First EPO users in the peloton?

[red_flanders]

...no one suggested that the iron shots were EPO....but what is known is that in order to maintain the higher than normal levels of hematocrit that are the result of EPO use the body requires a really large input of iron ( Pantani when he was nailed for drug use had iron levels bordering on toxic )....so the question remains why take the iron and then attribute to it something it would not really produce in and of itself...I find that curious...

...and its interesting that your personal timeframe in this field is 20 years...so what you are saying is that this is actually all outside your direct perview...my interest in this field runs back almost 40 years...do I have a better perspective...maybe....

Cheers

blutto

Actually many people (apparently not you) have speculated that the iron was really EPO.

For my part, I've been following since the mid 70s. If you're older, congrats.

20 years is an approximation of when things changed with EPO.

If iron was used to help with EPO, why tell the press unbidden? That would be like walking downstairs to tell a reporter about the masking agent you just shot up.

It makes NO sense. You have ZERO evidence of anything.

 

[blutto]

Actually many people (apparently not you) have speculated that the iron was really EPO.

For my part, I've been following since the mid 70s. If you're older, congrats.

20 years is an approximation of when things changed with EPO.

If iron was used to help with EPO, why tell the press unbidden? That would be like walking downstairs to tell a reporter about the masking agent you just shot up.

It makes NO sense. You have ZERO evidence of anything.

...if you actually want to see the application of zero evidence go over to the Indurain thread...so being the defender of the wrongfully wronged why don't you just skip over there and do some defending...

....I'm not arguing the necessary conditions here...or even the sufficient ones...just pointing out some circumstantial stuff that I have always found curious and which incidently reflected some of the rumours/anectodes/stories that came from people I thought were credible...and this before the LeMond myth was officially sanctified/edited/polished...given some of the bs that has been shovelled by LeMond over the years nothing about the 89 miracle would surprise me...most people have managed to see thru the Lance myth but its funny how the LeMond myth has somehow ascended to the heavens...gee I wonder who his PR firm is...

Cheers

blutto

 

[redtreviso]

...if you actually want to see the application of zero evidence go over to the Indurain thread...so being the defender of the wrongfully wronged why don't you just skip over there and do some defending...

....I'm not arguing the necessary conditions here...or even the sufficient ones...just pointing out some circumstantial stuff that I have always found curious and which incidently reflected some of the rumours/anectodes/stories that came from people I thought were credible...and this before the LeMond myth was officially sanctified/edited/polished...given some of the bs that has been shovelled by LeMond over the years nothing about the 89 miracle would surprise me...most people have managed to see thru the Lance myth but its funny how the LeMond myth has somehow ascended to the heavens...gee I wonder who his PR firm is...

Cheers

blutto

The 89 miracle where he lost the yellow jersey twice then won the final TT by 33 seconds?.. Oh sure..that's Sestrierish NOT

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...if you actually want to see the application of zero evidence go over to the Indurain thread...so being the defender of the wrongfully wronged why don't you just skip over there and do some defending...

....I'm not arguing the necessary conditions here...or even the sufficient ones...just pointing out some circumstantial stuff that I have always found curious and which incidently reflected some of the rumours/anectodes/stories that came from people I thought were credible...and this before the LeMond myth was officially sanctified/edited/polished...given some of the bs that has been shovelled by LeMond over the years nothing about the 89 miracle would surprise me...most people have managed to see thru the Lance myth but its funny how the LeMond myth has somehow ascended to the heavens...gee I wonder who his PR firm is...

Cheers

blutto

Blutto - in short.

On Pantani - you bring a 'wiki' link, earlier you said they "nailed him" -if so how long was his suspension for taking PEDs??
Exactly, there wasn't- as much as he was a doper, he was never officially caught.

On LeMond - again, lots of nothing. Though - I would love to know who "LeMonds PR firm" is.

If you want to bring up Pantani/LeMond - there are plenty of other threads where these issues have been raised.

 

[NashbarShorts]

2)...why no whispers?... if you have noticed LeMond is really quick with lawsuits...

(Late to this thread, but sorry this one is the best I've heard )

Umm, Lemond to be fair, tends to sue bike manufacturers and real estate developers.

