Ullrich, Kloden, Zabel and the DDR

[craig1985]

In this case the story is true. I have heard it first hand from more then one member of the team.

Why on earth would somebody on the team mention it?

 

[sherer]

this does show how people can get into the system of doping from a young age. Get them injected with stuff from the age of 10 and by the time they enter the pro world of athletics or cycling and a team with systematic doping and it is all second nature by then. Why question something you have done all your life

 

[beroepsrenner]

I understood what you implied, but what Udo said can't be true. Before he became part of Telekom he became amongst other world champion. Of course after he got on the program with Telekom he became much better, but even with his old DDR regime he wouldn't have been dropped in the training.

So the point might have been clear, the anecdote is imho complete nonsense. Udo became profesionally involved with Ulrich well after his first great international succes

I know, I'm a smartass, it's just that I hate myths like "AC can't TT, Big Mig was a surprise winner, only caused by Epo". The reason why I try to squash them is because they can cause wrong analysis or interpretation.

For instance AC's climbing in 2007 is a lot more surprising than his TT skills this year. But everyone, including the expert media have this backwards. This causes people to focus on this years VAM, while in fact the root is what he did before 2007 (can we say Puerto?). Valverde and Jan are being hounded, but AC still manages to get away. And I want to bet a good amount of money that it's a lot easier to get the real deal out of the Puerto files than out of his current bloodvalues.

So I appologize, but I will keep on squashing myths

I'm sure Bolts' original statement was exagerated to stress his point but has since been taken literally and out of context.
I have always maintained that the use of PEDs, while improving performance in varying degrees in different individuals, do not make the difference between ordinary performers becoming great champions. The same people will stand out regardless of the use of PEDs or not. Its only the stats that change.

 

[blackcat]

I'm sure Bolts' original statement was exagerated to stress his point but has since been taken literally and out of context.
I have always maintained that the use of PEDs, while improving performance in varying degrees in different individuals, do not make the difference between ordinary performers becoming great champions. The same people will stand out regardless of the use of PEDs or not. Its only the stats that change.

incorrect.

you should look at Frank Schleck, before he went to CSC at 24. The guy struggled to get traction in amateur/elite racing in France. He really was like Pineau had said, one of 70 riders at that level that a French DS could take his pick of.

There are such things as elite responders, and guys who will really push the limits.

Look at Dave Bruylandts, he makes the podium of Flanders, and could have became a rider like Devolder on that trajectory arc, but he struggles in 2.2 racing and non-UCI classified racing in the lowlands.

Then there in Vandbourg. Was one year on some Luxembourg team I think, Differdange, could not get any results, even in chronos, in 2.1 and 2.2 racing. Then because he is mates with Basso, comes back. He was 3rd or 4th or 5th, in a Worlds chrono.

Good doping plans, can make the rider.

Re: champions like Pantani, Armstrong, and Ullrich. Perhaps if the entire peloton was clean, they may have been champions. But without the O2 doping, everyone had jour sans, and suddenly, those disappeared. So, the GT riders, would not have won 5 GTs in a row, where the medical program could reduce the variables considerably.

And Armstrong was probably not going to be a grimpeur or chrono rider. So I doubt he could have competed for the podium in the GTs. He could have been a champion in the hilly classics, and Flanders.

Everyone can see what a talent Mcewen has with his explosivity. But no one can see into the blood, and see if you have a very talented high 'crit o2 delivery capacity. It has indirect manifestation. If you have a low 02 capacity, but you are a phenomenal rider, even when you are exhausting your limited o2 delivery capcity, imagine if you tweak your o2 capacity.

I read a theory by a poster on another forum, that doping can help riders, who may have a vacuum or major gap in their physiological parameters. There is one rider, who always claims he is a "**** rider" when tested, his aerobic threshold, and his power to weight, is not for a cat 2 rider, let alone a PT rider.

Well, perhaps some champions, in a clean peloton, could not be pros, but doping allows them to fix one of their physiological parameters that has a mammoth lacking. But I would agree, that most champions, are just lifted up, in all of those parameters. They do not fill a parameter that is missing.

 

[beroepsrenner]

incorrect.

you should look at Frank Schleck, before he went to CSC at 24. The guy struggled to get traction in amateur/elite racing in France. He really was like Pineau had said, one of 70 riders at that level that a French DS could take his pick of.

