Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker.



The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free. But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient. Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead. Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?

Thanks,
Ian Williams aka Fetch
or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005

80 watchers
SPR
Oct 2012
10:07am, 11 Oct 2012
17,554 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
Leipheimer's evidence did suggest that Bruyneel had not organised a team doping struture during 2006 and 2007 (telling Leiphemier he should be able to do it by himself). Also I don't think Contador was supposed to be the star man that year?

Doesn't mean he didn't have his own doping program though. I'm resigned to the fact that most of the cream of the crop were doping until recently. They may still be doping but not with impunity (although the potential Contador cover up does throw up a question mark).

Nike are still supporting Armstrong. If Armstrong wins the PR battle somehow, does that undermine the effort.
Oct 2012
10:10am, 11 Oct 2012
1,866 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
The Teaboy
Yeah, I'm pretty convinced having read the Hamilton book that Contador's Clenbuterol positive was an echo from a blood transfusion.
SPR
Oct 2012
10:12am, 11 Oct 2012
17,555 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
Did Hamilton say why they would use Clenbuterol?
Oct 2012
10:16am, 11 Oct 2012
1,867 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
The Teaboy
No, but he talked about getting positive tests from reinfusing tainted blood. The timing of taking a bag in time for a big stage matches the failed test date.

Clenbuterol is used to aid fat burning and hence weight loss though.
Oct 2012
10:17am, 11 Oct 2012
21,854 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Velociraptor
I don't think anyone comes out of this looking good. Including the whistleblowers, all of whose statements have a big whiff of admitting to a great deal less doping, and greater reluctance to dope, than is realistically likely to have been the case, and none of whom is likely to have come forward and volunteered information that put themselves in the frame unless the consequences of not doing so would have been more personally damaging. All this "I made the wrong decision" and "I apologise to my family" and "I quit doping in 2006" stuff is just PR bollox. But they've at least done the sensible thing now, and I approve of sensibleness. And I can absolutely understand why they doped, and wouldn't be immune to temptation myself if beating other athletes in races was how I put bread on my table.

There are still professional cyclists out there whom I really, really hope are clean, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Brailsford was being a little disingenuous in his comments about the USADA statement, or if some current big names were looking at ways of obliterating their e-mail trails and bank transfer details.

And some elite runners I really, really hope are clean too ...
Oct 2012
10:28am, 11 Oct 2012
7,359 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
mulbs
as an ignoramus on the subject can I just ask if any of the subtances taken offer long-term enhancement, I know some are short sharp boosts but I'd have thought that stuff like hgh (regardless of its detection time) kind of had an effect that wasn't reversible . . . so I guess what I'm saying is that someone who has been clean since 2006 competing against someone who has been clean their whole life might still have gained an advantage from stuff done prior to 2006 . . . am I just whittering? can anyone offer a sensible answer?
Oct 2012
10:34am, 11 Oct 2012
21,855 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Velociraptor
Good question, mulbs.

In the longer term, the effects of steroids (both anabolic and glucocorticoid) are likely to be more harmful than beneficial, and there's unlikely to be any long term benefit from other frequently-used PEDs though they're also unlikely to cause long term health problems. So someone who doped prior to 2006 is unlikely to have any residual advantage apart from knowing the practicalities of doping if they decide to start again. And having doped, then stopped, is likely to have a placebo effect on the individual which would tend to exaggerate the drop in their drug-free performance.
Oct 2012
10:38am, 11 Oct 2012
7,363 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
mulbs
wonderfully clear answer Vrap, thanks for that, I like to know there is a level playing field again
SPR
Oct 2012
11:27am, 11 Oct 2012
17,556 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
2006 was when the Operation Puerto scandal broke AND sponsors started leaving so it does make sense for many to have stopped in 2006.
Oct 2012
11:31am, 11 Oct 2012
1,872 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
The Teaboy
Armstrong retired at the end of 2005. That probably helped too.

About This Thread

Maintained by fitzer
Given that Lance's wins now don't count.
  • Show full description...

Related Threads

  • cheating
  • cycling
  • doping
  • sports
  • tdf

Report This Content

You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.



Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.










Back To Top

Tag A User

To tag a user, start typing their name here:
X

Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.

Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more! Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!
Get Started
Click here to join 114,503 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here