Last clean Grand Tour winner?

[ChrisE]

Sounds like Maertens has an interesting take, calling out anybody who says they can even finish, much less compete, without "help".

I call BS on the steroid CW. I think they are much more beneficial in overall ability of a rider as well as recovery.

 

[pmcg76]

Sounds like Maertens has an interesting take, calling out anybody who says they can even finish, much less compete, without "help".

I call BS on the steroid CW. I think they are much more beneficial in overall ability of a rider as well as recovery.

Well they are varying personal opinions by riders who rode at the top level of the sport so to say one is BS but the other is ok is kinda strange. Why does one opinion hold more value than another, if I put quotes in from Willy Voet about riders winning clean, is that also BS. That just reflects what you want to believe. Yes opinions are always not correct but neither of these guys were trying to hide themselves, in the overall context of the relevant books/articles Maertens covers himself more than Winnen.

For example, Paul Kimmage finished the Tour without resorting to taking illegal drugs so throws Maertens theory straight out the window. Of course it depends on what Maertens means by "help", could be illegal help or legal help(vitamins etc), I think we all accept it is impossible without some form of assistance, he doesnt specify although he notes the thin line between what is acceptable or not.

I could find more examples of quotes/opinions from former pro's but means more time going through my 'library', takes time.

 

[blackcat]

Tyler Farrar was very good but had other juniors around him that were as fast or faster to push him. Most lacked the professional desire Tyler showed even as a junior. He learned serious criterium and road race tactics locally as well.
The vagaries of doping were discussed with him early on as he was offered choices to move to the "bigger" leagues. He knew who to avoid and who was not clean at an early enough age. Guess what? He still beat riders that were known jackers.
I haven't seen him accomplish anything that wasn't in his pedigree and, to put an counter point to his skills...we have local riders that can still beat him in a road sprint. He has learned how to race on a bigger venue. After all of that background I still couldn't tell you what Garmin's real scene is, however.

he won a few bunch sprints at l'Avenir going back to around 2003. Beating guys like Renshaw. And he could timetrial, think he came around 7th in the u23 Worlds.

Great rider. Does not make him dirty or clean tho.

 

[ChrisE]

Well they are varying personal opinions by riders who rode at the top level of the sport so to say one is BS but the other is ok is kinda strange. Why does one opinion hold more value than another, if I put quotes in from Willy Voet about riders winning clean, is that also BS. That just reflects what you want to believe. Yes opinions are always not correct but neither of these guys were trying to hide themselves, in the overall context of the relevant books/articles Maertens covers himself more than Winnen.

For example, Paul Kimmage finished the Tour without resorting to taking illegal drugs so throws Maertens theory straight out the window. Of course it depends on what Maertens means by "help", could be illegal help or legal help(vitamins etc), I think we all accept it is impossible without some form of assistance, he doesnt specify although he notes the thin line between what is acceptable or not.

I could find more examples of quotes/opinions from former pro's but means more time going through my 'library', takes time.

The problem is that without controled experiments it is difficult to determine exactly how much somebody benefits from EPO or steroids.

 

[patricknd]

The problem is that without controled experiments it is difficult to determine exactly how much somebody benefits from EPO or steroids.

you also have to take into account that people react differently. for me the steroid benefit was tremendous, and i was pretty beat up from chemo, surgery, and radiation for much of that time. for someone who is in good health that reacts strongly the benefits can't be downplayed like they're nothing. if it wasn't for the side effects i'd be tempted to do another round in a few months when my fitness level is fairly high again just to see what it's like, but i don't like taking aspirin anymore, much less anything stronger.

 

[pmcg76]

Allan Peiper from A Peiper's Tale, various quotes:

"I rode my first Tour de France in 1984 on nothing, no vitamins. I rode on bread and water for the whole way basically, and I think it was one of the worst things I could have ever done. It took me months to get over it, because what they now know -as your blood levels drop, vitamins, iron levels, minerals, hormones- the less well your body runs and you damage it.

Medical support is really important, but I think the outside world thinks that medical support always means drugs."

"I remember riders talking about EPO and saying when you used it, you got out of bed and you werent smashed anymore, and provided that you kept within the UCI set Haematocrit levels, EPO was a good thing"

"Amphetamines are gone, a thing of the past"

 

[pmcg76]

The problem is that without controled experiments it is difficult to determine exactly how much somebody benefits from EPO or steroids.

Judging from the statements of riders I listed previously, there was obviously a big jump in perfromances after EPO. I have yet to hear somebody say that EPO was not effective.

I am sure there was a benefit from steroids but it would seem to have been of limited use to cyclists, outside of track sprinters, for recovery, I dont know. Need to check medical research on that. It just seems that steroids are rarely mentioned, Hormones and amphetamines seem to have been the drugs of choice in the 80s, testosterone, cortisone, synatchen etc.

I think most amphetamines were traceable in drugs tests but as there was a lack of testing outside the Major Tours in the 80s, they were commonly used even though they seemed to have more of a mental benefit than physical. Within a race like the Tour, they were less frequently used as the Top guys and stage winners were always tested as well as one rider at random. There was room for manouvre but it seemed to be more among the lesser lights.

Peter Winnen says he took nothing his first two years as a pro yet he finished 5th and 4th in the Tour de France beating many doped up guys I am sure.

Eric Caritoux won the 84 Vuelta allegedly clean probably beating doped up guys.

Charly Mottet finished 4th in the 87 Tour 6 minutes behind Stephen Roche, he finished ahead of team-mate Laurent Fignon who tested positive in his career and has admitted to doping. 3 riders tested positive in the 87 race, all were far behind Mottet.

According to both Peter Winnen & Allan Peiper, the Panasonic team practiced hormonal equilibrium yet their top rider in 87 was Robert Millar in 19th place.

I am completely ignoring other riders here because for a lot, we dont know if they were doping or not. I am basing my info on riders who have been named as clean by others or those who have admitted to doping or were caught.

Did drugs like steroids, hormones etc affect the outcomes of many races in the 80s, probably. Perhaps the 6 minutes between Roche & Mottet in 87 was the difference between a doped rider and an undoped rider. But it would seem that it was possible to beat guys who were on drugs in the 80s. Possible to win the Tour? Maybe, I dont know but if Mottet was truly clean and was within 6 minutes, I dont see any reason why not. That changed with EPO.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think the best way to see the effects of doping come from Mr. Doping himself:

As the Danish Blood-Experts explained in Summer, Epo-Lances Blood-Levels were normal in the Giro (= clean), but unusual at the TdF (= blood doped). At the Giro he was 12 minutes down on DiLuca, but only 5 minutes to Contradoper at the TdF.

It´s not rocket science, but safe to say he gained around 7 minutes net on climbs and ITT´s (flat stages should not be considered, since Epo-Lance rolled within the peloton).

 

[ChrisE]

Judging from the statements of riders I listed previously, there was obviously a big jump in perfromances after EPO. I have yet to hear somebody say that EPO was not effective.

I am sure there was a benefit from steroids but it would seem to have been of limited use to cyclists, outside of track sprinters, for recovery, I dont know. Need to check medical research on that. It just seems that steroids are rarely mentioned, Hormones and amphetamines seem to have been the drugs of choice in the 80s, testosterone, cortisone, synatchen etc.

I think most amphetamines were traceable in drugs tests but as there was a lack of testing outside the Major Tours in the 80s, they were commonly used even though they seemed to have more of a mental benefit than physical. Within a race like the Tour, they were less frequently used as the Top guys and stage winners were always tested as well as one rider at random. There was room for manouvre but it seemed to be more among the lesser lights.

Peter Winnen says he took nothing his first two years as a pro yet he finished 5th and 4th in the Tour de France beating many doped up guys I am sure.

Eric Caritoux won the 84 Vuelta allegedly clean probably beating doped up guys.

Charly Mottet finished 4th in the 87 Tour 6 minutes behind Stephen Roche, he finished ahead of team-mate Laurent Fignon who tested positive in his career and has admitted to doping. 3 riders tested positive in the 87 race, all were far behind Mottet.

According to both Peter Winnen & Allan Peiper, the Panasonic team practiced hormonal equilibrium yet their top rider in 87 was Robert Millar in 19th place.

I am completely ignoring other riders here because for a lot, we dont know if they were doping or not. I am basing my info on riders who have been named as clean by others or those who have admitted to doping or were caught.

Did drugs like steroids, hormones etc affect the outcomes of many races in the 80s, probably. Perhaps the 6 minutes between Roche & Mottet in 87 was the difference between a doped rider and an undoped rider. But it would seem that it was possible to beat guys who were on drugs in the 80s. Possible to win the Tour? Maybe, I dont know but if Mottet was truly clean and was within 6 minutes, I dont see any reason why not. That changed with EPO.

For sure, I believe EPO was/is a big deal. I would just like to see controled testing of the various doping products to see what the real % performance increase is. BTW I equate "steroids" with test....

My thinking is if you can increase power without increasing mass then there is benefit. Or, if power increase is enough to offset the weight increase then there is benefit. I can't see how an increase in power thru the use of steroids, if certain roids were used to control weight gain to a certain extent, would not benefit climbing, for example.

 

[Oldman]

Judging from the statements of riders I listed previously, there was obviously a big jump in perfromances after EPO. I have yet to hear somebody say that EPO was not effective.

I am sure there was a benefit from steroids but it would seem to have been of limited use to cyclists, outside of track sprinters, for recovery, I dont know. Need to check medical research on that. It just seems that steroids are rarely mentioned, Hormones and amphetamines seem to have been the drugs of choice in the 80s, testosterone, cortisone, synatchen etc.

I think most amphetamines were traceable in drugs tests but as there was a lack of testing outside the Major Tours in the 80s, they were commonly used even though they seemed to have more of a mental benefit than physical. Within a race like the Tour, they were less frequently used as the Top guys and stage winners were always tested as well as one rider at random. There was room for manouvre but it seemed to be more among the lesser lights.

Peter Winnen says he took nothing his first two years as a pro yet he finished 5th and 4th in the Tour de France beating many doped up guys I am sure.

Eric Caritoux won the 84 Vuelta allegedly clean probably beating doped up guys.

Charly Mottet finished 4th in the 87 Tour 6 minutes behind Stephen Roche, he finished ahead of team-mate Laurent Fignon who tested positive in his career and has admitted to doping. 3 riders tested positive in the 87 race, all were far behind Mottet.

According to both Peter Winnen & Allan Peiper, the Panasonic team practiced hormonal equilibrium yet their top rider in 87 was Robert Millar in 19th place.

I am completely ignoring other riders here because for a lot, we dont know if they were doping or not. I am basing my info on riders who have been named as clean by others or those who have admitted to doping or were caught.

Did drugs like steroids, hormones etc affect the outcomes of many races in the 80s, probably. Perhaps the 6 minutes between Roche & Mottet in 87 was the difference between a doped rider and an undoped rider. But it would seem that it was possible to beat guys who were on drugs in the 80s. Possible to win the Tour? Maybe, I dont know but if Mottet was truly clean and was within 6 minutes, I dont see any reason why not. That changed with EPO.

You certainly nailed the opinion circulating at the time. Former coaches/DSs (specific names escape me) said Mottet could have won many more races if he had "doped". It is important to take the hormone "level" monitoring of that era, as Alan Peiper noted: as the governing rule for that PED. Most riders felt re-establishing their hormone levels to the allowed limit was OK; at that time. It helped recovery in their anecdotal experience but as ChrisE pointed out it was probably hard to get quantifiable comparisons. EPO made general recovery easier because the effort was proportionally easier. Until everyone was using and then the speeds went up, markedly.
That many thought Mottet was both the cleanest and strongest "clean" rider says something about the most likely clean GT performances.

 

[red_flanders]

I think the best way to see the effects of doping come from Mr. Doping himself:

As the Danish Blood-Experts explained in Summer, Epo-Lances Blood-Levels were normal in the Giro (= clean), but unusual at the TdF (= blood doped). At the Giro he was 12 minutes down on DiLuca, but only 5 minutes to Contradoper at the TdF.

It´s not rocket science, but safe to say he gained around 7 minutes net on climbs and ITT´s (flat stages should not be considered, since Epo-Lance rolled within the peloton).

it was said that he didn't dope "during" the Giro. I buy that. I don't buy that he started w/o a fillup, from what I've seen of his blood profiles (the first ones).

Also, you can't say that the competition level at the Giro and the Tour were the same. I'd say the difference in his performance was well above 7 minutes. He'd have been shelled on Ventoux without the refill.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

it was said that he didn't dope "during" the Giro. I buy that. I don't buy that he started w/o a fillup, from what I've seen of his blood profiles (the first ones).

Also, you can't say that the competition level at the Giro and the Tour were the same. I'd say the difference in his performance was well above 7 minutes. He'd have been shelled on Ventoux without the refill.

Even if he started with a fillup before the Giro, we safely can assume he also started with one at the Tour. So the net gain would still be around 7 minutes. For the giro i´d say full doped DiLuca was on the same level as full loaded Contradoper at the TdF, that´s my opinion. But i may should add 2/3 minutes since Contradoper is a better rider then DiLuca. Otherwise, the giro was harder (6 top finishes, very long TT compared to 3 top finishes and short TT at the TdF).

 

[ChrisE]

Even if he started with a fillup before the Giro, we safely can assume he also started with one at the Tour. So the net gain would still be around 7 minutes. For the giro i´d say full doped DiLuca was on the same level as full loaded Contradoper at the TdF, that´s my opinion. But i may should add 2/3 minutes since Contradoper is a better rider then DiLuca. Otherwise, the giro was harder (6 top finishes, very long TT compared to 3 top finishes and short TT at the TdF).

LA is not a machine with an on/off button with consistant results that vary only because of what he is on at the time.

There was no reason for him to go all out in the Giro so comparing 12 down to the midget vs 7 down to AC is apples/oranges IMO. No way doped midget = doped AC, but as you say that is your opinion. And LA was coming off of an injury in the Giro. Trying to make comparisons between his two GTs is not credible IMO, both from a strategic POV and physically.

One thing y'all rant about is LA, but he was coming off of a 3 year retirement and is 38. The fact that he was able to place as high as he did in both GTs is extraordinary. Unless of course, if you think his competition was clean in both which I doubt. How about some grudging props sometimes?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

LA is not a machine with an on/off button with consistant results that vary only because of what he is on at the time.

There was no reason for him to go all out in the Giro so comparing 12 down to the midget vs 7 down to AC is apples/oranges IMO. No way doped midget = doped AC, but as you say that is your opinion. And LA was coming off of an injury in the Giro. Trying to make comparisons between his two GTs is not credible IMO, both from a strategic POV and physically.

One thing y'all rant about is LA, but he was coming off of a 3 year retirement and is 38. The fact that he was able to place as high as he did in both GTs is extraordinary. Unless of course, if you think his competition was clean in both which I doubt. How about some grudging props sometimes?

just tried to explain what the difference between clean and doped is. no more, no less.

Could have also used Cunego. Now clean, finishing behind the leaders at Giro while in best age, but winning at young age...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

One thing y'all rant about is LA, but he was coming off of a 3 year retirement and is 38. The fact that he was able to place as high as he did in both GTs is extraordinary.

We all "rant" about Epo-Lance because he is a liar, arrogant and destroyer of many careers. He is in his own league of low lifers. His "wins" are useless. I call him a psychopath. He belongs to a clinic, not to cycling.

Almost all other convicted dopers have/had at least some moral.

 

[ChrisE]

just tried to explain what the difference between clean and doped is. no more, no less.

Could have also used Cunego. Now clean, finishing behind the leaders at Giro while in best age, but winning at young age...

Yeah, Cunego is a good example. Some say he was clean in 04 but I don't buy it. I don't know what scared him straight.

Do you think the only difference between the LA of 96 and the LA from 99-05 is drugs? Was he clean in 96? He was with Ferrari then.

