So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005

80 watchers

Velociraptor Oct 2012 11:45am, 11 Oct 2012 21,858 posts	0 Velociraptor Huge respect to any who DID actually stop doping in 2006, whatever motivated them. Stopping taking stuff knowing that your performance is likely to drop off must be extremely difficult psychologically and the temptation to continue doping but be more cautious and secretive about it must have been overwhelming.
Chrisull Oct 2012 2:12pm, 11 Oct 2012 5,101 posts	0 Chrisull VanderVelde claims that while he won stuff before and after doping, he didn't actually win anything of note while doping! He blames Armstrong for "co-ercing him into it" which sounds perhaps slightly unbelievable until you read about Armstrong taunting Vaughters after an allergic reaction to a wasp/bee sting made him quit the Tour, because any of the effective treatments were on the banned list. Armstrong allegedly said "Poor Jonathan and his stupid little French team. What the fuck are you like? If you had stayed with me, this would have been taken care of but now you are not going to finish the Tour de France because of a wasp sting." The implication being, he could have taken illegal drugs with Armstrong and not have tested positive. VanderVelde's performances this year have been quite flat. I think Brailsford needs to watch out, as they will be coming Sky's way next. The marginal gains philosophy (skinsuits, light bikes etc) has been used by many for some time, but is pretty useless apparently unless you have a level playing field where nobody is doping. I'd like to believe Sky are clean, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if news breaks on them. I suspect there are new doping methods in place that are evading detection which will come to light in the future.
JohnnyO Oct 2012 2:16pm, 11 Oct 2012 13,902 posts	0 JohnnyO I am not sure Sky are doping, or if they are, it is at an individual level and not team sponsored like Armstrong's group were. What Sky will be doing is everything that is within the rules, which may include some things that others may consider to produce a playing field that is less than level.
The Teaboy Oct 2012 2:18pm, 11 Oct 2012 1,879 posts	0 The Teaboy I think Sky's other issues are with people they have been engaged with who have murky pasts - Yates (by association to Lance & Bruyneel), Barry, Leinders. They started out talking about being completely transparent and have turned out to be far from that. I still believe (I have to for my own sanity) that they did get their wins clean, but they haven't unequivocally demonstrated that. Dowsett's comments today haven't helped either. I'd have liked to have seen stronger comments on this case from the pro peloton, especially the riders who began riding post Armstrong. Unfortunately I believe there are still too many with skeletons in their closets.
JohnnyO Oct 2012 2:28pm, 11 Oct 2012 13,903 posts	0 JohnnyO I suppose part of the problem is that for a new(ish) team setting up, you need people who are 'in' cycling, and there are very few people in cycling who haven't been directly implicated or in some way connected to an individual or team that has been outed as cheaters. I really hope Sky are clean, but very little would surprise me about this sport now.
SPR Oct 2012 3:09pm, 11 Oct 2012 17,557 posts	0 SPR bbc.co.uk Pretty poor comments all round. Charity work has nothing to do with this. The cancer shield seems to still be in full effect.
fitzer Oct 2012 3:27pm, 11 Oct 2012 2,956 posts	0 fitzer Agree with you SPR.
fitzer Oct 2012 3:28pm, 11 Oct 2012 2,957 posts	0 fitzer I find it strange that Nike are still supporting LA
hammerite Oct 2012 3:31pm, 11 Oct 2012 17,630 posts	0 hammerite I think Dowsett is a little naive, a little misguided and is showing a little too much loyalty to Armstrong. You have to remember that Dowsett started his career at Armstrong's development squad alongside riders like Taylor Phinney. So I'd imagine Armstrong has had a pretty big impact on Dowsett's career (I'm not implying anything dodgy by this), he knows him personally, and probably thinks quite a lot of him (my first boss was an arse, doesn't mean to say he didn't help in my career). He's also racing in China at the moment and has almost definitely not read the report. He's probably not seen anything first hand to doubt Armstrong (he wasn't around in those days). I'm not sure his comments are defending Armstrong or his doping, but he's giving his opinion of Armstrong as a person and a cyclist. Few professional sports people are known for their good judgement or their intellect, so I'm putting this down as a bit of an ill thought out move all round. It's also unlikely that Dowsett will be at Sky next year, so perhaps he thinks balls to any "say nothing" advice from PR people.
CB. Oct 2012 3:33pm, 11 Oct 2012 16,394 posts	0 CB. I remember , I think, on watching the coverage of TdF this year they were having a discussion in regards to how the times etc have slowed in recent years and in particular the power output so my thoughts are that Sky are clean as are most of the other teams. The other strong point in Sky's favour is the close correlation between Taam Sky and Team GB. I find it very hard for Dave Brailsford to be ignorant/complicit in doping. In addition to this is the Blood Passport http://siab.org.au/what-is-blood-passport/passport-explanation.php. Unless im mistaken they don't even have to find the stuff in your blood now but can convict you on how your blood has changed because you have.