Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: Exit Stage Left on August 31, 2012, 08:00:43 pm

Title: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 31, 2012, 08:00:43 pm
Obviously someone who actually completed the Tour is the best candidate, but we have to allow ourselves some creative space.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Noodley on August 31, 2012, 08:04:46 pm
nobody
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LEE on August 31, 2012, 08:10:04 pm
I have 100%, totally and utterly lost all interest in who won.

Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Palinurus on August 31, 2012, 08:15:03 pm
Rod Stewart
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on August 31, 2012, 08:21:44 pm
My favourite Lance moment is this, and I'm not a Lance fan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCIJ2JewPE
I think there's a tendency to forget the thrill of the moment. and I was entertained.
He also seems to have been the last to stick to a quill stem.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Basil on August 31, 2012, 08:24:28 pm
Was it me?
I do get confused these days. ???
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on August 31, 2012, 08:39:01 pm
Bayer Faber AB
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: fungus on August 31, 2012, 09:17:23 pm
Was it me?
I do get confused these days. ???

Yes it was mate & may I be the 1st to congratulate you  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on September 01, 2012, 07:15:15 am
You might as well ask who won the Tour de France from 1903 to 1999. 
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: clarion on September 02, 2012, 09:39:16 pm
nobody

+1
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: StuAff on September 02, 2012, 09:56:34 pm
You might as well ask who won the Tour de France from 1903 to 1999.

+1. Drug use in one form or another has been going on for far too long to start mucking about with historical records now. Taking the wins away from Armstrong does nothing to benefit anyone else. Andy Schleck doesn't count himself as a Tour winner (OK, no-one else does either)...
Apart from Lance, we have in recent times:
Ullrich. Doper, and who says he wasn't on something in '97..?
Zabel. Admitted doping during the '96 Tour.  But those were only green jerseys, so is that OK?
Riis (admitted doping during '96).
Pantani. I assume no-one's going to bother taking the '98 title from a dead man.
Indurain- well, there were rumours....
Fignon- admitted doping in his memoirs. And again, why take the title from a dead man?
Virenque....

Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: spesh on September 02, 2012, 11:06:35 pm
Bayer Faber AB

Amgen would be a pretty good bet.  ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amgen#Products
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 02, 2012, 11:10:47 pm
OK, you got me on that one. They have a very good line in recombinant products.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 03, 2012, 12:49:55 am
I thought it was Bristol Myers Squibb,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iji8xKgDzaQ
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: spesh on September 03, 2012, 01:13:35 am
OK, you got me on that one. They have a very good line in recombinant products.

And a couple of anaemia treatments, Aranesp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darbepoetin_alfa) in particular.

There was a certain amount of amused talk when Amgen started sponsoring the Tour of California.

Roche Pharmaceuticals is a name I've seen bandied about in connection with Armstrong, referring to possible usage of CERA, but unless he was getting hold of it 2-3 years ahead of those who were busted for it in 2008 and onwards, I'm minded to rule them out as a TdF winner in the Armstrong era.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: rogerzilla on September 03, 2012, 06:33:30 am
Was it Teethgrinder?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on September 03, 2012, 07:13:51 am
You might as well ask who won the Tour de France from 1903 to 1999.

+1. Drug use in one form or another has been going on for far too long to start mucking about with historical records now. Taking the wins away from Armstrong does nothing to benefit anyone else. Andy Schleck doesn't count himself as a Tour winner (OK, no-one else does either)...
Apart from Lance, we have in recent times:
Ullrich. Doper, and who says he wasn't on something in '97..?
Zabel. Admitted doping during the '96 Tour.  But those were only green jerseys, so is that OK?
Riis (admitted doping during '96).
Pantani. I assume no-one's going to bother taking the '98 title from a dead man.
Indurain- well, there were rumours....
Fignon- admitted doping in his memoirs. And again, why take the title from a dead man?
Virenque....

And much much further back than that.

Basically the most pragmatic solution at this point is to let Armstrong's results stand and to draw a line under it. 
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 08:26:37 am
So the appropriate penalty for extensive, team-managed doping associated with UCI corruption doesn't even include taking away the wins? This is drawing a line?

There are implications to retaining doped TdF wins, including win bonuses and libel payments.

The only correct answer is that nobody wins those TdFs. 'When everybody cheats, nobody wins' is a good philosophy!

There has recently been retrospective testing of more Armstrong samples - positive, of course.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 03, 2012, 08:49:37 am
The question rises as to where to stop. Just burn down the whole UCI having salvaged the three people over 40 who are non-doping tainted? A potentially attractive proposition but with incredible fallout potential.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 03, 2012, 09:32:25 am
So the appropriate penalty for extensive, team-managed doping associated with UCI corruption doesn't even include taking away the wins? This is drawing a line?

