How good would you have to be to win the Tour undoped?

[BigBoat]

NO DOUBT>>> You cannot get a top 40 or so in a Grand Tour totally clean right now....lol Contador would have been outside top 30 for sure even if he could transport through time to the hardest mountain stage and race them fresh after they'd gone for 2 weeks.

Heavily Doped riders with doctors will get stronger and cleanish riders get weaker during stage races as long as the doped rider didnt come in sick.

In a one day race clean riders would finish far higher but still get it handed to them.

NONE OF THEM are totally clean. They all take drugs.

 

[cyclingmad]

Armstrong at the giro

Back to the topic:

IF WE ASSUME Epo-Lance was clean at the Giro...
Thats the Question here.

Anyway, lets take him for an example here. 12 minutes down does not sound much, but the original Question was how much more a talented rider has to be to beat the doped contenders.

Armstrong lost time on EVERY mountain stage and TT at the Giro (of course it dont matter to be doped or undoped when you race "wind-safed" in the peloton at a flat stage). It was 6 mountain stages and 2 ITT where he lost time. As you all know, the attacking at the mountains only start at the last hill. That means he lost at least an Avg. of 2 mins per Hour if we assume the attacking starts with one hour to go at the beginning of a last hill or that the Avg.-TT took one hour for the winner.

The conclusion is: You must be VERY VERY TALENTED to over come a deficit of at least 3%. Since the Epo-Era, as far is i remember the only guy (almost) capable of doing this was Ulrich in 1997. I havnt calculated Contador, but if i take 3% out of his mountain and TT stages this year, HE MIGHT have finished in the Top-5.

So the clear answer is: To win vs. your doped world class contenders you need to be better then AC. In the history of cycling maybe 3 riders would be capable of doing this: Merckx, Hinault and Lemond. Ulrich and AC would have come close. Epo-Lance?.... Well, just look at his results before being doped. His best TdF-Finish was 36th. He finished mountain stages with climbers like Zabel, 28 minutes down. He is not even close to the top riders (remember: Talent shows early!), he is just the world champion in responding best to doping products.

Agree with the second part but not the first. The response to blood doping or doping in general is different between athletes so there is no blanket % you have to be better than everyone else.
For example Armstrong has a hemocrit in the high 30s and low 40s so blood doping makes a big difference to his potential oxygen delivery. I am no expert on what is a good level and what I have read in other posts this level is low for a pro cyclist. Cunego has a natural hemocrit over 50 so cant really blood dope without pushing his hemocrit over the limit.

Same issue applies with EPO it has different effects on different riders. Some have 3% improve some almost nothing some possibly more than 3%. Eric Zabel claimed it did nothing for him for example

There is good reason why doping is banned as well as killing people you dont know who is winning through hard work and natural ability. You also have the types who have the most money and the best doctor to provide the right course of medicine.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

After all: Thats why i said a clean Epo-Lance would not be the one to beat the dopers. I just tried to make the point how great someone has to be, to beat the best doped contenders. As this was the original question.

So if we take into account the clean performances (maybe Epo-Lance and surely Cunego at this years Giro) vs. the doped performances, and that we have to assume in a flat stage doping dont give you a advantage as far as CG goes, the best talented rider to beat the doped competition has to be as great as Merckx, Hinault or Lemond. Thats 3 riders who could beat the doped competition nowadays if riding clean. AC and Ulrich come close, Epo-Lace just doesnt qualify.

To make it short: Its proved that good doping gives you a 3% advantage over the undoped competition. Its a tough task to accomplish (to beat dopers), but its possible if your one of the greatest riders OF ALL TIME.

Only then you could win clean now and today.You need to be one of the best 4 riders ever born to win honest.

 

[2beacoup]

i think that only highly talented riders do win big races. the fact that they're doped and the enhencement they gain from their drugs does make it theoretically impossible for a clean rider to beat them.

reaching the top 20 in a grand tour without PEDs is practically impossible. just talk to some insiders...

 

[Izoard]

You would need to be an Extraterrestrial!

 

[BroDeal]

i think that only highly talented riders do win big races. the fact that they're doped and the enhencement they gain from their drugs does make it theoretically impossible for a clean rider to beat them.

reaching the top 20 in a grand tour without PEDs is practically impossible. just talk to some insiders...

"But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets. This is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it."

 

[VeloCity]

And there are no secrets.

So how come it was a secret that you were working with Ferrari? Why the secret payments to the UCI?

 

[tandem3bike]

.., .., i am new here as well.. i love biking a lot as much as i love the nature... all of the bikers should have a compassion towards the environment.. looking out for nice trail...

 

[Escarabajo]

So how come it was a secret that you were working with Ferrari? Why the secret payments to the UCI?

He is pulling your leg. Read into all his posts and you'll find out.

 

[hfer07]

"But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets. This is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it."

"You forget that sometimes people are out there to get you - they don't even have a reason"

Marion Jones

 

[DavidVilla7]

Pretty simple question..

One reason I always suspect the top riders of doping, even when there is little or no evidence of it, is this:

Given that a lot of the riders are doped out of their minds like the cartoon images of pop eye after he consumes a few cans of spinach, I cant imagine a clean rider being able to give away the dope advantage and still win. In relation to the usual topic (LA), I find it almost impossible to believe that a rider could own the race 7 years in a row without PED's.

But I do not know much about these sort of things, so I hand it over to those who know something about cyclig.

Also I hate to have to adopt the mindset that winning = doping. I don't want to mistrust excellence I really don't. But I can't help it.

How much talent would you have to have to be a clean winner of the tour? Do you think its possible?'

(btw, yes I do know that cycling is not just le Tour. Im just using it as an example because it is the hardest race to win and there for probably the most doped)

very simple question: As good as Contador!

 

[Animal]

Keep those happy blinkers on!

But when you wake up several years from now feeling cheated, don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Insider]

I'm sorry to quote just parts of your post.

So the clear answer is: To win vs. your doped world class contenders you need to be better then AC.

I've been quite amazed how fast AC has turned from average time trialist into world class TGV.

He is not even close to the top riders (remember: Talent shows early!)

(By this you meant LA but I use the same sentence for AC)

Even though he was the U23 Spanish champion in time trial 2001 he didn't seem to match the european level at that time. 2002 U23 European championships
I have to admit that he wasn't even the best Spanish rider so he might have had a bad day but if you look at the top performers there are some familiar names. There are some riders ahead of him that are considered as sprinters (21 Gert Steegmans +1.18)

Then start calculating how much would you need to improve to win TdF in five years..
I find it amazing how much he improved against others.

 

[Cogombre]

AC's been always a good TTer. If I remember well, his first win as a pro was in a TT, and by 2004, when he was only like 21 or so, he was 5th in the ITT of Paris Nice, in a pretty strong field. He was a very good time trialist, and now he's evolved into a world class time trialist. I find much more surprising his advance in the mountains. It's a pretty good jump from this:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider_palm.asp?riderid=387&year=2006&all=1&current=0

To this:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider_palm.asp?riderid=387&year=2007&all=1&current=0

 

[Big GMaC]

u23 RR 2002

1 Michael Albasini (Szwajcaria) 4.01.46 (40.65 km/h)
10 Sergio Paulinho (Portugalia) 0.02
13 Gregy Rast (Szwajcaria) 0.44
21 Jurgen Van Den Broeck (Belgia) 1.29
22 Bernhard Kohl (Austria) 1.40
34 Markus Fothen (Niemcy) 2.38
51 Emanuele Sella (Włochy) 3.31
52 Philippe Gilbert (Belgia) 6.13
53 Alberto Contador (Hiszpania) 6.39

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Just want to clarify something from the OP:

My personal conclusion is that no way in hell could a clean rider win the tour in the 90's and early 2000's under normal circumstances (eg. no free 30 minute head start like Óscar Pereiro got).

There is this widely repeated misnomer that this comment perpetuates - that being that Pereiro got into a 30 minute break in the Tour, and the other riders - lead by Landis - chipped into that lead. Implying that Pereiro was an average rider who got lucky. The only problem is, it's not true.

Pereiro was in that 29 minute break alright, but the only reason the peloton let him stay that far out is because three days previous he had lost 27 minutes on a joux sans. At the end of the day of his break, he was a mere 1:29 ahead of Floyd. From there, they battled back and forth all the way to Paris.

Right from the win that day Pereiro had to defend himself, and has ever since, as being a "lucky" rider. That day he had to remind the press he had finished in the top 10 the previous year and won a mountain stage, and was 2nd on another (he should have won). If you looked at the 2005 finishers, and 2006 start list, Oscar was the forth top rider from the previous year. But no one listens, they only remember the phantom "gift", and never place it in context of what really happened.

 

[Cloxxki]

I think I know what it takes.
Mediore talent, then a long gettaway worth half an hour early in the tour. Time is time. Then getting the team to help you over the mountains, reduce time losses there. All you then need it the more talented rider that wins it, to be stripped of the win over some vague dope case.
I can see that happening.

 

[Escarabajo]

To win a Tour this is what is needed:

Assuming Cadel Evans is clean(ish) he needs to be 3-5 years younger, get into a tour with not such good contenders, and a better team.

Now, the problem is that the "Good Contenders" are good because they depend on the dope so much. So maybe I should not have said that he should ride in a Tour with not such a high competition but in one in which there is not so much doping.

 

[Moller]

Be Bradley wiggins, take some ***** and finish in the top 5, how else can he suddenly climb as fast as Ullrich did on mont ventoux in 2000. Only bradley did it into a headwind!
Then just tell everyone you're clean and they'll belive it, no. 1 because you ride for garmin, no. 2 because you're british

 

[Anonymous]

Be Bradley wiggins, take some ***** and finish in the top 5, how else can he suddenly climb as fast as Ullrich did on mont ventoux in 2000. Only bradley did it into a headwind!
Then just tell everyone you're clean and they'll belive it, no. 1 because you ride for garmin, no. 2 because you're british

that was constructive..

a lot of brads difference was a much much easier tour, and the fact that it was the first year he had ever ridden 100% as a road rider..

he may have had medical assistance, but it was also his first season as a road rider...

he also had the distinct advantage of being about 200lbs lighter than ulrich..
i actually think brad gets ****ed, sorry, drunk far to much to be undergoing a serious doping policy..

 

[red_explosions]

Be Bradley wiggins, take some ***** and finish in the top 5, how else can he suddenly climb as fast as Ullrich did on mont ventoux in 2000. Only bradley did it into a headwind!
Then just tell everyone you're clean and they'll belive it, no. 1 because you ride for garmin, no. 2 because you're british

Too harsh. It's all down to his legendary 7kg weight loss. Of course, prior to that he was a lazy lard@rse with a beer belly the size of Mt Etna, so losing almost a tenth of his body weight was no big deal lol

 

[flicker]

Basically an anchor on the entire peloton excluding lead rider and team.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think some riders have proven over the past few that it is possible to podium or top 5. oscar pereiro won the tour on phonak's stupidity so you can't really say he won the tour clean if he was actually clean.