dirtiest cheater in cycling history?

[kwikki]

Now that Lance A has confessed, would it be unfair to apply Greg's famous quote to his own TdF victory in 1989?

“If <insert Greg's name here> is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud.”

 

[Elagabalus]

Re:

This is low grade wonderlance stuff.

My thoughts, exactly

ETA: Or really high grade "thehog" in full suicide-by-mod mode !!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

This is low grade wonderlance stuff.

Most definitely not High Speed Gear running here.

@ Tonton Yeah my boy Trump Hu? I could tell from the beginning that this was a erected poll for fun but many here did not. You guys bought into all this and started hammering away the defense against a perceived attack. It was typical for the defenders. I have to admit it was funny watching and reading all this.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

This is low grade wonderlance stuff.

My thoughts, exactly

ETA: Or really high grade "thehog" in full suicide-by-mod mode !!

...touché...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

This is low grade wonderlance stuff.

Most definitely not High Speed Gear running here.

@ Tonton Yeah my boy Trump Hu? I could tell from the beginning that this was a erected poll for fun but many here did not. You guys bought into all this and started hammering away the defense against a perceived attack. It was typical for the defenders. I have to admit it was funny watching and reading all this.

...so fun was had by all....now how about some suitable chilled beverages...

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

This is low grade wonderlance stuff.

Most definitely not High Speed Gear running here.

@ Tonton Yeah my boy Trump Hu? I could tell from the beginning that this was a erected poll for fun but many here did not. You guys bought into all this and started hammering away the defense against a perceived attack. It was typical for the defenders. I have to admit it was funny watching and reading all this.

...so fun was had by all....now how about some suitable chilled beverages...

Cheers

The OP got LeModerated and banninated all in the same day. I guess the OP erection of the Poll did not go as expected.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

- People dope to run 100m. The only thing that will change with drastic reduction in GT stage length is the types of dope that are most effective will possibly change. One of the most notorious doped performances of all time was in a stage that was barely 40km long and wasn't a time trial either. And then the abilities of the GTs to cover the country will massively reduce and you throw in huge transfers. Maybe the only way to introduce what you want is Paris-Dakar style "liaison sections", where the riders will cover a set distance, but only be timed over a particular part of it, so the neutral section is like 100km long then it's an all out war for the last 50km timed racing. I'd hate that.

- I'd say there are a lot who paid worse than Armstrong for the excesses of the era. Jiménez, Vandenbroucke, Pantani, Halupczok...

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

- People dope to run 100m. The only thing that will change with drastic reduction in GT stage length is the types of dope that are most effective will possibly change. One of the most notorious doped performances of all time was in a stage that was barely 40km long and wasn't a time trial either. And then the abilities of the GTs to cover the country will massively reduce and you throw in huge transfers. Maybe the only way to introduce what you want is Paris-Dakar style "liaison sections", where the riders will cover a set distance, but only be timed over a particular part of it, so the neutral section is like 100km long then it's an all out war for the last 50km timed racing. I'd hate that.

- I'd say there are a lot who paid worse than Armstrong for the excesses of the era. Jiménez, Vandenbroucke, Pantani, Halupczok...

If you believe the rumours, the Belgian and Dutch amateur cyclists who lost their lives using EPO in its formative years paid a great deal more than Armstrong, who still seems to have rather a lot of money.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

- People dope to run 100m. The only thing that will change with drastic reduction in GT stage length is the types of dope that are most effective will possibly change. One of the most notorious doped performances of all time was in a stage that was barely 40km long and wasn't a time trial either. And then the abilities of the GTs to cover the country will massively reduce and you throw in huge transfers. Maybe the only way to introduce what you want is Paris-Dakar style "liaison sections", where the riders will cover a set distance, but only be timed over a particular part of it, so the neutral section is like 100km long then it's an all out war for the last 50km timed racing. I'd hate that.

I'd hate it, too. What you describe is not what I have in mind.

