Rominger......... any good?

[Exroadman24902]

Has anyone in this thread at any point said Rominger was clean? No.

Has anyone in this thread said Rominger didnt benefit from EPO? No.

All that has been highlighted is Rominger came to cycling very late, thus lacks results at an early age but had good results before the advent of EPO. I think people feel that Rominger is unfairly lumped in with the likes of Riis/Chiappucci etc, guys who had no real results before EPO arrived. Therefore people are just highlighting the fact that Rominger was not a complete numpty before EPO. Simple really.

No, the "Rominger came to cycling at an early age hence less results" theory is the fan boy type theory and I reject it completely. His career took off with EPO use and would not have otherwise! Stop denying reality. He had no convincing GC results in 5 years as a pro without bad days and really up until 1992. He has lots of explaining to if he ever decides to talk about the weird trajectory of his career.

 

[pmcg76]

No, the "Rominger came to cycling at an early age hence less results" theory is the fan boy type theory and I reject it completely. His career took off with EPO use and would not have otherwise! Stop denying reality. He had no convincing GC results in 5 years as a pro without bad days and really up until 1992. He has lots of explaining to if he ever decides to talk about the weird trajectory of his career.

I dont know what part of the statement 'Rominger benefited from EPO' do you have a problem understanding.

If a riders is capable of winning Lombardy, Tirreno-Adriatico, Paris-Nice pre EPO and then benefits from EPO, how would they then improve, lets see better performances in GTs perhaps? You are the only person who seems to have a problem accepting that is what has been pointed out.

 

[Exroadman24902]

I dont know what part of the statement 'Rominger benefited from EPO' do you have a problem understanding.

If a riders is capable of winning Lombardy, Tirreno-Adriatico, Paris-Nice pre EPO and then benefits from EPO, how would they then improve, lets see better performances in GTs perhaps? You are the only person who seems to have a problem accepting that is what has been pointed out.

fair enough, but I don't see his 3 Vueltas and Giro as real wins of the value of Lemond or Fignons, or Roches-proven top riders in 21 day stage races before EPO use. And I do know about the Roche's 1993 allegations..but they each showed serious grand tour GC form before winning one which is what I object to about Indurain, Rominger and Armstrong-they didn't put together any convincing performances in terms of final GC placings over 21 day stage races for many years of their careers and yet won everything for 15 years between them when a certain drug appears

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Couple of mentions of roche, so thought i'd recollect. I remember him joining duffield in the commentary box post pyrenees stage. He finished behind rominger n indurain that day by matter of seconds, having lost bucketloads on previous mtfs. He said he'd been to his doctor on rest day n got 'vitamin etc' injections. Don't know if it was conconi or his previous german doc but by '93 he'd defo cracked. I remember rominger coming out of nowhere-at least thats wholly how it looked to a tdf only aficionado Nice guy but how,else

 

[la.margna]

Having watched and followed his career, I tend to agree with Issoisso. With exception to a handful of riders, between about 1993-2000, almost everyone was on EPO. Tony was no exception. But I think it's false to think he was a nobody, then when EPO came along he was first to jump on and bloomed. Maybe he responded better than others, but he was a talented rider throughout his career, from early on.

Rominger also did extreme altitude training leading up to the 1993 Tour, spending a few weeks in Leadville, Colorado, and riding up Mt. Evans a lot. No, not the same effect as EPO, but hardly anyone was doing training like that at the time. He was the one rider who really pushed Indurain and almost beat him.

I remember an article that cited that Ferrari almost went berserk when he measured the first time thighs (?german = Oberschenkel)... He thought he had physically the best legs he had ever seen (at that time in the mid to late 80's) to become a great GT cyclist...

as you correctly mention, everybody was on it in the 90's. rominger's problem was bad luck and his rather weak mental ability (sorry english is not my mother tongue). with the will and mental force of a cheatstrong, he would have collected a few more grand tours...

 

[slowspoke]

Ahhh THIS Tony Rominger...

