How many other professional bike racers were doping in the Lance Armstrong era?

I suspect the answer to the title question is “all of them.” Many of those who came in second, third, or fourth to Armstrong have already been connected to of doping, and most of them have already confessed or been convicted. I don’t think it follows, however, that the outcome would have been the same had no one been doping. Different bodies will not necessarily react the same way to the drugs, and different people may be able to make more use of the drugs than others. So maybe the results would have been the same, but maybe not.

“If it was, then Lance won when competing on a level playing field.”
I think that’s an astute observation. Although it’s hard to believe they all had access to the better drugs that won’t be detected, and access to the better physicians willing to administer them.
If it were out in the open then it would be more on the level.

I think one telling point is that after Contador was caught and stripped of his Tour de France wins for 2009 and 2010 they awarded the winners title to the guys that finished second.

If you look at the Armstrong era they have said that they are just going to leave it blank because they simply have no idea how far down they would have to go in order to find somebody that they at least did not have any suspicions for when it comes to doping.

I think with Armstrong they see him as being more than just a domestique that takes something to help the leader since he was that leader. They have indeed gone after him harder and he probably didn’t do himself any favours by going out to destroy the lives of those that hinted he was up to no good so in this case karma really is a bitch for him.

It was so widespread that every winner back to Miguel Indurain, is suspect, if not already found as using. Marco Pantani, “Il Pirata”, was one of the best natural climbers of the last fifty ears, but his hematocrit was so high his blood was like molasses. Alberto Contador, Jan Ullrich, Bjarne Riis, all tainted.

It’s only in the last three years that people feel there is so much testing that the Tour de France winner is clean.

That whole period is forever tainted & needs erasing from the records, Pantani/Ullrich/Fignon & not forgetting the king cheat Armstrong, disgraced themselves & their sport. Pretty much the only cyclist of that era who deserves any respect is Greg LeMond.
Thankfully that era is dead & future TDF’s will remain as they have for the last few years, a clean level playing field…as it should be

I don’t seen any problem with professional atheletes doing what it takes to do their best. If it’s a tranfusion of taking steroids, Then so be it! It’s the same as tuning up bikes and cars. If it can be done with oxygenated blood or steroids, the spectators don’t care. They want to see their heros doing their best and if it takes a little drugging, fine!

Probably most of them were. The last thing I heard from the Tour De France group was that in order to find someone who did not have doping allegations against them, they would have to declare that the man who finished in the 23rd position to be the ‘winner’.

@Ron_C I don’t know about performance enhancing drugs. It just does not seem “human athletes” are at their best when drugs are involved. But yes, maybe an entirely separate competition with sanctioned drug using participants is a good idea.

And then a possible game challenge later where the drug enhanced champion competes with a drug free one. The drug free athlete may never win, but who knows-?

Practically all who competed in the Tour de France.