It's true that riders today dope for short stages and one-day races, but that's because doping is endemic in the culture and history of the sport. Part of the reason it's endemic is because there are some events, such as grand tours, where doping is a baseline requirement for competition.

Eddy Merckx once said, laughingly, "It isn't cakes that are bad for your health, it's the climbs." And Lance Armstrong came closer to speaking honestly than he possibly ever has when he said, "The Tour de France is like running a marathon every day for three weeks."

If we want to have a hope of honest (i.e. dope-free) racing, we first of all need to have events that are feasible from a physiological standpoint without dope. Three week races that consist of lengthy stages, many of them in high mountains, with multiple mountain passes, are not such events. I would argue that it's time for a re-think, and a reset, with regard to grand tours.

We don't have a "Tour of USA" because the country is too damn big for it, but we still have races. For that matter, and in keeping with the idea of "ever closer union", why not institute a "Tour of Europe"? Obviously such a tour would need to occur in a different locale each year. Similarly, who says the Tour de France has to traverse the length and breadth of the country? Why not pick a different region each year? Transfers would still be needed, but they needn't be terribly long.

The only reason the grand tours are as they are today is because they are descended from Henri Desgrange's creation. And as we know his rather sadistic idea was to have something so long and brutal that, ideally, only one rider would even finish. Maybe it's time to leave Henri in the past, at least in this regard.

Instead of an average stage length of, say, 180 kms, why not 50, 60, 70 kms? Instead of four or five mountain passes, why not one or two? Instead of four or five hours of racing a day, why not one or one and a half? The excitement would be just as great, and it would be a lot easier to televise.

If we expect riders to do these events competitively, and demand of them that they do it dope-free, we need to first of all ensure we're not setting them an unrealistic task.

- I'd say there are a lot who paid worse than Armstrong for the excesses of the era. Jiménez, Vandenbroucke, Pantani, Halupczok...

Agreed. Plenty of victims to go around.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

This is low grade wonderlance stuff.

Most definitely not High Speed Gear running here.

@ Tonton Yeah my boy Trump Hu? I could tell from the beginning that this was a erected poll for fun but many here did not. You guys bought into all this and started hammering away the defense against a perceived attack. It was typical for the defenders. I have to admit it was funny watching and reading all this.

...so fun was had by all....now how about some suitable chilled beverages...

Cheers

The OP got LeModerated and banninated all in the same day. I guess the OP erection of the Poll did not go as expected.

....oh fudge...and it seemed like a really good erection and everything eh...so the OP wasn't good with the maths when he re-erected the poll, but heck that is just sloppy math and yeah maybe some sheets, of paper, got dirty, but double heck...being sent to Siberia and in solitaire, or is that reduced to playing solitaire, jeez....maybe we should bring this up with the Human Rights Tribunal or something....

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

I'd hate it, too. What you describe is not what I have in mind.

It's true that riders today dope for short stages and one-day races, but that's because doping is endemic in the culture and history of the sport. Part of the reason it's endemic is because there are some events, such as grand tours, where doping is a baseline requirement for competition.

Eddy Merckx once said, laughingly, "It isn't cakes that are bad for your health, it's the climbs." And Lance Armstrong came closer to speaking honestly than he possibly ever has when he said, "The Tour de France is like running a marathon every day for three weeks."

If we want to have a hope of honest (i.e. dope-free) racing, we first of all need to have events that are feasible from a physiological standpoint without dope. Three week races that consist of lengthy stages, many of them in high mountains, with multiple mountain passes, are not such events. I would argue that it's time for a re-think, and a reset, with regard to grand tours.

We don't have a "Tour of USA" because the country is too damn big for it, but we still have races. For that matter, and in keeping with the idea of "ever closer union", why not institute a "Tour of Europe"? Obviously such a tour would need to occur in a different locale each year. Similarly, who says the Tour de France has to traverse the length and breadth of the country? Why not pick a different region each year? Transfers would still be needed, but they needn't be terribly long.

The only reason the grand tours are as they are today is because they are descended from Henri Desgrange's creation. And as we know his rather sadistic idea was to have something so long and brutal that, ideally, only one rider would even finish. Maybe it's time to leave Henri in the past, at least in this regard.