There are such things as elite responders, and guys who will really push the limits.

Look at Dave Bruylandts, he makes the podium of Flanders, and could have became a rider like Devolder on that trajectory arc, but he struggles in 2.2 racing and non-UCI classified racing in the lowlands.

Then there in Vandbourg. Was one year on some Luxembourg team I think, Differdange, could not get any results, even in chronos, in 2.1 and 2.2 racing. Then because he is mates with Basso, comes back. He was 3rd or 4th or 5th, in a Worlds chrono.

Good doping plans, can make the rider.

Re: champions like Pantani, Armstrong, and Ullrich. Perhaps if the entire peloton was clean, they may have been champions. But without the O2 doping, everyone had jour sans, and suddenly, those disappeared. So, the GT riders, would not have won 5 GTs in a row, where the medical program could reduce the variables considerably.

And Armstrong was probably not going to be a grimpeur or chrono rider. So I doubt he could have competed for the podium in the GTs. He could have been a champion in the hilly classics, and Flanders.

Everyone can see what a talent Mcewen has with his explosivity. But no one can see into the blood, and see if you have a very talented high 'crit o2 delivery capacity. It has indirect manifestation. If you have a low 02 capacity, but you are a phenomenal rider, even when you are exhausting your limited o2 delivery capcity, imagine if you tweak your o2 capacity.

I read a theory by a poster on another forum, that doping can help riders, who may have a vacuum or major gap in their physiological parameters. There is one rider, who always claims he is a "**** rider" when tested, his aerobic threshold, and his power to weight, is not for a cat 2 rider, let alone a PT rider.

Well, perhaps some champions, in a clean peloton, could not be pros, but doping allows them to fix one of their physiological parameters that has a mammoth lacking. But I would agree, that most champions, are just lifted up, in all of those parameters. They do not fill a parameter that is missing.

While I agree with most of what you have said in this post I do not accept that my statement is incorrect. My own experience with PEDs improved my performance in a couple of key areas which allowed me to do my job better but did not improve my results at all. In fact I got better results towards the end of my career after ceasing to use anything at all. I always had a good VO2 max but produced lactic acid too quickly. I could recover well in stage races to about 5 or 6 days but any more than that I would go down hill. But after a weeks rest I would be back to normal. By far the biggest requirement for success is hard work and the right mindset then doping takes you that little bit further.

 

[blackcat]

do you consider Frank Schleck a champion?

We may be mistaken with the respective definitions of "champion".

In a flat peloton, I just cannot see riders like Rebellin, Cunego, and Valverde, having those finishing kicks of a track sprinter. Like Bettini later in his career, he suddenly found this sprinting legs. Yes, when il grillo came into the peloton as the Warrior (Bartolis) wingman, he was a sprinter who could climb and ride high into GC. He rode about 6th in 1999 Giro, then won Liege the next year or so.

But there is a family of gear, that really helps these tiny guys, unleash a sprint. I know that some former sprinters have been small, and GC riders been good finishers, and guys like Kelly and Jalabert who did it all also. But I do not buy these small guys with a kick of a mule.

Freire is really small, but he was always a sprinter, I just dont like, when guys are unleashing a finishing sprint, like a trackie, at the top of Mur de Huy.

So, I do think there are miracle drugs, but this might just be autologous techniques, which all them to finish fresh and fast.

And I think Schleck is a champion, if you compartmentalise the doping from the sport. Frank Schleck has a terrific palmares.

 

[blackcat]

one other example. Landis. Could not win a US mtb race, and far back in any UCI World Cup mtb race, then he hits the sauce, and is suddenly right up there on Mercury. How was that? Elite responder.

If you think about elite endurance sports, cycling has no peer, in terms of its catchment of participaters and competitors. There really should be a rough correlation in the success of European nations, and anglosaxon nations like US, UK and Australia. There are no real races, who may have some genetic predisposition, like sub-Saharan African riders like Kenyans or Ethiopians, plus the Moroccans.