There are implications to retaining doped TdF wins, including win bonuses and libel payments.

The only correct answer is that nobody wins those TdFs. 'When everybody cheats, nobody wins' is a good philosophy!

There has recently been retrospective testing of more Armstrong samples - positive, of course.

Clearly the wins can be taken away, but will that make much difference to public perceptions? I've had people say they can't believe I can do a 200k Audax without some sort of drugs, and people do take Ibuprofen, and puff on athsma inhalers, even at that level of the sport.
There's a 'chemical generation' who lean on stuff such as energy drinks as part of their routine, and have an attitude that anything goes as long as you're not caught.
Improved testing, larger squad size, biological passports and tougher sanctions are having an affect. Delving into the past has a publicity benefit, and might discourage a few people from wearing their Discovery kit, but they can go out and buy some Sky kit.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 09:39:22 am
You are right. Much better to not penalise racers for doping and to maintain the current UCI arrangement of favouring specific racers. Not penalising those that pushed the system to where it is now. Requiring riders to take performance-enhancing drugs with unknown health implications to be competitive is a better option. Dealing with the implications would just be too difficult.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 03, 2012, 01:13:10 pm
If youtake away the wins then you take away every award won by anyone who has been sanctioned. If you just take LA then he could well accuse the authorities of vindictive behaviour if they don't chase down his compatriots in crime. Ideally we could wipe the slate clean, expunge the record and memory of anyone who was doping. Should we stop at LA though? Anquetil? Coppi? Hinault? What is the practical and pragmatic approach? Shooting one pour encourager les autre is not generally regarded as a fair and even handed approach.

A line has to be drawn at some point. Ideally it should be a clear and unambiguous line. Practically, what can be done?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 01:22:12 pm
Take out the ones that you can prove did it. Armstrong and Bruyneel fits that requirement, in spades.

Take out the ones that encouraged/ required doping by their teammates and suppressed adverse comment by others in the peloton and media. Guess who.

Take out the ones that have been protected by the UCI. That would be LA and Bruyneel again.

This isn't just somebody gaining an unfair win. This is much bigger than that. Wiping your hands and saying 'All too difficult, continue on.' is just encouraging the practice. You are saying "Winning, by any means, is all that counts. It doesn't even matter if you get caught, you'll not lose anything."
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 01:25:27 pm
ESL, a growing section of the general public are understanding that fairy tales are just that and that LA doped to win every TdF. Reality bites, but there you go.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: clarion on September 03, 2012, 02:13:46 pm
LWaB, that's the only reasonable line which can be drawn.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: hubner on September 03, 2012, 02:24:25 pm
How about we declare:

1998 and before: the "open" era. Recognise that doping was widespread and the deterrence of drug testing was of limited use. No change in results as they currently stand.

1999 to 2012: the "void" era. All results null and void, for all races. This is the transition era. Again, recognise there is widespread doping and let's not pretend only those who failed a dope test doped.

2013 -  : the "controlled" era. This marks a clean break from the previous "doped" years. I'm not sure how drug tests are currently done but needless to say it has to get much more strict; random tests throughout the year, samples kept indefinitely for re-testing in the future, immediate lifetime bans, all training methods and chemical intake declared etc.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 02:29:32 pm
Good luck with the 'controlled' era, given that we have the same organisation, team administration, doctors, suppliers and racers as now. Dopers win and rarely get caught.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: vorsprung on September 03, 2012, 02:30:34 pm

2013 -  : the "controlled" era. This marks a clean break from the previous "doped" years. I'm not sure how drug tests are currently done but needless to say it has to get much more strict; random tests throughout the year, samples kept indefinitely for re-testing in the future, immediate lifetime bans, all training methods and chemical intake declared etc.

Until someone invents something more effective than EPO that cannot be detected
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 03, 2012, 02:35:45 pm
The only way to prevent doping will be to have quarantined hotels and strict chaperoning. It would be like trying to run a 3000 mile long prison.

What you are advocating is essentially a razing of the ground. A scorcehd earth policy. What it will do (without the very expensive enforcement) is to continue as before except that the current management will be replaced by a new crowd, and teh curernt people will still be there but in the shadows.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 03, 2012, 02:38:45 pm
Actually, the only thing that could work is to have a permanent chaperone with each rider who is above a certain point on the GC (say the top 25) or leading the various standings. The cost would only be bourne by the biggest of races, and the chaperones would have to be randomly assigned every night to avoid financially induced blindness.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 02:55:39 pm
Not the only approach.

