Poll

Apparently there'a vacancy, I'd vote for Andy Wilkinson, but my opinion is not to be trusted.

Lance Armstrong
28 (40.6%)
US Postal/ Discovery
2 (2.9%)
Someone else on drugs.
13 (18.8%)
Anyone you felt never got a fair crack of the whip
10 (14.5%)
Jens Voigt
16 (23.2%)

Total Members Voted: 57

Author Topic: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005  (Read 7565 times)

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2012, 12:50:32 pm »
So you think clean racers are being unfairly convicted as dopers? Oh that is so sweet!
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2012, 12:55:06 pm »
I can't tell if that's meant to be serious or a joke.

d.

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #52 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

Doesn't prove nuthin', of course.

Toady

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #53 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.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2012, 01:46:27 pm »
He really needs some media training to stop any more of these ill-considered rambling outbursts.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #55 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 or Joanna Rowsell, giving a good impression of someone who'd just rather not know...  :-\
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #56 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.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #57 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.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #58 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.)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #59 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.

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #60 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?
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #61 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.

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #62 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

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #63 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).


Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #64 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
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #65 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.

RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #66 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.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #67 on: September 04, 2012, 11:31:34 pm »
What races? They never happened, it was all done in Aardman studios.
A cup of tea is the perfect bridge between real life and cake.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #68 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.
A cup of tea is the perfect bridge between real life and cake.

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #69 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.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #70 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.

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #71 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

slohill

  • still at it
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #72 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:
Organiser of   "Tour of Berwyns" & Panorama Prospect (June 6 2020 provisional)

Toady

Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #73 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!

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Who won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005
« Reply #74 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.