't even get many attacks because what's the use if you can't really drop anyone because your rivals are super fresh and fit. Take Voeckler again- he can actually climb with the best if he goes all out, only he'll pay for it later during the race. If the stages were short and easier he'd probably simply recover, just like all the other guys who can climb a bit but aren't the best- and we'd maybe get uphill sprints over and over again. It's what's special about GTs, by the 3rd week people get exhausted and only those who are best suited to such races are left- have it any other way and you'll get all the farcical results with TTists hanging on, breakaway guys not giving away the jersey etc.
Also keep in mind that if the stage isn't tough and long enough (and especially if it's like this throughout the race), on the last climb or two leaders will still have plenty of domestiques. It just happened that in this Tour those mountain domestiques weren't very effective but imagine Basso having a super fit Szmyd to set the pace. Szmyd's tempo would be so fast, no one would be able to attack- but also no one important would be dropped because everyone would have reserves.
Alpe d'Huez was great but it could have easily been a borefest until Alpe, if Contador didn't decide to have fun (or decided stage wins is his priority and only went on the Alpe). No one would attack on Telegraphe and it would be a pretty regular mountain stage, seen from the beginning or not. And the stage which finished on Galibier was also very good and very hard- and we got to see all 3 major climbs. And if it was any easier it wouldn't have caused the likes of Contador and Sanchez troubles.

Giro is actually the argument FOR very hard routes, it usually provides more excitement than the Tour and it's because of long stages with harder climbs (than you see in France). This year Contador overshadowed it a bit because he didn't have any bad days but take him away and you'll see how unpredictable it becomes. On the first mountain stages differences are more modest- except AC only Rujano (who lost 6 minutes on dirt roads) gained any substantial time on Etna (but also Scarponi lost some time). But if you have a weekend with 3 MTFs in 3 days- like Grossglockner, Zoncolan and Gardeccia- you see plenty of attacks, big differences and major GC shake-ups. Everyone has bad and good days, you see Scarponi and Nibali taking turns outclimbing each other, Rujano seeming to be on his way to the podium and all of sudden cracking on Zoncolan, Anton once being on the podium and the day after disappearing 50 kms from the finish... It's the case of how they manage their energy but it doesn't mean no attacks- Nibali probably knew that the stage to Gardeccia suits Scarponi more so it made sense to not save himself on Zoncolan etc. (If it's even possible to save yourself on Zonco- probably not.) And sure as hell you don't see riders who aren't awesome climbers on the top of GC. Surely some riders will always save themselves for last mountain stages, last climbs and so on, and try to win GTs with one attack- but routes don't have much to do with it.
As for it encouraging doping. Well, back when it was a lot less effective, stages were longer and done with worse equipment. They could do without hardcore doping if they wanted. (Especially that if they were all clean they'd go significantly slower.)

LemondFanForeve

Great topic/posts........I think with it being more "clean" in the sport, it gets it back to legitimacy a little bit more, which is good. IMO, if you "dope" in cycling, you're not only cheating, but taking the easy way out (Kind of like body builders taking roids), you're still cheating, and that means, IMO, that you cannot win w/out cheating. It definitely separates the good riders, and the legit riders, from the fakes. Never really understood the whole "short cut" thing, to achieve greatness. I will always believe LA cheated, and many others do too. Many others also believe he didn't. Sorta makes you second guess his "greatness" and maybe think he won all of those TDF's, as a cheater?


Im glad they're finally starting to clean it up...long overdue. IMO, if you get caught as a "cheater", even once, you should be banned for life, and have any TDF wins stripped from you(YES, even if your name is Eddy Merckx). No other explanation is needed, he cheated, he didnt win fairly/cleanly. Had an accident? Life threatening illness? no excuse...dont race til you can "cleanly", simple as that.

canam73

Damn. Lemond really was the best cyclist ever.

Kind of Blued

Five posts in, and the Lemond guy has already brought up Lance Armstrong, and in a roundabout way, Greg LeMond, as the Jesus of cycling who cast the first stone. This thread is destined for the trash heap.

LemondFanForeve

Lol, even "the god" Lemond. Problem is though, its been almost a month, and all these " well Lemond did it too" folks, STILL have yet to produce anything saying he did? Been retired for 17 years, and Ive NEVER heard any riders from his era, or anyone else accuse or assume he did. Can you say the same about your golden boy LA? Nope.

Op asked for opinions, you dont have to like my op, right or wrong, but its still my op. Feel free to prove me wrong on Lemond, I have no problem saying if he did, and its found out that he did, he should be stripped of them too.

No one is immune to it. We shoulf take a look into Indurains reign too, he jad to have doped as well?

SouthFLpix

I assume everyone is on drugs of some type. Some push that boundary more than others. In my own (crazy) mind I even consider Floyd Landis the 2006 TDF winner, because Oscar Periero was (probably) just as doped up as Landis. I guess you can call me a skeptic.

canam73

I think we are just gonna have to throw out everyone with more TdF wins than Lemond. It is the only way justice can be served.

seypat

Whatever your opinion is, it has been going on for a long time.

From Wiki:

Coppi was often said to have introduced "modern" methods to cycling, particularly his diet. Gino Bartali established that some of those methods included taking drugs, which were not then against the rules.
Bartali and Coppi appeared on television revues and sang together, Bartali singing about "The drugs you used to take" as he looked at Coppi. Coppi spoke of the subject in a television interview:
Question: Do cyclists take la bomba (amphetamine)?Answer: Yes, and those who claim otherwise, it's not worth talking to them about cycling.Question: And you, did you take la bomba?Answer: Yes. Whenever it was necessary.Question: And when was it necessary?Answer: Almost all the time![25][26] Coppi "set the pace" in drug-taking, said his contemporary, the Dutchman, Wim van Est.[27] Rik van Steenbergen said Coppi was "the first I knew who took drugs."[

canam73

Further proof that all stand our cyclists except Greg Lemond were on drugs.

LemondFanForeve

I see you've resurfaced? I have no idea what you said here.......ALL the cyclists who've won a TDF should be questionable, as far as doping's concerned?

I'm sorry you're so bitter, that your superstar Lance has been exposed as a fraud. You should get out more.

I put you in the "well Lemond did it too" group of folks, you/they keep saying it, but, havent shown one shred of evidence that anyone has said he's done it. Never heard anyone from Lemonds era claiming they saw him take this, or that, have you heard any past riders during his era, say he doped? Can you say the same for LA? no, and that tears you up.

Feel free to prove me wrong, I(unlike you), will admit, if it's proven that he did, then I would say, strip him of his titles too. But we both know, that probably wont happen, why? Lemond has never been accused by multiple sources(at least none that im aware of), of doping, and yet, LA's own teammates have thrown him under the bus. I believe Landis/Hamilton/Hincapie/the UCI president/anyone associated with it, that LA did it, we all know that he did it, but, folks such as yourself, cant come to grips with the fact, that there might be a ***** in LA's armor.

I will remain in belief that LA is a huge:fraud/liar and a cheater, and you will continue to support and believe in him, fine by me. Just like Im sure you'll remain steadfast that Lemond did alot of bad things too? By all means, continue believing it, thats your right and opinion, I couldn't care less. I just enjoy watching all the butt hurt LA fans trying to scurry, and put blame on others, to take the focus off Armstrong, a trait they learned from their fearless hero.

SunSwingsLow

go
away

canam73

I've resurfaced from the previous 3 times I posted in this thread? Sure.

Sorry for the typo. I'm all thumbs when I message from my phone. It should have read: "Further proof that all stand out cyclists except Greg Lemond were on drugs."

I'm not bitter. I'm not a Lance Armstrong fan, either. Check my past posts if you care to. In threads started by you I said that I think he doped. I also said I wasn't so concerned with it because I think doping was rampant and institutionalized in the sport during his era and at this point I didn't think there was anyway to separate out the dopers from the clean riders and re-write the awards books. I say let it stand but going forward work harder to clean up the sport. It's not a perfect solution but I don't think there is one.