The results of being found to be doping could be high enough to discourage racers from taking part. Currently, only a few are caught and the consequences are not great. Vino has done just fine.

Armstrong has kept a lid on his team's doping for years by intimidation, bribery and public adulation. Proving to racers, their management and support staff that doping will eventually be uncovered and harshly punished, regardless of who you are or when it happens is a powerful deterrent to doping.

That approach is the line to be drawn in the sand.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on September 03, 2012, 03:09:31 pm
I haven't voted on the poll because the option I want isn't there: "No one"

Clearly, Lance should be stripped of his titles, but that doesn't have to mean someone else should be awarded them.

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: mattc on September 03, 2012, 03:25:50 pm
I'm sensing some confusion between drawing lines in the sand, drawing a line under some things, and underlining other things.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 03:38:29 pm
No confusion on my part. Tell the racing community that doping will be punished and then back it up by actually doing it, even to the biggest names. After several prosecutions, the racers, management and the rest will understand that you mean it and you can draw a line saying 'before now they doped lots. Afterwards, less.' and actually have the words means something. Those words have been meaningless for decades due to not wanting to change the status quo.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: rafletcher on September 03, 2012, 03:59:07 pm
Take out the ones that you can prove did it. Armstrong and Bruyneel fits that requirement, in spades.

Take out the ones that encouraged/ required doping by their teammates and suppressed adverse comment by others in the peloton and media. Guess who.

Take out the ones that have been protected by the UCI. That would be LA and Bruyneel again.

This isn't just somebody gaining an unfair win. This is much bigger than that. Wiping your hands and saying 'All too difficult, continue on.' is just encouraging the practice. You are saying "Winning, by any means, is all that counts. It doesn't even matter if you get caught, you'll not lose anything."

But what about all the others - or don't you care about them?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 04:29:08 pm
Go after everybody. We have people saying 'leave the very worst offenders alone', despite all the evidence. Take them down first and then go after the next biggest.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 03, 2012, 04:48:55 pm
What will bring them down is the sponsors attempting to reclaim their money. Strip titles and watch the lawsuits begin. (and a mandatory 4 year ban for a first offence).
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 04:54:34 pm
Removing their titles is a must; just leave the result blank.

I'm hoping the lawsuits start flying. Actions should have consequences.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 03, 2012, 04:57:21 pm
The problem of saying 'go after everyone' is a practical one. There are finite resources and it comes to a decision on where the money would be better spent. A line wil be drawn, the question is where. Armstrong (and others) would be liable for criminal offences in France (sporting fraud) - I wonder if they could get an extradition from the US?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 05:14:33 pm
Start with the biggest fish and keep working down the various groups until the money runs out or the desire to pursue the small fry dissipates. Armstrong/ Bruyneel/ UCI is the biggest fish and has to be taken out first, otherwise any subsequent prosecutions will just be for show.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: RJ on September 03, 2012, 05:58:47 pm
Who cares who wins won?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: rogerzilla on September 03, 2012, 06:00:59 pm
One of the unusual things about cycling is that dopers like Millar (D), Contador et al can serve a ban and come back, having had the benefit of drugs in reaching a particular level of training and muscular development.

Either make the ban for life, or prohibit them from going near anything pedal-operated while it is in force, to ensure all the training benefit is undone.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 03, 2012, 06:17:45 pm
I set the voting up so that you can vote multiple times. I thought it would be appropriate that the result could be influenced by the unscrupulous. Obviously there might be a record of those multiple votes somewhere, and the results might be overturned in the light of an altered ethical framework.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 03, 2012, 06:34:37 pm
It is even more appropriate that the poll winner is influenced by the organisation's approach. The result may be different if 'nobody' was an option.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on September 03, 2012, 06:52:43 pm
Another thing that I find myself pondering is the moral difference between raising your oxygen carrying capacity through injections of EPO and achieving the same by training at altitude for a few weeks.  Why is one acceptable but not the other ?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: rogerzilla on September 03, 2012, 07:16:58 pm
Another thing that I find myself pondering is the moral difference between raising your oxygen carrying capacity through injections of EPO and achieving the same by training at altitude for a few weeks.  Why is one acceptable but not the other ?
The clue's in the word I highlighted.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Rig of Jarkness on September 03, 2012, 07:29:05 pm
Those taking EPO still have to train.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 03, 2012, 07:45:38 pm
I suppose that there is authenticity in the capacity of the athlete being the result of an unmodified physiological response to the loads placed on them. Coaching will obviously play a big part. Sky have a team doctor with experience at Rabobank during the Rasmussen era. There's no point in raising red blood cell counts through altitude training and other physiological means if you don't have someone who knows how to get the results at the next stage.
I'm interested in the mind games, so Sky's team psychiatrist fascinates me. http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_6638147,00.html
The British Psychological society had a short article on how to win the Tour.
http://www.bps.org.uk/news/road-paris-long-how-win-tour-de-france
I was interested to know what Alastair Campbell had to say about Lance.
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2012/08/26/hard-not-to-like-lance-armstrong-and-i-still-want-to-believe-but-his-giving-up-made-it-harder/
Quote
At the time, his greatest challenger was Jan Ullrich. Armstrong admitted that the big German kept him awake at night. I asked him what was the bigger fear: that he might die, on being told he had testicular cancer, or that Ullrich might beat him?
 And that was when he gave me what I call the Roy Keane death stare, and said those remarkable words: “losing and dying. It’s the same thing.” I asked if he really meant that. He said he did, and I think I believed him. I have quoted it many times since, not least in political campaigns, as the ultimate in a winning mindset.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Veloman on September 03, 2012, 07:49:46 pm
I set the voting up so that you can vote multiple times. I thought it would be appropriate that the result could be influenced by the unscrupulous. Obviously there might be a record of those multiple votes somewhere, and the results might be overturned in the light of an altered ethical framework.

