The Tour de France, does it really matter?

[Señor_Contador]

The reason I pose this question is because 8 out of the last 10 Tour de France winners have either tested positive for banned substances, were involved in some doping scandal and later "misteriously" let off the hook, or are about to, or had to admit to doping after their cycling careers were over.

I know this next Tour is Andy's to lose but... my belief is that the doping Gods will eventually taylor a testing programme finetuned enough to figure out his doping habits and he will also succumb, sooner or later.

Hence, does it really matter who wins the Tour de France at this point?

 

[The Hitch]

It might not matter to you but it does to me.

 

[Barrus]

Just to make this clear, This thread will not the place for a debate of whether LA doped or not. The person, or persons who will start this debate here, will face consequences, there are more than enough threads on that, or otherwise start up a new thread, this is not the subject of this thread

 

[Señor_Contador]

Just to make this clear, This thread will not the place for a debate of whether LA doped or not. The person, or persons who will start this debate here, will face consequences, there are more than enough threads on that, or otherwise start up a new thread, this is not the subject of this thread

Well, that is sure not my intention.

I can't speak for others tough.

Feel free to ban them.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Yes, yes it does. Imagine I'm a rider that gets 15th on GC when racing clean. That would make me about 150.000 € a year. With a little help from my friends the PED's I could get podium or maybe even GC win, suddenly making me a millionaire. Is it worth the risk? Yes and if I don't get caught I'll be remembered as one of the best riders ever.

 

[Berzin]

It does matter, because the Tour is the Superbowl of cycling.

Only difference is, unlike all other sporting events, cycling's showcase event takes place smack dab in the middle of the racing calendar, rendering all races before it "training" races and all others after it consolation prizes for riders who came up short.

But for the winners, it assures them a lifetime of glory, some nice short-term cash from appearance fees and sponsorships, and hero status in their respective countries for life.

It matters now more than ever, given the type of money that is at stake.

Absolutely it matters.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Not really. It's a race for people who don't like cycling.

8 of the last 10, who is are the two clean winners?

 

[orbis_25]

The answer really depends on what you're asking.

If the question is whether it's important to cycling fans, then I say it is (at least to me). As a fan, I enjoy seeing my favourite riders and teams battling it out whenever I can. I especially like to see them win. Le Tour's not the best race, it's not even close, but I still care who wins.

As for whether the winner of Le Tour's important to the riders, of course it is. The amount of money and glory that goes with being champion makes it absolutely so.

If instead the question is whether whoever wins Le Tour is important to the sport, unfortunately I think it's essential. Sponsors pay to see their brand advertised, and the biggest traveling billboard in the sport right now is Le Tour. One of the best ways of advertising is to win that billboard event. It's the dream of being there as a winner, in front of millions of peoples eyes, that leads sponsors to throw more money at a team.

 

[D-Queued]

Not really. It's a race for people who don't like cycling.

8 of the last 10, who is are the two clean winners?

The fanboys.

They have an infinite opportunity to try and argue the case that their heroes are clean in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Dave.

 

[veganrob]

Of course it still matters. Always will. They will keep racing the Tour and hopefully the cheaters will get caught.

 

[andy1234]

It does matter, because the Tour is the Superbowl of cycling.

Only difference is, unlike all other sporting events, cycling's showcase event takes place smack dab in the middle of the racing calendar, rendering all races before it "training" races and all others after it consolation prizes for riders who came up short.

But for the winners, it assures them a lifetime of glory, some nice short-term cash from appearance fees and sponsorships, and hero status in their respective countries for life.

It matters now more than ever, given the type of money that is at stake.

Absolutely it matters.

The Tour is not the superbowl of cycling. The tour is a global event. Outside of the US, very few people care about the superbowl.
Likewise, other events in the pro calendar like the classics and world championships are only "training" or "consolation" races to the Armstrong generation. In Europe the pro season is much more than just The Tour.

 

[forty four]

The reason I pose this question is because 8 out of the last 10 Tour de France winners have either tested positive for banned substances, were involved in some doping scandal and later "misteriously" let off the hook, or are about to, or had to admit to doping after their cycling careers were over.

I know this next Tour is Andy's to lose but... my belief is that the doping Gods will eventually taylor a testing programme finetuned enough to figure out his doping habits and he will also succumb, sooner or later.

