Official Valverde thread.

[veganrob]

Is it safe to say Merckx would have used transfusions if they were more widely available when he was racing? EPO, HGH, Cortisone, etc...

 

[slowspoke]

Re:

Is it safe to say Merckx would have used transfusions if they were more widely available when he was racing? EPO, HGH, Cortisone, etc...

Did Axel?

 

[Echoes]

You seem to be quite definitive that modern doping is Frankenstein stuff and must be fought. The fight isn't real though is it, it's for appearances only. What do you think about immediate lifetime bans? A way forward perhaps, under your vision? (genuine questions, just in case it's ambiguous).

Yes I'm more and more in favour of it with regards to blood doping and hormones like Testosterone or HGH and some other stuff perhaps. I'm not an expert though. Normal bans for amphetamines and corticos.

[quote"veganrob"]Is it safe to say Merckx would have used transfusions if they were more widely available when he was racing?[/quote]

It might be. However in Mexico he's said to have been suggested to and refused to. Anyway as I said on the main section of the forum, I don't iconise, don't reminisce about the days of old, I'm just looking at the historical facts, so no would-haves.

 

[Mr.White]

There's a clear difference of nature between stimulant doping and blood transfusion. That's my point.

Anynody is entitled to treat the two the same way but comparing a stimulant like pemoline and blood transfusion is comparing apples and oranges. Stimulants are just a way to wake up when you are too tired but are not "transmuting". Besides it was perfectly possible for clean riders to win races, even big ones while it's very hard with the new methods. Blood transfusion came with Francesco Moser in 1984 (I know it started before but didn't really work until Moser). Philippe Bordas considered it the day cycling died (the Moser first "record" 1984).

It's been discussed here many times, I think.

I'm not saying that stimulants should all be depenalised. I just don't think it makes the rider who uses them a big joke. It's a bit like an illegal sprint when you deviate from your line, you should be disqualified but you may start a race the next day. With blood doping like EPO, transfusions or hormone-based doping like testosterone or HGH cycling makes no sense anymore and such cheating should be combatted mercilessly. Even with riders we liked until that point. That's my viewpoint. I can understand people who are of the opinion that all kind of doping should be fought against the same way. It's radical, savonarolesque but I cannot really understand how some might clear their favourite riders who had been confounded with EPO or blood transfusion etc because after all there's a level-playing field and doping has always existed in cycling, etc exists in other sports too. I cannot understand that. My youth heroes have been screwed by EPO, I didn't even know at the time.

Also for the record, only one Merckx positive test is really admitted, the third one at the 1977 Arrow for pomeline/stimul. The Savona one is a typical Italian combazione to get rid of a straniero and he's been cleared of it. The second one at the 1973 Tour of Lombardy was a case of therapeutic use at a time when TUE did not exist, after having a sore throat at the Coppa Agostoni, he took syrup containing norephedryne.

Yeah I agree there's a difference, but only if the violation came in the same age, or close. Merckx rode 30-35 years before Valverde, there was no blood doping then, he used what was available. And the fact he was caught three times speaks for himself. Once a mistake, maybe (Giro), twice is very suspicious (Lombardia), and for the third time, well things seems pretty clear. No one makes so much mistakes by accident. Just imagine rider in this age with 3 violations (even if he's stripped for one). So for me, there's no much difference between these 2 riders, and if there is a difference, then it's in Merckx favor (doping wise).

I maybe see things different than you, for me things are not black or white. From the beginning of pro cycling, riders use whatever they could in order to win. It started already with Maurice Garin, and all the big champions were connected or caught using some kind of unfair on unlegal advatage. Coppi, Gaul, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Kelly, Fignon, Indurain, Pantani, Contador, to name a few, all had some kind of violations, or some allegations. It's basically the pantheon of cycling. In so called EPO and blood doping era approx. 70-80% of the riders were doped, many of them testified about that. And among those 20-30% who didn't dope, there were no top riders, they were all domestiques or young pros. And in atmosphere like that it is hard to blame a rider so much for doping abuse. We need to blame him, of course. He needs to serve his ban, and after that he's free to ride, that's the way things should be. But to say all his results have some kind of a cross, and pretend that rider even doesn't exist, for me that's way too much. Then we would have to erase almost 20 years of cycling, and even more. The way I see it, top guns were almost always on a level playing field, with 2 notable exceptions, which had UCI protection: Lance Armstrong and Team Sky!

