Mrs John Murphy said:
Three historical counter-factuals to muse upon where we might be if :
i) The UCI had busted Armstrong in 1999 for the cortisoid? Would the peloton have been less toxic if Alex Zulle had become the patron?
Assuming a 2 year suspension, LA would have been limited to 5 TdF yellows. The "comeback" would have increased US audiences sufficiently to cover the coverage slump from the 2 year absence. No change.
ii) Armstrong had invited Landis to join Radioshack/Astana in 2008/9? Would Landis have blown the whistle if he'd had that contract offer?
Landis would NOT have blown the whistle. He isn't that independent a thinker. Imo, this one item is the BIGGEST mistake LA ever made. Landis desperately wanted back in, and to be accepted. It was Landis hitting rock bottom, and finding that it wasn't rocks, but mud so deep he would die in it, that brought Landis around. We would still be fighting Lance-lovers in the forum, and we would basically still be considered rather extreme nut-cases by most of the public.
iii) The Puerto files and material evidence had been made fully available in 2006?
If anyone has any other 'moments of critical juncture' where the sport might have taken a different road then lets here them.
Meh, this would have lost some sponsors in Europe. Germany would have declared cycling persona-non-grata, just as they did. Rabo would still have pulled out, just as they did. It would not have impacted the US/Oz markets that much, except that pro cycling would be regarded with a more jaded eye, perhaps as MMA is.
Mrs John Murphy said:
We keep hearing how cycling is 'different now' - the question is - would it have been any different if previous opportunities had not been missed.
Landis is hailed as a hero for blowing the whistle, but would he have blown the whistle if he'd got that job he was angling for?
What if Armstrong had been popped in 1999 and Zulle had won, would a doping arms race have still kicked off, would Ferrari have just found another 'good responder'?
It's a good chance to think about other missed opportunities, and also to consider to what extent the crisis in cycling is driven by individual actors or to what extent it is much more systemic. If it hadn't been Armstrong it would have been Ullrich and the only difference would be that the scandal would have broken 7 years ago instead of now.
Ullrich would have won, for sure, but it wouldn't have been the big scandal we have now. Not at all. See above.
What would have changed things would have been if Lance somehow did NOT win at least 5 tours. (Six and seven were overkill, imo.) Armstrong, as much as I don't like it, re-invigorated the US market, and probably the Oz market, as well. Would Julich have actually won a TdF? Huh - I don't think so. Might LeMond have won a 4th tour if EPO wasn't there? Maybe - but the EPO was systemic, and not an "individual actor". Regardless, Julich wouldn't have done as good a job as LA in focusing American attention. Lemond, even if he had been able to keep it going a couple more years, would not have carried the US market share for another 10 years.
What would have changed with no Lance? We would never have had the USADA decision. Cycling would have remained big in the EU, and minor in the US. Doping would have still been there, but hidden by omerta. Frankly, I think a big part of what we are seeing today is the final battle between the US cycling culture vs the Euro cycling culture. The Euro cycling culture would be more permissive of dopage, but it would be less pervasively used. In other words, every one of those TdF would still have been won by a doper, but they would not have doped as regularly. Pretty much like what we saw amongst the peloton WITH Lance. Ricco would still have gotten busted. Pantani MIGHT still be alive, but I doubt it. I don't think that Lance changed the history of doping that much - until today - when he is utterly busted. But I DO think he changed the history of pro cycling and its evolution. I think that many of the US riders riding today are there because of the publicity of Lance's tours for cycling. I'm NOT saying this is necessarily a good thing. Obviously, 7/11 happened without Lance.
Now, THERE's a what-if! What if Heiden had been able to translate his skating dominance into cycling wins! 7/11 got a lot of press - and they were all heroes to me - but they lacked star power - and Heiden was only a pack cyclist who could occasionally win. Hampsten? Julich? Neh. I don't know exactly why - but they lacked whatever it is that breaks that final level to stardom. But, neh, back then, you had to win the TdF to be a star. No other race meant much. Today, that is no longer true in the US, but then it was.
This is of course the clinic which is home to baseless speculation, conjecture, fantasy and delusion, so a thread thinking about an alternate view of what might have been would I think fit right in.
This? From you, Mrs JM? Well, then, if you say so!
This is fantasy, but it is still a fun idea for a thread. Thanks for the entertainment.