is it fair to consider Eddy Merckx, who was caught doping three times in his career

[Tandem Rider]

Originally Posted by weiwentg

In strength athletes, testosterone is clearly a game changer. I think that I would have phrased the issue more like this: in endurance sports, blood doping is the game changing thing. It’s a night and day difference. We can’t look past that. The other stuff, including testosterone, is probably not such a game changer, and because everyone was doing it, we might be able to forgive that - not necessarily forget, just forgive.

That’s an admittedly arbitrary distinction. I honestly don’t know how much of a game changer testosterone should be for endurance sports. It clearly can’t be on par with EPO, but from Tyler’s autobiography, testosterone did seem to help them recover faster. You can argue that maybe we should draw the line to exclude testosterone. I don’t know which of the sport’s heroes that would rule out.

Testosterone increases the speed of recovery, taken in training, it allows an athlete to have more train/recover cycles in less time. During a training block, it allows the athlete to train more and harder and still recover. During a stage race, it helps the recovery rate allowing the athlete to race harder with less fatigue after dosing.

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by Greatestalltime

Will you explain why he’s the best? Or likely the best?
What’s changed that means we won’t see another like him?

I’d like to see someone be capable of winning a sprint with the best and a Grand tour. Is that possible? Was it ever?

Bernard Hinault mixed it up in the sprints. He was a fairly capable grand tour rider. Won them all. Sean Kelly won sprints and a grand tour and was often in the GC mix.

[Greatestalltime]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Hard to argue with the below..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_Eddy_Merckx

The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).

I like stats like that. I’d like to see an all around winner. Sagan is close? Can anyone be that in today’s “game”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Greatestalltime]

Originally Posted by saab2000

Bernard Hinault mixed it up in the sprints. He was a fairly capable grand tour rider. Won them all. Sean Kelly won sprints and a grand tour and was often in the GC mix.

Anyone in todays game that can?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[benb]

You can ask the question whether these riders of previous generations were really that much better or whether riders were just less specialized back then.

Would Mercx or Hinault have been as competitive at Sprinting if there there were guys training 100% to be sprinters?

Would they have been as competitive as climbers if there had been more riders training/eating to be pure climbers?

Some of this is just increasing training knowledge I think and teams tailoring & specializing the riders training plans to slot them more narrowly into specific roles.

The old way was more interesting to watch!

[choke]

Originally Posted by Greatestalltime

The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).

And he wasn't a one trick (TdF) pony....in the 1968 Giro he won the general, points and mountain classifications.

Then there are the Monuments. Most riders would love to win one twice, Eddy won all 5 at least twice.

Milan-San Remo - 7 victories
Tour of Flanders - 2 victories
Paris-Roubaix - 3 victories
LBL - 5 victories
Lombardia - 2 victories

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Greatestalltime

The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).

I like stats like that. I’d like to see an all around winner. Sagan is close? Can anyone be that in today’s “game”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sagan will NEVER win a GT..nobody since Merckx and maybe Hinault is in that 'game'...certainly not anybody in the last couple/few/many decades..

[spoonrobot]

I think the judgement from Steve Tilford is relevant in this case:

Originally Posted by Steve Tilford

Everyone was a doper, but Merckx was before this oxygen vector drugs, so he was doing it pretty low key, thus suffered like a dog. When Merckx raced, the sport was really blue collar. No hot water in the hotels, no support, ect. He was the man.

[daker13]

Originally Posted by carpediemracing

...snip...

Amphetamines increase heart rate and mask pain. You feel like you can do more but you're not any stronger. You just burn hotter, so to speak. Your peak fitness/ability is no different, it's just that you are more likely to bump up against your limits for longer. It might help in a short event (kilo? match sprint?) but in a longer race it can be detrimental. The pros used to save it for the end of the race, as a ultra powerful pick me up. It's like having a Coke or a coffee, just supercharged. They are super easy to detect so they're generally not used.... snip...

The other thing they do is help with maintaining focus, especially in the face of fatigue. Then a little booze/narcotics to take the edge off... not my idea of a good time.

[VTCaraco]

Originally Posted by benb

You can ask the question whether these riders of previous generations were really that much better or whether riders were just less specialized back then.

Would Merckx or Hinault have been as competitive at Sprinting if there were guys training 100% to be sprinters?

Would they have been as competitive as climbers if there had been more riders training/eating to be pure climbers?

Some of this is just increasing training knowledge I think and teams tailoring & specializing the riders training plans to slot them more narrowly into specific roles.

The old way was more interesting to watch!

My sense is that this is team-tactics as well as coaching or training ideology.

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by benb

Would Mercx or Hinault have been as competitive at Sprinting if there there were guys training 100% to be sprinters?

Would they have been as competitive as climbers if there had been more riders training/eating to be pure climbers?

Merckx and Hinault were competent sprinters, but that's not how they won the vast majority of their races. They weren't on the level of Maertens or Kelly. Likewise, there were other riders who were better pure climbers, e.g., Fuente and Van Impe.

[LouDeeter]

Some Jacques Anquetil quotes:

"Leave me in peace, everybody takes dope."

"For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25). Since we are constantly asked to go faster and to make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants"

"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."

"You'd have to be an imbecile or hypocrite to imagine that a professional cyclist who rides 235 days a year can hold himself together without stimulants."

[Greatestalltime]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Sagan will NEVER win a GT..nobody since Merckx and maybe Hinault is in that 'game'...certainly not anybody in the last couple/few/many decades..

Wonder why? Too many specialists?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

His 1972 season alone shows why he's the greatest ever. Giro/Tour double, three Monuments and the Hour record.

What is crazy is you could make an argument for 1971, 1973, 1974 or 1969. He was just so dominant.

I don't think you will ever see a rider that can do what he did. Win something like Liège–Bastogne–Liège, Worlds, the TDF, the Grio in a single year and throw in another random 10-15 things! Just nuts. Can't believe we are even having this conversation.

[bthornt]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

What is crazy is you could make an argument for 1971, 1973, 1974 or 1969. He was just so dominant.

I don't think you will ever see a rider that can do what he did. Win something like Liège–Bastogne–Liège, Worlds, the TDF, the Grio in a single year and throw in another random 10-15 things! Just nuts. Can't believe we are even having this conversation.

I think it's rare in sports that you can single out one person and say he's the best of all time, but I agree with the this statement - can't believe we are even having this conversation.

Also, consider some of the talent he competed against - Gimondi, Poulidor, Maertens, DeVlaeminck, Goodefroot, Fuentes, certainly more than I can list.

Plus, the way that he won, typically pure domination. I'm not saying there weren't other great riders, Hinault, Anquetil, once again a fairly long list, but I just can't see any possible way of arguing against Merckx being the best ever.