So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
2 lurkers |
80 watchers
Jul 2018
12:47pm, 11 Jul 2018
13,028 posts
|
Chrisull
The UCI of course never revealed exactly HOW they came to those test results, Geraint was furious at the time: bbc.co.uk BUT.... Barredo was given 10/10 and suspended by the UCI: bbc.co.uk I can't find what happened to Popovych (don't think he was sanctioned), but I do remember he was rumoured as dodgy before that anyway. On US Postal, his doctor was Ferrari: cyclingnews.com The 9/10 Menchov was retrospectively stripped of 3 places in the TDF: bbc.co.uk |
|
Jul 2018
12:48pm, 11 Jul 2018
13,029 posts
|
Chrisull
Oooh links have gone a bit funny, but still work.
|
|
Jul 2018
12:49pm, 11 Jul 2018
13,030 posts
|
Chrisull
Oh Barredo one is missing: cyclingnews.com |
|
Jul 2018
12:57pm, 11 Jul 2018
13,031 posts
|
Chrisull
Crikey I've just gone back to the UCI article: Quote "According to their category rankings, a rating from "six to ten," the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming". " So at the time they thought G was a doper, just didn't have the evidence to nail him. Big dog Tony Martin came in at a 7 as well. For those who are doubtful, I'd recommend reading "The Death of Marco Pantani" which has a great history of testing for doping and how it is possible to be sure from the circumstantial evidence. (in this case relating to Pantani - but the evidence applies to all). It is the single best book about doping in cycling there is. And very technical. |
Jul 2018
1:04pm, 11 Jul 2018
5,231 posts
|
larkim
G's defiance was fairly robust (though of course, he would say that wouldn't he...)
|
|
Jul 2018
1:13pm, 11 Jul 2018
5,232 posts
|
larkim
Just read these paras in a piece by Vaughters on CN from a year or so ago. This is the sort of anecdote that makes me reasonably confident things have changed - a lot!! "My Spanish was also improving quickly, so I could actually understand what was being said during these casual 400-watt conversations on climbs. And boy did that change my take on things. The major point of discussion was dosages, doctors, and doping. Omerta? Not in 1994, baby! Doping was openly discussed at the dinner table, during the race, during training rides, and on the massage table. Remember, this is pre-Festina scandal, pre-police raids, pre-EPO test, pre-blood doping test, pre-50 per-cent hematocrit test, pre-Floyd fairness fund, and pre-Oprah. There was no reason to keep doping hidden from anyone in 1994, as it was an open topic and open season. This was cycling's version of pre-Geneva convention warfare. An unmitigated and uncontrolled arms race. There were no effective tests, few controls period, and certainly no moral judgment. It was simply a fact of the sport." Things might have been driven underground, always a possibility of course... |
Jul 2018
5:41pm, 11 Jul 2018
26,670 posts
|
SPR
The point is it is no longer team sponsored so individuals are doping not teams. Also of you have to microdose to avoid detection, clean riders can hopefully still compete as dopers have to stay within limits. Not perfect but it is obviously better. The team led doping is what put pressure on riders who would have been clean to dope so if we're saying it's all still rotten, then either there's still that pressure somehow, or most riders will just always dope, which brings me back to the point of where does it start and why or are committed amateurs different? |
|
Jul 2018
8:58am, 12 Jul 2018
5,239 posts
|
larkim
More info from WADA on the Froome situation - lengthy (particularly if you read the attached briefing notes!) wada-ama.org Still leaves enough space for cynics to suggest that despite UCI / WADA not progressing a case against Froome "suspicion" still lingers (despite the fact that salbutamol doping in the Vuelta would actually make no logical sense!) |
|
Jul 2018
10:08am, 12 Jul 2018
13,034 posts
|
Chrisull
BUT it's a bit like meldonium, no particular proven performance enhancing benefits but loads of Russians took it! Interesting interview on why drugs (and meldonium) got banned here: npr.org I suggest you check the second para larks, particularly: "For meldonium, it quickly came to our attention that there were clear patterns of use by entire teams, which usually suggests a drug isn't being taken for medical purposes. How could every member of a team need the same medical treatment? " and "had a potential performance-enhancing benefit" I'm not suggesting Sky used salbutamol here, I'm suggesting that the whole peloton is quite happy to abuse this controlled substance. I suggest WADA and the UCI know about this. If they're not happy then ban it, if not then don't moan. And of course last year caffeine was set to be rebanned again: news.com.au |
|
Jul 2018
10:15am, 12 Jul 2018
26,680 posts
|
SPR
What evidence is there that the whole peloton is abusing salbutamol. Meldonium wasn't banned hence the use. It was monitored by WADA for awhile then banned. We know athletes will use supplements if they think there's a performance benefit so athletes using legal drugs is hardly a surprise. |
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
