Originally Posted by adventure
The Lance doping scandal is front page of the hard copy of the New York Times. I'll get around to reading it when I have a chance.
If you go through some of the earlier posts, there is evidence which suggests that doping while widespread, was not universally practiced.
We will never know if he could've won any tours without doping. He started doping very early on, but I'd rather not go into the grisly details.
We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.
According to George Hincapie's affidavit, doping was widespread enough to cause the peloton to suddenly get very very quick in 1995 which is the time when Armstrong allegedly finally snapped and made the decision to start doping.
Those who didn't dope ended up quiting the sport or getting dropped real quick.