Is the Tour De France impossible to win without using performance enhancing drugs ?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I wouldn't be so naive to judge others performance abilities on my own limited one.

Plenty of people have the physical ability, after big massive efforts, recuperate enough to make another one the next day.

Plenty of people in the third world do this to surivive day after day.
I want to make clear something because another member commented about my performance. First of all I referred to this in order to give an example of amateur performances in endurance events. This is not the best but it is not the worst. I am a woman and when I did this I was over 35. The time limit (according Audax's Randonneurs rules ) that someone has in order to finish 300 km, is 20 hours. Finishing in about 11:30 was considered as a good performance. There are always better and more skilled cyclist than me, but I run clear and I am not a professional. And I think that lot of other amateurs have similar performances which are not that good but not that bad either.

Plenty of people might have better ability to recuperate sooner after such rides, but most of the amateurs, even the best of them, and none of the people that I personally know, would have the ability to recuperate continuously and in every day basis, for twenty days doing 200+ km per day. I needed 3 days to comeback, others perhaps need one day, but all of those who run clear, need at least one day off in every two or three of that distance rides. ( depends on the distance if it is above or less 200 km). :)
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Netserk said:
What's the next question? Is it possible to run 100 meters without doping? Nah, they just dope so they can cross the line....
It is possible to run as many meters as you want. But if you wanted to do the right question you should have asked the follow.
Is it possible to run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds without doping? ( if you are male).
Same with cycling. Is it possible to finish TdF to ride 4000 km in 20 days without doping? ( and two days off)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
MarkvW said:
Well, Maserati . . .

You agree that it is dysfunctional . . .
You agree that it is filthy (with the doping and corruption) . . .
I think that you agree it's exploitative . . .
and . . .
I think that you agree it's fun to watch.

What's left?
Because you believe its fun to watch based on your other points.

I know it is not, indeed all cyclists do.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Because you believe its fun to watch based on your other points.

I know it is not, indeed all cyclists do.
I believe it is fun to watch for a lot of other reasons (but I do enjoy the doped-up circus part, that's for sure).

I guess I must not be a "True Fan." Maybe I'm a "Heretical Fan," then!
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
2
0
In Fignon's book, he argues that making races shorter and/or easier actually encouraged doping. He basically said that in the "old days" the longer races were naturally selective, weeding out the lesser talents. He said the easier races meant it was possible for the lightweights to dope and be there in the finish, so lots of people had incentive to get on the juice.

Make of that what you will.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Beech Mtn said:
In Fignon's book, he argues that making races shorter and/or easier actually encouraged doping. He basically said that in the "old days" the longer races were naturally selective, weeding out the lesser talents. He said the easier races meant it was possible for the lightweights to dope and be there in the finish, so lots of people had incentive to get on the juice.

Make of that what you will.
I think that the opposite is more probable. No one needs to dope in order to finish f.e 100 km even on every day basis, because in such "short" distances is eliminated the factor of exhaustion and so the need of "help" in order to expand the performance or speed up recovery.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
zigmeister said:
This thread confuses me.

The question is whether it is impossible to win the TDF without PEDs?

Well, if everybody is clean, then the winner will not be on PEDs? What am I missing?

This just assume the winner is always doped up...
I think you're missing the riders who dope no matter what the race is from the city limits sign sprint to a Tour de France. They mess up the whole thing for some odd reason, it has been attributed to financial and personal ego, but many people are doing a super research on the matter looking for additional reasons still uncovered since the bike race began, of course requiring more money, researching such things can't be that simple :eek: :D
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
ElChingon said:
I think you're missing the riders who dope no matter what the race is from the city limits sign sprint to a Tour de France. They mess up the whole thing for some odd reason, it has been attributed to financial and personal ego, but many people are doing a super research on the matter looking for additional reasons still uncovered since the bike race began, of course requiring more money, researching such things can't be that simple :eek: :D
Just about every cyclist who gets caught (and admits it) says,

"I was only doping to keep up."

So you just have to find that one guy who was doping to win.

It was probably just Lance. :p
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
BroDeal said:
Impossibru! You cannot win the Tour without dope. That has been true for twenty years now. There is scant evidence there have been enough changes to make it untrue. Sky 2012 should disabuse everyone of that fantasy.
Yes. I agree that it is highly likely that PEDS are still in use. I also think that one man will remain the focus now (not that he's not news) and such a story run will help to deflect and protect professional cycling at it's heart in Europe. In the U.S., the sport fades?

One way to win a grand tour clean? Shorten them to ten days, but then again, someone would want to gain an advantage. And the fans would scream tradition!

An example of what was thought unfair advantage from motorsport is Al Unser Jr. He never cheated, but after winning the Indy 500 in 1994 and toatally domenating the season. He failed to even qualify for the 500 the next year. The reason; the Penske cars where banned about month before qualifying. They had to find also-ran cars and they could not dial them in to handle the 231 mph average needed to even make it without hitting the wall. The speeds at that time where higher in qualifying than today.

The point. CART banned the clearly superior Penske cars. I cannot recall what Penske was running to make his cars domonate, but they clearly PO'd someone.

