So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
4 lurkers |
80 watchers
Jul 2018
10:07am, 11 Jul 2018
26,668 posts
|
SPR
X-post with Larkim.
|
Jul 2018
10:12am, 11 Jul 2018
5,218 posts
|
larkim
My take on it is that in the 1990s 80% of the pro peloton were on "something", whether it was the occasional one day of amphetamines or systematic EPO / blood doping on a permanent basis. That receded to a hard core who couldn't kick the habit and who's coaches knew no other way. And now I'd be genuinely surprised if more than 1% of those who started the Tour this week have used an illicit substance in the last 12 months or intend / may use some during the Tour. But I've no evidence for my belief!! |
Jul 2018
10:52am, 11 Jul 2018
13,022 posts
|
Chrisull
Point of info about Geraint Thomas errr, in the UCI suspicion list, he ranked 6/10 higher than Lance Armstrong, Samuel Sanchez and Alexander Vinokourov. I do NOT know why, but I do know just about all the other 7 to 10 out of 10s on that list are now known dopers. Cav was a 0 out of 10. (but so was David Zabriskie who is a known doper now though). 10 out of 10 (certain of doping). Barredo and Popovych pretty much were done for doping because of this report. So it can be argued both ways, and (both ways you lose larks  ) Either a) the tests are good and they are catching known dopers, and therefore Geraint and Brad were dopers. or b) the tests/biological passports are flawed (more likely) because known dopers like Zabriskie get through easily. Given that I think it's b) then why so confident that in 8 years they've suddenly improved given the biological passport system was in place then? (introduced in 2009, test was in 2010). |
|
Jul 2018
11:07am, 11 Jul 2018
5,222 posts
|
larkim
I wasn't previously aware of that 2010 doc so that's interesting. But actually I find that re-assuring - that despite being high ranking based on circumstantial values (i.e. non-positive tests), and therefore no doubt subject to perhaps a little more scrutiny, in the following 8 years a rider like G hasn't been found to have transgressed. A bit like the Farah "likely doping" list - anything which demonstrates that the authorities have tools to focus on individuals and force them onto a radar is good news in my book. And obviously since passport info was in place, all the riders on that list have been monitored for passport violations (I presume?) and especially those who are still racing at a high level they will have been subject to the highest level of dope testing cycling has seen (it may still be far from perfect, but I doubt anyone would argue that it is weaker today than it was in 2010 or 2000 or 1990 etc). |
|
Jul 2018
11:38am, 11 Jul 2018
13,025 posts
|
Chrisull
Sorry Cav was 2/10. I notice Chris Horner was 0 out of 10. Chris Horner famously won the Vuelta in 2013 at age 13, which was pretty much universally derided. There was never any evidence he cheated other than his age and that he rode away from Nibali on the Angliru like Nibali was chained to a post. However in the USADA report there was a cheat, fingered by Levi Lipheimer as a fellow doper (he admitted EPO use to Lipheimer), whose name was redacted and replaced by "rider 15" which pretty much could only have been one of 10 cyclists, because of the specific details givens, who was caught but never convicted in the Lance Armstrong investigation. This is a very detailed blog on the rider 15 and why a Vuelta winner couldn't get a contract the next season. And circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict... 100tours100tales.wordpress.com |
|
Jul 2018
11:41am, 11 Jul 2018
13,026 posts
|
Chrisull
sorry age 41!!!
|
|
Jul 2018
11:42am, 11 Jul 2018
13,027 posts
|
Chrisull
And on his loss of a team/sponsor: cyclingweekly.com |
Jul 2018
11:53am, 11 Jul 2018
7,546 posts
|
GordonG
13 would have been very impressive!!!
|
|
Jul 2018
11:55am, 11 Jul 2018
5,227 posts
|
larkim
LOL, I thought aged 13 was a bit young!!! Doesn't that support my point though (to a degree) - if someone who flatly denies doping but (arguably) was known within the world to be a doper was unable to get a team / sponsor following a high profile win, doesn't that point to the sport being anti-dopers rather than pro-dopers? |
Jul 2018
12:39pm, 11 Jul 2018
13,230 posts
|
BAzoaxE
Surely a 10/10 can only be classified if they have either failed a test or admitted to doping otherwise there is an element of doubt.Likewise no one can ever be a zero as you just never know. This is such a tricky area. It is very hard not to be suspicious given the past and also some of the recent happenings. However, in my view you need hard evidence rather than assuming people are cheating just because others did and therefore they must be if they are at that level. I did lol at Chris's typo of 13. Can we ever trust anything he types again
|
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
