Doping in XC skiing

[Von Mises]

In the 90's it is a fact that the norwegians had far superior skis than all other nations, which probably is the biggest reason why they were competitive during the worst EPO years. Sweden didn't have a chance during those years.

Bente Skari dominated after the ski advantage was gone, but still during the years where doping as much as you want were practised. (The possibility of getting caught wasn't really a factor until Lahti 2001 when testing started to improve) She is the norwegian I suspect the most of doping by far. The only reasons I can think of that she was clean and could beat really big(and proven) dopers, was that her classical technique was perfect(I think best of all time, men and women) and far better than all competitors, and that the competitors was much closer to beat her during the important competitions (olympics and championships) than during the regular world cup races. But it is still a stretch.

Norwegian olympic champion Erling Jevne said yesterday (already after news that Veerpalu was caught), that Veerpalu had best classical technique what he has ever seen. So, the fact that you have best techinque, that you are hard worker and you are very talented, does not mean that you are not doper.

And yes, norwegians generaly had and have good skies, but to say that they had far superior skis, is BS.

 

[Ingenerius]

Sorry but that huge ski advantage thing is bull****.

It is now, but for a 4-5 year period in the 90's it wasn't. When you're the only one who grinds the skis, and then the only one with the expertise you do get an advantage.

Even today when the ski technology is very matured, differences in skis is a huge factor for the result. Bad skis and you don't have a chance, like with the swedes for half the championship in Oslo.

 

[RdBiker]

It is now, but for a 4-5 year period in the 90's it wasn't. When you're the only one who grinds the skis, and then the only one with the expertise you do get an advantage.

Even today when the ski technology is very matured, differences in skis is a huge factor for the result. Bad skis and you don't have a chance, like with the swedes for half the championship in Oslo.

When you talk about TODAY's skis most of the top skiers have their own ski sponsors so that athletes from different nations have the SAME skis - the difference comes from national waxing teams.

If you compare top-notch skis (waxing is right on the mark) and poor skis (poor wax choice) YES the difference is big (2-3mins/10km for example) but I find it hard to believe that the Norwegians always got the waxing right and everyone else failed all the time. I haven't head of them having a superior ski/wax type for such a long period of time. They might have had a new innovative ski for one-two seasons tops before the other nations caught up.

BTW What do you mean by:

And norwegians do lose when the dopers dope as shown by Heikkinen in the world championships.

I've heard of no accusations of Heikkinen doping. Why does Heikkinen dope but Roenning is clean?

(Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Heikkinen is clean. I just don't see why he dopes but Roenning doesn't...)

 

[Cloxxki]

I've heard of no accusations of Heikkinen doping. Why does Heikkinen dope but Roenning is clean?

(Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Heikkinen is clean. I just don't see why he dopes but Roenning doesn't...)

Well, Heikkinen is the one winning. When he does, he seems to be the only guy not tired from the whole race they just did. It's a different kind of sprint than Northug's, much more prolonged. Like a prologue at the end of a race.
It's true that if Northug can be possibly considered clean, for only having an exceptional finish and intermediate sprint, Heikkinen might be considered clean and just having a special gift to keep large reserves of power for a few-minute burst to the line. To me though, Heikkinen gives me more moral creeps than some others.
I'll just add that Heikkinen also scored big in interval start races, asking for optimal VO2max power output more than sprint speed.

 

[Trond Vidar]

When you talk about TODAY's skis most of the top skiers have their own ski sponsors so that athletes from different nations have the SAME skis - the difference comes from national waxing teams.

If you compare top-notch skis (waxing is right on the mark) and poor skis (poor wax choice) YES the difference is big (2-3mins/10km for example) but I find it hard to believe that the Norwegians always got the waxing right and everyone else failed all the time. I haven't head of them having a superior ski/wax type for such a long period of time. They might have had a new innovative ski for one-two seasons tops before the other nations caught up.

BTW What do you mean by:


I've heard of no accusations of Heikkinen doping. Why does Heikkinen dope but Roenning is clean?

(Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Heikkinen is clean. I just don't see why he dopes but Roenning doesn't...)