Brilliant sense of humour!
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: slohill on September 04, 2012, 07:50:35 am
Chris Boardman---famously clean.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on September 04, 2012, 12:50:32 pm
So you think clean racers are being unfairly convicted as dopers? Oh that is so sweet!
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on September 04, 2012, 12:55:06 pm
I can't tell if that's meant to be serious or a joke.

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: tom_e on September 04, 2012, 01:15:53 pm
I was interested to know what Alastair Campbell had to say about Lance.
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2012/08/26/hard-not-to-like-lance-armstrong-and-i-still-want-to-believe-but-his-giving-up-made-it-harder/
Quote
At the time, his greatest challenger was Jan Ullrich. Armstrong admitted that the big German kept him awake at night. I asked him what was the bigger fear: that he might die, on being told he had testicular cancer, or that Ullrich might beat him?
 And that was when he gave me what I call the Roy Keane death stare, and said those remarkable words: “losing and dying. It’s the same thing.” I asked if he really meant that. He said he did, and I think I believed him. I have quoted it many times since, not least in political campaigns, as the ultimate in a winning mindset.

Interesting contrast.

Quote from: Wiggins
That is not something I wish to live with. Doping would simply be not worth it. This is only sport we are talking about. Sport does not mean more to me than all those other things I have. Winning the Tour de France at any cost is not worth the possibility of losing all that.
Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs)

Doesn't prove nuthin', of course.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Toady on September 04, 2012, 01:38:18 pm
Wiggo being outspoken and controversial ...

Quote
When asked about the furore surrounding Lance Armstrong’s recent decision not to contest the US Anti-doping Agency’s charges of doping and conspiracy, Het Laatste Nieuws reported that Wiggins said, “It’s not good for cycling.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-i-didnt-enjoy-the-tour-de-france?ns_campaign=road-news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

Gosh, Brad.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: mattc on September 04, 2012, 01:46:27 pm
He really needs some media training to stop any more of these ill-considered rambling outbursts.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: spesh on September 04, 2012, 04:55:26 pm
Wiggo being outspoken and controversial ...

Quote
When asked about the furore surrounding Lance Armstrong’s recent decision not to contest the US Anti-doping Agency’s charges of doping and conspiracy, Het Laatste Nieuws reported that Wiggins said, “It’s not good for cycling.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-i-didnt-enjoy-the-tour-de-france?ns_campaign=road-news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

Gosh, Brad.

You'd have to wonder what the 2007 Wiggo would have had to say on USADA sanctioning Armstrong. Certainly back then, he had plenty to say about other riders:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-landis-took-us-riders-for-fools
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-happy-with-basso-suspension
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gutted-wiggins-aims-at-stupid-moreni
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/angry-wiggins-sees-hope-in-new-generation-1
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/?id=/riders/2007/interviews/tour_wiggins_post07

Maybe, like David Millar, he'll have more to say on the subject later on, but right now, he sounds like  Geraint Thomas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19386735) or Joanna Rowsell (http://twitter.com/JoannaRowsell/status/238902336376954880), giving a good impression of someone who'd just rather not know...  :-\
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 04, 2012, 05:38:36 pm
I reckon there's a business opportunity in the 1999 to 2005 title vacuum. They can re-run the races as a 'Masters' series , allowing anyone who rode the originals to compete, as long as they are now 'clean'. They could run them in February in the Southern Hemisphere, as a way of extending the ASO brand.
I did also wonder if the courses could be modelled on some of the longer Tours, such as the 1926. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Tour_de_France
Maybe the riders could ride period bikes as well.
If it catches on they could disqualify other 'dubious' winners to allow more events to be run.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on September 04, 2012, 05:48:15 pm
I like that idea. It's a bit like Roberto Heras competing in the [non-UCI] Brompton World Championships.

