Disgraced Tour de France Champions

[Tonton]

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.

To me, it's a bit more complicated than your post suggests: in the absence of studies where the same riders go from clean to using different PEDs and improvement are quantified, I choose to believe LeMond, and see the facts that are available (such as him being outgunned in '91 as the defending champ). Or times on climbs among other things (Johan Bruyneel besting Hinault's or LeMond's times on Alpe d'Huez). According to LeMond, EPO was a revolution. You couldn't win clean anymore. So it seems like you could win clean until then, right?

The use of banned substances, for some riders in the pre-EPO era, was to help recover from injury (i.e. Hinault's cortisone shots). Now, if using a banned substance helps you improve your performance the following day (better recovery), it's doping. I agree with you.

Although some pre-EPO performances (such as Joop's mutant climb mentioned on another contribution) were not normal, it seems like you couldn't safely use the most efficient PEDs over the course of a three-week race without taking huge risks. The world of PEDs was 'artisanal' at best, tantamount to playing russian roulette at worst. Tales of use of crazy stuff such as drugs developed for horse racing abound. Even alcohol was used as a PED (no Floyd, I'm talking about Jean Robic). When it comes to steroids, doses were minuscule if we judge by how much the bodybuilders of the day were using (i.e. Arnold '67-'80) vs. what they do today.

There's little doubt that had EPO been available then, its use would have been widespread. By using the existing data as corroborating evidence and testimonies from former DS and riders, many conclude that PEDs before the EPO era were generating little more than marginal gains. A clean rider could win.

 

[RownhamHill]

To me, it's a bit more complicated than your post suggests: in the absence of studies where the same riders go from clean to using different PEDs and improvement are quantified, I choose to believe LeMond, and see the facts that are available (such as him being outgunned in '91 as the defending champ). Or times on climbs among other things (Johan Bruyneel besting Hinault's or LeMond's times on Alpe d'Huez). According to LeMond, EPO was a revolution. You couldn't win clean anymore. So it seems like you could win clean until then, right?

The use of banned substances, for some riders in the pre-EPO era, was to help recover from injury (i.e. Hinault's cortisone shots). Now, if using a banned substance helps you improve your performance the following day (better recovery), it's doping. I agree with you.

Although some pre-EPO performances (such as Joop's mutant climb mentioned on another contribution) were not normal, it seems like you couldn't safely use the most efficient PEDs over the course of a three-week race without taking huge risks. The world of PEDs was 'artisanal' at best, tantamount to playing russian roulette at worst. Tales of use of crazy stuff such as drugs developed for horse racing abound. Even alcohol was used as a PED (no Floyd, I'm talking about Jean Robic). When it comes to steroids, doses were minuscule if we judge by how much the bodybuilders of the day were using (i.e. Arnold '67-'80) vs. what they do today.

There's little doubt that had EPO been available then, its use would have been widespread. By using the existing data as corroborating evidence and testimonies from former DS and riders, many conclude that PEDs before the EPO era were generating little more than marginal gains. A clean rider could win.

I guess I'm just not convinced by the idea that because the drugs were more effective, it somehow made the crime worse, or the riders who cheated then more worthy of censure - especially given that everyone was doing EPO. But I'm relatively new to cycling as well so I don't have a lot of emotional investment in any of these riders in either case!

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

Honestly I don't see why you can't. The logic is surely about whether using PEDs to gain advantage is wrong (regardless to the degree of advantage), and if it is wrong then who is guilty of wrong doing? Saying it was alright to cheat in the 1970s because in future other cheats would cheat more effectively isn't amazingly satisfying to me.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

Yeah, fair enough. I think I tend to respect the riders I like more, regardless of what they've done or how talented they are!

 

[Merckx index]

Honestly I don't see why you can't. The logic is surely about whether using PEDs to gain advantage is wrong (regardless to the degree of advantage), and if it is wrong then who is guilty of wrong doing? Saying it was alright to cheat in the 1970s because in future other cheats would cheat more effectively isn't amazingly satisfying to me.

I think two separate issues are being conflated here: morality and legitimacy. You can be considered a legitimate winner without necessarily being considered any more moral than an illegitimate winner. To say that riders before the late 80s did not have access to drugs that were game changers is saying nothing about whether they would have used such drugs if they were available. Lemond once said he thought he might have if he had not been near the end of his career, anyway. Anyone who watched Slaying the Badger should have come away from it virtually certain Hinault would have taken EPO if he had ridden in the 90s.

So the riders beginning in the 90s who used EPO, and later transfusions, might in principle have been no less moral or ethical than earlier riders who used stimulants or whatever. I think that is an arguable position, considering that human nature, for want of a better term, doesn’t change much. But what many posters are saying here is that these winners were less legitimate, because blood doping can have such large effects that it potentially overwhelms natural differences. The earlier riders, if you like, were forced by circumstances to ride in a more nearly even playing field, giving their wins more legitimacy.

 

[Futuroscope]

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.

Not really, admitted only means he himself said he used blood transfusions at the 76 TDF. It doesn't necessarily imply what you are saying. I don't remember all the details but I believe this was something he said in 77. I don't know if his hand was forced or not. But he did get caught several times. It was a different time back then, you are right about that.

 

[Futuroscope]

I think two separate issues are being conflated here: morality and legitimacy. You can be considered a legitimate winner without necessarily being considered any more moral than an illegitimate winner. To say that riders before the late 80s did not have access to drugs that were game changers is saying nothing about whether they would have used such drugs if they were available. Lemond once said he thought he might have if he had not been near the end of his career, anyway. Anyone who watched Slaying the Badger should have come away from it virtually certain Hinault would have taken EPO if he had ridden in the 90s.

So the riders beginning in the 90s who used EPO, and later transfusions, might in principle have been no less moral or ethical than earlier riders who used stimulants or whatever. I think that is an arguable position, considering that human nature, for want of a better term, doesn’t change much. But what many posters are saying here is that these winners were less legitimate, because blood doping can have such large effects that it potentially overwhelms natural differences. The earlier riders, if you like, were forced by circumstances to ride in a more nearly even playing field, giving their wins more legitimacy.

Exactly, that's how I look at it. Same mentality, it's just a question of what you have access to and what you can get away with.

 

[Granville57]

do you guys consider Andy Schleck and Oscar Pererio legitimate deserving champions.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Beyond that do you guys consider Andy Schleck and Oscar Pererio legitimate deserving champions?

Only on paper. In 50, 100 years it might mean something more than it does now, but neither Andy or Oscar received the joy and adulation of standing on the final podium.

Another perspective might be this. If you don't, do you consider Landis or Contador to be champions? Or no one?

Or if you're going to revise history, why not give Michael Rasmussen the win from 2007? He was far and away the best rider, and surly everyone he was beating was doping as well, no?

 

[mewmewmew13]

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.

lol yes.^^^
This OP feels a bit of a 'loaded' question.

 

[Energy Starr]

Only on paper. In 50, 100 years it might mean something more than it does now, but neither Andy or Oscar received the joy and adulation of standing on the final podium.

Another perspective might be this. If you don't, do you consider Landis or Contador to be champions? Or no one?

Or if you're going to revise history, why not give Michael Rasmussen the win from 2007? He was far and away the best rider, and surly everyone he was beating was doping as well, no?

Honestly asking the question because I'm not positive of the answer. Isn't MR the one who crashed like 5 times in one time trail? Didn't he get booted before the time trial in 2007? If yes on both counts he was never the best in the race and was going to lose to Contador. Do I have the right guy?

 

[Jspear]

Honestly asking the question because I'm not positive of the answer. Isn't MR the one who crashed like 5 times in one time trail? Didn't he get booted before the time trial in 2007? If yes on both counts he was never the best in the race and was going to lose to Contador. Do I have the right guy?

Yes you have the right guy but your two statement/questions are from two different years. He crashed multiple times in the final TT of the 2005 Tour. At this time he wasn't considered a very good time trialist. In 2007 he was pulled out before the 17th stage. At that point in the tour he had proven to be the strongest in the race. He did a very good tt on stage 13 of the Tour (he only lost 37 seconds to AC) and he was very strong in the mountains. Contador would not have beaten MR if he hadn't been disqualified.

 

[Energy Starr]

Yes you have the right guy but your two statement/questions are from two different years. He crashed multiple times in the final TT of the 2005 Tour. At this time he wasn't considered a very good time trialist. In 2007 he was pulled out before the 17th stage. At that point in the tour he had proven to be the strongest in the race. He did a very good tt on stage 13 of the Tour and he was very strong in the mountains. Contador would not have beaten MR if he hadn't been disqualified.

Yea if he fixed his TT then you're right. I remember being amazed the dude could be a professional after the disastrous 2005 TT but wasn't aware of the 2007 stage 13 TT.

 

[jens_attacks]

Or if you're going to revise history, why not give Michael Rasmussen the win from 2007? He was far and away the best rider, and surly everyone he was beating was doping as well, no?

simple. because unfortunately he didn't finish the tour and he wasn't photographed on the podium. maybe he could have crashed who knows...same with pantani in giro 99.

 

[RownhamHill]

I think two separate issues are being conflated here: morality and legitimacy. You can be considered a legitimate winner without necessarily being considered any more moral than an illegitimate winner. To say that riders before the late 80s did not have access to drugs that were game changers is saying nothing about whether they would have used such drugs if they were available. Lemond once said he thought he might have if he had not been near the end of his career, anyway. Anyone who watched Slaying the Badger should have come away from it virtually certain Hinault would have taken EPO if he had ridden in the 90s.

So the riders beginning in the 90s who used EPO, and later transfusions, might in principle have been no less moral or ethical than earlier riders who used stimulants or whatever. I think that is an arguable position, considering that human nature, for want of a better term, doesn’t change much. But what many posters are saying here is that these winners were less legitimate, because blood doping can have such large effects that it potentially overwhelms natural differences. The earlier riders, if you like, were forced by circumstances to ride in a more nearly even playing field, giving their wins more legitimacy.

Yeah I understand the distinction being made well enough, I just don't think it's a very satisfying argument to make.

I tend to think a win is either legitimate or it isn't - so saying OK this guy cheated, but if he hadn't, then he might have won anyway, so that makes his win more legitimate (though presumably less legitimate than a clean rider), doesn't strike me as a particularly robust way of judging the concept of 'legitimacy'.

But as I say, I'm not particularly emotionally invested in any of these riders (except, perhaps, Riis on Huatacam, which I do remember vividly having chanced upon it on EuroSport in a holiday, and which I do still have a bit of soft spot for, despite what I know now!).

 

[Netserk]

Only on paper. In 50, 100 years it might mean something more than it does now, but neither Andy or Oscar received the joy and adulation of standing on the final podium.

Another perspective might be this. If you don't, do you consider Landis or Contador to be champions? Or no one?

Or if you're going to revise history, why not give Michael Rasmussen the win from 2007? He was far and away the best rider, and surly everyone he was beating was doping as well, no?

I have no doubt that Rasmussen was the strongest rider that Tour and that he would've won if his team didn't pull him out, but imo it's the guy who stands on the podium in Paris (or Milan, Madrid etc.) who's the winner.

 

[doperhopper]

I have no doubt that Rasmussen was the strongest rider that Tour and that he would've won if his team didn't pull him out, but imo it's the guy who stands on the podium in Paris (or Milan, Madrid etc.) who's the winner.

signing GTJB initiative? (give the jerseys back)