JimmyNH

You nailed it, bro! See… "just to avoid humiliation". Now imagine the year is 1999 and you are a pro racer that has to earn his daily bread by racing a bicycle. You've got that wonder-drug (EPO) that works pretty well and is undetectable. Would you use it? No prizes for guessing right.
Now the year is 2012 and you think all wonder-drugs have already been invented and they are all easily detectable? Naah, progress never stops. And unlike the chicken and the egg, here things are pretty clear – first come the drugs, then (a few years later) the methods to detect them, then (almost immediately) the methods to mask them. So unless that witch-hunting stops, you'll have to wait for another 10 years to find out who won TdF in 2012.
Don't take me wrong - I'm by no means in favour of the PEDs. I've seen firsthand what they do to people. But the ADAs are looking for solution in the wrong direction.

rubic

Getting back to the question of 'Can a top pro racer win without doping?' Answer is yes, providing nobody else is doping. Armstrong's 7 year win disqualifications have lead to nobody being the champ since 20 of the 21 podium finishers during that time have been associated with doping.

"The agency said 20 of the 21 riders on the podium in the Tour from 1999 through 2005 have been "directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations" or other means."

And then there was the rest of the peloton.

calamarichris

Sorry Jimmy. The ruse was unintentional. I was being entirely facetious. No way I would have done EPO or anything else. We both know each other's stance on the issue, so we can agree to respectfully disagree.
Paz y amor, hermano cosmico!

chefxian

I remember when I first got into racing, Delgado had gotten popped. It was big news back then. It will never go away. I agree with you Jimmy about progress. Science never stops. @ Chris, I could only imagine how hard racing was over seas back then. Would love to spend a season over there to get straightened out.

Just curious, why would they not go back to the 3 guys who had the next best times and let them have the win. I mean they raced fair and square, why should they get jipped?

calamarichris

I trained my butt of then and it was supremely discouraging getting stomped by the Dutch & Belgians time after time. I remember being so proud and happy when I finally got to the point of finishing races with the pack, but straining to keep it to myself.
Now years later, everyone says it's rest that makes you stronger! Haha--in that case, maybe averaging 4 hours of sleep a night wasn't the best tactic? I remember thinking I must have not had good cycling genes, because all these sickly Dutch guys on my team seemed so lazy and ate nothing but frites. (Turns out I was being a dummy by remaining in a constant state of exhaustion. haha)
Why not just straighten yourself out here? We have nicer weather, better food (but not beer).

Between this and the Landis episode, I'm glad I'm not an American trying to race there now. Check out Parkin's "Dog in a Hat" about an American who actually had some success racing in Belgium just a few years after I was there.

Hopefully today's and tomorrow's riders are watching this and giving serious thought to racing clean. I have hope it'll evolve past this ugliness.

JimmyNH

You'll learn the hard way to keep your big mouth shut and not to make confessions on the internet. I actually agree with you on a few things but mainly that dope is bad and it should be eliminated. When and how, that's a different story.

+1

Genaro

You're implying that because they were not on the podium, they were not doping. Maybe some, but the reason the rest were not on the podium is because there are only so many podium spots

rubic

No. I am implying that nobody during that era can be declared the winner or placer since so many of the cyclist were associated with doping. You are correct in that there were only so may podium spots. Most of the cyclists of the era did dope, as has been well documented. Forced into it at that. Kind of ironic in that this defines a level playing field, although unethical.

chefxian

Well, yesterday I rode with a current pro from a well known international cycling team. We had coffee and I asked him about "why they wouldn't go back to the next winner in terms of time. He explained it something like this. It would be too hard to go back and grab the next guy because they would have to wait and see if all their tests would have passed. He said it could take a couple of years if the same stuff were to happen with that team. Logistically the way he explained it all made sense.

Also, I asked about the American cycling in Europe. He said that its really no big deal as they all did it and all got caught. He did say now each countries governing body is now running their own investigations into their own teams. He said he was happy as to see people ride clean.

brundle_fly

If you don't take it you won't make it