Rough Ride on RTÉ 1 tonight *mod note post #153*

fishfoodie

Hermy wrote: »

Telling the truth is about being true to yourself regardless of what others think - that's the difference between Kimmage and Roche.

+1

It's a really long time since I read Rough Ride, probably 2 weeks after it was published , but as I recall his doping was one of the reasons why he decided that it was time to walk away from cycling.

Deco99

I know little bout kimmage but for those calling him an arsehole bout beeping the cyclists.

1. He is driving a camper van up the pyrenees. If they dont get out the way he'd burn the clutch out eventually.
2. Its before the stage and the stages are left closed for a period after to allow amateurs cycle it. They could have gone then.

Imo the cyclists were the arseholes

Twas Not

And what does Martin Earley have to say about all of this? He won a Tour de France stage.

mikeyjames9

drogdub wrote: »

Most dopers are victims. They reach a point where they have to make the decision in order to survive and some lose they're lives.

that's one view of the situation..

carthoris

Deco99 wrote: »

I know little bout kimmage but for those calling him an arsehole bout beeping the cyclists.

1. He is driving a camper van up the pyrenees. If they dont get out the way he'd burn the clutch out eventually.
2. Its before the stage and the stages are left closed for a period after to allow amateurs cycle it. They could have gone then.

Imo the cyclists were the arseholes

I view it the same as trying to drive down O'Connell street on St Patricks day, you have to expect certain difficulties in choosing to do it at that time.

SHOVELLER

Truly fascinating watch. Not really a fan of Kimmage but have strangely warmed to him after that.

Best moment is at the end of the Tour when Roche is shaking hands with a few people and the camera shoots up to Kimmage a dozen metres away. Class.

Sad too when his brother says he's turned a lot more serious. It seems the sport has killed a part of him.

Must read his book again.

furiousox

Bit ironic that he rides a Rabobank liveried TCR.

hinault

Twas Not wrote: »

And what does Martin Earley have to say about all of this? He won a Tour de France stage.

Martin Earley was the first Irish cyclist to win stages in all 3 grand tours!

I liked tonights documentary.
Paul is a very good bloke and a highly talented writer. He was a bloody good cyclist back in the day. Tara CC punched far above their weight.

Muahahaha

Deco99 wrote: »

I know little bout kimmage but for those calling him an arsehole bout beeping the cyclists.

1. He is driving a camper van up the pyrenees. If they dont get out the way he'd burn the clutch out eventually.
2. Its before the stage and the stages are left closed for a period after to allow amateurs cycle it. They could have gone then.

Imo the cyclists were the arseholes

Yeah I agree, I think it's been taken out of context. It looked to me like he was driving his campervan to the top of a mountain to get a specific viewing point that was special to him. Presumably the roads must close at some stage and if you don't get to the viewing point on time then you'd have to park up. What was likely happening was a bunch of cyclists were cycling up to the pass to view the race themselves, in doing so they're blocking up the road and struggling to get to the top at 5mph whilst all the campervans behind them are burning out their clutches by going so slow up a steep hill. I can just imagine the scene now with all the local riders thinking they'd get their own bit of Tour de France glory by doing the route before the race and in doing so behaving like they're in the race itself by taking up the entire road and making it hard for cars to get past.

His reaction was indicative of his short fuse but in fairness to him one of the cyclists tried to pull his wing mirror off as he went by. Shouting is one thing but criminal damage is another level up IMO.

doiredoire

hinault wrote: »

Martin Earley was the first Irish cyclist to win stages in all 3 grand tours!

I liked tonights documentary.
Paul is a very good bloke and a highly talented writer. He was a bloody good cyclist back in the day. Tara CC punched far above their weight.

