Disgraced Tour de France Champions

[Clemson Cycling]

I was having this conversation with my dad the other day, but how do you guys look at disgraced Tour de France champions? Do Armstrong, Indurain, Landis, Contador, Fignon, Ullrich, Merckx, Riis, Pantani, etc. all fall into the same bucket as disgraced champions (who admitted to or were caught doping) that do not deserve the title or do you place some of them above others (only some of them had their titles stripped). Does the type of dope matter or perceived biological skills matter in your brain. Beyond that do you guys consider Andy Schleck and Oscar Pererio legitimate deserving champions. Beyond this, if you take the "they are all evil" approach who do you consider to be the last true champion of the world's most prestigious multistage race.

 

[The Hitch]

I consider them dopers, together with several recent tdf winners who's names don't appear on your list. Whether they eventually admitted or not does not effectmy view on the doping.

 

[MonkeyFace]

All the doping isn't the same. Clean riders don't even have anyone chance against a using EPO or blood doping. Also, calling out riders as evil is a little silly. None of the riders you mentioned with the exception of one is a complete psychopath.

 

[MarkvW]

All the doping isn't the same. Clean riders don't even have anyone chance against a using EPO or blood doping. Also, calling out riders as evil is a little silly. None of the riders you mentioned with the exception of one is a complete psychopath.

I can't imagine a rider cheating with EPO who wouldn't use any other helpful preparation available to him.

 

[karlboss]

Honestly I see cycling and doping like f1. It's very difficult to separate the record of some drivers with making reference to the car they were driving. Likewise it's really hard to discuss who was the best cyclist without reference to the program they and their team were on, but as we see the details of cars and not of doping programs it's easier to come up with a likely "same car" scenario.
So to cycling...I consider that these riders are cheats who competed against cheats and the results say very little to nothing of who may have won or been the best had they all been clean.

In terms of being caught, I prefer the Vino version, it's the only one that seems honest to me. It seems more consistent to me to get caught red handed, say I didn't dope, take your ban and come back winning with everyone accepting that you are still doping, than so many of the others who claim I never raced doped, I only doped once, now I'm back I'm clean and still winning etc.
I don't care who you consider as the winner of 2006, and 2010. All four were doping, so it makes little difference to me. I like to consider it as Periero and Contador, beautifully inconsistent I know

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

After all, it´s cycling. A super hard demanding job. The heroes of the country road...
But blood transfusions (& extracts from cows or whatever) are wayyy over the line for me. Because to dope that way you need to be a win at all cost suicide type of person (risking Aids, blood knoting, blood poisoning > death).
OTOH, a pill/injection here or there (or many of them), I can live with it. In the end it´s the society. Everybody needs pills, and their work isn´t done without doping (coffee for the bureaucrats, cocaine for the politicans and banksters, and so on, all kinds of psycho drugs for the so-called artists)...
Anquetil legit.
Poulidor legit
Merckx legit
Winnen legit
Heck all of them are legit winners (outside of the first guinea pigs in Italy, Holland, and Finnland using blood transfusions before the 90s) until Indurain, the 1st cycling robot came around. From then on it got ugly. Hope/wish Ullrich was "only" on Epo in 1996/97. Then I´d call him a legit winner too....

That´s it.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Do most people think that Ullrich, Pantani, Riis, and Indurain should not be considered Tour de France Champions at this point in time?

 

[ralphbert]

Anquetil legit.
Poulidor legit
Merckx legit
Winnen legit
Heck all of them are legit winners (outside of the first guinea pigs in Italy, Holland, and Finnland using blood transfusions before the 90s) until Indurain, the 1st cycling robot came around. From then on it got ugly. Hope/wish Ullrich was "only" on Epo in 1996/97. Then I´d call him a legit winner too....

I just don't get this mentality. There is no difference between blood manipulation and hormone replacement. Armstrong had it right, people who cheat a little bit are choads. Further, giving someone credit for not using blood manipulation when it was not available is some crazy moral revisionism.

 

[lactictac]

If I may interject a topic-related tangential: Armstrong was quite a bit more than an athlete in search of an edge. Yes, all "dopers" share similar shames. However, given the breadth of his "umbrella" of behaviors, Armstrong seems singularly beyond, or rather beneath the others on the roster.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I just don't get this mentality. There is no difference between blood manipulation and hormone replacement. Armstrong had it right, people who cheat a little bit are choads. Further, giving someone credit for not using blood manipulation when it was not available is some crazy moral revisionism.

Real world... no fantasy land where everybody is nice to each other and loves everybody. Everybody takes pills/injections now and then, call it work-place doping or getting back heahlty...

But blood transfusions are just just silly (& gene doping, and/or over-use of pills/injections/painkillers). It forces riders to take life threatening risks. That´s perverted.

So as long Anti-Doping agencies can hold the over-the-top dopers in check, I am ok with it since it´s impossible to stop people from doing it (to dope).

 

[Tonton]

I was having this conversation with my dad the other day, but how do you guys look at disgraced Tour de France champions? Do Armstrong, Indurain, Landis, Contador, Fignon, Ullrich, Merckx, Riis, Pantani, etc. all fall into the same bucket as disgraced champions (who admitted to or were caught doping) that do not deserve the title or do you place some of them above others (only some of them had their titles stripped). Does the type of dope matter or perceived biological skills matter in your brain. Beyond that do you guys consider Andy Schleck and Oscar Pererio legitimate deserving champions. Beyond this, if you take the "they are all evil" approach who do you consider to be the last true champion of the world's most prestigious multistage race.

Why put Merchx in this company of 'disgraced champions'? He's doing just fine, thank you very much. And although there's proof that he did use PED during his career, I personally make a big distinction between the 'before EPO' and 'after EPO' eras. We went from marginal gains (before EPO) to turning average pros into champions (with EPO). Before EPO, (fearless) Greg LeMond could win the TdF. See what happened to him in '91...

I understand the view that either you dope or you don't, regardless of what you are using. You can't be half pregnant. You are, or you are not. It's not quite my view, though.

Last legit winner: (fearless) Greg LeMond. Pereiro? No. Schleck? According to his declarations, he doesn't think of himself as the legitimate winner. If he did, one would have expected rage on his part for having been deprived of his day in yellow in Paris, the glory, the unforgetable memories. So obviously, he doped too.

 

[SirLes]

i'm not sure that amphetamines are terribly safe when you're planning to cycle up a very large mountain in Provence when it's very hot in July.

Weren't the original drugs tests "health" tests to protect the riders from themselves. ( I can't remember the TdF doc who was the main advocate)

I suppose the bio passport is just the latest example..

 

[Echoes]

Why isn't this thread title "Disgraced Paris-Roubaix Champions" or "Disgraced Omloop der Vlaamse Scheldeboorden Champions"?

Not much changes on CN. Only Bore matters ...

 

[Tonton]

Why isn't this thread title "Disgraced Paris-Roubaix Champions" or "Disgraced Omloop der Vlaamse Scheldeboorden Champions"?

Not much changes on CN. Only Bore matters ...

Or the 'disgraced Grand Prix de Plouay Champions' , whose winners list includes Big George H in '05, Nibbles in '06, and show-me-your-calves Voekler in '07.

 

[pugdog]

They all doped to the best of their abilities.

 

[IndianCyclist]

They all doped to the best of their abilities.

Does anyone know their undoped and doped Haematocrit levels.

 

[Futuroscope]

I was having this conversation with my dad the other day, but how do you guys look at disgraced Tour de France champions? Do Armstrong, Indurain, Landis, Contador, Fignon, Ullrich, Merckx, Riis, Pantani, etc. all fall into the same bucket as disgraced champions (who admitted to or were caught doping) that do not deserve the title or do you place some of them above others (only some of them had their titles stripped). Does the type of dope matter or perceived biological skills matter in your brain. Beyond that do you guys consider Andy Schleck and Oscar Pererio legitimate deserving champions. Beyond this, if you take the "they are all evil" approach who do you consider to be the last true champion of the world's most prestigious multistage race.

EPO era champions are very hard to categorize in my opinion because EPO could make donkeys into champions (look at chiappucci, I would also argue that someone such as Pantani falls into this category) or completely transform a rider (look Armstrong or a guy such as Laurent Jalabert). Some would have been at the top while others I suspect we would never even have heard about. Before the 90s you couldn't transform from a donkey to a champion so those guys definitely get more respect from me.

Andy Schleck is a big zero without doping. Contador is a champion with or without doping (which doesn't mean I believe he is clean but he has clearly been on less stuff than earlier).

Armstrong, Pantani (best EPO climber of all time), Riis would never ever have won any TDFs without EPO. Indurain was in my opinion a huge natural talent who could have been very competitive even if EPO would never have been available (although I definitely don't think he would have won 5 TDFs).

 

[jens_attacks]

EPO era champions are very hard to categorize in my opinion because EPO could make donkeys into champions (look at chiappucci, I would also argue that someone such as Pantani falls into this category) or completely transform a rider (look Armstrong or a guy such as Laurent Jalabert). Some would have been at the top while others I suspect we would never even have heard about. Before the 90s you couldn't transform from a donkey to a champion so those guys definitely get more respect from me.

can you show me a study where a clean rider had to face a rider riding on huge amounts of bombas, crazy sedatives including morphine, suitcases of corticosteroids and lots of pot belge during a grand tour? plus god knows what else...
there aren't enough studies to say that it's possible for a clean rider to do that sorry.
for me it's a fact that some stuff that made zoetemelk climb avoriaz in '77(3rd fastest time ever, faster than 1994 indurain) like he did, a clean rider has no chance in hell. of course he was busted that time but on other times no.
merckx and didi thurau, pharmacies on wheels, i could say the same thing you said about pantani and il diablo

the "back in the 80s you still had chances to win a grand tour or a big race if you were clean" is just bullshiit to me

plus if merckx, anquetil or hinault had the chance to put their hands on epo, they would have used it. and big time. there is no reason to praise them just because epo wasn't invented back then

 

[Futuroscope]

can you show me a study where a clean rider had to face a rider riding on huge amounts of bombas, crazy sedatives including morphine, suitcases of corticosteroids and lots of pot belge during a grand tour? plus god knows what else...
there aren't enough studies to say that it's possible for a clean rider to do that sorry.
for me it's a fact that some stuff that made zoetemelk climb avoriaz in '77(3rd fastest time ever, faster than 1994 indurain) like he did, a clean rider has no chance in hell. of course he was busted that time but on other times no.
merckx and didi thurau, pharmacies on wheels, i could say the same thing you said about pantani and il diablo

the "back in the 80s you still had chances to win a grand tour or a big race if you were clean" is just bullshiit to me

plus if merckx, anquetil or hinault had the chance to put their hands on epo, they would have used it. and big time. there is no reason to praise them just because epo wasn't invented back then

You are twisting what I said. First of all there is a difference between a 3 week stage race and a one day classic. If you go all out on corticosteroids and stimulant usage for 3 weeks you are going to blow up in a stage race. EPO, is a different beast. And to be perfectly clear (as you obviously like to make things up) this does not mean that corticos or stimulants weren't used in big stage races back in the 40,50,60,70 and 80s.

Secondly, it's not like EPO guys only took EPO. They used that on top of everything else.

Thirdly, I never ever claimed that guys back pre 90s where clean. Far from it. Or that they wouldn't have used anything that where available, the mentally was the same, they simply didn't have access to the same products.

I also never said you would win stage races completely clean back in the 80s, some people may have said that, I have never done that. Single day races is a different story though.

But I stand by my comments about EPO being able to completely transform riders in a way that was not possible before the 90s. I know others have said this too and I agree with this.

 

[jens_attacks]

But I stand by my comments about EPO being able to completely transform riders in a way that was not possible before the 90s. I know others have said this too and I agree with this.

that i didn't deny it because it's true.

 

[Futuroscope]

that i didn't deny it because it's true.

Ok, but I don't understand the rest of your post. I haven't claimed those things you said. Clean, who said anything about winning a grand tour clean? Neither have I tried to downplay the effects of old-school doping (corticosteroids, various stimulants, aas)

In regards to zoetemelk he has admitted to using blood transfusions at the 76 TDF although it was claimed to only be a normalization process due to anaemia

 

[RownhamHill]

Ok, but I don't understand the rest of your post. I haven't claimed those things you said. Clean, who said anything about winning a grand tour clean? Neither have I tried to downplay the effects of old-school doping (corticosteroids, various stimulants, aas)

In regards to zoetemelk he has admitted to using blood transfusions at the 76 TDF although it was claimed to only be a normalization process due to anaemia

Isn't the point that the people cheating in the '90s generally won, and the people cheating in the '70s generally won too? You seem to assume that if they hadn't have been cheating in the '70s, they would have won anyway (which may or may not be true), but so what? Since they did cheat, and they did win, aren't they just as guilty as the '90s cheats who won? In fact, in some ways, isn't it worse - at least Riis had a reason to cheat, if Mercx would have won anyway, why did he need to boost his performance with peds?

By the way, I don't feel strongly about this, just examining the logic.

 

[Futuroscope]

Isn't the point that the people cheating in the '90s generally won, and the people cheating in the '70s generally won too? You seem to assume that if they hadn't have been cheating in the '70s, they would have won anyway (which may or may not be true), but so what? Since they did cheat, and they did win, aren't they just as guilty as the '90s cheats who won? In fact, in some ways, isn't it worse - at least Riis had a reason to cheat, if Mercx would have won anyway, why did he need to boost his performance with peds?

By the way, I don't feel strongly about this, just examining the logic.

They all 'cheated'. I'm not talking about guilt, I was talking about who I respect more or less. It's obviously very subjective but I respect a Merckx more than someone like Chiappucci or Riis. Merckx was a doper and an extreme natural talent, Chiapucci was a donkey who thanks to EPO became a champion. Just my own way of looking at this issue.

 

[Le breton]

........
In regards to zoetemelk he has admitted to using blood transfusions at the 76 TDF although it was claimed to only be a normalization process due to anaemia

Admitted might not be the right word as at the time he himself announced it as a matter of fact, I first heard of it like in 1980 or 81.

Nobody had asked him anything about it as far as I know.

Nobody seemed concerned about it or seemed to think it gave him an unfair advantage.

By saying he "admitted" you imply that he was grilled by journalists to finally give that piece of information.

Please correct me if you are sure I am wrong.

In 1976 I lived in the US and didn't have the time or the possibility to follow cycling closely.

 

[DirtyWorks]

By the way, I don't feel strongly about this, just examining the logic.

You can't honestly sweep EPO and no-EPO results together in some sort of Grand Unified Logical System.

After the introduction of EPO, the regulation of hematocrit, HGH, useful Testosterone delivery, further muddy things.