Could a doped EPO Era "1 day classics rider" win the TdF 7 Times in a Row?

[Oldman]

Your question was already answered on the other thread and you agree with me, deep down. I hate (actually love) playing this card: having raced with him and his contemporaries I can say these guys never could survive a 3 week race without serious help: Lance, Levi, Julich. Others showing potential and resiliency in their youth: Chris H, Dave Z. Have some idea of the clean credentials of one and nothing of the other.
There are basic characteristics of serious stage racers that show at an early age. Being a grasping sociopath is not one that will get you through a GT without help.

 

[Ferminal]

But Dr, could you name a another classics rider (besides Lance) that could win the TdF 7 times with Mr Ferrari's help? Hypothetically, but realistically too?

Doubt that you can.
It is more than Mr Ferrari.

There's lots riding today... Cunego, Schleck, Evans.

 

[barn yard]

yes, lance armstrong

 

[skidmark]

Hey, I've always wondered - is your handle pronounced 'paw-lish', like making materials shiny, or is it 'pole-ish', like the ethnicity?

 

[Cobber]

Wouldn't that make him 'Irish'?

I think "Polish" refers to what he does with his hand while thinking about Lance.

 

[Elagabalus]

Hey, I've always wondered - is your handle pronounced 'paw-lish', like making materials shiny, or is it 'pole-ish', like the ethnicity?

Close! It's 'pole-ish'--but it's about bread making!!

 

[santacruz]

How can you compare Lance to Fabu.. totally different dudes imo.. Fabu is really tall, thusly weighing more than Lance, and being worse at climbing automatically. Fabu is tall and built like a brick bean oven, Lance never had a chance of dominating the classics like Fabu does (clean).

 

[BikeCentric]

I'll betcha that Greg LeMond guy coulda won 7 TDF's and a bunch more Classics if we could hop in a time machine and pump him full of drugs.

 

[131313]

Personally, I think people's hate gets in the way of rational thought, and I say this as someone who doesn't much care for Armstrong.

He was not a "one day racer". I know euros think any race on American soil is easy, but that's simply not true. The Tour DuPont was not an 'easy' race. I watched the 94 and 95 races over the winter, and it was a hard. And, a number of those guys were already juiced. No, it wasn't the tour, but Armstrong was also in his early 20's. Armstrong was 2nd, pre-Ferrari, and won in 95, when he looked like a totally different dude. He was definitely "all the Lance he could be" by that time. But his result in 94 showed he had stage race "potential".

It's absolutely ridiculous to look at his results in the 93 and 94 Tour and say "he wasn't a stage racer". He wasn't going for GC, and the playing field was as uneven as at any time in the sport's history. Who knows how he'd have actually done if the top guys weren't juiced?

Truth is, we'll never know how he'd have done if the entire peloton was clean, and neither will he. That's probably why he hates LeMond, who at had a chance to be at the top of the sport without doping. Armstrong never really had that chance.

At a certain point, you have to lay the blame on the shoulders of the governing body, who basically endorsed cycling becoming the WWF. Indurain's tours, where a few guys were on the super juice and a lot of guys were just on roids and speed were the biggest farces of them all.

 

[Polish]

Evans, Cunego, Vino, and Schleck have yet to win ONE Tour.
Suggesting they could win SEVEN in a ROW doped is quite a stretch!

And none of them were great one-day riders like Lance.
Neither was/is Contador.

Greg was a great one day rider like Lance.
Maybe he could have won seven doped - good pick BikeCentric.
However, Greg only finished 6 TdF's.
But maybe he would not have dropped out of the others if doped?

 

[Neworld]

Greg was a great one day rider like Lance.
Maybe he could have won seven doped - good pick BikeCentric.
However, Greg only finished 6 TdF's.
But maybe he would not have dropped out of the others if doped?

Don't forget that Greg was shot and missed potential Tour wins those prime years...

NW

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Personally, I think people's hate gets in the way of rational thought, and I say this as someone who doesn't much care for Armstrong.

He was not a "one day racer". I know euros think any race on American soil is easy, but that's simply not true. The Tour DuPont was not an 'easy' race. I watched the 94 and 95 races over the winter, and it was a hard. And, a number of those guys were already juiced. No, it wasn't the tour, but Armstrong was also in his early 20's. Armstrong was 2nd, pre-Ferrari, and won in 95, when he looked like a totally different dude. He was definitely "all the Lance he could be" by that time. But his result in 94 showed he had stage race "potential".

It's absolutely ridiculous to look at his results in the 93 and 94 Tour and say "he wasn't a stage racer". He wasn't going for GC, and the playing field was as uneven as at any time in the sport's history. Who knows how he'd have actually done if the top guys weren't juiced?

Truth is, we'll never know how he'd have done if the entire peloton was clean, and neither will he. That's probably why he hates LeMond, who at had a chance to be at the top of the sport without doping. Armstrong never really had that chance.

At a certain point, you have to lay the blame on the shoulders of the governing body, who basically endorsed cycling becoming the WWF. Indurain's tours, where a few guys were on the super juice and a lot of guys were just on roids and speed were the biggest farces of them all.

My view is rational - this is not a personality competition.
Lances major problem was his inconsistency. He could light it up on any given day but was prone to at least one bad day.
And this goes right back to his first Tour - he knew going in he would be pulled in the mountains, so he had a better chance to 'shine' and go for glory when they reached the Alps - (IIRC) he finished 20mins & 30 mins down on those first 2 stages.


As for your final paragraph on the UCI etc - I could not agree more.
And I think it is quite alarming that a thread on the recent non sanction of the 5 riders from their profiles has already dropped off the main Clinic page.

 

[Polish]

Personally, I think people's hate gets in the way of rational thought, and I say this as someone who doesn't much care for Armstrong.

He was not a "one day racer". I know euros think any race on American soil is easy, but that's simply not true. The Tour DuPont was not an 'easy' race. I watched the 94 and 95 races over the winter, and it was a hard. And, a number of those guys were already juiced. No, it wasn't the tour, but Armstrong was also in his early 20's. Armstrong was 2nd, pre-Ferrari, and won in 95, when he looked like a totally different dude. He was definitely "all the Lance he could be" by that time. But his result in 94 showed he had stage race "potential".

It's absolutely ridiculous to look at his results in the 93 and 94 Tour and say "he wasn't a stage racer". He wasn't going for GC, and the playing field was as uneven as at any time in the sport's history. Who knows how he'd have actually done if the top guys weren't juiced?

Truth is, we'll never know how he'd have done if the entire peloton was clean, and neither will he. That's probably why he hates LeMond, who at had a chance to be at the top of the sport without doping. Armstrong never really had that chance.

At a certain point, you have to lay the blame on the shoulders of the governing body, who basically endorsed cycling becoming the WWF. Indurain's tours, where a few guys were on the super juice and a lot of guys were just on roids and speed were the biggest farces of them all.

Nice insightful and interesting post. Thanks.
I agree with you about Lance being a great stage racer from the get-go btw.

 

[Martin318is]

Evans, Cunego, Vino, and Schleck have yet to win ONE Tour.
Suggesting they could win SEVEN in a ROW doped is quite a stretch!

And none of them were great one-day riders like Lance.
Neither was/is Contador.

Greg was a great one day rider like Lance.
Maybe he could have won seven doped - good pick BikeCentric.
However, Greg only finished 6 TdF's.
But maybe he would not have dropped out of the others if doped?

Sorry??
Vino and Evans aren't as good as Lance was as a classics rider? You've said some hillarious things over the last 12 months Polish but THAT was pure gold.

 

[Oldman]

Personally, I think people's hate gets in the way of rational thought, and I say this as someone who doesn't much care for Armstrong.

He was not a "one day racer". I know euros think any race on American soil is easy, but that's simply not true. The Tour DuPont was not an 'easy' race. I watched the 94 and 95 races over the winter, and it was a hard. And, a number of those guys were already juiced. No, it wasn't the tour, but Armstrong was also in his early 20's. Armstrong was 2nd, pre-Ferrari, and won in 95, when he looked like a totally different dude. He was definitely "all the Lance he could be" by that time. But his result in 94 showed he had stage race "potential".

It's absolutely ridiculous to look at his results in the 93 and 94 Tour and say "he wasn't a stage racer". He wasn't going for GC, and the playing field was as uneven as at any time in the sport's history. Who knows how he'd have actually done if the top guys weren't juiced?

Truth is, we'll never know how he'd have done if the entire peloton was clean, and neither will he. That's probably why he hates LeMond, who at had a chance to be at the top of the sport without doping. Armstrong never really had that chance.

At a certain point, you have to lay the blame on the shoulders of the governing body, who basically endorsed cycling becoming the WWF. Indurain's tours, where a few guys were on the super juice and a lot of guys were just on roids and speed were the biggest farces of them all.

No, it's not. He wasn't remotely a pristine rider then, either since now the apologists seem to accept that a doped Armstrong would have been pre-eminent. His natural qualities were known to many, including Ochowicz and Carmichael. Until he was first and foremost into the Arms race with PED's, he didn't have what it took. Tour DuPont was a week, nothing more. He also had the strongest team supporting him complete with riders that, if all were clean could have beat him: Bauer and Anderson.

 

[131313]

His natural qualities were known to many, including Ochowicz and Carmichael.

Eddie B said from the beginning he had TDF potential, and he's forgotten more about bike racing than either of those two guys will ever know. I'm included to go with his opinion, despite his past transgressions.

 

[131313]

Tour DuPont was a week, nothing more.

It was actually just short of 2 weeks (12 stages).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Eddie B said from the beginning he had TDF potential, and he's forgotten more about bike racing than either of those two guys will ever know. I'm included to go with his opinion, despite his past transgressions.

Yes - and I believe Carmichel said the same.

Taylor Phinney is the modern day Lance - kid with a lot of potential, just no-one is sure where his talent can really shine. Northern Classics, Hill Classics, one week races, GT's.....

Same with Lance in '93. It was pre-planned he would pull out of the Tour, it was the first test. He was allowed go there as a protected rider, and even had Andeson with him on the climbs.

No doubt there were some on EPO by then (Rominger won both stages!)- but on the first 2 mountain stages Lance finished 86th @21:26, 97th 28:47.
On the same stages Andy Hampsten finished 4th @1:13 & 9th @3:06.

 

[Franklin]

This "seven times in a row, never again" is delusional considering there have been others who won seven GT's in a row and one who is so far beyond that he will be the eternal pinacle (Merckx? Never again). What Trollish doesn't realize is that the Giro was almost as important as the TdF in the 70'ies and 80'ies, with the Vuelta behind those two. Nowadays the gap is much bigger.

But looking at it like this, Armstrong doesn't hold a candle to either Merckx or Hinault (who also are so far beyond him in single day courses that it is beyond hilarious).

So Polish, the only thing that remains is that LA won the TdF seven times and that noone has yet managed that. That's a big pedigree, but thats all there is to it. He didn't win the most GT's, so he won't be the best stage racer ever.

And if we look at the jerseys+stages Merckx accumulated in the TdF he won't be seen as the best TdF racer ever either.

End of discussion ^^

 

[Straßenrennen]

but in 5 years contador would have only have won it 6 times in a row as he skipped a year of attendance (assuming he wins them all of course)

Simple math isn't one of your strong points, is it?

hmm not sure what your point against Kender here is, hes currently on 1 win, then when u add the next 5 years in a row, you come to 6 concurrent wins.... but if i've missed something let me know.

 

[Father Jack]

Are you kidding? 2007/2009/2010 + 5 years = 8 wins

 

[Straßenrennen]

i submit it would indeed be 8 times. Oh dear, note to self, drink coffee then post.

But in fairness to pre-coffee brain, the information i used from the op, did indeed seem logical against the reply.

 

[hrotha]

Vandenbroucke could have won absolutely everything.

 

[LKing25]

What we need to remember here is that Armstrong before he got cancer was a doped rider who had some success but was essentially a mid 90s version of Thomas Voeckler ie a an oppurtunistic stage hunter. Then when he returns in 1999 he is suddenly the best climber and TT in the world at the age of 27. As they sayin the States, you do the maths. Lance was given the keys to the penthouse by the UCI who were desperate for a knight in shining armour to deflect the attention away from the Festina Affair and with Lance they had just the man for the job. All this talk of 7 in a row is worthless they are hollow victories and soon enough the rest of the sporting and wider world will find out how they were achieved.

As Floyd Landis said "Look. At some point, people have to tell their kids that Santa Claus isn't real. I hate to be the guy to do it, but it's just not real."

 

[Squares]

With Spatacus, he could become chemically enhanced like lance by getting cancer and going through chemotherapy to drop 20 kg, then building himself back as a climber. I'm pretty sure that cytotoxic chemotherapy agents are not listed as banned performance enhancing drugs.

And to those who said Lance was not a good 1 day racer, diud you forget about his San Sebastian win, World Championship, and numerous seconds in Amstel Gold?

Boogerd beat him in Amstel, how many tour titles does he have?

How many world championships does Vino have? How many San Sebastian titles? Yes, Vino did win LBL, but even transfused to the gills, he has yet to win the Tour de France let alone 7.

In the end, Lance was a good 1 day rider, whose body was transformed by chemotherapy so he had the opportunity to rebuild for the classics or keep the upper body thin and build the legs only for climbing.

The fact that he doped didn't change the type of races he was winning, that was the chemo.