Instead of an average stage length of, say, 180 kms, why not 50, 60, 70 kms? Instead of four or five mountain passes, why not one or two? Instead of four or five hours of racing a day, why not one or one and a half? The excitement would be just as great, and it would be a lot easier to televise.

If we expect riders to do these events competitively, and demand of them that they do it dope-free, we need to first of all ensure we're not setting them an unrealistic task.
...

chapeau, post of the week.
hell, of the month.
very well argued. i'm on board.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

I'd hate it, too. What you describe is not what I have in mind.

It's true that riders today dope for short stages and one-day races, but that's because doping is endemic in the culture and history of the sport. Part of the reason it's endemic is because there are some events, such as grand tours, where doping is a baseline requirement for competition.

Eddy Merckx once said, laughingly, "It isn't cakes that are bad for your health, it's the climbs." And Lance Armstrong came closer to speaking honestly than he possibly ever has when he said, "The Tour de France is like running a marathon every day for three weeks."

If we want to have a hope of honest (i.e. dope-free) racing, we first of all need to have events that are feasible from a physiological standpoint without dope. Three week races that consist of lengthy stages, many of them in high mountains, with multiple mountain passes, are not such events. I would argue that it's time for a re-think, and a reset, with regard to grand tours.

We don't have a "Tour of USA" because the country is too damn big for it, but we still have races. For that matter, and in keeping with the idea of "ever closer union", why not institute a "Tour of Europe"? Obviously such a tour would need to occur in a different locale each year. Similarly, who says the Tour de France has to traverse the length and breadth of the country? Why not pick a different region each year? Transfers would still be needed, but they needn't be terribly long.

The only reason the grand tours are as they are today is because they are descended from Henri Desgrange's creation. And as we know his rather sadistic idea was to have something so long and brutal that, ideally, only one rider would even finish. Maybe it's time to leave Henri in the past, at least in this regard.

Instead of an average stage length of, say, 180 kms, why not 50, 60, 70 kms? Instead of four or five mountain passes, why not one or two? Instead of four or five hours of racing a day, why not one or one and a half? The excitement would be just as great, and it would be a lot easier to televise.

If we expect riders to do these events competitively, and demand of them that they do it dope-free, we need to first of all ensure we're not setting them an unrealistic task.

So, essentially, Unipublic are on the right track? They're shortening stages, removing mid-stage climbs to a large extent so that everything you need to see can be compressed into the last 60-90 minutes of televised racing, cycling for the youtube generation. And because those shorter, easier stages don't open up gaps, they end up following the same format over and over to try to ensure there is at least some action every day. And they, rightly, get dragged over the coals for it. Part of the reason we get action in the races we have is the tired legs that we wouldn't have if they're racing less than half the distance. A short stage is ok as a change of pace and maybe there should be more of them to bring total distances down, but we've seen from people like Christophe Bassons that the current format isn't as unrealistic as seems to be thought; certainly not so that it requires a shortening to the extent you're talking about. I'm seeing the same trend happening in cross-country skiing and it's horrible there, the traditional distance specialist is being marginalized in favour of sprint races which regularly are crash-filled lotteries; the distances are regularly being cut so that there is no reason for an aspiring youngster to want to be a classic style skier, you can make more coin doing the part of the sport that should be a once-in-a-while carnival attraction. It hasn't helped the sport in the slightest - it's still as dirty as it ever was, and the increasingly short courses are causing designers to find the same solutions to ensuring gaps, leading to an ever smaller number of athletes at the front and increasingly samey racing. There's little to no scope for races-within-the-race, and when they try to do mini-Tours and Tours, the amount of time bonuses given away in order to create some GC interest make it seem completely artificial and ridiculous. I'd hate to see the same kind of development in cycling.

 

[SeriousSam]

Part of the reason it's endemic is because there are some events, such as grand tours, where doping is a baseline requirement for competition.

That would be compelling if it weren't for the fact that doping is just as endemic in other sports and other events where the notion of doping being a baseline requirement for competition doesn't fly.

Success in sport is about relative performance, not absolute performance. It doesn't matter how hard the task is in an absolute sense, it's enough to be better than the others. The incentive to dope is just as strong for shorter races as it is for longer, harder ones.

 

[sniper]

can't have it both ways though.
really cleaning up cycling, whilst keeping the race agenda as tough as it is, would be irresponsible.
people would be dying trying to finish the TdF on paniagua.

if you wanna keep the GTs as tough as they are, from a health pov the responsible thing is probably to legalize certain peds in certain quantities and of course under supervision.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Part of the reason it's endemic is because there are some events, such as grand tours, where doping is a baseline requirement for competition.

That would be compelling if it weren't for the fact that doping is just as endemic in other sports and other events where the notion of doping being a baseline requirement for competition doesn't fly.

Success in sport is about relative performance, not absolute performance. It doesn't matter how hard the task is in an absolute sense, it's enough to be better than the others. The incentive to dope is just as strong for shorter races as it is for longer, harder ones.

Not necessarily. Doping in sport is largely a sociopolitical phenomenon. It's profit-driven, and the result of corruption. Corruption can be controlled and eliminated by effective regulation and oversight. That covers sporting competition where doping is optional, but it can't address doping in competitions that effectively require doping.

Obviously, if we expect to have integrity in sport, we first have to make sure sport corresponds to human physiology and capabilities. There is a world of difference between doping because you choose to and doping because you must.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So, essentially, Unipublic are on the right track? They're shortening stages, removing mid-stage climbs to a large extent so that everything you need to see can be compressed into the last 60-90 minutes of televised racing, cycling for the youtube generation. And because those shorter, easier stages don't open up gaps, they end up following the same format over and over to try to ensure there is at least some action every day. And they, rightly, get dragged over the coals for it. Part of the reason we get action in the races we have is the tired legs that we wouldn't have if they're racing less than half the distance. A short stage is ok as a change of pace and maybe there should be more of them to bring total distances down, but we've seen from people like Christophe Bassons that the current format isn't as unrealistic as seems to be thought; certainly not so that it requires a shortening to the extent you're talking about. I'm seeing the same trend happening in cross-country skiing and it's horrible there, the traditional distance specialist is being marginalized in favour of sprint races which regularly are crash-filled lotteries; the distances are regularly being cut so that there is no reason for an aspiring youngster to want to be a classic style skier, you can make more coin doing the part of the sport that should be a once-in-a-while carnival attraction. It hasn't helped the sport in the slightest - it's still as dirty as it ever was, and the increasingly short courses are causing designers to find the same solutions to ensuring gaps, leading to an ever smaller number of athletes at the front and increasingly samey racing. There's little to no scope for races-within-the-race, and when they try to do mini-Tours and Tours, the amount of time bonuses given away in order to create some GC interest make it seem completely artificial and ridiculous. I'd hate to see the same kind of development in cycling.

I'm not familiar with what Univision is doing, but from your description it sounds as though they are adulterating the existing format for the sake of broadcast convenience. What I am suggesting is something entirely different, where the format would not be dictated by broadcast requirements, but rather by human physiology and racing excitement. In this format greater convenience for broadcasters, and for viewer consumption, would merely be a byproduct.

If we went back to square one in grand tour design, and put together something that takes into account non-doped athletes and their physiology, as well as racing excitement, what might we come up with? You, in particular, are better equipped to provide this answer than I, but maybe smaller teams would be worth considering. Maybe flat stages and hilly stages would be longer relative to other stages, high mountain stages shorter, and cobbled stages somewhere in the middle. Maybe there would be greater emphasis on individual time trials, or something new added, such as two-rider time trials.

Grand tour racing as it currently exists has had over one hundred years to develop and be tinkered with. We no longer have riders using a single gear, forging their own forks, changing their own tires, raiding shops for drinks, or riding two stages in a single day. The grand tour by now is pretty refined, but it's still based on a template that hasn't changed much for over 75 years. What has changed, though, is our collective expectations and awareness. That's why I suggest a new template is needed. Put together a new template based on current expectations and awareness, and then develop and tinker from there.

Edit: I just substituted "non-doped", above, for "clean" to better reflect my views.

 

[Netserk]

Maxiton, do you think LeMond was clean? If it was possible to win the Tour without dope, then it is quite obvious that it isn't a requirement. The routes back then were harder than they are now, and I dare say a lot of riders were able to complete the whole route without chemical assistance. Since then, it has become harder to compete clean, but that is not because of the route, it's because everyone else is going faster (with doping). If you had the race with 180 riders, *where every single one of them were clean*, then surely they wouldn't go faster than what they would be able to sustain? It would be a race with many finishers and just as many winners, but they would just go *slower*.

If you don't believe LeMond was clean, do you think there's a single rider who completed the Tour last year that was clean? If one can do it, while keeping up with a doped peloton, why shouldn't many be able to do so, if they only had to keep up with clean riders?

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Maxiton, do you think LeMond was clean? If it was possible to win the Tour without dope, then it is quite obvious that it isn't a requirement. The routes back then were harder than they are now, and I dare say a lot of riders were able to complete the whole route without chemical assistance. Since then, it has become harder to compete clean, but that is not because of the route, it's because everyone else is going faster (with doping). If you had the race with 180 riders, *where every single one of them were clean*, then surely they wouldn't go faster than what they would be able to sustain? It would be a race with many finishers and just as many winners, but they would just go *slower*.

If you don't believe LeMond was clean, do you think there's a single rider who completed the Tour last year that was clean? If one can do it, while keeping up with a dopes peloton, why shouldn't many be able to do so, if they only had to keep up with clean riders?

I don't believe "clean" is a useful concept. There is no such binary as "clean" and "dirty". In competition the binaries are winning and losing, cheating and integrity.

I'm not particularly interested in, nor invested in, trying to deny LeMond fans their belief in the Easter Bunny. Maybe LeMond was a true outlier in human physiology. Maybe he was fortunate to ride at a time when he could provide himself the assist he needed while remaining within the rules. Either way, he is well beyond the mean - the singular exception - and as such is irrelevant to the discussion. We shall not look upon his like again.

My concern is riders who compete today, and the riders to come. I want to see honest competition between riders who aren't cheating, and who don't have to compromise their health unnecessarily.

I take your point about non-doped riders competing in the GTs as they are now, and merely going slower. But by that logic we could just as well resurrect Desgrange and have them riding 450 km stages on single gear bikes. Could they do it without doping? Maybe. But the point is, they wouldn't. Just as back then, they'd run on dynamite. The whole point is to give them something they can do - and hope to win - without need of dynamite.

 

[sniper]

^another great coupla posts max. it's a point i've been trying to make some time ago, though ten times less eloquently.

@ebandit&netserk.
slower? sure.
additionally, riders wouldn't finish stages before midnight, and would either stay sick in bed or drop off their bikes well before reaching paris.
21 days, two rest days. paniagua.

on a side, it also tells you why motorized bikes are very useful not only in the mountains but also in flat stages.
it could basically give you another couple of 'rest days'.
it's a blatant joke that uci have only tested for motors (if at all) in mountain stages.

 

[Echoes]

But the point is: their cases have little to no bearing on the question of whether Lemond or Hampsten doped or not. We can't, technically, proof that any of them was clean, and so using their cases as proof that Lemond or Hampsten were clean is a circular argument by nature.

Since when is that the point?

The Dhaenens story I've heard about it since 2007, precisely after Van Hooydonck's allegations. Manager of a Walloon team told me. He knew about it from a former pro (whom he did not name to me). It's been a persisting rumour in the Belgian cycling milieu that LeMond brought EPO to the peloton instead of being one of the last clean riders. That's why I never jumped on the LeMond bandwagon. I however shut up because I had no proof and I did not know how reliable that info was (and still don't know). I had a discussion with a few guys there who told me how much Belgian cycling had been screwed by the advent of EPO, something that I already could intuitioned. Belgian cycling was at an all-time law. Museeuw was seen as the "saviour of Belgian cycling" but he was racing in Italy and as Van Hooydonck argued, that's where Belgians who wished to perform went to.