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: mattc on September 04, 2012, 06:02:06 pm
I'm all for making future races as clean as possible, but there seem to be practical issues about the past, and some compromises will have to be made.

Should those who cheated before 1999 be safe?

And if not, how far back should the investigators go? When were drugs first banned - 60s?

(I don't know how much evidence is available against pre-1999 tour winners.)
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 04, 2012, 06:20:25 pm
The most cheating happened in the second Tour in 1904.
Quote
Only the second edition of the race and already riders were getting devious in what is still considered one of the most scandalous Tours of all time. Fines were handed out for all kinds of rule-breaking, from riding in the slipstreams of cars to getting tows from cyclists who weren't even in the race. And while fans play a role in racing to this day, it's never to the extent of 1904, when hundreds of breakaway stage leader André Fauré's fans blocked the path of the rest of the peloton.
 
In total, nine riders were disqualified during the race for illegal action, which even extended to catching trains and hitching lifts in cars. Complaints about the latter from other cyclists eventually resulted in the disqualification of every stage winner, plus the top four finishers, though the exact reasons were never officially made public

Lots of other cheating stories here.
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/who-needs-doping-most-creative-tour-de-france-cheats-34277/
There's always been a Wacky Races aspect to the Tour.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: David Martin on September 04, 2012, 07:10:45 pm
Would it be illegal/against the rules to take a small can of bottled oxygen like this http://www.oxystart.com/index.aspx?pageid=1395180&prodid=6372799 to help with the high alpine classes and boost oxygen transfer?
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: sg37409 on September 04, 2012, 09:41:13 pm
"Its not good for cycling": It doesnt seem that way now, but every step towards a better sport and administration is good for cycling.   

I think David Millar is missing a trick in his anti-doping crusade here. His riding career is all but over. He could position himself for after this debacle as one who actually has the balls to speak up. The media already pay attention to what he has to say: Saying nothing, he's just another one of many who keep shtum. Not at all impressed.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 04, 2012, 09:46:00 pm
Would it be illegal/against the rules to take a small can of bottled oxygen like this http://www.oxystart.com/index.aspx?pageid=1395180&prodid=6372799 to help with the high alpine classes and boost oxygen transfer?

Yeah. that's legal.
http://www.booostoxygen.com/content/wada-and-oxygen-0
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: RJ on September 04, 2012, 10:43:26 pm
Saying nothing, he's just another one of many who keep shtum.

A charitable explanation is that (some) current riders might want to wait and see what USADA releases by way of evidence.  After all, we still haven't seen the USADA case.  All we've got is a lot of (compelling) circumstantial evidence that's already been reported in various places.  The only thing that's new is Armstrong's calculated flounce.

Let's see what various pros say once the USADA case is made public (as they've promised to do).

Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: spesh on September 04, 2012, 10:45:02 pm
"Its not good for cycling": It doesnt seem that way now, but every step towards a better sport and administration is good for cycling.   

I think David Millar is missing a trick in his anti-doping crusade here. His riding career is all but over. He could position himself for after this debacle as one who actually has the balls to speak up. The media already pay attention to what he has to say: Saying nothing, he's just another one of many who keep shtum. Not at all impressed.

It's easy for us on the outside to say that rider x or y shouldn't have just "spat in the soup", but taken a dump in it, but the story of what happened to Jorg Jaschke after he was busted in Operation Puerto shows that it's not quite as simple a situation as we'd think it might be.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/jorg-jaksche-doping-hypocrisy-and-a-dog-called-bella

A couple more articles that are worth reading, particularly the Inner Ring blog post:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/armstrong-should-riders-speak-up/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: sg37409 on September 04, 2012, 10:52:02 pm
I take your points. Its probably as much a fear of speaking out then this case fizzles out and your left like Jorge Jaschke on the outside. I can certainly undderstand that. Esp with having lived with the experience of how youve been "supported" within the racing world when you do take a stance.

