[matthewowen]

There is a common refrain about the Armstrong era "all the top guys were taking them so it's fair" but it's not really accurate. Because yes, the people at the top were all taking them, but that's because the clean guys that _would_ have been at the top otherwise aren't there: the prevalence of doping meant that you had to dope to even be in the conversation at that level, and so the clean athletes that might have won otherwise aren't coming in 18th, they're at home on the couch or they're racing at the pro-conti level.

For example, Greg LeMond won the TdF in 1990. In 1991 he came 7th, and then never completed it again. There is some complication here because of the hunting accident he suffered in '87, but he also said "The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me", and the guy who won in 1991 was Indurain who was basically the first mega-doper.

Without EPO and blood doping becoming prevalent, does Greg LeMond compete for a few more years? Do other guys with similar talent who aren't willing to dope also make it to that top level. I think the answer is probably yes, and so all those guys who doped are responsible for excluding those clean athletes from the top level.

[vbarrielle]

You're spot on, and there's another point that makes doping unfair even if it was widespread. There is a max hematocrit rule, but riders had different pre-doping base hematocrit levels. Those with the lowest level could benefit more from doping before reaching the limit. In a way, the less gifted would be more advantaged by EPO.