Do The Old Favourites Get a Pass

[tifosa]

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.

Speaking of "omerta", anyone have a problem equating doping in cycling to organized crime? Certainly with the rich history of doping, and a colorful cast of characters, parallels can be made with the Mafia. There's a reason Armstrong is called el patron, am I right?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

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##).

No connections to Greg, at all. Just believe he is genuine, and you hear it in his voice, the words he says. The way he fights against doping, more than any other cyclist in history. Maybe more than any other athlete in history. We need more people like Greg in cycling, not less. He also was never tied to anything, ever, and has numerous supporters who point out that he was indeed clean and a clean advocate his entire career. I believe him, and believe he rode his entire career clean.

While Hinault and Greg were slower up Alpe in 86, Pantani did not ride it in a TT. His fastest time was on a road stage after 203km in 1997, the year before "Le Tour Dopage". Marco, and Lance's times were about 22% faster than Lemond or Hinault, or Hererra, etc.

Cool of Merckx to get Ferrari to take on his buddy Lance in October 1995.

BigBoat - According to David Walsh and the reporters that tracked Ferrari and his clients, Lance started visiting him post cancer. No? I could be wrong, but please verify if you could. I don't have L2L in front of me.

Even after Ferrari was charged, Lance still defended him. It wasn't until his conviction (plea) that Lance said he wasn't welcome to Postal. Of course you are correct on your assertions to the benefits of blood doping.

As to cheating and then really cheating. Of course both are wrong. But shoplifting is wrong, and so is robbing a bank with a deadly weapon. Which are you more forgiving of? Which do you think warrants harsher judgment?

We could go around in circles here. Anyone here read Dostoevsky? How about Les Miserable?

 

[BikeCentric]

BigBoat - According to David Walsh and the reporters that tracked Ferrari and his clients, Lance started visiting him post cancer. No? I could be wrong, but please verify if you could. I don't have L2L in front of me.

Lance started seeing Ferari in 1995 according to L2L. Definitely just before cancer.

 

[davidg]

No connections to Greg, at all. .... We need more people like Greg in cycling, not less.

Pantani did not ride it in a TT.

Glad to hear it, for a moment I thought you might be GL - lol

Thanks for the correction on Pantani, I forgot.

I agree re people like GL, but IMO he would get more credence if he spoke more about doping in general and less about LA. Just makes it sound like sour grapes, especially when there is a backgoround of failed business ventures etc.

 

[slowoldman]

As to cheating and then really cheating. Of course both are wrong. But shoplifting is wrong, and so is robbing a bank with a deadly weapon. Which are you more forgiving of? Which do you think warrants harsher judgment?

They are both thieves.

 

[Leopejo]

They are both thieves.

Have you ever driven a car faster than speed limits?

Now imagine everybody drives faster than speed limits - and if you comply exactly with the 50 km/h or 30 mph limit there will soon be a queue of impatient drivers behind you probably honking at you.

Is that cheating? You don't consider it cheating if everybody does it and pressures you to do it. Is it perhaps dangerous? Not many drivers consider 60 km/h on a straight road more dangerous than 50; the only "danger" comes from a possible fine, that's why they look out for speed traps.

In the same fashion, not many cyclists consider a controlled intake of some drug more dangerous than not taking anything. The only "danger" comes from antidoping controls gone "wrong".

Now imagine you are late at an important meeting - and your job could depend on you being there on time. Do you still comply with those absurdly low limits?

Most pros are "late at that important meeting" every single day of their short career. Underperform and you are out - out of that world you sacrificed your life and your studies for.

 

[slowoldman]

You're comparing apples to oranges. It makes no sense. If you take ANYTHING that breaks the rules of competition with regard to performance enhancing it is cheating, plain and simple. It should be easily understood. I never said I didn't understand the pressure to do it.

If you take the standard down to it's bare essentials, the old guard cheated just as much as the riders of the new era. They all cheated if they doped, be it speed, testosterone or EPO. That is all I am saying, you all can argue semantics and details if you would like.

 

[Leopejo]

You're comparing apples to oranges. It makes no sense. If you take ANYTHING that breaks the rules of competition with regard to performance enhancing it is cheating, plain and simple. It should be easily understood. I never said I didn't understand the pressure to do it. :confused

Sorry if it makes no sense to you. Tell me, who are you cheating if *everybody* does it and *everybody* expects you to do it? That was the situation in the peloton a decade ago - I don't know about now.

Was Fausto Coppi cheating when he admitted candidly on Italian TV the following?

Question: Do cyclists take la bomba (amphetamine)?
Answer: Yes, and those who claim otherwise, it's not worth talking to them about cycling.
Question: And you, did you take la bomba?
Answer: Yes. Whenever it was necessary.
Question: And when was it necessary?
Answer: Almost all the time!

 

[BroDeal]

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.

Wow, I would hate to live in a country run by you. Murder: Life in prison. Mugging: Life in prison. Shoplifting: Life in prison. Speeding: Life in prison. Loitering: Life in prison.

Just as elapid mentions, black and white thinking is ridiculously simplistic and is a poor lens to view the world through. The reason why criminal sanctions vary is because society recognizes that not all criminals should be punished the same, not even for the same crime.

There is a big difference between an employee who sometimes takes home office supplies like pens and highlighters, one who takes home staplers and hole punches, and one who sets up a phantom supplier to embezzle money.

 

[davidg]

I thought I would add some perspective to this thread, without taking anything away from whether there are degrees of cheating.

Australia has just announced that they will start random drug testing of airline pilots.

So next time you are on a flight to Australia, reading the latest cycling copy about a failed control, just take a moment to wonder if the pilot is juiced.

Makes you think, doesn't it.

 

[Anonymous]

Makes you think, doesn't it.

not really....

do pilots do cera?

 

[Zoncolan]

Doping is doping. In that respect they should all be looked at the same.
Had they access to EPO the dopers of old would take it.

However, while in the old days you were able to compete against dopers and even beat them - Bartali, with the emergence of EPO it became impossible to even keep up with dopers on the climbs - LeMond. As Lucho Herrera said: when you see a bunch of fata$$es climbing like mountain goats, you know something is seriously wrong.

Do the old favorites get a pass? Yes they do. Should they? Some of them should. Why? Because they were honest about it.
Anquetil and Coppi never made secret of their drug use, while Merckx always mantained his innocence (even though he got caught 3 times).
Those who say Armstrong is better than Merckx are right, he is a better liar, the best that ever was.

 

[Leopejo]

Another reason for this difference is that old doping was seen as something more folkloristic than else, those little "secrets" that each rider had. One's secret was the amulet in his pocket, another's some wine during the stage, yet another's secret was "the bomb".

EPO changed the general view on doping not only because of its effectiveness, but because of its proclaimed dangers. People started hearing of young cyclists dying in their sleep, of champions waking up at night to exercise half an hour on a trainer, of needles and above all of blood. Blood has always been viewed with suspicion and reverence - something not to mess with if possible. While all doping products, injected or ingested, goes into your blood, EPO is seen specifically as blood doping.

And no, I am not saying that previous doping wasn't dangerous, just how I see popular views on it. And I could be wrong too.

 

[flyor64]

not really....

do pilots do cera?

I think the 'perspective' davidg was getting at...was that doping in cycling effects the cyclist, peleton, the sport, etc...

While as doping in aviation, albeit not CERA, effects alot of folks who have "put their lives in the hands" of a proffesional. They rightfully expect that professional to be just that...

If I'm reading your post wrong David, just chime in.

I read an article a few years back about two pilots (the Capt and 1st Officer, I believe) boarding their flight and some passengers smelling booze on them...which was later confirmed, and revealed that they had each been to the bar to "relax" before their flight. They were removed from the flight, grounded, later lost their licenses, and faced criminal charges I believe.

But it makes you wonder (which parallels nicely to the fight agains doping in cycliing), for every one caught, are there others that are getting away with it?

 

[Zoncolan]

Another reason for this difference is that old doping was seen as something more folkloristic than else, those little "secrets" that each rider had. One's secret was the amulet in his pocket, another's some wine during the stage, yet another's secret was "the bomb".

EPO changed the general view on doping not only because of its effectiveness, but because of its proclaimed dangers. People started hearing of young cyclists dying in their sleep, of champions waking up at night to exercise half an hour on a trainer, of needles and above all of blood. Blood has always been viewed with suspicion and reverence - something not to mess with if possible. While all doping products, injected or ingested, goes into your blood, EPO is seen specifically as blood doping.

And no, I am not saying that previous doping wasn't dangerous, just how I see popular views on it. And I could be wrong too.

I agree. There was something romantic about it. You had riders enjoying the fact they were racing dopers and able to beat them. All those comments Bahamontes made about liking the heat because the others couldn't take as much amphetamines. The same goes for Bartali. Unfortunately, LeMond got caught up in it too. Poor sod thought he could win clean like those greats before him just cause he was the best. How wrong he was. EPO changed everything.
As for the dangers of EPO, I think Alpe or BigBoat could help me out here.
How many young Dutch cyclists died in their sleep in the early 90's as a result (suspected) of EPO and blood transfusions?

 

[davidg]

If I'm reading your post wrong David, just chime in.

No, spot on

 

[franciep10]

This is the problem that I have with this now my son I'm trying to teach him right and wrong now I told him is that he shouldn't cheat no matter what so should I tell him it's okay to cheat If he just cheats a little so you can write a couple answers in your hand but don't bring the book in the exam, is that what some of you guys are saying. So 15 years from now when the new Magic Drug X comes into the peloton that Lance Armstrong gets a pass and all the other dopers from the epo era get's a pass because this drug get's bigger gains than EPO.

 

[tifosa]

It's what another poster said earlier, there is a "romance" associated with the history of cycling; part of that history is the doping which cannot be viewed independent of cycling. Cycling, with all its history, all those legends, all those epic rides, all those stunning defeats, that culture of Omerta: is due to doping.

Just as futbol is "the beautiful game", cycling is poetry in motion--a beautiful sport. Just don't lift the veil... You'll find Armstrong alongside Rumsas (Remember him? Shared a podium spot with Armstrong at the TdF several years ago?), Merckyx, Ullrich, Anquetil, Riis, Pantani, Kloden...

All riders with measurable greatness. As I said before, just don't look too far into their "gains" as you might not like how they were achieved.

 

[franciep10]

just trying to put this on top of the forum

 

[BigBoat]

Anquetil used stimulants but its a joke to say he doped in the same sentence as a post 91 Tour winner.

 

[slowoldman]

You all are having an argument I am not participating in. It seems francie, Zocolan and tifosa (and maybe a few others?) understand my position. At it's base it is cheating pure and simple, all of you who want to crucify the riders of the new era for using EPO are justifying your positions. Call it "romance", call it "more gains" call it whatever you want to, I call it cheating. Again, it is semantics you all are participating in.

As I asked in a previous post, do we justify levels of cheating now? Is it ok to cheat a little? It would seem that most say it is ok?

Bro Deal, I never said anything about punishments, you are reading into my words insinuations that don't exist. In your example, the thief who took paper clips and pens is just as much as a thief as the money manager, they've stolen. They are both thieves.

A question for you. Floyd was caught using testosterone. People here argue that it isn't as effective as EPO. Should Floyd be reinstated as champion of the 2006 Tour de France? He wasn't caught using EPO, or any other new wonder drug. From reading this thread I would assume some here may believe he is the true champion of the Tour as that would still allow the "clean" riders to be able to beat him.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The pilot story I know of is an Aeroflot captain who was drunk and removed before flight. Link here.

More than once pilots have fallen asleep at the controls though. Two pilots going into Denver, two guys to Hilo, etc. Scary thought.

Sorry for the diversion. Big Boat has more numbers and details than I on such specifics as to who died from EPO. I know there were some serious problems in cross country skiing from EPO and transfusions in the early 1990s. Before Tommy Simpson, a cyclist died in the 1960 Olympics, I believe from amphetamines.

Maybe I can move the argument forward a little. I think a lot of us are saying that the real problem isn't so much judging who took what, as much as the efficacy of EPO and how it seriously altered potential results. Names aside, that's what upsets a lot of fans, myself included.

 

[joe_papp]

,,,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.

So do you think that Cunego was doped in 2004 when he won the Giro? He's a great one-day racer, and I'll acknowledge a top-5 overall in the '07 Giro, but he's never replayed the stage-race "form" that won him the event, along w/ four stages.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think I can speak for BigBoat when he says no one finishes in the top 50 of a GT without doping. I'm not quite that jaded, but I can see why he is. I tend to view riders as to who is cleaner these days. Cunego, like Simoni, Evans, Sastre fall into that broad camp if I were forced to guess. Are any top GC riders completely clean? Who knows? I guess that's why we have message forums.

Peculiar screen name there Joe. Don't know if I'd pick that, unless you're him. If you are, you're welcome to stick around. Well, you're welcome to stick around even if you're not, actually!

Carry on.

 

[tifosa]

Anquetil used stimulants but its a joke to say he doped in the same sentence as a post 91 Tour winner.

You just did.