Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Samu Cuenca]

No, it pre-dates that going back to the 84 Olympics and Moser's hour record. The relative investagative journalism is in Italian. Here is something, but with further research other, more specific articles,
can be found.

IL CONI PAGAVA LA FABBRICA DEL DOPING? - Marco Gregoretti

Una "fabbrica" di super-atleti. Giovani promesse, ma anche sportivi in gara alle olimpiadi, "truccati" con sostanze mediche off-limits per lo sport. DOPING.

www.marcogregoretti.it

It seems like we're talking about two different things now. One is Conconi's CONI funding, which indeed go further, the other is when he started to administer EPO to his clients.

 

[Extinction]

I was referring to the comment about them using EPO in 1984, which I have never heard before.
As far as I know, synthetic EPO hadn't been introduced to the market yet by that time, and Conconi's known "research" on its effects didn't take place until the early 90s. I therefore assumed you had made a mistake, unintentionally, of course.

Actually, I believe I've gotten the date wrong and confused events. Conconi, I've been told by someone who was on a CONI federation team back in the 80s, definitely began experimenting with first generation EPO after it was synthetically produced in 1985. A well know Italian sports journalist who I have ridden with has confirmed this for me. So for Moser EPO would have been administered in the 89 Giro when he beat Fignon, whereas Conconi was giving him blood transfusions for the 84 Mexico City hour record. Sorry for the confusion. Here's an article in Italian on the history of EPO doping (from the faculty of motoric science of the University of Verona): https://www.corsi.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid625177.pdf

 

[Rob5091]

When TV "journalists" become fan boys, then they become all part of the same circus.

Like in the Watergate story, 2 journalists from outside the normal political circle. broke the biggest story, despite their fellow journalist's skepticism. (having someone on the inside helps!) Not so long ago there was reports of guys in the peloton talking about thyroid medication to the press. Nothing was ever followed up, as far as I know.

It seems UCI, WADA and ITA think something new's going on in the peloton, going by their continued request for whistleblowers.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Actually, I believe I've gotten the date wrong and confused events. Conconi, I've been told by someone who was on a CONI federation team back in the 80s, definitely began experimenting with first generation EPO after it was synthetically produced in 1985. A well know Italian sports journalist who I have ridden with has confirmed this for me. So for Moser EPO would have been administered in the 89 Giro when he beat Fignon, whereas Conconi was giving him blood transfusions for the 84 Mexico City hour record. Sorry for the confusion. Here's an article in Italian on the history of EPO doping: https://www.corsi.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid625177.pdf

First of all, sorry to everyone for derailing the thread a bit here.

I will in no way claim to be an expert on this subject, and there are definitely also people on here who have a greater knowledge than me. Since it also happened before I was born, it wasn't like I wouldn't be willing to believe what you said could be true. It was just that it didn't really match up with my understanding of how things have occurred back then.

I have no trouble whatsoever with believing Conconi and his team obtained the drug early on and already did experiments with it in 1989 though. That seems very plausible to me, so there's a chance I (and possibly others) might have learned something new during this exchange after all

 

[solo80k]

Sivakov doing +500 watts (7.4 watt/kg) for almost 10 minutes while drafting in Pogacar's wheel Are we sure that a motor in Pogacar's bike can't be part of the explanation? A rich team with access to official control equipement (x-ray, tablets...) and a lab to test the e-bike in all possible conditions could find ways to hide the motor, battery and gears.

When I was watching Pog riding in the last 50 KMS, it was looking like Combloux ITT from Jonas as if the bike was slowing the rider down. 😅

I'm more and more convinced that that involves another kind of fuck3ry - maybe some genetic modification, CO self- poisoning or... total immunity granted by UCI/ADA so you don't really care about getting caught.

 

[Extinction]

First of all, sorry to everyone for derailing the thread a bit here.

I will in no way claim to be an expert on this subject, and there are definitely also people on here who have a greater knowledge than me. Since it also happened before I was born, it wasn't like I wouldn't be willing to believe what you said could be true. It was just that it didn't really match up with my understanding of how things have occurred back then.