But if you are thinking of a cycling champion who keeps a veritable stable of attack-dog lawyers at the ready to go after any former employee, personal assistant, teammate (or even the wife of one) who dares to post in a chat forum or send IMs back-and-forth....then you're thinking of another prominent US cyclist. But it's not Lemond.

 

[Martinello]

<snip>

Everybody seems to agree that cross country skiers had it first in 1987.

<snip>

Obviously all pro teams must have awakened to EPO after Bugno's 1990 victory in the Giro and there were must likely several trials made that year in a number of teams and races, including the TdF, although not as disastrous as the TDM affair of 1991!

The first phase I and II trials on epo were conducted in 1986-87 (Eschbach et al, 1987). Getting your hands on a phase I recombinant hormone on the black market in 1986-1987 cannot have been easy due to availability, knowledge on dosage and pricing. I'd be surprised if any athletes had access to the stuff prior to 1989.

The PDM affair was supposedly due to incorrectly stored Intralipid later given intravenously to most of the riders.
As the story goes, a soigneur had left the bags of Intralipid in a hot car - the result was predictable.

 

[Animal]

Wasn't it first available in 1987. What super human performances happened that year?

Roche.

(Plus padding so that the forum software accepts the message)

 

[Race Radio]

...while not the best reference this will have to do for the time being....from Wiki....the crash they refer to was I believe the "cat crash"...

"Things turned bad for Pantani towards the end of the 1999 Giro. He won four stages, with his challengers far away, and only one mountain stage left: however, he was disqualified for a high red blood-cell count which suggested EPO. Later, it was revealed he had a hematocrit level of 60 per cent after his crash in 1995, above the later limit of 50.[6] Pantani stayed away from the rest of the year's races"

...as for the clinical trial you found...well the toxic levels of iron I spoke of earlier were found in blood samples taken during Pantani's hospital stay immediately after the 1995 crash ...the clinical trial you produced was from late 1996 and Pantani's crash was early 1995...so either the doping protocols of cyclists were ahead of medical procedures by at least a year and a half or that clinical trial you refer to is not quite what you think it is...it would be real interesting at this point to look up the original clinical trials from the mid 1980's to see how the iron issue was dealt with...because I really don't see how the Amgen folks would have missed the importance of iron for successful implementaion of EPO...

.....so what is your theory now?????......

Cheers

blutto

Let me know when you have something to back up your claims

As I wrote it was not until EPO had been on the market that it became apparent that Iron Supplementation was needed. In the early to mid 90's there was a verity of papers written on the topic as more doctors saw the issue in their patents taken EPO.

Let us know when you have something to support your claims. When again was Pantani nailed for drugs? Do you have a link to support your claim of his iron levels? Do you have ANYTHING to support your theory that Lemond doped? So far you have presented nothing

 

[Race Radio]

...if you actually want to see the application of zero evidence go over to the Indurain thread...so being the defender of the wrongfully wronged why don't you just skip over there and do some defending...

What?

Where is the evidence that Lemond was working with Sabino Padilla and Conconi like Indurain was? Where are the former lemond teammates who talked like Tomas Davey?

 

[pmcg76]

...if you actually want to see the application of zero evidence go over to the Indurain thread...so being the defender of the wrongfully wronged why don't you just skip over there and do some defending...

....I'm not arguing the necessary conditions here...or even the sufficient ones...just pointing out some circumstantial stuff that I have always found curious and which incidently reflected some of the rumours/anectodes/stories that came from people I thought were credible...and this before the LeMond myth was officially sanctified/edited/polished...given some of the bs that has been shovelled by LeMond over the years nothing about the 89 miracle would surprise me...most people have managed to see thru the Lance myth but its funny how the LeMond myth has somehow ascended to the heavens...gee I wonder who his PR firm is...

Cheers

blutto

Suggesting LeMond could have taken EPO is like suggesting the Pope could have been Protestant. Yes, it could have been true but there is no evidence at all to back the claims.

