You make an excellent point - I think many tend to forget these guys still did the training, diets, millage, gym, in the rain , in the snow ect ect. I personally feel the advantages were minute but at that level a minute difference is being 1st or 10th.
Formula 1? Still seems pretty popular even though the team that has won the last 15-20 years is the one to have the 'new' technology that the laws allowed for that year. Be it a new wing, lighter chassis ect. Example would be Button - new Brawn car and won the title ... barely featured since.
But that begs a different question - on the adage not the performance factor. LA aside im sure there were many who doped just to not get dropped - let alone win. Are they a different type of cheater?
I dont disagree it effects people differently. I mean to say the comment "Doping just leveled the playing field" could be mean access to doping not necessary that everyone had an equal performance enhancement.
Would it be possible to have won clean back then? If not surely doping would be leveling the playing field ito of using all available resources not necessarily an individuals response in performance to PED's .
Lance wouldnt have had as much sway pre winning '99 to demand a bigger budget than established stars surely? TH's book described a rable dable mix of misfits .. bad news bears? Two points: PEDS effect people differently, but so does altitude training, legal supplements and even gels and energy drinks. Just being devils advocate but should everyone ride on water to really reveal the best rider? Secondly, if a rider were to use a blood bag of if his own blood how would that be more of less of an advantage than another rider also using his own blood. Each has an extra pint of their own 'dope' free blood?
Did postal have the biggest budget in '99? Surely there were teams and riders with much more experience and possibly cash wrt doping? By most accounts there were complete amateurs in the beginning
