History of ITTers in GTGCs with regards to doping.

[ingsve]

My knowledge of cycling history before the 90s is rather limited so I would appreciate if someone could help me with something.

In the past 20 years we have seen various big ITT powerhouses that have done well in GC in the three GTs. I'm thinking of guys like Indurain, Olano, Ullrich, Honchar etc. I.e. riders that don't have a typical climbers body who instead climbed mountains like they were time trials.

Did these types of performances exist before the doping/EPO era?

The reason I ask is because it seems like most of these types of riders that have podiumed a GT have been linked to some type of doping. Which is why I wasn't surprised to hear that Karpets (who at 80kg should normally be nowhere near a GT top 20) is linked to the most recent investigation.

So my question is whether the epo-doping era made this type of rider viable in the GTs or if these types of riders have always existed.

 

[spalco]

My knowledge of cycling history is also limited, but just two thoughts:
- I think you'd have to look a bit deeper than just the results pages to make any intelligent conclusions about this due to the changes of the routes in GTs; what mountains are being used, how many TT kms, how did the specific race develop, what was the competition like, etc.
- on first glance it seems to me like TT men have done very well in history; Fignon, Hinault, Anquetil were all pretty big guys for cyclists, or not?

 

[roundabout]

Moser.

Of course the Giro routes at the time were easier than today.

 

[roundabout]

My knowledge of cycling history is also limited, but just two thoughts:
- I think you'd have to look a bit deeper than just the results pages to make any intelligent conclusions about this due to the changes of the routes in GTs; what mountains are being used, how many TT kms, how did the specific race develop, what was the competition like, etc.
- on first glance it seems to me like TT men have done very well in history; Fignon, Hinault, Anquetil were all pretty big guys for cyclists, or not?

I think Hinault is rather short but stocky. I don't think he is even 1.75 tall.

 

[spalco]

Yeah, maybe. I googled, but didn't find any info about that quickly.

 

[roundabout]

No problem. With some of the current GC time trialists being well under 70kg Hinault might seem big (as in on the heavier side) in comparison.

 

[python]

i don't have an answer to the question but i personally heard from a competent sports physician (involved into elite xc-ski racing in scandinavia) an interesting hypothesis.

he believes large-frame athletes may benefit from blood manipulation/doping more than the smaller-frame athletes, relatively speaking, of course.

i don't have any studies nor did i ever personally experienced anything wrt the question posed. all despite being both a competitive xc- skier for many years and being almost 2 metres.

all i have is the observation of the physician.

 

[jordan5000]

Eddy Merckx was a great TTer (won many TTs, often 2 in a tour) and one source said he weight 74kg, more than most GC contenders today.

 

[patricknd]

i don't have an answer to the question but i personally heard from a competent sports physician (involved into elite xc-ski racing in scandinavia) an interesting hypothesis.

he believes large-frame athletes may benefit from blood manipulation/doping more than the smaller-frame athletes, relatively speaking, of course.

i don't have any studies nor did i ever personally experienced anything wrt the question posed. all despite being both a competitive xc- skier for many years and being almost 2 metres.

all i have is the observation of the physician.

So are you saying that despite your doping and size you didn't notice better results than others? If so I must say I'm surprised.

 

[ChrisE]

So are you saying that despite your doping and size you didn't notice better results than others? If so I must say I'm surprised.

No, I think he is saying that you must be over 2 meters tall to get the benefits. Since he isn't then the PED's he took had no effect, which I am not sure I agree with. I don't know of many cyclists that tall, and LA definitely is not that tall. I hope Merckx Index will be along shortly to clear this all up.

 

[patricknd]

No, I think he is saying that you must be over 2 meters tall to get the benefits. Since he isn't then the PED's he took had no effect, which I am not sure I agree with. I don't know of many cyclists that tall, and LA definitely is not that tall. I hope Merckx Index will be along shortly to clear this all up.

Could be he didn't train hard enough to get the full benefit. I'm can't believe a couple of centimeters of height would make that much difference.

 

[BroDeal]

Disregarding time trialing, solid all-rounders used be able to finish in the top ten, guys like Steve Bauer and Phil Anderson. Whether the change is due to doping or specialization or easier courses or a combination thereof I do not know. I think the sport has really lost something by devolving to where only climbing specialists are in contention.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Some of the X-country skiers are that tall and would prob get the benefits of the 2 meter rule you on doping that you are referring to. It is tough to call at this point but I am not sure what exactly is happening with that hypothesis.

 

[python]

so we have all the three well known trolls in this thread again attempting to derail a serious thread into flaming a poster ?

 

[python]

imo, bjarne riis would be an interesting example to look into. his 'arrival' was just about at the edge of the rise/beginning of wide spread in blood doping

he certainly was physically larger than most typical tdf/gt winners (granted there are always exceptions). also, ceratinly other that blood doping factors played along his victory (iirc, he indeed lost massive weight and was one of the pioneers of training with the power meter)...yet, a relatively increasing success of the itt specialists in gts (who are normally but not always larger than climbers) is obvious...

