Come on, you telling me you didn't think Tyler was the man when he rode the tour with a broken collar bone? For me he was the poster boy for clean cycling. Vanishing twin my arse!

Lets not forget that the TdF visits Valais (Verbier) this year. So there's a chance to see Sir Lancelot in action.
http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE...par_etape.html
http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE...par_etape.html

and of course Colmar is only 1.5 hours drive from Zurich
http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE...par_etape.html

Hi patrickrd, great idea! I too am planning an assault on the Alp, although in late June. I'm planning to ride the full Stage 17 from the 2008 tour over 2 days. Will then head to the Pyrenees for a another couple of days trundling over famous peaks.
I'm in Basel and will be ramping up the training routine from March so if you need a riding partner with a similar goal, keep in touch.
Gavin.

My view is that LA was allways doping.

He had a quite big medical stuff with him.

He retired just when the new EPO test was ready. That EPO test caught all the high profile riders that came close to him ( Basso, Ulrich, Landis etc )

Do you want me to believe that he was so superior to everyone else in the field that he accomplished all this clean while all the other contenders were dirty ?

Please don't be that naive.

My guess is that Lance is back, because his medical team found a new way of doping that is yet undetectable.

He'll race on that dope, win and retire on time to stay "clean"

I think you mean staff... One perspective is to look at the number of people that would know of his supposed doping. As the number of people increase, the probability of them leaking the information also increases. Therefore I think this argument works better in the other direction. Also, over the course of seven years, no mistake was made and nobody "in the know" leaked his supposed doping, under all the scrutiny and observation?

Valid point; does anyone know if they have run the new tests on his old blood?

No, but I like to believe that it is possible for athletes to win without cheating, and I would prefer people don't assume guilt on athletes until the are shown to be guilty. Unfortunately it does seem somewhat rare in recent years to find clean winners.

I would be very, very, very surprised if this were the case. Why would any sane cheater with a world record 7 TDF wins come back, under the most advanced observation possible, to risk it all? And again, if he has a team of doctors comes up with this new doping technique that even the biological passport shows no changes, wouldn't some doctor, some secretary, somebody decide to leak it to the press for far more money than they'd otherwise make?

It seem quite feasible (within the realm of possibility) that if you train all year specifically for a particular race then you might win, especially when everybody else is racing and burning out leading up to the race. Do you disagree?

Riding a full stage sounds like a great idea. Maybe I will step up my goals especially since I might have most of april/may off with little to do except ride. I might try to do something like that as late as late May, but unfortunately will have to leave back to the USA then. Let's hope the snowman burns fast on Sechseläuten this year!

Lets face it there were murmurs from some of his staff, these were all quashed in court cases by the Armstrong legal team. Also look at the facts that nearly all of his best domestiques have been done for doping subsequently. If Lance was clean but his team was doped when they pulled him along for kilometers on end to keep him fresh for the last climb or the next days time trial... to me thats the same as doping yourself!

Get your facts right. The new EPO test has nothing to do with this. In fact there are papers out there saying the EPO test is not valid! Also, Basso was done for association with Operation Puerto (No positive test result), Ulrich was done for association with Operation Puerto and subsequently retired with no doping conviction, Landis tested positive for Testosterone not EPO, the effects of Testosterone are very different to the effects of EPO, Hamilton tested positve for blood doping with another persons blood, not EPO. In fact the majority of EPO positives only came last year when the riders started using CERA.

Remember that Armstrongs 1999 samples did show traces of EPO, but there was no chain of custody so they can not be verified. I rekon that he did not use EPO as his main form of doping if he did dope, he is too clever he knew there would be a test for it. If he doped he blood doped. He could have taken out a pint of blood at strategic points in the run up to the tour, he would then suffer a performance loss, but then the red blood cells from his own blood are re transfused he would have the same effect as having taken EPO in the run up to the event. This method is still not detectable so he could theoretically still do this!

Also, until 2003/4 there was no test at all for Growth Hormone, subsequently there have been problems found with the test that was developed so currently there is no reliable test for it.

Anyone care to guess what a good doping programme for an endurance athlete is?

I am in two minds, part of me wants to believe that all the amazing sporting performances were clean, however the facts now show that they were not. Having not tested positive does not mean an athlete is clean, it can just mean that the tests did not detect what was being taken. Its like asking if there is a sound when a tree falls over in the woods if there is noone there to hear it.

His medical team would not need to have discovered anything new, in fact I think they would be stupid to use something new. Look what happened last year when everyone used the new "undetectable" drug CERA. I think if someone carefully selects races so that there are times in the run up to an important race when they can suffer a performance drop, take out some blood and reinject the red cells at an oppertune moment then they are not going to be caught by the tests, by legal means or police investigations yes (Operation Puerto!) but not by the drug tests.

