Will Chris Boardman be on the French list for taking EPO.

[andy1234]

Think you meant not all winners are doping as opposed to all winners are not doping. Some clearly are and have been.

Clearly...
Original post edited.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It's f**k all to do with bragging rights.
It's to do with backing up the point I have made many many times on this forum....That clean riders can win against the dopers.
I have argued that not all winners are doping, even in the pre EPO test, Wild West era of doping.
If you can't see why that might be important, I have no idea why you are here.

While I would be surprised if Boardman was among the positives, I still don't see that it would prove clean riders could win at that time in cycling history. Boardman had a strong list of palmares, but who's to say it would not have been a Merckx, Hinault, or LeMond like list had EPO not come along when it did. In fact LeMond becoming unLeMond like as EPO became popular probably proves the opposite more strongly than Boardman winning some prologs and wearing some yellow shirts for awhile.

Before you jump all over me I know Boardman did more than that, I'm just exaggerating to make a point.

 

[spalco]

In the middle of the dark years i dont know how it would be possible to do that clean. Didnt Rominger get "prepared" by Dr Ferrari for his record?

Are you questioning Obree too?

Certainly Boardman is not beyond suspicion, but I would be surprised and disappointed if he was juicing too.

 

[andy1234]

While I would be surprised if Boardman was among the positives, I still don't see that it would prove clean riders could win at that time in cycling history. Boardman had a strong list of palmares, but who's to say it would not have been a Merckx, Hinault, or LeMond like list had EPO not come along when it did. In fact LeMond becoming unLeMond like as EPO became popular probably proves the opposite more strongly than Boardman winning some prologs and wearing some yellow shirts for awhile.

Before you jump all over me I know Boardman did more than that, I'm just exaggerating to make a point.

I agree with most of what you have said here.
The point is not that EPO didn't have a huge impact, just that its impact didn't preclude the most talented from winning at (almost) the highest level.
It almost certainly prevented the most talented from winning a GT, but not every race result should automatically be brought into question.

 

[mikehammer67]

These are results of 2004 EPO test procedures and standards. Unless the rider injected within the previous three days or so prior to a test, a test should have come out negative or at least below the threshold for a positive.

There is still a question of how the French connected rider names with sample codes. I cannot imagine the UCI would have handed the forms over to the French. Does the race organizer have copies?

maybe they weren't too careful as they would have known there was no test available at the time


fast forward to 2012/2013 retesting and there's zero epo positives on the restests from 2004 olympics and 2005 world athletics championships 8 years later

 

[86TDFWinner]

his reputation is worth as much as LeMonds

Hardly. Boardman's never been a TDF winner and hasn't been under as big a microscope as Greg has. I'm familiar w/Boardman when he was a pro, but to compare his rep as the same as LeMonds, IMO is wrong. Just my opinion.

 

[pmcg76]

While I would be surprised if Boardman was among the positives, I still don't see that it would prove clean riders could win at that time in cycling history. Boardman had a strong list of palmares, but who's to say it would not have been a Merckx, Hinault, or LeMond like list had EPO not come along when it did. In fact LeMond becoming unLeMond like as EPO became popular probably proves the opposite more strongly than Boardman winning some prologs and wearing some yellow shirts for awhile.

Before you jump all over me I know Boardman did more than that, I'm just exaggerating to make a point.

If Boardman was clean, then yes, it's possible that he might have had a palmares like the greats but that doesn't lessen the relevance of what he did. For example it could put modern cycling results in context, If Boardman could pull out results like 2nd in the Dauphine Libere and Tour of Romandy, 3rd in Paris-Nice and 5th in Pais Vasco at the height of the EPO era, then what is possible for an equally talented rider in today's toned down racing?? Remember Boardman still holds the record for the two fastest Prologue's in the Tour.

This is of course all dependent on Boardman being clean which is still a big "if" but what makes this topic interesting and relevant.

 

[mikehammer67]

Riders regularly ask the UCI to store their samples for future testing?
Do tell....

i don't suspect him or anything

i've seen that story before about athletes asking for samples to be stored etc.

http://www.paularadcliffe.com/book/20.php
"At that time I asked the IAAF to refrigerate my samples because I couldn’t think of any other way to establish my innocence and my attitude to testing"


it doesn't have any value like if it's just talk...........

 

[pmcg76]

Hardly. Boardman's never been a TDF winner and hasn't been under as big a microscope as Greg has. I'm familiar w/Boardman when he was a pro, but to compare his rep as the same as LeMonds, IMO is wrong. Just my opinion.

Seriously!!! Boardman's entier pro career happened during the EPO era so we have no idea if he could have won a Tour. Under the same circumstance's, he might have been as good or better than LeMond and that is coming from someone who is not a Boardman fan.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Ask Darryl Webster.

 

[Netserk]

Even if he isn't on the lists, he could still very well be a doper.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is more than about one poster, it is about getting a more rounded idea of what was possible in the 90s. There is very obviously a generalisation/belief among among many posters and indeed pro cyclists that you couldn't win anything without EPO during the 90s, that you couldn't even finish mid-pack. T.Hamilton is just one example of many. Now if it turns out that Boardman was doing it clean, then it clearly mean's a re-evaluation of that belief even if he never won the big events. To have been capable of winning the events he did would be seriously impressive.

It's f**k all to do with bragging rights.
It's to do with backing up the point I have made many many times on this forum....That clean riders can win against the dopers.
I have argued that not all winners are doping, even in the pre EPO test, Wild West era of doping.
If you can't see why that might be important, I have no idea why you are here.

Yet both of you are hanging your hat on one rider?

And to the blue Andy, since you asked so nicely - if Boardman is or is not mentioned, it will not change a jot that I know it was possible to do well (even win) during the EPO fueled 90's.

That both of you are trying to pin a point (it could be clean in 90s) on to one solitary rider is bizarre.

 

[del1962]

Hardly. Boardman's never been a TDF winner and hasn't been under as big a microscope as Greg has. I'm familiar w/Boardman when he was a pro, but to compare his rep as the same as LeMonds, IMO is wrong. Just my opinion.

I am not talking about his race victories, but in the fact he is clean, so in that fact his clean rep is the same as LeMonds.

 

[andy1234]

Ask Darryl Webster.

Yes do that.
Darryl Webster has been pushed on this, and folded like a deck of cards.

Trust me. Darryl has NO insight into this.

 

[pmcg76]

Yet both of you are hanging your hat on one rider?

And to the blue Andy, since you asked so nicely - if Boardman is or is not mentioned, it will not change a jot that I know it was possible to do well (even win) during the EPO fueled 90's.

That both of you are trying to pin a point (it could be clean in 90s) on to one solitary rider is bizarre.

How is anyone saying it could be clean in the 90s, are you a bit slow today or something.

If Boardman proves to be absent from the list, it shows that it was possible to win big races without EPO in the 90s which many posters and riders have claimed was impossible.

I find those claiming just because he mightn't be on the list as irrelevant as silly. Why would a rider not dope for the biggest race of the year but dope for other smaller events or other years. Did Boardman somehow know Festina was going to happen in 98 or that the samples would be retested in the future. I would like to hear a logical explanation for not doping for your biggest target of the year but then doping for other events.

 

[Netserk]

How is anyone saying it could be clean in the 90s, are you a bit slow today or something.

If Boardman proves to be absent from the list, it shows that it was possible to win big races without EPO in the 90s which many posters and riders have claimed was impossible.

I find those claiming just because he mightn't be on the list as irrelevant as silly. Why would a rider not dope for the biggest race of the year but dope for other smaller events or other years. Did Boardman somehow know Festina was going to happen in 98 or that the samples would be retested in the future. I would like to hear a logical explanation for not doping for your biggest target of the year but then doping for other events.

No it doesn't.

 

[andy1234]

Yet both of you are hanging your hat on one rider?

And to the blue Andy, since you asked so nicely - if Boardman is or is not mentioned, it will not change a jot that I know it was possible to do well (even win) during the EPO fueled 90's.

That both of you are trying to pin a point (it could be clean in 90s) on to one solitary rider is bizarre.

Very un Doc like of you, Doc.
Neither of us is making that point in any way.

It is simply a measure of what could be achieved, even at the height of doping.
If even a single rider could win the events that Boardman did, it means it was POSIBBLE.

That you can't understand the importance of that, and how we perceive wins, historically, and today, is bizarre.

 

[andy1234]

No it doesn't.

Yes. It does.
But let's clarify. Simply absent from the list proves nothing, being tested and found to be clean for EPO proves everything.

There was no test, so there would be no timing of doses or masking.
If it was used, it would be present.

 

[horsinabout]

Graeme Obree had neither the professionalism, management set up or the wherewithal to dope - so this line of inquiry should be closed.

Chris Broardman on the other hand had all of the above, a careering coach, was a BCF pet project and he beat the world pursuit record and Rominger's hour record. So lines of inquiry are open.

I think Boardman did what he had to do for the specific unique specialism (pursuiting and TT) he was doing at the time, and how he was making his six figure salary.

And if the forum tries to turn Boardman into the next LeMond complete with halo, then I think it will be more solipsism than I can take.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How is anyone saying it could be clean in the 90s, are you a bit slow today or something.

If Boardman proves to be absent from the list, it shows that it was possible to win big races without EPO in the 90s which many posters and riders have claimed was impossible.

I find those claiming just because he mightn't be on the list as irrelevant as silly. Why would a rider not dope for the biggest race of the year but dope for other smaller events or other years. Did Boardman somehow know Festina was going to happen in 98 or that the samples would be retested in the future. I would like to hear a logical explanation for not doping for your biggest target of the year but then doping for other events.

Very un Doc like of you, Doc.
Neither of us is making that point in any way.

It is simply a measure of what could be achieved, even at the height of doping.
If even a single rider could win the events that Boardman did, it means it was POSIBBLE.]

That you can't understand the importance of that, and how we perceive wins, historically, and today, is bizarre.

Firstly - apologies, I hastily included that - obviously i meant that you are both pinning that a rider could be clean in the 90's on Boardmans shoulders.

The highlighted black I understand and is fine.

But both of you again mention Boardman in the blue - surely if you want the premise that it was possible to compete clean during that era then it should not matter what rider is named, but that any rider is named.

 

[mikehammer67]

Yes. It does.
But let's clarify. Simply absent from the list proves nothing, being tested and found to be clean for EPO proves everything.

There was no test, so there would be no timing of doses or masking.
If it was used, it would be present.

was everybody tested by the french in 98?

as you say these retrotests have more significance as the athletes knew there was no test available


it would be interesting if he was shown to be clean although there can't be anything definitive


the guy went to all the trouble of getting his house converted to a giant altitude tent for the hour record when he could have freely doped............................interesting if true

 

[andy1234]

Firstly - apologies, I hastily included that - obviously i meant that you are both pinning that a rider could be clean in the 90's on Boardmans shoulders.

The highlighted black I understand and is fine.

But both of you again mention Boardman in the blue - surely if you want the premise that it was possible to compete clean during that era then it should not matter what rider is named, but that any rider is named.

To the bold, absolutely Doc, but I can only reference what I know.
If there are other names, then We can discuss them at the time.

 

[andy1234]

was everybody tested by the french in 98?

as you say these retrotests have more significance as the athletes knew there was no test available


it would be interesting if he was shown to be clean although there can't be anything definitive


the guy went to all the trouble of getting his house converted to a giant altitude tent for the hour record when he could have freely doped............................interesting if true

Not everyone. Stage winners, jersey holders and a randoms each day.

 

[pmcg76]

Firstly - apologies, I hastily included that - obviously i meant that you are both pinning that a rider could be clean in the 90's on Boardmans shoulders.

The highlighted black I understand and is fine.

But both of you again mention Boardman in the blue - surely if you want the premise that it was possible to compete clean during that era then it should not matter what rider is named, but that any rider is named.

You are right about any rider proving the same thing but how likely is that?? Would be delighted to see a number of riders being clean but how many will be at a high level like Boardman. I asked in another thread about testing protocol in 98 so out of the stage winner's, if forced to choose who else might have been clean that year, I would say Backstedt but that would be with very little confidence.

Andy has always defended Boardman as he had personal contact, I didn't so I have never said Boardman didn't dope. Even now most of my posts include the word "if" as a disclaimer. Like you posted earlier I tend toward believing Baordman was clean but I wouldn't bet too much on it either.

At the end of the day Boardman had a team-mate say that he never saw Boardman dope which is the same situation as Basson's and Moncoutie yet they have legendary status whilst Boardman is doubtful. Strange that, but it boils down to the fact that Boardman had results in the EPO era which makes people more disbelieving. Now we hopefully will get a better idea of what the reality was.

 

[Freddythefrog]

1 BOARDMAN Christopher GAN 100 06:12 54.194
2 OLANO MANZANO Abraham Banesto 70 0:04 53.617
3 JALABERT Laurent O.N.C.E. 50 0:05 53.475
4 JULICH Bobby Cofidis 40 ,, ,,
5 MOREAU Christophe Festina - Lotus 32 ,, ,,
6 ULLRICH Jan Team Telekom - ARD 26 ,, ,,
7 ZüLLE Alex Festina - Lotus 22 0:07 53.193
8 DUFAUX Laurent Festina - Lotus 18 0:09 52.913
9 TCHMIL Andrei Lotto - Mobistar 14 0:10 52.775
10 EKIMOV Viatcheslav US Postal Service 10 0:11 52.637
11 ANDREU Frankie US Postal Service 8 ,, ,,
12 LUIS CASERO MORENO Angel Vitalicio Seguros 6 ,, ,,
13 HEULOT Stephane Francaise des Jeux 4 ,, ,,
14 VIRENQUE Richard Festina - Lotus 2 0:12 52.500
15 JALABERT Nicolas Cofidis 1 ,, ,,
16 BROCHARD Laurent Festina - Lotus ,, ,,
17 KNAVEN Servais TVM - Farm Frites ,, ,,
18 CIPOLLINI Mario Saeco Macchine da Caffe' - Cannondale 0:13 52.364
19 DEKKER Erik Rabobank ProTeam ,, ,,

Not anyone on that list that has the ring of cleanliness about them. According to Walsh when does Andreau stop using ?

However, when were the samples taken during the race ? horsinabout has it very close in his post above. Boardman had satisfied his "professional" needs by the end of day 1. If the time to "failure to detect" was longer than that to the point of taking the sample that has been kept, then Boardman may well be clean, whilst possibly having used epo earlier.