However the point is that it's possible to race clean, to win races clean. There's no indication otherwise and those who think otherwise have the burden of proof on their side. If it's impossible to prove, at least show hints, indications, ... But there's none. Tell me what make you think guys like Roger De Vlaeminck or Franco Bitossi doped. There's not even a hint at it. They never tested positive. They made weird superhuman performances. They never were caught. Bitossi had PVC. What are the risks of regular amphetamine use for an athlete who had PVC?

The idea that every rider dopes, always has, doping has always already exists and that every kind of doping is worth each other (EPO = amphetamines) is the best way to clear modern idols of all charges while they are big jokes. The "Level Playing Field" theory is a big joke. We, cycling fans, should be able to "burn our idols". I had to do that after the Landuyt-Versele affair that busted Museeuw. It was hard for me. At first I was bitter against Belgian justice, I was young.

For any decent mind, an EPO doper is a fraud, his whole palmares has zero value because clean riders exist, because clean riders cannot compete against EPO and because past riders could not have taken EPO (also valid for testosterone, HGH or blood transfusion).

I cannot understand anybody cheering for a rider they know is a blood doper. Perhaps there's something missing in my system of value but I cannot. And certainly I cannot understand anybody accepting that a convicted blood doper (or hormone-based doper) still has a place in the peloton. I'm currently a Vanmarcke fan because I believe he's clean. If I ever have the proof that he's not (blood doping), I'd be the first to say he should leave but in the meantime, come on Sep!

 

[sniper]

good post Echoes. I agree on many points.

Interesting what you say about the rumor predominating in the Belgian scene.
In addition we've heard Boogerd say the same, and the anonymous Dutch whistleblower in that newspaper article posted by Fearless Greg Lemond. And of course Lance Armstrong said "everybody knows you used epo", in a private conversation with Lemond. So clearly the rumor wasn't limited to the Belgian scene, but sure, I would agree it seems to have predominated and perhaps originated in the Belgian scene.

My position wrt the "everybody dopes" question would sound something like this:
It's rather simple actually: the higher up the performance chain, the more likely that a given rider is doping. So sure, in amateur cycling you're gonna find plenty of clean riders. In pro-cycling much less.
I think in the protour teams the majority of riders are doped, or have doped.
In my book, fwiw, the top 50, maybe top 100, of any GC is on EPO (or a derivation of it), HGH and other things. Further down the ranks you might find the odd 'clean' guy who's not doing epo and hgh but only tramadol and ooc cortisone.

When I say "can't prove he was clean", i merely mean that even when we think a rider was/is clean, we should leave room some room for scepticism. That's a logical attitude considering the fact that
(a) dope is so easy to come by and the testing is so easily circumvented; and
(b) riders and people with a stake in cycling will normally say anything to protect their own interests

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

I'd hate it, too. What you describe is not what I have in mind.

It's true that riders today dope for short stages and one-day races, but that's because doping is endemic in the culture and history of the sport. Part of the reason it's endemic is because there are some events, such as grand tours, where doping is a baseline requirement for competition.

Eddy Merckx once said, laughingly, "It isn't cakes that are bad for your health, it's the climbs." And Lance Armstrong came closer to speaking honestly than he possibly ever has when he said, "The Tour de France is like running a marathon every day for three weeks."

If we want to have a hope of honest (i.e. dope-free) racing, we first of all need to have events that are feasible from a physiological standpoint without dope. Three week races that consist of lengthy stages, many of them in high mountains, with multiple mountain passes, are not such events. I would argue that it's time for a re-think, and a reset, with regard to grand tours.

