• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Mediocrity Era!

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
The constant refering back to Greg Lemond by the usual suspects is nothing more than a deflection.
As pointed out time and time again again theres no evidence EVER been presented that Greg doped, not one ickle jot.
That others in his time did go`s without question however pre EPO the gains were often questionable and a knowledgable physioligist will be able to present evidence that sugests for a cardiovasculer dominant sport like cycling the right training / rest ballance puts the clean rider still able to be a major contender.

Gregs reconsilliation with the fact that he raced against self confessed dopers ( and won) is , I think, largely down to a clear understanding that the percieved advantage of his rivals doping was rather minor.

However all of this is kinda irrelivant....two wrongs never make a right and the subject under investigation is neither Greg or or his contempries but Lance Armstrong.
The desperation of Lance`s fanbase knows no bounds and paints them in a very ethicly and moraly bankrupt light.
Lance wasnt the first EPO user but my god he`s defo the rider that took the greatest advantage and destroyed pro racings credibility while at the same time going about it in a manner that left no doupt as to his contempt for all former great champions and ultimatley the sport he claims ( falsely) to "love".
 
ChrisE said:
... Do you think Hinault doped? Fignon? Delgado? Theunise? Rooks? Why didn't ... . :cool:

Delgado's name sparks a thought. Delgado once had an interesting take. Something like letting all racers dope within healthy limits, whatever that is. Only touble is, some bodies react to drugs differently and the user ends up not being able to take it any longer. Like Zabl's admission he'd tried EPO but stopped because of side effects (if you can believe that, and I'm giving him benefit of the doubt). So allowing some doping ends up cheating others who can't dope, and even the guys who can dope will still try to push the limits - so there is no level playing field, which is what Delgado was trying to suggest. But Pedro's suggestion makes me think almost all at onetime were trying some form of drug to improve performance. Just a thought.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
Are you familiar with the concept of analogy? Did you even read my post?

a spouter does not read posts and answer the questions therein ,they spout time and time again ignoring evidence, contradicting themselves, making outrageous unproven statements....taking suggestions and turning them into fact, seeing dopers where no evidence exists.....basically fanboyism...
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Angliru said:
Yep. That sounds like Indurain, forever on the attack.:rolleyes:

Fignon described it as 30 riders rode past him on a mountain, who the previous years would be out the back, and this was in the TdF that he felt his absolute best form ever.....easy to see it as attacking, when for the guys on EPO they were steadily pedalling upwards.........
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
Angliru said:
Yep. That sounds like Indurain, forever on the attack.:rolleyes:

Oh, Miguel did attack! He may have not done it Chiapucci or Virenque style, but once he got the spinning going people were dropping like flies in the back of the peloton.

Nonethereless, I think Greg made that comment during the 91 Tour de France, right after the Jaca to Val Louron stage in which he lost almost 7 minutes to Miguel and Claudio. I remember him getting interviewed after the stage and having this empty look to him... staring into nothingness, as if he had just been ran over by a truck.

I mean, Greg had been able, obviously, to keep up with those two in the mountains up until that point. Then, one day, all of a sudden... BOOM! Almost 7 minutes. And it's not like Greg ended up riding up Val Louron with the sprinters you know. He was pacing, huffin' and puffin' yes, but pacing himself up at a decent speed (if my memory serves me right). He ended up 9th on that stage.

It was Indurain and Chiapucci who were going up very, very fast. In some sections of the climb even faster than the motorcycles.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
Visit site
Are you talking about the stage where lemond got gapped off coming up to the top of the Tourmalet and then Indurain apparently attacked on the descent and waited for Chiapucchi?
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
Nick C. said:
Are you talking about the stage where lemond got gapped off coming up to the top of the Tourmalet and then Indurain apparently attacked on the descent and waited for Chiapucchi?

Yes, I think so... 500 meters from the top of the Tourmalet I think.

What was really amazing that day was seeing Miguel and Claudio putting 10+ minutes on 98% of the peloton.

That is all "talent" my friend.

:D
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
Visit site
those gaps are pretty "large" Bugno third @ 1'29 then Fignon and Mottet shy of 3 and 4 minutes respectively next is Hampsten @ 6 followed by half a dozen others to @ 8 minutes. #14 @ 10 minutes. very interesting, I forget whether there was any dithering by the guys over the top but still.:confused:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Señor_Contador said:
Yes, I think so... 500 meters from the top of the Tourmalet I think.

What was really amazing that day was seeing Miguel and Claudio putting 10+ minutes on 98% of the peloton.

That is all "talent" my friend.

:D

talented quacks;)
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
talented quacks;)

Don't get me wrong, they both were incredibly talented, but they must've been amongst the first group of cyclists to perfect the peaking on EPO part. Well, that and: EPO + peaking right + talent + Michelle Ferrari = TdF winner. Methinks Claudio was not as talented as Miguel, but he was right up there.

I mean, Miguel's training was so "advanced" that it took a knucklehead kamikaze cyclist riding around with a 60% hematocrit level and a super-team to beat him.

Rumor has it that the night before the Hautacam stage Riis's blood was so thick he had to be monitored every 20 minutes by the team doctor. I can remember a similar rumour with Tonkov at the Giro.

This is me just connecting dots.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
Are you familiar with the concept of analogy? Did you even read my post?

Yeah, I read it. What is your point? EPO has more of an effect than PEDs used previously? Wow, what a newsflash. :rolleyes:

Care to comment on my point, or are you still rolling around in a bucket of analogy?
 
ChrisE said:
Yeah, I read it. What is your point? EPO has more of an effect than PEDs used previously? Wow, what a newsflash. :rolleyes:

Care to comment on my point, or are you still rolling around in a bucket of analogy?
You didn't address my point, which was that the perception of EPO and older PEDs does not need to be the same, considering their effects are vastly different, and that there's no hypocrisy involved.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
You didn't address my point, which was that the perception of EPO and older PEDs does not need to be the same, considering their effects are vastly different, and that there's no hypocrisy involved.

And my point is cheating is cheating. You can't get a little bit pregnant.

PEDs pre-EPO gave an advantage or nobody would have taken them. That is a fact. Steroids for example are still a part of modern PED programs.

GL has no problem or much less of a problem with his contemporaries that cheated against him vs how much he cares about who used what PEDs after his retirement, in particular LA.

The reason why he feels this way is obvious. I will not spell it out for you.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
He seriously ( and others of his ilk) expects serious consideration for postulating that GL is in effect a mardy ickle boy jelous of LA.

Seriously ...


Im all for a bit of sensible moderating but good grief if my original post crossed the line it must a pretty timid criteria.

Sticks @ stones..
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Guys all of you, no more talk about LeMond. This debate has been had many times, and always gets started for solely one reason. So just lets go back to the topic at hand
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
And my point is cheating is cheating. You can't get a little bit pregnant.

PEDs pre-EPO gave an advantage or nobody would have taken them. That is a fact. Steroids for example are still a part of modern PED programs.

GL has no problem or much less of a problem with his contemporaries that cheated against him vs how much he cares about who used what PEDs after his retirement, in particular LA.

The reason why he feels this way is obvious. I will not spell it out for you.

what utter tosh. GL has always spoken out about PED in cycling.

For the umpteenth time the beef with LA and GL was pushed to the extremities by LA. End of. If LA kept his mouth shut, impossible we all know, this would not have become the so called personal battle between the two, but since LA has done his best and failed miserably, like you are doing now, to drag GL into the long list of doping cyclists it is left to fanboys to try and throw dirt at GL without any evidence whatsoever.

Fail again.

edit:I am all for back on topic as long as fanboys stick to the topic.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Benotti, you'll get a pass, as you didn't see my post before you hit reply, but anyone getting back to the LeMond topic, will get an infraction at the least
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
Guys all of you, no more talk about LeMond. This debate has been had many times, and always gets started for solely one reason. So just lets go back to the topic at hand
thanks barrus. but why to allow it in the first place ? there were several complaints that the thread about epo influence is constantly derailed by the same poster into why greg lemond does not hate on fignon but on la. over and over. the blatant off-topic was highlighted and reported yet it went on.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
Benotti, you'll get a pass, as you didn't see my post before you hit reply, but anyone getting back to the LeMond topic, will get an infraction at the least

If the troll is allowed to keep posting the way he has been without being rained in, what do you expect. Fanboyism runs riot!

But i will stick to the topic. Thanks.
 
ChrisE said:
And my point is cheating is cheating. You can't get a little bit pregnant.

PEDs pre-EPO gave an advantage or nobody would have taken them. That is a fact. Steroids for example are still a part of modern PED programs.
Well, your point is silly. A crime is a crime but not all forms of crime are equally repulsive. Not all forms of cheating are the same. PEDs pre-EPO gave a minor advantage, they didn't help you win as much as have a less miserable time while winning. Yes, using steroids was cheating, but compared to EPO its effects were negligible. It's no wonder riders from that era didn't feel cheated in the same way as they would in the EPO era, because back in the 80s they were beaten by riders who were their equals, not by just about anyone with some spare cash and a syringe. If you truly can't see the difference, I'm afraid you can't be helped.

(The mods will note this post is completely impersonal and it doesn't discuss any rider in particular)
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
Well, your point is silly. A crime is a crime but not all forms of crime are equally repulsive. Not all forms of cheating are the same. PEDs pre-EPO gave a minor advantage, they didn't help you win as much as have a less miserable time while winning. Yes, using steroids was cheating, but compared to EPO its effects were negligible. It's no wonder riders from that era didn't feel cheated in the same way as they would in the EPO era, because back in the 80s they were beaten by riders who were their equals, not by just about anyone with some spare cash and a syringe. If you truly can't see the difference, I'm afraid you can't be helped.

(The mods will note this post is completely impersonal and it doesn't discuss any rider in particular)

Don't worry about it...we are back on topic due to Fignon's discussion about PED's prior to EPO. I appreciate the discussion.

Agreed that EPO gives a better advantage than other PEDs. We have no argument there.


It is easy to look back on things 20/20 years after the fact and say "oh, it wasn't so bad because it wasn't EPO" instead of thinking about the mindset of a clean competitor in real time terms who is being cheated. Clean riders pre-EPO were cheated by doped riders. Period.

Have you used steroids? Obviously they had enough of an effect where riders would take chances to use them. The facts are: they were against the rules and thus cheating and secondly they offer some advantage or people would not have taken the chance in using them. IF you can't see that then I'm afraid you can't be helped, either. :D

Level of outrage by a clean competitor is not tempered when cheating against them occurs using a PED less than EPO or prior to EPO. YMMV, obviously.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Calling the EPO era the "Mediocrity Era"?
What a joke.

Come on!
It was the Era of the SuperHumans!

Gawd there was GREAT racing during the 1990's.
You KNOW its true.
Big Mig especially was awesome. Truly Awesome.


But Big Mig was mediocre? What a crock of revisionist retardedness.
 
ChrisE said:
...

It is easy to look back on things 20/20 years after the fact and say "oh, it wasn't so bad because it wasn't EPO" instead of thinking about the mindset of a clean competitor in real time terms who is being cheated. Clean riders pre-EPO were cheated by doped riders. Period.

...
I agree with this statement here.:)

However, the truth of the matter is that things can be evaluated in History, just like the world wars, and make a better assessment of the decisions taken. (Ex. War on Irak. Only history will tell sadly. And that's has been said by historians, not by me).