# Does Anyone Else Not Care?



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Let them inject themselves with EPO, Red Bull, and elephant stem cells for all I care. Most of the people in this forum could care less about the "sport" they just want some blood! Someone must pay, lets get Bibles and ropes!


I could care less, just give me some spectacle ala Virenque or Pantani, or Floyd in Stage 17! Allez Allez Allez!!

Am I the only one?


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

It is an interesting arguement. We (as spectators) want to see these awesome performances while ideally want it to be a "fair game". 

If they just let the pro's have at it, then it can set a bad example for the amatures coming up who don't have the Dr.'s and support staff to get it right. Doping is easy, but doing it so that it is "safe" is not.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

*.....they just want some blood!*

Echoes from the coliseum? Why do we study history, repete its mistakes and then expect a better result?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

JohnHemlock said:


> Most of the people in this forum could care less about the "sport" they just want some blood!


If you actually cared about the "sport" and not your own temporary entertainment you'd probably be of a different mindset as it relates to doping but a chacun ses gouts.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

If health is the concern it should be legal and medically supervised. The current regime just pushes them to go further into the medical fringes in an effort to avoid detection. Make everything subject to a limit like HCT used to be and forget the rest. In many ways the physiologic changes in a grand tour are the unhealthy parts and the dope restores homeostasis (rather like the arguments Fuentes used to avoid the malpractice case in Spain).


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Isn't that like going to the "Politics Only" forum and stating you aren't interested in politics?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Up to a point I think you're right. I would say you more have to understand the different eras of the sport and what was required to compete in the GC at that period of time. 

I think if they ever found a way to 100% prove no doping was in the sport, the vast majority of people that are outraged about it would not follow the sport anymore. They just love the scandal.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

I don't care if they dope but I want to know about it.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Dwaynebarry said:


> I don't care if they dope but I want to know about it.


Hmm, I like that angle. Sort of like I don't care who is ****ing who in Hollywood but it's fun to read about in the checkout aisle.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> , the vast majority of people that are outraged about it would not follow the sport anymore. They just love the scandal.


You and the OP have a rather limited regard for fans of pro cycling.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

The assumption with this thread is that it takes drugs to make for an entertaining race.

I think the entertainment value would be the same... Just slower times in the long run (but still supernatural performances to us mere mortals).


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm a fan of Pro Cycling.
I'm not a fan of doping.
I have an intellectual interest in doping.
I don't care if the cyclists dope.
I don't like it when cyclists lie about doping.
I don't like it when cycling organizations 'protect' some riders but ostracize others.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

JohnHemlock said:


> Hmm, I like that angle. Sort of like I don't care who is ****ing who in Hollywood but it's fun to read about in the checkout aisle.


Not in that sense, in the sense as AJL said, I have an intellectual curiosity. How much does it matter, can a better medical program make a huge difference, etc. 

I also find it insulting when these guys lie thru their teeth, to use Ulrich's phrase, it's as if they don't think I can put 2 and 2 together. Furthermore, the fact that guys like Armstrong can dupe the naive rubs me the wrong way, just like I find psychics and televangelists objectionable. 

I've been following cycling right thru the effective doping era, and it simply isn't believable to me that Armstong and co. did what they did at that time without doping. Plus the mountain of circumstantial evidence around him/them is huge. I'd like to know the truth.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

*My answers in bold*

I'm a fan of Pro Cycling. *I so totally agree*
I'm not a fan of doping. *I agree*
I have an intellectual interest in doping.*I agree*
I don't care if the cyclists dope.*I somewhat agree but I really wish they didn't*
I don't like it when cyclists lie about doping. *Especially when faced with evidence, think Floyd, Tyler, Jan etc...*
I don't like it when cycling organizations 'protect' some riders but ostracize others.*This is what bugs me the most. I always think back to those East German women  or the so called amateur soviet national hockey team*


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

MaddSkillz said:


> The assumption with this thread is that it takes drugs to make for an entertaining race.
> 
> I think the entertainment value would be the same... Just slower times in the long run (but still supernatural performances to us mere mortals).


Actually, that wasn't my assumption. Entertaining racing is what makes an entertaining race. My point is Just that I don't object to doping on any grounds. Does injecting yourself with 50ccs of post-concert Eddie Van Halen sweat help you recover? I have no idea but if you want to try it and find out, be my guest. And if your soigneur gets caught coming out of Van Halen's dressing room with syringes and soiled towels we shouldn't have to hear about it for 10 years!

Obviously, most people DO care, which is why the Doping Forum gets more play than the actual Racing Forum. I was just curious if anyone else could give a crap.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

I care about it from a couple of standpoints.

1.) To me, cycling in and of itself is the most beautiful sport in the world. "Pro Cycling" _should_ embody this.

2.) "Legalized doping" in whatever from it might take on, would never be "enough". There will always be someone concocting bigger and badder to gain an edge on the competition and thus the cycle would continue regardless.

3.) It's not real. It's a lie. If I want to live vicariously through momentary, made-up fantasy-land I can go to the movie theater. 

4.) Doping is what in all probability eventually took the life of my best friend and racing buddy. So yeah, I care.

Glad I shook my head "no" when she offered me those little pills that day so long ago...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Personally...

For me, professional cycling is entertainment and I enjoy watching "Super Human" performances. I could give a rip whether they are doping or not.

If I want to see great racing, I'll go watch the pro's at some of the local events....or heck, even the local events themselves since there is good racing going on at the amateur levels. Many of the stage races around here in the P/1/2 class has great racing as well.

But those guys don't hold a candle to the top level pro's...of which I have little doubt that there is system wide doping going on....which leads to "Super Human" performances.

Pick a sport where a good amount of money is involved and you will find high levels of doping...however they are smart enough to not try and kill their sport through anti-doping measures. They catch a few fringe guys and say...Look, we are doing something about it and we are clean.

I love college football as well...but know many of those guys are doped to the gills...and at the pro level...well, lets just say it's every bit as bad if not worse than cycling. However, those guys are all starting to drop dead at early ages due to the physical pounding their body takes, not just the doping that's going on. Many of them, even if they don't dope are physically disabled for their entire lives after leaving the pro ranks.

I say let them dope...make sure it's doctor supervised and let us all be entertained.

For those complaining about the kids, and how it would make them dope if they wanted to be competitive.....Well, if you want to be a pro cyclist or pro athlete, that's the price you pay to be at the top level. If you don't want to do it there is plenty of other jobs out there for them to do that pay quite well...many times more than they ever would make on a bike, even with doping.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

I really dont care but it give many so much to pick about.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

blackhat said:


> You and the OP have a rather limited regard for fans of pro cycling.


I don't think most fans are that bothered about it to be honest. They are not the people I am talking about. I think it's the most angry and outraged people about doping that would not follow the sport anymore if it was 100% stamped out.


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

I don't care if they dope as long as they don't rat each other out! And yes, the doping forum is like US magazine or National Enquirer in the super market check out aisle.
Fun to read but I take it all with a grain of salt.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

It mostly irks me that Lance Armstrong is held up as an icon, almost a demi-god, and he cheated to get there. I don't know if I'm more annoyed with him or with the people who think he's...divine. Because really, I read in some book or other, people with cancer come to see him, to touch him, because they think he can somehow be a lightening rod for God's good grace and make them better. I understand that no one can hold up such delusions. Maybe I just find it irritating that Lance seems to half-believe it, too.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Interesting the parallels to the legalize marijuana argument:

People do it anyway
Criminalizing it just makes for a black market
Legalizing would provide more "control"

Doping will never be overcome because it's not a medical issue, it's a moral and business issue. Cycling is a business and winning = profit. Combine that with individual cyclists who are, by nature, competitive and have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to win...and those who are doping will always be one step ahead of those who are trying to catch them. Hopefully, it motivates those who are clean to train that much harder. The Americans did, after all, eventually beat that Soviet "amateur" hockey team as I recall  JMHO.


----------



## bikeguy0 (Sep 23, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Personally...
> 
> For me, professional cycling is entertainment and I enjoy watching "Super Human" performances. I could give a rip whether they are doping or not.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. Other sports are not killing their fan base with constant negative PR like cycling is. I know people who just stopped watching the tour after Floyd. It just isn't worth it to them to waste 3 weeks of their life watching and rooting for someone and there is a 50/50 chance someone will be kicked out of the race or have their results negated.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

It has become more and more difficult to secure sponsorships for teams lately. The risk that a major rider, or the entire team will be kicked out of an event seems to be getting higher and higher.

Just think about how much $$ Radio Shack will lose IF, for example, the team was not allowed at the TDF this year.

This has happened before = no bueno.

These riders need to start ratting eachother out....soon there will be no $$ to pay their bills if this continues.

The riders think they are protecting the sport, but they are shooting themselves in the foot by protecting eachother with secrecy.

Possibly the sponsors should start suing the teams. Put the pressure on the coaches etc...


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

I think Bill Simmons from ESPN neatly summarizes what 99.9999% of the population thinks about doping. Or in other words, anyone who doesn't hang out in cycling forums. . .

Q: So Floyd Landis admits to doping. It seems that cycling might be as dirty as the WWE. Do we even care? 
-- Tim K. Red Bank, N.J


SG: Nope. Well, I don't care. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally don't care about the following things: Olympic rights bids; the NIT; any marathon; any exhibition game in any sport; anything that happens in horse racing other than the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness (or the Belmont, if a horse has a chance to win a Triple Crown); any professional women's sport except tennis; any track and field or swimming event that isn't happening at the Olympics; any heavyweight title fight involving two Russians; any story about the NFL Network and Time Warner; jockeys; college sports cheating scandals; any athletes who mailed a cell phone picture of his crank to a love interest who then stuck it on the Internet; any lockout/strike story written three months or more before that lockout/strike could happen; and last but not least, anything that happens in cycling, unless it's Kevin Costner trying to win the Hell of the West with a bad mustache and a brain tumor.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

JohnHemlock said:


> Let them inject themselves with EPO, Red Bull, and elephant stem cells for all I care. Most of the people in this forum could care less about the "sport" they just want some blood! Someone must pay, lets get Bibles and ropes!
> 
> 
> I could care less, just give me some spectacle ala Virenque or Pantani, or Floyd in Stage 17! Allez Allez Allez!!
> ...



It kind of reminds me of people with food. They want organic food but then they complain about the price. But when they buy cheaper foods, they complain about the additives. 

Look at all the complaints about the "lack luster" TOC. People want excitement but then complain about the platter its served on. Pros are Pros, let them do what they want. Just keep my category clean and I'll be happy.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

CabDoctor said:


> It kind of reminds me of people with food. They want organic food but then they complain about the price. But when they buy cheaper foods, they complain about the additives.
> 
> Look at all the complaints about the "lack luster" TOC. People want excitement but then complain about the platter its served on. Pros are Pros, let them do what they want. Just keep my category clean and I'll be happy.



The ATOC was "boring", yet the pros were most likely juiced on something according to the general consensus in these forums.

Team tactics today = more boring races. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not the teams are doping.

IF all the teams were clean....went back to old school "emotional" riding/racing w/o radios etc...trust me the ATOC would have been even more fun to watch for most of us at least...


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> The ATOC was "boring", yet the pros were most likely juiced on something according to the general consensus in these forums.
> 
> Team tactics today = more boring races. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not the teams are doping.
> 
> IF all the teams were clean....went back to old school "emotional" riding/racing w/o radios etc...trust me the ATOC would have been even more fun to watch for most of us at least...


No way. If all the riders were clean and had one bullet in their gun so to speak, they would ride much more conservatively. Why risk gaining 2mins on a mountain stage when you could lose three the next day in a TT. Pretty much they'd all ride like Evans circa 2008


----------



## Don Duende (Sep 13, 2007)

Without physical evidence it is only hearsay. I predict that no heads will roll as a result of Landis' statement. Besides, I cannot foresee the suspension of the entire Pro Peloton. The best that can come of it is an enlightened approach to pro cycling and a responsible application of PED. There should be full disclosure by all racers, teams and their physicians about what treatments are being employed for liability purposes and to protect the athletes.

Trying to pretend that there is no doping in cycling only is fooling the naive and the novice. Just see how Floyd Landis' confession has publicly embarrassed the UCI and WADA, not to mention LA, JB, et al. Lance was so upset that he fell off his bike!

The Emperor has no clothes!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

CabDoctor said:


> No way. If all the riders were clean and had one bullet in their gun so to speak, they would ride much more conservatively. Why risk gaining 2mins on a mountain stage when you could lose three the next day in a TT. Pretty much they'd all ride like Evans circa 2008


PEDs have been in the sport since the 60's. When the pros in the 60s were told that they were no longer "allowed" to use amphetamines, they actually replied as a group saying "what....are you crazy...we need drugs to do our jobs?!"

