A New Reality Creeps Into Published Cycling History

I didn't want this to get lost in another thread and perhaps others may want to jump in with examples of their own (if there are any).

I picked up Peloton (a fairly new cycling mag) and read the article this month on "The Greatest Tour" which -- for this particular writer -- was 1969. The writer produced a variety of new facts about that and other races that I was unfamiliar with -- despite following the sport for the last 40 years! He also talked about the 1990 Tour. In so doing he stated:

1. Lemond was probably the last clean winner of the Tour (at least for a long time thereafter)
2. Chiappucci surprised many in 1990 due to new found "chemistry (ahem...ahem)".
3. Lemond probably lost the 1991 Tour to epo.

None of this is necessarily groundbreaking news. It's just that rarely have cycling magazines waded into those waters so unapologetically. But here it was published with no equivocation or qualifying commentary. It was basically stated as if "this here is the history of the Tour".

Peloton -- my new favorite cycling mag.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
I look forward to more such commentary...as implied by the subject of your post.

I also hope that the quality and substance of commentary will increase, perhaps with more inside "dope" on PEDs. Her's to an open and transparent discourse.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
It's that really classy looking mag, right?
Was meaning to give it a test ride - thanks for the comments, I most definitely want to take it on board now.
 
LaFlorecita said:
I've not been following cycling for long (since 2007 :eek:) but how do we know for sure that Lemond was clean?
for sure? we don't.

the point here is that the documented/published history of pro racing is beginning to reflect that as a simple unarguable reality. and that epo changed everything around the watershed years 1990-91. that is the only point of this thread and i would prefer to keep it that way and not have it devolve into another lemond thread.

cheers.
 
JPM London said:
It's that really classy looking mag, right?
yes. very classy.

other bits of info i thought interesting was the writer's definition of the modern era -- post 1953(? i think...) which is when the green jersey was implemented. he noted that the green jersey changed the race in that many more riders had an incentive to race hard every day, which also may have been the cause of smaller differences between 1st and 2nd -- which is why he chooses 1969 as the most extraordinary tour as merckx put in huge time differences.

other interesting titbits. the 1969 tour had 26 stages (if you count all the half stages), had 10-11 mountain stages in succession, and no rest day...precisely putting the lie to the fact that riders turned to epo because the tour was too hard...

1979 tour had 4 itts and 2 ttts. totally playing to hinault's strengths and probably why he won by such a huge margin.
 
Big Doopie said:
for sure? we don't.

the point here is that the documented/published history of pro racing is beginning to reflect that as a simple unarguable reality. and that epo changed everything around the watershed years 1990-91. that is the only point of this thread and i would prefer to keep it that way and not have it devolve into another lemond thread.

cheers.
Yeah, of course, I was just asking a Q.
 
Nov 11, 2011
85
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
Yeah, of course, I was just asking a Q.
It's a good topic that has had lengthy discussion in one or more other threads in the Clinic - the "Lemond" thread comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others. If you're interested in more detail, those would be good places to start looking.
 
A realistic mag would post alternate result lists. Depending on reputation of rider and team, the presumed results when all clean would be listed as well.

Yeah we indeed think you doped, sue us and we'll open our snitch archives. That would be journalism.
 
Big Doopie said:
1. Lemond was probably the last clean winner of the Tour (at least for a long time thereafter)
We know Merckx doped in the 1970s, and that US Cycling was entrenched with it in the 1980s. We know Fignon doped. So a clean Lemond -- the product of doping-infested US cycling - beat a doped Fignon? Possible, but highly unlikely. Maybe it's true he never did the EPO thing, but that's very different from being clean.

The history of cycling is rife with evidence of doping, including evidence of countless cyclists who were doping and riding for years without getting caught.

Innocent until proven guilty is one thing. But to assume that anyone in modern times has ever won the Tour clean is at least a bit naive, I think.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
We know Merckx doped in the 1970s, and that US Cycling was entrenched with it in the 1980s. We know Fignon doped. So a clean Lemond -- the product of doping-infested US cycling - beat a doped Fignon? Possible, but highly unlikely. Maybe it's true he never did the EPO thing, but that's very different from being clean.

The history of cycling is rife with evidence of doping, including evidence of countless cyclists who were doping and riding for years without getting caught.

Innocent until proven guilty is one thing. But to assume that anyone in modern times has ever won the Tour clean is at least a bit naive, I think.
again, this is not a thread about "whether or not", it is about the changes (if any) in how cycling history is being reported.

cheers.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Big Doopie said:
other interesting titbits. the 1969 tour had 26 stages (if you count all the half stages), had 10-11 mountain stages in succession, and no rest day...precisely putting the lie to the fact that riders turned to epo because the tour was too hard...
.. But they turned to other stuff since there was no EPO in 1969...
 
I don't understand why you think this is "a new reality"?
Saying Lemond is the last clean winner of the Tour in a
magazine is just covering up for another doper, granted
it's not Armstrong in this magazine, but really I just do
not understand your point (or for that matter your
belief that Lemond wasn't blood doping). And yes, I
know you didn't want this to turn into a "did Lemond
or didn't Lemond thread" but by pumping the tyres
for a new magazine mainly because they said Lemond
didn't dope, I think you've got to expect it might.
 
whatever.

seriously what is so hard to understand.

have you ever seen that particular cycling history laid out in print in a cycling mag? i haven't. that's why it is news.

not even debating what points are being made, but that they are being made. and unapologetically.

cheers.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Lemond doped?

The 1 guy who so desperately wanted to find evidence of Lemond PEDing offered $300,000.00 to anyone who could prove Lemond used something illegal.

No one came forward. Now he rode for 13 years and all these teams;

Renault-Elf-Gitane
Renault
La Vie Claire
Toshiba-Look
PDM
ADR
Z
Gan

between 1981 - 1994

In 13 years at least 1 guy woud have sold his soul for that kind of bread, back then the money was crap for a domestique.

No one came forward with anything and the guy never got his evidence.

That speaks a lot for Lemond being a clean winner.

I will keep and eye out for Peleton mag.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
oldcrank said:
I don't understand why you think this is "a new reality"?
Saying Lemond is the last clean winner of the Tour in a
magazine is just covering up for another doper, granted
it's not Armstrong in this magazine, but really I just do
not understand your point (or for that matter your
belief that Lemond wasn't blood doping
). And yes, I
know you didn't want this to turn into a "did Lemond
or didn't Lemond thread" but by pumping the tyres
for a new magazine mainly because they said Lemond
didn't dope, I think you've got to expect it might.
LeMond was using Fuentes?:rolleyes:

Peloton!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS