# Why doesnt anyone talk about Eddy Merckx's doping and positive tests?



## pezzo33

Ok, so this has been bugging me more and more

After I got into a heated conversation with a fell rider the other day, him claiming Armstrong 'must' have doped, me taking the stance he would not have, has not, and never tested positive (and yes, I know someone will come in here and speak to his 'maybe' positive for cortical with a prescription, etc, etc)

Merckx is considered by Many, including myself, to be the best cyclist of all time. And I am a HUGE Armstrong fan as well.

What both accomplished, although different, and in different times, is nothing short of amazing IMO

But what gets me, where everyone ALWAYS seems to bring up Armstrongs supposed doping, why no one ever seems to see this as a detractor to what Merckx did

He tested positive at least FOUR times... He got kicked out of a Giro d'Italia (which leading for 16 stages in '69), after winning Lombardia in '73, at Fleche Wallone in '75, then in '77 for amphetamines... not at a specific race to my knowledge.

So four positives tests over 8 years, in a time when testing was in its infancy. He had excuses, reasons, stories, etc like every other cyclist.

now myself, i feel this pulls nothing away from what he has done.
some of his arguments may have been good, or maybe he just doped the whole time.. who knows

but why dont more people talk about his doping, and look down on him. I have never heard ONE person NOT in support of Merckx... but plenty to go against Armstrong (who suspicions from some aside, doesn have the same positive test record to show)

thoughts?>


----------



## ElvisMerckx

You're griping about stuff that happened in the 1970s, to a Belgian, who 99% of the English speaking world has never heard of, in a fringe sport. Let it go.


----------



## pezzo33

ElvisMerckx said:


> You're griping about stuff that happened in the 1970s, to a Belgian, who 99% of the English speaking world has never heard of, in a fringe sport. Let it go.


I dont think I am griping... and yes, 99% of people in the US don even know who he is... but I am referring more to the cycling fans, race fans, etc who jump all over Armstrong.

pick any half of the threads on this forum for example


----------



## Wookiebiker

The basic argument is this:

The drugs Armstrong used were much more effective than the drugs that Merckx used...so Armstrong had a bigger advantage. That's the extent of the argument 

Besides that...People love Merckx because he is viewed as the "All Time Best" and Armstrong the best "Tour" rider. Armstrong is also polorizing compared to Merckx, so the argument is much more heated when talking about him...and he's a current rider where as Merckx has been retired for quite some time..

With that said...I hate to break it to you, but Armstrong was as much a doper as everybody else that has been busted. The question isn't whether he doped, it's whether it can be proved.

For that matter...Point to a rider in the pro peloton and you will be pointing at a doper.


----------



## worst_shot_ever

Wookiebiker said:


> For that matter...Point to a rider in the pro peloton and you will be pointing at a doper.



With this, only, I take issue.


----------



## cyclesport45

Merckx isn't an ass (hole)


----------



## DMFT

Wookiebiker said:


> The basic argument is this:
> 
> The drugs Armstrong used were much more effective than the drugs that Merckx used...so Armstrong had a bigger advantage. That's the extent of the argument
> 
> Besides that...People love Merckx because he is viewed as the "All Time Best" and Armstrong the best "Tour" rider. Armstrong is also polorizing compared to Merckx, so the argument is much more heated when talking about him...and he's a current rider where as Merckx has been retired for quite some time..
> 
> With that said...I hate to break it to you, but Armstrong was as much a doper as everybody else that has been busted. The question isn't whether he doped, it's whether it can be proved.
> 
> For that matter...Point to a rider in the pro peloton and you will be pointing at a doper.



- And the basic argument is flawed & hypocritical.... Cheating & testing positive for it is STILL cheating. NO matter how "nice" a guy you are.

Personally, I just view all major-sports as spectacle now... Nothing shocks me anymore.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Merckx not only introduced Armstrong to Ferrari but he also introduced his son Axel. 

The Cannibal does not give a $hit what you think of him, rules are for the little people


----------



## Wookiebiker

DMFT said:


> - And the basic argument is flawed & hypocritical.... Cheating & testing positive for it is STILL cheating. NO matter how "nice" a guy you are.
> 
> Personally, I just view all major-sports as spectacle now... Nothing shocks me anymore.


I agree...cheating is cheating, I was just answering the guys question.

