Cookster15 said:
I agree with you. I remember that era too. 1993 was the first year I followed the TDF and anyone who's been watching cycling that long knows what was going on then. I feel sorry for Lemond but he was just before my time. He still won 3 Tours and two after the hunting accident so all was not lost.
Ok, just checking, your smiley made me think you were sarcastic which isn't always so easily detected on the internet.
I sort of think all these threads are kind of difficult to answer. Take Lance for an example, he was dominant due to a highly advanced doping program, so people will say: "Lance was a great TT:er". Sure, he was truly dominant in the ITT's (save 2003) but not because of his naturally talent. And I wonder if this has been the case for other cyclists as well.
Did Indurain win due to a sophisticated program and Spain's tolerant doping stance or because of his real talent? Did Merckx triumphed because he pushed his "program" (I don't know if they really had programs back then, perhaps more of "casual doping") further than his opponents?