The other thing is people constantly comparing steroids, amphetamines to EPO. We have heard many times from pros and officials whom transcended both eras that EPO changed the game completely, Rooks, Winnen, Herrera, Willy Voet, Hampsten, Aubier, Delion, Fignon, Mentheour & others. We are not just making this up, it is based on what people from that era have said.

Before EPO, a talented clean rider could compete with an inferior doped up rider. Charly Mottet was a Tour contender in the late 80s and he was proclaimed as being clean by no other than Willy Voet, he won the Dauphine Libere 3 times. Surely if Mottet could compete clean, then why not others.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Bo Hamburger

 

[ultimobici]

Regarding the stringent requirement for evidence in accusations of doping with Lemond - did you guys also demand this for Armstrong back in the day?

Armstrong for me was 100% guilty by association of using EPO way before there were any evidence simply because he was a succesful rider of that 'EPO era.'

Similarly as Lemond was a succesful rider in the 'steroid and amphetamine' era (read the Fignon book) I am 100% certain that he was doping.

EPO perhaps not, but the regular juice from those days - for sure.

I got into cycling just before Lemond turned pro, and being an English speaker watched with interest as both he and later Armstrong developed.

Lemond was a Tour winner in the making from day one. His results speak for themselves.

Armstrong was also a winner in the making, but no way did he strike one as a GT contender. He was a Classics man through and through. . but I didn't think anything was untoward about his results in the first part of his career. In hindsight his later pre cancer results are interesting though.

But as for the difference between pre-EPO and post-EPO, there's a whole difference in the way they affect a rider. To say a rider could not win without doping in the 80's is illogical.

Amphetamine, cortisone & testosterone doping is like using methanol in a regular car without changing anything else. The car will be quick, but it may blow the engine or not be able to handle well enough to use the extra power. It's more of a backstreet layman's method

EPO on the other hand is like the full package. The engine is blueprinted, the suspension & brakes are uprated etc. Much much harder to beat as it is reliable. It is by its very nature a modern scientific method that completely transforms a rider's physiology.

 

[luckyboy]

Let us know when you have something to support your claims. When again was Pantani nailed for drugs? Do you have a link to support your claim of his iron levels?

I can't find anything about his iron/ferritin levels after the Milan-Turin crash. The Turin CTO blood test certificate doesn't include it as far as I can see.

He took two tests in 2000 under a scheme called 'I don't risk my health' which Italian olympians had to take part in. His ferritin level on 01-08 was 636 ng/ml (normally 15-250), and on 05-09, they were 1019 ng/ml and his total iron level was 238ug/dl (normally 65-170).

Exciting.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Armstrong for me was 100% guilty by association of using EPO way before there were any evidence simply because he was a succesful rider of that 'EPO era.'

Similarly as Lemond was a succesful rider in the 'steroid and amphetamine' era (read the Fignon book) I am 100% certain that he was doping.

Sheesh, why you gotta be so positive about the sport??

Gotta disagree. As pmcg76 pointed out, the efficacy of the drugs in question are totally different. Hinault used to say, "Drugs won't turn a donkey into a racehorse". Roids and uppers could help in a one-day contest, but not in a 3-week test based on natural selection, DNA, and VO2max.

Don't know if you followed the sport back then, but this was pretty apparent. Each year there were 2-3 real contenders, and the rest were pretenders. Pre-Tour, the media would always talk up guys like Breukink, Mottet, Hampsten, Bernard, Alcala, etc. But these guys could never seal the deal. The top men were Hinault, Lemond, Fignon.. Roche/Delgado a close 2nd tier.

Steve Bauer used to say Lemond's difference was he could "suffer" like no one else. He also had a Vo2 of 92+. That is physiology. Roids and uppers aren't going to close that gap.

EPO closes that gap. In the prior era, nobody "became" a Tour contender. You either were or you weren't. Fignon won the first Tour he rode in, age 22. As did Hinault, age 23. Lemond, riding support for Fignon, went 3rd in his first Tour, age 23. C'mon. This is anecdotal evidence, but the concept of "emerging into a Tour winner at age 27-30"....that is EPO fairytale stuff.

Also, if you followed the sport back then you'd know Lemond was a phenom. Won junior worlds at 17, Circuit de la Sarthe at 18, at 20 won Tour d'Avenir by 10 MINUTES. Riders like that do come along every once in a while. Taylor Phinney looks like he could be the next phenom. If physiology-changing drugs like EPO/HGH are taken away, guys like that don't need juice to compete.

Actually, the sport might be making progress. This year's Tour looked a lot more like Tours of old. 2 guys, naturally above the rest, yet neither could dominate the other or play games like "The Look". And Contador -- who raised eyebrows w/ his TT prowness in past years -- looked a hell of a lot more 'human' in the final TT this year...

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Sheesh, why you gotta be so positive about the sport??

Gotta disagree. As other pmcg76 pointed out, the efficacy of the drugs in question are totally different. Hinault used to say, "Drugs won't turn a donkey into a racehorse". Meaning, guys might juice, but it doesn't make much difference -- and in a race like the Tour, which is all about natural physiology and recovery -- it makes the least difference. Roids and uppers could help in a one-day contest, but not in a 3-week test based on natural selection, DNA, and VO2max.

Don't know if you followed the sport back then, but this was pretty apparent. Each year there were 2-3 real contenders, and the rest were pretenders. Pre-Tour, the media would always talk up guys like Breukink, Mottet, Hampsten, Bernard, Alcala, etc. But these guys could never seal the deal. The top men were Hinault, Lemond, Fignon.. Roche/Delgado a close 2nd tier.

Steve Bauer used to say Lemond's difference was he could "suffer" like no one else. He also had a Vo2 of 92+. That is physiology. Roids and uppers aren't going to close that gap.

EPO closes that gap. In the prior era, nobody "became" a Tour contender. You either were or you weren't. Fignon won the first Tour he rode in, age 22. As did Hinault, age 23. Lemond, as teammate for Fignon, went 3rd in his first Tour, age 23. C'mon. This is anecdotal evidence, put the concept of "emerging into a Tour winner at age 27-30"....that is EPO fairytale stuff.

Also, if you followed the sport back then you'd know Lemond was a phenom. Won junior worlds at 17, Circuit de la Sarthe at 18, at 20 won Tour d'Avenir by 10 MINUTES. Riders like that do come along every once in a while. Taylor Phinney looks like he could be the next phenom. If physiology-changing drugs like EPO/HGH are taken away, guys like that don't need to juice to compete.

Actually, the sport might be making progress. This year's Tour looked a lot more like Tours of old. 2 guys, naturally above the rest, and neither could dominate the other or play games like "The Look". And Contador -- who raised eyebrows w/ his TTs past years -- looked a hell of a lot more 'human' in the final TT this year...

That's nonsense! Roids would obviously be much more useful in stage races than one day races precisely because recovery is very important. And why do you think HGH is far better than steroids?

 

[luckyboy]

And Contador -- who raised eyebrows w/ his TTs past years -- looked a hell of a lot more 'human' in the final TT this year...

Not sure how many times we've discussed this.

 

[Bronstein]

You don't know they were all doping. It's your belief that they were all doping. There's a slight difference.

 

[NashbarShorts]

I didn't say that winners in the 80's HAD to be doping.

I believe you said all top riders in any generaton are doping. If that's what you believe, why would you even watch the sport?

Also -- roids more useful in a 3week stage race than in a one-day?? Please, please explain.

 

[samerics]

Nasbar, great post, my views to the letter. Class was class, and Hinault was right until EPO. Then you got Gewiss, Riis the domestique turned all conquering Tour winner. Olano the track guy turned Vuelta winner, Jalabert the sprinter turned KOM. The list could be a very long one, but the point is clear, blood related doping changed everything.

 

[Escarabajo]

...t.
Then of course there is Fignon's extraordinary 1989 successes which make him a good early EPO candidate. He litterally seemed to rise from the dead that year.
...

So my vote goes to Bugno for a GT, but not ruling out Fignon in 1989. Other astonishing performances surfaced in 1987 : JF Bernard beating Herrera at the Ventoux, Roche's wins. Therefore I keep an open mind

Didn't Fignon confessed in his book not to take part on the EPO doping? I don't see any reason for him to lie since he already confessed to other doping offenses. Besides he seems to be very outspoken about a lot of things, especially about putting trash on the Colombians, so I am not sure why would he lie about that.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Also -- roids more useful in a 3week stage race than in a one-day?? Please, please explain.