 

[GJB123]

I think it has always been more about good GT-contenders being good ITT'ists rather than being good climbers. This shows when you look at out and out climbers that have won the Tour de France in the last 20-30 years and then I mean people who really had to make the difference on the climbs because they would only lose out in ITT's. The ones that come to mind are Ocana, Van Impe, Delgado, Pantani and Sastre (I don't count Perreiro because he is neither really, ITT'ist or climber, and wouldn't have won if he hadn't been gifted 20-30 minutes in one stage).

Regards
GJ

 

[Cloxxki]

Would the height different between brain and toes, or the body composition make for a relative gain for taller athletes? Thin blood might distribute differently through a tall athelete than a short one.

 

[Big Doopie]

...I mean people who really had to make the difference on the climbs because they would only lose out in ITT's. The ones that come to mind are Ocana, Van Impe, Delgado, Pantani and Sastre (I don't count Perreiro because he is neither really, ITT'ist or climber, and wouldn't have won if he hadn't been gifted 20-30 minutes in one stage).

just an fyi -- Ocana was an excellent TTist. Won several (if not all) the TTs in 1973 Tour.

 

[Orvieto]

Disregarding time trialing, solid all-rounders used be able to finish in the top ten, guys like Steve Bauer and Phil Anderson. Whether the change is due to doping or specialization or easier courses or a combination thereof I do not know. I think the sport has really lost something by devolving to where only climbing specialists are in contention.

I agree with you on that the sport loses something when GT's become only for the climbers. Clinic issues aside, I think this may be because of the increasing control and predictability of modern cycling. It's too difficult for anyone to make major inroads on the GC in anything other than an ITT or mountain stage. Everything else ends up in a bunch sprint or an escape that just manages to stay away by a few seconds - nothing that makes a dint in the GC. I think this is behind the move to try to add unpredictability via cobbles, windy coastal routes, strade bianche etc.

On the other hand, are good all-rounders really excluded from the top 10? Of today's riders, who do you think would be a top 10 contender if not for the mountain stage obsession? Is Voeckler an all-rounder or are you thinking of another kind of rider?

 

[ingsve]

On the other hand, are good all-rounders really excluded from the top 10? Of today's riders, who do you think would be a top 10 contender if not for the mountain stage obsession? Is Voeckler an all-rounder or are you thinking of another kind of rider?

Gilbert comes to mind. Luis Leon Sanchez has already been top 10 but he's also the type of rider that isn't a pure climber nor a top ITTer though he is very good at both. I would probably add Visconti as well as someone who could do better overall if there were fewer high mountain stages.

 

[L'arriviste]

Gilbert comes to mind. Luis Leon Sanchez has already been top 10 but he's also the type of rider that isn't a pure climber nor a top ITTer though he is very good at both. I would probably add Visconti as well as someone who could do better overall if there were fewer high mountain stages.

Boasson Hagen could probably win a tour like that. Even Cancellara in his very best (and lightest) shape could do a top 10 of a lumpy TdF, why not!

 

[GJB123]

just an fyi -- Ocana was an excellent TTist. Won several (if not all) the TTs in 1973 Tour.

I'll take your word for it. Ocana is not part of my own cycling memory that roughly starts with the tour victory of Van Impe or perhaps even more with the victories of Thevenet. For Ocana I was relying more on the tales told by my late father who used to reminisce on some great mountain stage victories of Ocana over Merckx.

But in the end it only reinforces my point that there have been very few out and out climbers winning the TdF. In that respect it isn't that strange that great ITT'ists who could climb well enough have always won so many TdF's, so not only in the EPO-era.

Regards
GJ

 

[Nick C.]

Wouldn't Anquetil have been considered a TT guy?

As for the all-arounders didn't they always need to get 10 minutes in a break or two to get a top ten? Maybe Nicholas Roche would be considered an all-arounder. At least in the Vuelta he makes top 10, though in the Tour top 20.
And the snarky answer would be Cunego.

 

[BroDeal]

I agree with you on that the sport loses something when GT's become only for the climbers. Clinic issues aside, I think this may be because of the increasing control and predictability of modern cycling. It's too difficult for anyone to make major inroads on the GC in anything other than an ITT or mountain stage. Everything else ends up in a bunch sprint or an escape that just manages to stay away by a few seconds - nothing that makes a dint in the GC. I think this is behind the move to try to add unpredictability via cobbles, windy coastal routes, strade bianche etc.

We used to have long time trials in the Tour not long ago. The Schlecks would not be contenders with two 50-60 km ITTs. The entire race would change.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

They tend to fix the parcours and other competitions to favour the riders whose success will bring in the most money.

The lack of ITT this year was no accident.

Although no one (other than a few nutters and nationalists) want to see Tony 'not a farmer' Martin win.