Cycling Tour de France 2003 Part 2

The 2003 Tour de France was a multiple stage bicycle race held from 5 July to 27 July 2003, and the 90th edition of the Tour de France. It has no overall winner-although American cyclist Lance Armstrong originally won the event, the United States Anti-Doping Agency announced in August 2012 that they had disqualified Armstrong from all his results since 1998, including his seven Tour de France wins from 1999-2005; the Union Cycliste Internationale has confirmed this verdict.
The event started and ended in Paris, covering 3,427.5 km (2129.75 mi), proceeding clockwise in twenty stages around France, including six major mountain stages. Due to the centennial celebration, this edition of the tour was raced entirely in France and did not enter neighboring countries.
In the centenary year of the race the route recreated, in part, that of 1903. There was a special Centenaire Classement prize for the best-placed in each of the six stage finishes which match the 1903 tour - Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes and Paris. It was won by Stuart O'Grady, with Thor Hushovd in second place. The 2003 Tour was honored with the Prince of Asturias Award for Sport.
Of the 198 riders the favorite was again Armstrong, aiming for a record equalling fifth win. Before the race, it was believed that his main rivals would include Iban Mayo, Aitor González, Tyler Hamilton, Ivan Basso, Gilberto Simoni, Jan Ullrich, and Joseba Beloki but Armstrong was odds-on favorite. Though he did go on to win the race, it is statistically, and by Armstrong's own admission, his weakest Tour from his seven-year period of dominance over the race.

[@roadracer1584]

Le Tour de Dope. May the best doper win the bike race.

[@mofomartianp]

1:16:10 The moment when doping truly matters.

[@kateclapham7084]

mofomartian bond

[@chris2002Rocklin]

The kind of doping that riders are able to get away with matters during recovery, not critical moments of the race. Critical moments of the race can be affected by recovery and enhanced training regimes that are helped by chemistry, sure. It's hardly the decisive factor that you guys seem to think. You promote false binaries like "pure versus tainted" athletes.
You people need to get over your magical views of chemistry. At best these doping regimes help more people compete. They don't turn marginal athletes in to dominant winners. The sport is actually more egalitarian when lots of people use gray area doping practices to help their recovery. It's against the rules and that's clearly a moral problem. But are the rules proper just because of emo politics?

[@mofomartianp]

It's come out long ago that postal all took blood bags the day before that stage. And then they rode like a train up that mountain. You ponder the correlation.

[@Schnidler]

especially when you coordinate a whole program for your tour de france team. but ullrich/his trainer later said that ulrich had a really bad day this stage and he shouldve actually quit the race before this stage.

[@Umb2132]

I love how the commentators keep saying that Haimar Zubeldia is Roberto Laiseka.Truly the most ninja rider ever

[@pitalordik7897]

All dopers!!!

[@kimocoloma4123]

If you can get away without getting caught doping then it's all fairgame.The cycling government enforced rules and regulations then the proof of burden is on them.

[@indonesiaamerica7050]

That's right. The first rule of legislation is that you must endeavor pass laws that are clearly enforceable without destroying the rule of law itself. If you pass laws (or rules) that are not clearly enforceable you are enabling bad faith and arbitrary enforcement where, at best, you catch a few scapegoats and everyone else carries on with the scam and pretense of "fairness."
The rules are often Utopian. Utopian lunatics took over the UCI when the big sponsors started showing up to profit from the new "international" nature of competition across the old "Iron Curtain" and from the Americas and beyond.