Originally Posted by carogers86
They weren't consistently within hundredths of a second in any Tour de France Lance won. He won by several minutes over the course of the three week long race. His smallest margin was 63 seconds. I used to race at the national level, that's a pretty big margin.
My point was 2nd and third place in the 2003 Tour de France, for example, were involved in doping. If
they doped and lance doped, (dopers competing against dopers) what was that "something extra" that allowed Lance to always win?
The last tour 1st and second place times were within 1 minute and 34 seconds. You are assuming the other cyclists were on the same very complex enhanced performance substance cocktail regiment as Lance Armstrong.
Btw i autocrossed at the national level,i guess that makes me an expert on the inner workings of F1 over in Europe.