Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Any Clean Tour winners in the last 20 years???? - except GL

2

Posts

  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Langman wrote:
    He was doped as part of Carreras program for that win. Have you read Matt Rendells book? Great read - and really blows Pantani wide open.

    Indeed it does.. However it also makes clear that one of the problems with doping is that it robs us of the certainty of the real merits of athletes. If somebody does a similar forensic examination of the career and life of Pantani's contemporaries, then you may be able to make such statements.

    Incidentally, Pantani wasn't backed by Carrerra for his Baby Giro win, as he was a late, unexpected addition to their team over a year later. Pantani's lack of wins as an amateur is attributed, in that same book to injuries.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • MettanMettan Posts: 2,103
    Sad isn't it....... we don't appear to have anyone but GL? - what a shambles :cry:
  • jim onejim one Posts: 183
    edited July 2009
    Armstrong :wink:

    (runs to hide :lol: )
  • LangmanLangman Posts: 178
    Mettan wrote:
    Sad isn't it....... we don't appear to have anyone but GL? - what a shambles :cry:

    Which begs the question - how many could he have won, iwithout the shooting incident and the dopers?
  • neilo23neilo23 Posts: 783
    It is always assumed that certain riders have doped, but why is it always assumed that other riders are clean? I'm not in any way suggesting that, for example, Bradley Wiggins dopes, but everybody seems to be 100% convinced that he's clean and 100% convinced that Armstrong isn't. It seems that the only evidence that someone is clean is when they are outspoken about (not) doping. A lot of riders refuse to comment letting their negative test results do the talking for them. Why is a negative result for Wiggins considered valid, but not for Armstrong? If I was a pro I would be pretty fed up with having to discuss doping in every bloody interview and having every success doubted by people who cannot accept that I was simply better.
  • FJSFJS Posts: 4,820
    Some riders are more suspect than others - but I find it incredibly naive to assume beyond any level of doubt that Lemond was completely clean.
  • eheh Posts: 4,854
    I where a clean rider that been beaten by what turned out to be dirty riders I would be very bitter indeed

    Why? Anyone who has been around cycling at a decent enough level knows what the deal is, you become a pro accepting this, if you don't you look for another job.

    GL would be the only winner who may have been clean, and i'm not convinced by that. Although I would say he probably didn't blood dope.
  • andypandyp Posts: 9,155
    neilo23 wrote:
    If I was a pro I would be pretty fed up with having to discuss doping in every bloody interview and having every success doubted by people who cannot accept that I was simply better.
    Who is to blame for that though? How many high profile riders have been busted in the past 5 years?

    Without really thinking about it I could name you;

    Di Luca
    Ricco
    Rebellin
    Valverde
    Kohl
    Schumacher
    Vinokourov
    Rasmussen
    Basso
    Ullrich
    Heras
    Landis
    Hamilton
    Scarponi
    Mancebo
  • MettanMettan Posts: 2,103
    Did pro's in the 80's take performance enhancing agents ? (pre-EPO).
  • LangmanLangman Posts: 178
    eh wrote:
    I where a clean rider that been beaten by what turned out to be dirty riders I would be very bitter indeed

    Why? Anyone who has been around cycling at a decent enough level knows what the deal is, you become a pro accepting this, if you don't you look for another job.

    GL would be the only winner who may have been clean, and i'm not convinced by that. Although I would say he probably didn't blood dope.

    Yes but that does not excuse it. If I had been prevented from winning a Grand Tour by a doper - I'd be bitter as hell - like Lemond.

    As for all this acceptence of doping - it just fuels the fire, if people don't stand up to it, you get the situation where the best doper wins not the most talented athlete, because different people react in different ways to the drugs, so if they where all onl drugs it would still not be a level playing field.
  • FJSFJS Posts: 4,820
    Mettan wrote:
    Did pro's in the 80's take performance enhancing agents ? (pre-EPO).
    Are you kidding? Yes, amphetamine, testosterone, etc, etc. Although in no way as career-changing as the blood doping era. Riders have been using stimulants since pro cycling has existed, 19th century, long long long before the concept of 'doping' emerged and some things became illegal and other legal.
  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Mettan wrote:
    Did pro's in the 80's take performance enhancing agents ? (pre-EPO).

    hell yeah.

    Though these were generally of the order of Amphetemines and steroids at their most effective and a copernica of half baked concoctions which may or may not have done something at their least effective.

    Cyclists have always had a propensity to shovel anything proffered down their necks.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • LangmanLangman Posts: 178
    In the 80's blood transfusions where also common and open - Moser used it to break the hour recod his doctor is very open about it.
  • MettanMettan Posts: 2,103
    Given that's the case - has there ever been a clean GT winner since, say, 1983 ?
  • schlepcyclingschlepcycling Posts: 1,613
    Mettan wrote:
    Did pro's in the 80's take performance enhancing agents ? (pre-EPO).

    Just Google 'Pot Belge'
    'Hello to Jason Isaacs'
  • LangmanLangman Posts: 178
    And before 1983 - Drugs have always been there.

    This thread should be titled - Has there ever been a clean Grand Tour winner - except GL
  • neilo23neilo23 Posts: 783
    @andyp

    I know what you mean and I find it sad. But it is a bit like saying that most people in Sweden have blond hair, therefore everyone has blond hair.
    The people in your list were caught through positive test results (or apparent avoidance tactics). Armstrong and a host of others have never (as they repeatedly inform us) tested positive. Why don't we believe them but believe Wiggins, Moncoutie, Cavendish and a small handful of others? What do they do differently which makes us trust them but not other riders who have been successful?
  • Langman wrote:
    In the 80's blood transfusions where also common and open - Moser used it to break the hour recod his doctor is very open about it.

    wasn't this all started by steve hegg and co on the US track/pursuit team for the LA (84?) olympics, they came from no-where and cleaned up medal wise.
  • MettanMettan Posts: 2,103
    Langman wrote:
    This thread should be titled - Has there ever been a clean Grand Tour winner - except GL

    Any takers ? :D
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,453
    Mettan wrote:
    Given that's the case - has there ever been a clean GT winner since, say, 1983 ?

