How much do PEDs really account for a cyclists?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
flicker said:
For the sake of arguement, let us take Poulidor, Coppi and Bartoli. If Poulidor, Coppi and Bartoli were on the full medical program, and raced against Sella, Ricco and Pantani what would the results be.
What percentage of Poulidor, Coppi and Bartolis' winning capabilities be enhanced? It is an interesting question, don't you think. I always saw Coppi Pulidor and Bartoli at the top of their game. Would Poulidors long career have been shortened or lengthened. Would Poulidor have beaten Anquentil or Merckx in the GTs if he had had the magic elixers?
They were on the 'program' for the day.

Unfortunately, if we were to wake the zombie racers of yesteryear, it wouldn't help them. The drugs of today are enough to supercede any sort of toughness or 'lazer-like focus'.

To equate the old racers of the old days as an explication of 'why is there doping in cycling' is patently ***.

To borrow an American analogy: it would be like going against top NASCAR machines in a go-cart. The differences are obvious and manifest. As they should be to anyone who doesn't need someone to read this to them.

Keep on being stupid. It gives me something to do.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
For every one true champion on PEDs, there will be thousands of wannabe losers on PEDs.
Probably tens of thousands of wannabe losers.

How many body builders on PEDs?
How many are Champions?

PEDs are correlated with wannabe losers?

Not saying PEDs are ineffective.

A donkey will be transformed into a marginally better donkey.

A borderline thoroughbred will be transformed into a marginally better borderline thoroughbred.

A true thoroughbred will be transformed into a marginally better true thoroughbred.

And a Champion will be transformed into a marginally better Champion.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Polish said:
For every one true champion on PEDs, there will be thousands of wannabe losers on PEDs.
Probably tens of thousands of wannabe losers.

How many body builders on PEDs?
How many are Champions?

PEDs are correlated with wannabe losers?

Not saying PEDs are ineffective.

A donkey will be transformed into a marginally better donkey.

A borderline thoroughbred will be transformed into a marginally better borderline thoroughbred.

A true thoroughbred will be transformed into a marginally better true thoroughbred.

And a Champion will be transformed into a marginally better Champion.
Yes. Fuch the guys who would love to race!

According to your logic all those kids who want to race (without dedicating their futures some connected doctor), should pack it in if they're not willing to get on the program.

That would mean that you're more interested in young racers getting hooked up, rather than actually race.

Interesting...
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Yes. Fuch the guys who would love to race!

According to your logic all those kids who want to race (without dedicating their futures some connected doctor), should pack it in if they're not willing to get on the program.

That would mean that you're more interested in young racers getting hooked up, rather than actually race.

Interesting...
What?

Why on earth would a kid want to get on a program.
Only to become marginally better.
Worst thing they could do.

Almost as bad as being stupid enough to believe it is possible to be transformed into a Tour de France winner by taking PEDs.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
They were on the 'program' for the day.

Unfortunately, if we were to wake the zombie racers of yesteryear, it wouldn't help them. The drugs of today are enough to supercede any sort of toughness or 'lazer-like focus'.

To equate the old racers of the old days as an explication of 'why is there doping in cycling' is patently ***.

To borrow an American analogy: it would be like going against top NASCAR machines in a go-cart. The differences are obvious and manifest. As they should be to anyone who doesn't need someone to read this to them.

Keep on being stupid. It gives me something to do.
All I want is a percentage on improvement with PEDs. Diffeent types.

An analogy between that guy, I think he was called Fuentes in the film,' Stars and Water Carriers' 73 Giro say against an uber climber like Sella, both on PEDs.

Both race horses!
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Merckx index said:
Cmon, Flick, you were here when this was discussed:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Amazing that someone can start this thread, and it can continue, and a study like this isn't even mentioned.
It looks to me like the study shows a 13 percent advantage on a 4 week EPO program. How does that interface with Mr. sixty percent during his eyes glazed TdF climbs. Was he pulling 13 percent time during the climbs out of the undoped 'other guys' in the 96 tour? I guess Dr. Ferrari would know but us laymen here should just be able to do comparison with other clean climbers in that tour.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
/Users/fred/Desktop/345,http---us.ent3.yimg.com-movies.yahoo.com-images-hv-photo-tv_pix-vh1-vh1_big_in_2002_awards_photos-_group_photos-kid_rock9.jpg

If Floyd had not have used PEDs he and Amber coulda been partying with this illustrious couple.
 
Polish said:
What?
...

Almost as bad as being stupid enough to believe it is possible to be transformed into a Tour de France winner by taking PEDs.
Like that has never happened :rolleyes:

No Mr. 60%. No Stage 17 miracle. Nobody willing to drink his own urine for a gain. No Cobra. Nope. None of those guys ever won any jerseys.

Not like turning a relative flatlander like Frankie all of the sudden into such a great climber that his wife wanted to know what he was on.

