Who won if Indurain didn't?
Comments
-
Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
Ultimately, there has to come a time when you say the past is what it is and leave it at that, otherwise you'll go mad.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Apart from the depletion of hormones such as testosterone, it is normal for a rider's haemocrit values to fall over the course of a stage race. Probably the biggest 'recovery aid' a rider can have is the use of Epo or blood doping to counter this.Timoid. wrote:doubt any rider who is classed as a "great recoverer" is ever clean.
I think that Boardman was one of the big 'victims' of the Epo era. I recall one interview he gave where he said he and Peter Keen had worked out that he should be competitive in the Tour, given his weight, threshold power and so forth only for him to find, come to the first big col of the race, that a "hundred people just rode away from me". I think that we now know the reason!0 -
RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
The Armstrong thing is because of the 'aggravating' circumstances - i.e. that there was a deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Apart from the depletion of hormones such as testosterone, it is normal for a rider's haemocrit values to fall over the course of a stage race. Probably the biggest 'recovery aid' a rider can have is the use of Epo or blood doping to counter this.Timoid. wrote:doubt any rider who is classed as a "great recoverer" is ever clean.
I think that Boardman was one of the big 'victims' of the Epo era. I recall one interview he gave where he said he and Peter Keen had worked out that he should be competitive in the Tour, given his weight, threshold power and so forth only for him to find, come to the first big col of the race, that a "hundred people just rode away from me". I think that we now know the reason!
You are mostly wrong. Boardman was no natural on a road bike. Trust you to forget the hard work aspect which it takes to go from track to road... Wiggins put in the hard work of transforming his body from pursuiter to stage racer..pre TDF 2009 he persevered and finished I think 3 or 4 grand tours with the performance boost it gives.. unlike Chris...someone who DNFd 2 TDFs willfully in a row when they were the development he needed , avoided the Giro, DNFD two Vueltas and openly said he did not like cycling.0 -
Duplicate post.0
-
Much of what you say is not in accordance with what is known about sports physiology. What is far more important than 'hard work' is natural ability, as it is this that limits one's potential. Also, one's V02 max, which is genetically determined, very rapidly plateau's in response to training, and will be close to the maximum possible ceiling within only 4 months of full-time training, reaching its maximum possible value in under 12 months. From then on some additional gains are possible via shifting the 'lactate threshold' upwards, but even this will plateau within 3 years or so. Beyond this only minimal gains are possible by natural means, mostly due to increases in efficiency. Keen and Boardman did a lot of research into this and calculated that one you have been a pro for a year or two, the best you can hope for is another 5w a year, and even this is not sustainable.Dave_1 wrote:Boardman was no natural on a road bike. Trust you to forget the hard work aspect which it takes to go from track to road... Wiggins put in the hard work of transforming his body from pursuiter to stage racer..pre TDF 2009 he persevered and finished I think 3 or 4 grand tours with the performance boost it gives.. unlike Chris...someone who DNFd 2 TDFs willfully in a row when they were the development he needed , avoided the Giro, DNFD two Vueltas and openly said he did not like cycling.
You talk about the 'performance boost' that riding the Tour gives. Are there any studies showing that this actually occurs. What special effect does riding a big Tour have that no other form of preparation can give? Don't such events, if ridden to the limit, simply leave riders exhausted? Why don't the winners of the Giro usually go on to win the Tour if such events give such a boost to a rider's ability?
I don't doubt that experience is important, but I doubt that any training, or racing programme, can cause a rider to perform above their natural, genetically determined level, which as I said most riders have achieved anyway within a year or two. True champions are born, not made.
As to Boardman's 'quote' about 'not liking cycling', didn't he actually say something along the lines of 'I don't race because I like cycling, in fact it is not possible to like the suffering involved, I race bikes because that is what I am good at and I am a natural competitor who doesn't want to win because this makes me feel good, but who has to win if I am not to feel unhappy and unfulfilled'? I also recall that he later added that he actually loves cycling as such, it is the suffering of racing he is not so keen on.
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
The Armstrong thing is because of the 'aggravating' circumstances - i.e. that there was a deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive.
Your post actually makes my point very well.
Isn't there a "deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive" whenever anyone dopes?0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
The Armstrong thing is because of the 'aggravating' circumstances - i.e. that there was a deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive.
Your post actually makes my point very well.
Isn't there a "deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive" whenever anyone dopes?
why wasn't Rumsas protected.. because he was busted by the police?"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
The Armstrong thing is because of the 'aggravating' circumstances - i.e. that there was a deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive.
Your post actually makes my point very well.
Isn't there a "deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive" whenever anyone dopes?
Yes, but most cover-ups don't extend to paying off the UCI which is presumably why the Swiss thing is in the letter, not because they want to go after the UCI (they can't) or get Armstrong for that particular bit of doping but because the 'bribe' is the aggravating circumstance that will get around the statute of limitations.0 -
DeadCalm wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
The Armstrong thing is because of the 'aggravating' circumstances - i.e. that there was a deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive.
Your post actually makes my point very well.
Isn't there a "deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive" whenever anyone dopes?
Yes, but most cover-ups don't extend to paying off the UCI which is presumably why the Swiss thing is in the letter, not because they want to go after the UCI (they can't) or get Armstrong for that particular bit of doping but because the 'bribe' is the aggravating circumstance that will get around the statute of limitations.
How do you know? We don't know about other cover-ups because we have never seen one rider gone after as much as LA. What about Puerto, a lot of covering up and strange actions there.0 -
Roche got caught in 1993..but you right wing type, you want to blemish his whole career. Anyone who comitted a crime has been a criminal their adult life..anyone who has doped has doped their whole career.BikingBernie wrote:
Even if Roche admitted that he doped he should keep his wins, just as Armstrong should keep his 'wins'. All that would be needed would be for it to go down on record that these results were achieved by doping in an era of rampant doping.Dave_1 wrote:
Yes, biking bernie , who should get the wins? Maybe Mottet would get the 1987 TDF with Andy Hampsten in 2nd place..MrTapir wrote:
I believe BikingBernie would be the man to talk to about thisTakeTheHighRoad wrote:Am I right in thinking there's a question mark over Roche? My 80s early 90s knowledge isn't great.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:DeadCalm wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:If Riis admitted his Tour was won with the help of doping and still has his title, then why should any be taken away retroactively?
WADA have a statute of limitations of 8 years on doping offences, so you can't prosecute anything older than that, which Riis's was at the time of his confession. (Though apparently this may not apply to Armstrong due to some loophole, but I don't really know what that is).
The Armstrong thing is because of the 'aggravating' circumstances - i.e. that there was a deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive.
Your post actually makes my point very well.
Isn't there a "deliberate conspiracy to cover up and deceive" whenever anyone dopes?
Yes, but most cover-ups don't extend to paying off the UCI which is presumably why the Swiss thing is in the letter, not because they want to go after the UCI (they can't) or get Armstrong for that particular bit of doping but because the 'bribe' is the aggravating circumstance that will get around the statute of limitations.
How do you know? We don't know about other cover-ups because we have never seen one rider gone after as much as LA. What about Puerto, a lot of covering up and strange actions there.
Fair point but I think (and I could be wrong) that the case in question which USADA are relying on is an American one which didn't reach CAS and so wouldn't necessarily apply to the Puerto folk, at least not directly. I don't have a particular opinion on whether it's a good or bad thing by the way, just trying to understand what is happening as best I can.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Much of what you say is not in accordance with what is known about sports physiology. What is far more important than 'hard work' is natural ability, as it is this that limits one's potential. Also, one's V02 max, which is genetically determined, very rapidly plateau's in response to training, and will be close to the maximum possible ceiling within only 4 months of full-time training, reaching its maximum possible value in under 12 months. From then on some additional gains are possible via shifting the 'lactate threshold' upwards, but even this will plateau within 3 years or so. Beyond this only minimal gains are possible by natural means, mostly due to increases in efficiency. Keen and Boardman did a lot of research into this and calculated that one you have been a pro for a year or two, the best you can hope for is another 5w a year, and even this is not sustainable.Dave_1 wrote:Boardman was no natural on a road bike. Trust you to forget the hard work aspect which it takes to go from track to road... Wiggins put in the hard work of transforming his body from pursuiter to stage racer..pre TDF 2009 he persevered and finished I think 3 or 4 grand tours with the performance boost it gives.. unlike Chris...someone who DNFd 2 TDFs willfully in a row when they were the development he needed , avoided the Giro, DNFD two Vueltas and openly said he did not like cycling.
You talk about the 'performance boost' that riding the Tour gives. Are there any studies showing that this actually occurs. What special effect does riding a big Tour have that no other form of preparation can give? Don't such events, if ridden to the limit, simply leave riders exhausted? Why don't the winners of the Giro usually go on to win the Tour if such events give such a boost to a rider's ability?
