Clean tour winners

Paul 8v

Not sure if this subject has been posted before, out of all the years of the Tour de France, how many winners do we think were actually clean? After reading the thread in Road General abut Big Mig it got me wondering.

At the moment I'm thinking Wiggins (Bloody hope so!) and Evans were clean but before that...

I'm not including Schleck as I'm counting that as the Contador who was not clean.

I know even years ago people were on amphetamines and all sorts of things.

Be interesting to know peoples thoughts!

thomthom

Evans was in talks with Ferrari in 2000 taking a 'fitness test'.

Paul 8v

Oh really? Didn't know that, I thought the general consensus is that he was clean?

slim_boy_fat

Paul 8v wrote:

Oh really? Didn't know that, I thought the general consensus is that he was clean?

I believe he is. His story is that when deciding on whether to move from MTB to road he was advised to carry out a Ferrari test and then have him look at his numbers to see if he was likely to make it on the road.

Richmond Racer

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Paul 8v wrote:

Oh really? Didn't know that, I thought the general consensus is that he was clean?

I believe he is. His story is that when deciding on whether to move from MTB to road he was advised to carry out a Ferrari test and then have him look at his numbers to see if he was likely to make it on the road.

Yeah, I'd certainly give Cuddles the benefit of the doubt.

dolan_driver

Greg LeMond can be added to the list of clean winners, I believe, and possibly also Carlos Sastre.

DD.

thomthom

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Paul 8v wrote:

Oh really? Didn't know that, I thought the general consensus is that he was clean?

I believe he is. His story is that when deciding on whether to move from MTB to road he was advised to carry out a Ferrari test and then have him look at his numbers to see if he was likely to make it on the road.

And there's your connection between a rider and a doctor which, as it turned out, controlled the whole sport. I'm not buying that he didn't see the first doctor, who opened the door to the road world for him, afterwards in his career. No way. Not with the stories we've been told in the last couple of months.

A simple fitness test with Ferrari should make you dodgy. That's how toxic Ferrari is.

iainf72

ThomThom wrote:

And there's your connection between a rider and a doctor which, as it turned out, controlled the whole sport. I'm not buying that he didn't see the first doctor, who opened the door to the road world for him, afterwards in his career. No way. Not with the stories we've been told in the last couple of months.

A simple fitness test with Ferrari should make you dodgy. That's how toxic Ferrari is.

His agent was Rominger. Rominger used to work with Ferrari. He met him once and that was that. He's been pretty upfront about it when asked and there have been no other links.

Have you seen him name mentioned in anything else related to Ferrari?

thomthom

That Tony who has managed Vino, Contador, Sinkewitz, Jaksche, Kloden?

Okay, then.

If Tony says it then it must be legit.

iainf72

ThomThom wrote:

That Tony who has managed Vino, Contador, Sinkewitz, Jaksche, Kloden?

Okay, then.

If Tony says it then it must be legit..

Tony manages a huge amount of people. And he's dodgy as they come.

But I meant Cadel has been upfront about it. I've not seen anything that Cadel is dodgy (and the general feeling I get from people in 'the know' is that he's clean), but even if he is, he's not a customer of Ferrari.

thomthom

You know what? Cadel might have been clean in 2011. I could believe that. However, he rode in the darkest of times, rode for Saeco, Mapai, Telekom, has beaten convicted dopers and had dodgy connections already from the beginning. He might be clean(er) now but I'm definitely not convinced about his past.

ermintrude

I use this test now to decide if think a rider is clean - pedals at a fairly constant tempo on big climbs = Wiggins, Froome,Evans,Nibali = clean. rides away from everybody on big climbs like it is effortless = Contador, Armstrong, Valverde = cheats . Can't make my mind up about Rodriguez

Richmond Racer

ermintrude wrote:

I use this test now to decide if think a rider is clean - pedals at a fairly constant tempo on big climbs = Wiggins, Froome,Evans,Nibali = clean. rides away from everybody on big climbs like it is effortless = Contador, Armstrong, Valverde = cheats . Can't make my mind up about Rodriguez

Henceforth this shall be known throughout the land as the Ermintrude Test

thomthom

ermintrude wrote:

I use this test now to decide if think a rider is clean - pedals at a fairly constant tempo on big climbs = Wiggins, Froome,Evans,Nibali = clean. rides away from everybody on big climbs like it is effortless = Contador, Armstrong, Valverde = cheats . Can't make my mind up about Rodriguez

There's a difference in effortless and a different style. When Froome still had a good condition in Vuelta, he had no problems with cathing up riders who were more explosive but inconsistent. It's, thankfully, not that black and white.

