Miroir, Miroir on the Wall, who's the...

andrewgturnbull

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Was it Pantani (one giro, one tour), Heras (4 vueltas), Virenque (7 kom jerseys), Johan Museeuw (11 classics). Landis, Vinokourov or Basso (one GT each) or someone else?

Answers on a postcard.

Cheers, Andy

DaveyL

I have a feeling I know which direction this thread is going to go in...

timoid.

The biggest doper might not necessarily been the most successful rider. He may have won fcuk all and worked as a leadout man for a sprinter for all we know.


That said I'll go with Riis or Rominger.

Murr X

DaveyL wrote:

I have a feeling I know which direction this thread is going to go in...

D**n right!

andyp

Riis - EPO turned him from a lowly domestique into the winner of the biggest race in the sport.

eh

Damn I was going to say a big name from ONCE till I realised they never tested positive.

My guess would be Ullrich. However, worth considering Simoni, Di Luca and Petacchi all have some pretty decent palmares, but in different ways.

aurelio_-_banned

eh wrote:

My guess would be Ullrich.

I had thought that Ullrich was never convicted of a doping offence so he doesn`t qualify for this listing, even if he did agree to pay a 1 million Euro `fine` in an-out-of-court settlement following the investigation into his suspected link to Fuentes.

andrewgturnbull

DaveyL wrote:

I have a feeling I know which direction this thread is going to go in...

No, no, no - that's why I deliberately said convicted.

andrewgturnbull

eh wrote:

Damn I was going to say a big name from ONCE till I realised they never tested positive.

Convicted in a Lille courtroom does count here. Laurent Brochard - world champion maybe?

aurelio_-_banned

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Was it... Basso (one GT each) or someone else?

Isn`t Basso another rider who should be excluded because he was never actually convicted of doping, just suspected of doping due to his links with a well-known doping doctor. (Fuentes, not Ferrari!).

andrewgturnbull

aurelio wrote:

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Was it... Basso (one GT each) or someone else?

Isn`t Basso another rider who should be excluded because he was never actually convicted of doping, just suspected of doping due to his links with a well-known doping doctor. (Fuentes, not Ferrari!).

He served a suspension though?

blazing_saddles

eh wrote:

Damn I was going to say a big name from ONCE till I realised they never tested positive.

My guess would be Ullrich. However, worth considering Simoni, Di Luca and Petacchi all have some pretty decent palmares, but in different ways.

Might as well go for the Hog, as none of the above actually tested positive. Petacchi went OTT in TUE abuse.
Simoni seems to get labelled, for his cocaine mis-adventure, but was cleared.
Di Luca? Hormone boy has only been sanctioned for working with dodgy doctor, as opposed to a dodgy soigneur.

Might as well add "he who must not be named" to this list. Baby's wee-wee, dodgy doc, frozen ePOpsicles, forged TUE.....

Come to that, you can't stick Pantani in the list, as he only had a compulsory 3 week rest, for "health reasons." High HC, not non-negative.

Sticking to known doping offences, I'd go for Mr Double Wammy. Tricky Dicky's domestique and all round vacuum cleaner expert: Pascal Herve.

DaveyL

And Dr Fuentes's "Man in Limoges"...

andrewgturnbull

Hi there.

Pantani - I didn't realise that he had never actually been sanctioned.

That puts Heras with 4 GT wins before he got caught as the winner?

andrewgturnbull

Having said that, what about Musueew - what ranks higher, 4 Vueltas or 11 classics?

aurelio_-_banned

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Pantani - I didn't realise that he had never actually been sanctioned.

All this thread shows, once again, is the double standards that are adopted by so many people when they assess the evidence which exists indicating that a rider doped.

It appears that people are willing to accept that just about any European-born rider doped on no more evidence than a high heaemocrit reading, a nick-name appearing on a the client list of a `doping doctor` which just might relate in some roundabout way to a given rider, or merely because they assume the rider must have doped.

