Riis just confessed

K'Ching said:

He just said it.

"I've taken doping"

Screw em' all...there was no way he could have toyed with Indurain and others on the climbs in 1996 TdF without dope. Freaking hypocrite.

teetopkram said:

Screw em' all...there was no way he could have toyed with Indurain and others on the climbs in 1996 TdF without dope. Freaking hypocrite.

And Indurain was 100% clean? - Wake up i can only say.

Findelker said:

And Indurain was 100% clean? - Wake up i can only say.

Now that Riis is on the other side, only the biggest names are going to be newsworthy... Indurain may be next.

Indurain is a gentleman, and wont get into the arena of discussing this things.
He is well over the world of cycling.

Indurain is more than just a rider, the same way Mohammad Ali was more than just a boxer.

sopas said:

Indurain is a gentleman, and wont get into the arena of discussing this things.
He is well over the world of cycling.

Indurain is more than just a rider, the same way Mohammad Ali was more than just a boxer.

😕

If he doped he doped. It has nothing to do as to whether he is a "gentleman" or not. This is not the "Spanish" way is it? Let's be gentlemen and not talk about his "unpleasant" doping issues?

He have to ensure that the health of young riders is protected. If it takes great champions (who won when all top contenders doped) to come out as say "this is how it was, let's hope for a better future" it will be all for the better.

Agreed.

They're being selfish if they don't come out at this point. Selfish because, all their victories will be tarnished. During that time frame, okay, Indurain won a pile of races, but we really have no idea who the best rider of his generation was, do we?

It's anybody's guess.

Indurain was the best wether he doped or not. The same like Armstrong.

They are the best because they won against a bunch of other dopers for many consecutive years.

Serafino said:

😕

If he doped he doped. It has nothing to do as to whether he is a "gentleman" or not. This is not the "Spanish" way is it? Let's be gentlemen and not talk about his "unpleasant" doping issues?

He have to ensure that the health of young riders is protected. If it takes great champions (who won when all top contenders doped) to come out as say "this is how it was, let's hope for a better future" it will be all for the better.

I agree if he doped he doped. But I just dont see why he should come out and confess (in case he doped). The media wont dare questioning Indurain and without a formal accusation or consistent case he does not have to clarify anything. Indurain is a GOD!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

helmutRoole2 said:

Agreed.

They're being selfish if they don't come out at this point. Selfish because, all their victories will be tarnished. During that time frame, okay, Indurain won a pile of races, but we really have no idea who the best rider of his generation was, do we?

It's anybody's guess.

+1

You cannot tell who would have won what without dope.

I think Indurain would have won the Tour without EPO, but I don't think he would have won five in a row. That time trial where he put four minutes on the other contenders was a joke.

Armstrong would have been lucky to place in the top 15 of the TdF.

Greg Lemond was probably the last true champion.

There is a huge fallicy in the argument that Armstrong and Indurain were the best even if they doped because everybody else was doping. Some people that dope respond to the dope better than others. I think they are known in doping circles as "hyper-responders." So, it is possible that these two guys just responded really well to dope and if everybody was clean they would not be great champions. Also, the next Mercx might have been the only clean rider and never won a race because everybody else was doped.

Doping is cheating. Cheating invalidates the results. ASO should declare the results from 1997 through 2006 as invalid and ask for all of the Yellow Jerseys and prize money back. I see no evidence to ask for Mig's back yet. I could be wrong.

sopas said:

Indurain was the best wether he doped or not. The same like Armstrong.

They are the best because they won against a bunch of other dopers for many consecutive years.

at least Riis confessed like a man... i did it, i was wrong, no one forced me... if you want my yellow jersey come and get it... let's move on and shine the spot light on the new talent and get this sport cleaned up. notice he didn't say i did it but not during the year i won the TdF or i was going to do it and then decided not to or i tried it for a couple of months but didn't like it so i stopped (i respect Zable for coming out when he really didn't need to, but given his classic success of late... c'mon...)

[Caution Rant Zone]
as for LeMond, why do you suppose he never doped? Riis is pretty anti-doping these days, the doctors that doped telecom are anti-doping these days too... so what makes you think he didn't dope... from what i gather it would seem that LeMond knows better than anyone that Armstrong doped because he knew what it took to win the TdF and one of those things was doping.. i really have no doubt in my mind that LeMond doped and Armstrong doped and Indurain doped... we know Delgado did but he got a get out of jail card on a technicality.. Roche... the whole lot of them... it was and IS just too easy to get away with it and the rewards are huge.. people get caught because of a happy coincidence or by accident not from actual dope controls... why are we kidding ourselves

but this is stupid... we are completely f'ng up our sport with endless scandal, riders suspended for suspicion... what is that!?? if you are going to test then test.. take blood and do the profiling that the French do and that some of the teams are doing on their own now... don't do it half way or might as well not do it at all.. if you do it half way this is what you get.. endless scandals. and 1st offense = life time ban for the serious stuff... if they aren't going to do that then forget about it and just get on with the anything goes cycling side show that we have now... this is stupid! i would still watch the anything goes cycling series.... hell i've been watching it for the last 20+ years... we all have. riders still have to work extremely hard to compete it's not as if you can train twice a week take EPO and win a grand tour... you still have to have exceptional genes, train harder than anyone else in the world etc, etc... anyway if your going to test then test for chr!st sake if you're are not or can't then just forget about testing and get on with it and forget all this suspicion, finger pointing BS that's ruining our sport!

