dirtiest cheater in cycling history?

[pedromiguelmartins]

Consider what you want, but explain it.

In my opinion, we should consider the amount of "unfair" advantages that that particular rider had, how it impacted his palmares, his attitude towards it and other riders, if he confessed, the public opinion he created, etc.

Considering everything, it has to be Eddy Merckx. Right?

So, not only was cycling an unsophisticated endurance-only sport (so, the best rider of that era would always had the best palmares compared with modern riders), Eddy was ahead of the curve by having huge amounts of money/paying his own teammates based on their performance and so on and so on.

If to that we consider how he is viewed as the best ever and his palmares is always cited as the real deal, creating delusional expectations to much better athletes (the normal cyclist of today), to the fact that he was busted but bans never impacted his career and how he never admitted to doping and still condemns riders that are caught and looks down on others that have "lesser" victories...

It has to be him. Right? He has to be the dirtiest player in the Game.

 

[heart_attack_man]

For me it has to be Femke Van den Driessche if we are talking about cheaters who have been "caught". Whilst I loathe and despise doping in all it's guises, mech doping is taking it to a level that is absurd. I say this as a massive fan of MotoGP. It makes cycling a very slow version of the Dakar...

If we take the list above, then for me it's Lance. The benefit he gained from everything and the people that he threw under the bus to get there make him particularly dirty in my mind.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Poor Femke, she got caught after a year or so, got no protection or cushioning of the blow from the authorities and she's probably lucky if she made more than a few thousand Euros from her cheating, but due to the nature of it she's already being considered by some to be below Johan Bruyneel on the all-time cheats list with a decade of their own cheating and then another 15 years of insider deals, UCI racketeering and book deals. Come to think of it, why isn't the Hog on the list? He's as fraudulent if not more than Lance, since he's the architect as well as having his own absurd career.

The thing with Femke is that she wasn't subtle enough to have been able to get the same kind of profit out of it, so while the actual cheating aspect could readily be considered worse, there are others who have entire decades of fraudulent career that are still treated with reverence who've been dirty for longer, more successfully and without ever facing any consequences, so it remains a question of interpretation.

 

[Metabolol]

Eddie doped but I would certainly not call him the dirtiest cheater in the sport. Not even close.

For me the dirtiest are those who buy races, corrupt officials to gain protection and even to throw competitors under the bus, and also things such as mechanical cheating or taking short cuts during races by jumping into cars etc. Guys like Lance and Vinokourov. Both of who are serious criminals.

A second criteria for me would be natural ability, it's certainly abit subjective, but it's also plays in how I view a cyclist. Cheating is cheating but when you have guys who suddenly come out of nowhere and produce results I generally don't have much respect for them. Of course, many are probably doping since their junior days which makes it difficult to say what a persons natural ability really is. A couple of names that pop up in conjunction with this would be Chiappucci and Riis (who both raced in the pre and post EPO eras which makes it a bit easier to judge their natural abilities). Two nobodies, who would have won **** without being an early adapoter (claudio) or going crazy with EPO and blood bags (Riis). In terms of dosages etc, I don't really know if Chiappucci was pushing limits, it's probably more a combo of early adopter, good response and the fact that italian doctors probably had the most knowledge about blood doping at that point. For Riis, his willingness to get really thin is probably another factor which helped him win (also done via drugs but calorie restriction also takes 'natural' dedication).

There is also a special category for the trainers/managers/doctors/officials/owners, in many cases you find the biggest scum in this category.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Nice bit of trolling, both putting LeMond in the poll and calling out Merckx as the dirtiest.

 

[Metabolol]

On second thought, scrap the whole second paragraph of my post (natural ability etc). It probably doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Re:

Eddie doped but I would certainly not call him the dirtiest cheater in the sport. Not even close.

For me the dirtiest are those who buy races, corrupt officials to gain protection and even to throw competitors under the bus, and also things such as mechanical cheating or taking short cuts during races by jumping into cars etc. Guys like Lance and Vinokourov. Both of who are serious criminals.

Try as I might I just can't lump Vino in with Lance, at least Vino entertained with his kamikazi attacks.

 

[Metabolol]

Re: Re:

Eddie doped but I would certainly not call him the dirtiest cheater in the sport. Not even close.

For me the dirtiest are those who buy races, corrupt officials to gain protection and even to throw competitors under the bus, and also things such as mechanical cheating or taking short cuts during races by jumping into cars etc. Guys like Lance and Vinokourov. Both of who are serious criminals.

Try as I might I just can't lump Vino in with Lance, at least Vino entertained with his kamikazi attacks.

He was an entertaining rider but I can't look the other way when I hear all these things about corruption and buying races. If it was 'just' blood bags and such, I could look the other way as I have done in many other cases (you have to if you want to follow professional cycling). But even his blood doping was so in your face. When you put everything together it's obvious that he is completely ruthless. Lance and Vinokourov have the same minds as crime bosses (same with Bruyneel, who was mentioned above).

 

[MarkvW]

Verbruggen. Can there be any real controversy here?

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

Nice bit of trolling, both putting LeMond in the poll and calling out Merckx as the dirtiest.

What the ***? Merckx was caught countless times and payed his teammates based on performances, while getting the best palmarés ever and being quick to judge anyone that was busted.

Lemond was one of the biggest Lance supporters, despite the obvious, and then decided to turn on him and being a champion of clean cycling. Some people might hate that. He either is the stupidest guy ever or... The biggest hypocrite. That deserves a potential spot.

Yeah, LS, I forgot about the hog.

 

[Metabolol]

I disagree, I can't find any way that Lemond fits into this thread. From what I remember he was never one of Lance biggest supporters and had his doubts from day one (although at first I believe he was just very diplomatic).

I might also be naive but I actually believe that Lemond was the last clean GT winner.

 

[blackcat]

absurd question, but i assumed it was click bait and i fulfilled my role to click /#milgrom#stanfordprison

its the zeno paradox question. all and none. none and all.

no, quash that, it has to be a dirty rotten canuck cheater pudendum genevieve jeanson and andre aubut

 

[42x16ss]

Lemond was happy to support Armstrong until he found out that Armstrong could have been working with Ferrari (it was unconfirmed at the time). Armstrong went straight into attack mode and also mobilised Trek and other companies against Lemond. That is what happened, it wasn't done on a whim.

For me, Bruyneel would top the list as far as team staff goes, closely followed by Saiz and Roussel.

Riders, I'd have Lance just ahead of Vino, Ricco and most of the '98 era Festina squad (Virenque, Brouchard, Stephens etc)

 

[TomLPC]

Re:

For me it has to be Femke Van den Driessche if we are talking about cheaters who have been "caught". Whilst I loathe and despise doping in all it's guises, mech doping is taking it to a level that is absurd. I say this as a massive fan of MotoGP. It makes cycling a very slow version of the Dakar...

If we take the list above, then for me it's Lance. The benefit he gained from everything and the people that he threw under the bus to get there make him particularly dirty in my mind.

Yeah, for all the deserved crap Lance etc. get, they still climbed the damn mountains

 

[benzwire]

No reason LeMond should be in your <edited by mods> poll.

 

[orangerider]

Vino for sure. He's still up to his old games even post-racing, denies everything, and we have to see his smug face at the finish line when one of his riders takes the win under questionable circumstances.

 

[sniper]

Nice bit of trolling, both putting LeMond in the poll and calling out Merckx as the dirtiest.

Imo Lemond certainly would not win this contest, but it's fair enough to have him as an option, seeing as he is one of the most successful athletes ever in a sport dominated by doping and with rumors abounding that he introduced the mother of all endurance PEDs into the peloton.

 

[sniper]

Re:

For me it has to be Femke Van den Driessche if we are talking about cheaters who have been "caught".

that would be a different pole, something like "unluckiest cheaters in cycling history"

 

[sniper]

If you take out Lemond, why leave Indurain in?

 

[sniper]

Re:

..
Again, what about Indurain?
There isn't more or less evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, is there?
Or is this about being anglophone after all?

Anyway, I'm a bit at a loss as to why Lemond is tabuisized...again.

 

[WillemS]

I think this thread illustrates what's wrong with the focus of so many of today's doping critics. It's not about anti-doping, it's about scandals and tabloid-style sensationalism. "The All-Time Dirtiest Doper!", "Big Name X tests Positive!", "I would really love to see Y caught!". "Check out the top 10 dopers of the past 10 year, number 6 really surprised me!".

It's the cycling variant of Hollywood Paparazzi Tabloidism; the secret desire for celebrity cyclists scandals.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

..
Again, what about Indurain?
There isn't more or less evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, is there?
Or is this about being anglophone after all?

Anyway, I'm a bit at a loss as to why Lemond is tabuisized...again.

At least Indurain got caught once. This poll is just a pathetic, veiled attempt by the OP to restart the Lemond discussion. Your posts just proof my point.

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

Re:

I think this thread illustrates what's wrong with the focus of so many of today's doping critics. It's not about anti-doping, it's about scandals and tabloid-style sensationalism. "The All-Time Dirtiest Doper!", "Big Name X tests Positive!", "I would really love to see Y caught!". "Check out the top 10 dopers of the past 10 year, number 6 really surprised me!".

It's the cycling variant of Hollywood Paparazzi Tabloidism; the secret desire for celebrity cyclists scandals.

That is the sort of mentality that can justify people voting Lance.

Everything considered he is no worse than Ulrich and Co. He was just better at it, and got punished more than everybody else, with results being stripped based on assumption. That never happened to any other rider.

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

Re: Re:

..
Again, what about Indurain?
There isn't more or less evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, is there?
Or is this about being anglophone after all?

Anyway, I'm a bit at a loss as to why Lemond is tabuisized...again.

At least Indurain got caught once. This poll is just a pathetic, veiled attempt by the OP to restart the Lemond discussion. Your posts just proof my point.

< edited by mods >

He either is the most hypocrite rider ever or the most stupid cyclist ever. Let's stick to the basics. He has his own business, so I don't think that he is the stupidest.

Anyway, Merckx for me.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

I think this thread illustrates what's wrong with the focus of so many of today's doping critics. It's not about anti-doping, it's about scandals and tabloid-style sensationalism. "The All-Time Dirtiest Doper!", "Big Name X tests Positive!", "I would really love to see Y caught!". "Check out the top 10 dopers of the past 10 years, number 6 really surprised me!".

It's the cycling variant of Hollywood Paparazzi Tabloidism; the secret desire for celebrity cyclists scandals.

That is the sort of mentality that can justify people voting Lance.

Everything considered he is no worse than Ulrich and Co. He was just better at it, and got punished more than everybody else, with results being stripped based on assumption. That never happened to any other rider.

At the end of the day, most criticasters are still focused on individuals; they want to see this or that rider caught; they hate this or that team. That mentallity is abused by federations in their public relations games, claiming "no one individual athlete has tested positive" while on the group level it's easy to see things are not going so well (e.g., the Ashenden & Parisotto paper on athletics).

Are all dopers equally bad? I don't think so, but these types of "online contests" are just sensationalism playing. Instead of discussing what makes one doper worse than another, we're discussing individuals in an emotionally-laden debate fueled by fanboyism and reactionism.