> There was at least one year's Tour de France in which all but one participant were later found to have been doping. In other words, you didn't get to that level of that competitive activity, if you didn't cheat, because it wasn't possible to outperform people with such a significant advantage.
This is not true. Even during the 1904 Tour de France where 9 people were disqualifed because of, among other actions, illegal use of cars or trains [1] - 27 riders finished the race.
Tour de France in the modern era has up to 180+ competitors lining up, and there hasn't been a case of 100+ riders being disqualified for doping.
There, the claim is that of the top 10 finishers, all but one participant were either stripped of result in that race or failed tests/were sanctioned for doping in another race.
(The remaining participant, originally #8 Cadel Evans, was a documented client of Michele Ferrari.)
A one-off consultation prior to his road racing career to see if he the right kind of fitness for road. I don't think the association should be used to tarnish Cadel without further evidence.
Thank you for the correction, I either heard wrong back then, or misremembered. I think the analogy/logic still applies, though. Actually, this suggests even more strongly that the higher their position in a competitive field, the more likely they are doping...
This is not true. Even during the 1904 Tour de France where 9 people were disqualifed because of, among other actions, illegal use of cars or trains [1] - 27 riders finished the race.
Tour de France in the modern era has up to 180+ competitors lining up, and there hasn't been a case of 100+ riders being disqualified for doping.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904_Tour_de_France#Disqualifi...