• 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!

Cycling in the 70's to the present day

May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
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?
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
Visit site
craig1985 said:
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......

I have had the same thoughts. Perhaps pro cyclists today want to specialize on particular races throughout their career and that's why we don't see someone win Paris-Roubaix then win LBL and a GT in the same year or career (unless someone has recently done this? I can't think of anybody right now.)? Or maybe it is tougher now since there might be more better competition than in the 60's, 70's and/or 80's? This could be due to more sophisticated doping programs, not sure. Although we know guys doped in the bygone eras, they were not on programs/schedules such as what was going on with BALCO or Operacion Puerto. The level of science and acuteness of these programs are miles/kilometers ahead of the past.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
you forgot the triple crown, to win all 3 grand tours in 1 year. Also left out was Sean Kelly who owned Milan San Remo.People don't need to be "hard" anymore. There is a points system that is not based on doing all the hardest races. Modern racers found out that racing is bad for your body. Luis Leon Sanchez is on top after that brutal Tour Down Under.
 
It seems like they took a variety of stuff, a lot of which was completely useless for performance.

Amphetamines were very common, hormones and hormonal equilibrium were also common enough. I am sure the rest of the experts on here will have a lot more info on everything.
 
don't shoot me but...

When I was at the Gentse Feesten a couple of years ago, I got talking to a fellow who reckoned that a particular holy cow of cycling was on stuff for years because he was related by marriage to a noted medical technician. Granted he'd had a couple of jars, but he seemed to know an awful lot about it. :rolleyes:

It's funny but, even though I wasn't around in the 70s and after pretty much all my own heroes of the '90s had 'fessed up to everything, this minor revelation still disturbed me enormously.

The deeds of the generations before my own are now the stuff of anecdotes and almanacs but I realised then that I myself had made them somehow untouchable.
 
Personal opinion based on what I have read on this Forum:

1- Doping technology has gotten better.
2- Doping products are more efficient than Amphetamines.
3- More money in the sport has lead to more competition and therefore you get riders who specialize in some disciplines like sprints and Classics. I really doubt that Hinault and Merckx would have contested the Classics the way they did it in their Era. I believe that with the new doping they could have won 8 to 10 tours each. And probably they would have tried to specialize in the GT's as well. And please save the romanticism the Cannibal is the Cannibal and he would have still done it the same way now, because I doubt it.
4- Cycling is more universal and therefore more competition.

Again this is my personal opinion.
Thanks.
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
Visit site
We also have to consider money. Cyclists I think are paid more for winning GT's than the Classics or the more popular one week stage races. So if you feel you're not a GT rider then you may option to clean up at the other races (and I mean race to win not train). Does this make sense?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Personal opinion based on what I have read on this Forum:

1- Doping technology has gotten better.
2- Doping products are more efficient than Amphetamines.
3- More money in the sport has lead to more competition and therefore you get riders who specialize in some disciplines like sprints and Classics. I really doubt that Hinault and Merckx would have contested the Classics the way they did it in their Era. I believe that with the new doping they could have won 8 to 10 tours each. And probably they would have tried to specialize in the GT's as well. And please save the romanticism the Cannibal is the Cannibal and he would have still done it the same way now, because I doubt it.
4- Cycling is more universal and therefore more competition.

Again this is my personal opinion.
Thanks.

also sports injury rehab techniques are way better,lots of these guys rode through injuries that current pros take weeks off for,things that used to considered pain are now injuries that require rehab and rest.Eddie would have raced (and won)until he was 45 in the modern era. His nickname would have been Nibbles instead of Cannibal
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
Visit site
fatandfast said:
.....Eddie would have raced (and won)until he was 45 in the modern era. His nickname would have been Nibbles instead of Cannibal

Staying with the money theme. I don't think the Cannibal would have raced such any aggressive schedule nowadays or even win as much. If did he would make so much money the desire to race so much would probably drop, therefore he wouldn't win as much. It's like the old boxers (40's-70's) most of the great one's had well over 75-100 fights at least. Now most guys don't fight 50 times in a career because they don't have to since they're paid better now.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Most of the pillars were there, doping through these "romantic" times, creating the allure, the fantasy.

How would these Pillars results been changed should the current 2-year/8-year progression bans have been nin place back then?

Steroids (anabolicvs, corticoids) Stimulants, and less frequently blood doping (though no testing for it) were rife.

Agree with the comments above, keep understanding the roots.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
3rdWheel said:
Staying with the money theme. I don't think the Cannibal would have raced such any aggressive schedule nowadays or even win as much. If did he would make so much money the desire to race so much would probably drop, therefore he wouldn't win as much. It's like the old boxers (40's-70's) most of the great one's had well over 75-100 fights at least. Now most guys don't fight 50 times in a career because they don't have to since they're paid better now.