It wasn't the wax, it was the birth of stone grinding the skis in the early 90's. Only the Norwegians knew the skill at the time, and kept the lid closed for as long as they could.

 

[maltiv]

Well, Heikkinen is the one winning. When he does, he seems to be the only guy not tired from the whole race they just did. It's a different kind of sprint than Northug's, much more prolonged. Like a prologue at the end of a race.
It's true that if Northug can be possibly considered clean, for only having an exceptional finish and intermediate sprint, Heikkinen might be considered clean and just having a special gift to keep large reserves of power for a few-minute burst to the line. To me though, Heikkinen gives me more moral creeps than some others.
I'll just add that Heikkinen also scored big in interval start races, asking for optimal VO2max power output more than sprint speed.

You can't judge whether someone are clean or not by how tired they look, that's one of the most stupid and ignorant assumptions you can make. Even if doped you're still able to give it all you have and get as exhausted as anyone who is clean. Some people just don't look tired even when completely exhausted while others look like they're constantly getting tortured (Chris Anker Sørensen for example).

The form of the Norwegians in this worlds really made me stop believing in most of them, it was ridiculous how much better many of them were than they had been earlier in the season.

 

[RdBiker]

Well, Heikkinen is the one winning. When he does, he seems to be the only guy not tired from the whole race they just did. It's a different kind of sprint than Northug's, much more prolonged. Like a prologue at the end of a race.
It's true that if Northug can be possibly considered clean, for only having an exceptional finish and intermediate sprint, Heikkinen might be considered clean and just having a special gift to keep large reserves of power for a few-minute burst to the line. To me though, Heikkinen gives me more moral creeps than some others.
I'll just add that Heikkinen also scored big in interval start races, asking for optimal VO2max power output more than sprint speed.

Did we watch the same race? Heikkinen looked ok when he crossed the finish line but when the camera came back to him he looked like he was going to die. He lay his face towards the ground for maybe five minutes and had to be walked off the finishing area by two other guys.

http://yle.fi/ecepic/neon3/archive/00387/Heikkinen_auttajatP_387944b.jpg
He seems to be the one in the middle.

You didn't answer my question about Roenning: why do you consider him to be clean but not Heikkinen?

 

[Cloxxki]

When I say "not looking tired" I mean "skiing like a bat out of hell". Hard breathing and funny faces are possible symbols, not proof of fatigue.
If you're fatigued, you don't ski away from a field just as eager as you to win.

 

[RdBiker]

It wasn't the wax, it was the birth of stone grinding the skis in the early 90's. Only the Norwegians knew the skill at the time, and kept the lid closed for as long as they could.

I was referring to today's skis (that's why I wrote it in capital letters) since I don't know what innovations in skiing have happened in the early 90s. Still, I'd think the waxing played the biggest role (regarding skis) even back then. I'm also skeptical of the Norwegians being the only ones who knew of stone grinding for longer than a few seasons.

It doesn't help convince me that EPO became widespread in sports at the same time...

 

[Bavarianrider]

It is now, but for a 4-5 year period in the 90's it wasn't. When you're the only one who grinds the skis, and then the only one with the expertise you do get an advantage.

Even today when the ski technology is very matured, differences in skis is a huge factor for the result. Bad skis and you don't have a chance, like with the swedes for half the championship in Oslo.

Of course skies are very very important and make a huge difference. But it's simply not true that Norwegians had such a huge advantage for 5 years or something. This argument is only brought up by Norwegians themself.

 

[Ingenerius]

I was referring to today's skis (that's why I wrote it in capital letters) since I don't know what innovations in skiing have happened in the early 90s. Still, I'd think the waxing played the biggest role (regarding skis) even back then. I'm also skeptical of the Norwegians being the only ones who knew of stone grinding for longer than a few seasons.

It doesn't help convince me that EPO became widespread in sports at the same time...

The advantage was not in the grip waxing or the glide waxing, but in the structure of the ski sole which gave better glide. They were the only ones who knew of/used stone grinding for a few seasons, and then had the lead on the expertise on grinding for a few more seasons, since the nuances on grinding and snow is not easy to master.

Of course, if one don't accept the notion that the norwegians had consistently better skis, I too think it is impossible for them to have been clean during those years. However, if the norwegians also doped I can't understand how this team: Maurilio De Zolt, Marco Albarello, Giorgio Vanzetta, Silvio Fauner, including the then 43! year old De Zolt could keep up with this team on the relay in 94: Sture Sivertsen, Vegard Ulvang, Thomas Alsgaard, Bjørn Dæhlie

Heikkinen is famously inconsistent and generally pretty poor actually, but consistently overperforms in important competitions. Including the bronze medal in Liberec just behind Veerpalu and Bauer in a very very doped race. The whole finnish team for men was a bit fishy in Oslo, especially Lallukka. They did have quite good skis though.

And, even though this really is a bit stupid and childish reasoning, how a skiier like Heikkinen without artificial aid can beat Rønning in classical when Rønning obviously is in the form of his life, is for me inconcievable. So Rønning must be clean, since he would crush Heikkinen with the same artificial aid . I do think Rickardsson would have won though if he had had good skis.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So basically, it comes down to how talented you think they are without the dope without knowing whether somebody's on it or not?

That's the same argument that leads to the "Cadel is clean but everybody else in the GC dopes" circular nonsense that just frustrates.

We cannot prove that the Norwegians were or are doping, but it's also naïve to believe that what goes for one goes for the whole nation. There likely have been Norwegians who've charged, and others who haven't. Just like every other nation.

 

[Ingenerius]

Norwegian olympic champion Erling Jevne said yesterday (already after news that Veerpalu was caught), that Veerpalu had best classical technique what he has ever seen. So, the fact that you have best techinque, that you are hard worker and you are very talented, does not mean that you are not doper.

And yes, norwegians generaly had and have good skies, but to say that they had far superior skis, is BS.

I actually don't agree with Jevne that Veerpalu had an exceptional classical technique compared to others. It was good though. Bauer has an exceptional classical technique i think. I completely agree that it is not a good argument for doper or not. It is just a clutching at straws explanation for Skari.

The exclusive use of stone grinding is a fact so far superior depends on how much better skis you believe that would give. This, although it is a fact, is not very well documented, which is why I guess only norwegians bring it up since they are the only ones who knows it. And of course since it is the only way norwegians can explain how the norwegians could possibly be clean in those years.

 

[Ingenerius]

So basically, it comes down to how talented you think they are without the dope without knowing whether somebody's on it or not?

That's the same argument that leads to the "Cadel is clean but everybody else in the GC dopes" circular nonsense that just frustrates.

We cannot prove that the Norwegians were or are doping, but it's also naïve to believe that what goes for one goes for the whole nation. There likely have been Norwegians who've charged, and others who haven't. Just like every other nation.

Well, yes kind of, and I completely agree that that line of reasoning is stupid. I also agree with the last paragraph.

A better argument would be that Heikkinen have never shown a normal and natural development of form that can lead to delivering performances at that level. He was not at all considered a threat for the 15km based on his performances leading up to Oslo while it was certain that Rønning would be a top contender.

Veerpalu was much the same and the reason people had him as a favourite for races in championships was not that he had showed any form, but because people knew he would dope for those races.

 

[Walkman]

Many people keep saying that the only reason the Norwegians won all those medals in the 90's is because of the stone grinding but how would the stone grinding explain tha fact that every Norweigan skier who won a medal in the 1995 World Championships had a HB of over 17,5 g/l? They wouldn't even be allowed to start today because of the 170 g/l rule.

"Prof Bengt Saltin, who has been following the skiing scene for many years, always gives some nice examples of these facts in his talks. I particularly remember one slide, where he showed that in the 1995 skiing world championships, there were some skiers with Haemoglobin concentrations of 20-21g/dl, all medal winners had Hb´s above 17.5 g/dl. (the normal range for a male athlete is around 15 g/dl)."

This is quite interesting, especially if we take a look at this:

"Hemoglobin data have been available from ski teams beginning from 1987, and from 1989 to 1999 we have followed hemoglobin values in elite cross-country skiers in international competitions. The mean values at the 1989 World Nordic Ski Championships were lower than population reference values, as would be expected from plasma volume expansion associated with endurance training. However, an increase, particularly in the maximal values, became obvious in 1994 and rose further in 1996. These extreme values provide both a health risk to the individual athlete and unfair competition. After a rule limiting hemoglobin values was introduced, the drop of the highest values was remarkable: among men 15 g/l (0.23 mmol/l) and among women 42 g/l (0.65 mmol/l). It would appear that the rule had achieved its goal of limiting extreme hemoglobin values. Yet the mean hemoglobin concentrations in men and women have continued to rise, suggesting the continued use of artificial methods to increase total hemoglobin mass."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10755280

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010002098.x/abstract

 

[python]

@ walkman

most of hemoglobin data by fis from the late 80s and early 90s is almost useless considering the changes made later...it was collected AFTER races on severely dehydrated skiers. however, this shortfall was corrected.

current fis blood data is a serious effort. how it relates to 'norwegians and swedes never dope' we can only speculate.

 

[Ingenerius]

Wow, didn't remember that Norway did so poorly in thunder bay 95. I remember the hilarious snow conditions though, and some broken skis for the norwegians. The athletes actually ran over gazoline and branches during the race to try to clean the skis The warm temperature may have contributed to even more dehydrated athletes after the races also to explain the unusual high values across the field. But there sure was a lot of people with nice oxygen filled blood there. Podiums like these look alot like the TDF podiums we are so used to :



10 km + 15 km combined pursuit
March 13, 1995
Medal Athlete Time
Gold Vladimir Smirnov (KAZ) 1:06:19.5
Silver Silvio Fauner (ITA) 1:06:29.7
Bronze Jari Isometsä (FIN) 1:06:30.0





5 km classical
March 12, 1995
Medal Athlete Time
Gold Larisa Lazutina (RUS) 15:23.7
Silver Nina Gavrilyuk (RUS) 15:47.1
Bronze Manuela Di Centa (ITA) 15:57.8

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

This is an interesting fella in the sports history from a doping perspective for more than one reason.

Eero Mäntyranta

He is the first Finnish sportsman to have tested positive for doping. At the 1972 national championships, his tests showed use of amphetamine, but the result was hushed up. After the Sapporo Winter Olympics, the fact came to light but was and has been denied by Mäntyranta. Later Mäntyranta has admitted to using hormones, which during his sports career were not yet prohibited. Mäntyranta has primary familial and congenital polycythemia (PFCP) causing increase in red blood cell mass and hemoglobin due to a mutation in the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) gene, which was identified following a DNA study done on over 200 members of his family, as reported in 1993.[1] This condition results in an increase of up to 50% in the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a large advantage when participating in endurance events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_Mäntyranta

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

How about Antje Misersky?

She began her career as cross country skier and was a member of the East German team that won the 4 x 5 km bronze medal at the 1985 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships in Seefeld. When her father, Henner Misersky, who worked as a trainer of the East-German team until 1985 refused to give steroid substances to his daughter and other team members he was fired in 1985. Antje Misersky was then put under pressure and had to end her career in the GDR.[1]

In 1989, she started biathlon. At the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, she won the gold medal in 15 km individual and two silvers in the 7.5 km sprint and in the 3 x 7.5 km. At the 1994 Winter Olympics at Lillehammer she won another relay silver medal (4 x 7.5 km). Harvey also won two medals in the relay at the World Championships (1995: gold, 1991: bronze).

For her refusal to take part in the systematic doping in the GDR Antje Harvey received the Heidi-Krieger-Medal in 1995 in Berlin. The Heidi-Krieger-Medal is a prize of the association Doping-Opfer-Hilfe from Germany.

 

[RdBiker]

However, if the norwegians also doped I can't understand how this team: Maurilio De Zolt, Marco Albarello, Giorgio Vanzetta, Silvio Fauner, including the then 43! year old De Zolt could keep up with this team on the relay in 94: Sture Sivertsen, Vegard Ulvang, Thomas Alsgaard, Bjørn Dæhlie

Heikkinen is famously inconsistent and generally pretty poor actually, but consistently overperforms in important competitions. Including the bronze medal in Liberec just behind Veerpalu and Bauer in a very very doped race. The whole finnish team for men was a bit fishy in Oslo, especially Lallukka. They did have quite good skis though.

