• 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!

Steffen Kjaergaard - the naive and innocent Norwegian? ;)

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The Death Merchant said:
Bjørn Dæhlie was doped like all of his rivals. Anyone who's claiming that the Norwegians didn't use EPO (a perfect drug that was impossible to detect and which usage was the norm) in the 90's, when all the others did, is seriously delusional. The late Mika Myllylä, Dæhlie's big rival at the time of 1994 and 1998 Olympics, admitted EPO usage in the 90's and even he lost to Dæhlie many times. And Myllylä was not some average schmuck but a real talent and a hard worker. So even a highly talented hard worker juiced with EPO couldn't beat Bjørn Dæhlie. And the financial benefits are surely there as Dæhlie has made some serious money with his success.

This is how incredibly superhuman the Norwegian skiers were. Norwegian cross country team won the medley in the 1998 Olympics, ahead of Italy and Finland, both of which had their skiers filled with EPO at the time. And the Norwegians are still ridiculously claiming that their skiers were doing it clean in the EPO-filled 90's...*shakes head* Believing Norwegians their nation of 5 millions were/is producing the most genetically advanced superhumans in the world for year in year out! Oh dear...How naive and blind can one be. :D

It sad that Norway still chooses to live in a lie. Still after Pharmstrong and all that has come out of the EPO filled 90's. Norway is the only Nordic country, no...slash that, the only cross country skiing country, that still believes they were clean in the 90's. I'm seriously wondering if the doping usage in Norway was/is totally systematic, somehow sanctioned or tolerated by their anti-doping authorities. Knowing that the very suspicious Inggard Lereim (he also monitored the blood values of skiers through 80's and 90's claimed that no Nordic skier ever used EPO in the 90's, which was just utter BS) has been part of both Norwegian anti-doping and FIS's doping control, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Norwegians have been advised by him and warned beforehand of possible testing.

-------------------
You are Norwegian or what ? Do you actually know anything about cross country skiing ? The legal equivalent to EPO in skiing is ski-preparation . Norway was far ahead of the others at the time of Dæhlie and Alsgaard. If you want to accuse Norwegians of doping in Cross-country skiing, I suggest a look at some of today's athletes. Cross country is a huge sport in Norway, and apart from Sweden and Finland it is a small sport in almost all the rest of the world. That can explain why Norway can dominate it.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
Armchaircyclist said:
-------------------
You are Norwegian or what ? Do you actually know anything about cross country skiing ? The legal equivalent to EPO in skiing is ski-preparation . Norway was far ahead of the others at the time of Dæhlie and Alsgaard. If you want to accuse Norwegians of doping in Cross-country skiing, I suggest a look at some of today's athletes. Cross country is a huge sport in Norway, and apart from Sweden and Finland it is a small sport in almost all the rest of the world. That can explain why Norway can dominate it.

Why is it that when Norway is superb at ski preparation it took an American to introduce the by far best cross country skiing technique and a Swede to come up with the far best ski jumping technique? Is there too much inhalation of ski wax fumes in Norway?

Theodor_Kittelsen_-_Skogtroll,_1906_(Forest_Troll).jpg
 
neineinei said:
Why is it that when Norway is superb at ski preparation it took an American to introduce the by far best cross country skiing technique and a Swede to come up with the far best ski jumping technique? Is there too much inhalation of ski wax fumes in Norway?

LOL, No. :D

It's a kind of conservatism IMHO. If you see skiing as an art, you get kinda sensitive when someone changes it and makes it better.

You will have a lot of traditionalists moaning and whining, hence change takes a little time to sink in.

An illustrative example might be bull fighting in Spain. If I went into the ring and just shot the Bull, I would be very effective, but for the Spanish that is not the point. For them it's an art. It's not about the winning, it's more the process leading to the death of the bull.
 
neineinei said:
Why is it that when Norway is superb at ski preparation it took an American to introduce the by far best cross country skiing technique and a Swede to come up with the far best ski jumping technique? Is there too much inhalation of ski wax fumes in Norway?
How are these things supposed to be connected?
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
Torsten Schmidt

Yesterday: Norwegian Cycling Federation said they had sent information about some "scenarios" involving a Norwegian cyclist active in the Kjærgaard/Hølestøl era to Anti doping Norway. But they couldn't name anyone, it might be nothing. Today they sent out a press release saying the person wasn't Norwegian, it was a German rider with a "Norwegian sounding name", basically naming Torsten Schmidt, but removing the notion that another Norwegian rider might be involved overruled the importance of not naming anyone without good reason.

http://www.procycling.no/article3509724.ece
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/artikkel.php?artid=10055639
http://nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.8390609
 
neineinei said:
Yesterday: Norwegian Cycling Federation said they had sent information about some "scenarios" involving a Norwegian cyclist active in the Kjærgaard/Hølestøl era to Anti doping Norway. But they couldn't name anyone, it might be nothing. Today they sent out a press release saying the person wasn't Norwegian, it was a German rider with a "Norwegian sounding name", basically naming Torsten Schmidt, but removing the notion that another Norwegian rider might be involved overruled the importance of not naming anyone without good reason.

http://www.procycling.no/article3509724.ece
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/artikkel.php?artid=10055639
http://nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.8390609
Weird process...

Not exactly new that Torsten Schmidt has been doping. No surprise to read that he's with Katusha now...
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
ToreBear said:
An illustrative example might be bull fighting in Spain. If I went into the ring and just shot the Bull, I would be very effective, but for the Spanish that is not the point. For them it's an art. It's not about the winning, it's more the process leading to the death of the bull.

Torebear great mail. And I sense a bit of Torre(s) in you :D

Agree re the art of cross country ski prep. But this is all legal, right? As opposed to EPO. And EPO use in cross country would be very widespread, just as in cycling, they would all have to be on it to be competitive. Maybe even more than cycling as drafting has a lower benefit in skiing than cycling. Ie. in cycling one can survive longer in the pack than in cross country skiing?

And I don't think it's the wax inhalation as much as the 40% plus effect when the sun doesn't come up for months :D.

I think a world's in Norway would be fantastic. Beats Qatar. What a joke.
 
neineinei said:
Yesterday: Norwegian Cycling Federation said they had sent information about some "scenarios" involving a Norwegian cyclist active in the Kjærgaard/Hølestøl era to Anti doping Norway. But they couldn't name anyone, it might be nothing. Today they sent out a press release saying the person wasn't Norwegian, it was a German rider with a "Norwegian sounding name", basically naming Torsten Schmidt, but removing the notion that another Norwegian rider might be involved overruled the importance of not naming anyone without good reason.

http://www.procycling.no/article3509724.ece
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/artikkel.php?artid=10055639
http://nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.8390609

maltiv said:
Weird process...

Not exactly new that Torsten Schmidt has been doping. No surprise to read that he's with Katusha now...

I think messy PR is a sign of them not being a rich federation that can spend money on PR.



Tinman said:
Torebear great mail. And I sense a bit of Torre(s) in you :D

Never seen bullfighting my self, but I love Spain. I understand bullfighting, but I don't like the concept of torturing animals to death. I think more and more Spanish people agree with this. Hence it's likely to become illegal soon.

Tinman said:
Agree re the art of cross country ski prep. But this is all legal, right? As opposed to EPO. And EPO use in cross country would be very widespread, just as in cycling, they would all have to be on it to be competitive. Maybe even more than cycling as drafting has a lower benefit in skiing than cycling. Ie. in cycling one can survive longer in the pack than in cross country skiing?
Ski prep etc is part of the competition. Though one might argue that those with money for research and development might have an unfair advantage over time. Still it's not black and white.

I don't think the epo problem has ever been as bad as cycling. Part of the reason is that there is a lot of money in cycling compared to xc skiing.

XC skiing is much more about skill and material than cycling. A 10% difference in capacity due to EPO can IMHO be rectified with better material and skill.


Tinman said:
And I don't think it's the wax inhalation as much as the 40% plus effect when the sun doesn't come up for months :D.

:D
Tinman said:
I think a world's in Norway would be fantastic. Beats Qatar. What a joke.

Yep, I think they are focusing on getting the 2017 worlds. Also with the recent doping revelations in international cycling, the extra time will be needed to assure Norwegian sponsors that cycling does not equal doping.

Norwegian sponsors are quite sensitive to being associated with doping.
 
Oct 24, 2012
71
0
0
Visit site
ToreBear said:
Ski prep etc is part of the competition. Though one might argue that those with money for research and development might have an unfair advantage over time. Still it's not black and white.

I don't think the epo problem has ever been as bad as cycling. Part of the reason is that there is a lot of money in cycling compared to xc skiing.

XC skiing is much more about skill and material than cycling. A 10% difference in capacity due to EPO can IMHO be rectified with better material and skill.

The only way a 10% difference in capacity is rectified in XC is if there are very few dopers with the said advantage. You will never consistently outperform dirty athletes by pure skill and preparation by such margin and it would be incredibly arrogant to assume so. It's not like the dopers are known not to look for every possible advantage out there. Yes, in a single race in difficult conditions the margins can be huge but overall, throughout years of competition? No, just no. You can always hope that the sport itself was cleaner than some would assume, but assuming clean athletes could consistently outperform and compete with EPO users seems really far fetched to me.

As for the money, I think that's just a dishonest argument. There's money for preparation, research and development but somehow there isn't enough money for drugs? Obviously it isn't a globally big sport, but in the countries that do care about it, athletes still make decent careers with it. I'm fairly certain Norway takes care of it's Olympic winners. Anyway, it's not like there needs to be any money for someone to dope. There's always the glory. And the gold.

Anyway, I quite like the innocent Norwegian approach to doping. I might have my doubts, but it can all be explained away if you have faith. It's good that there are still countries that have avoided the bigger scandals. If nothing else at least British Cycling has a friend who understands. Hope it stays that way too.
 
neineinei said:
Why is it that when Norway is superb at ski preparation it took an American to introduce the by far best cross country skiing technique and a Swede to come up with the far best ski jumping technique? Is there too much inhalation of ski wax fumes in Norway?

Theodor_Kittelsen_-_Skogtroll,_1906_(Forest_Troll).jpg

---------------------

Jumping in a V-style is comparable to riding a tempo-bike in the peloton. The bike is faster, but the rules would not allow it. In ski-jumping though, the style was after a while allowed, though many still hate it.

The skating-style in cross-country is a consequence of different track preparations. In the old days that style would have been useless, but with modern machines making hard tracks, skating is now the way to go. Again, if this was cycling it would probably not have been allowed.

As pointed out by somebody else, the biggest nations in a sport are also sometimes victims of traditionalism, and unwilling to accept change.

Another difference between cycling and skiing - it is more about single races in skiing, not so much about "tours" even with the tour de ski lately.
Another thing is that norwegians knew how to get their hematocrit up in scientific but legal ways (altitude houses - nowadays banned in Norway, but used a lot in the 90s).
 
romnom said:
The only way a 10% difference in capacity is rectified in XC is if there are very few dopers with the said advantage. You will never consistently outperform dirty athletes by pure skill and preparation by such margin and it would be incredibly arrogant to assume so. It's not like the dopers are known not to look for every possible advantage out there. Yes, in a single race in difficult conditions the margins can be huge but overall, throughout years of competition? No, just no. You can always hope that the sport itself was cleaner than some would assume, but assuming clean athletes could consistently outperform and compete with EPO users seems really far fetched to me.
This is a complex issue as you correctly state, and Tinmans questions did not indicate a long and complex reply was required. I don't have time for that right now anyway.;) But my experience on this board is that translating from cycling to XC skiing and assuming the effects of doping are the same, is a widespread error. Hence I try to quickly explain that there is a big difference.


romnom said:
As for the money, I think that's just a dishonest argument. There's money for preparation, research and development but somehow there isn't enough money for drugs? Obviously it isn't a globally big sport, but in the countries that do care about it, athletes still make decent careers with it. I'm fairly certain Norway takes care of it's Olympic winners. Anyway, it's not like there needs to be any money for someone to dope. There's always the glory. And the gold.
We are talking about different time periods. Especially the 90s. Again it's complex, and I don't have time to do complex research right now.


romnom said:
Anyway, I quite like the innocent Norwegian approach to doping. I might have my doubts, but it can all be explained away if you have faith. It's good that there are still countries that have avoided the bigger scandals. If nothing else at least British Cycling has a friend who understands. Hope it stays that way too.

The UK had Millar. That would be the equivalent of Thomas Alsgaard being busted for doping. Don't bring dirty brits into this.:D

Here is a thread with discussion on doping in XC skiing. If you have time you should read it from start to finish to see the development of the arguments. A big mistake a lot of early posters in the thread make is to take the knowledge they have of cycling and transfer it onto XC skiing. This leads them astray.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10911
 
Oct 24, 2012
71
0
0
Visit site
ToreBear said:
This is a complex issue as you correctly state, and Tinmans questions did not indicate a long and complex reply was required. I don't have time for that right now anyway.;) But my experience on this board is that translating from cycling to XC skiing and assuming the effects of doping are the same, is a widespread error. Hence I try to quickly explain that there is a big difference.



We are talking about different time periods. Especially the 90s. Again it's complex, and I don't have time to do complex research right now.




The UK had Millar. That would be the equivalent of Thomas Alsgaard being busted for doping. Don't bring dirty brits into this.:D

Here is a thread with discussion on doping in XC skiing. If you have time you should read it from start to finish to see the development of the arguments. A big mistake a lot of early posters in the thread make is to take the knowledge they have of cycling and transfer it onto XC skiing. This leads them astray.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10911

Millar doesn't really qualify as a scandal in my books. It's one athlete testing positive and I'm sure Norway has had some positives as well. Not as high profile, but it's still the same story. Easy enough to dismiss them as bad apples and proof of how strict the controls are. The whole point of the comparison was the 'naive and innocent' which is what the discussions tend to look like when it's about nations and sports that have avoided the bigger scandals. Nothing wrong with that. Innocent until proven guilty and so on.


Now the issues might be complex but my comments weren't really directed at the complex stuff. Lack of money doesn't make the sport clean. Not to mention that it's a fairly absurd claim to make when at the same time talking about superior research, development and preparation. Trying to marginalize the potential gains from PEDs is just as bad.

Anyway, it's safer not to make assumptions. I have read the thread you linked and unfortunately I've followed XC longer than I've followed cycling. If it's too complex and takes too much time to respond you can just tell me I'm obviously wrong and move on. My response was to what looked to me like biased and lazy points. My apologies. They still look bad to me. Especially if you acknowledge that the issues are complex.
 
romnom said:
Millar doesn't really qualify as a scandal in my books. It's one athlete testing positive and I'm sure Norway has had some positives as well. Not as high profile, but it's still the same story. Easy enough to dismiss them as bad apples and proof of how strict the controls are. The whole point of the comparison was the 'naive and innocent' which is what the discussions tend to look like when it's about nations and sports that have avoided the bigger scandals. Nothing wrong with that. Innocent until proven guilty and so on.
Millar was the only UK athlete that came to my mind.:D

Yes I definitely think there are differences between countries in regards to how doping is viewed.



romnom said:
Now the issues might be complex but my comments weren't really directed at the complex stuff. Lack of money doesn't make the sport clean. Not to mention that it's a fairly absurd claim to make when at the same time talking about superior research, development and preparation. Trying to marginalize the potential gains from PEDs is just as bad.

When comparing xc to cycling I think it's important to have in mind the resources to hire experts, and the cost of the products involved. Epo is very expensive, and IMHO the black market stuff available in the early 90s would have cost huge amounts.


romnom said:
Anyway, it's safer not to make assumptions. I have read the thread you linked and unfortunately I've followed XC longer than I've followed cycling. If it's too complex and takes too much time to respond you can just tell me I'm obviously wrong and move on. My response was to what looked to me like biased and lazy points. My apologies. They still look bad to me. Especially if you acknowledge that the issues are complex.

I have also followed XC much longer than cycling, so we are two of a kind.;)

The reason my posts are a bit simplistic and lazy is that my mind is not so focused on XC at the moment. I have some RL things keeping me distracted.

Also, I feel that all these points needs a much stronger and factually based response with links etc.