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Is it safe to say Merckx would have used transfusions if they were more widely available when he was racing? EPO, HGH, Cortisone, etc...

Did Axel?

:lol:

Axel's team dropped from Amgen ToC. I found that hilarious.

 

[Echoes]

In so called EPO and blood doping era approx. 70-80% of the riders were doped, many of them testified about that. And among those 20-30% who didn't dope, there were no top riders, they were all domestiques or young pros. And in atmosphere like that it is hard to blame a rider so much for doping abuse. [snipped]The way I see it, top guns were almost always on a level playing field, with 2 notable exceptions, which had UCI protection: Lance Armstrong and Team Sky!

I shall only reply to these statements because those are what I think are errors. There are no legitimate basis to give such basis 70-80% and in the EPO era (the nineties) there were certainly top talent who did not dope. I'm thinking of Edwig Van Hooydonck, Gilles Delion or Frans Maassen, to some extent Sammie Moreels, all of whom could do well by 1991/1992 and were declining all of a sudden in the following years at an age you would expect to be their best years. They could no longer perform while that was still possible for them in the previous era and the early EPO years (before it really generalised). That's why I think there should be no compromise about blood doping. Some of these riders were my youth heroes, especially Van Hooydonck. I became a Museeuw fan not knowing I was being deceived. Several people are still clearing Museeuw because he "fought with the same weapons". Johan Van Summeren is one of them (despite strict stance against doping). I cannot understand that. Ask Van Hooydonck if Museeuw was racing in a "level-playing field". Besides, even if it were a level-playing field, there's still something that is missing, the epicness of the sport. With EPO or blood doping, everything suddenly becomes so easy for the peloton. A race like Milan-Sanremo is no longer a 290km race but a 150km and so it always ends with a bunch sprint (okay there are other factors like new technology, new bikes, but still doping made that race so easy). We should agree that blood doping in particular made this once fascinating sport look boring for the viewers. That's why anti-doping (read anti blood doping + top hormone-based dope) should be in our interest (for us viewers). I know that some think doping made the sport exciting but that is because they don't see the beauty of riders suffering on their bicycle like in the old days.

Also your last sentence is exactly what bores me. In the end you (plural) would always find some black sheep. I did not like Armstrong at all but I've been fed up with anti-Armstrongism on these boards. I mean 3 volumes of his thread here compared to other dopers? He did not take anything different than Museeuw, Ullrich, Pantani or Jalabert so why singling him out? It's always the same. Doping matters when a rider you cannot stand is busted otherwise it does not.

Finally it's been very well established that of the 3 Merckx positive tests, only the third one is valid. There's no need to discuss further because one valid test is enough. However in the early days of antidoping the system was pretty poorly done, many other riders were innocent/unfairly treated (multiple times too!). There was no possibility to B-sample and no TUE (okay there are abuses of TUE today but TUE is a right) and the testing were not neutral. It's very different today.

 

[Mr.White]

In so called EPO and blood doping era approx. 70-80% of the riders were doped, many of them testified about that. And among those 20-30% who didn't dope, there were no top riders, they were all domestiques or young pros. And in atmosphere like that it is hard to blame a rider so much for doping abuse. [snipped]The way I see it, top guns were almost always on a level playing field, with 2 notable exceptions, which had UCI protection: Lance Armstrong and Team Sky!

Also your last sentence is exactly what bores me. In the end you (plural) would always find some black sheep. I did not like Armstrong at all but I've been fed up with anti-Armstrongism on these boards. I mean 3 volumes of his thread here compared to other dopers? He did not take anything different than Museeuw, Ullrich, Pantani or Jalabert so why singling him out? It's always the same. Doping matters when a rider you cannot stand is busted otherwise it does not.

I'm not anti-Armstrong, not at all. He didn't do anything different, doping wise, than Museeuw, Pantani or Ulrich I agree. But the reason why I singled him out was one different thing he did, or better he had, compared to those other guys. He had protection! He had protection in the highest places possible, he was untouchable! He could dope whenever he wanted and with whatever he wanted, and nobody could have done anything about that. Others didn't have such privileges. That's what I call unfair advantage. And that same protection, only little more covered, has one team today.