As for Lemond doping? Like I said in your past thread I have no idea. I know other very good riders of his generation were doping and he beat them. I don't consider that in itself impossible. I do find his 34.5mph ITT time in the final stage of the 1989 TdF suspect. I know it was downhill (slightly) with a tailwind, but plenty of very good time trialists who were doping, with better equipment and better form have had those advantages in the last 20 years and not managed to come close to that. But if he was doping, again, I doubt if he was doing anything that wasn't being used by others (like Fignon) so I'm not so concerned.

So, what do you think I am bitter about? What makes Lance my superstar? And while I am mildly skeptical, where have I accused Lemond of anything?

I do accuse you of beating a dead, rotten and putrid horse. We all know the accusations against LA. I think most of his fans think he cheated a little. There just isn't much left to say about it. Which is why everyone finds your posts so ridiculous. Lemond was a very good cyclist. We know. Is it unfortunate that he got shot and missed his chance at a streak like LA or Indurain and will never be talked about with the same reverence as Merckx? Yes. Does it get anyone anywhere by having a thorn up your ass about it and constantly trying to sling mud on everyone else in a doomed attempt to elevate your hero? No. It just makes you ridiculous.

LemondFanForeve

You go away

LemondFanForeve

Tis ok......I get like that too sometimes, and alot of my posts have misspellings, because i have sausage like thumbs....

I used to be a big LA supporter/fan, but then, all this doping stuff surfaced, and it made me become not a fan of him. I also am not a fan of Ullrich/Contador, and others who have been busted for cheating(doping). I dont "hate" Lance, i really dont. I just wish this kind of controversy would go away, either come out and say you did, or something to try to keep it from resurfacing, it gets old. Plus, conrinues being a huge black eye on the sport, which doesnt help it's image either. I dont think any one rider, acted alone, and they all pretty much did it. However, i do think since it's been around the Armstrong era, it was most prevalant. I think Landis is a huge liar too, but, I do however, believe him when he talks about Armstrong doping.


Others have questioned that too, and I see your point, no one really knows though, it's mostly speculation, right? and, the fact that no one's come out since then, and said "ey, I saw lemond do this and this", that leads so many to not think he did something. Again, Not sure. he very well couldve, after hius hunting accident? not sure. Just find it strange that that was so long ago, and still nothing comes out of it.

Well, as you know, there are supposedly 2 kinds of Armstrong camps: 1) those who support him, believe every word that he says, and cant seem to realize, he might just be guilty?

They also will stop @ nothing to defend him, even if he's blatantly been criticized, by several people, that he's guilty.

2) Those who adamantly hate him. I dont hate him, I just wish he wouldve been clean, or done all he could to make all of the talk/suspicions, go away, but he doesnt do that.

You did 'accuse' him, as you made jokes and added his name to it, as a sort of "Your boy Lemond did it too". Yet, as ive said...I havent been able to get anyone to post any info/proof/links claiming there was a chance Greg did dope, or did something wrong, or for that matter, riders from his era? I mean, certainly he and Hinault, are not on the best of terms? I would think that Bernard, could easily say(as could Fignot/Kelly/Phinney/etc) that Greg cheated? Bernard would bring some kind of questions/suspicions from some camps if he chose to, right?


I dont think they do...they steadfastily say he didn't.


Im not bitter in any way that Lemond didnt equal/better Lance in the TDF win dept. He won 3, his fall started soon after his win in 90, and I dont think he wouldve won anymore. By 94, he was pretty much spent, and, IMO, stuck around about 2 years too long.

What I get sick of, is the "holier than thou" approach that so many folks take w/regards to LA, as if any possibility of him doping, could exist? I heard a guy recently say that "every other cyclist sucks, Armstrong is the greatest..he didnt dope, thats just out of jealousy". I got a chuckle, I must admit.

BTW, I dont think Lemond is the greatest in the world, not even close. But, I also dont think LA is either. Coppi/Anquetel(sp), and a few others are. I think Lemond accomplished alot. Just b/c my screen name means Im a LFF, doesnt mean i think he's the greatest, just thought/think he was a very good rider in his day, and for that time, was cycling.

