Where will history place.....

[hrotha]

Jalabert had a 50+% hematocrit rate in 1999. His palmares is zero.

It's the 90s, man. We either accept them as they were, or discard the whole decade. And the one after that. And...

 

[El Pistolero]

Freddy Maertens--> Sean Kelly--> Jalabert

And that's where the line stops.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Must agree with how Polka-dot was won those days, first over the top for first 3 passes before coming to a stand still for the real final mountain top finish was not a good look. Seeing the jersey finish 20 minutes after the winner and then trying to explain to the un-educated cycling watcher (my wife!) that that jersey means he's the tours best climber

Despite the long history of it, this is why I don't believe that there should be a polka-dot jersey. Particularly with the parcours these days, which have so few ITT kms, the best climber is the winner of the yellow jersey. The KING of the mountain is rarely in the top 10 best climbers in the race. It's hard to explain to cycling fans let along non cycling ones!

Shouldn't the Most Aggressive Rider competition be an adequate substitute for the KOM?

And oh yeah, another GREAT rider not to have won the TOUR: Kloden!!!

 

[Echoes]

It's the 90s, man. We either accept them as they were, or discard the whole decade. And the one after that. And...

Accept 'em as they were? NEVER !

These guys stole palmares from my youth idol (Edwig Van Hooydonck).
I can't understand how dopers can be accepted. How strict are your principles?

EPO dopers are all in the same bag, for me and I close the bag.

I know that we aren't in the clinic thread but dope is inextrically linked with cycling in the past 20 years. And about the rider discussed in the OP, we've got facts.


I might understand Philippe Bordas when he said "cycling only lasted for one century."

 

[jens_attacks]

jajane of the finest in cycling history.that's what history will tell.
pure class on a bike:

incredible that people are still talking about medical assistance.after more than 100 years of professional sports...

 

[ultimobici]

I know that we aren't in the clinic thread but dope is inextrically linked with cycling in the past 20 years.

If you believe this you're either blind or several bricks short of a full load, mate. Doping has been around the sport since day one.

Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Maertens, Pollentier all hail from way more than 20 years ago.

 

[Lanark]

One of the best riders of the 90's, and certainly my favorite. This guy won so much, a GT (and won the points jersey in all three GT's, and the mountain jersey in the Tour and Vuelta), tons of smaller stage races (Paris-Nice 3x), lots of big classics, 25 stages in grand tours, World Championship time trial. There are few cyclists now active with a bigger, let alone a more versatile palmares.

 

[Roland Rat]

It's the 90s, man. We either accept them as they were, or discard the whole decade.

I'm happy to discard the whole decade when it comes to people who rode for Saiz.

And the TdF has been a joke since 1991, so that in particular can be discarded too.

 

[Roland Rat]

jajane of the finest in cycling history.that's what history will tell.
pure class on a bike:

Riis is one of the finest riders in history too then, yes? Because Riis's early/mid-90's transformation is equal to Jalabert's.

 

[Roland Rat]

If you believe this you're either blind or several bricks short of a full load, mate. Doping has been around the sport since day one.

Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Maertens, Pollentier all hail from way more than 20 years ago.

If you're going to equate the doping carried out by the riders you named to what went on in the '90's, then you're the one who is either blind or several bricks short of a full load.

 

[ultimobici]

If you're going to equate the doping carried out by the riders you named to what went on in the '90's, then you're the one who is either blind or several bricks short of a full load.

Not for a minute would I suggest the two eras were the same in level, but to single out the last two decades and ignore what went before is naive.

 

[Roland Rat]

Not for a minute would I suggest the two eras were the same in level, but to single out the last two decades and ignore what went before is naive.

But at least pre-90's it's plausible to think that the ones who won, particularly those who won on a consistent basis, were still the most naturally talented of their era. It's a cliche, but the doping wasn't that sophisiticated to turn the proverbial donkey into a race horse. In the 90's in particular, it is impossible to even guess whether Rider X was a natural talent, or Dominic the Donkey in a Desert Orchid costume. The playing field may not have been exactly level but reasonably so, but in the '90's the playing field had the profile of Amstel Gold.