 

[Dan2016]

In so called EPO and blood doping era approx. 70-80% of the riders were doped, many of them testified about that. And among those 20-30% who didn't dope, there were no top riders, they were all domestiques or young pros. And in atmosphere like that it is hard to blame a rider so much for doping abuse. [snipped]The way I see it, top guns were almost always on a level playing field, with 2 notable exceptions, which had UCI protection: Lance Armstrong and Team Sky!

I shall only reply to these statements because those are what I think are errors. There are no legitimate basis to give such basis 70-80% and in the EPO era (the nineties) there were certainly top talent who did not dope. I'm thinking of Edwig Van Hooydonck, Gilles Delion or Frans Maassen, to some extent Sammie Moreels, all of whom could do well by 1991/1992 and were declining all of a sudden in the following years at an age you would expect to be their best years. They could no longer perform while that was still possible for them in the previous era and the early EPO years (before it really generalised). That's why I think there should be no compromise about blood doping. Some of these riders were my youth heroes, especially Van Hooydonck. I became a Museeuw fan not knowing I was being deceived. Several people are still clearing Museeuw because he "fought with the same weapons". Johan Van Summeren is one of them (despite strict stance against doping). I cannot understand that. Ask Van Hooydonck if Museeuw was racing in a "level-playing field". Besides, even if it were a level-playing field, there's still something that is missing, the epicness of the sport. With EPO or blood doping, everything suddenly becomes so easy for the peloton. A race like Milan-Sanremo is no longer a 290km race but a 150km and so it always ends with a bunch sprint (okay there are other factors like new technology, new bikes, but still doping made that race so easy). We should agree that blood doping in particular made this once fascinating sport look boring for the viewers. That's why anti-doping (read anti blood doping + top hormone-based dope) should be in our interest (for us viewers). I know that some think doping made the sport exciting but that is because they don't see the beauty of riders suffering on their bicycle like in the old days.

Also your last sentence is exactly what bores me. In the end you (plural) would always find some black sheep. I did not like Armstrong at all but I've been fed up with anti-Armstrongism on these boards. I mean 3 volumes of his thread here compared to other dopers? He did not take anything different than Museeuw, Ullrich, Pantani or Jalabert so why singling him out? It's always the same. Doping matters when a rider you cannot stand is busted otherwise it does not.

Finally it's been very well established that of the 3 Merckx positive tests, only the third one is valid. There's no need to discuss further because one valid test is enough. However in the early days of antidoping the system was pretty poorly done, many other riders were innocent/unfairly treated (multiple times too!). There was no possibility to B-sample and no TUE (okay there are abuses of TUE today but TUE is a right) and the testing were not neutral. It's very different today.

Good post. Disagree with pretty much all of it, but I like reading opinions different to my own.

To the bolded bits, the idea that EPO made racing easier is debatable. Not necessarily wrong of course, but certainly debatable. The old adage 'it never gets any easier, you just go faster' has a lot of truth in it I think. The 'floating-on-air' suffering is usually the most extreme because you can go so much deeper. It seems, from various pro accounts, that this is what EPO and the like do.

I've watched the sport since the 80's and personally see no less suffering now than I did then. They often seem to go impossibly fast now, which can give me a 'what the eff am I watching here' reaction, but I don't really see less suffering. Whether the impossible speeds make it less beautiful to watch, less human, is personal of course. I think I'm on the fence on that one.

Regarding your Milan San Remo example, I'm not convinced it (or any other one day) is a good race to illustrate blood doping. The sport has evolved on many levels, as you acknowledge. Perhaps a clearer example would be the team trains on major mountain stages nowadays, with rouleurs climbing like mountain-goats from previous generations?

(And just to go back to a previous post, I find your idea of lifetime bans for blood doping but not for other doping interesting. I have a different take on all of this, but that would be an interesting proposal to see seriously discussed. It would seem to have merit within the current anti-doping ethos).

 

[GraftPunk]

Today seemed totally legit.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Could have been a motor?

 

[BYOP88]

Like a fine wine just gets better with age. I can't wait to see the level he can reach when he's in his forties.