Hence, does it really matter who wins the Tour de France at this point?

you realize all the dope in the world dont make you train or be able to fly up mountains for 3 weeks straight. dont believe me dont train at all and take every epic ped that exists. **** ill drop you easy cause i train. but yeah with no drugs at all i love brutal bike races and with fully doped riders i still love brutal bike races. to all those who hate cycling go away.

 

[forty four]

man its like adults seeing life like children wtf take the horse blinders off some dumb naive gems on here. by now i would think i would be use to such ignorance but no.

 

[Anonymous]

man its like adults seeing life like children wtf take the horse blinders off some dumb naive gems on here. by now i would think i would be use to such ignorance but no.

In that spirit, I think if a protour team takes a chance on Floyd, he'd have a real chance. Probably bring some credibilty back to the TdF.

 

[Ecowarrior18]

Of course the Tour de France matters, it is the greatest show on earth.

It is bigger than any of the riders that win it. The history, romance is what we love about this crazy, sometimes frustrating sport.

Doping is wrong, without a doubt. But ultimately the spectical is what we as fans want.

I have been lucky to experience the Tour from the inside and as a fan. Nothing comes close in any other sport.

I agree, many of the last few winners maybe tainted, but still live in hope that the sport is moving in the right direction.

That said, I have been lucky to have ridden the whole route, (Last year) and after 2 weeks could completely understand the desperate messures that domestiques and stars alike might resort to as fatique consumed every tissue and sinue of my body screamed at me each morning for mercy.

I was just riding it with guests but am full of admiration to anyone however far down the peloton who races the race for 3 weeks. It was I can say by far the greatest test of my physical and mental life! Oh if I was 20 years younger!

So I repeat, YES IT MATTERS. Even with all its flaws.

 

[MarkvW]

It never did matter.

The TdF is a bike race ridden by people that are not me. Its outcome does not affect me. For the past decade, watching it has brought me transitory pleasure. When it is all over, I could care less who wins, who doped, and who lost.

At a certain tipping point, doping will disgust me to the point where I stop watching the race, but meanwhile if a doper wins, so what? How does that "matter?" It's just a silly bike race.

People who try to make more out of any sport than transitory enjoyment invariably succumb to cliche. Much of this forum yearns to see the Champion fall from grace. Right now, they are so impatient for that dramatic resolution that they say all sorts of goofy things.

Past doping doesn't matter, except insofar as it teaches the regulating authorities how to catch future doping.

 

[erader]

so they dope in the TDF and not other races? doping is a part of cycling. always has been. accept that or move on.

erader

 

[la.margna]

Yes, yes it does. Imagine I'm a rider that gets 15th on GC when racing clean. That would make me about 150.000 € a year. With a little help from my friends the PED's I could get podium or maybe even GC win, suddenly making me a millionaire. Is it worth the risk? Yes and if I don't get caught I'll be remembered as one of the best riders ever.

clean into the Tour's top 15??!!! dream on...

 

[flicker]

The reason I pose this question is because 8 out of the last 10 Tour de France winners have either tested positive for banned substances, were involved in some doping scandal and later "misteriously" let off the hook, or are about to, or had to admit to doping after their cycling careers were over.

I know this next Tour is Andy's to lose but... my belief is that the doping Gods will eventually taylor a testing programme finetuned enough to figure out his doping habits and he will also succumb, sooner or later.

Hence, does it really matter who wins the Tour de France at this point?

The tour is one of the worlds greatest sporting spectacles. If the doping bothers you, you need to know that you were attracted to the doping in the first place. Your name Contador, you in the clinic, admit you love the spectacle, the contreversy, the epic stages. It is all good brother, enjoy, like the French. As an American I appreciate watching their beautiful country and the race. They are unlike many they enjoy life. Enjoy the tour, boo who you do not like and cheer your heroes. That is really what it is about, a tour of culture, war, athleticism, a traveling billboard, a circus.

Like some of the higher echelon in cycling say, cycling like art imitates life. So many great artists enjoy great races, that is why it is life. Cycling is as perfect or imperfect as you perceive it. With good conversation or a fine wine I savor it. Same with the tour for me.