Take the economic differences between XC skiing and cycling. I need to get a good idea of how big the budget is and was for lets say the Norwegian skiing team, and perhaps compare this to the budget of a cycling team. I seem to remember that the Norwegian ski team had a budget equivalent to about 3m euros a few years ago, but I'm not sure what this number includes(wages for atletes, juniours, coaches etc.), Hence it is difficult to translate and compare this number with a cycling team.

Take Team sky: Its budget for 2011, the most recent number was £16,680,000.
http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/
But this number includes everything.

The difference is huge. And I can't see the numbers for the Norwegian ski teams approaching that number even if everything is included. However at this stage I can not prove it in a way that goes beyond the quality of opinion towards fact. It's my guesstimate. And I would need to be more sure about it before I can argue my points fully and extensively.

I found a quick Norwegian article relating to Petter Northugs wages from the ski association. This last season his wages were about 140 000 Euros. Marit Bjørgen I think earned about half that. (this of course does not include personal sponsorships which I think are much more.)

So how much does Contador earn from saxo-tinkoff compared to that? I think at least 10 times as much.


Now as for the performance relating to Peds and waxing etc. My impression was that Tinman was not looking for an exhaustive answer. My impression was also that he knew very little about XC skiing. Hence I felt my reply needed to be concise. Especially on the point that cycling and xc is not easily comparable.

Now an exhaustive argument, which I would like to give also takes time and focus, which I don't have right now.

So you have nothing to apologize for. I'm the one apologizing for not at this time being able to fully explore your points.


Now I'm not going to tell you your obviously wrong. I think you are a little right and a little wrong. It's just that in order to expand upon the discussion I feel I need to be able to focus on it completely. This I can not do right now.:(

However I hope we can expand on your points at a later date in the XC thread.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Visit site
neineinei said:
He now admits to having had one blood transfusion while at US Postal, and to have had two talks with Michele Ferrari.

I'm guessing the first talk was about the blood transfusion.

The second talk being, "I'd like another transfusion, but I could use some advice on how to pretend that I only had one."
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
I really dont get the point of continuing to lie. Everyone already knows he is a doper so what difference does it make if he only did one transfusion?

Just come clean and tell the entire truth and maybe people would at least respect him a little for that.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
Just come clean and tell the entire truth and maybe people would at least respect him a little for that.

What I find hysterical is that these jokers never seem to understand the fact that offering up these absurd half-truths only brings more contempt raining down upon them.

Hang on for the ride, Steffen. You're only digging a deeper hole.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Visit site
Granville57 said:
I'm guessing the first talk was about the blood transfusion.

The second talk being, "I'd like another transfusion, but I could use some advice on how to pretend that I only had one."

Ferrari didn't approve of him living in Norway during the winter, using skiing for training etc. Ferrari probably didn't think he had the right attitude/was dedicated; a waste of time. They didn't get along. The talks were only about training, not doping.

The blood transfusion happened after he'd had to adjust to the reality of the urine EPO test and the wherabouts system. EPO had worked wonders for him, but with the new risks he had to micro dose and it didn't work for him. He then tried a blood transfusion, but he claims he didn't get any boost from it. By then he seems to have already lost the hearth for pro cycling, he'd married and gotten a family and without the EPO he was nobody in cycling again.

Steffen can still remember the first treatment.
- I felt neither shame nor any special expectations. I was just ready. I tried a little first, was a bit cautious. It was a little scary. In early EPO-time one could get so thick blood that it was fatal. But I had no fear, the section was stabilized. If you consulted the right doctors, you knew how large doses you should take. Normally EPO is a cure that needs some time to implement things in the body, but for me it came quite fast. After only a week, I had significantly better legs. So I kept at it for a while.
- Permanent? For a long time?
- Some kept at all the time, even in training periods, but it was uninteresting to me. I spent one cure of three weeks' time, and then I had a positive response in a month or one and a half afterwards. That's how I did it. And for those periods I rode fast. (Tweeked Google translate)
 
kingjr said:
I'm glad I'm not a professional cyclist, I would have been neck-deep into this stuff.

Yeah, given the culture and the astonishing efficacy, it would be the truly exceptional man who could stay clear of it. I don't say this to defend those who did, but rather to underscore my respect for those who were able to resist.
 

TRENDING THREADS