Do The Old Favourites Get a Pass

[franciep10]

This is a topic that i haven't gotten a response to now here's my side why are the great riders of the past given a pass when it comes to their doping activities. Eddy Merckx arguably the greatest rider of all time was doped up sure it wasn't EPO but if EPO was around in Eddy's time he would've used it, even Lemond said had he known the effects of EPO he would've used it, paul Kimmage hinted at the idea that stephen Roche was on EPO and come on we are all safe to assume that Hinault didn't win on bread and water. So why was it okay for them and not for the newer riders what is the difference between Landis and roche, Armstrong and Hinault and Merckx and Ullrich. I am sure I will be crushed for this but whatever this is a forum.

 

[BikeCentric]

The difference is because the new recombinant DNA drugs (EPO, Testosterone, HGH, corticosteroids) have had a much bigger impact on the results of races - i.e. they can cause dramatic performance improvement gains in those shooting them up.

The old champs didn't have such powerful drugs around to muck up the pecking order, not to mention Omerta has of course always shrouded this sport.

 

[franciep10]

The difference is because the new recombinant DNA drugs (EPO, Testosterone, HGH, corticosteroids) have had a much bigger impact on the results of races - i.e. they can cause dramatic performance improvement gains in those shooting them up.

The old champs didn't have such powerful drugs around to muck up the pecking order, not to mention Omerta has of course always shrouded this sport.

as I said if Epo was around they would've taken it, to the clean riders in that era it was a performance increase

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

There's cheating, and then there's really cheating. All cliches aside, think about this, let me give this comparison:

In 1989 Lemond was clean. In that same year (Tour, Worlds, etc) Steven Rooks was on testosterone (by his own admission), so were a few other racers. It made little difference as to who won.

In 1991 Lemond was clean. In that same year it's speculated that at least a quarter of the peloton was on EPO. Greg exhausted himself, finishing 13 minutes out. In 1992 I'm speculating that 75% of the peloton was on EPO, some of them jacked up to a hematocrit of about 55. A clean Lemond lost 50 minutes on one mountain stage alone, his career over.

Riders in the past, form Merckx or Kelly taking ephedra based medicine, to Thevenet or Hinault taking cortisone shots, or even Rooks or probably Delgado steroid based testosterone, the playing field wasn't dramatically changed. You can't really look back and point our finger and say "if Merckx weren't on cough syrup, Edward Janssens wouldn't have finished an hour back and been ripped off." But it's pretty easy to look back to the early 1990's and say with certainty that Lemond, Mottet, Delion, Bassons and a few others were indeed ripped off.

 

[franciep10]

There's cheating, and then there's really cheating. All cliches aside, think about this, let me give this comparison:

In 1989 Lemond was clean. In that same year (Tour, Worlds, etc) Steven Rooks was on testosterone (by his own admission), so were a few other racers. It made little difference as to who won.

In 1991 Lemond was clean. In that same year it's speculated that at least a quarter of the peloton was on EPO. Greg exhausted himself, finishing 13 minutes out. In 1992 I'm speculating that 75% of the peloton was on EPO, some of them jacked up to a hematocrit of about 55. A clean Lemond lost 50 minutes on one mountain stage alone, his career over.

Riders in the past, form Merckx or Kelly taking ephedra based medicine, to Thevenet or Hinault taking cortisone shots, or even Rooks or probably Delgado steroid based testosterone, the playing field wasn't dramatically changed. You can't really look back and point our finger and say "if Merckx weren't on cough syrup, Edward Janssens wouldn't have finished an hour back and been ripped off." But it's pretty easy to look back to the early 1990's and say with certainty that Lemond, Mottet, Delion, Bassons and a few others were indeed ripped off.

yes EPO makes a dramatic difference but isn't cheating still cheating regardless of what you are doing to cheat and win obviously EPO is on a different level as technology advances people are going to find more advanced ways to cheat. But as always I respect your intellect. and roche was suspected to be on EPO what about that one

 

[Anonymous]

yes EPO makes a dramatic difference but isn't cheating still cheating regardless of what you are doing to cheat and win obviously EPO is ona different level as technology advances.

noooo.. only epo is cheating and only then generally if your name begins with an L...

testosterone is fine..

 

[marinoni]

I think there were two key points in the past. One, omerta was complete and never challenged. Two, I don't think people gave a toss about doping. Before the early 80s the sport was almost completely European and fans just took it for granted that professional cycling wasnt possible without doping. When you look at the schedule most riders kept through the first 70 or so years of the sport, it probably wasnt possible. That's an assumption the sport is still fighting. But,as long as it wasn't rubbed in fan's faces they didn't care. The scandals of the late 90s forced the issue out in the open and forced people to care about it. I know that was the case for me. My enjoyment of the sport was vastly greater when my ignorance/denial allowed me to just enjoy the performances without question.

 

[Anonymous]

looking back actually its interesting my complete and utter niavety...

when the festina affair happened, i actually thought that festina where the only team doping and everyone else was being cheated by them...

but then i also beleived wrestling was real until 1982 (im talking big daddy, giant haystacks, catweazle, pat roach and kendo nagazaki.. not the silly american twaddle you lot have)

 

[elapid]

I agree with Alpe d'Huez. The drugs used pre-1990s were more about survival than performance enhancing. They made very little difference, if at all, to the overall results. The difference between amphetamines (short-term stimulant), testosterone (enhances recovery) and EPO is huge. EPO can give up to a 20% enhancement in performance, whereas speed may get you through the next hour and testosterone may get you through the next day. Armstrong and Pantani rode the Alpe d'Huez 10 minutes quicker than Hinault and LeMond in 1986. Training and equipment haven't changed that much to account for such a difference in performance between the top cyclists of their respective eras.

 

[Snake8]

They just need to re-organize cycling, get rid of the UCI, riders form a union, move away from Olympics, (I mean what does the Olympic medals really mean when the exact same riders race much more interesting races anyway...)

I dunno, people cheat - people cheat at everything all the time - its not like the old guys were more honest or would make better decisions than today's riders. The fact that there are drugs available today that make a greater difference does not change the morality of the issue.

Celebrate the rides and riders you like. Jens Voigt's doomed ride today and his exhausted expression with a hint of a smile as the peleton passed him like road kill...timeless.

 

[slowoldman]

There's cheating, and then there's really cheating.

I think this is garbage, cheaters are cheaters, plain and simple. If you take something to improve your performance and it is against the rules, you are cheating. I think there has been cheating throughout the eras of bike racing. We just have to accept the fact that in all probability most, if not all, of our great champions are in fact cheaters. Depressing isn't it? Only they know for sure. I wouldn't want to live with that guilt.

I actually hate that I have to post that, but when you get down to brass tacks, it is the truth.

I don't know why I love this sport so much.

 

[elapid]

I think this is garbage, cheaters are cheaters, plain and simple.

Disagree. Is it the same if you have an affair or just think about having an affair? Both are cheating, one physically and one mentally. There are different levels of cheating and they shouldn't be all tarnished with the same brush. George Bush treated everything black and white, right and wrong, and look how that turned out for foreign relations and diplomacy. Same thing for drugs - EPO and blood transfusions are worse than testosterone which is worse than asthma medications and amphetamines. While they are all performance-enhancing and should all be punished accordingly, I do not think they deserve the same blanket 2-year suspension for the first offense.

 

[Snake8]

I do. I love this sport because I had to try to explain it to my gilfreind the other night. Think about it, how many other sporting events that are not tournaments take place over the course of three weeks, with so many story lines from the attack that shreds the peleton, to the breakaway - will it stay away, the crashes, the grueling battle for GC on a grand tour, the insanity of the sprints, the tactics, pshycology....I could go on and on, but no other sport offers the same kind of drama - and even better they are riding on the best machine ever invented, the bicycle.

 

[Snake8]

Is it the same if you have an affair or just think about having an affair? Both are cheating, one physically and one mentally. .

Um, no, actually cheating in cycling actually involves ingesting illegal substances not just thinking about doing it.

I just thought about killing someone, is that the same as killing someone?

 

[marinoni]

I agree with Alpe d'Huez. The drugs used pre-1990s were more about survival than performance enhancing. They made very little difference, if at all, to the overall results. The difference between amphetamines (short-term stimulant), testosterone (enhances recovery) and EPO is huge. EPO can give up to a 20% enhancement in performance, whereas speed may get you through the next hour and testosterone may get you through the next day. Armstrong and Pantani rode the Alpe d'Huez 10 minutes quicker than Hinault and LeMond in 1986. Training and equipment haven't changed that much to account for such a difference in performance between the top cyclists of their respective eras.

I think that point about survival is important. The one major difference between cycling and all other sports is cycling is the only one where for most of it's history doping was probably necessary just to survive. The demands on riders up till the early 80s were insane. I remember a few years ago Cycle Sport did an off-season issue devoted to the career of Merckx. At the back was a year by year rundown of his major victories and top placings. These didnt include minor races, kermesses, crits, track races and cyclocross. In his best years you could look through and see victories every single month from Feb to Oct. The point isn't even the victories as much as he was racing all-out for 9 months. Without doping, he'd have been a dead man.

 

[pmcg76]

I think its like anything, the past is the past, who remembers the US werent at the 1980s Olympics and most of the East Europeans were on stuff then or the Soviets were not at L.A.84' People were not as informed on doping back then as they are now and as there is no proof a lot of guys were cheating, its hard to point the finger. Not saying they were not doping, its just harder to look back 20 years and point fingers.

The Festina affair changed everything, what was just rumours and stories before were actually proved. The Festina affair changed my attitude to all sports, not just cycling. I have tried to make this point before on other threads but nobody has picked up on it, to me the 'ometra' had been partially lifted and there was a possibility for the sport to change direction in 1999, if Lance was clean as he professe, he could have really blown a huge hole in 'ometra' by talking openly about doping . He didnt so that is a big reason why he loses my respect.

I agree cheating is cheating but any former pro cyclist will tell you before EPO, drugs had no real affect on performances, the best still won most times, the arrival of EPO changed that, it was capable of turning losers into champions.

We can look back all we want, the past aint gonna change, we just got to live with the current generation.

 

[md2020]

It's funny that we give the past riders a pass, rationalizing that it was done merely for surviving a grueling schedule. Once the majority of the peleton was into EPO and the like, average speeds increased so much that you could say that survival was still the goal for doping. Just ask Lemond. He didn't do it and he didn't survive.

 

[BigBoat]

noooo.. name begins with an L...

testosterone is fine..

.... so is Kenocort cortisone (triamcinolone).

 

[BigBoat]

It Once the majority of the peleton was into EPO and the like, average speeds increased so much that you could say that survival was still the goal for doping. Just ask Lemond. He didn't do it and he didn't survive.

I truly believe lemond new damn well not just what they were on but the effects too... He tried to race them and got his *** kicked every time! He could have done it after 91' and he choose not to do it which was an idiotic choice. If he'd done epo he would have won more Tours not a doubt...

You see he had a huge ego and actually thought he could race them without epo, which of course we know now is a joke.

Whether people believe it or not... It was still possible for a clean rider to win the Tour before the first epo Tour... There are clean pro riders today and there was in 1985... Just like there was in 1975 and so on... Thing is a clean rider then could be at the very top. A clean rider today wouldnt be top 50 overall in the world in Grand Tour stage races and probably would just DNF!

Eddie Merckx was twice positive and he was still ****ed over that many years on... He knew Dr. Ferrari well and he even introduced Lance Armstrong to Ferrari. Ferrari is a big guy in Europe and not many pros get to meet him... Cool of Merckx to get Ferrari to take on his buddy Lance in October 1995.

 

[franciep10]

I truly believe lemond new damn well not just what they were on but the effects too... He tried to race them and got his *** kicked every time! He could have done it after 91' and he choose not to do it which was an idiotic choice. If he'd done epo he would have won more Tours not a doubt...

You see he had a huge ego and actually thought he could race them without epo, which of course we know now is a joke.

Whether people believe it or not... It was still possible for a clean rider to win the Tour before the first epo Tour... There are clean pro riders today and there was in 1985... Just like there was in 1975 and so on... Thing is a clean rider then could be at the very top. A clean rider today wouldnt be top 50 overall in the world in Grand Tour stage races and probably would just DNF!

Eddie Merckx was twice positive and he was still ****ed over that many years on... He knew Dr. Ferrari well and he even introduced Lance Armstrong to Ferrari. Ferrari is a big guy in Europe and not many pros get to meet him... Cool of Merckx to get Ferrari to take on his buddy Lance in October 1995.

At first I thought you were a troll but know I know your a knowledgeable *** whivh is fine because most of here are assholes I'm one.

 

[BikeCentric]

as I said if Epo was around they would've taken it, to the clean riders in that era it was a performance increase

I don't disagree with you that they probably would have shot the stuff up if they had it. The point I was more trying to make was that the drugs that were around in those days didn't have nearly as much influence on a race as the more powerful stuff that's available now - before a clean rider could still win, now a clean rider gets dropped. So that's why the old greats get sort of a "pass" - we know they truly were great even if they were amphetamine or morphine junkies, they were still physically/mentally superior riders.

For me one the of bigger obstacles to enjoying the sport these days, morality issues aside, is just the fact that a lot of time sI am suspicious as to just how deserving of a win a rider is sometimes when we know how huge team doping programs can be - so sometimes it seems to be a crazy contest behind the nutty doctors in the background rather than the riders.

So yeah, TLDR version: the old greats DO get a pass because they simply didn't have access to drugs back then that were game changing like the drugs are now.

 

[davidg]

Armstrong and Pantani rode the Alpe d'Huez 10 minutes quicker than Hinault and LeMond in 1986. Training and equipment haven't changed that much to account for such a difference in performance between the top cyclists of their respective eras.

Are you really comparing rides from ~15 years apart, with no reference to conditions (wind, temperature), equipment, or type of race? Armstrong and Pantani rode Ad'H as a time trial, 1986 was at the end of a 163km mountain stage. Duh!

I think even I could get a 10 min difference in the two rides.

Still I suppose that is proof enough for some people.

 

[davidg]

In 1989 Lemond was clean....

In 1991 Lemond was clean...

What is your definition of clean. Are you really telling me that GL rode on water and multivitamins and nothing on the prescribed list ever passed his lips (or A##).

If so, he was probably the only grand Tour winner ever to do so.

So it doesn't matter if he was or wasn't on EPO (which for some is the definition of cheating), if he took something against the rules, then he cheated - full stop.

Maybe your (apparent) personal connections with GL prevent you from admitting this. Be careful when riding, as the blinkers may impede your view of that truck.

 

[jaylew]

Um, no, actually cheating in cycling actually involves ingesting illegal substances not just thinking about doing it.

I just thought about killing someone, is that the same as killing someone?

Tell that to Basso

 

[jaylew]

Um, no, actually cheating in cycling actually involves ingesting illegal substances not just thinking about doing it.

I just thought about killing someone, is that the same as killing someone?

Tell that to Basso