I gave up thinking athletes were anything more than entertainers long ago. I know that to make it at that level they really don't have a choice but to dope. In football if you are unwilling to do it at the pro level, the coaches will look at it as a weakness because you are not doing everything possible to help your team

I would imagine it's pretty much the same across the board regardless of the sport. It's entertainment...nothing more...if people want to idolize these guys and think they are clean...good for them :thumbsup: I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the increadible abilities these guys have, drugs or no drugs.


----------



## DMFT

Wookiebiker said:


> I agree...cheating is cheating, I was just answering the guys question.
> 
> I gave up thinking athletes were anything more than entertainers long ago. I know that to make it at that level they really don't have a choice but to dope. In football if you are unwilling to do it at the pro level, the coaches will look at it as a weakness because you are not doing everything possible to help your team
> 
> I would imagine it's pretty much the same across the board regardless of the sport. It's entertainment...nothing more...if people want to idolize these guys and think they are clean...good for them :thumbsup: I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the increadible abilities these guys have, drugs or no drugs.



- Sorry Wookie. I wasn't attacking you, just stating that over the years in these forums a lot of people have used the logic described in your OP.

No harm, no foul & keep the rubber-side down! :thumbsup:


----------



## BAi9302010

Wookiebiker said:


> The basic argument is this:
> 
> The drugs Armstrong used were much more effective than the drugs that Merckx used...so Armstrong had a bigger advantage. That's the extent of the argument
> 
> For that matter...Point to a rider in the pro peloton and you will be pointing at a doper.



Armstrong didn't have a bigger advantage in regards to the drugs he used. The riders he was competing against were all on the same stuff (epo, blood transfusions, etc.). Just look at all of the positives by the guys who finished behind him over the years. If he had an advantage, it was in organization, intelligence, choosing the right staff, and knowing how to leave without a trace (maybe he did some camping as a kid).

They don't all dope. Some pros even win big races without doping, for example Chris Boardman and David Moncoutie. Read up on them. Most French professional cyclists don't dope. There is rarely a positive by a French rider and they rarely win big races. Just going by the law of averages, it's pretty clear that they aren't juicing up as much as the Americans, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, etc. and they have as many, if not more riders in the Protour as any of the other big cycling countries.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

BAi9302010 said:


> Armstrong didn't have a bigger advantage in regards to the drugs he used. The riders he was competing against were all on the same stuff (epo, blood transfusions, etc.). Just look at all of the positives by the guys who finished behind him over the years. If he had an advantage, it was in organization, intelligence, choosing the right staff, and knowing how to leave without a trace (maybe he did some camping as a kid).
> 
> They don't all dope. Some pros even win big races without doping, for example Chris Boardman and David Moncoutie. Read up on them. Most French professional cyclists don't dope. There is rarely a positive by a French rider and they rarely win big races. Just going by the law of averages, it's pretty clear that they aren't juicing up as much as the Americans, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, etc. and they have as many, if not more riders in the Protour as any of the other big cycling countries.


I agree with you about the French. There testing was a decade ahead of any other Fed. 

As far as the level playing field, did all the other riders have advanced notice of "Surprise" testing like Lance did?


----------



## Dave Hickey

Wookiebiker said:


> I gave up thinking athletes were anything more than entertainers long ago.
> 
> .



Ditto......Well said.....


----------



## aptivaboy

_Merckx isn't an ass (hole)_:thumbsup: :thumbsup: 

That pretty much hit the nail on the head. People can forgive a lot, but cheating AND being a jerk only makes people want to hate you. Remember Reggie Jackson back in the day? Muhammad Ali? John Daly? The list goes on. If you break the rules, or even act high and mighty and arrogant and ask for forgiveness honestly and contritely, then the public will probably at least not totally call for your head. Just ask Tiger Woods. There are those who now are disgusted by him, but I don't see many people literally out to get him, other than the paparazzi. Brett Favre? Sending pics of his, or someone's private parts to a hot stripper/bartender/nude model? No worries - everyone loves Brett! He's such a homespun country boy!

Do you see the point? People overlook Eddy's past because doping wasn't such a huge problem back then in terms of what was available to take, but especially because Eddy was and is a pretty nice, approachable guy to the general public. There is also at least some evidence that one failed drug test, the Giro Affair, was rigged by Italian authorities to give the Giro to an Italian winner, so people may want to believe the best in light of this.


----------



## Pablo

Dave Hickey said:


> Ditto......Well said.....


Sports is soap operas for men.


----------



## Alaska Mike

aptivaboy said:


> _Merckx isn't an ass (hole)_:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
> 
> That pretty much hit the nail on the head. People can forgive a lot, but cheating AND being a jerk only makes people want to hate you. Remember Reggie Jackson back in the day? Muhammad Ali? John Daly? The list goes on. If you break the rules, or even act high and mighty and arrogant and ask for forgiveness honestly and contritely, then the public will probably at least not totally call for your head. Just ask Tiger Woods. There are those who now are disgusted by him, but I don't see many people literally out to get him, other than the paparazzi. Brett Favre? Sending pics of his, or someone's private parts to a hot stripper/bartender/nude model? No worries - everyone loves Brett! He's such a homespun country boy!
> 
> Do you see the point? People overlook Eddy's past because doping wasn't such a huge problem back then in terms of what was available to take, but especially because Eddy was and is a pretty nice, approachable guy to the general public. There is also at least some evidence that one failed drug test, the Giro Affair, was rigged by Italian authorities to give the Giro to an Italian winner, so people may want to believe the best in light of this.


Wow, it's amazing how the passage of time tends to alter an image. Eddy certainly wasn't a cuddly figure back in the day, in or out of the peloton. This is the same guy who was asked not to race in the '73 Tour? The guy that got punched in the stomach by a nut-job in the '75 Tour? That a writer once noted that "there was a feeling that it would be good for cycling if he lost"? Do you think his nickname was earned by being a nuturing rider?

Eddy was a cycling machine. A dominating, overpowering, winning monster. Everyone loves a winner- until they win too much. Sure everyone loves Eddy now, since he's not winning everything and can be viewed in proper context.

I have no doubt Eddy would have been as doped to the gills as everyone else was/is. From hopping trains to microdosing, riders do what they think it will take to get results.


----------



## spookyload

Wookiebiker said:


> The drugs Armstrong used were much more effective than the drugs that Merckx used...so Armstrong had a bigger advantage. That's the extent of the argument


I don't come to this forum much, but did I miss where they have listed all the drugs Armstrong took? For that matter, have they even found him guilty of anything yet? Or is it just an assumed thing by the Armstrong haters in this forum that you all know what he was taking and that he is guilty. If so, you all should step forward as expert witnesses in the investigation so it can end sooner and save lots of time and money.


----------



## Alaska Mike

spookyload said:


> I don't come to this forum much, but did I miss where they have listed all the drugs Armstrong took? For that matter, have they even found him guilty of anything yet? Or is it just an assumed thing by the Armstrong haters in this forum that you all know what he was taking and that he is guilty. If so, you all should step forward as expert witnesses in the investigation so it can end sooner and save lots of time and money.


I don't hate Lance (I'm kinda indifferent at this point), but I pretty much _assume_ he was on a serious program, much like everyone else that stood on the podium with him. That said, I _assume_ he did the usual blood transfusions, EPO, HGH, testosterone... stuff that was certainly available and likely regularly used by Dr Ferrari among others.

After having been disappointed by a series of high-profile riders being popped over the years, it's my own defense mechanism that leads me to _assume_ that all riders dope- even the ones I really like and respect. A rider like Cadel might find that offensive, but it's how I can still watch road racing and not get all twisted up wondering who is or isn't on a "program".


----------



## spade2you

cyclesport45 said:


> Merckx isn't an ass (hole)


How do you know? Have you met Merckx? Have you met any other riders?


----------



## Wookiebiker

spookyload said:


> I don't come to this forum much, but did I miss where they have listed all the drugs Armstrong took? For that matter, have they even found him guilty of anything yet? Or is it just an assumed thing by the Armstrong haters in this forum that you all know what he was taking and that he is guilty. If so, you all should step forward as expert witnesses in the investigation so it can end sooner and save lots of time and money.


Actually....I'm a huge Armstrong fan, so wrong assumption there....and you know what they say about assumptions :thumbsup: 

The simple fact is if you are unwilling to admit the fact that Armstrong wasn't doping you have your head buried in the sand so far there is no help in rescuing you. Pretty much every rider on the podium he beat ended up being caught, many teammates are now out talking about the "Program" they were on, many stating that Armstrong was the leader in the "Program", he had to get a backdated TUE early on in his Tour run....just look at the facts.

