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

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
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
0
Posts
I have a feeling I know which direction this thread is going to go in...
That said I'll go with Riis or Rominger.
My guess would be Ullrich. However, worth considering Simoni, Di Luca and Petacchi all have some pretty decent palmares, but in different ways.
No, no, no - that's why I deliberately said convicted.
http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
Convicted in a Lille courtroom does count here. Laurent Brochard - world champion maybe?
http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
He served a suspension though?
http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
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.
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?
http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
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.
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.
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
Trek Cobia 29er
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
Trek Cobia 29er
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
Trek Cobia 29er
Getting back on Andrew's original track, from the above, I'd plump for Heras, I think.
Wouldn't Merckx qualify, though?
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
Trek Cobia 29er
Trek Cobia 29er
Fair enough. Heras it is.....
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)
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
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
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!