But there are some nations that have disproportionate results, to their competitor stock. Why do the Spaniards fly so high in the GC, in those numbers. I do not think they are any different, in their ethics, or their endurance genetics, but they have a different regulatory system, that enables unfettered doping. Everyone will still dope, if they are that way inclined, but the French regulatory environment, puts the clamps on egregious instances.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

But there are some nations that have disproportionate results, to their competitor stock. Why do the Spaniards fly so high in the GC, in those numbers. I do not think they are any different, in their ethics, or their endurance genetics, but they have a different regulatory system, that enables unfettered doping. Everyone will still dope, if they are that way inclined, but the French regulatory environment, puts the clamps on egregious instances.

Could be a better talent pool, a golden generation, higher membership or better infrastructures.
Not to turn a blind eye to the doping practice, but it is just one of the many factors.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

cycling has no peer, in terms of its catchment of participaters and competitors. There really should be a rough correlation in the success of European nations, and anglosaxon nations like US, UK and Australia.

Think you are very wrong about catchment of road competitors in Australia at least. Down-under, cycling is primarily what the kids do in the driveway.

 

[blackcat]

Think you are very wrong about catchment of road competitors in Australia at least. Down-under, cycling is primarily what the kids do in the driveway.

talking results "pro rate" for catchment.

IE, if Aus had 20% catchment of Spanish cycling, then there should be some correlation to that pro rata mark.

And FrenchGuy, I take into account such variables, like the Aus program, having a track focus, and being inclined to bring thru grimpeurs, and no major climbing stage races in Aus, to encourage grimpeurs, and develop them.

Yes, appreciate those variables.

 

[beroepsrenner]

Think you are very wrong about catchment of road competitors in Australia at least. Down-under, cycling is primarily what the kids do in the driveway.

Cant agree with that sorry! if you compete in an Olympic sport in Australia at an International level then your name is on an elite athlete register and you are therefore subject to out of competition testing. I retired from pro racing after the 91 Herald Sun Tour and yet was still being tested late in 92. Things have come a long way since then.

 

[fatandfast]

I am unsure of the maps people are looking at,the DDR is East Germany.Kids riding their bikes with Mum and Dad in Sydney and if they are dope is unrelated.Lots of guys(Ludwig,Aldag,Ulrich) where exposed to the the Honecker hero's techniques and had great success.You can walk up to any pharmacy in Romania,Bulgaria,Mexico,Brazil,Poland,S.Africa and buy Micera without a script.It is going to take many years more to erase the iron curtain training techniques.

 

[beroepsrenner]

I am unsure of the maps people are looking at,the DDR is East Germany.Kids riding their bikes with Mum and Dad in Sydney and if they are dope is unrelated.Lots of guys(Ludwig,Aldag,Ulrich) where exposed to the the Honecker hero's techniques and had great success.You can walk up to any pharmacy in Romania,Bulgaria,Mexico,Brazil,Poland,S.Africa and buy Micera without a script.It is going to take many years more to erase the iron curtain training techniques.

In 1984 you could buy Deca Durabalin at the pharmacy ( apoteek ) in Belgium

 

[Cobblestones]

I am unsure of the maps people are looking at,the DDR is East Germany.Kids riding their bikes with Mum and Dad in Sydney and if they are dope is unrelated.Lots of guys(Ludwig,Aldag,Ulrich) where exposed to the the Honecker hero's techniques and had great success.You can walk up to any pharmacy in Romania,Bulgaria,Mexico,Brazil,Poland,S.Africa and buy Micera without a script.It is going to take many years more to erase the iron curtain training techniques.

I think it is interesting to compare East and West German sport result between 1970 and 1990. The premise here is that it's one country with one history, one population etc. which was divided along political lines. The upshot is that differences in sport results should therefore be a reflection of the two systems.

When you look at the numbers (FRG ~60m inhabitants, GDR short of ~20m inhabitants) you might expect a 3:1 advantage for the FRG in terms of results. On the other hand, looking at statistics of, say, Olympic medals, shows a different picture. The best years for comparison are 1976 (1972 was in Munich, so there might have been a home-turf advantage for the FRG, still the GDR surpassed FRG by a ~50% margin), and possibly 1988 (1980 and 1984 were boycotted by the FRG and GDR, respectively). In both of those years, the GDR beat the FRG by more than 2:1, despite having only 30% of the population.

You could argue to look at other statistics, but I think the measure 'Olympic medals' is a good one, because that was what the GDR system tried to maximize. If you look at 'commercialized' sports of the era (foremost soccer, but tennis, golf, most motorsports etc. come to mind), the GDR had less interest.

Anyway, how comes that the GDR was so much more effective? The answer is twofold:
1) Children, at a very young age, were tested for their aptitude at different sports. One can assume that catchment for any sport was close to 100%.
2) The GDR had a very effective state sponsored scientific doping regime.
It's hard for me to judge how much each of those factors contributed to the success.

For cycling, one has to remember that (i) there were more olympic medals for track events than for road events, and (ii) most road racing events were considered non-amateur, so it was not a field of interest for the GDR. Eastern Block athletes were also not allowed to race for-profit in Western European road races because they would lose their amateur status and couldn't compete in the olympics any more.

 

[dienekes88]

do you consider Frank Schleck a champion?

We may be mistaken with the respective definitions of "champion".

In a flat peloton, I just cannot see riders like Rebellin, Cunego, and Valverde, having those finishing kicks of a track sprinter. Like Bettini later in his career, he suddenly found this sprinting legs. Yes, when il grillo came into the peloton as the Warrior (Bartolis) wingman, he was a sprinter who could climb and ride high into GC. He rode about 6th in 1999 Giro, then won Liege the next year or so.

But there is a family of gear, that really helps these tiny guys, unleash a sprint. I know that some former sprinters have been small, and GC riders been good finishers, and guys like Kelly and Jalabert who did it all also. But I do not buy these small guys with a kick of a mule.

Freire is really small, but he was always a sprinter, I just dont like, when guys are unleashing a finishing sprint, like a trackie, at the top of Mur de Huy.

So, I do think there are miracle drugs, but this might just be autologous techniques, which all them to finish fresh and fast.

And I think Schleck is a champion, if you compartmentalise the doping from the sport. Frank Schleck has a terrific palmares.

Just want to address this. A large part of the finishing kick for these guys is in the snap and acceleration. They can't do the long wind up sprint like Ale-Jet and Cipolla, because they're not that big and can't put up the big watts for extended periods of time, e.g. 10 seconds or more.

Even a guy like me, 63kg cat. 2, can put up nearly 1500W peak power and 1400W for 5s without any help from the needle. My only problem is making it to the finish of the race near the front to unleash the sprint!

 

[dienekes88]

Cant agree with that sorry! if you compete in an Olympic sport in Australia at an International level then your name is on an elite athlete register and you are therefore subject to out of competition testing. I retired from pro racing after the 91 Herald Sun Tour and yet was still being tested late in 92. Things have come a long way since then.

I'm not sure if you and blackcat are talking about the same thing. It's not about "catching" the guys using drugs.

I think he's using catchment as the population from which Cycling draws its talent. If you have 5x more guys willing to ride a bike 20 hours per week... then you should have 5x more guys with good results from that area. The catchment for the U.S. is quite small given that it's often seen as crosstraining for rowers, rehab for runners, a hobby for the rich.

 

[Von Mises]

It was well known or at least highly suspected within the sport that all the communist countries were competing under state sponsored doping programs,particularly the Russians and East Germans. But very difficult to verify as contact with their riders was impossible. They were always kept away from the rest of us and there were always suspicious looking minders hanging around. I remember training on the circuit before the 86 Worlds in Colorado Springs and the Russian team came past us so we picked the pace up to sit behind them and one of their cars pulled in between us and backed us off. The group I was in contained at least 5 or 6 different nationalities all discussing training and racing. These kinds of actions just confirmed our suspicions.

beroepsrenner, Soviet Union was a totalitarian state who regarded West as Enemy and contact with West as contact with Enemy. Every group or team included KGB agent or payed snitch of KGB agent or even if they didnt have, there was always suspicion that smbd is snitch. People were just afraid to talk or have any kind of contacts with rest of you, because when they arrived home, KGB stood at their doorstep and asked "So, what did you talked?..."

Of course, it doesnt mean that there was not doping, there was lot of it, but you should also understand broader context why those russians behaved like they behaved...

