rewriting the record books-poetic justice

dave_1

Given what we know is about to happen to livestrong, please remember this is how the record books of the Tour De France truly look now. I know some winners have not been forced under oath but this is poetic justice....the only available option to fools like me, us fans, who followed hundreds of hours of TDF only to find 20 years of a joke!...this below record is to stigmatize riders given the impunity and immunity they still enjoy and live off..keeping wealth and respect despite proof we have! Please add races and results where you feel riders have taken the wee out of fans

1990-Lemond TDF

1991-Annulled
1992 Annulled
1993 Annulled
1994 Annulled
1995 Annulled
1996 Annulled
1997 Annulled
1998 Annulled
1999 Annulled
2000Annulled
2001Annulled
2002Annulled
2003Annulled
2004Annulled
2005Annulled
2006Annulled
2007 Contador
2008 Sastre
2009 Contador
2010 Annulled
2011 Evans
2012 Wiggins

the_cyclist_of_catan

Why let Bertie keep 07 and 09? Given where he was at the time, and what has happened to him since, if Lance's results all go, those two years would be suspect too, n'est pa?

pbt150

The Cyclist of Catan wrote:

Why let Bertie keep 07 and 09? Given where he was at the time, and what has happened to him since, if Lance's results all go, those two years would be suspect too, n'est pa?

I've thought for a while that Bradley Wiggins is making good progress towards getting on the podium/winning the '09 Tour. (Disclsimer: Based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay and in no way claiming that anyone ACTUALLY doped.)

inkyfingers

Doping didn't start in 1991 though did it? Ok, so EPO started getting used then and was more effective , but people were already using blood transfusions in the 80s and Amphetamines and other drugs for many many years before that.

We have also seen huge strides in the testing of athletes in that period and also a more defiant anti-doping stance from fans and the press, whereas before that many people just turned a blind eye.

I share your frustration that our sport has been dragged through the mud over and over again, but I don't think looking back and identifying goodies and baddies is all that helpful. Let's face it, most of the greatest cyclists the world have ever seen used drugs, do you think that if it was available at the time the Merckx or even Simpson wouldn't have used EPO?

What we need is to focus on those people who are riding now and those who will be riding in the future. We need more credible testing regimes, run by an independent organsisation which is seperate to the UCI, who should concentrate on running and promoting the sport. We all know the UCI is crooked and having them responsible for testing and also for promoting the sport is never going to be credible.

dave_1

The Cyclist of Catan wrote:

Why let Bertie keep 07 and 09? Given where he was at the time, and what has happened to him since, if Lance's results all go, those two years would be suspect too, n'est pa?

The bio-passport took effect in 2008 I think so drew a line there. It's for Bradley and Sky to persuade us he won clean, not for us to believe! Just look at the 18 years of wins stripped from Tour De France winners above..even though some are retired and wealthy and have not faced their legal just desserts, there's no harm on the forum voting on this one as stigmatization and ostracization are also a part of justice , (not merely CAS/WADA's decisions!)

dave_1

inkyfingers wrote:

Doping didn't start in 1991 though did it? Ok, so EPO started getting used then and was more effective , but people were already using blood transfusions in the 80s and Amphetamines and other drugs for many many years before that.

We have also seen huge strides in the testing of athletes in that period and also a more defiant anti-doping stance from fans and the press, whereas before that many people just turned a blind eye.

I share your frustration that our sport has been dragged through the mud over and over again, but I don't think looking back and identifying goodies and baddies is all that helpful. Let's face it, most of the greatest cyclists the world have ever seen used drugs, do you think that if it was available at the time the Merckx or even Simpson wouldn't have used EPO?

What we need is to focus on those people who are riding now and those who will be riding in the future. We need more credible testing regimes, run by an independent organsisation which is seperate to the UCI, who should concentrate on running and promoting the sport. We all know the UCI is crooked and having them responsible for testing and also for promoting the sport is never going to be credible.

Lemond seems to have a lot of integrity so I am afraid 1985,1986 to 1990 look more sound as blood doping didn't win at least 3 of them. Also, it wasn't illegal in 1984.

Crankbrother

Lemond is a 2nd rate Lance ... and we all know what the internet thinks of LA ...

Just because Lemond bangs a drum doesn't mean that he has rhythm ... He won at a time when doping was rife in the peleton so what should make me believe he was winning clean against those odds? His word? ...