I do think that conversations/threads like this, can only enhance things, and make topics more fun to talk about, dont you? gets rather boring sometimes, a nice, good, discussion, we can agree/disagree on, is a good thing.

I will also say, that I stand by what i said...if so many are supposed dopers, than why not strip them of those titles? I mean, people here have said Merckx/Coppi and others doped, then why do you continue putting them on the mantle as the "pinnacle' of cycling? why would someone want to admire a known(and admitted) cheater? I m not saying this to be smart, Im honestly asking? I dont "get" it. We trash all the current riders(im guilty too), yet the older riders(the ones who've admitted to it), we dont say anything about, like it's accepted?

canam73

Doping doesn't make somebody a bad cyclist. After some drugs were banned it made some cyclists cheaters by definition, but they could still be good or even great cyclists. Especially if they are competing against guys using the same junk. Take Lance's contemporaries. Vino, Ullrich, Virenque, Zabel, Basso, Rassmussen, Hamilton, Heras and Landis were all busted. Pantani and Beloki are in the same boat as Lance, highly suspect. Hincapie apparently has fessed up. Probably others I'm not thinking of. All were top level cyclists but Lance still stood out as the best Tour de France rider for 7 straight years. Seems incredulous to think he didn't have to dope to do it but even if he did, he still stands out as a great cyclist who competed during a time when doping was prevalent.

LemondFanForeve

Agreed...but, by definition, he cheated to win all of those......that brings even more heat on the subject, and IMO, taints any records/wins he and others might have?

Not saying all are bad riders, but, cheating means you're taking a shortcut, and therefore, you're robbing other, HONEST, riders of competing, and winning, for your selfish greed.

canam73

I just tried to answer your question. Truth be told I'm a bad sports fan and don't put anyone on the mantle. But if you are going to start stripping titles during Lances years then where do you stop? I know it isn't fair to some of those guys but you would really need to just throw the whole decade or say it is what it is and leave it at that.

LemondFanForeve

I know you did, and i agree with what you said...you'd have to go back dozens of years, and put every rider under a microscope. See, it makes ALL the riders whove ever won a TDF suspect. Opens up more suspect doors, and possibilities, than one could hope to. I say, go back and re-evaluate. if Merckx and Coppi admitted to it, then they're guilty, right? so, there's really only 4 guys that have won 5 or more TDF's?

Im sure to some fans, that doesnt work, but thats how it has to be.

canam73

McCarthyism, Huh? Can't we at least pardon guys like Coppi seeing as doping wasn't against the rules until after he was dead?

LemondFanForeve

Yeah, I guess so. I also get a kick outta the fact that the cycling governing bodies were all for the LA's, and the Landis's, and so forth, when they were winning, but as soon as it comes out that they all couldve(and most likely) cheated, notice how fast these governing bodies separated themselves from all the top riders, and acted as if they knew nothing about what was going on? Kinda reminds you of the baseball/steroids bs? When baseball needed these guys to make them money, and get their name out there again, they didnt seem to mind using "steroid guys" to do so, once the game grew in popularity again, "all of a suddeN', they dont need them anymore, and say "aww shucks, we didnt have any idea they were doing all this stuff"...uh huh sure. They all got in bed with each other.

LemondFanForeve

I somewhat agree. Shorten them a few miles(some), as some of the stages, are just too long, and get to become boring.

chasm54

Shall we try to return to the topic?

It's very difficult to know what is going on, but it is true that with rare exceptions, the big climbs in the GTs seem to be slower in the last couple of years than they were in the twenty preceding years. I'm prepared to believe that this is because the top guys are doping less, or more carefully ( these may be synonyms) than in the past.

On a more subjective note, watching the GTs this year has been interesting. It is my impression that the leading riders looks more vulnerable, more often on the rivet, more subject to bad days, than they have been for a while. Having said that, I think I saw that Froome comfortably exceeded 6w/kilo for the last two kilometres on stage 17 of the Vuelta, so you pay your money and take your choice...