In the realms of possibility yes, in the realms of probablility when everyone around you is doped to the gills???

Possibly this is relevant to the debate!

I don't want to debate the probability (I freely admit there is some significant probability), but I want to add two more points:

1. There seems to be an assumption that everybody is doping, or was during lance's tenure. I haven't followed cycling as long as most people here, but I do read a lot of quotes from professional cyclists who compete in races like the tour who get furious when this point is insinuated. Usually they explain that the majority are clean and get frustrated that all are assumed guilty. Let's not say everyone dopes just because a small minority are caught every year.
2. I am not a doping expert, but my understanding is that doping helps you in recovery. Those in the most desperate need will be those who are extremely worn out. If Lance saves his energy during most races riding in the pack, and goes all out only on a small subset of days, there are only a few days during the tour that he might even benefit from doping. Remember his strategy is to peak at one specific week of the year -- all training is for that, and he goes into that week prepared better than anyone for the mountain stages. Most other cyclists in the TDF have already had mini-peaks in the months preceding the tour which hurts their ability to reach another peak without a proper long-term recovery phase. These are the guys who have a more recurrent need for doping to help their recovery.

Fair enough.
Ok, then lets just look at facts, who were the big names during the Lance years who could give him a run for his money.
Pantani (EPO)
Ulrich (Puerto, Blood Doping)
Hamilton (Blood Doping Olympics 2004 and Tour of Spain, Subsequently also Puerto!)
Basso (Puerto, Blood Doping)
Landis (Testosterone)
Rasmussen (Hiding his whereabouts, same as positive dope test!)
Vinokourov (Blood Doping)

In fact if you look at the podium for every year (its on Wikipedia) every single person has had some sort of run in with the doping authorities.

Depends on what you take. Some products have an effect on recovery such as Testosterone. I watched stage 17 of the 2006 tour, and when Floyd made that break myself and the guy I was watching the stage with both said Testosterone straight away. We were not surprised when the test results came at all.
Other doping methods work on performance. GH helps build more lean body mass, less fat more muscle, better power to weight ratio. EPO, Blood Doping etc lead to more oxygen carrying capacity which means that the muscles can work harder without going into oxygen deficit. Perfect if you need to go flat out at or over threshold at the end of a stage or during a time trial. It also means that during the stage you are working at a lower level of your maximum so you are more rested when you get to the point when you launch from your doped up express train!

Essentially there are so many banned substances and methods out there that do many different things, it is not just about recovery, people who dope will take certain things for recovery, certain things for preperation and certain things when they need to put in an extra special effort on a given day.

I had hoped to accuse you of selective fact finding, but indeed the facts mostly support your point, but you did leave out some names who have no doping history. I looked up the 7 tours lance won, and the top 5 finishers from each (official final standings, so some dopers had already been removed). The (*) indicate people with doping history, and the number is the number of times they finished in the top 5 during the 7 years. Indeed I am surprised by how many have doped. Now I must get some actual work done

(7) Armstrong
(1) Azevedo
(2) *Basso
(3) Beloki
(1) *Botero
(1) Casero
(1) *Dufaux
(1) Escartin
(2) *Galdeano
(1) *Hamilton
(1) *Heras
(1) Kivilev
(1) Kloden
(1) *Mancebo
(1) *Moreau
(1) *Rumsas
(5) *Ullrich
(2) *Vinokourov
(1) Zubeldia
(1) *Zulle

Some of those who you didn't asterisk have had run ins with the authorities but have gotten away with it, some have been involved with the Freiburg clinic but have managed to somehow come out of it unscathed, and others are still under investigation for Operation Puerto. That list is actually even more damning then I would have thought!

I still love the sport and the spectacle, but sometimes I wonder would it be better if they just allowed doping! (Whole new tangent for the debate to go off on! ).

Wow! There are a few good facts and an awful lot of speculation in this thread and it's got me thinking. Firstly, Patrickrd, I'm not handing over that quid, until all of your tests have come back negative. And secondly, Salsa Lover, Your Avatar, is definitely on something, as it couldn't possibly go on like that day and night without, some dodgy trickery.

The problem with profesional sports is when big money or a wide interest on that sport ( hence producing big money ) comes in the equation.

For example,

We amateur sportsmen, we do our sports to be fit, feel good and be happy.
We do produce our own drugs, the adrenalina and endorphines pushes us and make us feel good.

If we started to compete, and I mean seriously compete, on amateur or regional races, probably we could find out that our level is not enough to be contenders. Would we need to dope to win ? Probably not many of us amaterus would do.

Now, If we became pros, and we would earn our living from the sport, doping would be probably necessary to keep ourselves in the game.

