- May 6, 2009
- 8,522
- 1
- 0
This is some that has always has been of an interest to me, and something I am looking into finding more information about from the older generation
p) on this site.
I find it intriguing that there were guys from the 70's or even in the 80's (think Hinault) who won Classics (Northern or Ardennes for example), and could win a GT, or even two. Generally from anything from what I have read that they raced a lot more, the stages in the GT's were longer, for example, Sean Yates talked about doing 300km+ plus stages in the TdF, split stages. Bikes were also heavier, and they raced in sort of apocalyptic conditions. One has to think to that day on the Gavia in 1988 where Andy Hampsten rode through a blizzard, no way would that happen today, the stage would of been canceled and everybody quite right stayed in warm conditions, such as the bus.
Whilst I am certainly not saying everybody was clean, because they wasn't (Fignon admitted that his cancer issues were due to dope, Thévenet etc.), it would appear that there wasn't as much sophistication with regards to doping (I don't think EPO in any shape or form was around then). So if anybody was cheating, what was the dope of choice?
Bernard Hinault won the Giro and the Tour de France in the same year on two occasions, and he also went on to win Roubaix, Amstel Gold, Ghent Wevelgem, Flèche Wallonne, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, and the Giro di Lombardia, one the vast majority of cases, he would win the Tour as well. Good luck seeing Andy Schleck winning the Ardenne Classics, and the next year dropping Tom Boonen to win Roubaix. It would be unthinkable. As likely as me beating Mark Cavendish in a sprint. Likewise, Contador could do RVV, and anything other then finishing would be a bonus.
Yet in the 70's, 80's, hell even go back to Eddy Merckx's era, this was common. In Felice Gimondi's first three years as a pro, he had already claimed all three Grand Tours, shame Eddy came along, eh? None of that would be possible nowadays. I know Bernard and Eddy were tougher then nails themselves, was it that they trained just so much harder the everybody else?
I have said it once, and I will say it a thousand times, even with the very best doping plan, I doubt we will see a rider win the Giro and the Tour again. Maybe Basso when he was über (excuse me, my German is rusty today) jacked at the 2006 Giro that he won, and if he hadn't been thrown out before the Tour, then perhaps he would of won (no way in hell does Pereiro ever get 30 minutes in a break, or Flandis is allowed to attack and stay away). Maybe His Holiness of Plano, Texas, could of done if He CBF, but he wasn't, or didn't want to risk it. Some have said Menchov rode like poorly at the Tour last year because he was scared from Vienna blowing up in his face, and rode clean, even if he wasn't, I doubt he would won anyway. Pantani did it, and we all know what the deal was from 1998. Perhaps Contador could do it (as much as I love him, I would be naive not to think otherwise) if he wants to.
I think I will stop soon as I am rambling on, and if you're like me, you won't bother to read all the post. I know era's are different, technology is better, the speeds are faster (but isn't it relevant though, the heavier bikes back then would indicate slower speeds, but the lighter bikes nowadays would mean riders are riding faster).
So in conclusion: was it like back in 70's/80's, to the late 90's, and early this century when pretty much the vast majority was on dope, and why aren't we seeing riders do today what the greats did 20, 30 years ago do? If riders have superior doping technology (for want of a better word), then why aren't they winning multiple Tours and Classics? Or is it just specialised racing focus? But if anything, things are better now, races were tougher back then etc, and yet their achievements were outstanding compared to today's crop.
Or am I missing something obvious and trying to look too much into this?
I find it intriguing that there were guys from the 70's or even in the 80's (think Hinault) who won Classics (Northern or Ardennes for example), and could win a GT, or even two. Generally from anything from what I have read that they raced a lot more, the stages in the GT's were longer, for example, Sean Yates talked about doing 300km+ plus stages in the TdF, split stages. Bikes were also heavier, and they raced in sort of apocalyptic conditions. One has to think to that day on the Gavia in 1988 where Andy Hampsten rode through a blizzard, no way would that happen today, the stage would of been canceled and everybody quite right stayed in warm conditions, such as the bus.
Whilst I am certainly not saying everybody was clean, because they wasn't (Fignon admitted that his cancer issues were due to dope, Thévenet etc.), it would appear that there wasn't as much sophistication with regards to doping (I don't think EPO in any shape or form was around then). So if anybody was cheating, what was the dope of choice?
Bernard Hinault won the Giro and the Tour de France in the same year on two occasions, and he also went on to win Roubaix, Amstel Gold, Ghent Wevelgem, Flèche Wallonne, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, and the Giro di Lombardia, one the vast majority of cases, he would win the Tour as well. Good luck seeing Andy Schleck winning the Ardenne Classics, and the next year dropping Tom Boonen to win Roubaix. It would be unthinkable. As likely as me beating Mark Cavendish in a sprint. Likewise, Contador could do RVV, and anything other then finishing would be a bonus.
Yet in the 70's, 80's, hell even go back to Eddy Merckx's era, this was common. In Felice Gimondi's first three years as a pro, he had already claimed all three Grand Tours, shame Eddy came along, eh? None of that would be possible nowadays. I know Bernard and Eddy were tougher then nails themselves, was it that they trained just so much harder the everybody else?
I have said it once, and I will say it a thousand times, even with the very best doping plan, I doubt we will see a rider win the Giro and the Tour again. Maybe Basso when he was über (excuse me, my German is rusty today) jacked at the 2006 Giro that he won, and if he hadn't been thrown out before the Tour, then perhaps he would of won (no way in hell does Pereiro ever get 30 minutes in a break, or Flandis is allowed to attack and stay away). Maybe His Holiness of Plano, Texas, could of done if He CBF, but he wasn't, or didn't want to risk it. Some have said Menchov rode like poorly at the Tour last year because he was scared from Vienna blowing up in his face, and rode clean, even if he wasn't, I doubt he would won anyway. Pantani did it, and we all know what the deal was from 1998. Perhaps Contador could do it (as much as I love him, I would be naive not to think otherwise) if he wants to.
I think I will stop soon as I am rambling on, and if you're like me, you won't bother to read all the post. I know era's are different, technology is better, the speeds are faster (but isn't it relevant though, the heavier bikes back then would indicate slower speeds, but the lighter bikes nowadays would mean riders are riding faster).
So in conclusion: was it like back in 70's/80's, to the late 90's, and early this century when pretty much the vast majority was on dope, and why aren't we seeing riders do today what the greats did 20, 30 years ago do? If riders have superior doping technology (for want of a better word), then why aren't they winning multiple Tours and Classics? Or is it just specialised racing focus? But if anything, things are better now, races were tougher back then etc, and yet their achievements were outstanding compared to today's crop.
Or am I missing something obvious and trying to look too much into this?