    Andy Hampsten, definitely
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • FJSFJS Posts: 4,820
    Langman wrote:
    And before 1983 - Drugs have always been there.

    This thread should be titled - Has there ever been a clean Grand Tour winner - except GL

    Why this completely unshaken belief in GL?

    I have much respect for his current activism, and there are reasons to consider it less likely he was unclean than for many others. But to consider him clean and all other winners since 1903 suspicious is approaching GL-fanboy-ism. I'm not saying he wasn't clean, but there just is not a single pro-rider I am 100% sure of.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Langman wrote:
    In the 80's blood transfusions where also common and open - Moser used it to break the hour recod his doctor is very open about it.

    And they were also not against the rules.

    If anyone says "against the spirit of sport" I'll biff them
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • eheh Posts: 4,854
    Has there ever been a clean Grand Tour winner isn't really a very good question since the doping rules change with time, e.g. Delgado was clean according to the rules in 1988, but wouldn't be under later rules. Also pre-60's there were no rules in place to stop doping so you can't consider it cheating.

    Blood transfusions have been around as long as the late 50's early 60's and steriods have been around ages as well. I think it is a bit daft to think things got significantly ramped up with the existence of EPO, doping just evolved in the same way bike technology has.

    Interested GT winner for debate, the greatest; Merckx? Failed a dope test but always maintained it was faked to make him look bad. Who knows though.
    [/quote]
  • andypandyp Posts: 9,155
    neilo23 wrote:
    @andyp

    I know what you mean and I find it sad. But it is a bit like saying that most people in Sweden have blond hair, therefore everyone has blond hair.
    The people in your list were caught through positive test results (or apparent avoidance tactics). Armstrong and a host of others have never (as they repeatedly inform us) tested positive. Why don't we believe them but believe Wiggins, Moncoutie, Cavendish and a small handful of others? What do they do differently which makes us trust them but not other riders who have been successful?
    Armstrong has tested positive, once for corticoids, but a post dated TUE spared his blushes, and once, via an unofficial test, for EPO, so no sanction was given.

    The tests aren't infallible. They'll catch the careless, the stupid and the unsuspecting. Riders with money can afford to employ sports doctors who are experts in avoiding detection, such as Michele Ferrari, Eufemiano Fuentes and Luigi Cecchini. In my opinion, any rider who is working with one of these is doping. That may be harsh, but why else would you pay them so much money? I could give you a training plan that, assuming you have the talent, could make you competitive at the Tour so I've never bought that excuse.

    Some riders remain clean. Moncoutie is always given as an example, due to his own, well publicised beliefs, i.e. he avoids over the counter medicines such as aspirin, and the testimony of many of his ex and current team mates. He's been almost unique though, as it's only in the past couple of years that certain teams have had a consistent anti-doping message. A cynic, like me, would argue that some of those are only doing so for the sake of appearances, i.e. to appease sponsors.
  • neilo23neilo23 Posts: 783
    Apropos Moncoutie, I remember a comment about him (in an old issue of Procycling) which stated that he was well known within the peleton as being a clean rider. This stuck with me as it suggested that he was an exception. In the "normal world", the cheat would be the one who would stand out instead of the honest one.
  • BuglyBugly Posts: 520
    Mettan wrote:
    Did pro's in the 80's take performance enhancing agents ? (pre-EPO).

    Amphetamines were a drug of choice - cycling sadly has always been tarnished with drug use. Recently I was listening to Ron Clarke (ex middle distance runner and olymipic bronze medalist) and noted his comments about the cyclists as early as the begining of the sixties as being the go to guys to get performance enhancing drugs.

    A very sad indiciment on our sport
  • kozzokozzo Posts: 182
    Langman wrote:
    except Greg Lemond?

    It appears that screaming that other are dopers makes you clean by definition...
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    kozzo wrote:
    Langman wrote:
    except Greg Lemond?

    It appears that screaming that other are dopers makes you clean by definition...

    No it doesn't.

    Greg's clean credentials are based on many things.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • davieseedaviesee Posts: 6,386
    Bugly wrote:
    Mettan wrote:
    Did pro's in the 80's take performance enhancing agents ? (pre-EPO).

    Amphetamines were a drug of choice - cycling sadly has always been tarnished with drug use. Recently I was listening to Ron Clarke (ex middle distance runner and olymipic bronze medalist) and noted his comments about the cyclists as early as the begining of the sixties as being the go to guys to get performance enhancing drugs.

    A very sad indiciment on our sport

    Obviously a sad indiciment on all sports :evil:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • RatkillaRatkilla Posts: 230
    neilo23 wrote:
    @andyp

    . Armstrong and a host of others have never (as they repeatedly inform us) tested positive.

    'Never tested positive' isn't the same as not doping.

    For example, hypothetically of course, I was driving earlier on and drove at 40mph in a 30mph zone.
    I have never been caught for speeding but that doesn't mean that I don't or have never driven over the speed limit.

    I would say that Lemond was a clean rider. Also during the 80's I believe that steroid use was popular. I may be wrong but didn't Hinault miss a Tour in the early 80's with a knee injury?
    I remember reading somewhere years later (pre internet so no link) that steroid use had, allegedly, caused this injury due to increased muscle mass stressing his (now) under developed knee ligaments.

    Perhaps the mists of time are too misty.
Sign In or Register to comment.