• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

1990s: what percentage were NOT on EPO

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
Chris Boardman...

No ****! Recall seeing both he and Bugno with extremely "milky" eyes. A friend seeing him in Manchester saw it up close and researched the symptoms, attributing it to a response of excess red cells. Don't know how that works. Do recall Bugno went clean publicly within the peloton. When he won his last race without aids the other riders applauded the effort. That was interesting...would suggest that many would prefer to uncomplicate their life or just the clean riders were applauding.
 
Who cares what the exact number is. It is almost impossible to know. Actually I think 60 riders could be conservative if we take into account the following:

- Some riders took it for survival and were probably behind the 45 minutes mark.
- Some riders took it as part of the program but could have been out of contention by then and therefore no reason to push very hard.
- Some sprinters could have been taking it more focused on the flat stages than in the mountain stages. And then again doing it for survival during the mountainous stages and not pushing very hard. So their times sucks compare to the GC contenders.
- Some "Gregarios" took it to help their leader and then faded away during the last climb. That was US Postal/Disco/CSC/Saxo Bank methodology anyway
 
Frosty said:
I am not sure why Hinault and Lemond took so much longer than Herrera though, how far ahead of him were they at the bottom?

1986 was a tough Tour, over 4,000km of racing, and many tough mountains. By the time they got to that stage, and climb, Hinault and Lemond had already eliminated everyone else, so there was no sense of urgency.

Eva Maria said:
Does that explain what in 1991 four riders broke 45 minutes and a few years later 60 riders did?

As I recall correctly, the stage was a "short" 120km, with few climbs preceding it, and were not Bugno, and Indurain both clients of Conconi? Or was it..?

Willy Voet made the off hand comment that something like 3/4 of the riders were always on one thing or another. You can almost go back to a few of those years and count the clean riders on one hand. Bassons, Delion, Mottet, Lemond, probably Hampsten, a few more.
 
1997's results

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/tour97/stage13.html

No route profile but i think to get between st etienne and alpe d'huez you would have to go across the Rhone valley so relatively flat. Pantani's comments hint at this too. Taking Pantani's time as 37.35 then you have 50-60 breaking 45 minutes but only 3 breaking 40 minutes.

Are you sure about only 4 breaking 45 minutes in 1991? I cant find the exact times but there is this French video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKL5xPgwlFI

I cant understand French but it seems to suggest that Bernard came fourth and he had a group of riders right behind him.
 
Think im drifting way off topic here but in 2006 40-50 riders broke 45 minutes. The alpe d'huez stage was the day after the rest day so perhaps thats not surprising.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006//tour06/?id=results/tour0615


Last year, taking sastre's time as 39.31, you get just 17 riders under 45 minutes, or 18 if you include Cunego (could have been 3 seconds behind sastre in the group at the bottom?). If you deduct Kohl and Fofonov for testing positive then that makes 15-16 (although the 2006 figure would come down some too!). This stage featured a much slimmed down peloton (30ish) by the top of the previous climb (Croix de Fer) - you could argue that someone who missed the split might have done a fast time but i dont think many, if any, would have done.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2008//tour08/?id=results/tour0817

Not sure what it all means - the route and pace of the stage will have an effect as will the position of the stage in the race - the riders will be fresher in the second week than in the third for instance. Making me look forward to going there in a month's time anyway:D
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
You cannot say that somebody is not doped just because they climbed slower. If you have 20 talented men jacked at 50%+ with blood refills the pace of the race would be so high clean riders would not even make it to Alpe D'Huez to ride their slower times. They'd DNF like Lemond did.

Thats my negative opinion. If you dont like it you can put me on ignore or go blow cocaine like Tomke does.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
You cannot say that somebody is not doped just because they climbed slower. If you have 20 talented men jacked at 50%+ with blood refills the pace of the race would be so high clean riders would not even make it to Alpe D'Huez to ride their slower times. They'd DNF like Lemond did.

Thats my negative opinion. If you dont like it you can put me on ignore or go blow cocaine like Tomke does.

This is of course the true interpretation of the climbing times.

It is not the records set - but the amount of riders climbing at a speed usually only attained by the truly gifted.
This also sets the bar higher for those in the gruppeto to make the time-cut.

Taking EPO is not going to turn a sprinter in to a mountain goat - but it will help them make it to the end of the stage within the time-cut.
 
BigBoat said:
You cannot say that somebody is not doped just because they climbed slower. If you have 20 talented men jacked at 50%+ with blood refills the pace of the race would be so high clean riders would not even make it to Alpe D'Huez to ride their slower times. They'd DNF like Lemond did.
True, but also you cannot say that somebody doped just because they climbed quicker.
 
BigBoat said:
You cannot say that somebody is not doped just because they climbed slower. If you have 20 talented men jacked at 50%+ with blood refills the pace of the race would be so high clean riders would not even make it to Alpe D'Huez to ride their slower times. They'd DNF like Lemond did.

Thats my negative opinion. If you dont like it you can put me on ignore or go blow cocaine like Tomke does.

As this follows my post i assume it is directed at me?

If so, then you are mistaken. I did actually note the differences between stages, etc and i wasnt saying this:)

As you like to go on about Lemond dropping out in 1992 whereas he won in 1990 and came 7th in 1991 i would be interested to hear your analysis of the difference in speed of stages between 1991 and 1992 and why these would cause complete exhaustion of someone who came 7th in the preceding year. Especially when someone who came 4th in 1991 was able to finish in 1993 and 1994 - a man who apparently was completely clean. Im not naive enough to believe absolutely in one person but if you put a claim on one person you think was clean and their poor performance was solely a result of this then i dont see why i cant reply with one person who was also believed to be clean:)