He didn't win a stage in the Vuelta just the Tour and the Giro

12 sprocket

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yeah I agree, I think it's been taken out of context. It looked to me like he was driving his campervan to the top of a mountain to get a specific viewing point that was special to him. Presumably the roads must close at some stage and if you don't get to the viewing point on time then you'd have to park up. What was likely happening was a bunch of cyclists were cycling up to the pass to view the race themselves, in doing so they're blocking up the road and struggling to get to the top at 5mph whilst all the campervans behind them are burning out their clutches by going so slow up a steep hill. I can just imagine the scene now with all the local riders thinking they'd get their own bit of Tour de France glory by doing the route before the race and in doing so behaving like they're in the race itself by taking up the entire road and making it hard for cars to get past.

His reaction was indicative of his short fuse but in fairness to him one of the cyclists tried to pull his wing mirror off as he went by. Shouting is one thing but criminal damage is another level up IMO.

Why all the excuses for his sheer bad manners and abuse of the cyclists? if it was anyone else you were looking at behaving like that, he would be getting lashed.. And in the interest of truth the cyclist didn't try to pull the wing mirror off, what he actually did was push the wing mirror out of his way not that that behaviour should be condoned either..

Stokolan

Feck it. I missed it last night.

Any ideas if its on again? or will it end up on the rte player?

ZiabR

Very good watch, enjoyed it. It was clear to see that the sport has destroyed him though. He cannot and will not, allow himself to accept ANYONES result. He no longer gives any cyclist the benefit of the doubt, he looks everywhere for the possibility that they have doped. To me it was clear that he thinks Froome doped in 2013, or at least finds it very very hard to accept that Froome won by that margin.

I have to say SR came across quite badly in it though. There is a very high chance that SR doped during his TDF win and with all the changes in the sport he still chooses to speak in riddles and deny any wrong doing.

And the absence of SK annoyed me, he has been convicted not once, but twice and still will not talk about it.

Great watch.

vermin99

Sean kelly has to stay quite as hes employed by eurosport /sky , did kelly dope? I hope not

gucci

Does anyone know if this will be shown on bbc or channel 4 over the next few weeks or am I just going to have to wait for dvd release?

ZiabR

vermin99 wrote: »

Sean kelly has to stay quite as hes employed by eurosport /sky , did kelly dope? I hope not

He was convicted twice, confirmed to have had drugs in his system. Of course he doped... The doping culture in the 80s, 90s resulted in a huge portion of the tour doping, I would say 80% of riders were doping in some form or another.

Alf Veedersane

logik wrote: »

Very good watch, enjoyed it. It was clear to see that the sport has destroyed him though. He cannot and will not, allow himself to accept ANYONES result. He no longer gives any cyclist the benefit of the doubt, he looks everywhere for the possibility that they have doped. To me it was clear that he thinks Froome doped in 2013, or at least finds it very very hard to accept that Froome won by that margin.

I agree. But don't we all have that doubt with cycling. Even Nibali's been facing questions despite the fact he was the remaining contender of the shortlist of favourites that started.

The link to Ferrai that has been rumoured didn't help. But what's worse is the likes of Vinokourov and Riis still playing a magor role in big teams means the link with the past hasn't been broken.

Even David Walsh said he was 'less sceptical' of Team Sky after his time spent with them. Not exactly glowing praise.

I think the best thing about the show was that it gave a lot more context to PK's belief in the cause. He's had a reputation as being bitter, even amongst people who may have supported his pursuit of dopers, but when he spoke of the people who have suffered because of the acceptance of drugs/doping as a part of cycling, it made you realise that there is a lot more to it than just his own travails at the hands of the machine during 'The Armstrong Years'.

tritriagain

.

Even David Walsh said he was 'less sceptical' of Team Sky after his time spent with them. Not exactly glowing praise


I read an article by david walsh in the times just before the tour started and his scepticism is increasing. He was basically asking why team sky say all the right things but then sometimes do the opposite e.g froome riding while taking medication (for asthma I think).

Hermy

12 sprocket wrote: »

Why all the excuses for his sheer bad manners and abuse of the cyclists? if it was anyone else you were looking at behaving like that, he would be getting lashed.. And in the interest of truth the cyclist didn't try to pull the wing mirror off, what he actually did was push the wing mirror out of his way not that that behaviour should be condoned either..

