Do The Old Favourites Get a Pass

[Anonymous]

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.

And to follow on from Alpe d'Huez, if that really is Joe - welcome back to Cyclingnews. Be very interesting to hear your insights on this subject, given that you have admitted first-hand experience.

 

[tifosa]

Slowoldman, I agree with you.
Any form of illicit medical practice,
any form of ingestion/application/administration or off-label use of pharmaceutical or blood products,
any form of ill gotten gains,
anything that conflicts with UCI and cycling rules and regs,
is cheating.

Doesn't matter who did it, what they did, when they did it, where they did it, how they did it, or why they did it. They did it.

In my mind, those who dope(d) have an asterisk next to their name.

And no public sporting figure has a right to cry foul when the fans are outraged by their selfish pursuits and actions. Still, they do. Crybabies - the lot of them. Yes, Landis too.

 

[elapid]

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.

Duh! Some people should get their history correct. Pantani's record time was during the 13th stage of the 1997 TdF (at the end of 204 km). Yes, Armstrong's best time was during a time trial, but he also has the fourth fastest time in stage 10 of the 2001 TdF, a 209 km stage, only 25 seconds slower than his time trial time. So the comparison still stands - 9' 30" to 10' 00" difference between the best riders of their time, after similar mountain stages (163 km v 204-209 km), are BIG time differences. Also interesting to see the top 10 best times - notice anything interesting?

These are the fastest times on Alpe d'Huez (*, time trial):

37' 35''; 1997; Marco Pantani
37' 36''; 2004; Lance Armstrong*
38' 00''; 1997; Marco Pantani
38' 01''; 2001; Lance Armstrong
38' 04''; 1995; Marco Pantani
38' 23''; 1997; Jan Ullrich
38' 34"; 2006; Floyd Landis
38' 35"; 2006; Andreas Kloden
38' 37"; 2004; Jan Ullrich*
39' 02"; 1997; Richard Virenque

 

[davidg]

Apples and Pears

Pantani's record time was during the 13th stage of the 1997 TdF (at the end of 204 km).

Stand corrected on Pantani and note the top riders, but I still stand by what I say that you are comparing apples with pears. There are a lot of factors which dictate what happens at the end of the stage. Since most attacks generally happen at least halfway up the mountain (10km) that means that 95% of the stage has already been ridden and plenty of factors affect a road race even more so than a TT.

Of interest is that Coppi went 2'38" quicker than Hinault and Lemond, proving categorically that doping became less effective between 1952 and 1986 - maybe. (the time is of course not electronic and is suspect as are most before 1994)

There is also considerable discussion about where the start point of the climb was over the years since it has moved and the climb varies in length by some 700m. Official timing has only been in place since 1994.

Interestingly, Armstrongs times are fast in 2001, 2004. In 2003 he was over 3 minutes slower beaten for 2 minutes by Mayo, so clearly he either didn't dope that year or didn't take as much as Mayo.

If you look at some of the times posted on sites such as Cycle2max, you will see a number of average riders getting under 50 minutes also. Clearly a case for dope testing cycle-tourists.

Yes we know that EPO and other PED has increased race speed, but you don't seem to be letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[BroDeal]

There has been an effort of late by Armstrong fans to equate dope use by riders of an earlier era to Armstrong's dope use. There seems to be a steady progression. It started out as, "Armstrong is clean." Progressed to, "Since it seems like everyone else was doping, so Armstrong probably did to." Then on to, " It was a level playing field." Now they are at the stage of, "Hey, it does not matter because this old timer used amphetamines." It will be interesing to see where they go next.

The bottom line is that a rider like Merckx would have won the TdF in a totally clean peloton. Armstrong would never have cracked the top ten. That is the difference. That is what I believe, and that is why the dope use of the last twenty years is different.

 

[slowoldman]

There has been an effort of late by Armstrong fans to equate dope use by riders of an earlier era to Armstrong's dope use. There seems to be a steady progression. It started out as, "Armstrong is clean." Progressed to, "Since it seems like everyone else was doping, so Armstrong probably did to." Then on to, " It was a level playing field." Now they are at the stage of, "Hey, it does not matter because this old timer used amphetamines." It will be interesing to see where they go next.

The bottom line is that a rider like Merckx would have won the TdF in a totally clean peloton. Armstrong would never have cracked the top ten. That is the difference. That is what I believe, and that is why the dope use of the last twenty years is different.

Let's not turn this into another Armstrong hate/love thread, you are blinded by your abject hatred of the man. This is about doping and the riders of another era. If they doped, they cheated. (Armstrong/EPO=cheated, Anquetil/amphetamines=cheated, etc.)

 

[franciep10]

Let's not turn this into another Armstrong hate/love thread, you are blinded by your abject hatred of the man. This is about doping and the riders of another era. If they doped, they cheated. (Armstrong/EPO=cheated, Anquetil/amphetamines=cheated, etc.)

That's my point technological advancements are going to give riders a better way to cheat so at the time amphetamines were the best available at that time, and the thing about armstrong is yeah he was on epo and he won so he is the best rider of the epo era just like barry bonds is the best player of the steroid era in baseball so I consider both to be the best of that time. I give the guy his props he beat all of the riders on epo and also the fact that maybe we should start calling him the teflon Don instead of Gotti because the guy is bullet proof. Everybody has gone down except him now that's impressive

 

[BroDeal]

Let's not turn this into another Armstrong hate/love thread, you are blinded by your abject hatred of the man. This is about doping and the riders of another era. If they doped, they cheated. (Armstrong/EPO=cheated, Anquetil/amphetamines=cheated, etc.)

There you go again: Trying to equate the two.

 

[hmronnow]

but if EPO was around in Eddy's time he would've used it

This argument reappeared several times through this thread. The discusisons on other aspects of OPs post aside, this is a very peculiar way of judging people. Had someone been able to cheat, he would have - therefore guilty?

As to the cheating-is-cheating ideology, I do not know a sinlge sport where every rule in the rule-book are obeyed. So according to your ideology everyone is a cheat. Take football. There is some limit fo how many steps the goalie may take with the ball in his hands - they very often take more. Is it punished with penalty kick? No - why? Because taking a few more steps efore kickig the ball up midfield has absolutely no effect on the game.
Take cycling: it is not allowed to hold on the the team car. I am convinced that every rider has done this at some point in his career - but except in rare cases in situations where it had no effect on the outcome of the race. this to say that if you apply black-white ideology, nothing remains.

The list of banned substances that define doping is not complete nor perfect. It is updated according to what means can be used to enhance performance and change outcome in a way that is not intended by the spirit of the sport.
this is far from black and white. Drinkin water on a mountain stage in the pyrenees most certainly helps performance, but should not be considered doping. A shot of espresso in the morning helps get rid of breakfast before the race starts - not doping. Caffeine has been on the banned substance list, and riders have been charged for too much caffeine in the blood. But some time ago I read that it got taken off the list because research showed it had no or little effect (I don't know current status). (Incidentially, there was an uproar from a couple of scientists researching into performance effects of caffein - they motivation: if taken of the banned substance list they would have a hard time getting grants to continue their studies...)

 

[slowoldman]

There you go again: Trying to equate the two.

Tell me then, if you take something against the rules to improve your performance what is it?

And I noticed you all ignored my Landis question, except tifosa.

 

[Snake8]

The bottom line is that a rider like Merckx would have won the TdF in a totally clean peloton. Armstrong would never have cracked the top ten. That is the difference. That is what I believe, and that is why the dope use of the last twenty years is different.

Would, could, should - as you admit it is simply your opinion and we all know opinions are like a$$hol3s, everyone has one. You should recognize your opinion for what it is and not treat it as fact because you believe it. The fact is that Eddy cheated and got caught twice. The fact is that Armstrong has been caught once but was exonerated. Those are facts. The rest is your opinion and is worth what you paid for it.

 

[BroDeal]

Would, could, should - as you admit it is simply your opinion and we all know opinions are like a$$hol3s, everyone has one. You should recognize your opinion for what it is and not treat it as fact because you believe it. The fact is that Eddy cheated and got caught twice. The fact is that Armstrong has been caught once but was exonerated. Those are facts. The rest is your opinion and is worth what you paid for it.

The fact is that Armstrong tested positive for EPO six times.

The fact is that until Armstrong tested positive for EPO, he never came remotely close to spitting distance of a stone's throw of winning the TdF.

 

[franciep10]

The fact is that Armstrong tested positive for EPO six times.

The fact is that until Armstrong tested positive for EPO, he never came remotely close to spitting distance of a stone's throw of winning the TdF.

Listen Bro were not talking about armstrong here all I'm saying is that you and some other posters are saying that it was okay for the older riders to cheat because they only cheated a little, next so in 15 years when some other drug comes out that gives better results are the riders of the epo era going to get a pass too. as for lance he is the best rider of the epo era and if everybody cheated then it's ridiculous to say that he wasn't the best rider, even though he doped.

 

[rapistwit]

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.

How do you know Lemond was clean? I find your assertion dubious at best.
I have heard many allegations of Lemond not being the pure soul you're portraying him as. And frankly I think he's kind of a professsional whiner.
Dont you find the that fact he went from barely being able to ride at a professional level throughout most of the 1989 Giro to Winning the Tour de France and Worlds a little suspicious? I do. I think he pulled a Floyd Landis.

Doping was a serious problem pre 1990. Don't make excuses.

 

[rapistwit]

The fact is that Armstrong tested positive for EPO six times.

The fact is that until Armstrong tested positive for EPO, he never came remotely close to spitting distance of a stone's throw of winning the TdF.

That's a fact? Hmmmm. Funny he's never been booted from cycling based on that "fact".

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I have heard many allegations of Lemond not being the pure soul you're portraying him as.

Links please.

 

[rapistwit]

Links please.

I have heard it first hand.

 

[BigBoat]

Let's not turn this into another Armstrong hate/love thread, you are blinded by your abject hatred of the man. This is about doping and the riders of another era. If they doped, they cheated. (Armstrong/EPO=cheated, Anquetil/amphetamines=cheated, etc.)