Or some other 6'3" Flatlander turned Billie Goat with his one and only Tour stage win in the hardest mountain stage of the Tour at age 32?

Right... ;)

Dave.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
BroDeal said:
Typical apologist misdirection that equates all PEDs. Popping an amphetamine or two is vastly different than doctor assisted use of transfustions, EPO, and a grundle of other drugs. Dr. Fuentes had Jesus Manzano on more drugs than the stocking list of a Walmart pharmacy. This is the latest excuse from those who still cling to their idol, trying to convice people that it does not matter how much he cheated, he is still a champion.
are you talking about merckx, right?

how can limited blood transfusions plus limited epo in a much equal field be better than enough amphetamine to kill you + huge amounts of steroids + anything new (merckx was busted (sometimes the only one) when a new doping test was out.) in a field were only 5 to ten persons could afford them? and between those, only merckx was able to get his own team etc etc.

now, all of them had the same race program and they were amateurs comparing to todays DS and teams. so the best was going to win (in any kind of race) much more than the others. today that does not happen.

so merckx was the "dirtiest" ever. lance can only be close if he was using something new. and even if he used that, today you wont win P-R and M.ventoux no matter what you take.

facts.
 
c&cfan said:
are you talking about merckx, right?

how can limited blood transfusions plus limited epo in a much equal field be better than enough amphetamine to kill you + huge amounts of steroids + anything new (merckx was busted (sometimes the only one) when a new doping test was out.) in a field were only 5 to ten persons could afford them? and between those, only merckx was able to get his own team etc etc.

now, all of them had the same race program and they were amateurs comparing to todays DS and teams. so the best was going to win (in any kind of race) much more than the others. today that does not happen.

so merckx was the "dirtiest" ever. lance can only be close if he was using something new. and even if he used that, today you wont win P-R and M.ventoux no matter what you take.
Cool story, bro.

Only Merckx and five or ten other riders could afford to use steroids. Uh-huh. Sounds like someone is projecting the Armstrong situation onto someone else. Keep clinging.
 
c&cfan said:
are you talking about merckx, right?

how can limited blood transfusions plus limited epo in a much equal field be better than enough amphetamine to kill you + huge amounts of steroids + anything new (merckx was busted (sometimes the only one) when a new doping test was out.) in a field were only 5 to ten persons could afford them? and between those, only merckx was able to get his own team etc etc.

now, all of them had the same race program and they were amateurs comparing to todays DS and teams. so the best was going to win (in any kind of race) much more than the others. today that does not happen.

so merckx was the "dirtiest" ever. lance can only be close if he was using something new. and even if he used that, today you wont win P-R and M.ventoux no matter what you take.

facts.
Problem here:

Merckx wasn't a donkey.

Dave.
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
One things for sure, there are a lot of experts on the interwebz.

Mostly I think people here think the riders they don't like would be lucky to hang onto the grupetto without PEDs. Riders they like (or they themselves) don't/wouldn't benefit much at all just because the pureness of their hearts are not compatible with doping.

Here's my guess: PEDs allow people who already have a level of talent that is already at the top percentage to train and perform at various degrees higher than they would if they were clean. They still have to put in the hard work and sacrifice, no way around that. PEDs are just one factor of many variables. IMO the top of the peloton would look somewhat different if everyone was 100% free of currently banned PEDs, but I'll guess not that much different. .

Bottom line answer for me is I just don't know. Unlike most of the folks here, I'm not an expert.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
c&cfan said:
are you talking about merckx, right?

how can limited blood transfusions plus limited epo in a much equal field be better than enough amphetamine to kill you + huge amounts of steroids + anything new (merckx was busted (sometimes the only one) when a new doping test was out.) in a field were only 5 to ten persons could afford them? and between those, only merckx was able to get his own team etc etc.

now, all of them had the same race program and they were amateurs comparing to todays DS and teams. so the best was going to win (in any kind of race) much more than the others. today that does not happen.

so merckx was the "dirtiest" ever. lance can only be close if he was using something new. and even if he used that, today you wont win P-R and M.ventoux no matter what you take.

facts.
Yep, Merckx had the secret potion, same as Lance, alien turtle blood and jetson brand hemocist. Merckx, definetly donkey, same as Lance. Poor poor Joop Zoetemelk, Giamondi and Plaenkert, not to mention Goodfroot, DeVlaemink. cheated from those wins, luckily Rik Van Looy was on his way out so that' Donkey Eddy' didn't thrash him to much. Pat Sercu, Eddy shared with him theys old buds, six day pardners, Sercu, donkey also, like Lance.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
BroDeal said:
Cool story, bro.

Only Merckx and five or ten other riders could afford to use steroids. Uh-huh. Sounds like someone is projecting the Armstrong situation onto someone else. Keep clinging.
no.. only merckx and five others could buy\use the "something new" part.

look at the anti doping controls.. sometimes only merckx was busted.

well, only he had enough money for some "research".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY