How far will Prudhomme go?

[Erik.Lazdins]

Prudhomme has said that he no longer considers Floyd to be the winner of the 2006 Tour and has expunged Riis' win in 1996 after his recent admission.

Jaques Anquetil said that he used substances when racing - is that an admission?

What about Pedro Delgado's test result in 1988?

What about Jan in 1997?

What about Erik Zabel's green jersey's?

I think Prudhomme is in a tough spot - punish those who cheat but maintain some semblance of results - One could argue that each year could have an asterisk for a number of reasons.

Each asterisk devalues the race - As much as a doping confession/positive test result is a black mark for cycling, each asterisk or post-race GC shuffle becomes a black mark for the tour.

Does anyone here have thoughts on this?

Hey, thanks for reading!

[fiamme red]

Jaques Anquetil said that he used substances when racing - is that an admission?Anquetil's last Tour win was 1964, and the first year of doping tests was 1965.

[Erik.Lazdins]

Anquetil's last Tour win was 1964, and the first year of doping tests was 1965.

Your absolutely right - Since all this Landis, Pereiro stuff started last summer I started thinking on how this can be fixed. In competition, everyone looks for an advantage - Porsche brought a carbon fiber chassis to CART in 1989 to have it outlawed - Penske got the pushrod Ilmor to gain an "unfair but within the rules" advantage at Indy - Patrick Arnold created "the clear" that had no test at the time.

[Samster]

Erik:

in no way is this response meant to dis your thread because i think it's a good question to raise...

but i simply don't care what the guy thinks or does with his various winners lists. for me, racing is still fun to watch/follow.

as several have noted in past threads, given how many races a week the average pro does, it would be surprising if we found that most riders _didn't_ dope (and don't forget the about those 20+ day-long grand tours...)

what prudhomme, pound, leblanc say hardly matters to me. just as what i think hardly matters to them...

ymmv.

[Louis]

as several have noted in past threads, given how many races a week the average pro does, it would be surprising if we found that most riders _didn't_ dope (and don't forget the about those 20+ day-long grand tours...)

Sam,

I hear you, but you know, if that is the case, why not have them just drop all the hypocrisy and let it be open-class doping? As it is now we have the worst of all worlds:

1) Those who do not dope are cheated, and 2) Those who do dope can claim that they are clean.

The sport needs to either make a supreme effort and clean itself up, or admit that the current super-human performances are chemically induced and PEDs are just part of elite-level cycling, like good nutrition and daily massages.

Louis

[Avispa]

I take a different approach to this than Samster, because it hits too close to home. Louis is almost there....

But, tell me what else can people like Prudhomme do? How far can he go? IMO, I think as far as CONI has with Basso.... At the beginning they dropped the ball on the subject until pressure mounted. Then they had to do the right thing.

Prudhomme is just responding to pressure and he feels he has a responsibility to young riders and the public (that includes me). He has no say about Anquetil, Festina, etc. because those problems happened before his time. Prudhomme is not acting on speculation; neither is he working on results of tests that were not used against a rider before... (Lance, Delgado, etc.)

I am aware that the Riis and Zabel's problems are not test results, but as admissions, he should treat these the same as Floyd's as they have all occurred while he is in charge.

I do believe that if Zabel specifically says he was juiced for his Tour (Green jersey) wins, he should also be removed from the charts…. Perhaps, the admission of a non-overall winner of the race is seen different? I can't answer that question....

[saab2000]

AMNESTY


It is the only way forward.

Those who admit will be kept in their result positions with an asterisk. Those who don't admit and are later found out definitely will be stricken from the results list.

Then from the time of the amnesty forward there is no way out. Definitive positive (DNA being the most sure way of a sure positive seemingly) and you are banished, Pete Rose style.

[stevep]

larger question.
if you did not test positive did you break the rules?
or were you within the rules by definition.

once testing is established... maybe you have to live with the tests.

nothing simple here.

[saab2000]

larger question.
if you did not test positive did you break the rules?
or were you within the rules by definition.

once testing is established... maybe you have to live with the tests.

nothing simple here.

I agree. Nothing is simple.

I think that if the sport of cycling agrees that it wants to be 'clean' (whatever that means and however it is ultimately defined) then it needs to come to some very scientific and transparent standards. This will likely mean DNA testing.

Of course, what 'clean' means will be up to interpretation. Clean has meant, and is still measured by one standard, at 50% hemaetocrit. But we all know that this simply allows the athlete to manipulate to that level.

No, it's not simple. Because I have often argued that even taking an aspirin (an over-the-counter bloodthinner) has a positive effect. So lots of things.

[Samster]

Sam,

I hear you, but you know, if that is the case, why not have them just drop all the hypocrisy and let it be open-class doping? As it is now we have the worst of all worlds:

1) Those who do not dope are cheated, and 2) Those who do dope can claim that they are clean.

The sport needs to either make a supreme effort and clean itself up, or admit that the current super-human performances are chemically induced and PEDs are just part of elite-level cycling, like good nutrition and daily massages.

Louis
Louis:

to clarify, i don't think doping is "ok." but then again, i don't think i know enough about cycling life to question the judgement of those who do. my principal issue is the way people like pound and prudhomme (as well as others) choose to try and handle these issues. i don't know if i personally could do any better, but surely there must be someone on this planet who can.