SPIEGEL: Why did this money to pay Saiz Fuentes, but the two had no further contact?

Jaksche: To my knowledge there were residual debt of Saiz to Fuentes in 2005, he had to pay. Saiz had problems with a top rider from his team, which was changed at the beginning of the year at Liberty Seguros, and had a very bad spring. The driver and his manager, who was also my manager for five years, had pressured Saiz. They wanted better medical care, and Saiz was one on it, he was in a bind: The top drivers is expensive, Saiz had to justify himself to his sponsors.

SPIEGEL: Could it be that it is the driver of Alexander Vinokourov and the manager of Tony Rominger? Why did not you mention the name?

Jaksche: Again, I will not burden drivers. Saiz is because of this driver back to Fuentes, so he had to pay the debt, so flew on everything.

P.S the translation on Driver means rider

http://translate.googleusercontent....4.html&usg=ALkJrhib1dJSSscFWKgbyZaoAG3Fz77jXA

 

[rhubroma]

Rominger was a classic case of someone who had talent, yes, but who wasn't able to become a "champion" cyclist without EPO.

Unlike Lemond, since the connection has been made, who was a star of the sport practically from the first year he turned pro, who then went on to win the worlds at 22, finish 3rd in his first Tour, etc, Rominger seemed unable to be good over 3 weeks before EPO.

Historically, therefore, this is the greatest disservice to the sport EPO and the likes of Ferrari have done: that is to always leave some margin of doubt regarding how authentic is what you see. Moral relativism aside, this to me seems to be the crux of it; because whereas with the stuff the guys were taking before and the relatively unscientific nature of doping in the pre-90's era, the amount gained, the receptivity of one athlete vs another following a given "program," meant that performance enhancement was relatively contained.

After that the sheer sophistication of both the drugs and the scientific methodology behind the doping programs literally changed. Ironically the progress of anti-doping has only enhanced the refinment and intelligence of doping.

A Pandora's Box was opened and the devastating effects that this has caused for the sport are incalculable in terms of its legitimacy. Because in a hypothetical EPO free sport, one can not be sure by a long-shot that the stats compiled over the last 20 years or so would have been at all the same. By contrast up till the 80s there is probably a much greater chance that they would hold up if you took away the products those riders had access to and, consequently, that the relative natural vs artificial talent still weighed heaviest in the former. By contrast after EPO the latter increased in mass and measure and so too did the distortion.

In other words modern science has killed the authenticity, the genuineness in sport.

We were able to watch for the entertainment value, but not for the reality of it.

 

[ultimobici]

Rominger was a classic case of someone who had talent, yes, but who wasn't able to become a "champion" cyclist without EPO.

Unlike Lemond, since the connection has been made, who was a star of the sport practically from the first year he turned pro, who then went on to win the worlds at 22, finish 3rd in his first Tour, etc, Rominger seemed unable to be good over 3 weeks before EPO.

Historically, therefore, this is the greatest disservice to the sport EPO and the likes of Ferrari have done: that is to always leave some margin of doubt regarding how authentic is what you see. Moral relativism aside, this to me seems to be the crux of it; because whereas with the stuff the guys were taking before and the relatively unscientific nature of doping in the pre-90's era, the amount gained, the receptivity of one athlete vs another following a given "program," meant that performance enhancement was relatively contained.

After that the sheer sophistication of both the drugs and the scientific methodology behind the doping programs literally changed. Ironically the progress of anti-doping has only enhanced the refinment and intelligence of doping.

A Pandora's Box was opened and the devastating effects that this has caused for the sport are incalculable in terms of its legitimacy. Because in a hypothetical EPO free sport, one can not be sure by a long-shot that the stats compiled over the last 20 years or so would have been at all the same. By contrast up till the 80s there is probably a much greater chance that they would hold up if you took away the products those riders had access to and, consequently, that the relative natural vs artificial talent still weighed heaviest in the former. By contrast after EPO the latter increased in mass and measure and so too did the distortion.