Which is exactly why I do not believe Jalabert deserves the credit he is getting by some in this thread. More than most from that era, in fact, due to his associations with Saiz. He may have been a natural mini-Merckx, but somehow I doubt it.

Same with Richard Virenque. Same with Abraham Olano. Same with Claudio Chiappucci. Same with endless others from that era.

 

[hrotha]

I'm happy to discard the whole decade when it comes to people who rode for Saiz.

And the TdF has been a joke since 1991, so that in particular can be discarded too.

Fair enough. ONCE's performances from 1995 onwards (including their suspicious disasters at the Tour) certainly stink worse than most.

 

[icefire]

but for this crash -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pya6ZVW-oKg
Jalabert may have remained a sprinter through out his career- i dont think he ever really rode hard in a massed sprint finish again following that incident.

A few months before that crash, Jalabert the sprinter won a Vuelta stage at Lagos de Covadonga (1994 was the last Vuelta held in spring). He's a joke of a rider in my book since that day.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Jalabert seems to be one of the drivers who benifitet most from Epo. When it became really popular around 93/94 he all of a dudden went from a sprinter to a guy who could win almost any stage and won a GT. After 98 when Epo use became more limited, Jalabert fell of again and was mainly a breakaway rider.

 

[Echoes]

If you're going to equate the doping carried out by the riders you named to what went on in the '90's, then you're the one who is either blind or several bricks short of a full load.

Exactly.


I did expect such response but in fairness, not from Ultimo. I'm quite surprised.

To easy to clear the big dopers from the 90's on the basis of the "doping has always existed" argument. As if EPO = amphetamine.

I'm happy to discard the whole decade when it comes to people who rode for Saiz.

Relationship with Saiz is not all.

Jalabert was clearly on a list of 50+% hematocrit Ferrari clients in 1999.

 

[ultimobici]

Exactly.


I did expect such response but in fairness, not from Ultimo. I'm quite surprised.

To easy to clear the big dopers from the 90's on the basis of the "doping has always existed" argument. As if EPO = amphetamine.




Relationship with Saiz is not all.

Jalabert was clearly on a list of 50+% hematocrit Ferrari clients in 1999.

Read my post again. I'm only pointing out that one cannot discard certain decades but keep others.

By all means discount the 90's but one has to acknowledge that the dopers then were using the best means of cheating that were available. In the same way Pollentier, Coppi & Riviere were using the best available to them.

I started watching this sport in the Lemond/Kelly/Millar heyday and have stuck with it through Indurain boring the lfe out of me in the 90's, Armstrong amazing then disgusting me into the next decade & Contador insulting my intelligence in this decade. But while I know that many performances I witnessed were on more than Evian I can still appreciate Jaja's tactical nous & Pantani's swashbuckling attack to Les Deux Alpes.

 

[La Pandera]

Accept 'em as they were? NEVER !

These guys stole palmares from my youth idol (Edwig Van Hooydonck).
I can't understand how dopers can be accepted. How strict are your principles?

EPO dopers are all in the same bag, for me and I close the bag.

I know that we aren't in the clinic thread but dope is inextrically linked with cycling in the past 20 years. And about the rider discussed in the OP, we've got facts.


I might understand Philippe Bordas when he said "cycling only lasted for one century."

...and those that competed in that one century are without sin????

 

[El Pistolero]

They were even dirtier than cyclists are now.

Jacques Anquetil, Coppi, Tom Simpson, etc took a lot more dope than cyclists take these days.

 

[Echoes]

By all means discount the 90's but one has to acknowledge that the dopers then were using the best means of cheating that were available. In the same way Pollentier, Coppi & Riviere were using the best available to them.

You're far from the truth.

Amphetamines and other stimulants can hardly be considered cheating.

As Aimar put it: "We didn't take it in order to cheat, we took it in order to stay awake" and "those who were feeling unwell took it to boost their morale."

They could not use it all the time, otherwise they were completely out of this world.

They had no effect on the muscles but on the psyche. Even Tino Tabak said it was just a tool like Sir Edmund Hillary taking oxygen bottles in order to summit the Everest.

On top of that no clean cyclist ever complained about others taking 'em.

There were no miracle substances back then. It only came up in the 90's, with the name: EPO.


And one shouldn't forget that antidoping only became legit because Mr Goddet instrumentalized Tom Simpson's memory in order to mask his own responsability in his death ... shameless ...


And I've never said I discarded a whole decade. In the 90's I save Edwig Van Hooydonck, Frans Maassen, Gilles Delion and Eddy Bouwmans among others. Those were true champions.

 

[ultimobici]

You're far from the truth.

Amphetamines and other stimulants can hardly be considered cheating.

As Aimar put it: "We didn't take it in order to cheat, we took it in order to stay awake" and "those who were feeling unwell took it to boost their morale."

They could not use it all the time, otherwise they were completely out of this world.

They had no effect on the muscles but on the psyche. Even Tino Tabak said it was just a tool like Sir Edmund Hillary taking oxygen bottles in order to summit the Everest.

On top of that no clean cyclist ever complained about others taking 'em.

There were no miracle substances back then. It only came up in the 90's, with the name: EPO.


And one shouldn't forget that antidoping only became legit because Mr Goddet instrumentalized Tom Simpson's memory in order to mask his own responsability in his death ... shameless ...


And I've never said I discarded a whole decade. In the 90's I save Edwig Van Hooydonck, Frans Maassen, Gilles Delion and Eddy Bouwmans among others. Those were true champions.

Think were getting our wires crossed and arguing about a subject we probably agree more than disagree on?

Didn't mean to jump on your post as such.

WRT Simpson & Goddet, I think drug testing was being pushed already and Simpson's death forced the Tour to be seen to do something.

 

[beer_thirty]

As if EPO = amphetamine.

this.

Yes, doping has always been around. No, the 'products' taken in different eras did not/do not affect folks in the same way. The problem with EPO is, if a guy w/ a 70% Vo2 max can take it and get a 15-20% boost, and the guy with the naturally occurring 87% Vo2 max takes it and gets 2%, we are no longer talking about the same two guys shoving a couple of caffeine suppositories up their bum, are we now. EPO ruined endurance sports in general, not just cycling. Nordic ski racing in the 90's was as bad or worse than cycling.

Too many mules magically transformed into mountain goats.

 

[hrotha]

Depends on what we're talking about, really. From a moral point of view, in my opinion, all doping is equal. It's cheating, it gives you an unfair advantage, however small, and that's all that matters. Dopers before the EPO era weren't any better than dopers from the 90s, ethically speaking. But if we're talking about who had actual talent and about how much doping distorts competition, then of course the 90s can't be compared to earlier times.

(I figure we're going a bit too far with the Clinic talk here. Maybe a split would be a good idea?)

 

[beer_thirty]

Depends on what we're talking about, really. From a moral point of view, in my opinion, all doping is equal. It's cheating, it gives you an unfair advantage, however small, and that's all that matters. Dopers before the EPO era weren't any better than dopers from the 90s, ethically speaking. But if we're talking about who had actual talent and about how much doping distorts competition, then of course the 90s can't be compared to earlier times.

(I figure we're going a bit too far with the Clinic talk here. Maybe a split would be a good idea?)

Well said; definitely a split between the actual morality of it, which is more universal, and the 'technology', which is for sure more period specific.

Yeah, it's definitely veered away from the OP intent I would guess...

 

[Bordercollie1]

This is a good idea for a thread, and Jalabert is a great starting point because I don't think he will be well remembered considering his big wins.

One reason that Jalabert will not be remembered well is that there is that he did not dominate the era: We don't talk about the 'Jalabert years'

The 90's are remembered as the Indurain era.
If we think of the classics then we tend to remember the cobbled classics winners, and for this era we think of Museeuw and Mapei
Asked to name a rider for the hilly classics and we would think of Bartoli
Chipollini was of course the dominant sprinter of this era.

I am surprised at the opinion that Jalabert was a 'classy rider'. Jalabert's career overlapped with Fondriest, Argentin and Frank VDB so the bar is high. I guess it is a subjective thing. The upright style made it look to me like his bike was a bit small...