The wing mirror wasn't in his way.

Alf Veedersane

tritriagain wrote: »

I read an article by david walsh in the times just before the tour started and his scepticism is increasing. He was basically asking why team sky say all the right things but then sometimes do the opposite e.g froome riding while taking medication (for asthma I think).

Yeah, it was to do with Froome getting a TUE for the use of a corticosteroid to treat a chest infection.

Sky apparently said they wouldn't apply for a TUE for a rider for use during a race. but they maintain it was all legal and above board.

But most people feel that there are certain drugs that if you're sick enough to need them, then you're too sick to ride.

ZiabR

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I agree. But don't we all have that doubt with cycling. Even Nibali's been facing questions despite the fact he was the remaining contender of the shortlist of favourites that started.

The link to Ferrai that has been rumoured didn't help. But what's worse is the likes of Vinokourov and Riis still playing a magor role in big teams means the link with the past hasn't been broken.

Even David Walsh said he was 'less sceptical' of Team Sky after his time spent with them. Not exactly glowing praise.

I think the best thing about the show was that it gave a lot more context to PK's belief in the cause. He's had a reputation as being bitter, even amongst people who may have supported his pursuit of dopers, but when he spoke of the people who have suffered because of the acceptance of drugs/doping as a part of cycling, it made you realise that there is a lot more to it than just his own travails at the hands of the machine during 'The Armstrong Years'.

Agree with this, well said. What annoys me more is that there are some riders out their that tested positive for doping over the years, we all know they doped but they still deny it. They piss me off the most. I would have 10 times the respect for those riders if they came out and said, I tested positive because I doped, just like 99% of other riders doped during that era instead of denying everything over and over. It is that attitude that has damaged the sport the most.

I listen to SK alot of eurosport, but my god he pisses me off when it comes to doping. This man was convicted twice of doping in his career and was most likely doping for his major wins yet any time he is asked about doping he is like a closed book and he still denies ever taking drugs, citing some bull**** excuse.

Same can be said for Alberto Contador, I know he was striped of his TDF and Giro for the years that he tested positive, but he says "oh it must have been in the food I was eating". It is that attitude that lack of respect for the sport that has it where it is today.

In my opinion, it is more likely than not that SR was doping during his TDF win.

The issue these riders see might be, if they come clean, they will be striped of everything they won over their career and to them they would rather take their doping to the grave than to stand up and HELP cycling by assisting changes to the sport.

There are anywhere from 190 - 220 riders in a grand tour. Would it be acceptable to make a rule change whereby, at the end of 10 or the 21 stages (these 10 stages are to be completely random), ALL riders are not allowed into the team bus until a sample has been taken at the end of the stage. Set up 20 tents, once the riders come over the line, a sample is taken from each. If one is tested as positive, they don't get a 2 or 3 year ban, they are banned for life. A no tolerance approach would result in riders taking a step back and saying "if I am caught, I need to find a new career".

yop

Great documentary, forgot how good of a bunch of cyclists we had back in the day, Kelly was a beast, Roche well after last night and his lack of response and reaction to Kimmage kinda tells us he doped for his TDF win.
Still not sure about Sky and Froome, he is freaky thin and his performances were in hindsight of that win, too good to be true, but then as Kimmage said, was that the best performance we have possibly ever seen in the TDF.
He is a ballsie guy I will give him that, he took them on and went through a lot while the powers hunted him down. Has it cleaned up the sport, who knows, a lot less positive drug tests, though that could be that they are better at hiding them, its hard not to be cynical, though it will not lessen my interest and love of cycling.

Alf Veedersane

pjordan wrote: »

Yup, as a cyclist one would have expected more empathy and respect for other cyclists but equally he wouldn't be alone amongst serious cyclists in their arrogance and complete lack of respect towards other road users. Certainly that scene with him in his big camper van barging up through the stage route and the cyclists didn't portray a very pleasant side of Paul Kimmage but perhaps a warts and all version is what is best. He's never held himself up to be a loveable angel I suppose.