Bro Deal said:

+1

You cannot tell who would have won what without dope.

I think Indurain would have won the Tour without EPO, but I don't think he would have won five in a row. That time trial where he put four minutes on the other contenders was a joke.

Armstrong would have been lucky to place in the top 15 of the TdF.

Armstrong would have been lucky to place top 15 without dope, but only because his opposition where doped to the gills. In an entirely clean field I think it's possible that a clean Armstrong would have scored 7 in a row. Same with Indurain.

However doping affects different people differently, and different people use to different extents so the advantage gained from doping is dependant on the individual. And then there's the factor of the people who weren't doping, and how well they would have done if their opposition weren't doping.

Having said that I would still say Indurain/Armstrong were the best TdF riders of their respective generations.

WHen I said that Lemond did not dope I meant that he did not take EPO because it was not still available back then. He might however have been taking other common substances of the 80's I don't know.

But the fact is that it was most likely the use of EPO in the peloton whan ended his carrer.

Eldrack said:

Armstrong would have been lucky to place top 15 without dope, but only because his opposition where doped to the gills. In an entirely clean field I think it's possible that a clean Armstrong would have scored 7 in a row. Same with Indurain.

However doping affects different people differently, and different people use to different extents so the advantage gained from doping is dependant on the individual. And then there's the factor of the people who weren't doping, and how well they would have done if their opposition weren't doping.

Having said that I would still say Indurain/Armstrong were the best TdF riders of their respective generations.

without a doubt Indurain and Armstrong were the strongest TdF champions of their generations... a rule/law without any enforcement effectively doesnt' exist... everyone had doping at their disposal... saying some had dope a larger response to dope is just stupid.. some had a greater responce to training too, some had better coaching and training methods... so what, life's not fair... given what ALL riders effectively had at their disposal Indurain and Armstong dominated... that's it!

what i don't get it.. is it natural to train 30hr a week on a bicycle, sleep in a hyperbaric chamber or any of the other legal things riders do? is it not dangerous to ride down mountain with shear clifs at 100+km/hr or for 150 riders to ride inches away from each other at 60km/hr over cobbles... the rules are the rules but the suposed reasons behind them are kind of rediculous when you look at a sport like cycling that is extremely dangerous and requires completely unnatual training methods.

So why didn't he do EPO? If we take the point of view that doping in general has been around for a while, and most any champion had to dope to stay ahead, and that EPO came in around 1990, then why didn't LeMond just do what the others were doing? It's not that big a leap from amphetamines and transfusions to EPO.

I'd like to believe that LeMond had strong character, but he's become so petulant in recent years. Note that he hasn't tossed doping accusations at any of the Europeans, just Armstrong and Landis. He might be right, but it's served up with bitter grapes.

sopas said:

WHen I said that Lemond did not dope I meant that he did not take EPO because it was not still available back then. He might however have been taking other common substances of the 80's I don't know.

But the fact is that it was most likely the use of EPO in the peloton whan ended his carrer.

JohnO said:

So why didn't he do EPO? If we take the point of view that doping in general has been around for a while, and most any champion had to dope to stay ahead, and that EPO came in around 1990, then why didn't LeMond just do what the others were doing? It's not that big a leap from amphetamines and transfusions to EPO.

I'd like to believe that LeMond had strong character, but he's become so petulant in recent years. Note that he hasn't tossed doping accusations at any of the Europeans, just Armstrong and Landis. He might be right, but it's served up with bitter grapes.

Lemond specifically names Chiapuci (sp?) and several other non-Americans who worked with a couple of Italian doctors in the extensive audio interview that Lim linked here a couple of months ago. His extensive comments were in no way restricted to Armstrong or Landis. I think we can be sure he never used EPO for this simple reason: His power output during the pre-EPO era was not significantly different from what is was during his last two TdF's, which is when EPO first started to proliferate within cycling. If you listen to the interview, he states his specific power output for different years, which can be independently calculated and verified.

Is Greg bitter or jealous about Armstrong and Landis? Maybe. But his comments about significant changes in cycling power levels over a short span of time stand on their own, regardless of the personality issues.

Lemond was a professional cyclist. My assumption is that he was taking SOMETHING illegal.

fbircher said:

...I think we can be sure he never used EPO for this simple reason: His power output during the pre-EPO era was not significantly different from what is was during his last two TdF's, which is when EPO first started to proliferate within cycling...

Coyle who Armstrong allowed to do an analyis of Armstrong during his career discovered that Armstrongs muscle efficiency changed in a way that was not previously thought to be possible.. so not sure what exactly he was on, but it was the sH!t!