I think Millar is in a different place: In addition to him being a "leader" in anti-doping, I do think he could do his future career prospects in the media a lot of good by taking a brave stance.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: RJ on September 04, 2012, 10:55:17 pm
... and by waiting (in a media-savvy way) for USADA to show its hand.  Shooting from the hip doesn't cut it with media pros.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on September 04, 2012, 11:31:34 pm
What races? They never happened, it was all done in Aardman studios.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on September 04, 2012, 11:34:00 pm
I reckon there's a business opportunity in the 1999 to 2005 title vacuum. They can re-run the races as a 'Masters' series , allowing anyone who rode the originals to compete, as long as they are now 'clean'. They could run them in February in the Southern Hemisphere, as a way of extending the ASO brand.
I did also wonder if the courses could be modelled on some of the longer Tours, such as the 1926. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Tour_de_France
Maybe the riders could ride period bikes as well.
If it catches on they could disqualify other 'dubious' winners to allow more events to be run.
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: spesh on September 05, 2012, 12:08:31 am
I reckon there's a business opportunity in the 1999 to 2005 title vacuum. They can re-run the races as a 'Masters' series , allowing anyone who rode the originals to compete, as long as they are now 'clean'. They could run them in February in the Southern Hemisphere, as a way of extending the ASO brand.
I did also wonder if the courses could be modelled on some of the longer Tours, such as the 1926. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Tour_de_France
Maybe the riders could ride period bikes as well.
If it catches on they could disqualify other 'dubious' winners to allow more events to be run.
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.

Hmmmm... not sure about that at the moment - see this Inner Ring post on the abortive Tour of Hangzhou:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/tour-of-hangzhou/

Quote
Goodbye the Tour of Hangzhou. The Chinese race was announced as a new race on the 2012 UCI calendar only to get cancelled less than seven weeks before the inaugural edition was set to start.

All races can have last minute hiccups but this event was a special one as it’s run by the UCI and got fast-tracked for World Tour status just a few weeks ago. Riders might celebrate being able to stop work earlier than planned but it highlights questions about the UCI’s continued conflict of interest as a governing body and an events promoter.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: hubner on September 05, 2012, 12:22:31 am
I reckon there's a business opportunity in the 1999 to 2005 title vacuum. They can re-run the races as a 'Masters' series , allowing anyone who rode the originals to compete, as long as they are now 'clean'. They could run them in February in the Southern Hemisphere, as a way of extending the ASO brand.
I did also wonder if the courses could be modelled on some of the longer Tours, such as the 1926. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Tour_de_France
Maybe the riders could ride period bikes as well.
If it catches on they could disqualify other 'dubious' winners to allow more events to be run.
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.

The World Cup can be held anywhere but bike road races can't, eg Milan-San Remo has to start in Milan and end in San Remo and needless to say the Tour de France has be be held in France.

They can have new races but they'll never have the 100 year histories of the most prestigious races. The only event that can move around from year to year is the worlds.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on September 05, 2012, 07:34:47 am
Leaving aside the humorous aspects of the suggestion, it's up to Amaury Sports Organisation how they handle the impact of USADA's obsession with Lance.
They organise events across the world, as the Wiki entry shows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaury_Sport_Organisation
They also organise Etapes for the Tour and the Vuelta. Indurain does those, so it's not too great an imaginative leap to a Master's series that settles some of the questions as to who is the greatest rider when riding in today's 'clean' conditions. There'd be an element of showmanship of course, but that's the same for pro-racing in general. I'd prefer something like that not to detract from the 'real' thing, so the obvious way would be to hold such an event in the Southern Hemisphere.
The ASO/UCI dispute of 2008 tends to be forgotten in all this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7264072.stm
That also sidelined WADA
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: slohill on September 05, 2012, 08:39:18 am

The World Cup can be held anywhere but bike road races can't, eg Milan-San Remo has to start in Milan and end in San Remo and needless to say the Tour de France has be be held in France.
[/quote]
Like starting in London or Yorkshire? :facepalm:
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Toady on September 05, 2012, 10:20:08 am
What races? They never happened, it was all done in Aardman studios.
The wrong trousers Gromit!  They're not UCI-approved!
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on September 05, 2012, 01:08:56 pm
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.

The award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar is a symptom of Fifa's corruption - it's an entirely unsuitable location for a football tournament and they only got it because the people who run the game stand to make a handsome personal profit from it.

Fifa is not a good example for the UCI to follow.

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: spesh on September 05, 2012, 01:33:34 pm
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.

The award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar is a symptom of Fifa's corruption - it's an entirely unsuitable location for a football tournament and they only got it because the people who run the game stand to make a handsome personal profit from it.

Fifa is not a good example for the UCI to follow.

d.

