Stage 15 has a special place in my heart... I was living in Boone NC at that time and went for ride the day of stage 15 in conditions that were almost the same as the ones in the race. I did a big day in mountains, not hard to do in Boone. I remember getting home and watching the stage next to my gas fireplace. Good times.
I remember 1998 for Marco and Ullrich, not Festina. When Ullrich sat up not able to follow Pantani on Plateau de Beille we should have realized what might come on stage 15. The most incredible day of racing I have ever seen to this day. RIP Marco.
sadly that experience is ruined years later when we now all know they were all full of drugs. but atleast it cant take away the feeling it gave at the time
Honestly what did they expect? Doping was and still is rampant in a lot of sports. Cycling at that level is very difficult and competitive, why would they be any different?
It's interesting when the commentators say a rider is doing all the work on these uphill stages? Going uphill doesn't provide much draft benefit. Maybe he's doing all the pacing.
To understand this, one must analyze a simple question: Why do riders dope in the first place? Simple. They all think their opponents are doping, and if they don't also dope, they have no chance of success. And they're probably right. In 1998, UCI and the French authorities bared their teeth and initiated the doping witch hunt that spoiled pro cycling (and bled over into other pro sports) forever. Later, when they started stripping riders of their titles, they essentially denied the hard work cyclists do -- the training, the suffering, the sacrifices -- as if the last 1 or 2 percent achieved through pharmaceuticals or medical techniques are the reason they're strong. For my part, I say let each individual cyclist decide of he or she wants to dope. Let teams ask their riders to dope, but not compel them. Riders can balance the risks to their long-term health against their desire for success, and it should be up to them to use these "techniques" or not. Those who want to dope are going to constantly seek ways to do it without detection. When authorities ban such practices, all they're really doing is encouraging a sort of arms race: Better dope =>, a way to detect it => better dope, and so on.
If you let riders dope, they will always use more to outdo the opposition. For clean riders, there simply wouldn't be a field to compete at with them at all. Which would force teams to only sign riders who are willing to use doping. As why would you sign riders that aren't able to deliver? During the era of EPO&GH&steroids, a rider who would end up in the top 5 in GC. If he would the year after show up without PED in their system, he wouldn't likely end up well outside the top 25 most likelihood. A governing body just can't allow it. Also if you hear the stories about riders having to go out at night, because they got the feeling that their blood is as a thick as syrup. That's not something you can allow. This is coming from someone who does PED himself while not competing in a competitive sport. I don't believe there's a single rider that finished on the podium of any stage during the 1998 Tour de France that was clean. Also you stating 1-2% improvement due to doping. You can't honestly believe that EPO, Growth Hormone and steroids contributed to that kind of percentage of bettering? If so, you clearly don't understand how EPO during a grand tour works and neither the effects of steroids on recovery and training intensity.
@@Legionarivss I'm not an expert on any specific doping method or drug, that's true. But given the nature of doping and doping detection, all you get when you disallow doping is an arms race: better screening => a new drug => a new screen for that drug => another new drug => another screen...and so on. This is a race with only one real winner--big pharma. So it's better to not have the race.
@@EmaVillalbaCiclista No I don't think that would be appropriate and also not relevant. As I'm involved with the the peleton. Bodybuilding is my scene. But as I've been a cycling fan for quite some time I've read into the effects and that in combination with my own experience with PED, I can tell you for certain we're not talking about a 1-2% performance increase like stated by the first poster.
Stage 15 has a special place in my heart... I was living in Boone NC at that time and went for ride the day of stage 15 in conditions that were almost the same as the ones in the race. I did a big day in mountains, not hard to do in Boone. I remember getting home and watching the stage next to my gas fireplace. Good times.
Boone has the best roads and I live in Colorado now, I stand by that.