FJS

I've seen Boonen give an interview saying something along the lines that if Evans wasn't clean, nobody would be. Boonen is always pretty much on the money as commentator.

FJS

ermintrude wrote:

I use this test now to decide if think a rider is clean - pedals at a fairly constant tempo on big climbs = Wiggins, Froome,Evans,Nibali = clean. rides away from everybody on big climbs like it is effortless = Contador, Armstrong, Valverde = cheats . Can't make my mind up about Rodriguez

Jan Ullrich, Tony Rominger and Indurain rode a constant tempo uphill.

FransJacques

Do not assume that Wiggins is clean. People have always made dodgy links with the past and the future. After the Festina affair in 1998 people heralded Lance as the "new face of cycling". We've heard a lot of that recently haven't we? They were so dirty before, but now they're so clean. Faulty logic.

Wait 10 years, then we'll know if Wiggo was clean. Don't say he was clean now.

- Who never failed a drug test?

- Who asserted forcefully they race clean?

- Who had some very clever people behind them who know the white areas, the black areas, and the grey areas regarding "preparation"?

You could answer Lance or Wiggins to all questions.

cal_stewart

if Wiggins is dirty Team GB will make the East Germans look like they were playing at it

Turfle

FransJacques wrote:

Do not assume that Wiggins is clean. People have always made dodgy links with the past and the future. After the Festina affair in 1998 people heralded Lance as the "new face of cycling". We've heard a lot of that recently haven't we? They were so dirty before, but now they're so clean. Faulty logic.

Wait 10 years, then we'll know if Wiggo was clean. Don't say he was clean now.

- Who never failed a drug test?

- Who asserted forcefully they race clean?

- Who had some very clever people behind them who know the white areas, the black areas, and the grey areas regarding "preparation"?

You could answer Lance or Wiggins to all questions.

I really don't like this comparison that has been cropping up more and more.

Surely to god we can't be saying if anyone rides well, doesn't fail tests, and states they are clean, that they must therefore be the same as Armstrong. Someone smarter than me would say it's a false syllogism, but I'm on my own here today, and I'm not sure if it is.

slim_boy_fat

FransJacques wrote:

Do not assume that Wiggins is clean. People have always made dodgy links with the past and the future. After the Festina affair in 1998 people heralded Lance as the "new face of cycling". We've heard a lot of that recently haven't we? They were so dirty before, but now they're so clean. Faulty logic.

Wait 10 years, then we'll know if Wiggo was clean. Don't say he was clean now.

- Who never failed a drug test?

- Who asserted forcefully they race clean?

- Who had some very clever people behind them who know the white areas, the black areas, and the grey areas regarding "preparation"?

You could answer Lance or Wiggins to all questions.

Or you could look at the numbers they were putting out at the tour this year and realise they are well below what was being put out in the bad old days and within what the sports scientists believe is possible. I agree that you can't say that Wiggins is clean for certain but there are definitely pointers that the sport is a lot cleaner than it was.

Paul 8v

I would be willing to put money on Wiggins being clean.I'm pretty sure Dave Brailsford would Hadouken anyone in sky who wasn't!

As for the historical winners are we saying that out of the 99 winners only a handful are clean? Not that I sympathise with Armstrong but if his victories were erased surely the other drug cheats should be too.It would leave things in a sorry state of affairs! Or do you say that that is part of the history of cycling and that was just the culture then?

inseine

Landis and Contador were both stripped of their titles so its not unpresidented and anyone doping before about 1968 wasn't breaking any rules so they're in the clear.

Harry Thorpe

ThomThom wrote:

You know what? Cadel might have been clean in 2011. I could believe that. However, he rode in the darkest of times, rode for Saeco, Mapai, Telekom, has beaten convicted dopers and had dodgy connections already from the beginning. He might be clean(er) now but I'm definitely not convinced about his past.

That is a very good point!

Paul 8v

inseine wrote:

Landis and Contador were both stripped of their titles so its not unpresidented and anyone doping before about 1968 wasn't breaking any rules so they're in the clear.

Still leaves all the riders from '68 to Armstrong in question though

inseine

Still leaves all the riders from '68 to Armstrong in question though

Yes, obviously, because you're never going to prove anyone's clean. I think the only ones I'd bet on would be Sastra, Evans, Wiggins and LeMond. Only a goodish gut feeling, nothing more.

thomthom

inseine wrote:

Still leaves all the riders from '68 to Armstrong in question though

Yes, obviously, because you're never going to prove anyone's clean. I think the only ones I'd bet on would be Sastra, Evans, Wiggins and LeMond. Only a goodish gut feeling, nothing more.

There is no way Sastre was clean.

inseine

There is no way Sastre was clean.

There are plenty who'd disagree with you, including (I know you'll laugh) Brailsford for one.

thomthom

You are right. I did laugh.

rick_chasey

OK, let's make a rough assumption that most big wins in cycling for the last 40 years have involved some form of dope cheating, right?

Now, what does that actually mean for you (whoerver fancies answering), the fan?

Are you going to stop watching? Will it mean you enjoy future racing less?

Broadly speaking, for me, all this USADA fallout and all the other positive dope tests are really very sad, once I've plowed through the rather exciting gory details. But it doesn't and won't really affect my enjoyment of future races.

For sure, even for me, the odd stage or race I've seen has raised eyebrows and has drawn me away from the race. Ricco up the Aspin and Landis doing that stage. But that's about it.

Increasingly, from a selfish perspective, I kinda wish it was just more like football. No positive tests, no questioning of results, just taking what you see at face value.

Professional sport's just escapism for the vast proportion of people, save the few who dedicate lives to it. Who wins is trivial - so why let too much of the sh!tty bits of real-life encroach?

For sure, that's why sports fans get particularly het up about it all - their escapism, their temporary escape from a rather mundane life which is broadly spent with coming to terms that it will end, is sullied by the stuff they deliberately are trying to avoid. It's a world where you can have heroes, where you can really care about a result, feel all the emotions that come from it, yet carry on with whatever you're doing 10 minutes later. You construct and project ideas on the sportsmen and athletes you see, based on the way they do their sport. It's a lovely fiction in which you can fantasize and dream in a care-free environment. You can use it to discuss stuff you care about without actually offending anyone or having it affect your life. You can discuss politics, religion, life, your job, but they're all charged. No-one really gives a f*ck if you like Cancellara more than Cavendish.

It makes me really sad when I see cycling finally a daily fixture on the evening news sports bulliton, but only about doping. For sure. I will try to avoid that ruining my enjoyment though. I mean, it's just a hobby - an interest. A way to pass away the time of a mundane unoffensive life. Why do I need to apply some rigorous ethical value to it?

*shrugs* it's probably hypocritical, but if you are a fan of a dope ridden sport and are anti-doping in whatever form, you're going to be a hypocrite.

Consistency is f*cking boring and limting anyway. Spend too much of my real life trying to be vaguely consistent so people will listen to what I have to say, despite the fact that a) what I have to say means sod all anyway and b) I, nor anyone else, really is consistent if you want to live a normal life.

Kimmage is consistant in his anti-doping some would argue. That's why it's obvious he's not a fan. He is to scorned and bitter about the sport, and knows too much about doping to be both a fan and anti-doping without being a hypocrite.

There are others like Phil & Paul who have backed the other horse. They've decided they enjoy their sport enough that they'll have to overlook that. Now they've had to face the other side, we call then hypocrites.
---

TLDR

Some rantings of an overly tired fan who's increasingly of the opinion that if you are a fan of cycling and are anti-doping you're basically a hypocrite. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

And I wonder what effect this realisation that it's basically ALL tained in the past 40 years will have on you, the fan? In real life, not in the guffy world of your head or the internet.

dave_1

ThomThom wrote:

Evans was in talks with Ferrari in 2000 taking a 'fitness test'.

I haven't heard Evans take a stance on Armstrong yet. I don't believe Evans anymore. 8th in the 2005 TDF clean? Julich 18th in 2001 clean according to Vaughters though..so I could be wrong. But I am not a believer anymore

liquor box

I think that vans is clean, but you can make as good an argument against him without a Positive Test as you can for almost any other rider.

Why to talented cyclists take drugs? It is to get the extra couple of percent performance, or to go from a very good cyclist to a great cyclist. Another way of looking at this would be a cyclist who is always coming 2nd, 3rd 4th but never winning may be tempted to take something to finally win and beat the other cheats that have been winning dirty.

Look at Evans performances in grand tours before winning
Year 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Giro 14 5
TDF 8 4 2 2 30 26 1 7
Vuelta 60 4 3

His win was essentially just the few percent better performance that his previous career.

Personally I think the Dr Ferrari issue is a beat up, I am more concerned at his love of George Hincappie, the only domestique to work for three tour winners, and to have worked for two people who have doped in the past. Is it possible that Hincappie brought his knowledge of doping with him to BMC?

Luckily as an Australian I know for a fact that Evans is clean, Australians have never ever doped in any sport as we are not cheats, but from time to time we may have accidentally taken a banned cold tablet or had our food or drink spiked.