I'd say the UCI have been following the FIA model - hints of MaXXX Mosley-style management, Ferrari's International Assistance and Eccle$$$tone's money-grubbing.  ;) :demon: ;)
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on September 05, 2012, 02:23:45 pm
UCI, FIFA, FIA, IOC, IRB... can anyone name a major international sporting governing body that's not rotten to the core?

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on September 05, 2012, 02:57:54 pm
I reckon there's a business opportunity in the 1999 to 2005 title vacuum. They can re-run the races as a 'Masters' series , allowing anyone who rode the originals to compete, as long as they are now 'clean'. They could run them in February in the Southern Hemisphere, as a way of extending the ASO brand.
I did also wonder if the courses could be modelled on some of the longer Tours, such as the 1926. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Tour_de_France
Maybe the riders could ride period bikes as well.
If it catches on they could disqualify other 'dubious' winners to allow more events to be run.
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.

The World Cup can be held anywhere but bike road races can't, eg Milan-San Remo has to start in Milan and end in San Remo and needless to say the Tour de France has be be held in France.

They can have new races but they'll never have the 100 year histories of the most prestigious races. The only event that can move around from year to year is the worlds.
And the Worlds doesn't mean much to the general public. The only bike races with any prestige to those not (yet) interested would be the Olympics, "le Tour" and perhaps their own national tour - therefore it would make sense to promote more national tours and invest in national teams in countries where they might be some interest, but not much has been achieved so far.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on September 05, 2012, 03:10:35 pm
Seriously - UCI should take a leaf out of FIFA's book (!!! :o) by picking less obvious places to run their most prestigious events. The Middle East is an obvious area, since they have money, but also Russia, China, South and South-East Asia, all have potential, as does Latin America.

The award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar is a symptom of Fifa's corruption - it's an entirely unsuitable location for a football tournament and they only got it because the people who run the game stand to make a handsome personal profit from it.

Fifa is not a good example for the UCI to follow.

d.
Entirely true about Qatar. But Russia in 2018, while also certainly being corrupt, is different, in that it's a country with a tradition of football but never having achieved much at national level. In Qatar (I'm presuming) there isn't much/any tradition or culture of football (or cycling) and so dumping a prestigious international tournament in the country is going to do very little to increase numbers participating in the sport. You'd have to put the effort into developing a local league, clubs, etc.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: hubner on September 05, 2012, 03:29:02 pm
Back to the original question, I suspect most people would vote for "no one" but it's not one of the choices.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on September 05, 2012, 03:43:03 pm
You know, I don't see why the Tour de France couldn't be held in a different country - after all, the Paris-Dakar Rally (run by the same organisation) is held in South America these days.

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on September 05, 2012, 03:57:49 pm
I wasn't aware of that, so I checked it out. It's "The Dakar" now and, yes, it's in South America. "Dakar is your lifestyle" and usual marketing bullshit, see here. (http://www.dakar.com/dakar/2013/us/values.html) As the Tour of France is already Le Tour, it's on the way.

Le Tour by Rapha, supported by Colnago and Trek with the aid of Shimano and Glaxo. One of the foremost sporting endurance endeavours of our time - 3,000 kilometres, 150 riders, 1 winner, One Tour. Grand Depart, Kinshasa, 1st July 2013.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: RJ on September 05, 2012, 04:02:21 pm
You know, I don't see why the Tour de France couldn't be held in a different country - after all, the Paris-Dakar Rally (run by the same organisation) is held in South America these days.

d.

I bet the Senegalese are hacked off ...
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on November 06, 2012, 09:37:26 am
It's still Lance for me. This from a cycling website has reinforced my view.

Quote
Noted cycling pundits around the world were reeling from the shock of their cash cows continuing to disappear from the cycling landscape, like cows being sucked off the range by bloodthirsty aliens. A gobsmacked Ned Boulting managed to eke out a few words:
 
“My world has changed. Journalists are breaking the omertá. People are picking on me and ITV on Twitter. I just don’t know what to do any more. I want the Armstrong era back. At least that period was predictable and safe for us to profit from mass-produced cycling fiction on a large scale. Now? I actually have to work for a living. It’s a stunning turn of events,” stated Boulting.

My relationship to the Tour de France is via a chain, I watch ITV4, they pay ASO for the rights, and ASO pay the winners. The teams are paid by sponsors to get their names on screen, there are adverts in between. The more people watch, the better the process works. The web chattering classes looking for their moment in the Sun are a big turnoff for me. Kimmage I can take, at least he rode in the Tour. Those who seem to want to be a combination of Hunter S Thompson and Senator McCarthy I can choose to ignore by choosing Lance as my winner from 1999 to 2005. And I like Phil Ligget and the rest of the gang.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: clarion on November 06, 2012, 09:48:00 am
Well, you might wish it were, but you're just plain wrong.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on November 06, 2012, 10:09:32 am
Well, you might wish it were, but you're just plain wrong.

