Doping: the fans fault?

[tifosa]

It does

Yes, indeed.

 

[The GCW]

But of course:

I confess, He did it.

 

[slcbiker]

There's an awful lot of looking through gauze at the relatively recent past going on here.

Do you all really think that things were that much cleaner in the Hinault/Lemond days? I remember blood boosting issues in the 1984 Olympics in LA.

Going back further, Merckx was tossed from the Giro for doping, and Simpson died from it.

It's been around for a long time and tying it to Armstrong, Verbruggen or any of the others doesn't really wash.

 

[BroDeal]

There's an awful lot of looking through gauze at the relatively recent past going on here.

Do you all really think that things were that much cleaner in the Hinault/Lemond days? I remember blood boosting issues in the 1984 Olympics in LA.

Going back further, Merckx was tossed from the Giro for doping, and Simpson died from it.

It's been around for a long time and tying it to Armstrong, Verbruggen or any of the others doesn't really wash.

I am not really that concerned that much about doping as a moral issue or even what rules are being broken. I am most concerned about how it has distorted the results and destroyed the sport's credibility. Which is why older riders taking amphetamines or even steroids do not bother me all that much compared to riders taking EPO and blood transfusions.

I do not feel that the older results on balance are all that different than what they would have been if everyone was clean. I don't have much faith at all in the results past the 1990. In fact I feel that there are many riders who have had fantastic careers who would not have been much better than average pros if the sport was clean. The new doping products have turned the sport into a farce.

 

[nobody]

There's an awful lot of looking through gauze at the relatively recent past going on here.

Do you all really think that things were that much cleaner in the Hinault/Lemond days? I remember blood boosting issues in the 1984 Olympics in LA.

Going back further, Merckx was tossed from the Giro for doping, and Simpson died from it.

It's been around for a long time and tying it to Armstrong, Verbruggen or any of the others doesn't really wash.

I have no doubt that Merckx has used some medicine but the Giro case is probably irrelevant because it looks very strange. When Merckx requested an another check, the urine sample had disappeared...

What happened in 1984 showed us that it was very very unprepared work that could have killed people. But that proved how efficient blood doping was, able to change a horses in race horses.
So if blood doping were used at that time why the rider powers of that time is still so low compared to today?

 

[elapid]

I remember blood boosting issues in the 1984 Olympics in LA.

The US cycling team was investigating the effects of blood doping in 1984. But it was not an illegal practice then, although many felt that it was unethical at the time.

 

[elapid]

I am not really that concerned that much about doping as a moral issue or even what rules are being broken. I am most concerned about how it has distorted the results and destroyed the sport's credibility. Which is why older riders taking amphetamines or even steroids do not bother me all that much compared to riders taking EPO and blood transfusions.

I do not feel that the older results on balance are all that different than what they would have been if everyone was clean. I don't have much faith at all in the results past the 1990. In fact I feel that there are many riders who have had fantastic careers who would not have been much better than average pros if the sport was clean. The new doping products have turned the sport into a farce.

+1. Also consider the economics of doping. Amphetamines and cortisone are/were cheap and readily available. Every rider could access and use them. But as Kohl pointed out today, only the elite within the professional peloton can afford the programs and drugs/transfusions used in today's peloton. So not only are these drugs and programs more effective and truly distort race results*, but they are also not available to every cyclist because of the significant costs involved. I forget the actual figures, but I think it was reported that Ullrich's and Hamilton's drugs and doctor cost somewhere around 30,000 euros per month. A new professional on a ProTour team gets roughly 21,000 euros per year. You do the maths!

*As many have mentioned, Armstrong's natural VO2 max and FTP would place him in the middle of the peloton and it is highly likely that he would have never placed higher than 30th in the TdF, let alone finish it. But here he is having won it seven times. That's what modern doping programs can do for an average professional cyclist.

 

[rhubroma]

+1. Also consider the economics of doping. Amphetamines and cortisone are/were cheap and readily available. Every rider could access and use them. But as Kohl pointed out today, only the elite within the professional peloton can afford the programs and drugs/transfusions used in today's peloton. So not only are these drugs and programs more effective and truly distort race results*, but they are also not available to every cyclist because of the significant costs involved. I forget the actual figures, but I think it was reported that Ullrich's and Hamilton's drugs and doctor cost somewhere around 30,000 euros per month. A new professional on a ProTour team gets roughly 21,000 euros per year. You do the maths!

*As many have mentioned, Armstrong's natural VO2 max and FTP would place him in the middle of the peloton and it is highly likely that he would have never placed higher than 30th in the TdF, let alone finish it. But here he is having won it seven times. That's what modern doping programs can do for an average professional cyclist.

In terms of the economics of doping, you and BroDeal should check out the Kohl confession article from la Gazzetta dello Sport I posted on the "Kohl Retires" thread...Sorry if you don't read Italian. I'd translate it, but I don't have the time at the momment. Sorry.

 

[BigBoat]

Yeah for some reason blood doping never "caught on" until 2001 when the epo test started being used at all the races. Although, Conconi used blood doping it to break all his famous hour records. I think Milan San Remo was the first major race to use the epo test after the olympics in 2000? Anyways, its odd but until the first epo Tour of 1991 the pro level was relatively slow apart from corticoids which really help quite a bit actually. But "peanuts" compared to a jacked crit obviously. They had HGH too then.

I think though I remember Lemond saying somewhere that he knew guys had been using epo before 1991 and that someone had told him this early on before 91' but he didnt understand what it was.

 

[Zoncolan]

Yeah for some reason blood doping never "caught on" until 2001 when the epo test started being used at all the races. Although, Conconi used blood doping it to break all his famous hour records. I think Milan San Remo was the first major race to use the epo test after the olympics in 2000? Anyways, its odd but until the first epo Tour of 1991 the pro level was relatively slow apart from corticoids which really help quite a bit actually. But "peanuts" compared to a jacked crit obviously. They had HGH too then.

I think though I remember Lemond saying somewhere that he knew guys had been using epo before 1991 and that someone had told him this early on before 91' but he didnt understand what it was.

It was Moser, under the supervision of Conconi, who was Ferrari's mentor, who worked with...