Saying that the ATOC was boring because the riders were not using enough PEDs is silly in my opinion. 

Team tactics have changed over the decades...nothing else. That is all. Older pros talk about how riders don't ride with "emotion" anymore. Emotion is what made for exciting break aways and mtn. stages. A single days victory ("one bullet in the gun") used to be a much bigger deal than it is today....

Team tactics have become way too predictable and mechanical. It reminds of the direction the UFC is heading. A lot of the fights are way too mechanical. Anderson Silva even pranced around the ring to seal a very conservative victory...horrible I tell you..


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> Saying that the ATOC was boring because the riders were not using enough PEDs is silly in my opinion.


I never said the TOC was clean, in fact I believe quite the opposite. But what I am saying is that the evolution of team tactics culminating in this very defensive style of riding that made the TOC "boring", would have been accelerated and exaggerated by riders being clean. 

In other words, if a GCer is riding this conservatively with the aid of drugs, imagine how much more conservatively he'd ride if he didn't have them helping him. 

I agree team tactics suck and while radios are kind of cool, they are relied on WAY to much etc etc.

As a side note Personally I didn't think the TOC was boring at all. I love watching guys battle it out in TT.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

who cares? not I. I liked the espn answer -- with some changes: Olympic rights bids; the NIT; any marathon; any exhibition game in any sport; anything that happens in horse racing; any professional women's sport except tennis; any track and field event that isn't happening at the Olympics or isn't a state championship; any heavyweight title fight; any story about the NFL; jockeys; college sports cheating scandals; any sport that does not determine the winner by scoring points or by timing; and last but not least, doping in cycling,


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

David Loving said:


> who cares?


Pretty much everyone that posted ahead of you


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

CabDoctor said:


> Pretty much everyone that posted ahead of you


There were actually a few who admitted that they didn't.

I care, but I simply can't dwell on it because it's a very deeply rooted problem. The riders aren't doping any less, just being perhaps a step or two ahead of the testing process. If what Landis said is indeed true, then it would appear that certain riders had a free pass, which is something I've suspected for a while.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

CabDoctor said:


> I never said the TOC was clean, in fact I believe quite the opposite. But what I am saying is that the evolution of team tactics culminating in this very defensive style of riding that made the TOC "boring", would have been accelerated and exaggerated by riders being clean.
> 
> In other words, if a GCer is riding this conservatively with the aid of drugs, imagine how much more conservatively he'd ride if he didn't have them helping him.
> 
> ...



Yep...kind of. I still think there is a place for dramatic racing w/o ped's. Some days you just feel strong and go for the glory.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

CabDoctor said:


> It kind of reminds me of people with food. They want organic food but then they complain about the price. But when they buy cheaper foods, they complain about the additives.
> 
> Look at all the complaints about the "lack luster" TOC. People want excitement but then complain about the platter its served on. Pros are Pros, let them do what they want. Just keep my category clean and I'll be happy.



I was about to post something very similar, how many people are posting in the TOC was boring thread and then coming over here to bash the dopers? The hypocritcal views of people amaze me. The NFL and MLB are pefect examples of the way people will turn a blind eye to the obvious as long as the product being put out there is good. But as someone else kind of put it, we want to see blood!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

JohnHemlock said:


> Let them inject themselves with EPO, Red Bull, and elephant stem cells for all I care. Most of the people in this forum could care less about the "sport" they just want some blood! Someone must pay, lets get Bibles and ropes!
> 
> 
> I could care less, just give me some spectacle ala Virenque or Pantani, or Floyd in Stage 17! Allez Allez Allez!!
> ...


With ya. I just don't care. They're all cheating in some way or another, and really, I just want to see the spectacle of huge attacks and amazing stages.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> With ya. I just don't care. They're all cheating in some way or another, and really, I just want to see the spectacle of huge attacks and amazing stages.


Amazing. How can any fan be so apathetic towards doping in athletics??

You are missing the point. The "spectacle" would be much more amazing IF WE KNEW the sport was 100% clean.

Will that ever happen? I don't know. I can say with confidence that MOST true cycling fans would push the STAPLES EASY BUTTON to clean up the sport if such a button existed.

So, "yes" I do care. A lot. To say you "don't care" implies that you have given up hope....bummer. Racing can be just as intense and amazing w/o PEDs.....the speed my slow a bit, but it is all relative.

Having said this, it will make a BIG difference TO ME if/when we find that LA was doping, that we also find that EVERYONE ELSE was too and they all admit it somehow.

At least, I could then rationalize that LA still was the stronger athlete DURING THE DOPING ERA so to speak.

Will this all play out...probably not. If I had a STAPLES EASY BUTTON, I think you know what I would do:thumbsup:


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

rydbyk said:


> Amazing. How can any fan be so apathetic towards doping in athletics??
> 
> You are missing the point. The "spectacle" would be much more amazing IF WE KNEW the sport was 100% clean.
> 
> ...



I wanted to believe that it could be done clean, by I'm over that pipe dream now. The sport of cheating is almost as competitive as the sport of riding. You could say the same about most major sports, but I'll try and keep it to cycling. 

With Valverde finally being suspended will anything change? Granted he's not LA, but he was the world #1, reigning Vuelta champ, and winner of many other races during his investigation. You'd think it was a big deal, but Landis and LA are still dominating the topic. We're chasing the ghosts of 2006 and earlier while the biggest fish of current cycling gets reeled in, and yet the masses seem "let down" by it all. They want Blood, but only if it's LA, and the world still turns, and athletes of all sports will continue to cheat.


----------



## saird (Aug 19, 2008)

JohnHemlock said:


> I could care less,


The fact that you could care less implies that you do care at least somewhat. I on the other had couldn't care less.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

saird said:


> The fact that you could care less implies that you do care at least somewhat. I on the other had couldn't care less.



I could care more....no wait...I couldn't care more. Yeh. I care...so I could care less technically.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> PEDs have been in the sport since the 60's. When the pros in the 60s were told that they were no longer "allowed" to use amphetamines, they actually replied as a group saying "what....are you crazy...we need drugs to do our jobs?!"


The 60's?? Try the beginning. Albert Londres famous interview with the Pelessier brothers in 1924 detailed the substances used - cocaine, asprin, chloroform & strychnine. As long ago as 1896 doping was likely responsible for the death of Arthur Linton after finishing second in Bordeaux Paris.

Cycling was bizarrely one of the first sports to institute testing in 1966, with Tom Simpson's death in 1967 emphasising the need for testing.

Cycling's biggest problem is that it is not a rich sport like football, tennis or the NFL. So, when in 2006 Operation Puerto hit, cycling took both barrels but FIFA managed to get away with stating that blood testing in football was "too expensive". When one player in the Premier League is paid almost as much as Sky has for its total budget you can see what they mean by that.....! 

But to the OP's question - Yes I do care and so do most if not all of my friends who are into cycling. If I wanted to watch totally fake "sport" I'd watch WWF or NFL.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

n. Pros are Pros said:


> That was sort of what I thought about the whole Doping Scene.
> "Pros are Pros" They will probably always cheat and dope, but "Nobody" in my category would be so stupid or vain. Nobody would dope for small-time Masters club racing. My category is so unimportant, who would bother? I get to race against all clean guys, at my age.....Wrong....
> 
> Then Kenny Williams (a wanna be national champ?) gets busted, a guy who's ridden in some of the same NW US small-time local events as me...on a very different level, of course. Given that he used PEDs and most of us don't..
> ...


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

JohnHemlock said:


> Am I the only one?


no, but your kind of preaching to the converted here in the doping forum :wink5:

you could say this much, the majority here at least smell something fishy and are slowly wavering, or are strongly beliving he did 'it'
but then there is the minority like any belief system will fight to the death practically for whatever they believe in regardless of 'proof' or what a majority belive or think.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

MaddSkillz said:


> The assumption with this thread is that it takes drugs to make for an entertaining race.
> 
> I think the entertainment value would be the same... Just slower times in the long run (but still supernatural performances to us mere mortals).



+1 

Take a look at someone like Danilo De Luca. He is (was) insanely aggressive and I don't think that we can completely attribute this to roid rage.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

muscleendurance said:


> no, but your kind of preaching to the converted here in the doping forum :wink5:
> 
> you could say this much, the majority here at least smell something fishy and are slowly wavering, or are strongly beliving he did 'it'
> but then there is the minority like any belief system will fight to the death practically for whatever they believe in regardless of 'proof' or what a majority belive or think.