The main reason why roids have been used in endurance sports is that they aid recovery. Of course they are going to be more useful in stage races. Why don't you try to explain how they are more effective in a one day race?

 

[pmcg76]

I still don't get why we need 'evidence' to have pretty solid feelings someone doped.

There's a lot of guys here with racing experience, with contacts in the business - smart people who've been around know what kind of an environment Indurain and Lemond were operating in (and what Lance was and is). This should be enough for certain things to be obvious.

I don't need to know what doctor Roche was using to know what he was up to. The same goes for any other top-end pro for any of these eras.

We all know what kind of environment LeMond and Indurain operated in but that does not automatically mean every top rider was doped in the 80s which you are suggesting.

You seem to have missed or ignored my point on Willy Voet naming Charly Mottet as a clean rider, Mottet was World ranked No 1 in 89 so what we have here is a clean rider making it to number 1 in the world. Surely that would suggest others could compete clean also. That is the difference betrween the 80s and 90s/00s is that there was that small window for clean athletes to compete. There is no way a clean guy was ever ranked as the best in the world from about 91/92 on.

You also mentioned a 1% advantage of drugs in the 80s, thats of course assuming two guys are equally talented. A talented guy could still hold the advantage against a lesser rider with a 1% improvement, holding an advantage against a 10% improvement is of course something different altogether.

 

[redtreviso]

"""So my vote goes to Bugno for a GT, but not ruling out Fignon in 1989. Other astonishing performances surfaced in 1987 : JF Bernard beating Herrera at the Ventoux, Roche's wins. Therefore I keep an open mind""

I dunno about Bugno...If Fignon was in 89 he would have been jacked for the final tt. Bernard at Ventoux??? if ever there was the face of suffering.. The EPO'd don't suffer like that. Same for Roche in 87..Suffering like a dog. Indurain in 90 gets my vote..After Luz Ardiden hardly any 80s riders would ever even win a stage again.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Don't know if you followed the sport back then, but this was pretty apparent. Each year there were 2-3 real contenders, and the rest were pretenders.
...


EPO closes that gap. In the prior era, nobody "became" a Tour contender. You either were or you weren't. Fignon won the first Tour he rode in, age 22. As did Hinault, age 23. Lemond, riding support for Fignon, went 3rd in his first Tour, age 23. C'mon. This is anecdotal evidence, but the concept of "emerging into a Tour winner at age 27-30"....that is EPO fairytale stuff.

...

+1. Agree. We need to set this in Stone in this forum.

Actually, the sport might be making progress. This year's Tour looked a lot more like Tours of old. 2 guys, naturally above the rest, yet neither could dominate the other or play games like "The Look". And Contador -- who raised eyebrows w/ his TT prowness in past years -- looked a hell of a lot more 'human' in the final TT this year...

Sorry but I don't agree with this statement. IMHO: With the bio passport tightening its watch, it has become more difficult to prepare a doping program for a Grand Tour. It also has become even more expensive. Now police are going after Doctors so they have now to charge more for their services unless you want to do all the Blood Transfusion yourself. Having said that, current tours are going to start looking like the tours from the 80's. Only few are the chosen ones because of money and logistics in general. Might not be just Physiology alone.

Just my 2 cents.

PD: I forgot. My vote goes to Bugno and Chiapucci. And that's just from reading old threads in these forum. This was discussed long time ago here.

In fact, Chiapucci was the first rider in my life that I saw transform himself from nobody to a Tour Contender. I never understood his transformation until I learned about EPO. To me he was a nobody IMO.

 

[galaxy1]

Suggesting LeMond could have taken EPO is like suggesting the Pope could have been Protestant. Yes, it could have been true but there is no evidence at all to back the claims.

it is nothing like that. Lemond could easily have been doping - we just don't know (and it is long enough ago that we likely never will). the Pope could not really be a protestant, and there is lots of actual evidence that he is in fact Catholic.