There was much less money from sponsors relative to today. If you won, you got paid to appear, just like the boxers and the prizes where very important. It also took money to travel so, again; the successful riders benefitted relatively more for their success. I think the amphetamine use was more successful to motivate riders to do the schedule they did but many suffered in their fifties for that usage.
Current day teams are more businesslike and scientific. It costs much more to travel so they emphasize races that their sponsor profile demands. Those sponsors demand TV air time and results or the money goes away, quickly. They need to be prepared and they can get away with hyping a race in the future as opposed to actually racing. Lance is a case in point.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
Visit site
I think the money was the key thing. Most pros in the 1970s were on rubbish money, and had to make up for it by riding loads of criteriums and kermesses. In order to get appearance money for these they needed to have some good results in classics or tours. I knew a pro in the 1970s who'd rode for a pro team in Holland. He told me about getting the daily paper, finding the nearest race and riding it, this was in between riding the big races. He had to do this as the money was so bad. The local cafe ran a supporters' club to provide him with financial support, it had a bin in the bar to collect change from the customers. His wife told me that she saw horrendous crashes in kermesses and riders being carted away in ambulances, only to see the same riders, now patched up, racing the following day! He said loads of rider took amphetamines, and that when he got a good result in a big time-trial the others were amazed he'd done it clean.

Another pro I spoke to told me of the time he and his team rode the Vuelta in the 70s. He said the non-Spanish teams were nervous as they knew that for the Spanish at the time anything went. The team directors called a meeting, and it was decided to have a truce, i.e. no drugs. This pro said everything was going fine until then they realised the Spanish riders had broken the truce and were making them look stupid! He said that his team `got the biscuit tin out' before the following day's stage and normality resumed!
 
Cycling is similar to Formula 1. Back in the day, Formula 1 was low tech compared to what it is today. Mechanics were flying by the seat of their pants when it came to making the cars faster. They really did not fully know what they were doing. The result was a wild and exciting era of racing, and driver talent and skill counted for a lot.

Then things got serious. The scientists and engineers got involved. Every little addition to a car is now tested in a wind tunnel. Teams can spend hundreds of millions developing their cars. Driver talent became so immaterial to performance that even someone as unworthy as Jensen Button could win the WC if he had the right car. The excitement and most of what made the sport attractive to begin with largely disappeared.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
3rdWheel said:
Staying with the money theme. I don't think the Cannibal would have raced such any aggressive schedule nowadays or even win as much. If did he would make so much money the desire to race so much would probably drop, therefore he wouldn't win as much. It's like the old boxers (40's-70's) most of the great one's had well over 75-100 fights at least. Now most guys don't fight 50 times in a career because they don't have to since they're paid better now.

You are 100% right I don't know why I always leave boxing off my radar but it fits with cycling. Used to no way to confuse pros and amateurs. Used to have only a couple governing bodies. As soon as different federations figured out how to hype everything up you would think the guy has KO'd everybody on the planet,the media spin mechanism brought to a super high level. Just like cycling,hybrids like full contact,UFC and others have spun out of control leaving the old schoolers with shrinking talent and revenues,20 years from now nobody will want to see "regular" boxing. Young kids think all boxing takes place enclosed with chain link fence and a good starting jab is with a kick to the head or midsection
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Pretty much follow the money trail......

And this inevitably leads to the Tour - which IMO has become too big and unfairly dwarfs every other race.
But of course in India or China or even America everyone will know the Tour and thus for the commercial interests of what is a 'Professional Sport' that is the overriding concern.

An example - 2009 was a disaster for AG2R who only won 5 races last year, yet their season was 'rescued' by Noncentini being in the Maillot Jaune for 8 days.

Other factors also are that back even until the 90's there were often teams with just 16 or 17 riders, nowadays the minimum for a ProTour or Pro Conti team is 23.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
I think it is the money and business factor and also the speed of the races/EPO.

I think to go so much faster and use EPO and whatever else pro cyclists use there is a large recovery period in between races.

With long recovery periods, superstars develop with their longevity in racing therefore can become superstars.

Look at how quickly LeMond aged at top speed. LeMond/ Too fast, to much stress, to many races.
 
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
Visit site
Let's have an objective look at the difference between the Merckx and Hinault eras, and present day. The question is why could these two win across all disciplines (sprints, cobbles, ardennes classics and grand tours) when no one rider can achieve such domination today. Let's look at the possible reasons:

Specialisation/Money: Nowadays top riders can afford to focus on a small part of the season (e.g. 3 weeks in July or 1 week in April), whereas in the 70s/80s all riders would be expected to race the whole season. Consequently, riders are more likely to try to specialise in a certain discipline. Guys like Boonen and Cancellara can become household names with a narrow focus, so if Cancellara needs to bulk up to improve his classics/time trail performances, whilst sacrificing some speed in the mountains, he can do so and still be well paid and considered one of the top current cyclists. I believe this to be the main reason.

Truly exceptional talent: It could be argued that Merckx/Hinault were simply more talent relative to the peleton at the time, than the champions of today, but I think dominant performances from Contador at the tour, and Cancellara at the world's time trail would point towards exceptional talents in the peleton today. However, I would say with Contador's body type it is difficult to compete with someone like Boonen over the cobbles, whereas De Vlaeminck was a smaller guy who could be competitive (and win) in the hills as well.

Doping: Whatever you think about doping, the huge advantage it can provide suggests that how much doping is used across the peleton, or at least across the top riders is fairly uniform, which would suggest no effect on potential for solo domination across all disciplines. However, performances such as that of Ricco at the Giro & Tour 2008 suggest occasional deviations from uniform level of use. I think the logical reason for standout performances like these is that the biopassport regulates doping to a certain level, so it is still possible to achieve high performances by doping more than everyone else, but with high risk of being caught. Given that this is the case, maybe you could make the argument that to dope to the certain level is expensive/requires blood bags, and thus not available to achieve too many "peaks" during the season.

However, I would suggest increased specialisation (and specifically ability to aim at a particular body type to the detriment of other disciplines) as a far more plausible reason for the lack of a recent rider dominant over all disciplines.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Bumeington said:
Let's have an objective look at the difference

However, I would suggest increased specialisation (and specifically ability to aim at a particular body type to the detriment of other disciplines) as a far more plausible reason for the lack of a recent rider dominant over all disciplines.

Absolutely. Many of our local Cat 3's on the rise and Master's riders have coaching combined with strict training regimes. They are typically emphasizing one particular type of racing or even a specific performance; a TT for example. The shame is that, if the rider doesn't receive the result after that specific and costly training their disappointment leads them to quit.
The observations about needing to race anything and everything in the 70's underscores the well-rounded riders from that time.
 
Jun 9, 2009
403
0
0
Visit site
In the mid-80's, there were tremendous advances in the field of exercise physiology. It was discovered that a structured training program could build a rider to a 'peak' of fitness that lasted for only a couple of weeks.

Prior to the mid-80's, cyclists generally rode a lot of long slow miles in the winter and the found their 'race form' for the classics and worked to maintain it throughout the season. Sure, they would rest prior to and following stage races and take it easy for a couple of days prior to marquis events such as World's or spring and fall classics, but the science of a year-long campaign to reach optimal form for a short window of time was not well understood.

Enter Greg LeMond. LeMond and his training staff recognized that a rider could be at his absolute best for only a couple of weeks out of the year. Given that the TdF was the only race that had a decent sized following in the United States, Lemond decided to have that be the sole focus of his season for obvious financial reasons. He trained with near singular focus on the Tour and achieved fantastic results. He built to a second 'peak' for World's and showed success there, too.

A recent article in Cycle Sport shows Fignon racing tough in an edition of Paris-Roubaix during a year that he also waged a campaign to beat LeMond and Hinault in the TdF. If a rider attempts to have peak form for both events, he will compromise his chances of success in either if his competitors have singular focus in their training programs for one major event.

Since LeMond's training program and the success it brought, the racing programs of cyclists have changed dramatically.

As dominant as Merckx was, I wonder how he would have done if each of his rivals had focused on one event in their entire year's preparations while he tried to dominate from March until October.

There are currently very few riders who show good form all season long. None of them are top GC contenders or Classics specialists. Jens Voigt comes to mind as a year-rounder, but most of his victories come at times in the calender that fall between the Spring Classics and the GT's or after the GT's when the World's contenders are focused on the rainbows.

Sprinters have better successes throughout the season in part becuase the discipline is as much about tactics, teamwork, and skill as they are about pure power production.

I the past decade, the training programs have been further refined and programs increasingly tailored to single events. Armstrong's run of 7 tours would not likely have occured if he had tried to maintain prowess in the Spring Classics or attempt a second serious bid at a world championship. Armstrong, Charmichael, and Bruyneal refined the science of building to a specific 'peak' for the TdF beyond what any other team could accomplish.
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
Visit site
Whoever add the piece about LeMond's specialized training for TdF is correct and part of the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. I had a conversation with my brother years ago about LeMond and how his training program changed cycling. Say what you want about LA, and I don't care for him as a cyclist, he took that approach and perfected it. With that it's still mostly all about the money, follow that trail and you can't go wrong.
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
Visit site
David Suro said:
Enter Greg LeMond. LeMond and his training staff recognized that a rider could be at his absolute best for only a couple of weeks out of the year. Given that the TdF was the only race that had a decent sized following in the United States, Lemond decided to have that be the sole focus of his season for obvious financial reasons. He trained with near singular focus on the Tour and achieved fantastic results. He built to a second 'peak' for World's and showed success there, too.

.....

Since LeMond's training program and the success it brought, the racing programs of cyclists have changed dramatically.

Haha didn't realize it was the last post above mine that talked about LeMond. I had to give credit.:D
 
Apr 10, 2009
10
0
0
Visit site
David Suro said:
As dominant as Merckx was, I wonder how he would have done if each of his rivals had focused on one event in their entire year's preparations while he tried to dominate from March until October.

Don't forget track season in the winter!

Imagine if Eddy had, a la Lance, only showed up at a few races a year.. Lance would not have been the first to win seven straight. And he would still be trying to match the record!
 

TRENDING THREADS