History has taught us to listen to those who say less ... and for a man who's legacy has been overshadowed, Lemond seems to have alot to to say and get involved in alot of stuff that has nothing to do with him (Landis, as an example) ...

Don't even get me started on Sastre ...

MrTapir

Crankbrother wrote:

Lemond is a 2nd rate Lance ... and we all know what the internet thinks of LA ...

Just because Lemond bangs a drum doesn't mean that he has rhythm ... He won at a time when doping was rife in the peloton so what should make me believe he was winning clean against those odds? His word? ...

History has taught us to listen to those who say less ... and for a man who's legacy has been overshadowed, Lemond seems to have alot to to say and get involved in alot of stuff that has nothing to do with him (Landis, as an example) ...

Don't even get me started on Sastre ...

Could I get you started on Sastre? i was generally under the impression he was without suspicion but this is the second time in recent weeks someone has alluded to dodginess...

greasedscotsman

Dave_1 wrote:

Given what we know is about to happen to livestrong...

Do we?

rick_chasey

greasedscotsman wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Given what we know is about to happen to livestrong...

Do we?

He'll wriggle and wriggle and wriggle, spend £1m on lawyers and get off the charges?

Wily-Quixote

I think I might start following horse racing, that's gotta be cleaner....
So have they just moved on from being EPO to blood junkies now?

rick_chasey

If you care who was clean and who wasn't it probably is the wrong sport to follow.

Paulie W

Dave, why does Fignon deserve a pass on this as someone who tested positive? Anquetil, Mercyx, Delgado, Thevenet, Zoetemelk, Coppi, Gaul, Nencini - all Tour winners who have tested positive at some point or who have admitted to doping in some form or who are heavily implicated in activities which would constitute doping now.

I get that EPO is/was a whole different ball game than amphetamines but the taking of any of these drugs is about improving performance. So once you start playing this game you effectively eradicate not 20 years of Tour winners but more like 50-60.

disgruntledgoat

Dave_1 wrote:

The Cyclist of Catan wrote:

Why let Bertie keep 07 and 09? Given where he was at the time, and what has happened to him since, if Lance's results all go, those two years would be suspect too, n'est pa?

It's for Bradley and Sky to persuade us he won clean, not for us to believe!

You can't prove a negative. At some point, you have put an element of faith into believeing somebody is telling the truth.

Let me put it another way, nobody demanded all this of Evans last year,

dave_1

greasedscotsman wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Given what we know is about to happen to livestrong...

Do we?

I'm not very optimistic for Lance..and the huge undustry that's formed online to bring about his downfall will leave us with this situation where Miguel Indurain retains wins and wealth, status when his peers have been stripped of their wins for no worse a crime.. If Lance is taken down next month, Miguel Indurain must be asked again by journalists this question. Did you use EPO or blood transfusions between 1991 and 1995? Yes or NO Miguel?

estampida

there would be a massive question if cancellara had won the tdf

he did pass drug tests - (clean?)

bike would not pass uci tests (they only started x-raying bikes after he was accused of cheating with power assist)

but the argument is the he, as a human was clean at the time

and indurain was legally cheating as he was registered as asthmatic therefore had dispensation to have salbutamol and other banned substances in his blood........

but feel free to pick and choose...........

dave_1

Paulie W wrote:

Dave, why does Fignon deserve a pass on this as someone who tested positive? Anquetil, Mercyx, Delgado, Thevenet, Zoetemelk, Coppi, Gaul, Nencini - all Tour winners who have tested positive at some point or who have admitted to doping in some form or who are heavily implicated in activities which would constitute doping now.

I get that EPO is/was a whole different ball game than amphetamines but the taking of any of these drugs is about improving performance. So once you start playing this game you effectively eradicate not 20 years of Tour winners but more like 50-60.

It's obvious so I wonder why you pick on someone who may have paid with his life for drug use as a cyclist..but Fignon did not benefit from blood modification so it derails this thread to bring in to it that aspect. Everyone agrees the stuff in the 1980s was like peashooter power compared blood doping -which would be the ICBM type weaponary in the arms race of doping

inkyfingers

Dave_1 wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Given what we know is about to happen to livestrong...

Do we?