And, even though this really is a bit stupid and childish reasoning, how a skiier like Heikkinen without artificial aid can beat Rønning in classical when Rønning obviously is in the form of his life, is for me inconcievable. So Rønning must be clean, since he would crush Heikkinen with the same artificial aid . I do think Rickardsson would have won though if he had had good skis.

I see... So because Roenning is just better than Heikkinen he can't be doping

As well as the Norwegian team, which was obviously much better than the Italians. Doping probably gave 10-15% advantage back then but the Norwegians were just that 15% better than everyone else
And by the way, I completely understand that no skier can be a credible member of a relay team at the age 43. (Armstrong at 38 could finish 3rd in the Tour, but no one can make a credible relay team in X-country skiing at +40...)

Its easy being better when your doped to the gills

 

[Ingenerius]

I see... So because Roenning is just better than Heikkinen he can't be doping

As well as the Norwegian team, which was obviously much better than the Italians. Doping probably gave 10-15% advantage back then but the Norwegians were just that 15% better than everyone else
And by the way, I completely understand that no skier can be a credible member of a relay team at the age 43. (Armstrong at 38 could finish 3rd in the Tour, but no one can make a credible relay team in X-country skiing at +40...)

Its easy being better when your doped to the gills

Yes, the argument is that Roenning is a better skier than Heikkinen, so for Heikkinen to beat him, when Roenning is in the form of his life at least implies that Heikkinen dopes a lot more than Roenning. I have agreed that the argument is not really constructive.

Armstrong full of dope and still cooperating with ferrarri couldn't win anymore at 38 and for a 43 year old to be competitive in X-country against opponents that are doped to the gills is nothing short of incredible.

He was competitive against other confirmed dopers at the time also though, so De Zolt really must have taken doping to a new level or been a super super responder. His perfomances are quite amazingly good actually, chapeau to him.

It is obvious that no one could compete during that time without dope or other advantages. No one is naturally 10-15% better. I argue that the advantage for the Norwegians came from better skis. I think it also was an unfair adavantage much like dope since the technology wasn't known by or available for others.

If they didn't have better skis I think they doped unlike the swedes who couldn't compete at all during that time.

 

[python]

very surprised that none of our nordic skiing fans linked to one of the most significant doping trials in the recent xc skiing history taking place right now.

New Trial Indicates Extensive Finnish Doping
http://fasterskier.com/2011/04/new-trial-indicates-extensive-finnish-doping/

for a small xc skiing community, this could be as significant as operation puerto (but with the opposite attitude of the host nation).

an explanatory note for non-skiers.

6 members of the finnish xc skiing team in 2001 failed a (novel and secret then) test for hes - hydroxyethyl starch - a blood doping masking substance.

this is the same test that busted 2010 vuelta runnerup mosquera and his xacobeo galicia teammate david garcia da pena.

 

[Ney the Viking]

Thanks Python, that has not reached any of the Danish newsoutlets.

 

[Ingenerius]

very surprised that none of our nordic skiing fans linked to one of the most significant doping trials in the recent xc skiing history taking place right now.

New Trial Indicates Extensive Finnish Doping
http://fasterskier.com/2011/04/new-trial-indicates-extensive-finnish-doping/

for a small xc skiing community, this could be as significant as operation puerto (but with the opposite attitude of the host nation).

.

It is pretty obvious and quite well known by now that the finnish doping program was extensive, so I guess that's why the trial hasn't gotten much coverage or attention. Nothing new.

If it uncovered that finnish doping also continued after 2001(especially thinking about Kuitunen and Saarinen), it would create a lot more controversy. Crossing fingers

 

[Cloxxki]

It is pretty obvious and quite well known by now that the finnish doping program was extensive, so I guess that's why the trial hasn't gotten much coverage or attention. Nothing new.

If it uncovered that finnish doping also continued after 2001(especially thinking about Kuitunen and Saarinen), it would create a lot more controversy. Crossing fingers

I didn't dig into it, but doesn't it smell a bit like exposing outdated offenses to keep attention away from what's going on in Finnish skiing NOW?