On the other hand, if a rider can claim that they were the victim of an `anti-American conspiracy on the part of the French`, :roll: or can claim that their Riis-like transformation from a Tour also-ran to winner can be attributed to something such as the well-known performance enhancing effects of almost dying of cancer, :roll: :roll: then no amount of `circumstantial` evidence, eye-witness statements, proven long-term association with a `doping doctor` or even (as in the case of Landis) multiple positive tests using sophisticated and definitive techniques, is held to provide sufficient evidence that they doped.

All in all this is a wholly pointless thread unless the OP wishes to expand their definition of `The biggest cheat` to include those for whom extensive evidence exists that they doped, and we all know who would win if that were to be done.

blazing_saddles

I wonder who you mean, Aurelio? :roll:
No, as I said above, so you can see, I agree.

Surely, for a thread such as this, a non-negative test and subsequent sanction/ or confession must be the qualifying criteria?

Consistency is very important. A lot of posters don't seem to get this. Hard to avoid when you pin your colours to favourite teams/riders etc.
Follow the sport in it's entirety; the good and the bad.

Case in point: Di Luca and "You know who".
Both never tested positive.
Both used doctors with "shady" reputations.
Both have had baby's wee, upon after stage testing

The only difference being one of the doctor's was deemed unfit to practice, the other got a suspended sentence.
The former got Di Luca a three month ban.
To my knowledge, he hasn't had a back dated TUE or six skeletons in a french laboratory closet.

Di Luca gets castigated as a doper by some of the same people who defend YKW, on lack of evidence.
No consistency whatsoever.

colint

No it doesn't, it's an attempt to talk about some dopers without some bore trying to railroad the discussion down the same old road. It was actually quite an interesting thread, and the OP's definition was convictyed, not suspected, which is why a few names have been taken off the list.

If we could get back to the discussion, think I'd go for Museeuw. The respect he had in the cycling community for his classics wins was immense, I don't feel he's ever lost all / most of that. He's still a hero in many places and now has a successful bike business. Most of the other convicted cheats are held in pretty low regard

colint

No it doesn't, it's an attempt to talk about some dopers without some bore trying to railroad the discussion down the same old road. It was actually quite an interesting thread, and the OP's definition was convicted, not suspected, which is why a few names have been taken off the list.

If we could get back to the discussion, think I'd go for Museeuw. The respect he had in the cycling community for his classics wins was immense, I don't feel he's ever lost all / most of that. He's still a hero in many places and now has a successful bike business. Most of the other convicted cheats are held in pretty low regard

colint

No it doesn't, it's an attempt to talk about some dopers without some bore trying to railroad the discussion down the same old road. It was actually quite an interesting thread, and the OP's definition was convicted, not suspected, which is why a few names have been taken off the list.

If we could get back to the discussion, think I'd go for Museeuw. The respect he had in the cycling community for his classics wins was immense, I don't feel he's ever lost all / most of that. He's still a hero in many places and now has a successful bike business. Most of the other convicted cheats are held in pretty low regard

blazing_saddles

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Was it Pantani (one giro, one tour), Heras (4 vueltas), Virenque (7 kom jerseys), Johan Museeuw (11 classics). Landis, Vinokourov or Basso (one GT each) or someone else?

Answers on a postcard.

Cheers, Andy

Getting back on Andrew's original track, from the above, I'd plump for Heras, I think.
Wouldn't Merckx qualify, though?

dave_1

andyp wrote:

Riis - EPO turned him from a lowly domestique into the winner of the biggest race in the sport.

Riis won a stage of the Giro in 89 and was one of Fignon's final pacers to drop off in the 89 stage where Millar beat Delgado on the final climb...Riis wasn't bad pre EPO and Fignon was qutoed as saying he had a great future..at that time. Indurain wasn't so much better by 89...one stage win at TDF on a summit, and won Paris Nice 89..though he did win Tour De'lAvenir /EEC 86, led Vuelta 85...but he was not a climber as a pro until 1989 and performed well on the mountain TT stage rooks stage at Gap...beating Lemond.


hate to say it...but Riis could perhaps have been up there if EPO hadn't been around...he was 27 and winning in 89

colint

Good shout on Merckx, end of discussion ?

whyamihere

Blazing Saddles wrote:

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Was it Pantani (one giro, one tour), Heras (4 vueltas), Virenque (7 kom jerseys), Johan Museeuw (11 classics). Landis, Vinokourov or Basso (one GT each) or someone else?