 

[Von Mises]

Anyway, how comes that the GDR was so much more effective? The answer is twofold:
1) Children, at a very young age, were tested for their aptitude at different sports. One can assume that catchment for any sport was close to 100%.
2) The GDR had a very effective state sponsored scientific doping regime.
It's hard for me to judge how much each of those factors contributed to the success.

For cycling, one has to remember that (i) there were more olympic medals for track events than for road events, and (ii) most road racing events were considered non-amateur, so it was not a field of interest for the GDR. Eastern Block athletes were also not allowed to race for-profit in Western European road races because they would lose their amateur status and couldn't compete in the olympics any more.

Dont know about GDR, but in Soviet Union there was also other resason:

3) Most children had two options: school or gym. No nintendos, no rock-concerts, only 2 TV channels (full of boring talking heads), no hollywood etc.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I'm not sure if you and blackcat are talking about the same thing. It's not about "catching" the guys using drugs.

I think he's using catchment as the population from which Cycling draws its talent. If you have 5x more guys willing to ride a bike 20 hours per week... then you should have 5x more guys with good results from that area. The catchment for the U.S. is quite small given that it's often seen as crosstraining for rowers, rehab for runners, a hobby for the rich.

This is definitely what I meant by catchment. No comment on testing programs in Aus intended - sorry.

Blackcat, I do understand your point that participation numbers (catchement) should in theory correlate with success (all other things being equal...). Just not sure that your take on the participation numbers for different countries is correct. However, I must admit the last time I saw these data was about 15 years ago. Do you have some current reference info that your opinion is based on?

 

[beroepsrenner]

I'm not sure if you and blackcat are talking about the same thing. It's not about "catching" the guys using drugs.

I think he's using catchment as the population from which Cycling draws its talent. If you have 5x more guys willing to ride a bike 20 hours per week... then you should have 5x more guys with good results from that area. The catchment for the U.S. is quite small given that it's often seen as crosstraining for rowers, rehab for runners, a hobby for the rich.

My mistake. I misinterpreted the comment. Appologies

 

[beroepsrenner]

beroepsrenner, Soviet Union was a totalitarian state who regarded West as Enemy and contact with West as contact with Enemy. Every group or team included KGB agent or payed snitch of KGB agent or even if they didnt have, there was always suspicion that smbd is snitch. People were just afraid to talk or have any kind of contacts with rest of you, because when they arrived home, KGB stood at their doorstep and asked "So, what did you talked?..."

Of course, it doesnt mean that there was not doping, there was lot of it, but you should also understand broader context why those russians behaved like they behaved...

I did understand the situation later on but at the time it just seemed rude and provocative when everyone else was open and friendly. They obviously had no thoughts of a tourist industry at that time.

 

[blackcat]

This is definitely what I meant by catchment. No comment on testing programs in Aus intended - sorry.

Blackcat, I do understand your point that participation numbers (catchement) should in theory correlate with success (all other things being equal...). Just not sure that your take on the participation numbers for different countries is correct. However, I must admit the last time I saw these data was about 15 years ago. Do you have some current reference info that your opinion is based on?

I never had numbers for catchment. I was dealing in hypotheticals. Never had numbers. Then it was highly qualified, saying, yes, there will be predisposition to certain disciplines, and success should flow from there. If it was a southern hemisphere sport in Oceania, dare say NZ and Aus would have had a Tour winner, in the last half of the 20C. But the distance and pro status here, made it next to impossible. When the sport became professional in the 80's and salaries and travel enabled it, the slow trickle from NZ/Aus/US became a stream.

Chapeau GL and PA.

 

[blackcat]

Just want to address this. A large part of the finishing kick for these guys is in the snap and acceleration. They can't do the long wind up sprint like Ale-Jet and Cipolla, because they're not that big and can't put up the big watts for extended periods of time, e.g. 10 seconds or more.

Even a guy like me, 63kg cat. 2, can put up nearly 1500W peak power and 1400W for 5s without any help from the needle. My only problem is making it to the finish of the race near the front to unleash the sprint!

yeah, appreciate that a 50kmph starting speed two-up sprint, is different.

And that is what made Mcewen so potent, his versatility, he being best at field sprints from slow starting speeds, but the bigger bunch sprinters, more suited to promenade field sprints which were launched close to 65kmph