Not turning up a positive test doesn't mean one isn't a doper, it just means they were better at not getting caught


----------



## spade2you

Wookiebiker said:


> Not turning up a positive test doesn't mean one isn't a doper, it just means they were better at not getting caught


or they had a free pass to do so.


----------



## aptivaboy

You're totally right - I wasn't saying that Eddy was all soft and cuddly back in the day. However, he is nowadays, so people tend to give him a pass. Its the same with Ali. He was NOT well-liked by many, but as he aged, Parkinsons notwithstanding, he clearly mellowed and became sort of the Doyenne of boxing. 

Today, Eddy goes to trade shows, signs autographs with a smile, and clearly relishes being known as the greatest cyclist ever. He returns the accolades with kindness to the crowds. As a result, Eddy's positive dope tests are usually forgotten or ignored* by choice*.


----------



## mendo

The extent to which riders are vilified for doping has increased over time. They've gone from the explicit, "we ride with dynamite," to the slightly more opaque, "you can't ride tour on mineral water," to outright denials, "no, not me, never, well, err, I didn't do it intentionally."


----------



## robm90

I am not against anyone. All the top pros use dope. Armstrong is very good at it and has never been caught. The average male hematocrit level is around 42%, UCI lets them race up to 50%, so they have sanctioned doping up to that point. To be a competitive rider in the pro tour you have to use dope, end of story.


----------



## cyclesport45

spade2you said:


> How do you know? Have you met Merckx? Have you met any other riders?



Yes, I have. But I'm mostly basing my OPINION on heresay and quite a bit of reading ovewr the years. I stand by my OPINION.


----------



## spade2you

cyclesport45 said:


> Yes, I have. But I'm mostly basing my OPINION on heresay and quite a bit of reading ovewr the years. I stand by my OPINION.


Which other riders have you met?


----------



## cyclesport45

spade2you said:


> Which other riders have you met?


Several. Europe beckons yearly. This year was Paris-Roubaix.


----------



## cyclesport45

I has a funny thought. A soft and cuddly Armstrong?? Ever?? Anybody see it?


----------



## spade2you

cyclesport45 said:


> I has a funny thought. A soft and cuddly Armstrong?? Ever?? Anybody see it?


Most of my friends who met LA said he seemed like a regular guy, but a tad on the dry side.


----------



## rydbyk

spade2you said:


> Most of my friends who met LA said he seemed like a regular guy, but a tad on the dry side.



It seems as though most top athletes are this way. Shaq, Tiger, Lance, Kelly Slater, the list goes on and on. Of course, there is always the exception, but it is pretty predictable that the top athletes in any given sport are going to have fairly dry personalities. I would call it more intense and focused.. For all the pressure that Lance has been under for the past decade, he sure seemed to manage to smile a lot. I was able to see him in France. It was amazing how much pressure he was under (stage 18, 2001). Cameras everywhere...people yelling...he still managed to smile and say hi to most folks waving the US and Texas flags before his individual TT began..

There is so much hatred towards this guy. For what? He did what every top cyclist does and dreams of today. The only thing that I see differently is that he started his foundation to assist Cancer patients and give them a better experience with their tough battles. Again, if Lance had never won any TdFs, but still doped as he did, not too many people would care about what he had done.

I feel like there is a lot of jealousy towards him. He does not deserve a free pass, but I do feel that he has done what every pro cyclist dreams of......dope yourself to the gills and win 7 TdFs.

As far as any criminal behavior is concerned, it just seemed to snowball after his first win. He had his fun...now it looks like he will pay dearly for it. I hope that he can endure the hatred and come out of this a better man.. Looks like he has a long and bumpy road ahead of him. I would not want to be in his shoes right now....no way!

If there was a time to fess up...now is the time.


----------



## spade2you

rydbyk said:


> It seems as though most top athletes are this way.


One might be able to argue that their "attitude" is partly responsible for their success. Hell, I'd agree that one needs to be half crazy to be a racer. Regardless, they are all human. Catch them at a good time and it's all peachy. Catch them on a bad day and they're a tad grumpy just like us.


----------



## Cableguy

rydbyk said:


> It seems as though most top athletes are this way. Shaq, Tiger, Lance, Kelly Slater, the list goes on and on. Of course, there is always the exception, but it is pretty predictable that the top athletes in any given sport are going to have fairly dry personalities. I would call it more intense and focused.. For all the pressure that Lance has been under for the past decade, he sure seemed to manage to smile a lot. I was able to see him in France. It was amazing how much pressure he was under (stage 18, 2001). Cameras everywhere...people yelling...he still managed to smile and say hi to most folks waving the US and Texas flags before his individual TT began..
> 
> There is so much hatred towards this guy. For what? He did what every top cyclist does and dreams of today. The only thing that I see differently is that he started his foundation to assist Cancer patients and give them a better experience with their tough battles. Again, if Lance had never won any TdFs, but still doped as he did, not too many people would care about what he had done.
> 
> I feel like there is a lot of jealousy towards him. He does not deserve a free pass, but I do feel that he has done what every pro cyclist dreams of......dope yourself to the gills and win 7 TdFs.
> 
> As far as any criminal behavior is concerned, it just seemed to snowball after his first win. He had his fun...now it looks like he will pay dearly for it. I hope that he can endure the hatred and come out of this a better man.. Looks like he has a long and bumpy road ahead of him. I would not want to be in his shoes right now....no way!
> 
> If there was a time to fess up...now is the time.


Yep, when you look at someone through a microscope you're going to find imperfections. You *will* find something you don't like. The question is, do you have the perspective to not only realize this, but put yourself in the other person's shoes? A lot of people are incapable of this, I guess because taking a shortcut to just dump on someone and feel better about yourself is too tempting.


----------



## atpjunkie

*maybe because*

Merckx's first drug bust was a scam by the Italians

his second bust was for an expectorant syrup that had been removed from banned products

his third bust he admitted to (Stimul) without claiming his innocence


----------



## Fogdweller

atpjunkie said:


> Merckx's first drug bust was a scam by the Italians


The story I've heard over the years from cycling historian friends (and I know a few) was that the Italian mob had a large wager on Gimondi to get his second win and Merckx, as the defending Giro champ, would make the difficult. they paid to have his first sample contaminated and ensured that there would be no counter analysis. Merckx was good and pissed when the tour came around and took his first victory in it by 12:41.


----------



## atpjunkie

*Even Gimondi*



Fogdweller said:


> The story I've head over the years from cycling historian friends (and I know a few) was that the Italian mob had a large wager on Gimondi to get his second win and Merckx, as the defending Giro champ, would make the difficult. they paid to have his first sample contaminated and ensured that there would be no counter analysis. Merckx was good and pissed when the tour came around and took his first victory in it by 12:41.


didn't buy it

yes Merckx would have been a problem for those betting on Felice


----------



## zoikz

*A long dirty history*

Coppi, Charly Gaul, Jacques Anquetil, Major Taylor, all of them doped. To be fair doping wasn't illegal until 1965 but the point is that bike racing and doping have been interlaced from the inception of the sport. I mean, who the hell can race for six days straight? By the same token who can race for 3-4 weeks. At what point does taking strychnine make sense? 
I wish you could think that racers will at some point stop doping, but they won't. It will be an on-going battle with a lot of casualties and no victors.
And it's not just pro's taking PED's, but amateurs, gym rats, high schoolers, soccer moms, the cats out of the bag. We're a drugged up society on anti-depressants, ******, percocet, adderol, testosterone patches, whatever makes money for the drug company. 
I have no idea what to do about the drug culture that defines the modern world. I still love bike racing. The only real solution for pro racing seems to be fighting the battle. And hero's will fall. And f. them, Whether Armstrong, Contador or whoever. What the sport will look like in 10 years is anyones guess.


----------



## DMFT

zoikz said:


> Coppi, Charly Gaul, Jacques Anquetil, Major Taylor, all of them doped. To be fair doping wasn't illegal until 1965 but the point is that bike racing and doping have been interlaced from the inception of the sport. I mean, who the hell can race for six days straight? By the same token who can race for 3-4 weeks. At what point does taking strychnine make sense?
> I wish you could think that racers will at some point stop doping, but they won't. It will be an on-going battle with a lot of casualties and no victors.
> And it's not just pro's taking PED's, but amateurs, gym rats, high schoolers, soccer moms, the cats out of the bag. We're a drugged up society on anti-depressants, ******, percocet, adderol, testosterone patches, whatever makes money for the drug company.
> I have no idea what to do about the drug culture that defines the modern world. I still love bike racing. The only real solution for pro racing seems to be fighting the battle. And hero's will fall. And f. them, Whether Armstrong, Contador or whoever. What the sport will look like in 10 years is anyones guess.


- Pretty dang good post.


----------



## spade2you

DMFT said:


> - Pretty dang good post.


+1. There's a book out there about the TdF (at work, so don't have it at hand) that explains that even before doping, there was plenty of cheating including broken glass, beer stands, etc.


----------



## Gee3

cyclesport45 said:


> I has a funny thought. A soft and cuddly Armstrong?? Ever?? Anybody see it?


It'll happen, just like it did for Merckx. Give it some time. Plus, our generation will get older and move on and the younger crowd will read 7 Tour wins and that's all they'll see just like they do with Indurain and his 5 Tour wins. 

How many stories do you read about Mickey Mantle's alcohol abuse and the amphetimine use back in the day? Not as much as those romanticising about that golden era in baseball.

Images soften up over time. That's just the way it goes.


----------



## SilasCL

Gee3 said:


> It'll happen, just like it did for Merckx. Give it some time. Plus, our generation will get older and move on and the younger crowd will read 7 Tour wins and that's all they'll see just like they do with Indurain and his 5 Tour wins.
> 
> How many stories do you read about Mickey Mantle's alcohol abuse and the amphetimine use back in the day? Not as much as those romanticising about that golden era in baseball.
> 
> Images soften up over time. That's just the way it goes.


I think there's a chance that's true, but there's also a good chance that the increasingly negative media attention that athlete's receive nowadays will lead to a change in the romanticizing of the old days.


----------



## spade2you

SilasCL said:


> I think there's a chance that's true, but there's also a good chance that the increasingly negative media attention that athlete's receive nowadays will lead to a change in the romanticizing of the old days.


Yes, but today will eventually become back then and we can complain about the future now. 

To quote Space Balls, "when will then be now?" "Soon"


----------



## rubbersoul

At least the Lance worship seems to have died down a bit recently


----------



## spade2you

rubbersoul said:


> At least the Lance worship seems to have died down a bit recently


I wonder who the next Lance will be.


----------



## Undecided

spade2you said:


> I wonder who the next Lance will be.


I hope there's no next Lance. If Lance had been able to move cycling beyond being a fringe sport in the U.S., that would have been great. Even he couldn't do it though, so I don't think anyone could. If that's not out there as a potential benefit of the "next Lance," then I see no need to have one. I don't want to go through another five years of having absurd conversations about the Tour de France with guys from work or my wife's friends' husbands, or whoever else thinks they know something about cycling because they read a USA Today article about [the next] Lance Armstrong. 

(That said, if the U.S. produces a great classics rider, I will be stoked.)


----------



## ultimobici

spade2you said:


> +1. There's a book out there about the TdF (at work, so don't have it at hand) that explains that even before doping, there was plenty of cheating including broken glass, beer stands, etc.


A Moustache, Poison & Blue Glasses by Svend Novrup

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moustache-Poison-Blue-Glasses-France/dp/0953172910

Very enlightening read.


----------



## ultimobici

spade2you said:


> I wonder who the next Lance will be.


Contador is the current incumbent. Schleck is the heir.....


----------



## spade2you

ultimobici said:


> A Moustache, Poison & Blue Glasses by Svend Novrup
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moustache-Poison-Blue-Glasses-France/dp/0953172910
> 
> Very enlightening read.


Mine wasn't this book. It's just a little yellow book. Forgot to check the title and author when I got home the other day. I'll try to remind myself.


----------



## spade2you

ultimobici said:


> Contador is the current incumbent. Schleck is the heir.....


You're probably right. I'm no AC hater, but he doesn't quite have much panache. I'll be interested to see what the Schlecks do next year.

I don't think Gilbert will ever be a grand tour GC guy, but I like his style. FC also has a nice dominance in his select disciplines.


----------



## ultimobici

spade2you said:


> You're probably right. I'm no AC hater, but he doesn't quite have much panache. I'll be interested to see what the Schlecks do next year.
> 
> I don't think Gilbert will ever be a grand tour GC guy, but I like his style. FC also has a nice dominance in his select disciplines.


Wan't referring to the sporting aspect rather the cheating bit.


----------



## spade2you

ultimobici said:


> Wan't referring to the sporting aspect rather the cheating bit.


Meh, most do.


----------