A doping program that enables him to come from his 95-96 form to outperform supposedly better GT riders like JU who were also on doping programs? I don't buy that is the only reason. He has talent and drive but that is seldom recognized or respected here because of the doping issue.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I mean he was nothing in climbs and ITTs before 1999. So, yes, Epo-Lance must be the best ever responder to drugs (beating spread cancer which almost always leads to dead). May he saw this "talent" and used it perfectly for doping. As we all know, it worked wonder for him...

ALL great riders showed talent early (including a doped Jan Ullrich), only Pharmstrong did not.

 

[ChrisE]

I mean he was nothing in climbs and ITTs before 1999. So, yes, Epo-Lance must be the best ever responder to drugs (beating spread cancer which almost always leads to dead). May he saw this "talent" and used it perfectly for doping. As we all know, it worked wonder for him...

ALL great riders showed talent early (including a doped Jan Ullrich), only Pharmstrong did not.

Well that can't be quantified so it is a pointless discussion.

BTW, Jim McMahon is a punk a$$.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well that can't be quantified so it is a pointless discussion.

BTW, Jim McMahon is a punk a$$.

Oh, it can be. Just look at the stats of Merckx, Anquetil, Hinault, Ullrich etc. etc. All were young...

Jimmy Mäc is a punk a$$. Well, that´s your opinion. I saw a real gridiron warrior ...

 

[Race Radio]

Was he clean in 96? He was with Ferrari then.
.

He had that cancer thing in 1996, but still had his best classics season.

 

[blackcat]

I mean he was nothing in climbs and ITTs before 1999. So, yes, Epo-Lance must be the best ever responder to drugs (beating spread cancer which almost always leads to dead). May he saw this "talent" and used it perfectly for doping. As we all know, it worked wonder for him...

ALL great riders showed talent early (including a doped Jan Ullrich), only Pharmstrong did not.

completely incorrect. Armstrong won early, and consistently. He is 18 months older or 2 years older than JU, and he won the Worlds when JU won the amatuers, now u23 Worlds.

Armstrong could not climb and tt til Ferrari tweaked the formula. But do not underestimate his talent. He could have been a very good, perhaps great, one-day rider, like Bettini.

 

[Oldman]

completely incorrect. Armstrong won early, and consistently. He is 18 months older or 2 years older than JU, and he won the Worlds when JU won the amatuers, now u23 Worlds.

Armstrong could not climb and tt til Ferrari tweaked the formula. But do not underestimate his talent. He could have been a very good, perhaps great, one-day rider, like Bettini.

U'r correct in that he won early and consistently...with team support or in single day events and it was basically on strength/power, not the recovery required for a 3 week event.. As for the "cancer thing"...ask his former teammates how they guessed he gained alot of weight during the same 6-hour ride regimes that saw them all lose weight. Even the soigneiurs were trying to figure that one out and that did not repress any illnesses he might have been exposed to. Andreau and friends can't say it but there was something strange going on that last season before the cure.
He simply did not go back to the same gym after the cancer scare; as coaches had advised him earlier. He probably gained some sense of purpose that impending death would inspire all common men with.
Complain about his manipulation of media and UCI all you want but his motivation is equal to any other racer.
I don't like it either.

 

[pmcg76]

Obviously after I headed of to bed last night, this conversation got sidetreacked on to Lance. I thought this was quite a thought provoking thread but now it's back to the same old stuff.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

completely incorrect. Armstrong won early, and consistently. He is 18 months older or 2 years older than JU, and he won the Worlds when JU won the amatuers, now u23 Worlds.

Armstrong could not climb and tt til Ferrari tweaked the formula. But do not underestimate his talent. He could have been a very good, perhaps great, one-day rider, like Bettini.

I didn´t say anything else. He couldn´t climb (finishing in groups with Zabel) and TT (loosing 6 mins. to Indurain). But that´s all great riders could do early.

With winning nothing i meant GT´s of course. His performance jump is (if at all) only compareable to Rijs and Wiggins.

 

[poupou]

Lance refuelled on GIRO

The small drop of hematocrit of Lance suggests that he refuelled or EPO micro dosed even during GIRO.
The comparaison is done with riders of 1999.