btompkins0112 wrote:heathhandsome wrote:I
I don't even think any changes should be made to the results of the era, i still think that for the most part if you took away the drugs it would be mostly the same.
Key point.
But incorrect. When EPO came in there was a major overthrow in who was at the top. LeMond, Hampsten, Roche, and other quickly went from winning GC to barely hanging to retired. Then as EPO testing, CERA testing, and biological passport have kicked in all of a sudden a guy like Voeckler who wallowed in semi-obscurity for years is suddenly battling to win the Tour.
Lance Armstrong recreated himself by getting the best program money could buy. Many others were unable or unwilling to do this. If Lance had said "I invite everyone to join me with Dr. Ferrari -- a free round for the boys!" then you could make a stronger point (although it would still be wrong; doping helps riders address specific deficiencies, so helps some more than others; for example it tended to eliminate the advantage of years at altitude; there's a good reason Colombian riders went from being successful in the 1980's to unsuccessful for two decades and are now winning again).