I'm not very optimistic for Lance..and the huge undustry that's formed online to bring about his downfall will leave us with this situation where Miguel Indurain retains wins and wealth, status when his peers have been stripped of their wins for no worse a crime.. If Lance is taken down next month, Miguel Indurain must be asked again by journalists this question. Did you use EPO or blood transfusions between 1991 and 1995? Yes or NO Miguel?

Once you've finished with Indurain you can ask Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Thevenet, Merckx, Anquetil, and you may as wll dig up Coppi, Bartali and Garin and drug test them as well.

Having done all that where will you be, exactly where you started, except for the fact you will have destroyed the sport as no sponsor will want to go near it and the fans and media will be even more disillusioned than they already are.

I hate dopers and doping, but as i've said again and again, rewriting history doesn't get you anywhere, we need to focus on cleaning up the sport as it is now and securing its future.

inkyfingers

Dave_1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Dave, why does Fignon deserve a pass on this as someone who tested positive? Anquetil, Mercyx, Delgado, Thevenet, Zoetemelk, Coppi, Gaul, Nencini - all Tour winners who have tested positive at some point or who have admitted to doping in some form or who are heavily implicated in activities which would constitute doping now.

I get that EPO is/was a whole different ball game than amphetamines but the taking of any of these drugs is about improving performance. So once you start playing this game you effectively eradicate not 20 years of Tour winners but more like 50-60.

It's obvious so I wonder why you pick on someone who may have paid with his life for drug use as a cyclist..but Fignon did not benefit from blood modification so it derails this thread to bring in to it that aspect. Everyone agrees the stuff in the 1980s was like peashooter power compared blood doping -which would be the ICBM type weaponary in the arms race of doping

Dave, as you may know I am a huge fan of Fignon, but he has admitted that he used doping products so do you think that if EPO had been available when he was at his pomp he wouldn't have used it?

Paulie W

Dave_1 wrote:

It's obvious so I wonder why you pick on someone who may have paid with his life for drug use as a cyclist..but Fignon did not benefit from blood modification so it derails this thread to bring in to it that aspect. Everyone agrees the stuff in the 1980s was like peashooter power compared blood doping -which would be the ICBM type weaponary in the arms race of doping

I 'picked on' Fignon because he's your avatar - I think it's problemmatic to celebrate one set of riders and to criticise another set so vehemently just because the 'weapons' one set had was so much less effective than the other. To take your weaponry metaphor a bit further: the 'enemy' who were killed by bow and arrows at Agincourt were just as dead as those killed by missiles during the Gulf Wars.

dave_1

inkyfingers wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Dave, why does Fignon deserve a pass on this as someone who tested positive? Anquetil, Mercyx, Delgado, Thevenet, Zoetemelk, Coppi, Gaul, Nencini - all Tour winners who have tested positive at some point or who have admitted to doping in some form or who are heavily implicated in activities which would constitute doping now.

I get that EPO is/was a whole different ball game than amphetamines but the taking of any of these drugs is about improving performance. So once you start playing this game you effectively eradicate not 20 years of Tour winners but more like 50-60.

It's obvious so I wonder why you pick on someone who may have paid with his life for drug use as a cyclist..but Fignon did not benefit from blood modification so it derails this thread to bring in to it that aspect. Everyone agrees the stuff in the 1980s was like peashooter power compared blood doping -which would be the ICBM type weaponary in the arms race of doping

Dave, as you may know I am a huge fan of Fignon, but he has admitted that he used doping products so do you think that if EPO had been available when he was at his pomp he wouldn't have used it?

True, and fair enough. Fignon said in his book he was unsure himself whether or not he would have used EPO had he not had such a secure and excellent palmares already by 1990 to risk . So no, Wiggins and Evan don't really deserve to be regarded as more moral and honest than Indurain, Armstrong or Landis, when infact they ride in an eara where they have to be honest because a testing regimen has recently been put in place that forces honesty on the majority.

iainf72

Poetic justice, eh?

There was a man from Texas called Lance,
Who cheated to win a bike race in France,
He took home loads of money,
Got up on many honeys,
Then a witchhunt came along,
He said this is wrong,
....

To be continued

josame

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you care who was clean and who wasn't it probably is the wrong sport to follow.

*edit*

shinyhelmut

If you care who is competing clean and who isn't then you're probably best off avoiding most professional sport.

And a fair bit of amateur sport;

http://m.bikeradar.com/news/article/two-amateurs-test-positive-for-epo-at-gran-fondo-new-york-34711

rick_chasey

I can't say I've ever enjoyed a bike race less because they were on the juice.

disgruntledgoat

ShinyHelmut wrote:

If you care who is competing clean and who isn't then you're probably best off avoiding most professional sport.

And a fair bit of amateur sport;

http://m.bikeradar.com/news/article/two-amateurs-test-positive-for-epo-at-gran-fondo-new-york-34711

Why are they testing at Grand Fondos?

shinyhelmut

In case Ricco turns up?

timoid.

Dave_1 wrote:

So no, Wiggins and Evan don't really deserve to be regarded as more moral and honest than Indurain, Armstrong or Landis, when infact they ride in an eara where they have to be honest because a testing regimen has recently been put in place that forces honesty on the majority.

I'm pretty* sure Wiggins and Evans rode clean right through the blood doping years of Armstrong, Landis, Contador. So yes I think they should be regarded as more moral and honest. I think Evans is one of the biggest victims of the serious doping years. He's a freakishly talented athlete, maybe somewhat akin to Hinault.


* in as much as I can be sure about someone I've never met an never had a beer with.

dave_1

Timoid. wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So no, Wiggins and Evan don't really deserve to be regarded as more moral and honest than Indurain, Armstrong or Landis, when infact they ride in an eara where they have to be honest because a testing regimen has recently been put in place that forces honesty on the majority.

I'm pretty* sure Wiggins and Evans rode clean right through the blood doping years of Armstrong, Landis, Contador. So yes I think they should be regarded as more moral and honest. I think Evans is one of the biggest victims of the serious doping years. He's a freakishly talented athlete, maybe somewhat akin to Hinault.


* in as much as I can be sure about someone I've never met an never had a beer with.

Wasn't wiggo just a trackie without the road miles/stage race/grand tour miles under his belt rather than only clean. Evans has won the TDF quite recently so perhaps you are right. Maybe I am wrong and he is an honest person without threat of shame to be made honest. It just seems surprising that humans being are suddenly more honest now than 15 years ago when cheating is human nature

lloyd_bower

Dave_1 wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Dave, why does Fignon deserve a pass on this as someone who tested positive? Anquetil, Mercyx, Delgado, Thevenet, Zoetemelk, Coppi, Gaul, Nencini - all Tour winners who have tested positive at some point or who have admitted to doping in some form or who are heavily implicated in activities which would constitute doping now.

I get that EPO is/was a whole different ball game than amphetamines but the taking of any of these drugs is about improving performance. So once you start playing this game you effectively eradicate not 20 years of Tour winners but more like 50-60.

It's obvious so I wonder why you pick on someone who may have paid with his life for drug use as a cyclist..but Fignon did not benefit from blood modification so it derails this thread to bring in to it that aspect. Everyone agrees the stuff in the 1980s was like peashooter power compared blood doping -which would be the ICBM type weaponary in the arms race of doping

Dave, as you may know I am a huge fan of Fignon, but he has admitted that he used doping products so do you think that if EPO had been available when he was at his pomp he wouldn't have used it?

True, and fair enough. Fignon said in his book he was unsure himself whether or not he would have used EPO had he not had such a secure and excellent palmares already by 1990 to risk . So no, Wiggins and Evan don't really deserve to be regarded as more moral and honest than Indurain, Armstrong or Landis, when infact they ride in an eara where they have to be honest because a testing regimen has recently been put in place that forces honesty on the majority.

Both Wiggins and Evans especially have ridden in the period where the Tour winners have been especially dubious. Evans would have won his first tour in 2007 but for the doped Rasmussen V Contador duels up the big mtn top finishes.

If we take Armtrong's titles away, we certainly take Contador's 07' and 09' efforts too, plus Indurain's. But why bother? those that followed 2-5 and beyond afterwards in each of those years were equally on the juice.

I'd like to believe LeMonde was clean, but sure those many of those riding at the same time were taking some kind of dope (Roche, Delgado & Fignon admitted to it). There's no doubt the effect of EPO is at another level than what went before, but that's all, any kind of doping is cheating.

greasedscotsman

Awful lot of assumptions going on in this thread. :roll: