Last clean Grand Tour winner?

[Polish]

Schrödinger's Winner

How about if a Winner was doped, but truly and honestly did not realize he was doped?
Truly believed he was getting vitamin injections or something...

Would that count as a "clean win" or "dirty win"?
Or both at the same time?

 

[Digger]

LeMond never doped??
That’s almost as funny as Conan’s opening monologue last night.
But to quote some fine forumites “never question the myth”

Evidence he has?

 

[red_flanders]

LeMond never doped??
That’s almost as funny as Conan’s opening monologue last night.
But to quote some fine forumites “never question the myth”

If you have some evidence he did, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Willy_Voet]

Henri Cornet

 

[Willy_Voet]

i think of any of the recent winners carlos sastre may have won clean.

Not a chance. He rode for ONCE/Manolo Saiz. Nothing clean has ever come out of that team.

 

[VeloFidelis]

There has never been a CLEAN Grand Tour winner... ever! From the earliest editions where racing on the roads took place in relative obscurity, to the microscopic oversight of the current day; with 21 stages and several rest days to consider the possibilities, no tour winner has ever made it to the podium with out some form of moral compromise. It is a basic and universal flaw of human nature.

Surely any fan of cycling who posts on this site recognizes this simple truth.

 

[Angliru]

I'm in denial. I'm hoping Contador is clean. Seriously. Call me stupid. I can take it.

 

[Joey_J]

RE: LeMond doping

start a specific thread and I'll chime in.

 

[Digger]

start a specific thread and I'll chime in.

Been done in previous threads...try the search function.

 

[Arnout]

There has never been a CLEAN Grand Tour winner... ever! From the earliest editions where racing on the roads took place in relative obscurity, to the microscopic oversight of the current day; with 21 stages and several rest days to consider the possibilities, no tour winner has ever made it to the podium with out some form of moral compromise. It is a basic and universal flaw of human nature.

Surely any fan of cycling who posts on this site recognizes this simple truth.

Thanks for putting your opinion as the truth!
That you cannot race for 21 days doesn't mean no one can.

One question? Why do people here on Cyclingnews judge so harsh on cyclists? Like they never do any good? What's the fun in it?

Accept dat the peloton is a small society, in which things go well and things go bad, that mistakes are made, that sentences have to be given but that not everyone is a thief. I am always wondering about the lives of some guys here on this forum. For sure they must be angels themselves, judging this hard on other people from behind their screen, without knowing anything at all about those persons, often only shouting some generalities.

 

[red_flanders]

start a specific thread and I'll chime in.

You made the claim that he was dirty. Start a thread with some evidence or just answer the question.

 

[SirLes]

Lemond beat known dopers one of which, Fignon, very recently said in response to questions relating to whether his cancer was caused by taking PEDs as a cyclist: If it was every cyclist would have it.

The fact that he never tested positive is of curse no proof of anything, neither is the fact he has spoken out against doping, it's just a cunning ruse to preserve "the myth"

I've only been reading these boards for about a year and bit but from what I've learned, that's about all the evidence that is required to secure a conviction.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Lemond beat known dopers one of which, Fignon very recently said in response to questions relating to whether his cancer was caused by taking PEDs as a cyclist: If it was every cyclist would have it.

The fact that he never tested positive is of curse no proof of anything, neither is the fact he has spoken out against doping, it's just a cunning ruse to preserve "the myth"

I've only been reading these boards for about a year and bit but from what I've learned, that's about all the evidence that is required to secure a conviction.

Ok, I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on your "reading these boards for a year and a bit". Seems to me they only started the forum last March. Maybe somebody could correct me if I'm wrong but that is well under a year that you could have possibly been reading.
Anyway, more to the point it has been discussed many times how the "EPO era" completely changed things with regard to what chance a clean rider had to beat a doped one. Consensus is that chance dropped to almost zero. In fact Lemond is always the example of a clean rider whose performance suffered greatly because he didn't go on the EPO bandwagon.
So either your reading comprehension skills are not good, or you only remember what you want to remember, or you are lying not only about when you started reading this forum but in fact about whether or not you have read it at all.

 

[red_flanders]

Lemond beat known dopers one of which, Fignon very recently said in response to questions relating to whether his cancer was caused by taking PEDs as a cyclist: If it was every cyclist would have it.

The fact that he never tested positive is of curse no proof of anything, neither is the fact he has spoken out against doping, it's just a cunning ruse to preserve "the myth"

I've only been reading these boards for about a year and bit but from what I've learned, that's about all the evidence that is required to secure a conviction.

So just to be clear, you have no evidence whatsoever, correct?

No riders who claim Lemond doped, no coaches, soigneurs, no tests, no rumor, no innuendo nothing. Just, "well, he must have". Never mind that his coaches and other riders have pointedly, and for no benefit to themselves chosen to say Lemond was clean.