I remember 1998 for Marco and Ullrich, not Festina. When Ullrich sat up not able to follow Pantani on Plateau de Beille we should have realized what might come on stage 15. The most incredible day of racing I have ever seen to this day. RIP Marco.
sadly that experience is ruined years later when we now all know they were all full of drugs. but atleast it cant take away the feeling it gave at the time
@@levity2893 Not for me. When we followed cycling then we knew they were all on EPO. That is just how it was back then.
yes, the peds take nothing away from the effort and determination; all the panache is still there
Glad to say that after this we never had to worry about doping in cycling after the scandal of 98
Honestly what did they expect? Doping was and still is rampant in a lot of sports. Cycling at that level is very difficult and competitive, why would they be any different?
It's 2024 and it's quite evident that we still have a huge doping problem in cycling.
I wish Paul Sherwen was still there to comment with Phil Leggett, its terrible now.
Q lindo q bueno q corredor oi y sienpre el mejor marco inmortal sin palabras por sienpre pantani😭😭😭💪💪💪❤❤❤
That interview with Graham Watson was very entertaining
Great race despite the circumstances.
It's interesting when the commentators say a rider is doing all the work on these uphill stages? Going uphill doesn't provide much draft benefit. Maybe he's doing all the pacing.
Let be honest, the ones who left the Tour did it cause they were concerned about being spotted with substances..
At best. At worst they were protesting for conditions under which doping could continue in its current form.
Who ordered the Bo Hamburger ?
Hamburger to go, with relish 🤣
Wow Phil & Paul don’t hold up very well looking back now.
That group protest by the peleton in honor of the TVM team was beautiful
To understand this, one must analyze a simple question: Why do riders dope in the first place? Simple. They all think their opponents are doping, and if they don't also dope, they have no chance of success. And they're probably right.
In 1998, UCI and the French authorities bared their teeth and initiated the doping witch hunt that spoiled pro cycling (and bled over into other pro sports) forever. Later, when they started stripping riders of their titles, they essentially denied the hard work cyclists do -- the training, the suffering, the sacrifices -- as if the last 1 or 2 percent achieved through pharmaceuticals or medical techniques are the reason they're strong.
For my part, I say let each individual cyclist decide of he or she wants to dope. Let teams ask their riders to dope, but not compel them. Riders can balance the risks to their long-term health against their desire for success, and it should be up to them to use these "techniques" or not. Those who want to dope are going to constantly seek ways to do it without detection. When authorities ban such practices, all they're really doing is encouraging a sort of arms race: Better dope =>, a way to detect it => better dope, and so on.
If you let riders dope, they will always use more to outdo the opposition. For clean riders, there simply wouldn't be a field to compete at with them at all. Which would force teams to only sign riders who are willing to use doping. As why would you sign riders that aren't able to deliver? During the era of EPO&GH&steroids, a rider who would end up in the top 5 in GC. If he would the year after show up without PED in their system, he wouldn't likely end up well outside the top 25 most likelihood. A governing body just can't allow it. Also if you hear the stories about riders having to go out at night, because they got the feeling that their blood is as a thick as syrup. That's not something you can allow.
This is coming from someone who does PED himself while not competing in a competitive sport.
I don't believe there's a single rider that finished on the podium of any stage during the 1998 Tour de France that was clean. Also you stating 1-2% improvement due to doping. You can't honestly believe that EPO, Growth Hormone and steroids contributed to that kind of percentage of bettering? If so, you clearly don't understand how EPO during a grand tour works and neither the effects of steroids on recovery and training intensity.
@@Legionarivss I'm not an expert on any specific doping method or drug, that's true. But given the nature of doping and doping detection, all you get when you disallow doping is an arms race: better screening => a new drug => a new screen for that drug => another new drug => another screen...and so on. This is a race with only one real winner--big pharma. So it's better to not have the race.
@@Legionarivss... can you share some wisdom about PEDs? Like dosages or cycles?
@@EmaVillalbaCiclista No I don't think that would be appropriate and also not relevant. As I'm involved with the the peleton. Bodybuilding is my scene. But as I've been a cycling fan for quite some time I've read into the effects and that in combination with my own experience with PED, I can tell you for certain we're not talking about a 1-2% performance increase like stated by the first poster.
Pantani vs Ulrich, so ironic and sad.
Full of EPO Pantani