Bro they were busted and suspended then and they are now.

Eddie merckx (TWICE POSITIVE!!) still resents the system to this day and he even hooked his buddy Lance up with Dr. Ferrari (the guru of the gurus).
Okay maybe Chechini is as good but the rider's he worked with were alternative talents that were not absolute freak responders to drug therapy like Lance is.

 

[Nevermind]

I have heard it first hand.

I have heard first hand that Lance eat babies. See what I did there???

 

[rapistwit]

I have heard first hand that Lance eat babies. See what I did there???

I suggest you take your medication and go to bed.

 

[BigBoat]

Stand corrected on Pantani and note the top riders, but I still stand by what I say that you are comparing apples with pears. There are a lot of factors which dictate what happens at the end of the stage. Since most attacks generally happen at least halfway up the mountain (10km) that means that 95% of the stage has already been ridden and plenty of factors affect a road race even more so than a TT.

Of interest is that Coppi went 2'38" quicker than Hinault and Lemond, proving categorically that doping became less effective between 1952 and 1986 - maybe. (the time is of course not electronic and is suspect as are most before 1994)



If you look at some of the times posted on sites such as Cycle2max, you will see a number of average riders getting under 50 minutes also. Clearly a case for dope testing cycle-tourists.

Yes we know that EPO and other PED has increased race speed, but you don't seem to be letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

It takes 5.1 watts per kilo up that thing for 49 minutes nonstop to crack 50 on that thing... Lance would never beat 50 minutes totally clean. Thats climb's a brute!

Lemond/ Hinault in 86' would have gone a ****load faster if it was a TT or if they were chasing eachother with separation...

In 1989 Fingon rode a 41:50 and this was without EPO or blood doping. Fingon was super talented and atleast as strong as Hinault at his peak. Fingon was a true talent, one of the last fairly clean true talents of cycling pre-epo Tour of 1991.

The talented cyclo tourists (there are MANY talented guys that can get under 50 minutes clean by the way >> an 82 Vo2 max Lance's highest ever undoped is not that high in relation to top 5-10% of guys) probably were strait up FRESH with no 200 km stage beforehand. Many were also TTing for a fast time bros. And some probably didnt eat breakfast and made sure to pee beforehand lol.

 

[Nevermind]

Let's be honest here. As of now, I think it's safe to assume every rider in the pro peloton is on some kind of PED. Wether or not they get caught, that is another story. Is it right that they are? Absolutly not. There will probably never be anything close to an even playing field in cycling. unless they make 2 TDF. One for the doped riders, without any testing, and one for the clean riders, where every test is being conducted on everyone (whatever, that ain't gonna happen...).

I don't know how to react to X rider tested positive anymore. They are all doping, they should all get caught... I try to just enjoy the show now and try not to take it to hardly when a rider I like test positive.

 

[Nevermind]

I suggest you take your medication and go to bed.

Your argument was pretty weak, just wanted to expose that fact. That being said, I'm perfectly sane and I don't need medication.

 

[rapistwit]

Your argument was pretty weak, just wanted to expose that fact. That being said, I'm perfectly sane and I don't need medication.

How was it weak? First hand seems to be more relevant than seondhand internet links.

 

[BigBoat]

How do you know Lemond was clean? I find your assertion dubious at best.
I have heard many allegations of Lemond not being the pure soul you're portraying him as. And frankly I think he's kind of a professsional whiner.
Dont you find the that fact he went from barely being able to ride at a professional level throughout most of the 1989 Giro to Winning the Tour de France and Worlds a little suspicious? I do. I think he pulled a Floyd Landis.

Doping was a serious problem pre 1990. Don't make excuses.

Rapisttwit, Brodeal, Alp, etc listen: Lemond I find it hard to believe had been totally clean but he was rather close... Corticoids (anti-inflamation medication) was the biggest weapon pre-1991. He might have used corticoids out of simply not knowing it was doping and having his "team" convince him it was okay. He might have used them more often than we believe.

It was STILL possible in the 1980s for a clean freak to win the Tour because dopers of that age only had HGH from dead bodies, testosterone, and corticoids to dope with. None of these drugs increased oxygen carrying capacity and definitely they did not see much threshold power gains from these drugs. But corticoids will allow you to pound harder day after day. Blood doping was used in 1984 but it failed to catch on mainly because the lack of logistical capabilities and the fact that the effect of a jacked crit was not understood outside a limited circle (conconi, his buddies.)

Upon the advent of EPO in the Tour (1991) it became impossible for anyone to win the Tour without EPO and by the time the whole Tour field did it (1992) any clean rider no matter how talented would have been dropped or outside top 50. maybe, MAYBE it would be possible for a clean rider at their very very peak to sneak in top 50-75 places.

Lemond truly missed epo boat in 1991... But later he said he knew damn well immediately after getting his *** handed to him and was told what happend. He knew what epo could do but he continued to try and race without epo though 1994.

It was truly bizzare bros and I really believe after 92 Lemond was the only top European pro not doing epo.