When was the last time a CLEAN rider won the Tour de France

I'm amazed how many people are saying LeMond.

The Science of Sport guys recently had a post of suspicious performances, and the one that sticks out the most is LeMond's 1984 Time Trial. The only two with an average speed faster were a short prologues in 1994 (likely doped) and 2005 (likely doped). And the bike technology in 1984 put him at a severe disadvantage.

Greg is the MOST suspicious rider I can think of.

Hey don't let the facts get in the way. Just make up any old shit, some of it is bound to stick.

Nutella1 wrote:

Also the British have no history of being cyclists, all of a sudden they're dominant (compare 2008 Olympics track cycling). Highly suspicious.

if you knew anything about the sport, you'd know the british have a long history of great track cyclists...

just because your cycling memory only goes back to 2008 doesn't mean there was nothing different happening before it.

Just a little further back you have Boardman and Obree, for example.

Cycling's a dirty sport, but every time it gets put through the ringer on sites like LetsRun where most people really have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to the sport, it pisses me off.

Want to talk about Operation Puerto and the Fuentes situation?

What about the many dozens of European soccer players who were implicated but names never released and nothing done about it?

What about the MLB, which pretends to be cleaning up the sport but resorts mostly to testing minor leaguers to avoid bad publicity for its biggest pro stars?

What about football, which has long been dirty?

What about track and field?

Cycling's been dirty throughout its history, but no dirtier than every other major sport. The reputation it has as the dirtiest has a lot to do with people being willfully ignorant about the other sports they love and their lax testing practices and/or ethics.

Sport is what's dirty, not just cycling. You all just love pretending some other sport is somehow way more corrupt than your own. Idiotic.

W/r/t the OP's question, I'd also say Evans would be my best guess at a recent winner to be clean. I also believe Wiggins is, for what it counts. But during Lance's wins, who is going to get the official victory if he's retroactively disqualified?

All the GC guys then were dirty, for the most part. What's even the point of guessing who the "winners" were?

Ignorance Here is Amazing wrote:

if you knew anything about the sport, you'd know the british have a long history of great track cyclists...

just because your cycling memory only goes back to 2008 doesn't mean there was nothing different happening before it.

My cycling memory goes a little further back than that - early 90's. But I admit I only followed road cycling.

How many British have won the Tour de France in the last 110 years?

ZERO. That's how good they are in cycling.

Compare that to a tiny country like Belgium. Or to Spain and Italy and you see what I mean.

The new Dr. Michele Ferrarihttp://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_6638147,00.html

atx guy wrote:

I don't know anymore. I have loved the tour since I was a kid. The last 10 years has all but ruined it for me.

I don't know if what I'm watching is fake or real anymore. That said, I think if anyone is clean out of the contenders it's Evans. I don't remember him ever doing anything even close to super human on a single stage.

Wiggins is the big question mark for me. The entire Sky team is suspect. They're suddenly the modern day USPS. Super dominant in big races all year long with guys that were never dominant before. I can't help but thinking they're doped to the gills but who knows.

Yes, but there's nothing more suspicious about recent British success at GC-type riding than any other country getting better or worse at it.

The track program has been used more and more in recent years as a feeder program for road cyclists--most don't become good climbers, admittedly, but it took Wiggins a LONG time to change his physique and rider profile, with lots of hard work related to training differences, diet, and cutting alcohol (which he used to drink a great deal of by his own account) out completely. Look at him compared to when he first came over to the road. As a rider at Cofidis, when he was still competing intermittently on the track, he weighed a great deal more than he does now. He couldn't climb and couldn't win a long time trial, but he was still training for an event that takes just north of 4 minutes to complete. Different needs, different training & body.

The simple fact that most people don't make that transition doesn't mean it's impossible without doping. Anyone who has some weight to shed should go try riding up a mountain. Then lose 20-30 pounds and improve your endurance tenfold and try again. Natural performance gains there.

Just b/c a few British guys (really just Wiggins and Froome--who has a strange upbringing in Kenya and South Africa and wasn't even a part of the British program) are good at GC now and the country had no one good at it before doesn't mean a thing. The popularity of sports changes, the programs change, and Team Sky providing a road outlet for British youngsters moving from the track has made a great deal of difference. It isn't as if there were suddenly two dozen great British GC guys.

You say you remember the early 90s. What about Robert Millar? He was a very talented climber and nearly won the Tour of Spain. They only have one more GC guy than that now, don't they?

And Belgium? After Merckx, they've had nobody in 40 years really capable of winning the tour. So what kind of example is that to draw on?

Things change.

Let it be noted that I'm not arguing any or all of the cyclists I'm talking about are necessarily clean. I just think it's unfair and immature for people to draw conclusions based on little to no information or personal experience that implicate groups of people or nations or programs that have never been accused of or proven to dope/doping on the basis of any evidence at all. If people want sports to continue and clean athletes to give it there all, they can't go around laying blame on everyone who gets better at some point in there career. What kind of game is that?

