Who would have been the best

epc06

A question that can only be speculated obviously, but I often wonder who would have been the winners of the TDF in the last 20 years if everyone was clean. Going off pure physical ability, mental strength, and tactical ability. Would Armstrong have still been up there??

TMR

EPC06 wrote:

A question that can only be speculated obviously, but I often wonder who would have been the winners of the TDF in the last 20 years if everyone was clean. Going off pure physical ability, mental strength, and tactical ability. Would Armstrong have still been up there??

Yes. IMHO. I think he probably would.

*Edit*

Have been up there I mean.

iainf72

No. He was more physically average than exceptional for a pro. He wasn't a terrible bike rider by any stretch of the imagination.

The sad thing is it's impossible to know who would've won.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

No. He was more physically average than exceptional for a pro. He wasn't a terrible bike rider by any stretch of the imagination.

The sad thing is it's impossible to know who would've won.

Drugs or no drugs, 'average' doesn't become World Champion at 21. He was one of the best neo-pros I've ever seen.
The idea that he was some sort of mule is as much myth as his own lies.

philbar72

Lemond for me, if he hadn't of been shot by the brother in law. the guy won 2 tdfs with lead shot in his heart lining for crying out loud (edit --- timeline slightly out, but if it wasn't for the problems these injuries caused he would still have been up there....).

numbers wise Lemond was way ahead naturally of his competitors (his v02max for example was something like 93, which is phenomenal). tactically he was sometimes a little naieve when he was younger.

I personally don't think Armstrong would have been there if we are talking 100% clean. in terms of competetive spirit and the mental attributes yes. but the dark side of cycling really ( for me at least) consumed him. of course we will never know. he had athletic potential, but because of the above i don't think he should be in the mix.

salsiccia1

EPC06 wrote:

A question that can only be speculated obviously, but I often wonder who would have been the winners of the TDF in the last 20 years if everyone was clean. Going off pure physical ability, mental strength, and tactical ability. Would Armstrong have still been up there??

I doubt it. More a rouleur who probably would have been more a Jalabert-type.

As for alternative winners, I think LeMond might have got one or two more. But it's so hard to say, as Indurain on, everyone was doing the strong stuff, so it's difficult to pick out credible alternatives. For the early 90's - Breukink, possibly? But even then I'm not sure about him. Hampsten? After that I think it's impossible to know, as no-one up until 2008 has any real credibility.

specialgueststar

Moncoutie was clean in his career and got 13th in the 2002 T de F before it was obvious stage wins were the only possibility He got one each in mountain stages 2004 and 2005 and the KOM in the Vuelta 2008 and 2009

He would be a pretty good yardstick . Was Armstrong naturally more gifted than him. No

Charly Mottet springs to mind too

deejay

RichN95 wrote:

Drugs or no drugs, 'average' doesn't become World Champion at 21. He was one of the best neo-pros I've ever seen.
The idea that he was some sort of mule is as much myth as his own lies.

True I have to agree but without the cancer lay off he might still be out there trying to win single day races.
That World Championship win was a little lucky for him in that rain, by breaking away from the selection who wouldn't work to bring him back.

tailwindhome

deejay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Drugs or no drugs, 'average' doesn't become World Champion at 21. He was one of the best neo-pros I've ever seen.
The idea that he was some sort of mule is as much myth as his own lies.

True I have to agree but without the cancer lay off he might still be out there trying to win single day races.
That World Championship win was a little lucky for him in that rain, by breaking away from the selection who wouldn't work to bring him back.
The performance as he came to the finish line had me vomiting.

Looks like it was a great race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXsOR5O5hb0

Really, Deejay? Vomiting?





LOL at 'mule'. Intentional?

thomthom

To quote Phil Anderson. There was nothing that suggested that Armstrong was particularly good at climbing or time trialling.

There's no way he would have won Tour De France without the - by far - best doping scheme in the peloton.

Eddie72

Always had a soft spot for Lemond, and it's interesting to reflect on his comments that something had changed in the peloton in 1991, as he felt he was still at or near the level he was at in 89 and 90. I think he could have won in 91 with a level playing field.

greasedscotsman

Eddie72 wrote:

I think he could have won in 91 with a level playing field.

Wouldn't Mottet have won in '91?

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

No. He was more physically average than exceptional for a pro. He wasn't a terrible bike rider by any stretch of the imagination.

The sad thing is it's impossible to know who would've won.

Basso in 2006 doped won the Giro but won it again in what 2010 when likely clean. I don't think it's impossible to know where Ullrich, LA, Pantani would have been ..where Basso was...the deprived are the few riders further down without the cash to dope or who rightly objected on moral grounds...but they were few and far between from 1993-2005

specialgueststar

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

No. He was more physically average than exceptional for a pro. He wasn't a terrible bike rider by any stretch of the imagination.

The sad thing is it's impossible to know who would've won.

Basso in 2006 doped won the Giro but won it again in what 2010 when likely clean. I don't think it's impossible to know where Ullrich, LA, Pantani would have been ..where Basso was...the deprived are the few riders further down without the cash to dope or who rightly objected on moral grounds...but they were few and far between from 1993-2005

it could be because they doped they got more hard miles in and went deeper into the red on more occasions - so are always going to be strong thereafter.

dave_1

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

No. He was more physically average than exceptional for a pro. He wasn't a terrible bike rider by any stretch of the imagination.

The sad thing is it's impossible to know who would've won.

Basso in 2006 doped won the Giro but won it again in what 2010 when likely clean. I don't think it's impossible to know where Ullrich, LA, Pantani would have been ..where Basso was...the deprived are the few riders further down without the cash to dope or who rightly objected on moral grounds...but they were few and far between from 1993-2005

it could be because they doped they got more hard miles in and went deeper into the red on more occasions - so are always going to be strong thereafter.

I agree to some extent...a life ban is in some ways best as if they've developed power and cardio vascular system they'd never have developed drug free , why should they be able to bank the benefits of that in years after ..even if clean...the PED use is in the bank. Their bodies are only a higher level than they deserve

Trev The Rev

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

No. He was more physically average than exceptional for a pro. He wasn't a terrible bike rider by any stretch of the imagination.

The sad thing is it's impossible to know who would've won.

Basso in 2006 doped won the Giro but won it again in what 2010 when likely clean. I don't think it's impossible to know where Ullrich, LA, Pantani would have been ..where Basso was...the deprived are the few riders further down without the cash to dope or who rightly objected on moral grounds...but they were few and far between from 1993-2005

Are you really think anything changed after 2005?

dave_1

Trev I still hope Wiggo and Evans didn't dope so 2005-2012 might be cleaner. Wiggo did Peyresourde 1 min 32 slower than pantani on a 3kg heavier bike in 1998. Pantani did 6.4.w per kg there to wiggos 5.9w per kg . Pantani and LA would make mince meat of wiggo

Pross

Indurain would have won another 5

tailwindhome

Me.

zammmmo

Lemond would have to be a contender but since then it's impossible to say given we don't have complete information as to the extent riders have gained from assistance e.g. regardng haematocrit - their natural levels, speed of degredation during a GT, levels to which they raised it. etc etc.

dave milne

early 00s Sastre then Evans surely

maybe even somone like sandy casar or cyril dessel

Eddie72

greasedscotsman wrote:

Eddie72 wrote:

I think he could have won in 91 with a level playing field.

Wouldn't Mottet have won in '91?

I guess that makes sense based on the final standings, but if Lemond hadn't had the stuffing knocked out of him by drug fuelled attacks from Chiappucci et al then things could have unfolded differently.

secretsqirrel

EPC06 wrote:

A question that can only be speculated obviously, but I often wonder who would have been the winners of the TDF in the last 20 years if everyone was clean. Going off pure physical ability, mental strength, and tactical ability. Would Armstrong have still been up there??

Interesting question, one I have often pondered. I can only think in terms of attributes that doping can't provide*. Perhaps we could put together a list of these qualities and identify riders who may have the necessary attributes to have made it in a 'clean world'.
Starting with those mentioned above:-
- physical ability - this is the one most complicated by the doping caveat below, but would include climbing or sprint speed or just pulling at the front into for the leader. Is this just down to V02 max?
- mental strength - Alberto Contador, Cadel Evans spring to mind for me
- tactical ability - difficult to assess when the a DS is plugged into the ear. My examples would be Hushovd, Gilbert and Vinokourov
- team support - teams with money to spend on the best riders, support staff. Obvious example, Wiggins and Sky
- bike handling - this is a big area and could be sub-divided, but would cover ability to handle road conditions e.g. cobbles, strada bianche, technical descents, technical TTs, heat, cold, poor weather etc. Here I would put Samuel Sanchez, Cancellara, Cunego.
- road positioning and following the right wheels - some riders seem to avoid crashes or getting caught out behind crashes etc. I'm lost to think of the best examples here for the moment! Sean Kelly would usually cite Andreas Kloeden.
- preparation - knowing the route, right type of training, being on the right race programme. Allied with good team support Sky get this one.
- risk taking - goes well with bike handling and mental strength. For me Peter Sagan, Thomas Voeckler, and maybe Nibali.

The list above is not exhaustive and I don't like writing long posts. I have not included Armstrong in the above as he is the devil incarnate. But he probably does tick a few boxes.

Please feel free to add

*Care.....Big caveat here, as doping can put a rider in a place where the attributes can make the most difference!

RichN95.

Chris Boardman would have won a lot of the one week stage races. Not the three week stuff though.

IanSmitton

Very difficult to say, given how little we know about how certain riders responded to the drugs. LeMond surely would have won a couple more. Of the late 90s generation it could be anybody.. most guys were doping just to stay in the peloton; so, someone like Bassons, who could stay in the peloton without anything would probably have been good for a top 10 finish clean.

Cumulonimbus

Presumably we'll never know. Maybe some information will come out about exactly how much people were taking, what results were achieved clean, etc, but whether there would be any information other than word of mouth is very debatable.

I have wondered this though. Would really like to see a few people such as Ullrich do as much training as possible, commit to daily blood tests, etc and then see what they could do. Ullrich is 39 so is presumably past his best but would still be interested. Extremely unlikely to happen though.

neilo23

Only slightly off topic:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/bla ... 16263.html

Ben6899

TailWindHome wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXsOR5O5hb0

He was quite heavy for a pro rider (considering he didn't make his money from sprint finishes). The commentator gives the details of "5'10" and 165lbs". I'm 5'11" and 154lbs and consider myself too heavy for this sport!

rick_chasey

Moncoutie would have been a bit better.

deejay

RichN95 wrote:

Chris Boardman would have won a lot of the one week stage races. Not the three week stuff though.

You mean if he didn't fall off. ?

deejay

TailWindHome wrote:

Looks like it was a great race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXsOR5O5hb0
Really, Deejay? Vomiting?

I do a lot of replies from my memory.
Thanks for the Link which shows a fault in my memory, so now that's deleted. I take your point. :roll:

What I remembered was heavy rain and the peloton crossing many "Tram Lines" every lap.
Then the scenes of boats through the dockyards also every lap.
The tricky corkscrew downhill road from the highest point (where he made his break) to the sea level.

Thanks D.J.

Who could have been the Best but at a different time....Raphael Geminiani