We don't have a "Tour of USA" because the country is too damn big for it, but we still have races. For that matter, and in keeping with the idea of "ever closer union", why not institute a "Tour of Europe"? Obviously such a tour would need to occur in a different locale each year. Similarly, who says the Tour de France has to traverse the length and breadth of the country? Why not pick a different region each year? Transfers would still be needed, but they needn't be terribly long.

The only reason the grand tours are as they are today is because they are descended from Henri Desgrange's creation. And as we know his rather sadistic idea was to have something so long and brutal that, ideally, only one rider would even finish. Maybe it's time to leave Henri in the past, at least in this regard.

Instead of an average stage length of, say, 180 kms, why not 50, 60, 70 kms? Instead of four or five mountain passes, why not one or two? Instead of four or five hours of racing a day, why not one or one and a half? The excitement would be just as great, and it would be a lot easier to televise.

If we expect riders to do these events competitively, and demand of them that they do it dope-free, we need to first of all ensure we're not setting them an unrealistic task.

So, essentially, Unipublic are on the right track? They're shortening stages, removing mid-stage climbs to a large extent so that everything you need to see can be compressed into the last 60-90 minutes of televised racing, cycling for the youtube generation. And because those shorter, easier stages don't open up gaps, they end up following the same format over and over to try to ensure there is at least some action every day. And they, rightly, get dragged over the coals for it. Part of the reason we get action in the races we have is the tired legs that we wouldn't have if they're racing less than half the distance. A short stage is ok as a change of pace and maybe there should be more of them to bring total distances down, but we've seen from people like Christophe Bassons that the current format isn't as unrealistic as seems to be thought; certainly not so that it requires a shortening to the extent you're talking about. I'm seeing the same trend happening in cross-country skiing and it's horrible there, the traditional distance specialist is being marginalized in favour of sprint races which regularly are crash-filled lotteries; the distances are regularly being cut so that there is no reason for an aspiring youngster to want to be a classic style skier, you can make more coin doing the part of the sport that should be a once-in-a-while carnival attraction. It hasn't helped the sport in the slightest - it's still as dirty as it ever was, and the increasingly short courses are causing designers to find the same solutions to ensuring gaps, leading to an ever smaller number of athletes at the front and increasingly samey racing. There's little to no scope for races-within-the-race, and when they try to do mini-Tours and Tours, the amount of time bonuses given away in order to create some GC interest make it seem completely artificial and ridiculous. I'd hate to see the same kind of development in cycling.

But Maxiton's proposals can't possibly be implemented unilaterally. No one (okay, possibly Caja Rural) has the Vuelta as the primary goal of their season; the majority of riders aiming for the Vuelta GC are coming off the Tour, where the stages remain inhumanly long and difficult (arguably). We know that EPO has lasting effects on the athlete's system, and there's no advantage to coming off the program just for the Vuelta, when no one else will be. That means that the cyclists won't have tired legs, but surely if there was also added testing the risk/reward paradigm could be adjusted to the extent that riders would get themselves off the juice. At the moment, we see great racing when dirty riders ride ultra-hard stages; in the alternate anti-Desgrangian world, clean riders would be tired when they rode rather easier stages - which would open up gaps reminiscent of the pre-EPO era.

 

[Oldermanish]

good post Echoes. I agree on many points.

Interesting what you say about the rumor predominating in the Belgian scene.
In addition we've heard Boogerd say the same, and the anonymous Dutch whistleblower in that newspaper article posted by Fearless Greg Lemond. And of course Lance Armstrong said "everybody knows you used epo", in a private conversation with Lemond. So clearly the rumor wasn't limited to the Belgian scene, but sure, I would agree it seems to have predominated and perhaps originated in the Belgian scene.

My position wrt the "everybody dopes" question would sound something like this:
It's rather simple actually: the higher up the performance chain, the more likely that a given rider is doping. So sure, in amateur cycling you're gonna find plenty of clean riders. In pro-cycling much less.
I think in the protour teams the majority of riders are doped, or have doped.
In my book, fwiw, the top 50, maybe top 100, of any GC is on EPO (or a derivation of it), HGH and other things. Further down the ranks you might find the odd 'clean' guy who's not doing epo and hgh but only tramadol and ooc cortisone.

When I say "can't prove he was clean", i merely mean that even when we think a rider was/is clean, we should leave room some room for scepticism. That's a logical attitude considering the fact that
(a) dope is so easy to come by and the testing is so easily circumvented; and
(b) riders and people with a stake in cycling will normally say anything to protect their own interests

Lemond's training partners during that era would say you're wrong. There may have been some old-fashioned "recovery aids" purchased from the Ensendada drugstores while they trained down there but Epo wouldn't have been one of them. He may not have been an absolute angel but he wasn't a mastermind on that account.

As far as the length and travelling in a GT-the promoters sell and profit everything they can and that includes healthy fees from towns where the Tours pass through, start and end. The last Tour de F had many stages in the Isre Alp areas. Be interesting to see the fees collected there. The racing was good and transfers were probably minimized.

 

[sniper]

...

Lemond's training partners during that era would say you're wrong.

Don't pin this on me. I'm just echo-ing a rumor that seems to have been circulating in the Belgian/Dutch/American cycling scene. Whether that rumor is right or wrong is another question, but that anonymous whistleblower in that Dutch newspaper article certainly confirmed it.

There may have been some old-fashioned "recovery aids" purchased from the Ensendada drugstores while they trained down there but Epo wouldn't have been one of them.

Considering Lemond's medical profile (kidney + anemia patient, i.e. perfect for EPO) and his closeness to known Dutch/Belgian EPO users of the time, I don't see any apriori reason to dismiss the rumor.

He may not have been an absolute angel but he wasn't a mastermind on that account.

We've discussed this many times, but since you bring it up i'll repeat it: Lemond was one of the first (if not the first) pro to insist on bringing his wife to GTs. In addition, his father in law David Morris was a regular part of his entourage during GTs. Now, Morris was an immunologist and ex-surgeon. Morris' daughter, Lemond's wife, in turn, was a nurse who had previously worked for her father's immunology practice.
Just saying, any kind of hypothesis that Lemond transfused or used EPO does not at all depend on him being a mastermind.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Before I express my views... Just a reminder : I'm a fan, not a fanboy. Meaning : Greg is not God, just a guy I admire for many reasons. Please keep that in mind before making a caricature of my posts.

Ok... I won't adress the stuff that was already adressed in the LeMond thread. It's there for everyone to see. I just regret that, as the LeMond thread was sometimes used, this poll seems to have been used as a "like Greg" Vs "do not like Greg" poll. That's irrelevant, I'm afraid, and pointless. Everyone has a right to like or dislike anybody.

On the subject of the "dirtiest cheater" in history, I tend to believe that the worst are not the riders, but the "enablers". the ones who make doping possible or push people to dope or increase efficiency, etc... In my book, Dr Ferrari is probably the worst for his impact (number of clients), total lack of remorse and never taking any responsability. I think his methods pushed every other one to increase the risks to keep up.

Another subject I wish to express my view about is about the idea that the Tour de france is "too hard". The "one marathon each day" nonsense. Every year, I mean every single year you have amateurs that are far from having a pro training /logistics/dopes or anything... actually DO ride the Tour one day or one week ahead of the pros. Wether it's for charity or whatever. Every single year. The "inhuman" factor is not the Tour itself, but the speeds at which it is raced. Hence doping remains the main problem.
I can assure you that with the proper dope free approach we can all pretend to finish the Tour in good health. I'll take this as an example. Eric Fottorino is a french journalist. In 2001, right in the middle of the EPO years he went on proving that it was possible to ride clean. At 41 he trained for a few months, helped by the staff of the FDJ team in order to compete in the Midi Libre. In 2013, with the help of David Moncoutié, he coached 25 young people to ride the Tour ahead of the pros. Those people had only trained for 6 months prior to the Tour, they didn't know anything about cycling, they weren't even into sports especially. It was hard but they did it.

http://tourdefete.lequipe.fr/participant/