Dan Martin - "Now I know you can win clean"

[Ferminal]

Probably fewer steroids and narcotics in 1990 though.

 

[roundabout]

Would Blood bags offer such a great improvement in one day races? I have always seen it as a tool for recovery more than anything else. Most people would go into a one day race fairly fresh and so their HCT would be close to 'normal' anyway. What kind of gains could be expected without flagging?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...lini-of-working-with-eufemiano-fuentes_274365

It was a while ago, but you get the idea

 

[Netserk]

My point is simple, nobody really knows how many riders were on EPO in 1992, they can guess but it is just that, a guess.

Nobody knows how many riders were doing blood bags, EPO in 2013 so to say LeMond beat a few guys on EPO whilst Martin beat an entire field on BB/EPO is projecting something they wish to be true.

Talk about projecting...

DW clearly said that since Martin won L-B-L he beat all the other riders in that race. Of all those riders some were probably doping. If there were 20 dopers and 180 clean riders, he beat all 20 dopers and all 180 clean riders. If there were 40 dopers and 160 clean riders, he beat all of the dopers too.

He didn't say that all the riders were dopers, but that of all the riders who doped, Martin beat them all. Every single one of them.

 

[jens_attacks]

There is a misconception abut the early days of EPO. It took years before riders and doctors figure out how to use it and combine it with a full program. In many cases riders "Crashed" after using it as their body struggled to manufacture new blood cells.

I see people tossing out 89,90,91 as start dates for EPO use. Edwig Van Hooydonck won Flanders in 91.....Clean

agree
for me the two pioneers, i mean epo users where the preparation really made its desired effect are indurain and chiappucci 1992.

 

[roundabout]

Perhaps Bugno as well?

 

[GuyIncognito]

Perhaps Bugno as well?

The original. His domination at that infamous Giro was just silly. He could drop anyone at will anywhere.

Halupczok was also a mutant creation in that race. Came out of nowhere to dominate u23s in 89, neo-pro in 1990, was 5th overall when he left the Giro in the 3rd week in circumstances that were never fully explained.

Suffered from repeated heart problems that meant he didn't race in 91 and not much in 92 before retiring. Died of heart failure in 94.

 

[red_flanders]

Would LeMond have shown up as well if everyone were on BBs/EPO in his era? If his performances 91-94 are anything to go by then, No would be the answer. So how do you compare and contrast exaclty?

You would have to assume the junior ranks were fully doped to imagine Lemond not showing up. He was seen from his late teens as someone with immense talent, beating pros of the day at that point already. He was a freak amongst freaks. No question in my mind that he'd have shown up as what he was as a junior, even now. I would add only that the difference between him and the others in his age group would likely have been smaller. But he'd have been a prodigy all the same.

 

[SaxonUK]

Talk about projecting...

DW clearly said that since Martin won L-B-L he beat all the other riders in that race. Of all those riders some were probably doping. If there were 20 dopers and 180 clean riders, he beat all 20 dopers and all 180 clean riders. If there were 40 dopers and 160 clean riders, he beat all of the dopers too.

He didn't say that all the riders were dopers, but that of all the riders who doped, Martin beat them all. Every single one of them.

Wouldn't that mean Lemond beat every doped rider in the field? Are we saying that if someone wins a race they must be doped since they beat doped riders?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The original. His domination at that infamous Giro was just silly. He could drop anyone at will anywhere.

A bit like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rj2ueFeBdRg#t=698

?

'enjoy':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAppuVYJEYA
edit: big lol here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wAppuVYJEYA#t=2616

On Halupczok, just take a look at his team that year.

To get back on topic: why didnt Vansummeren say at Paris Roubaix he knows he can win clean?

 

[Netserk]

1)Wouldn't that mean Lemond beat every doped rider in the field?

2)Are we saying that if someone wins a race they must be doped since they beat doped riders?

1)Not in the '92 ITT.

2) No. Just that the rider beat all of the dopers.

 

[jens_attacks]

The original. His domination at that infamous Giro was just silly. He could drop anyone at will anywhere.

same was bartali or merckx. domination doesn't equal epo
i don't know for sure of course but i base it on climbing speed/extraterestrial time trials.

charly mottet still finished 2nd in that giro. boyer winning stages. so only bugno had the secret? years before everybody?
i think bugno might have used bags but not epo in 1990. from the interviews i've read, he was disappointed with jet fuel generation and his grand tour results after 1992 put him a good light. also fignon's book when he says how he was dropped in 1993 tour and who sees riding along him? bugno

difficult to say if he was an epo pioneer(that would rank him the first in 1990, the first jet fuel wonder). me i'd rather say no.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You would have to assume the junior ranks were fully doped to imagine Lemond not showing up. He was seen from his late teens as someone with immense talent, beating pros of the day at that point already. He was a freak amongst freaks. No question in my mind that he'd have shown up as what he was as a junior, even now. I would add only that the difference between him and the others in his age group would likely have been smaller. But he'd have been a prodigy all the same.

The reason LeMond was introduced in this thread was about the comparison in PEDs, not talent.
LeMond if clean was still beating or very competitive at a time of essentially unrestricted PED use.
Therefore, now with PED use being somewhat restricted would mean a rider who is talented (not on a LeMond scale obviously) could be competitive while clean.

 

[Benotti69]

The reason LeMond was introduced in this thread was about the comparison in PEDs, not talent.
LeMond if clean was still beating or very competitive at a time of essentially unrestricted PED use.
Therefore, now with PED use being somewhat restricted would mean a rider who is talented (not on a LeMond scale obviously) could be competitive while clean.

Sky have disproved that myth.

Bernard Kohl said the BP helped riders regulate their doping.