I have no trouble whatsoever with believing Conconi and his team obtained the drug early on and already did experiments with it in 1989 though. That seems very plausible to me, so there's a chance I (and possibly others) might have learned something new during this exchange after all

My Italian sources aren't making it up. That much is for sure. 😉

 

[Extinction]

Thanks! A very interesting read. I think the author did a good job putting into words a sort of high-brow version of the celebratory narrative. The goat, and all that, but with longer words.

To me the discussion of doping didn't read as a serious one though. Rather it was included either to just cover all bases, or to be dismissed as noise or nuisance via whichever route. His was aesthetics.

What he cannot explain away is that performances always imply an underlying physiology. As the article posted by extinction shows, the numbers were sky high (no pun intended). I mean first 5w/kg normalised for 4hrs and then start racing... 5-10min stints into 7,5-
8w/kg territory, etc.

Either Pog is genetically the superman he has been portrayed to be, but actually even better, because he found a way to bump up his level yet again this year; or he has an absolute gear advantage (also includes porridge and the like) in the current context. Combinations exist, but one of the factors is going to dominate when all is said.

Unfortunately both explanations are of the black box kind as of now. On the other hand there is the context: what is the likelihood of pulling off performances like that without porridge? Not very high, unless you believe in unicorns.

Regardless of whether he is doping or not, personally I find it perplexing that so many find utter domination aesthetically pleasing.

I agree, but for me it's the wholesome act under the tutelage of Gianetti-Matxin, the performance schemers behind the ill-fated Riccardo Ricco and Leonardo Piepoli, now financed by petrol dollars that really becomes too much to tolerate. It's like the whole world of cycling journalism has suddenly become afflicted with collective amnesia. And, yes, such dominance very soon becomes tedious and grotesque.

 

[pastronef]

Thibaut Pinot.



Tell me what else has to happen, all the human walls and the years of doping have been torn down by this guy. We continue to see absurd things and what happens?

We discuss and in two days everything is forgotten and we continue as if nothing had happened, now it's wrestling.

I think this forum is also read by professional cyclists, write here, write to some newspaper, write to Vayer, do something and reveal the substances.
Do you have dignity or are you only interested in 15k-30k a month?

Pinot beat the "dopers" on Tourmalet and Prat d'Albis 2019. clean rider faster than Ineos, Quickstep, Movistar, etc?

Vayer is a bitter vindictive clown with his twitter followers and his twitter rants and when he spoke in front of a court a few years ago they almost laughed at him and his ramblings that had nothing concrete and useful. you should see the clip of the tribunal, dear me, what a stupid obsessed person he is.

once again, we look at pro sport with the eyes of fans that are OUTSIDE of it. without ehinking that the rules, the thinking, the value, the duty, inside the pro cycling world, for people making a living out of it, is not worth a forum argument or any drunken word of a clown like Vayer.

 

[E_F_]

the rules, the thinking, the value, the duty, inside the pro cycling world, for people making a living out of it, is not worth a forum argument

What do you mean by this? That the culture is rotten to its core?

 

[Oldermanish]

I was referring to the comment about them using EPO in 1984, which I have never heard before.
As far as I know, synthetic EPO hadn't been introduced to the market yet by that time, and Conconi's known "research" on its effects didn't take place until the early 90s. I therefore assumed you had made a mistake, unintentionally, of course.

And why buy EPO when you just thaw out a bag of the rider's blood for free? Ed Burke and Eddie B did it at the '84 Olympics as it was still accepted "medical practice"......yeah, for cancer patients that had lost 40% of their red cell count to chemo. At least the number of US team riders that took the option was confirmed at 8. The rest didn't do it although there were 9 alleged doping infractions in LA that never were discussed.

 

[Oldermanish]

I agree, but for me it's the wholesome act under the tutelage of Gianetti-Matxin, the performance schemers behind the ill-fated Riccardo Ricco and Leonardo Piepoli, now financed by petrol dollars that really becomes too much to tolerate. It's like the whole world of cycling journalism has suddenly become afflicted with collective amnesia. And, yes, such dominance very soon becomes tedious and grotesque.

And you see a new wave of younger fans that have totally embraced the concept that riders that were caught doping, forced to surrender their titles were merely levelling the playing field. It was fair, get it? Based on the emerging attitudes of the most marketable demographic journalists need to pick a fight they can win, it seems.

 

[AverageWatts]

When I was watching Pog riding in the last 50 KMS, it was looking like Combloux ITT from Jonas as if the bike was slowing the rider down. 😅

I'm more and more convinced that that involves another kind of fuck3ry - maybe some genetic modification, CO self- poisoning or... total immunity granted by UCI/ADA so you don't really care about getting caught.

I just wanted to chime in with this theory, because until a athlete is proven guilty he should be considered clean.


I am pretty surprised none of you are discussing gene doping, you seem to obsess about EPO and GH.

 

[Extinction]

Perfomance depends on a multitude of factors but broadly you can place pretty much every factor in one of two categories. Intrinsic (to the athlete) or extrinsic.
Intrinsic factos are predetermined. Physiological/anthropometric traits that someone is born with. Nothing can be done to change those. Only 1% of the population has a VO2 max value higher than 65 ml/kg/min and the average value for elite cyclists is around 78. You have zero chance of winning the TdF if it's not in the high 80s. Not much one can do about that.
The extrinsic factors though are modifiable. Technique, nutrition, strength, equipment, even psychology, all can be tampered with and modified. And now the question becomes "what modifications are allowed and what are not". And there is not a clear cut answer, as every such modification is (or can be) performance enhancing.
So I am not sure what the point of the discussion is?
Whether the line has be drawn fairly? Or whether there should be a line in the first place?

Let's say extrinsic factors are illicit when pharmachology/blood extractions artificially raise intrinsic values beyond what otherwise can be obtained through normal training and nutrition; or tech variations (ie motors); or genetic manipulation. It's pretty simple. Craft and psychology are less relevant in the presence of the above cited variables.

 

[pastronef]

Actually, I believe I've gotten the date wrong and confused events. Conconi, I've been told by someone who was on a CONI federation team back in the 80s, definitely began experimenting with first generation EPO after it was synthetically produced in 1985. A well know Italian sports journalist who I have ridden with has confirmed this for me. So for Moser EPO would have been administered in the 89 Giro when he beat Fignon, whereas Conconi was giving him blood transfusions for the 84 Mexico City hour record. Sorry for the confusion. Here's an article in Italian on the history of EPO doping (from the faculty of motoric science of the University of Verona): https://www.corsi.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid625177.pdf

Moser did beat Fignon at the 84 Giro. in 89 Moser already ended his career and the 89 Giro was won by Fignon
Moser did his hour record in 84 in Mexico City 51.151 (with disc wheels)
he went there again in 1994 and did beat his own record (using the Obree position, and maybe EPO)

 

[pastronef]

What do you mean by this? That the culture is rotten to its core?

no, I mean pro sport is not what we wish it to be.

 

[Extinction]

Moser did beat Fignon at the 84 Giro. in 89 Moser already ended his career and the 89 Giro was won by Fignon
Moser did his hour record in 84 in Mexico City 51.151 (with disc wheels)
he went there again in 1994 and did beat his own record (using the Obree position, and maybe EPO)

Sorry, it's been 10 years since I've had this discussion and clearly my memory has betrayed me. I've simply gotten the time table and events all mixed up. Moser was doing transfusions (and without a doubt EPO in 94), but after 85 Conconi started experimenting with first generation EPO (sometime in the late 80s). I stand by this, apologies for my dementia. 🤷

PS: By 1990 it was Bugno, who led the Giro from start to finish, and then Chiappucci, Fondriest and Pantani. From Nove Firenze (in translation):

Doping: Conconi in the "storm"!
Nove editorial team from Florence: Local news in real time
Nine from Florence Editorial Team
October 26, 2000 1:56 PM
The final spritzer
Criminal association, promoted, organized and constituted by Prof. Francesco Conconi, who allegedly administered and supplied doping drugs (especially erythropoietin, Epo) to an undetermined number of athletes involved in sports competitions, distorted through the artificial increase of the athletes' competitive performance. The list of athletes subjected to treatment - according to the investigations - is said to be 63 names, among which we note the skier Manuela di Centa, and the cyclists Marco Pantani, Gianni Bugno, Claudio Chiappucci and Maurizio Fondriest. This is the final summary of the investigation on doping conducted by the Ferrara PM Pierguido Soprani and the Carabinieri of the NAS of Florence led by Col. Stefanucci, commander for Central Italy of the Anti-adulteration Unit, who today notified Conconi and seven other people - mostly his collaborators - of the notice of the closure of the preliminary investigations and the parallel information of guarantee.

