At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[GrilledFish]

What would be the problem just allowing doping?

If doping were allowed what would that change?
Maybe have a natural division like these guys http://www.naturalbodybuilding.com and then one that allows/does not test for anything.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If doping were allowed what would that change?

JFGI. Bottom line: doping kills you when unchecked.

 

[42x16ss]

ie slower, which would lead you think there would be more energy available for the TTs and the mountains, innit?

Or possibly because the extra TT's took a huge toll? Also, sprint trains weren't the order of the day back then, Saeco introduced (or at least perfected) those when they had Cipollini.

FWIW LeMond in '90 form wouldn't have been anywhere near Lantern Rouge at this years TdF. Not even close to Froome, but certainly nowhere near last.

 

[the sceptic]

Or possibly because the extra TT's took a huge toll? Also, sprint trains weren't the order of the day back then, Saeco introduced (or at least perfected) those when they had Cipollini.

FWIW LeMond in '90 form wouldn't have been anywhere near Lantern Rouge at this years TdF. Not even close to Froome, but certainly nowhere near last.

No obviously Lemond wouldnt get dropped on the flat stages. But hed probably lose like 10 minutes on every MTF.

Im sure doping must have played a big part in the creation of the sprint trains though?

 

[Ferminal]

JFGI. Bottom line: doping kills you when unchecked.

So does [insert legal or illegal substance of choice].

 

[42x16ss]

No obviously Lemond wouldnt get dropped on the flat stages. But hed probably lose like 10 minutes on every MTF.

Im sure doping must have played a big part in the creation of the sprint trains though?

10 minutes to the GC leaders, sure, but he'd be finishing at least as far ahead of the autobus too IMO. Bassons usually outclimbed the autobus in 97-99 so I doubt LeMond would be there if he was racing today.

Looking at how LeMond went in the TT's against Indurain he'd probably be ok there too. Someone in the same form as LeMond in 1990 could probably even attack in the hilly stages. Sadly we can't know for sure, but IMO he'd be roughly Dan Martin or Simon Clarke's level in the mountains (not saying they are/aren't clean btw) but that is only a guess.

Doping probably allows the 2nd and 3rd last guys in the train to stay on the front that extra few seconds and not allow anyone to surprise by coming over the top. Saeco probably decided to use a train because Cipo was so fast but doping made the train more effective by this.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The more important: TECHNIC (training, etc...), and MATERIAL (resources in general)

How you think Lemond can get the same speed with a bike 3 kg heavier than today?

Are you saying carbon has become 3 kiloos lighter over the years?

 

[Taxus4a]

Are you saying carbon has become 3 kiloos lighter over the years?

I remember Indurain won le Tour with a 10,5 kilos bike...it was aluminium... I remember well becouse mi bike is one of the first Giant Carbon, and 10.5 Kg is his weight. It is 20 years old.

I dont know exactly the weight of Lemond Bike in that Tour, but not only weight, today bikes are much better, and no only bikes, a lot of things...

 

[GrilledFish]

JFGI. Bottom line: doping kills you when unchecked.

I think the NFL players are unchecked. As are the bodybuilders not in the natural divisions and so a lot of football players. These are professionals. They take risks. Right now we have no idea what they are taking. If it were allowed, it is likely it would be reported. When athlete A dies from taking formula 123, athlete B can decide that was bad - or not. Just like going down a hill too fast. They decide.

 

[thehog]

I think the NFL players are unchecked. As are the bodybuilders not in the natural divisions and so a lot of football players. These are professionals. They take risks. Right now we have no idea what they are taking. If it were allowed, it is likely it would be reported. When athlete A dies from taking formula 123, athlete B can decide that was bad - or not. Just like going down a hill too fast. They decide.

The NY Times not so long ago did article on former NFL players.

Vegetables most of them. Not so much from the drugs directly but from the painkillers and cortisone. They couldn't feel themselves actually being injured and played on.

It was very sad. I'll try to find the link.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If it were allowed, it is likely it would be reported.

Not right away. It's a strategic advantage. Eventually, though, yes it would come out.


And remember the reliable excuse, "It's not doping if I pass the tests, or the drug isn't on the banned list." Most sports are unchecked unless the athlete is being stupid. No one wants dead players, but outside of that, just be smart enough to pass the tests.

That's why there are many meanings for the phrase "never tested positive."

 

[GrilledFish]

Not right away. It's a strategic advantage. Eventually, though, yes it would come out.


And remember the reliable excuse, "It's not doping if I pass the tests, or the drug isn't on the banned list." Most sports are unchecked unless the athlete is being stupid. No one wants dead players, but outside of that, just be smart enough to pass the tests.

That's why there are many meanings for the phrase "never tested positive."

Problem is with all this whining I don't see a solution other than allowing doping. It seems every winner (forgive me if I missed the winner not accused of doping) is a doper. So...

To win you have to dope. What am I missing?

Is it that because you have to dope to win, therefore winning is dangerous and should not be allowed? I have not seen any good solutions that everyone agrees works.

Simple question. How can a rider win and it be considered a legit win?

Answer - allow doping, record it and let professionals be professionals.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So does [insert legal or illegal substance of choice].

And Ebola and Russian roulette.

 

[42x16ss]

Problem is with all this whining I don't see a solution other than allowing doping. It seems every winner (forgive me if I missed the winner not accused of doping) is a doper. So...

To win you have to dope. What am I missing?

Is it that because you have to dope to win, therefore winning is dangerous and should not be allowed? I have not seen any good solutions that everyone agrees works.

Simple question. How can a rider win and it be considered a legit win?

Answer - allow doping, record it and let professionals be professionals.

Straight up NO. This would send us back to the glory days of:

Riders dying in their sleep from too high a haematocrit like in the early 90's due to excessive EPO

Riders having terrible reactions to poorly carried out blood transfusions like Manzano, Hamilton, and Ricco

Riders almost bleeding to death when they crash because of blood thinners taken to stop their blood coagulating due to too much EPO like Joe Papp

Riders collapsing and even dying from exhaustion due to exceeding their physiological limits and not knowing because of painkillers and amphetamines like Tom Simpson

Riders getting diseases such as anaemia because they don't know how to take their doping products correctly (eg: EPO without B12 and Iron supplementation - this happened to a couple of ex AIS riders I knew)

Riders causing permanent hormonal and physiological imbalances from too much HGH and/or Testosterone and other anabolic substances like Tammy Thomas

Then there's riders running the risk of getting cancer or who knows what else from taking experimental/unreleased/unapproved drugs

If you don't mind the sport having this, fine, but most of us do.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Good answer, 42x16.

We should have a stickied FAQ thread, IMO. And this question can go first.

 

[Ferminal]

But misses the key point of the health argument.

It's not the people who vigorously pursue those means who we should care about, they know the risks after all and as a society there is no real cost. They are responsible for their own actions.

The real point is that people who do not want to take the chance that there may be negative consequences for their health will either be forced to do so or will leave the sport.

Thus it is unacceptable for a sporting organisation to run a "doping is chill" competition unless there is carbon copy/parallel "no doping guys" league with the exact same opportunities.

Not that any of it would stop doping, as dopers would be keen to take advantage of the cleans and also in any "restricted doping" competition there would be plenty who would exceed the allowable limits of doping.

So basically the whole concept is a non-starter unless you have perfect detection or some massive psych/sociological shift in our population. i.e. the same two things you need to fix doping under any scenario.

 

[Taxus4a]

To win you have to dope. What am I missing?

Sastre, Evans, Wiggins, Froome,...

In the Tour de France

Nibali, Cobo, Hesjedal,... in other GTs.

 

[the sceptic]

lol wait. Cobo was clean?

What about Horner?

 

[42x16ss]

 

[42x16ss]

Sastre, Evans, Wiggins, Froome,...

In the Tour de France

Nibali, Cobo, Hesjedal,... in other GTs.

 

[Coolair2970]

Sastre, Evans, Wiggins, Froome,...

In the Tour de France

Nibali, Cobo, Hesjedal,... in other GTs.

I bet my life that you also believe in God, Santa Claus, The Easter Bonny and the Tooth fairy.

You are definitely having a laugh when writing nonsense like that.

 

[sniper]

Hein interview in Dutch from a couple of months back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojyMNOpmlBU

In fact, some wise words from Hein.
Says that when he learned how deeply ingrained doping was in the culture of cycling, he realized that it was going to take more than one generation of cyclists to change this culture.

Guess JV and the other "180degrees culture change" propagators agree with Hein.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Lots of stages were really piano at the time.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, something I really hadn't considered. On reflection, I do recall Phaul Sherggett remarking in the early Pharstrong era TdFs how they'd begun cracking the whip quite earlier than was customary.

But that only raises the question of whether all the "piano" in the pre-blood vector doping era was a choice of convenience, or whether it was a necessity driven by the lack of EPO's recuperative magic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But that only raises the question of whether all the "piano" in the pre-blood vector doping era was a choice of convenience, or whether it was a necessity driven by the lack of EPO's recuperative magic.

What recuperative magic?

EPO increases performance.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

What recuperative magic?

EPO increases performance.

By increasing the transport of oxygen.

I have known several people who were prescribed EPO (mostly chemo or renal failure patients), and I don't think it was given any of them to improve their split times. How could recuperation not benefit from increased O2 saturation?