Onion College wrote:

I think this about sums it up:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nondoping-cyclists-finish-tour-de-france,2268/

LOL

Furthermore:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere

Disrespect wrote:

The new Dr. Michele Ferrari

http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_6638147,00.html

The guy's a shrink.

He's a very impressive Master's athlete too. (11.47 for 100 as an over 50, and 11.67 as an over 55.)

Disrespect wrote:

The new Dr. Michele Ferrari

http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_6638147,00.html

Hearsay at best. Every pro sports team has doctors and psychologists; being in the medical profession doesn't automatically mean you're providing expert doping for athletes.

My take on Sky:

I'm sure some are doping, as is true of any team, but most of their top riders have been at the pinnacle of the sport at some level, age, discipline, etc. before moving to Sky:

Wiggins on the track and w/ a radical training diet program (which included working with a coach OUTSIDE of cycling, which should inspire confidence, not the other way around) that involved training more like a swimmer (or even runner) than the huge periodization normally found in cycling, where TdF contenders get fat and train long w/ no intensity all winter then race into shape.

Froome, the biggest surprise, had health problems and came out of the boonies in terms of discovery. I don't know what to think about him, but he's at the age where riders begin to hit their GC peaks (27) and is finally healthy. So until I have reason to believe otherwise, why assume the worst?

Porte and Rogers were superstars before moving to Sky and have achieved nothing surprising in relation to past results since moving over--the difference is they were leaders elsewhere and are teammates at Sky. (Rogers is a multi-time world TT champion and has won a lot of weeklong type stage races; would've taken the yellow a few years back at the tour had he not crashed hard while in front of the pack; Porte's been top 10 and best young rider at the Tour of Italy).

Boassen Hagen, too, was one of the top under 23 cyclists in the world prior to getting involved with Sky.

So yes, any of them might be doping, but the strength of the Sky team really doesn't point toward any suspicion other than that of any talented rider. Suggesting otherwise simply because they're a good team with a ton of money to hire the best riders is idiotic.

Just because you didn't know who they were doesn't mean they weren't already good.

Rocky Balboa wrote:

It was definitely Greg Lemond. A great man.

Ha! No way he was clean.

The man who won the first Tour in 1903 was caught cheating in 1904 and stripped of his title. No one has ever been clean.

let's be fair, Garin was caught cutting the course, not taking anything. So yes, cheating, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand when it comes down to it.

First Year Coach, I have to congratulate you for a great post. I wish there were more like these in here.

atx guy wrote:

I don't know anymore. I have loved the tour since I was a kid. The last 10 years has all but ruined it for me.

I don't know if what I'm watching is fake or real anymore. That said, I think if anyone is clean out of the contenders it's Evans. I don't remember him ever doing anything even close to super human on a single stage.

Wiggins is the big question mark for me. The entire Sky team is suspect. They're suddenly the modern day USPS. Super dominant in big races all year long with guys that were never dominant before. I can't help but thinking they're doped to the gills but who knows.

I disagree. The Sky team isn't a bunch of nobodys. Their a bunch of huge talents and great riders put together because of....a great management and lets face it, lots of money. Thats what they have done. They haven't "made" OK riders into insane riders.

Nutella1 wrote:

atx guy wrote:

Wiggins is the big question mark for me. The entire Sky team is suspect. They're suddenly the modern day USPS. Super dominant in big races all year long with guys that were never dominant before. I can't help but thinking they're doped to the gills but who knows.

Also the British have no history of being cyclists, all of a sudden they're dominant (compare 2008 Olympics track cycling). Highly suspicious.

Actually, if you were following the sport you would know that the brits have made cycling academies, in Manchester. They have poured money into the sport to get great cyclists, and it has paid off. Nothing magic or suspect about this.

Secondly, its not a pure british team:

- Edvald Boasson Hagen: One of the greatest talents in the sports, amazing diverse rider

- Mark Cavendish: Best sprinter in the sport

- Bernhard Eisel: Previous top sprinter

- Chris Froome: Great climber, would have won the Vuelta last year had he not have to wait and help Wiggins

- Christian Knees: Big engine on the flats kind of guy

- Richie Porte: Great great rider, good climber and top 10 overall if he had been given the chance

- Michael Rogers: Previously a overall contender and three time world champion

- Kanstantsin Siutsou: Big engine on the flats kind of guy

The only bad thing, where is Uran and Flecha?

Completely agree with Ignorance Here is Amazing, but one thing I forgot to mention:

The Sky team is the most scientific team in the sport. They are extremely detailed oriented, has Kurt Asle Arvesen with his extreme knowledge, tactical skills and experience in the management.

You may notice that they keep looking down at how much watt they are using, they KNOW what they each are capable of. This is planned very well. Its not normal for teams to behave like this. US Postal was the only one in its time, and everyone cheated at that time.

theres never been such a thing