Plenty of riders have not dropped a level over the last few years. Piti being an example. Scarponi another. Horner also disproves the idea that anti doping is anyway effective.

 

[Netserk]

Whilst the restrictions are there, so are more knowledge for the dopers.

And (top) riders go faster now than in 1992.

 

[pmcg76]

You would have to assume the junior ranks were fully doped to imagine Lemond not showing up. He was seen from his late teens as someone with immense talent, beating pros of the day at that point already. He was a freak amongst freaks. No question in my mind that he'd have shown up as what he was as a junior, even now. I would add only that the difference between him and the others in his age group would likely have been smaller. But he'd have been a prodigy all the same.

I am talking about the pro level, not junior or amateur. Would LeMond have still been the superstar he was if he had been turning pro in 1993?? Would he have been able to win the Tour for example from 93 onward.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sky have disproved that myth.

Sky mention - everyone down a shot.

Bernard Kohl said the BP helped riders regulate their doping.

Plenty of riders have not dropped a level over the last few years. Piti being an example. Scarponi another. Horner also disproves the idea that anti doping is anyway effective.

What does regulate their doping mean? And Kohls comments were in 2009, just after the BP had opened a case.

Again, you say "plenty of riders" and then give 3 examples out of 700+ pros.
Just so I am clear - there will always be those who will attempt to dope and find the weakness in the system - but this does not take away that all these controls do restrict the ability to dope with impunity.

 

[sniper]

Whilst the restrictions are there, so are more knowledge for the dopers.

crucial stuff right here.

and there's the risk reward ratio.
look at Garmin. lol. look at large parts of the peloton. dominated by guys who benefited from doping.
risk-reward...

 

[sniper]

Sky mention - everyone down a shot.


What does regulate their doping mean? And Kohls comments were in 2009, just after the BP had opened a case.

Again, you say "plenty of riders" and then give 3 examples out of 700+ pros.
Just so I am clear - there will always be those who will attempt to dope and find the weakness in the system - but this does not take away that all these controls do restrict the ability to dope with impunity.

what controls?

the BP is flawed in many aspects, we've gone through that plenty of times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

crucial stuff right here.

Serious question - what is crucial about that?
The riders obviously know more about how doping works - but if they are restricted from doing so then the knowledge cannot really be applied.

and there's the risk reward ratio.
look at Garmin. lol. look at large parts of the peloton. dominated by guys who benefited from doping.
risk-reward...

Is the risk/reward ratio the exact same as it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

Riders are professionals - they get paid to do their assigned role.
If there was no dope tomorrow (lets pretend the dope makers went on strike) the top riders would still get paid the same. (But there might be different top riders)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

what controls?

the BP is flawed in many aspects, we've gone through that plenty of times.

All controls, the collective.
In the early 90's a rider could dope with impunity.

Indeed the BP is flawed - as are many other controls, regardless they have frustrated the dopers who have to use lower doses of PEDs, or less effective methods.
Therefore that lessens the advantage a doper would get.

 

[Netserk]

All controls, the collective.
In the early 90's a rider could dope with impunity.

Indeed the BP is flawed - as are many other controls, regardless they have frustrated the dopers who have to use lower doses of PEDs, or less effective methods.
Therefore that lessens the advantage a doper would get.

So why are riders much faster today than in 1992?

 

[SundayRider]

All controls, the collective.
In the early 90's a rider could dope with impunity.

Indeed the BP is flawed - as are many other controls, regardless they have frustrated the dopers who have to use lower doses of PEDs, or less effective methods.
Therefore that lessens the advantage a doper would get.

Has it though? Or do the just 'prepare' for every race now? Bit like Wiggins/Froome. How many riders have been sanctioned by the BP?

 

[Benotti69]

Sky mention - everyone down a shot.


What does regulate their doping mean? And Kohls comments were in 2009, just after the BP had opened a case.

Again, you say "plenty of riders" and then give 3 examples out of 700+ pros.
Just so I am clear - there will always be those who will attempt to dope and find the weakness in the system - but this does not take away that all these controls do restrict the ability to dope with impunity.

Want more examples? dopeology.org

Horner it would appear dopers with impunity.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Sky have disproved that myth.

Bernard Kohl said the BP helped riders regulate their doping.

Plenty of riders have not dropped a level over the last few years. Piti being an example. Scarponi another. Horner also disproves the idea that anti doping is anyway effective.

Restricted is different than regulated. Regulated microdosing is easier for a clean rider to overcome competitively than unregulated full diesel. I would say those guys have dropped off. It doesn't need to be a question of clean vs. dirty.

Even if Valverde is still on the 94 octane, he isn't the Valverde of Casissee dEpargne days, when he won everything, who was riding on diesel. Scarponi is riding into the sunset after his "win" in 2011. Horner didn't ride LBL. Rodriguez may be top shelf, but spilled it with his early attack bring DM to the line. Nibali may also not have taken that step down, but he was waiting until May to really fire.

DM beat dopers on that day, but even you can't say that these guys are rode that race like they used to/would do later.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So why are riders much faster today than in 1992?

Are they? As in 'much faster'?
We are getting way off topic, but if you wish we can take it to an appropriate thread.
I am happy to stand corrected if you have something to back that up. (And why just 92?)

Want more examples? dopeology.org

Horner it would appear dopers with impunity.

Why give a site that just mentions all dopers throughout the last 10+ years?
Indeed Horner is a good example, isnt he so suspicious because he stands out?

Has it though? Or do the just 'prepare' for every race now? Bit like Wiggins/Froome. How many riders have been sanctioned by the BP?

The BP question - I dont know, but not enough.

But my overall point - to all of you - do you agree with the overall point that doping has been somewhat restricted over the years? Yes or no.

If people want to argue or discuss the specifics then we can perhaps take it to an appropriate thread.