Was Hampsten dirty too? Mottet? Because those guys were also regarded by the peloton as clean riders.

Clean riders used to be able to win.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Thanks for putting your opinion as the truth!
That you cannot race for 21 days doesn't mean no one can.

One question? Why do people here on Cyclingnews judge so harsh on cyclists? Like they never do any good? What's the fun in it?

Accept dat the peloton is a small society, in which things go well and things go bad, that mistakes are made, that sentences have to be given but that not everyone is a thief. I am always wondering about the lives of some guys here on this forum. For sure they must be angels themselves, judging this hard on other people from behind their screen, without knowing anything at all about those persons, often only shouting some generalities.

Thanks for the misguided interpretation. I don't think you could missed the point any more completely. You could start with a definition for irony and then move on to sardonic... you'll get the idea.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Thanks for putting your opinion as the truth!
That you cannot race for 21 days doesn't mean no one can.

One question? Why do people here on Cyclingnews judge so harsh on cyclists? Like they never do any good? What's the fun in it?

Accept dat the peloton is a small society, in which things go well and things go bad, that mistakes are made, that sentences have to be given but that not everyone is a thief. I am always wondering about the lives of some guys here on this forum. For sure they must be angels themselves, judging this hard on other people from behind their screen, without knowing anything at all about those persons, often only shouting some generalities.

I'm not going to be overly popular with this comment but...
I totally agree, we are very harsh on the cyclists but unfortunately we have to be on the doping front especially when so many of the big stars in the sport have been busted.

We do scrutinise to much and I would like to see some people on this forum handle such situations which they criticise riders off. They are just humans like you and me and are not perfect like you or me.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm in denial. I'm hoping Contador is clean. Seriously. Call me stupid. I can take it.

join the club. I personally believe Evans is clean and many in the cycling world do believe that but if i say that on this forum, all the "experts" will eat me up for dinner.

 

[sars1981]

join the club. I personally believe Evans is clean and many in the cycling world do believe that but if i say that on this forum, all the "experts" will eat me up for dinner.

Saw Cadel on TV the other day. His face has that overly-masculated quality that some steroid abusers get -thickened, abundant Jaw, brow, chin and nose. If you look at comparative pictures, his whole head is significantly bigger than it was 5 years ago too. He may not be a blood doper, but I'd bet my car that he's been on a on testosterone, HGH, or some other hormone affecting substances for some time.

 

[SirLes]

Ok, I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on your "reading these boards for a year and a bit". Seems to me they only started the forum last March. Maybe somebody could correct me if I'm wrong but that is well under a year that you could have possibly been reading.
Anyway, more to the point it has been discussed many times how the "EPO era" completely changed things with regard to what chance a clean rider had to beat a doped one. Consensus is that chance dropped to almost zero. In fact Lemond is always the example of a clean rider whose performance suffered greatly because he didn't go on the EPO bandwagon.
So either your reading comprehension skills are not good, or you only remember what you want to remember, or you are lying not only about when you started reading this forum but in fact about whether or not you have read it at all.

I have been reading the cyclingnews website for a few years and used to enjoy reading the letters which were on the whole very informative. They then disappeared to be replaced by the message board. I read those for some time before finally deciding to actually sign up and participate. As you can tell from the number of posts I've made I rarely feel moved to the point of actually posting something.

Some of the topics and posts I've read on this particular forum have been informative, reasoned or amusing but at times just plain absurd or fanatical.

I got annoyed at the whole JV thing as that was a useful source of information and if people had been less confrontational we may have heard more. (whether one choses to believe what JV says is a matter for the individual- now no one even gets that chance.)

The final straw was the whole "reading between the lines" of the Brailsford interview and then the abuse of Canvendish for his comments on Ricco. At that point I felt the Forum had descended into farcical self parody.

My comments on this thread were merely born out of frustration at reading similarly idiotic comments so many times.
It was also born out of my frustration with the doping situation in cycling where we can never be sure who is guilty of what.

Lemond certainly appears to have the little evidence against him and I would like to believe he was clean but sadly we can't be sure.

With regards TDF winners perhaps as topic on which cyclists only won because they were doped to a far greater extent than the others so that the doping was the deciding factor might be better!

 

[sars1981]

I have been reading the cyclingnews website for a few years and used to enjoy reading the letters which were on the whole very informative. They then disappeared to be replaced by the message board. I read those for some time before finally deciding to actually sign up and participate. As you can tell from the number of posts I've made I rarely feel moved to the point of actually posting something.

Some of the topics and posts I've read on this particular forum have been informative, reasoned or amusing but at times just plain absurd or fanatical.

I got annoyed at the whole JV thing as that was a useful source of information and if people had been less confrontational we may have heard more. (whether one choses to believe what JV says is a matter for the individual- now no one even gets that chance.)

The final straw was the whole "reading between the lines" of the Brailsford interview and then the abuse of Canvendish for his comments on Ricco. At that point I felt the Forum had descended into farcical self parody.

My comments on this thread were merely born out of frustration at reading similarly idiotic comments so many times.
It was also born out of my frustration with the doping situation in cycling where we can never be sure who is guilty of what.

Lemond certainly appears to have the little evidence against him and I would like to believe he was clean but sadly we can't be sure.

With regards TDF winners perhaps as topic on which cyclists only won because they were doped to a far greater extent than the others so that the doping was the deciding factor might be better!

Don't take it so seriously, man.

 

[Arnout]

Thanks for the misguided interpretation. I don't think you could missed the point any more completely. You could start with a definition for irony and then move on to sardonic... you'll get the idea.

Well, my bad. I'm not only talking to you though, I'll stick to my point, because I read the things you wrote in irony often on this board.

 

[red_flanders]

Lemond certainly appears to have the little evidence against him and I would like to believe he was clean but sadly we can't be sure.

I appreciate your comments and understand the context for them. Understand the frustration. As for the above, what evidence is there against Lemond? I ask because I've never seen any, but you refer to some (little) evidence. Thanks.

 

[poupou]

Lemond beat known dopers one of which, Fignon, very recently said in response to questions relating to whether his cancer was caused by taking PEDs as a cyclist: If it was every cyclist would have it.

Yes he said so, but he said too that doping of his era was more recreationnal and few effective by comparaison to the current highly medicalized doping!
Some of his recent words in french for a better understanding of his feeling

Dans votre autobiographie, “Nous étions jeunes et insouciants”, vous admettez avoir pris au cours de *votre carrière des produits interdits, comme des amphétamines et de la cortisone. Peut-on faire un lien entre votre cancer et ces *substances ?
Personne n’a la réponse. Rien ne dit que ce soit lié, mais on ne peut pas l’exclure. A priori, il n’y a pas de raison, sinon tous les cyclistes auraient un cancer ! Quand je suis tombé *malade, j’en ai parlé aux *médecins et ça les a fait sourire. Vu les doses, ils pensent que ce n’est pas lié. Est-ce un facteur aggravant ? Peut-être. Mais on ne peut pas tout ramener au dopage.

Vous en a-t-on voulu, dans le *métier, d’avoir brisé un tabou en parlant du dopage dans votre livre ?
Ça n’a rien brisé du tout. Que les choses soient claires. A partir de 1998, on n’a fait qu’associer dopage et cyclisme, et moi j’en ai eu assez qu’on pense que toutes les époques avaient été pareilles. J’ai eu envie de montrer que la mienne était *différente, qu’il y avait du dopage mais que ce n’était pas généralisé, pas médicalisé mais anecdotique, sans escalade ni recherches pour trouver le meilleur produit. Ça n’avait rien à voir. J’ai voulu décrire le cyclisme de mon époque, un *cyclisme de fête et de champagne. Le plaisir de faire du vélo, la façon dont les choses se *passaient. Dans le livre, le dopage ne fait que vingt pages. Ça ne méritait pas plus.

 

[SirLes]

I appreciate your comments and understand the context for them. Understand the frustration. As for the above, what evidence is there against Lemond? I ask because I've never seen any, but you refer to some (little) evidence. Thanks.

The evidence against him essentially consists of: Everyone else was doing it so he probably did, He beat people who were doing it, If he had been he could have got away with it easily given the omerta and limited scrutiny at the time, oh and of course the famous "iron" injection during the Giro which resulted in a sudden dramatic improvement. (That last one I only heard about on these boards-so infer from that what you will)

Now under normal circumstances that is no proof. However if you assume all cyclists are guilty, it is all the proof you need as it becomes impossible to subsequently prove his innocence. That's what really bugs me.

Going back go the original topic of clean winners I find myself oscillating between three positions.

1) They all took drugs, it's only cheating if they took something not available to others!

2) Innocent until they are actually convicted of a doping offense (or confess)

3) The riders I choose to support are all clean and those I don't like are all cheaters. This is my favourite position as it allows you cheer your rider for beating the cheating b*st*rds when he wins or blame the cheating b*st*rds when he loses. Of course if someone you support fails a test then obviously he is a victim of bias, dodgy lab or error.

It also allows you to indulge in stereotyping and bigotry. So noble Brit beats cheating ***** etc etc!!!!

It definitely makes watching more fun.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Going back go the original topic of clean winners I find myself oscillating between three positions.

LOL. (Need 10 letters)