The question that NOBODY has answered satisfactorily is this:

Who cares if he doped in the past? Is he doping now? If he is, and he gets caught, fry him. Bringing up the past is doing more damage to the sport of cycling in the public eye than it is doing good.

Leave the past where is it, focus on the future. I agree with Stapleton on this...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> The question that NOBODY has answered satisfactorily is this:
> 
> *Who cares if he doped in the past?* Is he doping now? If he is, and he gets caught, fry him. Bringing up the past is doing more damage to the sport of cycling in the public eye than it is doing good.
> 
> Leave the past where is it, focus on the future. I agree with Stapleton on this...



Uhh....without putting a whole lot of thought into answering your question.......Jan Ulrich might care a tiny bit, among others... It's not like Lance won only one TDF...he won friggen' 7 times.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Uhh....without putting a whole lot of thought into answering your question.......Jan Ulrich might care a tiny bit, among others... It's not like Lance won only one TDF...he won friggen' 7 times.


ummm...I wouldn't mention Jan Ulrich as the heir apparent... If we are talking about 2005 TdF, (for example), my guess the winner could be Evans, followed by Popo, Zubeldia and Guerrini. But considering their team histories, quite possibly the true winner is someone outside top 20.

1 Lance Armstrong (USA)	Discovery Channel	86h 15' 02"
2 Ivan Basso (ITA)	Team CSC	+ 2' 46"
3 Jan Ullrich (GER)	T-Mobile Team	+ 6' 21"
4 Francisco Mancebo (ESP)	Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne	+ 9' 59"
5 Alexander Vinokourov (KAZ)	T-Mobile Team	+ 11' 01"
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA)	Gerolsteiner	+ 11' 21"
7 Michael Rasmussen (DEN)	Rabobank	+ 11' 33"
8 Cadel Evans (AUS)	Davitamon-Lotto	+ 11' 55"
9 Floyd Landis (USA)	Phonak	+ 12' 44"
10 Óscar Pereiro (ESP)	Phonak	+ 16' 04"
11 Christophe Moreau (FRA)	Crédit Agricole	+ 16' 26"
12 Yaroslav Popovych (UKR)	Discovery Channel	+ 19' 02"
13 Eddy Mazzoleni (ITA)	Lampre-Caffita	+ 21' 06"
14 George Hincapie (USA)	Discovery Channel	+ 23' 40"
15 Haimar Zubeldia (ESP)	Euskaltel-Euskadi	+ 23' 43"
16 Jörg Jaksche (GER)	Liberty Seguros-Würth	+ 24' 07"
17 Bobby Julich (USA)	Team CSC	+ 24' 08"
18 Óscar Sevilla (ESP)	T-Mobile Team	+ 27' 45"
19 Andrey Kashechkin (KAZ)	Crédit Agricole	+ 28' 04"
20 Giuseppe Guerini (ITA)	T-Mobile Team	+ 33' 02"


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

55x11 said:


> ummm...I wouldn't mention Jan Ulrich as the heir apparent... If we are talking about 2005 TdF, (for example), my guess the winner could be Evans, followed by Popo, Zubeldia and Guerrini. But considering their team histories, quite possibly the true winner is someone outside top 20.
> 
> 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)	Discovery Channel	86h 15' 02"
> 2 Ivan Basso (ITA)	Team CSC	+ 2' 46"
> ...





Jan Ulrich finished second to Lance in:

2000
2001
2003

That is why I mentioned that Jan might care a tiny bit. The "among others" comment I made implied there were others, as you re-mentioned/showed in the giant list of contenders above.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Jan Ulrich finished second to Lance in:
> 
> 2000
> 2001
> ...


My point is that Jan is a convicted doper himself. Even if LA is somehow proven guilty of doping, he is not going to inherit any "legitimate" TdF titles - ever. In all likelihood, nobody will. (see the list I posted above)


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

55x11 said:


> My point is that Jan is a convicted doper himself. Even if LA is somehow proven guilty of doping, he is not going to inherit any "legitimate" TdF titles - ever. In all likelihood, nobody will. (see the list I posted above)



2006 = Jan was involved apparently. 2006 is 3 whole years later after his final 2nd place to LA. 

Maybe he was clean during the losses to LA. We have no proof of any wrong doing prior to 2006 as far as I know.