I can live with your disapprobation. If people want to lower the status of the Tour to 'I'm a Celebrity' on steroids, then I can still root for who I want to be 'King of the Jungle'. At some point they bring the event into so much disrepute that the significance of winning it becomes so devalued as to reappear at the other side, with Lance still taking the least time.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Peter on November 06, 2012, 10:22:15 am
I'm full of more (prescription) drugs than I'd like at the moment, so it might have been me.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: clarion on November 06, 2012, 10:28:09 am
ESL, you are so devaluing it.  Feel free to select your Sleb of choice.  In fact, if you're not happy with any of the other Grand Tour Results, you can play a virtual game with that, too.  Up to you, really.  But, in the real world, you are wrong.  Clearly that never bothers you.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on November 06, 2012, 10:49:37 am
People seem to be labouring under a category error. I was reminded of this when Lance's effigy was burnt. They originally burned the Pope, but that got controversial. Some seem to believe that the Tour is a way of electing the Pope of cycle sport, a man of shining integrity. It's not that, it's a business proposition dreamt up to sell papers with a murky history. There's a collision between the anti-commercial zealots of the net and the reality of the Tour. If those anti-commercialists want to find their own Pope of cycle sport then let them look among the amateur ranks, there are plenty of real heroes to choose from, rather than accepting the verdict of the Tour and feeling cheated a decade or more later.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: clarion on November 06, 2012, 11:30:32 am
But the people who run the Tour say that there is no winner for those years, so you have the misconception.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: Exit Stage Left on November 06, 2012, 11:54:07 am
I don't believe in God, but I look round churches, mouth the Lord's Prayer and see more than my fair share of choral masses. Others have to believe in a physical God who will redeem them. Those in the 'cancer community' saw redemption in Lance's victories. I got annoyed with the connection of the Tour with illness and redemption. To me he was just another flawed character dominating the Tour, an interesting study in what it takes to win.
I'm more interested in the Tour as a process than in the 'winner'. There's nothing to seperate Lance from any of the other winners of the period, other than his fall from grace, the power of which depends on how much belief you had in him. To me he's as much the winner as those in the years surrounding him. But I don't need a winner in the same way that many others do, victory goes to the nastiest in most instances. Some seek to validate their selfishness through role models like Lance, others would prefer to promote a purer model of behaviour to first place.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: citoyen on November 06, 2012, 11:55:36 am
Le Tour by Rapha, supported by Colnago and Trek with the aid of Shimano and Glaxo. One of the foremost sporting endurance endeavours of our time - 3,000 kilometres, 150 riders, 1 winner, One Tour. Grand Depart, Kinshasa, 1st July 2013.

 ;D

d.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: sg37409 on November 06, 2012, 12:09:43 pm
I'm more interested in the Tour as a process than in the 'winner'.
..
But I don't need a winner in the same way that many others do.

Seems a reasonable thing to do to start a thready saying "Who won the Tour de France"

Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: mattc on November 06, 2012, 12:15:08 pm
I'm more interested in the Tour as a process than in the 'winner'.
..
But I don't need a winner in the same way that many others do.

Seems a reasonable thing to do to start a thready saying "Who won the Tour de France"

I don't believe it's certain who started this thread.
Title: Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
Post by: fuzzy (retd.) AAGE on November 06, 2012, 12:47:57 pm
I voted Lance.

Lance won the TdF between 1999 and 2005 as he finished the event with the shortest cumulative time.

The fact that he did it doped to the eyeballs doesn't take away the fact that he was 'first' accross the line. He won. As a cheat.

The fact that he won the TdF between 199 and 2005 doped to the eyeballs means that his right to shout from the rooftops that he is a 7 times TdF winner has been taken away from him. He should be punished by financial penalty too.

Where do we go from here?

My take is that what went before stays in the past and a line is drawn over it. Activity below that line shoud still occur in that evidence of cheating should be sought and actioned when it becomes available. What happens above the line is that the governing body/ bodies should be challenged and forced to get their shit together. Regulations should be drawn up that instigate the long term storeage of samples for retrospective testing (this should overcome the issue of PED's being developed that can't yet be tested for) with positive tests being dealt with by lengthy (lifetime?) bans. Appeals will be allowed with the costs of succesful appeals being met by the relevant governing body so that legitimate positives do not adversely punish the athlete.

David Millar to ruke the world?