Fantasy Tour de France

Here’s a poser for readers, but remember it’s only a fantasy!
A Megalomaniac heading up a quasi-legal body in America is obsessed with pursuing a Control Freak who happens to have won 7 consecutive Tours de France. The Control Freak has never failed drugs tests which have always been conducted under rigorous regimes at the leading edge of the known technology in each of the winning years.
The Control Freak eventually gives up playing the Megalomaniac’s game on the basis that there’s more to life and his record stands unless incontrovertible new evidence emerges. The Megalomaniac is relying on “witnesses” of known unimpeachable character.
The Megalomaniac thinks that his body holds sway over the owners of the Tour and cycling’s controlling body, which is based in Switzerland and is headed by an eccentric Irishman. Of course, it is well known that the French and the Swiss and these respective bodies love the Americans and will readily roll over for them.
Assuming that the Control Freak is stripped of his titles intriguing questions emerge as to whom could be awarded retrospectively the sport’s ultimate prize.
Looking at each year, pick a “winner” from these delightful options:
1999-Zulle (dear old Alex, now what was it I remember about him?); Escartin-was he an OK guy?
2000-Ullrich (what do I remember about Jan?); Beloki (unsure)
2001-ditto
2002-Beloki; Rumsas (now what was it about him?)
2003-Ullrich; Vinokourov (dear old Vino! Enough said)
2004-Kloden (unsure); Basso (unsure)
2005-Basso; Ullrich
But remember folks…this is only a fantasy. If it were reality it would be a nightmare!

I agree that it's a crazy situation, but I've got one question:

Do you honestly believe that he's innocent, and that he's giving up the fight because 'he's tired of it all'?

German anti-doping has just opened an investigation into Kloden (amongst others) based on their contact with Freiburg University and two sports science doctors implicated in EPO / blood doping.

A few years ago (2006), I remember reading someone asking a question as to who was the first clean rider in that year's TdF - the suggestion was that it was Wiggins, who finished 123rd that year (just ahead of Philip Gilbert, who was also at that time widely considered to be clean).

In my opinion, there is really no legitimate way of determining who should be considered the winner of the 7 Tours Armstrong will (probably) be stripped of, as I don't think there is anyone of the podium guys that hasn't been at least somewhat implicated in doping (maybe Escartin? Pretty sure that Beloki's name came up wrt Operacion Puerto). I think all that can reasonably happen is that the results between 99 and 05 show a big asterisk next to them explaining that the winner and others were subject to later sanctions.

DJ-How can I know! How can anyone know?

Everyone loves a conspiracy-look at the Grassy Knoll in Dallas. We were probably the only two not there.

When I was in France on an Etape coach holiday a year or two ago the coach drivers and tour guides (known experts) were telling us all this story-forgive me if you know it-that it was well known that the US Postal/Discovery teams were blood doping because...wait for it...when they left their hotels the rooms had holes in the walls where they'd hammered in nails to hang the blood bags!!!!

Surely the organisers of this evil practice would have provided pegs, or some other high tech device?

I give this example to show the extent to which these stories are embellished and circulated until they become legend.

We all love these debates but where are the facts?

Best wishes

If he was innocent, he wouldn't be giving up now.

He (and his Livestrong funded lawyer army) have realised that the evidence on him is far too great and by carrying on, and having all his ex-teammates testify against him will be more damaging than stopping now.

If there was a decent chance he would clear his name, he wouldn't be stopping now. His dodgy docs have already been banned for life (surely his long association with Dr Ferrari should be evidence enough for anyone who knows about the sport?).

I don't think the situation is akin to the 'Grassy Knoll'. It's more like those who still trust this man's innocence are like those who still believed the Earth was flat, despite all evidence being to the contrary.

Look you may well be right , dj.

But surely the ex-teammates will have to testify against him in any case , since their testimony apparently constitutes the main evidence against him ? As I said on the other thread , there will surely have to be some sort of hearing eventually at which this evidence is presented. Just that Lance isn't going to be there to give his side of the story...

I can't see that he actually has anything to gain by not participating.

I'm not offering any view on his guilt or innocence , because in the absence of any direct personal knowledge such views would be worthless.

Does anyone honestly believe that anyone at the top of cycling during that era was 100% clean?

They have said the evidence may well be published once the legal side has been settled, but I do feel its a touch harsh on Lance and other that in all likelihood those who will be credited with the wins are just as guilty as he is/was/might have been.

the "outings" of the last few years should have drawn a line and spelled out that EPO, blood doping and everything else is illegal and not acceptable just because everyone else is doing it. I have no sympathy for those who are caught from now on, but it does strike as a bit rum to dish out retrospective punishments to those who won using drugs but not those who lost using them.


(PS shouldnt this be merged with the other topic on the subject?)