- Jul 4, 2009
...so I guess the question why the bulking up....
....to the bolded...kinda funny but during that period LeMond also bulked up ( to the point it became a bit of a running gag in the peloton ) ....and I don't have to point out what a strange thing that is to do when your success is predicated on being able to climb well....sniper said:good post, appreciate it, although I disagree on many points.
First off, Mottet wasn't clean. He admitted to using amphetamines. A one-time thing? I doubt it.ScienceIsCool said:...
Who was clean? Lemond, Bauer, Hampston, Mottet, possibly Alcala, Criquielion and a whole host of others. For those that didn't want to, there really wasn't a whole lot of pressure to dope if you were sincere about being clean because you could compete and still get results.
Hampsten in my mind certainly wasn't clean in 1992, when he was doing a winter preparation with Max Testa in Como on the border with Switzerland (Hampsten's place of residence throughout his carreer) where EPO was available without prescription and where, indeed, the entire Motorola gang would go in 1994 to fetch their ampules on Testa's advice (Swart testimony). Hampsten's results in 1992 speak for themselves. The way he bulked up in 92 is also suspicious, but let's stick to the blood boosting, which is really tough to deny for that year. Now, I'm having trouble imagining why he would have been clean in 88 with Testa, or in 86...with Testa. Testa is an exposed doping doc, and you really going to have to explain to me why you think he wasn't helping Hampsten (and others at 7-11) with 'marginal gains' in 86 and 88. I think Mike Neel was perfectly aware whom he brought in when he hired Testa in 85. Prior to that appointment, Testa had already done physiological testing with various Italian cracks including Argentin.
Not worth the risk to you, maybe, but certainly worth the risk to cyclists aspiring to become pro. Hell, even worth the risk to amateur cyclists. And hell, even worth the risk to their ambitious parents. Section from Wheelmen (but could've taken this from any other source) about 84:Scienceiscool:
Transfusions did happen, but the logistics were a nightmare. You couldn't extract in January/February and reinject throughout the year as you can now. That meant injecting from a donor which is dodgy as hell. The risk of infection from something in another person's blood isn't worth the risk.
Come to think of it, which GT rider was in the habit of bringing his parents to GTs? Just saying...The US team, however, went ahead with the blood-boosting effort. Participation in the program was voluntary. If they were interested, they were to arrange for family members with compatible blood types to provide the blood donations. A few days before the Olympic track cycling events, the cyclists and their blood donors lined up in a room at the Ramada hotel in Carson City, and a doctor connected tubes between them, allowing the blood to flow directly from one to the other.
Anquetil and Zoetemelk are two riders of whom we know they were using different methods of blood boosting for GTs. That's early to late 70s. So you're clutching at straws when you're suggesting blood boosting wasn't done during GTs in the 80s. Exactly what kind of blood boosting is anyone's guess, but there were different methods by that time that had proven their worth. We're lucky that it's documented for 88. It's only plausible to assume it happened throughout the 80s.Scienceiscool:
Thus, it was restricted to big events with organizations that had big budgets such as national teams going to the Olympics or someone like Merckx heading into Paris Roubaix (for the record he states he was offered, but declined).
The thought you'd use it constantly through the season is big-time laughable.
You'd use it primarily before important one-day races and during GT rest days. And that's only for the guys with a budget. Water carriers would have to make do with less advanced procedures.
For athletics and skiing the year of introduction is 1986. So for cycling 86 isn't impossible either. Lemond and Hampsten mixing it up at the TdS and TdF should ring all sorts of Sky-ish alarm bells. And as it happens, the guy responsible for taking Amgen public was a wanna be world champ masters cyclist trained by a certain Eddie B from 85 onwards. Ow, and Lemond did a nice little investment in that guy's company. Oh well.Scienceiscool:
...even if the very first riders got hold of it in 1987 during the drug trials,
Indeed, and if you want to find users in the early period, it makes sense to look at guys with big results. Hampsten, Roche, Lemond.Scienceiscool:
it took the next six or seven years until a large percentage of the peloton was using. Even then to mixed effect.
I doubt Alcala was clean. Seems likely that Gisbers was referring to EPO. Throughout the 70s and 80s, Mexico was the go-to place for PEDs for many Americans (see the famous David Jenkins drug ring). Mexican cyclists would have known where to find the honey, too. You gotta wonder why Alcala was the only Mexican making a breakthrough. Just doesn't make sense that he was clean. If he were, many of his doping countrymen would probably have surpassed him. Doping did make a difference you know, also in the 80s, in all sports. I trust you won't ask me to provide evidence for that.Scienceiscool:
Lastly, the world of pro cycling is a small one. Everyone is "related" in one way or another. Of course a clean Alcala could ride with PDM and remain clean back then.
that's a weird myth. We know he had contractual issues. Sure, his lawyer said something about testosterone, but the details are unknown. You can't jump to conclusions from there. Lemond had his own doctors and a carreer-long Mexican fixer with whom he did odd ooc training sessions. In 87-88, ADR had four positives, all publicized, plus a doctor (VanMol) who'd been sent away from his previous team due to doping issues (cortisone gone wrong). If Lemond was appalled by PDM's doping program, why, of all teams, did he sign for ADR? The irony there is huge.PDM, I think, was one of the first that started ramping up a team-wide program. Lemond was appalled enough to leave
Another anecdote: Zoetemelk was widely known to have experimented with blood doping. IT had been written about already in the late 70s early 80s. So Lemond would've known. Yet Lemond didn't mind coming second to Zoetemelk at the 85 worlds. In Sam Abt's "Incredible Comeback" there is a paragraph dedicated to Lemond praising Zoetemelk's deserved win and his great carreer. Lemond appalled? Not really. Then you look at some of the people singled out as Lemond's 'close friends' in that period. It includes the likes of Johan Lammerts and Rini Wagtmans. Two keepers of omerta if ever there were any.
And that's disregarding all the other evidence of doping among the Americans that has surfaced. USOC providing internal testing. Eddie bringing Harvey Newton on board. I'm just cherry-picking here. Rigged testing at the Coors Classic. Blood doping among the '74 US Junior team n Poland.
And re-read Gisbers' statement about Americans and doping on the previous page.
He knew what time it was.
Talking about timing: coincidentally, this "clean americans vs. doped europeans" narrative started emerging forcefully in the mid/late 80s, after the 84 Olympics scandal had made them realize that doping really should best stay burried deeply under the carpet.
There is such a huge Sky-avant-la-lettre stink to the whole Hampsten-Lemond story, it's not funny, starting with Eddie B and his alleged introduction of 'scientific' Eastern European training methods, praised extensively by Lemond.
...so I guess the question why the bulking up....