ESPN 30 for 30 make sit seem like PEDs didn't come into cycling until Lance Armstrong showed up. Truth?

Revisionist history. Steroids/uppers long a part of the game. But EPO definitely was a game changer.

It was a great 30 for 30 until that part. "Lemond looked certain to tie the Badger with 5 Tour wins of his own, until....***OMINOUS MUSIC*** Erythropoietin!!! And then it was Lance bashing until the 30 for 30 was over. I'm no Lance fan but the dude didn't even win until 1999 - 9 YEARS after Lemond won his 3rd. If you are going to say EPO led to him only winning 3 at least have the balls to point the finger at Big Mig.

I remember reading a quote in my childhood--so we're talking roughly a half-century back--when a TdF rider said something to the effect of, "Okay, we can race without drugs--but then we'll ride 15 miles an hour instead of 25." Cycling has at least as long a history of PEDs as baseball, so we're actually talking the better part of a century. Uppers were a big part of both sports. The Dane who died in the 1960 Olympics was a cyclist, and amphetamine was involved.

Moreover, so-called blood doping (a major factor in Finnish track success over the years) was widespread--not just EPO, but (re)transfusion of blood: "Following the 1984 Summer games it was revealed that one-third of the U.S. cycling team had received blood transfusions before the games, where they won nine medals, their first medal success since the 1912 Summer Olympics."--Wiki

So no, 1992 was hardly a major pivot point.

Greg LeMond was a hell of a bike racer, but he's not a very smart man.

Doo wrote:

Greg LeMond was a hell of a bike racer, but he's not a very smart man.

LeMond could have won 6 Tours:

1 that he literally gave to Hinault (only to be stabbed in the back the next year)

3 that he did win

2 in the middle of his reign that he missed due to a hunting accident

pretty much a mental midget; if he had gone to college, it would have been eugene clown kollege

he did get robbed, though

There are cases of uppers etc being used in 1903 in the tour. Lance raced the tour clean, his team was destroyed by all the dopers, so lance followed suite. The only difference is that lance was one of the best cyclists of all time clean. So once the field was level, he won, a lot. Eventually he and his team were some of the best, most scientifically sound dopers in the peleton, so they won more.

Wake up call, everyone did it! It was normalized in the peleton. Lance was just superior so he won. Eventually stuff started leaking, so cycling needed a scapegoat. Big bad lance was perfect.

Ps nobody actually believes the guys today are clean now right? Compare the power files before you look dumb trying to argue with me.

a nice guy.Greg Lemond was more bothered by Miguel Indurain than Lance Armstrong in 91-93. No-one points the finger at Indurain though, because he was a nice guy.

asdfjasoidjfoj wrote:

a nice guy.Greg Lemond was more bothered by Miguel Indurain than Lance Armstrong in 91-93. No-one points the finger at Indurain though, because he was a nice guy.

Seems there now are people ready to point a finger at "Big Mig". see

for an interesting article that focuses on Indurain's power output at the 1995 TdF.

Thanks for the link. However, whilst I suspect that Indurain was probably using synthetic EPO, I don't accept that those power outputs can't be matched or beaten by a 'clean' rider. Each new drug that appears on the scene quickly becomes a fad, and those using it will claim that it is impossible to get the same performance without it.

When amphetamines were the fad, riders insisted that they could not race without it, which is obviously untrue.

I realize that it is a dirty sport and so Mig winning 5 straight is condemnation in itself. That said, I don't know that there has been more a genetic freak to race a bicycle than Indurain, so if I had to bet on anyone being able to produce those kind of results clean, I would have to pick him.

He was a very good athlete. Gentic freak? Hyperbole, he had a very strong desire to win and a superb tactical brain. Both of those are mental traits. If you want to talk genetics intelligently, please think about that and look beyond the physical attributes. Winners come in all shapes and sizes.

george oscar bluth wrote:

I realize that it is a dirty sport and so Mig winning 5 straight is condemnation in itself. That said, I don't know that there has been more a genetic freak to race a bicycle than Indurain, so if I had to bet on anyone being able to produce those kind of results clean, I would have to pick him.

I take your point but I see the situation as a bit analogous to Michael Johnson in the 400m in that Indurain was crushing his competition and many of those competitors clearly were doping just as Johnson was crushing his widely doped competition. Neither guy was ever busted, but I find it somewhat hard to believe they were so great they could be that much better than very talented and doped competition.

dkny64 wrote:

george oscar bluth wrote:

I realize that it is a dirty sport and so Mig winning 5 straight is condemnation in itself. That said, I don't know that there has been more a genetic freak to race a bicycle than Indurain, so if I had to bet on anyone being able to produce those kind of results clean, I would have to pick him.

I take your point but I see the situation as a bit analogous to Michael Johnson in the 400m in that Indurain was crushing his competition and many of those competitors clearly were doping just as Johnson was crushing his widely doped competition. Neither guy was ever busted, but I find it somewhat hard to believe they were so great they could be that much better than very talented and doped competition.

Agreed

I never get any intelligent debate on these threads, just the same old crap. Are you all obsessed with drugs too?

I believe there is a new 30 for 30 in the works that will reveal the extent to which the commander's dominance of the cup has led most competitors to choose the drug route.

asdfjasoidjfoj wrote:

I never get any intelligent debate on these threads, just the same old crap. Are you all obsessed with drugs too?

No

I believe the IAAF first banned the use of performance enhancing drugs in 1928. They had been used for a very long time prior to that. Back in those days think Coca and Cocaine.

The first Tour De France was in 1903 I believe. There is no doubt that not one Tour De France has taken place without at least some riders using drugs to enhance performance.