How many of the Tour de France riders are doping?

They didn't get that skinny and put out that much power going gluten-free.

Are there clean riders in that field? Yes, of course. Is the podium clean? Very likely not at all.

It's pretty much the same as track. Not nearly as many people busted as there should be. Very few with heavy epo dosages. Some teams and countries that everyone "knows" are more one the black end of the gray area. Some like Cannondale that have such terrible palmares they couldn't possibly be doping. Cleaner than it used to be for sure, but not nearly as clean as they would want you to think. There's a reason Phinney refers to his opponents as cyborgs.

The "Tour" has always had doping as an integral part of its history. It is seriously glossed over now.

The first 5 time winner, Jacques Anquetil openly admitted that he used amphetamines and that only a fool would think you could do a grand tour without "help." The great Merckx was busted but has always denied.

There are documented cases going back to the first in 1903 of riders taking whatever was available to help, like cocaine laced eye drops.

I believe from about the 1960s into the 1980s, that the Tour only penalized a rider something like 15 minutes for a positive urine test.

I would bet there is not a single Grand Tour winner that has done so without the aid of some sort of chemical or process (blood transfusions).

Lance is the legitimate winner from 1999 to 2005. It was a level playing field.

Of the top 20 in the overall standings, I'd say 100%.

Marcel Kittel's legs are appear to be thicker than my waist

forget doping, how about just german genetic engineering

this is unflexed AFTER the finish line

http://www.quickstepfloorscycling.com/images/pictures/gallery/1600x1200/e9237e9d95141faf1565fdbd309ebf3e.jpg

I don't believe this but Outside Magazine gave Lance Armstrong a blog and podcast for TdF - why are people still giving this man any money or attention?

https://www.outsideonline.com/2197087/lance-armstrong-returns-tour

smile wrote:

I've been watching the Tour the past few days and have been thinking about this. I don't follow cycling but I'm becoming more interested in it. How many riders today are doping? Is it as widespread as the '90s - mid '00s? I seem to remember hearing a few years ago that riders were going faster than Lance did.

They are all doping.

They have all been doping since the mid-90s.

The tour just got a stick up their butt(s) because Armstrong-- AN AMERICAN (gasp) -- kept winning.

Now that we have the Euros winning again, all is well.

Alternate Reality wrote:

They are all doping.

They have all been doping since the mid-90s.

The tour just got a stick up their butt(s) because Armstrong-- AN AMERICAN (gasp) -- kept winning.

Now that we have the Euros winning again, all is well.

Oh please is right. They have been doping from the beginning, over 100 years ago, not just since the mid-90s.

It's totally political that they voided Armstrong's wins while not voiding the TDF wins of confirmed notorious dopers like Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani (and further back, Fignon, Roche, Merckx, etc.). A lot of those riders are still seen as heros. Even Tom Simpson, who died while doped up and leading the Tour de France is seen as a hero.

but why wrote:

I don't believe this but Outside Magazine gave Lance Armstrong a blog and podcast for TdF - why are people still giving this man any money or attention?

https://www.outsideonline.com/2197087/lance-armstrong-returns-tour

Ahem, you just did what you are whining aboutm AND you even provided clickbait to help LA makes some scratch.

My guess is that the best GC dudes are definitely still doping. However, they're not able to take the amount of dope they used to be able to. They're masters of micro doping.

Better than 10 years ago for sure. Clean? No way.

I cannot say. But, in my experience you can question an endurance

athletes appearance by their lack of natural vascularization.

Prominent veins in the hands, arms and legs from true training.

What is important is the illusion Armstrongs' plight cast over

endurance stage bicycle racing.

That is, the mechanics of the bikes have changes, and no one noticed!

Most are carbon fiber, some can be mechanized especially with the new

cranks. It's pretty crazy. Most watchers will notice that some cyclists

are using what look like mountain/hybrid bikes. Which should be illegal.

There are some physically gifted riders (Froome, Quintana), they know

they're under the radar. But all in all I think the TDF is fairly clean.

On a similar note did anybody notice what they did in the 2017 Women's Giro D'Italia, in the time trial, they didn't mention on the terrain maps, two pretty steep climbs. I think they should start doing this in the TDF, and call them "pop" time trails.

gloria wrote:

I cannot say. But, in my experience you can question an endurance

athletes appearance by their lack of natural vascularization.

Prominent veins in the hands, arms and legs from true training.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Hincapie had some of the biggest veins I've ever seen when he was on the sauce.

43

Which vein were you looking at!

LOL :)

"Even Tom Simpson, who died while doped up and leading the Tour de France is seen as a hero."

Simpson was not leading the Tour or the stage when he died. If you read any of the several books about him you will learn that he was desperate to win the Tour, or at least get on the podium, in order to secure the new pro contract that he believed would set him up for llife in the financial sense. Since winning the World Champs a couple of years earlier he had endured a pretty thin time and was determined that 1967 would be his year. The problem was that in 1967 the Tour was contested not by trade teams but by national teams and Simpson simply did not have the team round him to enable him to compete with his rivals. That and a mild illness is what forced him to push himself to the absolute limit in a forlorn attempt to keep pace with his rivals. The heat and the dope did the rest.

but why wrote:

I don't believe this but Outside Magazine gave Lance Armstrong a blog and podcast for TdF - why are people still giving this man any money or attention?

https://www.outsideonline.com/2197087/lance-armstrong-returns-tour

Because he's still very popular with many people and knows cycling better than most. People are losening-up with Lance because they're beginning to learn how prevelant doping was during his era. Lance was fighting fire with fire - doping with the best dopers. No question Lance was high-responder to PEDs, but year in & year out he had superior team support and impeccable preparation. And he also had uncanny luck at avoiding crashes and staying out of trouble. This all adds up to an unprecedented 7 TdFs.

What was Lance's downfall was bring a pro-wrestling attitude to cycling. His insidious and nefarious behavior sent him down fast. But people are learning that you can't separate the "good" dopers from the "mean" ones. The vast majority of the GC contender's were all doping back in Lance's day. Why should we forgive & accept the "good" dopers and condemn & hate the "mean" dopers. Dopers are dopers...they're all cheating...who could have imagined.

And lets forgot the fought & survived stage 4 cancer. Many people with stage 4 aren't so fortunate.

There's been an occasional rider who some suspect might be cleanish. A guy like Sastre at least knew how to keep it in moderation, do it discretely, with some sense of decorum. On some long climbs he actually looked for real, going up steadily at his own pace. Probably it's just wishful thinking though.

fighting to come back not just from cancer but to high performance is definitely an incredible achievement that could have made him millions alone

but there is only one group of people I forgive for doping and that is state forced doping like Germany and Soviets used to do (N. Korea too) and possibly Russia now by threatening elite's families if they don't comply

but Lance just wanted to win at any price, he was free to do anything, he could have just been a name in a breakaway for just a day or for one of the stages but no, he had to win the whole thing, repeatedly, year after year

doesn't matter if everyone else was doping, he did it and won and made a showcase of it, which makes him worse than all of them

meanwhile I am watching Greg Lemond as a commentator this morning and I expected him to be old, I didn't expect him to be fat, it's a little depressing

I wish I wasn't so vascular :-( don't like that bit from training too much

but thank you for mentioning the 2017 Women's Giro D'Italia

you mean the Giro Rosa right? I don't like how "pink" has to be part of the name, yours is better :-)

I've been watching it and wow, it definitely has a future, I am very excited to see it grow every year - the way they did the TT on the first day was interesting, it's definitely a showcase for now but they are definitely serious athletes and fun to watch - they'd all be cat1 in the USA for sure

it really needs it's own thread but people might complain this is a running site, despite nothing else to watch today

highlights

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7NFlV830crPgTMGXGEcqNv1iNK18W1Ny

day 1 TT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-XlfiCsPo0