I don't doubt that experience is important, but I doubt that any training, or racing programme, can cause a rider to perform above their natural, genetically determined level, which as I said most riders have achieved anyway within a year or two. True champions are born, not made.
As to Boardman's 'quote' about 'not liking cycling', didn't he actually say something along the lines of 'I don't race because I like cycling, in fact it is not possible to like the suffering involved, I race bikes because that is what I am good at and I am a natural competitor who doesn't want to win because this makes me feel good, but who has to win if I am not to feel unhappy and unfulfilled'? I also recall that he later added that he actually loves cycling as such, it is the suffering of racing he is not so keen on.
Keep your replies shorter please. You only see cheating and drugs. You can only write hypothetically, no real experience of it. Wiggins put in hard work and Boardman through poor advice did not try an alternative approach which wiggins has and developed through 5-6 years of trying stage races, classics. And stop parroting what Greg Lemond said every time you post about natural talent.0 -
-
He is trolling. He knows that I am about as 'lefty' as it is possible to be. Perhaps you also know this and are trolling as well. Whatever, I don't think it is the role of a 'moderator' to pass comment in such a way...Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Roche got caught in 1993..but you right wing type, you want to blemish his whole career. Anyone who comitted a crime has been a criminal their adult life..anyone who has doped has doped their whole career.
Outstanding.0 -
Your waffle doesn't show that the science is wrong. I also wonder what Boardman would think of you claim that he didn't 'put in hard work' to the degree Wiggins has? And where did I quote Lemond?Dave_1 wrote:Keep your replies shorter please. You only see cheating and drugs. You can only write hypothetically, no real experience of it. Wiggins put in hard work and Boardman through poor advice did not try an alternative approach which wiggins has and developed through 5-6 years of trying stage races, classics. And stop parroting what Greg Lemond said every time you post about natural talent.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
He is trolling. He knows that I am about as 'lefty' as it is possible to be. Perhaps you also know this and are trolling as well. Whatever, I don't think it is the role of a 'moderator' to pass comment in such a way...Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Roche got caught in 1993..but you right wing type, you want to blemish his whole career. Anyone who comitted a crime has been a criminal their adult life..anyone who has doped has doped their whole career.
Outstanding.
I am not trolling. I think the idea that someone who has done wrong in one part of their life has done wrong for much of their life is a point of view that many will not agree with0 -
I would agree. All I have done previously is point out that there have been rumours that he was also doping well before his Epo bust, and to suggest that if it is shown that someone is prepared to have doped once, it it not totally unreasonable to assume they they might have done so on other occasions.Dave_1 wrote:I think the idea that someone who has done wrong in one part of their life has done wrong for much of their life is a point of view that many will not agree with0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I would agree. All I have done previously is point out that there have been rumours that he was also doping well before his Epo bust, and to suggest that if it is shown that someone is prepared to have doped once, it it not totally unreasonable to assume they they might have done so on other occasions.Dave_1 wrote:I think the idea that someone who has done wrong in one part of their life has done wrong for much of their life is a point of view that many will not agree with
Dave's right. You spend a lot of time writing about hypothetical situations that suit your particular creed.0 -
Anyhow, speaking as a 'moderator', what was so 'outstanding' about Dave's claim that I am a "right wing type"? :roll:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave's right. You spend a lot of time writing about hypothetical situations that suit your particular creed.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Your waffle doesn't show that the science is wrong. I also wonder what Boardman would think of you claim that he didn't 'put in hard work' to the degree Wiggins has? And where did I quote Lemond?Dave_1 wrote:Keep your replies shorter please. You only see cheating and drugs. You can only write hypothetically, no real experience of it. Wiggins put in hard work and Boardman through poor advice did not try an alternative approach which wiggins has and developed through 5-6 years of trying stage races, classics. And stop parroting what Greg Lemond said every time you post about natural talent.
Lemond said a 3 week stage racer shows talent young, at outset and that, Lemond says, is how a Grand tour GC riders develops..on "natural talent" and biking bernie also says that! I do not agree. Boardman should have got in the gutter for 3 weeks in summer 1994 and finished his first grand tour to try and start the process of change from track rider but he wanted to peak for the new world TT champs so dropped out of an absolute golden opportunity the TDF offered in 1994. Boardman had ridden well at Dauphine 1994 and was poorly advised when he swung off and stopped like 100km into the stage to Cauteret where Leblanc won. He didn't make the most of his opportunities and Wiggins did but you want to cast aspersions rather than look at the facts of their careers, their timelines0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Anyhow, speaking as a 'moderator', what was so 'outstanding' about Dave's claim that I am a "right wing type"? :roll:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave's right. You spend a lot of time writing about hypothetical situations that suit your particular creed.
Moderators are allowed opinions on the forum.
Don't confuse me disagreeing with you to me moderating you.
It's different.0 -
And both I and Lemond say that because that is what the evidence indicates. Christoper S. Thompson's book 'The Tour de France: A cultural history gives a good overview of this point. Or is he just 'parroting' Lemond as well? :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Lemond said a 3 week stage racer shows talent young, at outset and that, Lemond says, is how a Grand tour GC riders develops..on "natural talent" and biking bernie also says that!0 -
Oh, I do understand, although I did have this quaint idea that good moderators always strive to be neutral. As long as your power as a 'moderator' is not used to help you censure those you disagree with.Rick Chasey wrote:Moderators are allowed opinions on the forum.
Don't confuse me disagreeing with you to me moderating you.
It's different.
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
And both I and Lemond say that because that is what the evidence indicates. Christoper S. Thompson's book 'The Tour de France: A cultural history gives a good overview of this point. Or is he just 'parroting' Lemond as well? :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Lemond said a 3 week stage racer shows talent young, at outset and that, Lemond says, is how a Grand tour GC riders develops..on "natural talent" and biking bernie also says that!
I have no interest in your book recommendations now or ever.0 -
So is it natural talent, or hard work that wins you a grand tour? I'm confused - which is Wiggins anyway? To be honest, I think Boardman could have followed the Dave_1 training plan until the cows come home, he would never have prospered riding clean in that era. Similarly, good as Wiggins is looking now, I doubt he would have been notching up the stage race wins against the 90s peloton.0
-
BigMat wrote:So is it natural talent, or hard work that wins you a grand tour? I'm confused - which is Wiggins anyway? To be honest, I think Boardman could have followed the Dave_1 training plan until the cows come home, he would never have prospered riding clean in that era. Similarly, good as Wiggins is looking now, I doubt he would have been notching up the stage race wins against the 90s peloton.
i agree Boardman would not have been a winner of the TDF but he was a 10 mile time trialist for a decade up to then and that limited what he could do as well. He didn't like racing in bunches. To say he was a victim of the doping culture obscures that situation he was in which was he was coming from a background totally unsuited to grand tours0 -
And yet Wiggins was able to 'transform his body from pursuiter to stage racer'?Dave_1 wrote:Boardman would not have been a winner of the TDF...he was a 10 mile time trialist for a decade ... he was coming from a background totally unsuited to grand tours
How is pursuiting 'a more suitable background' for a Tour contender than being a top time triallist and a multiple national hill-climb champion? And Boardman was only 'a 10 mile time trialist for a decade' if you include the years he raced as a schoolboy! Oh, and Boardman was also a pursuiter before turning professional, being a member of the GB pursuit / team pursuit squad.0 -
I think that this is what the real 'issue' is on here with some posters.BigMat wrote:So is it natural talent, or hard work that wins you a grand tour? I'm confused - which is Wiggins anyway?
History shows that almost all Tour winners showed great natural talent right from the start, often winning the Tour the first time they rode it. 'The Epo years' showed a dominant new trend where riders who were complete Tour also-rans, often getting their backsides royally kicked for a number of years, suddenly became transformed into winners, such as Armstrong, Indurain and Riis. Plenty of other riders showed a similar transformation in their ability, even if they didn't win the Tour, such as Claudio Chiappucci and Abraham Olano.
The 'standard' explanation for these transformations was 'I lost weight', 'I have adopted a new training plan' and 'I work harder than everyone else'. The real reason, of course, was doping.
Moving on to the present day we have riders like Wiggins, who has also undergone a miraculous transformation from a Tour donkey 'finishing an hour down most days' into a Tour contender. The reasons given are 'I have lost weight', 'I have a new coach / training plan' and 'I work harder than anyone else, no longer having any time where I let my workload drop'.
All the vitriol generated on these threads seems to come from those who want to believe that, whatever history and sports science might tell us, Tour winners really can be made. In particular they want to believe that, when it comes to Wiggins (and even Cavendish who, or so it has been reported, has also suddenly become a climbing god), all the familiar stories about 'weight loss' and so forth really are the reason why they have been transformed, with these individuals being unable to tolerate even the slightest suggestion that, once again, there may more to their success than has been admitted to.
Of course, this time the reasons given actually might be true, but given the history of the sport keeping an open mind has to be healthier than, once again, relying on blind faith.0 -
Biking Bernie this is a serious question, do you have Aspergers ?0