Answers on a postcard.

Cheers, Andy

Getting back on Andrew's original track, from the above, I'd plump for Heras, I think.
Wouldn't Merckx qualify, though?

Due to the 'In the last 20 years', Merckx doesn't qualify. Otherwise me may as well start considering the likes of Anquetil too.

colint

good point, I'll stick to museeuw then

blazing_saddles

whyamihere wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Cheers, Andy

Getting back on Andrew's original track, from the above, I'd plump for Heras, I think.
Wouldn't Merckx qualify, though?

Due to the 'In the last 20 years', Merckx doesn't qualify. Otherwise me may as well start considering the likes of Anquetil too.

Fair enough. Heras it is.....

blazing_saddles

.....then again, since he made a "limited" confession, what about the bloke with these palmares, or do folks take him at his word?
Tour de France, 12 stages
6 Points Competitions (1996-2001)
Vuelta a España, 8 stages
3 Points Competitions (2002-2004)
UCI Road World Cup (2000)
Milan-Sanremo (1997, 1998, 2000, 2001)
Paris-Tours (1994, 2003, 2005)
Amstel Gold Race (2000)
HEW Cyclassics (2001)

aurelio_-_banned

Blazing Saddles wrote:

.....then again, since he made a "limited" confession, what about the bloke with these palmares, or do folks take him at his word?
Tour de France, 12 stages
6 Points Competitions (1996-2001)
Vuelta a España, 8 stages
3 Points Competitions (2002-2004)
UCI Road World Cup (2000)
Milan-Sanremo (1997, 1998, 2000, 2001)
Paris-Tours (1994, 2003, 2005)
Amstel Gold Race (2000)
HEW Cyclassics (2001)

Well, McQuaid certainly takes him at his word.

BERLIN, May 26: Germany’s Erik Zabel, who admitted to having doped in 1996, should continue his career according to Pat McQuaid, the President of the International Cycling Union (UCI) on Friday.

“Erik is a cycling icon. If he says he’s been clean since mid-1996, and I believe him, he could be a real role model for the young pros in the peloton,” said world cycling’s chief.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/27/spt25.htm

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I wonder who you mean, Aurelio? :roll:


Consistency is very important. A lot of posters don't seem to get this. Hard to avoid when you pin your colours to favourite teams/riders etc.
Follow the sport in it's entirety; the good and the bad.

r.

Which is what all you hard core fans do of course. It must be really super duper being hard core and all knowing can i get your autograph ? We are not worthy ...........


MG

aurelio_-_banned

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Biggest Cheat of them All?

Here's my question:

In the last 20 years, of all the riders convicted of doping offences (either by governing body or a court of law) - who had the best palmares?

Whilst this is in no way an attempt to `railroad the discussion down the same old road`, I am afraid that I still feel that trying to restrict the listing to only `convicted` riders results in a list which is pretty meaningless. Firstly, doing so excludes many of the really big winners `suspected` of doping, from Pantani to Basso to that American Bloke who shall remain nameless. Secondly it excludes all those who were never convicted of a doping offence but later made an admission that they doped, such as Zabel.

Also, is it right to claim that someone was `the biggest cheat of them all` on the grounds that somewhere along the line they were convicted of a doping offence?

In order for a rider`s palmares to qualify them as the `biggest cheat of them all`, surely it is necessary to assume that all of a rider`s wins were achieved with the help of doping. However, many on here would argue that only a positive test result for a given event `proves` that they `cheated` in that race. Also, surely it is more `unfair` on a rider to argue that they doped in events which they never actually tested positive in, when no evidence actually exists to that effect (other than the existence of a doping conviction relating to some other event), than it is to argue that a rider doped on the basis of eye witness testimony, extensive `circumstantial` evidence, the `revelations` of ex team mates and so on?

Finally, is not `the biggest cheat` almost by definition the rider who gets away with it? People like Landis merely attempted to cheat and were caught!

Monty Dog

He did receive a couple of short-term bans at the end of his career, but surely Claudio Chiapucci wins the 'donkey into racehorse' prize?