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!lookkg386 said: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
Accept 'em as they were? NEVER !hrotha said:It's the 90s, man. We either accept them as they were, or discard the whole decade. And the one after that. And...
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.Echoes said:I know that we aren't in the clinic thread but dope is inextrically linked with cycling in the past 20 years.
I'm happy to discard the whole decade when it comes to people who rode for Saiz.hrotha said:It's the 90s, man. We either accept them as they were, or discard the whole decade.
ultimobici said: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.
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 said: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.
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.ultimobici said: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.
Fair enough. ONCE's performances from 1995 onwards (including their suspicious disasters at the Tour) certainly stink worse than most.Roland Rat said: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.
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.dancing on pedals said:
Exactly.Roland Rat said: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.
Relationship with Saiz is not all.Roland Rat said:I'm happy to discard the whole decade when it comes to people who rode for Saiz.
Read my post again. I'm only pointing out that one cannot discard certain decades but keep others.Echoes said: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.
...and those that competed in that one century are without sin????Echoes said: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."
You're far from the truth.ultimobici said: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.
Think were getting our wires crossed and arguing about a subject we probably agree more than disagree on?Echoes said: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.
this.Echoes said:As if EPO = amphetamine.
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.hrotha said: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?)