The whole thing smacked of politics. Human nature always seeks the advantage. Actually they banned the engine, not the car for what could be possible cheating on the limits of the turbo boost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penske_PC-23
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
Netserk said:
What's the next question? Is it possible to run 100 meters without doping? Nah, they just dope so they can cross the line....
They need to reduce the distance to something "more human", like 50 or 60m, then there would be no doping. Just ask 50m sprint world record holder Ben Johnson.

Similarly tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure if the average TdF stage would only have been 150km Lance Armstrong would have never doped.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Zweindorf said:
Is the Tour De France impossible to win without using performance enhancing drugs ?

Discuss...........
Annalogies are not understood here? The twitter generation.

:confused:
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Netserk said:
http://new.livestream.com/yalelaw/SpinningOurWheels

Listen to one of the last questions (in the end).
Thanks for the link. :)

I watch it all, (including the last question :D). The guy in the panel gave the speed factor. According his opinion, even in the case of easy routes, the speed will have to get higher and then the athletes will have again to get doped. This is not wrong especially if we add to this the answer to the previous question, that talks about the "win at any cost culture" . But as I said in some of my previous posts, ( no 30 f.e), when we put on clocks and timings, is like we are asking for doping. And when we cultivate the culture of the winner, ( who cares about the rest of participations after all), we asking for more doping as well. And if we add the huge prizes and fame, ( the way of making someone his living as a professional sportsman), then we have the whole picture, which isn't that much different than how any other business fields work.
Be fast, be the best, be the winner, earn more money, be the boss, be famous, ( or notorious -doesn't matter even bad publicity is publicity after all),do this at any cost.
But is this the meaning of sports?

Coming from the country that Olympic games were created, and the first price ( once upon a time) was just a branch of olive tree, I strongly believe that it isn't. Sports shouldn't be business and market places. Those who want to do business can find other fields to excel.
Don't you agree??

Anyway.. I'm afraid my friend that you've deleted some posts that weren't so irrelevant to the subject, because the subject is not only about the notorious TdF but it is about how notorious sports have become, something that includes Grand Tours as well. :)

I'm already of topic myself but I hope that you will not delete this post too. Have in mind that writing them takes me quite a lot of time.. This is English to me.. :D
 
Nov 27, 2012
327
0
0
Zweindorf said:
Is the Tour De France impossible to win without using performance enhancing drugs ?

Discuss...........
Your question “Is the TdF impossible to win without using PEDs?” is somewhat confusing and misleading. You would almost think you are looking for a desired result.

Anyways, my answer to your biased question is “no” because it is possible to win the TdF without PEDs. This is assuming all the riders are clean. And according to UCI all the riders are clean so we’re good. :rolleyes:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
alitogata said:
I know better ways to make my living. Sports didn't invented in the first place in order to cover people's livelihood needs.
Nice Trollkraft.

Anyway, thanks for admitting you're a lazy slacker, unwilling to do what it takes to be successful. Self-actualization is admirable.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
You mean, "Can the Tour de France be won without cheating"...

Obviously not, because a clean peleton would never be be to make it to Paris. They would all be withered by the roadside like litter after a feed zone. Begging for dope like junkies. Zweistein?
That isn't me.

Is it possible? Of course. But pretty fricken unlikely when the UCI allows certain riders like Armstrong to break the rules.

Shouldn't the question be "With the present testing methods and enforcement, can a clean rider expect his results to be in line with his talent?

Presently, I don't think this is the case. Only a few percentage points separates the cream from the rest in a clean field. I still think you can get these few percentage points through doping lightly without much fear of testing positive.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Nice Trollkraft.

Anyway, thanks for admitting you're a lazy slacker, unwilling to do what it takes to be successful. Self-actualization is admirable.
What is a Trollkraft? Why do you thank me?
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
MarkvW said:
There may be organic problems with that guy.
I don't know. Trollkraft sounds like a chocolate brand to me. But then.. why did he thanked me..:confused: I didn't get the joke I'm afraid.. :)
 
alitogata said:
I watch it all, (including the last question :D). The guy in the panel gave the speed factor. According his opinion, even in the case of easy routes, the speed will have to get higher and then the athletes will have again to get doped.
Highly circular argument ^^^

The above is a concept of how to keep doped riders from having such a huge edge on the clean riders. It is a trusim to say that the peloton can't exceed it's physical capabilities (in the absence of PEDs). If everyone is clean then the speeds will find their own equilibrium of what is realistic and possible. The distance and route in of itself isn't a problem, other than for those riders who are looking for a way to cheat the personal ceiling of performance allowed by their genetics and training.
 
FitSsikS said:
Just about every cyclist who gets caught (and admits it) says,

"I was only doping to keep up."

So you just have to find that one guy who was doping to win.

It was probably just Lance. :p
Exactly.

I can't wait until I get old enough to dope. Then I can be just like Museeuw.

Or, I can't wait until I have a car accident so I can dope. Then I can be just like Chris Sheppard.

Maybe I should be like Basso and start packing blood just in case I might think about doping.

The UCI's practiced rules and the peloton's rules require you to dope. You cannot win unless you play by the rules.

Dave.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Nice Trollkraft.

Anyway, thanks for admitting you're a lazy slacker, unwilling to do what it takes to be successful. Self-actualization is admirable.
So what you are saying is that clueless people who claim every rider must be doping, from the safety of an internet forum, are lazy w@nkers......

Sounds strangely familiar.....
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 82

ASK THE COMMUNITY