While Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour victories was a feat unparalleled until he had them stripped, the Texan was never really in the discussion as the greatest cyclist of all time, with that particular title belonging to Belgian Eddy Merckx.
Merckx’s 525 career victories included one Vuelta a Espana, five Giro d’Italia and five Tour de France titles, as well as dozens of victories in the one-day classics, and three world championships.
Simply put, Merckx has the greatest palmares in cycling’s history, a list of achievements perhaps best compared to Sir Don Bradman’s – freakish to the point of being regarded as untouchable.
Catch up on the rest of World War Cycling
PART 1: The Prologue
PART 2: The United States of America
PART 3: Italy
PART 4: Doping learnings of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan
PART 5: Spain
PART 6: Germany and Denmark
PART 7: France
Cadel Evans re-tweeted this post last week, giving an idea of how far ahead of the competition ‘The Cannibal’ truly is:
What could possibly stain a career as dominant as this? How about testing positive for doping on three occasions over eight years.
Doping controls were first introduced by the UCI in 1966. While this may seem insane considering the Tour had a history of over 60 years at this point, the UCI were in fact one of the first sporting organisations, along with FIFA, to introduce controls.
Merckx was the defending champion at the 1969 Giro d’Italia and leading the race, when on June 2 the race director came to the Belgian’s hotel room with a camera crew in tow to tell him he had tested positive to a performance enhancer.
He was evicted from the Giro – the first leader to be dumped from a Grand Tour for doping – and given a one-month suspension, which meant he would also miss the 1969 Tour.
It was a disaster, not only for Merckx but for France. The young Belgian was the most exciting and marketable cyclist in the world and had been due to make his Tour debut. Why should their race be punished?
Furthermore, why should Merckx be punished? He had wept when told he was being evicted from the race, and been absolute about his innocence. Surely such a nice young man wouldn’t dope and then lie about it?
With WADA still 45 years away from coming into existence, it was up to the UCI to broker an agreement. They reached the conclusion Merckx had tested positive, and was right to be booted from the Giro, but he probably hadn’t meant to dope, so his one-month suspension was overturned and he was free to ride the Tour.
For the record, he not only won the ’69 Tour, he walked home with the green sprinters’ jersey, the polka dot King of the Mountains jersey, and at age 24 he would also have won the white jersey for best young rider had it existed at the time.
Merckx’s next brush with doping controls came at the 1973 Giro di Lombardia, where he had his first place stripped after testing positive to norephedrine. This time his team doctor put his hand up, saying he had prescribed Merckx with a cough medicine which contained the substance. Merckx was given a fine and a month-long ban.
The final incident came at Fleche Wallonne in 1977, as Merckx and two other Belgian riders tested positive for pemoline – the test for which had only been developed that year. His eighth place was stripped, and again he received a fine and a one-month ban.
While each incident came with a series of explanations and excuses from Merckx – he maintains someone spiked his water bottle at the ’69 Giro – three failed tests paints a pattern. Perhaps not of systematic doping, but certainly of being familiar with what Merckx described to the New York Post in 2011 as “products that made you a little less tired”.
In that same interview, Merckx blamed the epidemic of doping on, “the doctors; they make money”.
Yet one doctor who obviously made plenty of money from cycling is Michele Ferrari, whom Merckx played an integral role in thrusting to the forefront of the sport.
While Ferrari announced himself to the cycling world with his famous comparison of EPO to orange juice, it was his relationship with Lance Armstrong that made him the most sought-after sports scientist in the peloton.
So how did Ferrari meet Lance? In an interview the Italian gave to Cyclingnews in 2003 he said, “I met Lance at the end of 1995; Eddy Merckx introduced us”.
At the time, Ferrari was working with Merckx’s son Axel, who was an accomplished cyclist in his own right, winning bronze in the road race at the 2004 Olympics, as well as coming 10th at the 1998 Tour de France.
However Axel’s place at the ’98 Tour has since come under scrutiny, as he was one of the cyclists listed as having values deemed “suspicious” in a French Senate report into EPO use at that year’s edition.
While one shouldn’t expect a father to know exactly what his adult son is doing at all times, the Merckx family show that cycling’s war began long before Lance Armstrong, or even the advent of EPO.
Futhermore, according to Daniel Friebe, author of Eddy Merckx: The Cannibal, the root of the doping problem remains the same now as it was in Merckx’s day:
In fairness, it was hard to take doping seriously when the authorities clearly did not, at least if the sanctions were any gauge. A meagre time penalty of 10 or 15 minutes, a one-month ban or sometimes just disqualification were the judicial equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
… the tests were too little, too late to uproot a culture of indifference and complicity which far pre-dated Merckx and would persist when his career ended.
Regardless of failed tests, Merckx is still a hero in his home nation. There is a metro station named after him in Brussels, and in 1996 King Albert II of Belgium gave Eddy the title of Baron. As such his family are officially a part of the Belgian nobility, with his son now known as Jonkheer Axel Merckx – an honorific essentially meaning ‘the honourable’.
Next week, the final chapter of the war: Australia, our part in the Festina affair and Lance Armstrong’s rise and fall, and how an eighth place can become first.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"it’s not just EPO. blood doping – and careless transfusing of the wrong person’s blood – has caused significant health emergencies for riders." Are you suggesting that I promote "careless transfusing of the wrong person’s blood" and the like? You should know very well that those 'practices' are a consequence of prohibiting EPO. Simply answer the question: what's wrong with allowing EPO under medical supervision? Why is the suppletion of an endogenous substance 'no way to earn a living’? The riders of Quick Step used to take up to 76 pills a day during the TdF for recovery: http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1018/Wielrennen/article/detail/2190779/2008/07/23/Tour-de-France-76-pillen-per-dag.dhtml A total of almost 1600 pills. That 'legal' medical treatment replaced a transfusion (no needle policy) in 2008. Is that perhaps a way to earn a living?
delbeato
Roar Guru
you're in denial. there are countless examples of how 'high octane' doping has placed riders' health at risk. it's not just EPO. blood doping - and careless transfusing of the wrong person's blood - has caused significant health emergencies for riders. my point - which your article does not address - is that the mood among the peloton shifted as doping moved on from 'harmless' uppers to more serious medical procedures and substances that have a stronger impact on riders' bodies and systems. there was/is a growing sense that 'this is no way to earn a living'.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"If you read some of the books, it was really only when excessive use of EPO was causing heart attacks and deaths that riders reached a point where some decided to take a serious stand against doping." "...excessive use of EPO was causing heart attacks and deaths..." Really? As I mentioned here more than once: "Well, that myth has been thoroughly debunked: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17460263.2011.555208#.VV2i07kw99A Spanish author? Perhaps not credible? He’s Catalan (Bernat) and I find him credible and easy to approach. And you can always talk to the survivors here in NL and B." Read the article, talk to the survivors. It's kind of an inconventient truth.
delbeato
Roar Guru
I'm enjoying Joe's series too, but what I'd add is that the ethics of doping have changed over time. Back in the time, doping was integral to pro cycling - not just as a practice (as it still is arguably today), but culturally and ethically. Sure it was officially prohibited, but so is hanging onto a drink bottle too long. There are no articles today about that. Maybe there will be in 2030? As far as the 80s go - generally speaking, they were not clean. It's interesting to wonder whether athletes like Lemond may have been an exception, but I find it hard to fathom. This was a peloton in which doping was completely normalised. If you read some of the books, it was really only when excessive use of EPO was causing heart attacks and deaths that riders reached a point where some decided to take a serious stand against doping. Before then it was a practice that helped them get the job done, or hopefully win. That has led to the situation today where doping is now regarded as a serious issue (at least by most non-riders), but it wasn't the environment in which guys like Merckx took amphetamines or smelling salts, or whatever.
Joe Frost
Editor
Thanks Sam, glad you're enjoying it. David Walsh and Paul Kimmage talk about drug use in the 80s a fair bit - Kimmage himself was a cyclist and says he doesn't regret taking drugs - "I experienced the power of the drugs. I understood the pressure and temptation. What it did was gave me a determination to address it." http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/kimmage-i-never-betrayed-kelly-and-roche-they-also-have-a-duty-to-address-doping/ In Walsh's 'Seven deadly sins' (which is just the worst title ever) he talks about a time he and Kimmage were chatting to Sean Kelly and heard the rattle of pills in his back pocket. Later that day Kelly got popped for Stimul. I wouldn't speculate on the others, but if it was happening in '60s, '70s and the '90s, then it's not going to have just stopped in the middle part. It was probably just, as per the NY Post: "Merckx said that in his day there were 'products that made you a little less tired.' Nowadays, he said, there are products that 'make you better.'
Klaas Faber
Guest
"Going after the cycling’s greatest hero, Merckx shows you aren’t afraid to tackle the less explored parts of doping." https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eddy_Merckx#Doping No, let's not take prisoners. http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Lost-Sandringhams/ clean + decadent = Sam Brown
Sam Brown
Roar Guru
Thanks again Joe for your articles this really is a fantastic, take no prisoners look into the world of cycling and doping. Going after the cycling's greatest hero, Merckx shows you aren't afraid to tackle the less explored parts of doping. It is one thing to tear shreds of the sophisticated doping of the late 90s and 00s as typified by Armstrong but it is another to explore the murkier history of it all that envelopes some of cyclings most hallowed names. I'd be interested on your thoughts about the 80s particularly looking at the likes of Bernard Hinault, Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche and Greg Le Monde all of whom achieved some pretty extraordinary feats. It is in between this wild west era of cycling where riders such as Tom Simpson took drugs like speed and the highly scientific methods of the 90-00s era. Did these riders benefit from slowly developing stimulants or were they clean as most of them claim to be?
Klaas Faber
Guest
"While Ferrari announced himself to the cycling world with his famous comparison of EPO to orange juice..." Ferrari approached this issue from a sound scientific perspective. Could you now finally quit diving and explain what's wrong with Ferrari's argument? Athletes are considered to be role models. Anti-doping advances this as a good reason to ban doping. However, when almost 100% uses EPO there are only two possibilities. Role models suddenly died out or there's something wrong with the norm applied to them. And the same holds true for many substances on this arbitrary prohibited list.
Klaas Faber
Guest
World War Cycling. Where's the war? "Next week, the final chapter of the war: Australia, our part in the Festina affair and Lance Armstrong’s rise and fall, and how an eighth place can become first." Phantastic! Now finally we're going to know what Cadel Evans saw/did before/during/after the Vuelta 2003, when riding for Telekom while almost 100% of the peloton manipulated their blood values. And WADA decided to invalidate that evidence in the 2009 Code revision. War profiteers?
maca146
Guest
REally great article. thanks
Aljay
Guest
Loving this series.