 

[TexPat]

The reason I pose this question is because 8 out of the last 10 Tour de France winners have either tested positive for banned substances, were involved in some doping scandal and later "misteriously" let off the hook, or are about to, or had to admit to doping after their cycling careers were over.

I know this next Tour is Andy's to lose but... my belief is that the doping Gods will eventually taylor a testing programme finetuned enough to figure out his doping habits and he will also succumb, sooner or later.

Hence, does it really matter who wins the Tour de France at this point?

Strictly speaking the TdF is the greatest cycling spectacle of the year. Not the greatest race for many hardcore fans (I prefer the Classics.), but one that draws alot of non-cycling fans to the sport. For this reason, it is hugely important, primarily for the viability and financial well-being of cycling. Its function as an event is to make money for ASO, the UCI, the host cities, the sponsors and others. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest among the aforementioned and the public's perception regarding doping scandals etc. Therein lies the rub. For the Tour, and therefore cycling, to continue something must be done to change the culture from within. Either the public and sponsors accept the present slime, or the other parties must clean it up. If the Tour dies or is greatly diminished, so too will cycling.
One thing that this thread has led me to consider:
Is the Tour de France cycling's rather organic way of cleansing itself? How many doping stories throughout professional road cycling's history have emanated from it?
I love it. Even knowing what I do. It would, however, be far more entertaining (and sporting!) to see a bunch of clean amateurs battling it out, though I'm sure it would be a much shorter race.

 

[flicker]

Strictly speaking the TdF is the greatest cycling spectacle of the year. Not the greatest race for many hardcore fans (I prefer the Classics.), but one that draws alot of non-cycling fans to the sport. For this reason, it is hugely important, primarily for the viability and financial well-being of cycling. Its function as an event is to make money for ASO, the UCI, the host cities, the sponsors and others. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest among the aforementioned and the public's perception regarding doping scandals etc. Therein lies the rub. For the Tour, and therefore cycling, to continue something must be done to change the culture from within. Either the public and sponsors accept the present slime, or the other parties must clean it up. If the Tour dies or is greatly diminished, so too will cycling.
One thing that this thread has led me to consider:
Is the Tour de France cycling's rather organic way of cleansing itself? How many doping stories throughout professional road cycling's history have emanated from it?
I love it. Even knowing what I do. It would, however, be far more entertaining (and sporting!) to see a bunch of clean amateurs battling it out, though I'm sure it would be a much shorter race.

One thing make the teams smaller. Giant teams make the race faster, more money, more doping. As I am against doping, cycling is still a doping sport.
I would say smaller teams less doping less money for riders etc.
As soon as the big money came in with Greg the doping became much more tempting.

Has not the tour become more watched, more exciting, and more successful, because of doping?

 

[TexPat]

One thing make the teams smaller. Giant teams make the race faster, more money, more doping. As I am against doping, cycling is still a doping sport.
I would say smaller teams less doping less money for riders etc.
As soon as the big money came in with Greg the doping became much more tempting.

Has not the tour become more watched, more exciting, and more successful, because of doping?

Au contraire, it has become one big festering sore because of doping, and one that will eventually spew forth its putrid core.

 

[flicker]

Au contraire, it has become one big festering sore because of doping, and one that will eventually spew forth its putrid core.

Are you speaking of the Olympics, cycling, sports in general LeTour.?

You have a point there, turn the tour into national 6 man amatuer teams.

Take the money out of the tour. No stages over 4 hours.

What race could you compare the tour with at this time. Tour de Benin, Tour de Faso? Tour de Rwanda?

What you speak of is a whole other bird. No following cars, must finish on own bike. If the bike breaks you fix it yourself at the local blacksmith shop.

Carry your own tubulars.

Maybe like the great divide race?

Still without big sponsors, who would pay for the doping controls?

 

[Siriuscat]

I thought that Pat's Tour of California was the most important race on the calendar.....

The TdF will always matter it's what brings the droves of three week fans out every year and is the "only" race that exists for people outside Europe. As a race it's been rubbish for 15 years or so but it's still a huge spectacle and for the reasons of bringing non-cycling types into the sport it's a very necessary race.

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

clean into the Tour's top 15??!!! dream on...

That might have been the case 10 years ago, but I genuinely believe that the sport is geeting cleaner to the point that it shoudn't be a stretch to say that a rider can finish 15th clean.