 

[Oldermanish]

When I was watching Pog riding in the last 50 KMS, it was looking like Combloux ITT from Jonas as if the bike was slowing the rider down. 😅

I'm more and more convinced that that involves another kind of fuck3ry - maybe some genetic modification, CO self- poisoning or... total immunity granted by UCI/ADA so you don't really care about getting caught.

So watching Tadej when he was a neo-pro there were no hugely deep pockets. He came to the Tour of California looking 14 years old and killed every pro there on the hills. That talent came with him, not a lab experiment. As for CO use...it's been part of allergy and asthma testing for decades. I used it in a short test and had a headache for an hour. That's an anecdotal situation but hard to see what long term benefit it could serve.
As for the UCI; they always seemed to be absent when weird sh*t happens.

 

[E_F_]

hard to see what long term benefit it could serve.

Yeah how would increasing hematocrit possibly help an endurance athlete? It boggles the mind...

 

[Sciatic]

I just wanted to chime in with this theory, because until a athlete is proven guilty he should be considered clean.


I am pretty surprised none of you are discussing gene doping, you seem to obsess about EPO and GH.

Right now EPO & blood bags are a heck of a lot cheaper, more easily available, and safer than any possible gene doping technique.

 

[Sciatic]

Actually, I believe I've gotten the date wrong and confused events. Conconi, I've been told by someone who was on a CONI federation team back in the 80s, definitely began experimenting with first generation EPO after it was synthetically produced in 1985. A well know Italian sports journalist who I have ridden with has confirmed this for me. So for Moser EPO would have been administered in the 89 Giro when he beat Fignon, whereas Conconi was giving him blood transfusions for the 84 Mexico City hour record. Sorry for the confusion. Here's an article in Italian on the history of EPO doping (from the faculty of motoric science of the University of Verona): https://www.corsi.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid625177.pdf

The phase 1 and phase II clinical trials of the first EPO product took place in 1986 with the results published in this Jan 1987 article in New England Journal of Medicine. Production of EPO for use in renal failure patients would have begun in 1987 or 1988. Because it was an injection or IV given at the research center, it would have been very difficult (although I suppose not impossible (for a cycling doc to get their hands on EPO used in the trials. So likely the 1st possible use probably was in '87-'88. The MDs who ran the trials and published here were the founders of Amgen.

Correction of the Anemia of End-Stage Renal Disease with Recombinant Human Erythropoietin​

Authors: Joseph W. Eschbach, M.D., Joan C. Egrie, Ph.D., Michael R. Downing, Ph.D., Jeffrey K. Browne, Ph.D., and John W. Adamson, M.D.
Published January 8, 1987
N Engl J Med 1987;316:73-78

 

[pihi42]

Understood, however, you have a strange moral compass riddled with causistry. What's not banned is not doping, as Hinault once said, only if you live in world without "values" or understanding of what doping is. ..

Philosophically speaking sport ideally should be about genetics over pharmachalogy and tech advantage (which, within the market construct, can't be regulated).

Well, I sincerely disagree. Sport is not about admiring the genetics of some rare specimens. Rather it is about working with what you have and making the most of it. As an engineer I always like challenges and I dislike any "lucky starting conditions" - such as being born a king, having billionare parents or rare genetics.
Yes, what is not banned is not doping. Using your brain to gain an advantage is exactly what is the basis of Homo Sapiens. We didn't compete with lions with our muscles but with our intellect.
I have nothing whatsoever against using anything that works. I'm all for strict adherence to the rules, the common moral principles as not destroying other people. I'm also all for innovation and don't fear pharmacological, physical, genetical, psychological, .. other methods.
(please don't ask about motors - it is silly - using motors in cycling comp is like using computers in a human chess match - changes the whole point of it)
While most people accept using wind tunnels and fluid dynamics to engineer new helmets, bikes, skinsuits, positions etc, most people also frown at anything administered using a syringe. Not me. Medicine/pharmacy is 80% of our quality of life; our genetics has actually gotten worse since the dark ages.
Going into the future, we're going to rely on it more and more. People will start using neural implants, prostethics, aestethic surgery, genetic modification more and more.
So for sport to not turn into modern luddism, the thinking and acceptance will need to adapt as well.

 

[Netserk]

Collusion is the basis of humans. Sociality rather than intelligence is the foundation for our success.

 

[AverageWatts]

Right now EPO & blood bags are a heck of a lot cheaper, more easily available, and safer than any possible gene doping technique.

The theory here is that the UAE has substantial financial power, and they need an edge—not just a group of the old same/the same old bags. I doubt anyone involved really cares about safety; they just want a winner, the athlete included.

When it comes to athletes, they'll do almost anything. Champions are often willing to shorten their lives by 10 years just to win a medal. I think more people who watch sports could benefit from understanding the mindset prevalent in bodybuilding.

It’s all a freak show, and you could say that the champion sacrifices the most by engaging in risky behavior.

The real issue is the default attitude among average sports fans: the belief that someone who wins in sports has achieved something of lasting value.

 

[Sciatic]

The theory here is that the UAE has substantial financial power, and they need an edge—not just a group of the old same/the same old bags. I doubt anyone involved really cares about safety; they just want a winner, the athlete included.

When it comes to athletes, they'll do almost anything. Champions are often willing to shorten their lives by 10 years just to win a medal. I think more people who watch sports could benefit from understanding the mindset prevalent in bodybuilding.

It’s all a freak show, and you could say that the champion sacrifices the most by engaging in risky behavior.

The real issue is the default attitude among average sports fans: the belief that someone who wins in sports has achieved something of lasting value.

I think marine lugworms would still be the way to go for teams wanting to “go above and beyond.”

 

[Raest]

Well, I sincerely disagree. Sport is not about admiring the genetics of some rare specimens. Rather it is about working with what you have and making the most of it. As an engineer I always like challenges and I dislike any "lucky starting conditions" - such as being born a king, having billionare parents or rare genetics.
Yes, what is not banned is not doping. Using your brain to gain an advantage is exactly what is the basis of Homo Sapiens. We didn't compete with lions with our muscles but with our intellect.
I have nothing whatsoever against using anything that works. I'm all for strict adherence to the rules, the common moral principles as not destroying other people. I'm also all for innovation and don't fear pharmacological, physical, genetical, psychological, .. other methods.
(please don't ask about motors - it is silly - using motors in cycling comp is like using computers in a human chess match - changes the whole point of it)
While most people accept using wind tunnels and fluid dynamics to engineer new helmets, bikes, skinsuits, positions etc, most people also frown at anything administered using a syringe. Not me. Medicine/pharmacy is 80% of our quality of life; our genetics has actually gotten worse since the dark ages.
Going into the future, we're going to rely on it more and more. People will start using neural implants, prostethics, aestethic surgery, genetic modification more and more.
So for sport to not turn into modern luddism, the thinking and acceptance will need to adapt as well.

There is a rather obvious contradiction in the bold part. Genetical modification (which you state in the second bold part that you are OK with) is definitely NOT working with "what you have" but rather taking what you have and changing it into something that it is not.
There is another, perhaps more subtle, contradiction. You are against destroying other people yet you don't mind pharmacological or genetical "enhancements". Yet such enhancements are inherently dangerous. EPO has killed cyclists, genetic engineering will surely kill more (if/when it is applied). How many of those that took EPO did so because they felt they had no choice? This is a rhetorical question. Many is the answer. Others quit not wishing to partake, leaving behind lucrative careers or the only profession (or dream) they've had since their teens. Isn't that a kind of destruction? Not of the body perhaps but of the psyche? A poster above, mentioned bodybuilding. This is effectively what you are advocating for. A freak show where athletes abuse substances and their body for essentially, a pittance. Very few bodybuilders can make a living out of the sport and yet that doesn't stop them from killing themselves trying. Imagine what people will do when there is a lot more money involved and zero oversight.