What if millions are involved, big sponsoring contracts, media interest etc etc ?

The main problem about doping is that the pro level championships set the bar too high.

The big media interest, the big money involved requieres that the sports championships are not only that, but also a big circus that will be broadcasted to the whole world, generating big money for the media, the sponsors and the athletes.

When the bar is so high, then the athletes would have to dope to be in the field.

Look what happened with italian football, east germany athletes, cyclists etc, all the bad side effects of drugs produce on the athletes. do you think a sane athlele competing on a challenging but humanly possible championship would want to dope volontarely ?

I have been watching the Alpin Ski championships in Val d'Isere. There are ongoing complains, comments and debate about how the FIS organisers have setup the slopes for the competition, many say it is way to risky and difficult, to the point that the athletes have to put themselves on a big risk if they want to be contenders.

Why to so so unnecessarily difficult the championship ?

Why to to so strenuous the Tour the France for example ?

Aha, big Circus. then big Money.

If we and I speak about you and me (because there are other forum members who this would not apply to due to the years of training they have done) went to compete at a local level I dare say that even with drugs we would not compete. The reason is simple, to compete in an endurance sport you need time behind you. The training load is like a pyramid to be able to compete at a good level you need hours and hours of training behind you to build a strong enough base of the pyramid. There is a theory that states to become elite (that does not mean pro!) at a sport you need 10 years or 10,000 hours of focused training to achieve it.

The top athletes are all amazing athletes regardless. They have trained super hard, put blood, sweat and tear into their preparation and they turn to doping to try and get that little bit extra. It also raises the question what is doping, altitude training isn't, but sleeping in an altitude tent is illegal in Italy! Blood doping is a forbidden practice but taking Iron supplements is allowed (potentially a similar effect).

It depends, in some cases it wasn't even hidden. The first people to use blood doping techniques were cross country skiers from Scandinavia. They openly told what they did, and it was not a banned procedure at the time. It subsequently became a banned procedure, but it is still used!

You really think there is no doping in Alpine skiing? There are many factors that different products/procedures can help with.

If the sports were too easy then it would not be a spectacle, people would not want to watch and then there would be no money. Sports are the modern Gladatorial games that the people went to see in the roman days. There is a certain sadistic nature to it, we want to see people suffer, we want to see them do super human feats.

Have you read about the abortion doping that was used commonly in Russia and other eastern block countries ?

Women produce a lot of hormones that have a big impact on their sports performance when they just got pregnant.

Women athletes used to get pregnant and abort just before the important championships ( olympics WC etc ).

It is even said that young teenager athletes were forced to have sex with their coaches and then abort to be ready for the games.

Yes I have heard of it, but I think that it was during training not competition phases that it was done. As far as I understand it, the hormones helped the training effect when they were going through intensive training phases as they came off the intensive phase they aborted and went into a maintenance phase. I don't think pregnancy would be any benefit in a competition phase because it has an effect on ligaments etc which could potentially lead to easier injury.

It's a shame how off topic this thread has become. Getting back on topic, as well as the classic climb up Alpe d'Huez, there are also a couple of other roads leading into town. The different options are documented on this post at cycling-challenge.com.

PS. Lance may not have officially confirmed his appearance at the Tour de Romandie, but it is highly likely that he'll be there since the Giro appears to be his main goal this year and the TdR is known as the perfect warm-up event. I don't expect him to be riding too aggressively there, but it's pretty certain that he'll be there. Plus, if he starts then I'm sure he'll finish (because that would be better for his training).

Patrick,

You may to consider the La Marmotte route (not the actual event). http://www.sportcommunication.com/GT...=1&trophee=128

It is more or less a pretty common tour route. You could break into two days as it would be a tough unsupported ride to do in one day. The big question mark would be about how early the Galibier is open as it is 2600 meters and I don't know if it is winter resort. Though I have heard the tunnels on the Galiber coming down are hell. There are quite a few feasible routes around that area...look at some of the recent TDF stages there.

On the route you could stay at Bourg d' oissans and tackle Glandon and Galibier on day one and Alpe Huez on day 2.


anyhow sounds like fun....a bit too early in the season for me to come over for a cycling holiday.... but if you are making in cycling trips in New Hampshire or Vermont once you are back let me know or was thinking of riding up to Montreal as I heard that was a nice trip. I need to pm my email.

Regarding the Giro, I would recommend going to the Dolomites for a few days and trying to catch a stage or so around there. It is a great cycling area, weather may be iffy that early as it is quite high. It doesn't seem like they spend much Dolomites this year though...Maybe stage 5 if I have my geography correct. Though the circuit race in Milano would be fun

http://www.steephill.tv/giro-d-italia/#route-map