In the interview on Second Captains last week he did mention that around the time at Alpe d'Huez he was in a foul mood. I think that had at least as much to do with as his general attitude to cyclists when in a veh-ickle.

Russman

logik wrote: »

There are anywhere from 190 - 220 riders in a grand tour. Would it be acceptable to make a rule change whereby, at the end of 10 or the 21 stages (these 10 stages are to be completely random), ALL riders are not allowed into the team bus until a sample has been taken at the end of the stage. Set up 20 tents, once the riders come over the line, a sample is taken from each. If one is tested as positive, they don't get a 2 or 3 year ban, they are banned for life. A no tolerance approach would result in riders taking a step back and saying "if I am caught, I need to find a new career".

That's all well and good, but the appetite simply isn't there within cycling to clean itself up IMHO. Its part of what cycling is, rightly or wrongly.

And I guess, ratings and popularity and the resultant money will also have a big part to play. TV audiences will switch off pretty quickly if there's guys going up Alps at a snails pace because they're all clean. TV wants drama, attacks, edge of the seat stuff. Either that or they'll have to go with more "medium" stages as the really high mountains will be too difficult for a lot of the guys were they clean.

Once any sport is professional, there will be cheats, no matter how stringent the rules.

Alf Veedersane

logik wrote: »

Agree with this, well said. What annoys me more is that there are some riders out their that tested positive for doping over the years, we all know they doped but they still deny it. They piss me off the most. I would have 10 times the respect for those riders if they came out and said, I tested positive because I doped, just like 99% of other riders doped during that era instead of denying everything over and over. It is that attitude that has damaged the sport the most.

It was like Landis said: he knew that he could never hope to compete clean in his career so it was either ride clean and be cheated by someone else or be the cheat.

logik wrote: »

The issue these riders see might be, if they come clean, they will be striped of everything they won over their career and to them they would rather take their doping to the grave than to stand up and HELP cycling by assisting changes to the sport.

There are anywhere from 190 - 220 riders in a grand tour. Would it be acceptable to make a rule change whereby, at the end of 10 or the 21 stages (these 10 stages are to be completely random), ALL riders are not allowed into the team bus until a sample has been taken at the end of the stage. Set up 20 tents, once the riders come over the line, a sample is taken from each. If one is tested as positive, they don't get a 2 or 3 year ban, they are banned for life. A no tolerance approach would result in riders taking a step back and saying "if I am caught, I need to find a new career".

I'm not sure how feasible it would be. And then there's the question of if they could take something that would leave no physiological footprint behind by the time the Stage 10 test came and then the same between then and the Stage 21 test...

I don't know what the answer is but I hope the UCI might start to move in the direction of making a genuine attempt to restore faith in the sport.

Deco99

12 sprocket wrote: »

Why all the excuses for his sheer bad manners and abuse of the cyclists? if it was anyone else you were looking at behaving like that, he would be getting lashed.. And in the interest of truth the cyclist didn't try to pull the wing mirror off, what he actually did was push the wing mirror out of his way not that that behaviour should be condoned either..

I qualified my statement by stating i didnt know anything about Paul Kimmage, so you're point is invalid.

death1234567

yop wrote: »

Roche well after last night and his lack of response and reaction to Kimmage kinda tells us he doped for his TDF win.

I think everyone already knew he doped for his win...

"His nearest rival Pedro Delgado then attacked. Despite being almost 1 and a half minutes in arrears midway up the last climb, Roche pulled the deficit back to 4 seconds. Roche collapsed and lost consciousness and was given oxygen (at the finish line)...
Roche used the final 35 km (22 mi) time trial to overturn a half-minute gap and win the Tour by 40 seconds...
...
Roche became only the fifth cyclist in history to win the Tour and the Giro in the same year.."

LINK

Dietsquirt

Donkeygonads wrote: »

Sooo.... The big question is , Was SR sqeaky clean when he won in 87 ??

Francesco Conconi

Alf Veedersane

Dietsquirt wrote: »

Francesco Conconi

And his files variously labelled 'S. Roche' and 'Stephen R.'

letape

Dietsquirt wrote: »

Francesco Conconi

I don't believe it was ever suggested that there was a relationship between Conconi and Carrera in 1987 - I think Conconi's studies were in 1993.

Also, I am not sure there is any evidence that there was EPO in the peleton as early as 1987.

YeahOK

Vaughters summed it up for me when he said, something along the lines of, I hope Paul gets to just enjoy the odd day or two covering the cycling for his own sake.....

Alf Veedersane

letape wrote: »

Also, I am not sure there is any evidence that there was EPO in the peleton as early as 1987.

What constitutes 'evidence'? EPO wasn't banned until 1993 or thereabouts and I don't know when they would have even known about it's introduction into cycling.

Not disagreeing...it's a genuine question.

Fr D Maugire

In 1985 Roche finished third behind Hinault/LeMond in the Tour. EPO had not even been invented. 1986 was a very poor season due to the crash he suffered over the previous winter.

In 87 Roche won the Tour, Hinault was retired and LeMond out with his injuries. It's a bit like Nibali this year, once Froome and Contador went out he became favourite and Roche didn't dominate like Nibali. One thing about Roche and his abilities, he was always a top, top rider.

The Giro win was against relatively poor opposition, put Roche on any list with Visentini, Millar, Lejaretta, a very young Breukink, Anderson and Roche would have been No 1 favourite to win every time. So he won those races back to back as the next in line after Hinault/LeMond.

Roches links are to his second period at Carrera 92/93 which I have little doubt about.

One thing that always confused me about Roche/Kimmage is that there is a bit in Rough Ride the book, in which a story is related of how Roche signs-up to take part in a small race but on the insistence that there will be dope testing!!! Why?

changepartners

Maybe I'm wrong on this and someone can set me right but I always thought that the doping available to cyclists in the '80s and before was nothing like what came with EPO in the '90s? It was more amphetamines and stimulants and the like. Is that accurate?

The footage in last nights documentary of Landis crossing the line "like a postman" was the most egregious looking thing I've ever seen. It was inhuman.

philstar

good documentary i thought,

one thing that struck me watching the archive footage was the lack of helmets worn back in the day, when did helmets become compulsory?

Alf Veedersane

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

In 1985 Roche finished third behind Hinault/LeMond in the Tour. EPO had not even been invented. 1986 was a very poor season due to the crash he suffered over the previous winter.

In 87 Roche won the Tour, Hinault was retired and LeMond out with his injuries. It's a bit like Nibali this year, once Froome and Contador went out he became favourite and Roche didn't dominate like Nibali. One thing about Roche and his abilities, he was always a top, top rider.

The Giro win was against relatively poor opposition, put Roche on any list with Visentini, Millar, Lejaretta, a very young Breukink, Anderson and Roche would have been No 1 favourite to win every time. So he won those races back to back as the next in line after Hinault/LeMond.

Roches links are to his second period at Carrera 92/93 which I have little doubt about.

One thing that always confused me about Roche/Kimmage is that there is a bit in Rough Ride the book, in which a story is related of how Roche signs-up to take part in a small race but on the insistence that there will be dope testing!!! Why?

If he was clean, he's certainly not doing himself any favours by coming out with the guff last week about reinstating LA as the winner of the 7 TdFs. Not that he was alone in that but since he's being mentioned on the back of last night's programme.

RenegadeDisco

yop wrote: »

Great documentary, forgot how good of a bunch of cyclists we had back in the day, Kelly was a beast, Roche well after last night and his lack of response and reaction to Kimmage kinda tells us he doped for his TDF win.

Sean Kelly was on the same water as Merkx, Roche and the rest of them. It's just unfortunate he switched his urine sample with the wrong mechanic.

I felt Kimmage came across as painfully bitter.

lennymc

The biggest question the documentary raised for me is why was kimmage letting the air out of his wheels before putting them in the camper?

ednwireland

philstar wrote: »

good documentary i thought,

one thing that struck me watching the archive footage was the lack of helmets worn back in the day, when did helmets become compulsory?

after Andrey Kivilev died on paris nice in 2003 - it was tried before that but riders protested

DaithiMC

death1234567 wrote: »

I think everyone already knew he doped for his win...

"His nearest rival Pedro Delgado then attacked. Despite being almost 1 and a half minutes in arrears midway up the last climb, Roche pulled the deficit back to 4 seconds. Roche collapsed and lost consciousness and was given oxygen (at the finish line)...
Roche used the final 35 km (22 mi) time trial to overturn a half-minute gap and win the Tour by 40 seconds...
...
Roche became only the fifth cyclist in history to win the Tour and the Giro in the same year.."

LINK

I don't know why you think that the bold type indicates any type of doping? If it is EPO doping then his blood would have more oxygen carriers so he wouldn't need the assistive oxygen. He could have collapsed due to sheer exhaustion as much as he could have from other drug substances in his system. I am not saying he did not dope - I don't know, and, in fact, at this stage, don't care, but if we are to make observations and relate them to doping they should be substantive and not as tenuous as this.

YeahOK

I think it’s interesting to look at the promise each rider showed in their first outing at a Grand Tour to see if latter results look credible.

Merchx
Grand Tour 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Vuelta a España - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
Giro d'Italia - - 9 1 Dsq 1 - 1 1 1 - 8 -
Tour de France - - - - 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 - 6
World Championship Jersey rainbow.svg 29 12 1 8 Abn 29 1 4 4 1 8 5 33


Hinault
Grand Tour 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
gold jersey Vuelta 1 - - - - 1 - - -
Pink jersey Giro - - 1 - 1 - - 1 -
Yellow jersey Tour 1 1 WD 1 1 - 2 1 2


LeMond
Race 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
gold jersey Vuelta - WD - - - - - - - - - - -
Pink jersey Giro - - - 3 4 - WD 39 105 WD - WD -
Yellow jersey Tour - - 3 2 1 - - 1 1 7 WD - WD
Rainbow jersey World 2 1 - 2 - - - 1 4 - - - -

Roche
Grand Tour 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Golden jersey Vuelta a España — — — — — — — — — 14 —
Pink jersey Giro d'Italia — — — WD 1 — 9 — — — 9
Yellow jersey Tour de France 13 25 3 48 1 — WD 44 WD 9 13


Wiggins
Grand Tour 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pink jersey Giro d'Italia 123 — — 134 69 40 — — WD —
Yellow jersey Tour de France — 121 WD — 3 23 WD 1 — —
Red jersey Vuelta a España — — — — — — 3 — —


Froome
Grand Tour 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pink jersey Giro d'Italia — 34 DSQ — — — —
Yellow jersey Tour de France 83 — — — 2 1 WD
Red jersey Vuelta a España — — — 2 4 —

Nibali
Grand Tour 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pink jersey Giro - 19 11 - 3 2 - 1 -
Yellow jersey Tour - - 20 6 - - 3 - 1
red jersey Vuelta

Merchx right up to Roche had top 30 finishes consistently in their first tours. Where you have to begin to have doubts is where you see riders move from outside the top 80 riders to grand tour winner.

Nibali on the other hand looks the real deal.....

mruser2014

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

In 1985 Roche finished third behind Hinault/LeMond in the Tour. EPO had not even been invented. 1986 was a very poor season due to the crash he suffered over the previous winter.

In 87 Roche won the Tour, Hinault was retired and LeMond out with his injuries. It's a bit like Nibali this year, once Froome and Contador went out he became favourite and Roche didn't dominate like Nibali. One thing about Roche and his abilities, he was always a top, top rider.

The Giro win was against relatively poor opposition, put Roche on any list with Visentini, Millar, Lejaretta, a very young Breukink, Anderson and Roche would have been No 1 favourite to win every time. So he won those races back to back as the next in line after Hinault/LeMond.

Roches links are to his second period at Carrera 92/93 which I have little doubt about.

One thing that always confused me about Roche/Kimmage is that there is a bit in Rough Ride the book, in which a story is related of how Roche signs-up to take part in a small race but on the insistence that there will be dope testing!!! Why?

One simple answer here. The 80's were the decade of blood doping not EPO. Blood transfusions were the norm in cycling. Then EPO came in the last 80's. We know the rest.

Its amazing how people forget about blood transfusions.

Alf Veedersane

lennymc wrote: »

The biggest question the documentary raised for me is why was kimmage letting the air out of his wheels before putting them in the camper?

Some people do it if they're in a hot climate so that they don't blow.

YeahOK

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Some people do it if they're in a hot climate so that they don't blow.

Continental problems, can safely say I've never had to do that in Ireland....

Alf Veedersane

YeahOK wrote: »

Continental problems, can safely say I've never had to do that in Ireland....

"I got Continental problems but a tyre ain't one"

YeahOK

Here's big Mig's results if anyone is interested

Indurain
Grand Tour 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Pink jersey Giro — — — — — — — — 1 1 3 — —
Yellow jersey Tour — WD WD 97 47 17 10 1 1 1 1 1 11
gold jersey Vuelta WD 84 92 WD WD WD 7 2 — — — — WD

And also Delgado, who again looks credible;
Grand Tour 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Gold jersey Vuelta 29 15 4 1 10 4 WD 1 2 WD 3 6 3
Pink jersey Giro - - - - WD - 7 - - 15 - - -
Yellow jersey Tour - 15 WD 6 WD 2 1 3 4 9 6 9 -

GMCI

It was a good documentary which does still highlight how bitter he is considering no reference has been made to anything the UCI have done in recent years with reference to biological passport development.
Only a bit of text at the end stated how no positives took place in the 2013 tour. None have taken place in the 2014 tour either (mid event anyway, another few weeks for final confirmation if another clean tour). These are points that should be celebrated but no, as it doesn't make good journalism.
I believe that Every rider taking part in a grand tour has to be present in their start hotel the Wednesday prior. EVERY rider is tested (blood and urine) where these samples are flown to Lausanne for analysis at massive expense to ensure no adverse findings by the time the race starts 3days later.
The anti doping control procedures have become much tighter now as they are much more closely aligned to WADA procedures than the 90s.
It's just a matter of ensuring the tests are regularly updated and that the products aren't introduced before a test is even created like the way it was for EPO. (Test only finalised as accurate at Sydney Olympics)

mruser2014

YeahOK wrote: »

Here's big Mig's results if anyone is interested

All those Giro/Tour doubles. Absolute madness.

Alf Veedersane

GMCI wrote: »

It was a good documentary which does still highlight how bitter he is considering no reference has been made to anything the UCI have done in recent years with reference to biological passport development.
Only a bit of text at the end stated how no positives took place in the 2013 tour. None have taken place in the 2014 tour either (mid event anyway, another few weeks for final confirmation if another clean tour). These are points that should be celebrated but no, as it doesn't make good journalism.
I believe that Every rider taking part in a grand tour has to be present in their start hotel the Wednesday prior. EVERY rider is tested (blood and urine) where these samples are flown to Lausanne for analysis at massive expense to ensure no adverse findings by the time the race starts 3days later.
The anti doping control procedures have become much tighter now as they are much more closely aligned to WADA procedures than the 90s.
It's just a matter of ensuring the tests are regularly updated and that the products aren't introduced before a test is even created like the way it was for EPO. (Test only finalised as accurate at Sydney Olympics)

The other way of looking at that though is that the horse has bolted. That the UCI were asleep at the wheel, at best, for too long.

YeahOK

mruser2014 wrote: »

All those Giro/Tour doubles. Absolute madness.

Yep.