• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Hall of Shame in Doping | Inaugural Edition

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I'd like to nominate every journalist and commentator who has ever tried to convince the world of a doper's cleanliness, especially if they used the "he's not entertaining to watch because you need doping to attack" argument

I don't see that much shame in doping in itself
 
I wish to add Michael Rasmussen. A KOM specialist few regarded as a genuine Grand Tour contender until suddenly in 2007 he was on his way to winning the TdF until his team pulled him after he won the Aubisque stage 16. Some say he was hard done by. I think he bet the house and lost.
 
Re:

Singer01 said:
first ballot should be Lance, Ricco and either Floyd or Riis. For me a positive test or an admission is crucial.
It should be split into at least two categories.

First, the clowns that got caught or came clean - Armstrong, Landis, Ricco, Riis, etc.

Second, the unrepentant fraudsters that continue to ride the wave of glory because they never got caught - Indurain, Froome, Jensie, Cancellara, etc.

One could also argue there should be a third category for caught or admitted dopers who still make a living off of cycling by being a part of a pro team or the media - Rasmussen, Vino, Vaughters, etc.

For me, the guys in the second category are the worst until they face the day of reckoning and join the ranks of the clowns in category one.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Singer01 said:
first ballot should be Lance, Ricco and either Floyd or Riis. For me a positive test or an admission is crucial.
It should be split into at least two categories.

First, the clowns that got caught or came clean - Armstrong, Landis, Ricco, Riis, etc.

Second, the unrepentant fraudsters that continue to ride the wave of glory because they never got caught - Indurain, Froome, Jensie, etc.

One could also argue there should be a third category for caught or admitted dopers who still make a living off of cycling by being a part of a pro team or the media - Rasmussen, Vino, Vaughters, Cancellara, etc.

For me, the guys in the second category are the worst until they face the day of reckoning and join the ranks of the clowns in category one.
Shouldn't Cancellara be in the second group
 
May 12, 2015
417
0
0
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
 
Aug 6, 2009
8
0
8,530
Re:

Amazinmets87 said:
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?
 
Re:

Amazinmets87 said:
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
I agree.
 
Re: Re:

LegendRider said:
Amazinmets87 said:
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?
I don't know, but what is your explanation of the unusual career progress that coincidates with the introduction of blood manipulation in the peloton? Maybe he was scared of doing something that thickens your blood. You know, EPO was a research chemical until 1989 and in the early 90s you had this stories of young guys dying (true or not) and guys setting the alarm for the middle of the night.
 
May 12, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

LegendRider said:
Amazinmets87 said:
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?
My evidence is his performance. There was no discernable increase in Lemonds wattage between 1990 and 92, yet he was asphyxiated by supercharged rivals. If he used EPO why didn't his average wattage increase? Poor responder isn't a plausible explanation in an environment which permitted unfettered EPO abuse.

Further evidence is Fignon's response to the introduction of EPO. A fellow rider in his early-mid 30s, already boasting an impressive palmares chose to simply climb off his bike rather than manipulate his blood to remain competitive. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Lemond had a similar viewpoint.

Anyway, speaking of career arcs and oxygen vector doping, stunning that Rominger is older than Lemond. I have no doubt Lemond could have remained a Tour contender into the mid-90s under the tutelage of a Ferrari or Conconi.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
As someone who lived through it, Lemond had all the signs of being a true champion. He started winning as a teenager as soon as he picked up the sport and was dominant. Within a few short years he was a pro and again racking up the wins. At 16 he won the junior national road title. AT 17 he was 3rd at world's time trial. At 18 he was junior world's road champ. At 19 he was a neopro. At 20 he was on the podium at Dauphine Libere and Route du Sud. At 21 he was excelling at one week races and came 2nd at Worlds! At the tender age of 22 he won the Worlds and was racking up wins. At 23 he was introduced to GT's and pulled off a podium at the Tour. Another successful year at age 24 and then he was winning the Tour.

This my friends, Is the career arc of a champion. If drugs were taken, they weren't needed. And given Greg's anti-doping stance and aversion to needles in an era where both were widely accepted (getting caught for some stuff would only get you a time penalty), I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion. Clean too.

John Swanson
 
Jun 27, 2013
4,352
2
0
Small correction, just because I see it said so often and it's incorrect: His Tour podium was not his GT debut. He'd ridden the Vuelta before that season.

People just don't remember it because he didn't do very well.

Anyway, as for the main message of your post, I was with you until this part where you started proselitizing

ScienceIsCool said:
I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion
There's no need to demean every rider that came afterwards just because you're a fan of LeMond. What even is a "true champion"?

We don't know what he did or didn't do, he admits to doing cocaine but not any other PEDs.
And we'll never know definitively whether he was clean because it's been 30 years and you can't prove a negative.
 
Aug 6, 2009
8
0
8,530
Re: Re:

Amazinmets87 said:
LegendRider said:
Amazinmets87 said:
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?
My evidence is his performance. There was no discernable increase in Lemonds wattage between 1990 and 92, yet he was asphyxiated by supercharged rivals. If he used EPO why didn't his average wattage increase? Poor responder isn't a plausible explanation in an environment which permitted unfettered EPO abuse.

Further evidence is Fignon's response to the introduction of EPO. A fellow rider in his early-mid 30s, already boasting an impressive palmares chose to simply climb off his bike rather than manipulate his blood to remain competitive. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Lemond had a similar viewpoint.

Anyway, speaking of career arcs and oxygen vector doping, stunning that Rominger is older than Lemond. I have no doubt Lemond could have remained a Tour contender into the mid-90s under the tutelage of a Ferrari or Conconi.
I agree. My post was questioning the contention that LeMond abused PEDs in the 80s. His career arc suggests the opposite - exceptionally talented; beat riders who doped prior to oxygen vector stuff; and suddenly became pack fodder when unregulated EPO hit the scene.
 
May 12, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

LegendRider said:
Amazinmets87 said:
LegendRider said:
Amazinmets87 said:
My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?
Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?
My evidence is his performance. There was no discernable increase in Lemonds wattage between 1990 and 92, yet he was asphyxiated by supercharged rivals. If he used EPO why didn't his average wattage increase? Poor responder isn't a plausible explanation in an environment which permitted unfettered EPO abuse.

Further evidence is Fignon's response to the introduction of EPO. A fellow rider in his early-mid 30s, already boasting an impressive palmares chose to simply climb off his bike rather than manipulate his blood to remain competitive. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Lemond had a similar viewpoint.

Anyway, speaking of career arcs and oxygen vector doping, stunning that Rominger is older than Lemond. I have no doubt Lemond could have remained a Tour contender into the mid-90s under the tutelage of a Ferrari or Conconi.
I agree. My post was questioning the contention that LeMond abused PEDs in the 80s. His career arc suggests the opposite - exceptionally talented; beat riders who doped prior to oxygen vector stuff; and suddenly became pack fodder when unregulated EPO hit the scene.

Ah, apologies for the misinterpretation. My skepticism of truly clean GT winners stems from my knowledge of recovery over a grueling 3-week cycle race. Based on my knowledge performances such as Lemond on Champs-Élysées exceed human physiological limits without the use of performance enhancing substances. I am far less skeptical of performances in one day (and to a lesser degree one week) races.

Perhaps a clinic member more knowledgeable than I could shed insight on reduction of RBCs and muscle fatigue after 20 days racing with an average 405 watt expenditure?
 
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Small correction, just because I see it said so often and it's incorrect: His Tour podium was not his GT debut. He'd ridden the Vuelta before that season.

People just don't remember it because he didn't do very well.

Anyway, as for the main message of your post, I was with you until this part where you started proselitizing

ScienceIsCool said:
I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion
There's no need to demean every rider that came afterwards just because you're a fan of LeMond. What even is a "true champion"?

We don't know what he did or didn't do, he admits to doing cocaine but not any other PEDs.
And we'll never know definitively whether he was clean because it's been 30 years and you can't prove a negative.
is it not the case that Guimard put him in for experience and for a dnf?
 
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
As someone who lived through it, Lemond had all the signs of being a true champion. He started winning as a teenager as soon as he picked up the sport and was dominant. Within a few short years he was a pro and again racking up the wins. At 16 he won the junior national road title. AT 17 he was 3rd at world's time trial. At 18 he was junior world's road champ. At 19 he was a neopro. At 20 he was on the podium at Dauphine Libere and Route du Sud. At 21 he was excelling at one week races and came 2nd at Worlds! At the tender age of 22 he won the Worlds and was racking up wins. At 23 he was introduced to GT's and pulled off a podium at the Tour. Another successful year at age 24 and then he was winning the Tour.

This my friends, Is the career arc of a champion. If drugs were taken, they weren't needed. And given Greg's anti-doping stance and aversion to needles in an era where both were widely accepted (getting caught for some stuff would only get you a time penalty), I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion. Clean too.

John Swanson
While i dont know if he was clean or not (never looked at those discussion) you are using the same arguments you rightly help put down with other riders, when you say "if drugs were taken they weren't needed".

If drugs were taken then they made him stronger hence were needed. You can't really tell how strong someone will be from their youth. Some young riders peak in the teenage years and never improve. Others are crap and improve later. Its not like you can extrapolate an average arch and say - this rider would definately make it.
 
Re:

Scarponi said:
Horner standing up for 80 hours over 3 weeks
Horner is my very first inductee. The very fact that not a single WC team wanted him after he won the goddam Vuelta says it all. They could feel the glow from a mile away. In fact, winning the Vuelta might have been the worst career move ever for him.

After Horner, you pick 'em. I nominate Basso/Hamilton for being the "good guys" who proved that supposed character has nothing to do with clean racing. In fact, Hamilton's positive was when the veil was finally, irrevocably pulled from my eyes.

LA, well, that's too easy a target.
 
Re: Re:

Bolder said:
Horner is my very first inductee. The very fact that not a single WC team wanted him after he won the goddam Vuelta says it all. They could feel the glow from a mile away. In fact, winning the Vuelta might have been the worst career move ever for him.
Horner's career was all but finished anyway. The guy was almost 42.

Judging by performane alone Horner set off less red flags than Froome did two years earlier. Horner at least had shown decent climbing ability previously, even though the foundation for that ability was obviously rampant useof doping given the teams he rode for. The biggest differences between the two was that Horner was old and on he brink of retiring anyway and also had the Armstrong connection. Everyone, including the casual viewers, knew what was going on there. Froome still had the benefit of being able to spin his story as being a young up-and-comer for self-proclaimed paragons of clean cycling Team Sky.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS