Re: Re:
blutto said:
sniper said:
Tonton, hate to break it to you, but even Mottet can't prove a negative.
This whole "Mottet-Delion won clean, therefore in the 80s it was possible to win clean" argument is highly circular.
Also, there is no real consensus on what "pre-EPO" actually means.
In my book, pre-EPO would be pre-1986, maybe pre-87. In yours, let me guess, pre-1991?
...would definitely have be that, otherwise the fable don't work very well would it ?...
Cheers
Well, as they say on Facebook, it's complicated. When we talk about whether it's possible to win without drugs, what are we talking about? Which races? Stage races or one-day races? Grand Tours? And what exactly do we mean by "drugs"?
When were certain drugs prohibited, and when were limits set on certain other drugs? Insulin? Cortisone? Testosterone? When did testing for these drugs and these limits go into effect, and when did the testing become effective? Was it possible for your team doctor, or your family doctor, to administer certain drugs while staying within the rules? And if not why have a doctor there to begin with? Just to treat road rash?
If you can win a one-day race without drugs, does it mean you can win a stage race without them? And if you can win a stage race without them, can you win a grand tour? If your doctor wants to keep you healthy and in with a fighting chance, why would you not want him to, especially if he can do so without violating the rules? If a doctor you trust is treating you, are you going to inquire of every substance he uses, or will you trust him to do his job? And when did pro cyclists become experts in medical science, willing to question and overrule their doctors? Or, for that matter, overly concerned about "rules", even at the expense of losing?
I don't doubt that, pre-EPO, some one-day races were won by non-doping riders. Anything beyond that, though, is beyond the boundaries of credibility. Among the winners of grand tours, the most you could hope for is a rider who for his own private reasons decided to play within the rules, with only himself to answer to. If there is such a rider, and if he is still living, it stands to reason that he'd feel very uncomfortable around, and resentful of, known cheaters.
When we talk about "dirty", which is where this thread begins, we should IMO take into account not only doping and corruption but also hypocrisy. But maybe this is reflected in the poll results.
EDIT: All day long, interestingly, provocatively, votes for Lance and LeMond have been neck-and-neck, and have grown at the same rate. When I posted this they were tied at 16 votes each. Suddenly, though, within thirty minutes of my post, votes for Lance surged by ~80%. What happened? Was the thread suddenly visited by the official LeMond Fan Club, by Betsy's most recent Tupperware party, or by concerned aliens from Alpha Centauri, who think whenever someone says "extraterrestrial" we're talking about them? I dunno how the vote changed so quickly, but it's interesting that it did.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram