One thing weve seen with Froome and other British stars like that athlete who clearly doped but got off on statute of limitations, is that even if Froome had spent 5 years on US Postal and was 40 years old at the time of his transformation, SLoberingham and co would still have spun it as - proof cycling is now cleanSaint Unix said:Horner's career was all but finished anyway. The guy was almost 42.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.
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.
Horner shouldn't have asked for a 7-figure sum at his age and with his career in September. GT win or not.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.Scarponi said:Horner standing up for 80 hours over 3 weeks
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.
I think it is obvious Lemond didn't graduate to Oxygen Vector doping anyone who followed the Tour between 1990 and 1992 could see this. In 1991 all of a sudden he was getting dropped by riders who were never close to him.Amazinmets87 said:LegendRider said: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.Amazinmets87 said: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.LegendRider said: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?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?
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.
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?
On the contrary, it's been beaten by such superstars of world cycling as Arvesen and SvendsenCookster15 said:Didn't Lemond record a 95 VO2 Max? This has not been approached by any cyclist before or since only Contador's extraterrestrial performance on Verbier and his Cancellara beating TT in the 2009 Tour suggested anything close to that level of aerobic capacity.
as an aside and as I've just seen it on facebook...there is a good photo of Lemond's initial Vuelta that does the rounds...not seen many but its Hinault, Fignon, Sarroni and Lemond at the front with the rest of the bunch struggling in their wake...it may suggest he may not have been struggling...happy for evidence to the contrary though.....gillan1969 said:is it not the case that Guimard put him in for experience and for a dnf?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
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"?ScienceIsCool said:I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last 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.
Curious?ClassicomanoLuigi said:Those three teams have got to be near the top, in terms of pervasive doping and in terms of resulting damage to the sport of cycling as a whole. Agree with all three as deserving to be on such a list of honor !ppanther92 said:I'll keep it on team level.
Sky, Postal and Kelme
And will round-out a top-10 in my opinion, in no particular order :
For individual cyclists, that's harder to define... Armstrong obviously takes the number-one spot...
- ONCE-Liberty Seguros-Astana
But, requires a lot more thought as to exactly who should be inducted to a Hall of Cycling Shame. Maybe later.
Or, most of the top achievers will end up in this thread, I'm sure
+1ScienceIsCool 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.
This was one of your funniest lyrics yet. And it's not necessarily Spanish, that song has French and Italian dopers covered as wellMerckx index said:LOL, this is really getting good. Love it.
This point is actually immortalized in the last stanza of that famous Spanish song, Take CERA, CERA:
Take CERA, CERA
Whatever you want, you’ll win
Your future now begins
Take CERA, CERA
And you’ll win, you’ll win[/b]
+1 for media blowhards who were never cyclists or never good enough to compete at the professional level... therefore never needed to dope themselves... but enable doping in cycling by turning a blind eye. (Kirby should stop smoking the "bath salts" prior to his flamme-rouge commentary)Broadcasters and Media: Liggett, Walsh, Kirby...[/list]
Schleck busted his hip, hardly a cause to claim his decline and exit as suspicious. Not saying he was clean at all, but his injury was bad.BullsFan22 said:Are we talking about an entire career, a specific time period or one ridiculous performance that set off alarm bells? I mean Armstrong's performances in the two stages that he won at the Tour in 1993 and 1995 were highly suspect. As was his World's title and you can even add the Flesche Wallonne and San Sebastian to that as well. That was all prior to his transformation into a three week mutant. I suppose in this case we could flag his whole pro career.
A specific time period would be somebody like Andy Schleck who popped up as a 22 year old at the 2007 Giro, making the podium, then pretty much focused on the TDF, where he finished on the podium three times (including 2010 where he won after Contador's DQ). Schleck had good results here and there in some of the hilly classics, but he more or less focused on the Tour, then suspiciously left at the age of 29.
Iban Mayo is in a similar category.
Singular performances would be somebody like Landis, particularly with that now infamous stage 17 solo through the Alps.
Isidro Nozal and the 2003 Vuelta was very strange. Did he do anything after that podium? Don't think he did much after that.
Rumsas is in the same boat as Nozal.
Horner, not really sure where to put him, he was around so long, but somehow in his 40's he wins a GT.
Ricco was 'special' as well.
These are only some that stick out to my mind. I realize there are big fish like Pantani, Cancellara, Basso, Virenque, Riis, Hamilton, etc, etc that I would put, but the above mentioned are ones that would fit the categories I mentioned initially.
Pantani in the hall of shame? I don't think he doped more than anyone else at that time.franic said:My top 10:
10-Pantani: incredible talent but incredibly juiced
9-Ullrich: just a little bit less of a talent, the same juice as above
8-Contador: a grimpeur who beat Cancellara in a TT. The king of CERA's years
7-Vino: Ivan Drago
6-Basso: Riis' perfect disciple. Even Simoni called him an alien.
5-Rominger: Ferrari's Frankenstein
4-Riis: Mr. 60%
3-Indurain: 188cm, 80kg and still always there in the mountains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANGbb1Yz8Hw
2-Armstrong: I don't think he doped much more than the others but his attitude, the fact that he deceived thousands of sick people and what he did to Simeoni put him right in spot nr.2
1-Froome: the weakest rider who has ever managed to win a GT. A donkey turned into a horse. Never seen anything like this even during the golden era of EPO
Edita was hot. Both of the Rumsas' sons doped like their dad, and one of them died as a result last year.Pantani_lives said:
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Was there ever any doubt? (British Cycling's eSports National Champion caught weight doping with a bot!)||The Clinic||15|
|Vuelta Dope Bust!!||The Clinic||11|
|D||The funny way Impey avoided a doping ban||The Clinic||5|
|F||Doping in the Enduro World Series||The Clinic||3|
|Doping in Austria||The Clinic||147|