In other words modern science has killed the authenticity, the genuineness in sport.

We were able to watch for the entertainment value, but not for the reality of it.

Great post, hits the nail on the head. All those riders who blossomed in the late 80's & early 90's are tainted, quite often unfairly, with the stigma of EPO. Sadly we'll never know.

 

[Exroadman24902]

Rominger was a classic case of someone who had talent, yes, but who wasn't able to become a "champion" cyclist without EPO.

Unlike Lemond, since the connection has been made, who was a star of the sport practically from the first year he turned pro, who then went on to win the worlds at 22, finish 3rd in his first Tour, etc, Rominger seemed unable to be good over 3 weeks before EPO.

Historically, therefore, this is the greatest disservice to the sport EPO and the likes of Ferrari have done: that is to always leave some margin of doubt regarding how authentic is what you see. Moral relativism aside, this to me seems to be the crux of it; because whereas with the stuff the guys were taking before and the relatively unscientific nature of doping in the pre-90's era, the amount gained, the receptivity of one athlete vs another following a given "program," meant that performance enhancement was relatively contained.

After that the sheer sophistication of both the drugs and the scientific methodology behind the doping programs literally changed. Ironically the progress of anti-doping has only enhanced the refinment and intelligence of doping.

A Pandora's Box was opened and the devastating effects that this has caused for the sport are incalculable in terms of its legitimacy. Because in a hypothetical EPO free sport, one can not be sure by a long-shot that the stats compiled over the last 20 years or so would have been at all the same. By contrast up till the 80s there is probably a much greater chance that they would hold up if you took away the products those riders had access to and, consequently, that the relative natural vs artificial talent still weighed heaviest in the former. By contrast after EPO the latter increased in mass and measure and so too did the distortion.

In other words modern science has killed the authenticity, the genuineness in sport.

We were able to watch for the entertainment value, but not for the reality of it.

very good points, very well put

 

[lartiste]

Re:

Rominger was a classic case of someone who had talent, yes, but who wasn't able to become a "champion" cyclist without EPO.

Unlike Lemond, since the connection has been made, who was a star of the sport practically from the first year he turned pro, who then went on to win the worlds at 22, finish 3rd in his first Tour, etc, Rominger seemed unable to be good over 3 weeks before EPO.

Historically, therefore, this is the greatest disservice to the sport EPO and the likes of Ferrari have done: that is to always leave some margin of doubt regarding how authentic is what you see. Moral relativism aside, this to me seems to be the crux of it; because whereas with the stuff the guys were taking before and the relatively unscientific nature of doping in the pre-90's era, the amount gained, the receptivity of one athlete vs another following a given "program," meant that performance enhancement was relatively contained.

After that the sheer sophistication of both the drugs and the scientific methodology behind the doping programs literally changed. Ironically the progress of anti-doping has only enhanced the refinment and intelligence of doping.

A Pandora's Box was opened and the devastating effects that this has caused for the sport are incalculable in terms of its legitimacy. Because in a hypothetical EPO free sport, one can not be sure by a long-shot that the stats compiled over the last 20 years or so would have been at all the same. By contrast up till the 80s there is probably a much greater chance that they would hold up if you took away the products those riders had access to and, consequently, that the relative natural vs artificial talent still weighed heaviest in the former. By contrast after EPO the latter increased in mass and measure and so too did the distortion.

In other words modern science has killed the authenticity, the genuineness in sport.

We were able to watch for the entertainment value, but not for the reality of it.

Great post, hits the nail on the head. All those riders who blossomed in the late 80's & early 90's are tainted, quite often unfairly, with the stigma of EPO. Sadly we'll never know.

I am affraid, that there is no winner of any major race during 90ties and 2000s EPO free ... . That is the reality of it.

There are may be two break points. Since Festina affair the doping is not team organized and since the EPO tests there is "just" microdosing, but still I would say majority of riders is still on EPO even now days.