Possibly he felt desperate after so many "clean" 2nd places.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> 2006 = Jan was involved apparently. 2006 is 3 whole years later after his final 2nd place to LA.
> 
> Maybe he was clean during the losses to LA. We have no proof of any wrong doing prior to 2006 as far as I know.
> 
> Possibly he felt desperate after so many "clean" 2nd places.


WADA Statute of limitations is 8 years.

Only 2003 to 2005 is applicable in this respect.

And again, you've not answered the question. What does his doping before his retirement have to do with the future of the bio passport or future doping issues?


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> What does his doping before his retirement have to do with the future of the bio passport or future doping issues?


nothing, but the whole $100m dollar fraud charges would be quite another :blush2:
I could not believe the man was worth 100m  10m maybe, thats ALOT of people that will have been shafted with the results/endorsements of his tour wins if it all comes out in the end.

Its a bit like saying the nazi henchmen shouldnt be done for war crimes because it happened years ago :lol:


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> WADA Statute of limitations is 8 years.
> 
> Only 2003 to 2005 is applicable in this respect.
> 
> And again, you've not answered the question. What does his doping before his retirement have to do with the future of the bio passport or future doping issues?


any of this is irrelevant because in the eyes of the public, cycling fans and history, Jan or any other person ever convicted of doping will never be seriously considered a legitimate, "true" winner of TdF, regardless of statutes of limitations and other technical details. Just like Basso's 2006 Giro win will forever have a huge question mark all around it. Yeah, yeah, we know - he only "intended" to dope. Thank god he got caught at just the right time! I am sure Jan only started thinking about doping in 2007 too. The thought never occurred to him previously, not even while being brought up in Eastern Germany sports regime. Sorry but if you assume that LA won his TdFs while doping, you cannot also seriously believe that Jan Ulrich was an innocent victim who deserves recognition for his clean TdF "wins".


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

55x11 said:


> any of this is irrelevant because in the eyes of the public, cycling fans and history, Jan or any other person ever convicted of doping will never be seriously considered a legitimate, "true" winner of TdF, regardless of statutes of limitations and other technical details. Just like Basso's 2006 Giro win will forever have a huge question mark all around it. Yeah, yeah, we know - he only "intended" to dope. Thank god he got caught at just the right time! I am sure Jan only started thinking about doping in 2007 too. The thought never occurred to him previously, not even while being brought up in Eastern Germany sports regime. Sorry but if you assume that LA won his TdFs while doping, you cannot also seriously believe that Jan Ulrich was an innocent victim who deserves recognition for his clean TdF "wins".


This is exactly what I'm saying.

There was no clean rider in the peloton during LAs wins, so what would be the benefit of knocking him off the top step? If you look at the list posted previously, you'd have to go down to Levi Leipheimer to _possibly_ find someone who rode the tour cleanly. And that's a big maybe.

So, that being said...what is the point of going wayyyyy back and trying to knock LA off the podium? 

Put simply, there is no reason to do that will benefit the sport of cycling. Sure, it may vindicate some personal feelings of distaste for LA, but it does NOTHING for cycling itself except give it a huge black eye.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> WADA Statute of limitations is 8 years.
> 
> Only 2003 to 2005 is applicable in this respect.
> 
> And again, you've not answered the question. What does his doping before his retirement have to do with the future of the bio passport or future doping issues?



I don't recall being asked that question. Am I missing something? I try to stay in the realm of what the OP has asked.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> There* was no clean rider in the peloton during LAs wins*, so what would be the benefit of knocking him off the top step? *If you look at the list posted previously, you'd have to go down to Levi Leipheimer to possibly find someone who rode the tour cleanly. * And that's a big maybe.
> 
> I'm sorry, but what is your stance? You don't think there was a SINGLE rider that rode clean..or do you? I am confused. You seem to have contradicted yourself a bit in the above statement.
> 
> If not, then you have a point...well, sort of...


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

55x11 said:


> you cannot also seriously believe that Jan Ulrich was an innocent victim who deserves recognition for his clean TdF "wins".


Big Jan was a bit of a doufus/idiot. I could believe ANYTHING about him. Especially after the hat pooping story (hit Google for the details  )


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> robdamanii said:
> 
> 
> > There* was no clean rider in the peloton during LAs wins*, so what would be the benefit of knocking him off the top step? *If you look at the list posted previously, you'd have to go down to Levi Leipheimer to possibly find someone who rode the tour cleanly. * And that's a big maybe.
> ...


----------

