62% Hematocrit

[hrotha]

Yes I am familiar with the software. The point is, why isn't the word "mistake" in your quote of my comment? Because it wasn't there when you chose to reply. Alea jacta est

Because you edited it between the time I read it and the time I clicked. Duh. What's dishonest is to pretend you never wrote it in the first place, and insulting my knowledge of geopolitics for a bonus, just because.

 

[laziali]

No, the post was edited before you replied and so it stands as edited. Unlucky for you, maybe, but once the Rubicon is crossed ...

If you wish to improve your geopolitical knowledge of Latvia, you will find the book described here accessible to the beginner http://books.google.com/books/about/Latvia_in_World_War_II.html?id=IPv1gjLhtZ4C

 

[JPM London]

Although very interesting to follow your debate on who wrote what and when and if the time of the answer matters, it is just slightly off topic - so unless one of you is going under the nickname mr 60% I think we can agree that it will not be a mistake to now move on... And, yes, there was that word again

 

[Lanark]

This would also make sense as there were clearly riders doping a lot more than Riis. One often overlooked thing is that he was actually very careful about what and how much he took. Like everything else with him in cycling he was a perfectionist and did not want to risk his health by overdoing it and taking too much. To this day (in his recent book) he says he doesn't actually know how high he went, but that he doubts it's even as high as the reported 56% (again, reported in the tv program above). He also recounts a story of walking into another (unnamed) rider's hotel room to see him flaunting his extremely high hct and thinking that the guy was crazy. Riis didn't start on the juice until 93 and had by then seen it all - craziness in crits and so on - and heard plenty about the suspicious deaths. Enough to make sure he did it as safely as possible.

.

With the risk of turing this into a 'D'Hondt said, Riis said' situation. D'Hondt's book couldn't paint a more different picture. If his account is true, it's a small miracle Riis didn't kill himself in the 1996 Tour because of his drug abuse.

Although you have to be carefull with making wild inferences based on someone's carreer development, I think looking at Riis' palmares, it supports D'Hondt's version more. He was a decent domestique, who started using EPO in 1993, a case of turning a donkey in a race horse if there even was one. I find it hard to believe that a moderate talent like Riis (who showed very little promise in stage racing until he was 29) could win the Tour at the high point of the EPO abuse, and only used EPO to get his hematocrit barely above 50, taking less risks than his competitors.

1996 was the last Tour before the 50% rule, after that, Riis disappeared from the scene even faster than his sudden rise. His carreer looks like someone who was willing to take more risks than even most of his competitors (a trade he shares with his colleague Gianetti), and De Hondt's account (who has less reason to lie than Riis), supports that.

 

[pmcg76]

With the risk of turing this into a 'D'Hondt said, Riis said' situation. D'Hondt's book couldn't paint a more different picture. If his account is true, it's a small miracle Riis didn't kill himself in the 1996 Tour because of his drug abuse.

Although you have to be carefull with making wild inferences based on someone's carreer development, I think looking at Riis' palmares, it supports D'Hondt's version more. He was a decent domestique, who started using EPO in 1993, a case of turning a donkey in a race horse if there even was one. I find it hard to believe that a moderate talent like Riis (who showed very little promise in stage racing until he was 29) could win the Tour at the high point of the EPO abuse, and only used EPO to get his hematocrit barely above 50, taking less risks than his competitors.

1996 was the last Tour before the 50% rule, after that, Riis disappeared from the scene even faster than his sudden rise. His carreer looks like someone who was willing to take more risks than even most of his competitors (a trade he shares with his colleague Gianetti), and De Hondt's account (who has less reason to lie than Riis), supports that.

As much as I agree that Riis was a product of EPO and he was restricted by the 50% rule, he still won Amstel Gold Race in 97 in a very domineering manner. I dont think he just disappeared overnight but he did definitely decline significantly from where he was in 95/96.

 

[Berzin]

As much as I agree that Riis was a product of EPO and he was restricted by the 50% rule, he still won Amstel Gold Race in 97 in a very domineering manner. I dont think he just disappeared overnight but he did definitely decline significantly from where he was in 95/96.

If you look at a video of the first mountain stage of the 1997 Tour, you will see Ullrich riding as if he's on a Sunday club run with the mates, while Riis looks as if he's wearing a death mask.

The 50% limit really put a damper on his abilities to dominate in the Tour, and he was never the same after the limit was introduced, 1997 Amstel Gold Race victory notwithstanding.

 

[frenchfry]

Ugrumov is actually Latvian and born in Riga, although he did ride for Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not too many Latvians would like to be referred to as Soviets - imperial invasion and all. He hit 60% while riding for Gewiss (home of such doping greats as Berzin, Argentin, Gotti and Furlan). Team doctor was Ferrari and I am pretty sure they set a crazy TTT record that was only beaten years later by Pharmstrong &Co.

I have a neighbor from Riga who thinks of herself as a Russian first. There was (is?) a significant Russian community in Latvia that apparently didn't mix much with the natives.

Ugrumov was a classic example of doping onto the TDF podium, and a testament to the skill of "doctor" Ferrari. Ugly too.

 

[laziali]

I have a neighbor from Riga who thinks of herself as a Russian first. There was (is?) a significant Russian community in Latvia that apparently didn't mix much with the natives.

Ugrumov was a classic example of doping onto the TDF podium, and a testament to the skill of "doctor" Ferrari. Ugly too.

Undoubtedly, however Peter (or Pēteris to give his Latvian name) is not from the Russian community. Hundreds of thousands of Latvians (the numbers vary by account, but huge on any reading) were deported as part of the Soviet invasion.

Back to EPO and hematocrit, I recall watching Ugromov, Rominger and Jaskula flying up mountains as though on the flat and laughing at the comedy of it all.

 

[JPM London]

With the risk of turing this into a 'D'Hondt said, Riis said' situation. D'Hondt's book couldn't paint a more different picture. If his account is true, it's a small miracle Riis didn't kill himself in the 1996 Tour because of his drug abuse.

Although you have to be carefull with making wild inferences based on someone's carreer development, I think looking at Riis' palmares, it supports D'Hondt's version more. He was a decent domestique, who started using EPO in 1993, a case of turning a donkey in a race horse if there even was one. I find it hard to believe that a moderate talent like Riis (who showed very little promise in stage racing until he was 29) could win the Tour at the high point of the EPO abuse, and only used EPO to get his hematocrit barely above 50, taking less risks than his competitors.

1996 was the last Tour before the 50% rule, after that, Riis disappeared from the scene even faster than his sudden rise. His carreer looks like someone who was willing to take more risks than even most of his competitors (a trade he shares with his colleague Gianetti), and De Hondt's account (who has less reason to lie than Riis), supports that.

I'd never got to reading D'Hondts book, but have it in the back of my mind to get it done at some point. There's clearly a difference of their accounts and to some extent - probably greater than one would expect - each version is likely correct in the mind of the narrator. I think there's no doubt they didn't (and don't) like each other and I think even then it's likely that their perceptions of the other's words, actions and intentions were very coloured by how they felt about each other.

I don't believe the donkey to race horse story - Riis was Fignon's favoured domestique able to follow him longer than anyone else - that's not a donkey in my view. He would definitely not have won the Tour without dope, but no one would at that point. In a clean peloton I'm not sure if he would have had a chance at going for it, but am far from certain he didn't have it.

I'm also pretty certain that D'Hondt had other motivations with his book than to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. He did need the money and he would have had a very natural interest in making himself look his best - I've never heard of anything autobiographical that didn't gloss at least some stuff over with a bit of wunderbaum. But then, as I admitted above, I haven't read the book yet...

Don't forget as well that his last couple of Tours were marred by bad luck and illness - now it wouldn't be the first an illness came from dope products and we'll never know if that was the case for him, but he definitely wasn't on top form. In 98 he also flushed his remaining stash after Festina got busted and there were rumours the Telekom hotel would be searched - while he didn't at that point specifically decided to stop doping as such, as far as I understand, he didn't start again.

As a funny little side story Riis won his first race at the tender age of 6 - this was definitely before EPO! - it was a time trial for juniors (think he was competing with riders far older than himself) and his dad had promised him a new bike if he won. He basically just went as fast as he could with that prize dangling in front of him...