 

[MarkvW]

Professional cycling is Pandora's Box. The Sport has been filthy from the getgo. Strychnine...amphetamines...steroids....EPO...motors.... and soon (if not already) genetic manipulation.

It is interesting, but it isn't much of a sport.

 

[Djoop]

Deleted post

 

[lartiste]

Re:

Professional cycling is Pandora's Box. The Sport has been filthy from the getgo. Strychnine...amphetamines...steroids....EPO...motors.... and soon (if not already) genetic manipulation.

It is interesting, but it isn't much of a sport.

Sport in general is pandora box. Do not be naive, the situation is very similar in majority of sports. Do you remember when Operacion Puerto stopped? If I remember correctly it was at the moment, when it started to touch football players and Nadal. My opinion is that cycling is only tip of the iceberg regarding doping in sport. And there are probably two reasons - it is popular around the world and it is poor sport. Can you imagine someone will ban Ronaldo for two years for doping? Economically impossible.

 

[lartiste]

Re:

Still, between him and Indurain, who would you expect to climb faster in 'normal' conditions?

Probably Rominger since he was at least 15 kg lighter than Miguelon.

 

[Cookster15]

Rominger was supposed to suffer pollen allergies in July that hindered him at the Tour. He seemed to conquer this in the 93 Tour when he pushed Big Mig to the limit. But was Rominger genuinely talented or simply a beneficiary of EPO? Who knows? With Indurain's domination I enjoyed following Tony putting up a fight in 93 (I only started following the sport the year before), but he could never realise that promise in the latter years of Indurain's reign. I was shattered when he cracked on Hautacam in 94 :sad:

 

[Mr.38%]

Re:

Rominger was supposed to suffer pollen allergies in July that hindered him at the Tour. He seemed to conquer this in the 93 Tour when he pushed Big Mig to the limit. But was Rominger genuinely talented or simply a beneficiary of EPO? Who knows? With Indurain's domination I enjoyed following Tony putting up a fight in 93 (I only started following the sport the year before), but he could never realise that promise in the latter years of Indurain's reign. I was shattered when he cracked on Hautacam in 94 :sad:

Tony was blessed with a very low Hct and high stamina, the stuff that champions were built on in the nineties.

 

[Le breton]

Re: Re:

[Quote from lartiste : I am affraid, that there is no winner of any major race during 90ties and 2000s EPO free ... . That is the reality of it.]

One exception springs to mind :
Van Hooydonck won Flanders in 1991

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Professional cycling is Pandora's Box. The Sport has been filthy from the getgo. Strychnine...amphetamines...steroids....EPO...motors.... and soon (if not already) genetic manipulation.

It is interesting, but it isn't much of a sport.

Sport in general is pandora box. Do not be naive, the situation is very similar in majority of sports. Do you remember when Operacion Puerto stopped? If I remember correctly it was at the moment, when it started to touch football players and Nadal. My opinion is that cycling is only tip of the iceberg regarding doping in sport. And there are probably two reasons - it is popular around the world and it is poor sport. Can you imagine someone will ban Ronaldo for two years for doping? Economically impossible.

True. As soon as you, your son/daughter or sister/brother leave "house league" sports, or any activity, including best adolescent Sunday School Bible Reader, the romantic (childish, if you will) atmosphere and rules of engagement change ... drastically. The ideal of 'fairness' is a teasing bitcht.

Sports, including professional cycling, will continue to flourish and be watched despite their perceived imperfections. Of course, some have the option to stop watching. Others will reconcile their romantic conceptions with reality.

 

[lartiste]

Re: Re:

[Quote from lartiste : I am affraid, that there is no winner of any major race during 90ties and 2000s EPO free ... . That is the reality of it.]

One exception springs to mind :
Van Hooydonck won Flanders in 1991

I started to follow cycling during late 80s and do not know him, sorry for that. OK, may be there wre exceptions, but I assume, that only few of them and probably in early 90s.