Why no hate for Eddy?

2»

Comments

  • Rundfahrt
    Rundfahrt Posts: 551
    There we go, the "doping is more effective now so it wasn't bad back" then argument has reared its ugly head.
  • LesDiablesRouges
    LesDiablesRouges Posts: 28
    Everyone doped even back in Merckx's day. One of my father's best friends was a pro rider from Luxembourg who said everyone doped an he indicated that Armstrong was dirty. He basically said that ther were 20 guys willing to step in if you weren't going to do it.

    The thing about doping is that you can't do it all the time. So while most of Armstrongs wins were TDF while Merckx's won all sorts of races. So as much as people would like to point to drugs behind Merckx you can't reason that all of his success was due to doping. The guy was just that damn good.

    The other reason why people don't attack Merckx is that he didn't wheel suck. He was willing to launch crazy attacks and go for broke. To equate him to a racer to day in terms of his relentless attacking would be Thoams Voeckler except Merckx was a obviously much superior cyclist.

    Armstrong certainly was brash and attacked but unlike Merckx he used his team to strip away most challengers and then launched attacks.

    Merckx was no saint but the advantage he gained was minimal at best. You can't win all the races he did with the frequency he did and suggest that he doepd his way to 525 victories.

Categories