 

[GraftPunk]

Re:

Like a fine wine just gets better with age. I can't wait to see the level he can reach when he's in his forties.

I'm looking forward to he and Horner winning races while trying to stick canes in one another's spokes.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Guys. There was a tailwind. :lol:

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Mihai Cazacu‏ @faustocoppi60
Alejandro Valverde: around 6.6 w/kg for 24 minutes today. Madre mia. #VoltaCatalunya

Wow. Will challenge for a podium at the Tour?

Could have been a motor?

My first thought. He had to brake in the corners :lol:

 

[Valv.Piti]

I assume your logic is the following: Valverde beating Contador on a MTF -> Valverde must be motordoping

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

I assume your logic is the following: Valverde beating Contador on a MTF -> Valverde must be motordoping

Valverde, Froome bashing to start by Contador fans in 3,2,1.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

I assume your logic is the following: Valverde beating Contador on a MTF -> Valverde must be motordoping

I see motors everywhere. Valverde, Sagan, Van Aert, Froome, even Contador at times. Who knows what the extent of this fraud is

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

I assume your logic is the following: Valverde beating Contador on a MTF -> Valverde must be motordoping

I see motors everywhere. Valverde, Sagan, Van Aert, Froome, even Contador at times. Who knows what the extent of this fraud is

Where have you seen motors of Valverde if I may ask?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I assume your logic is the following: Valverde beating Contador on a MTF -> Valverde must be motordoping

I see motors everywhere. Valverde, Sagan, Van Aert, Froome, even Contador at times. Who knows what the extent of this fraud is

Where have you seen motors of Valverde if I may ask?

Today

When I say I "see" motors everywhere, I mean "see" as in how some people see ghosts; I don't actually see them with my eyes but I could convince myself they're there. I'm "seeing things".

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Mihai Cazacu‏ @faustocoppi60
Alejandro Valverde: around 6.6 w/kg for 24 minutes today. Madre mia. #VoltaCatalunya

Wow. Will challenge for a podium at the Tour?

Could have been a motor?

My first thought. He had to brake in the corners :lol:

He'll win the Tour with that as long as the TTs don't let him down. Froome will have to go full Dawg to outclimb him.

 

[GraftPunk]

I've actually gotten to like Piti over the last few years, but c'mon, today wasn't exactly a normal day for him.

 

[Rollthedice]

Actually when he was about 35 years old in TdF 2015 he began climbing better than he did in a decade. But what he did today was jaw dropping. The whole Movistar stepped up big time, Unzue finally got dem marginal gains right. The whole damn peloton seem like they're back on rocket fuel. An average of 400+ watts for half an hour will net you a top twenty place.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

I assume your logic is the following: Valverde beating Contador on a MTF -> Valverde must be motordoping

I see motors everywhere. Valverde, Sagan, Van Aert, Froome, even Contador at times. Who knows what the extent of this fraud is

Where have you seen motors of Valverde if I may ask?

Today

When I say I "see" motors everywhere, I mean "see" as in how some people see ghosts; I don't actually see them with my eyes but I could convince myself they're there. I'm "seeing things".

I assumed you referred to 'incidents' like those of Froome, Cancellara and Van Aerts. So its basically just the people that ride their bikes the fastest that are under suspicion for motordope.

I don't really believe that much in motordope. I may be wrong. That said, Valverde is obviously assisted clinically.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re:

I've actually gotten to like Piti over the last few years, but c'mon, today wasn't exactly a normal day for him.

If his power output was really through the roof ... then yeah, but that isn't clear yet. Could have been the favorable wind conditions.

What we know is that he was a bit better than Froome today, who's building form at the moment, while Contador went all out at P-N. I don't think Contador has fully recovered from that.

 

[GraftPunk]

Re: Re:

I've actually gotten to like Piti over the last few years, but c'mon, today wasn't exactly a normal day for him.

If his power output was really through the roof ... then yeah, but that isn't clear yet. Could have been the favorable wind conditions.

What we know is that he was a bit better than Froome today, who's building form at the moment, while Contador went all out at P-N. I don't think Contador has fully recovered from that.

Maybe, it definitely goes under the category of 'things that make you go hmmmmm' for me, but YMMV.