-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
Nah, you would have never heard of them though the younger brother (probably the most naturally gifted bike racer I've ever seen) won the tour de l'abitibi in about '90 or '91. His older brother was my age but was a bit too big and powerful (think greipel, or maybe more accurately sagan) for the mountains, his younger brother was a smaller version that could do it all. He could have been a monster, but they both quit (as we all did) rather than *graduate*.
p.s they were being coached by Brian Walton (another genetic freak) at his prime, along with Ron Hayman. Roland Green did graduate in his own way but he was never a donkey either.
the delgados said:
Nah, you would have never heard of them though the younger brother (probably the most naturally gifted bike racer I've ever seen) won the tour de l'abitibi in about '90 or '91. His older brother was my age but was a bit too big and powerful (think greipel, or maybe more accurately sagan) for the mountains, his younger brother was a smaller version that could do it all. He could have been a monster, but they both quit (as we all did) rather than *graduate*.
p.s they were being coached by Brian Walton (another genetic freak) at his prime, along with Ron Hayman. Roland Green did graduate in his own way but he was never a donkey either.
interesting, starstruck. what u describe sounds plausible.
how is bauer,s cyclingteam coming along, any idea?
how is bauer,s cyclingteam coming along, any idea?
Re:
I think it's dead unless he re-started it. dead for a couple years as far as I know.
btw, I raced the tour de l'abitibi in '87-'88 or '88-'89, regardless Bobby Julich won both years. He wasn't that impressive though, he just hung around the front (never showing himself) and smoked the iTT both years. I wouldn't doubt there may have been some drugs involved at that level of international junior competition but even there it wasn't overwhelming. I wasn't winning but I was hanging in, top 30 overall both years I participated.
sniper said:
I think it's dead unless he re-started it. dead for a couple years as far as I know.
btw, I raced the tour de l'abitibi in '87-'88 or '88-'89, regardless Bobby Julich won both years. He wasn't that impressive though, he just hung around the front (never showing himself) and smoked the iTT both years. I wouldn't doubt there may have been some drugs involved at that level of international junior competition but even there it wasn't overwhelming. I wasn't winning but I was hanging in, top 30 overall both years I participated.
Sniper, I was directed to this thread by a buddy. I have to say I'm impressed with your seemingly endless fascination with this stuff from the old days. I lived it through the '70's and stopped, at least on an international level by '80. So I know all the players you're talking about. I did several world championships, have a bunch of medals from nationals and raced in Europe for several years. I'll be polite and just say my point of view is a little different than what you've laid out.
Basically in the states and Canada we were a bunch of middle and upper middle class kids who fell in love with the sport, had a genetic predisposition to go fast and were naive to say the least. There was little to no doping among the elite guys back then. What changed things was the group of us who went to Europe and raced for teams over there. Some of us stayed and "made it", others of us, like myself were disheartened by the doping and corruption and didn't "make it". I simply didn't have the balls to take the amphetamines and steroids, that were part of the sport back then. I have nothing but respect for my peers who stayed and "made it", they for whatever reason wanted it worse than I did or didn't have the other options in life, like I did. It was just the way the sport was back then.
i spent some time at the OTC and know Eddy B and knew Ed Burke, neither of them well. But I really think you're very misguided in thinking they were some kind of masterminds behind the rise of doping the US. The truth is the doping started with those of us who went to Europe and lived and breathed the sport over there. Eddy certainly knew the sport, but to go claiming he was some kind guru is really over the top. After he defected and was hired over here, I heard stories third hand of national team guys asking the poles about him on their overseas trips, they would get a chuckle and an eye roll. Take that however you want. Unless you've been an elite athlete, lived in Europe and raced the international stuff, you really can't begin to comprehend how intertwined the sport is with doping. The whole rise of US cycling coincided with the doping knowledge brought back from Europe. It had almost nothing to do with the OTC or the folks there. Even with what happened with the blood doping, the US was light years behind what was going on in Europe.
I do agree with you though, that the whole 7-11 story and even LeMond to an extent have somehow been burnished into this incredible story of the American kids taking on the Euro dopers and winning. I get a good chuckle out of it all. You know in 100 years of racing history in Europe, virtually every major player has been involved with doping and or corruption, but yet a bunch of naive American kids went over there and kicked ass. Yep, makes for a great story! But all kidding aside LeMond was an exceptional talent, any of us who raced with him can attest to that. That being said, with what I know about the sport, I'd say you'd be a fool to think that any pro is clean, at least the way the fans define clean these days.
Basically in the states and Canada we were a bunch of middle and upper middle class kids who fell in love with the sport, had a genetic predisposition to go fast and were naive to say the least. There was little to no doping among the elite guys back then. What changed things was the group of us who went to Europe and raced for teams over there. Some of us stayed and "made it", others of us, like myself were disheartened by the doping and corruption and didn't "make it". I simply didn't have the balls to take the amphetamines and steroids, that were part of the sport back then. I have nothing but respect for my peers who stayed and "made it", they for whatever reason wanted it worse than I did or didn't have the other options in life, like I did. It was just the way the sport was back then.
i spent some time at the OTC and know Eddy B and knew Ed Burke, neither of them well. But I really think you're very misguided in thinking they were some kind of masterminds behind the rise of doping the US. The truth is the doping started with those of us who went to Europe and lived and breathed the sport over there. Eddy certainly knew the sport, but to go claiming he was some kind guru is really over the top. After he defected and was hired over here, I heard stories third hand of national team guys asking the poles about him on their overseas trips, they would get a chuckle and an eye roll. Take that however you want. Unless you've been an elite athlete, lived in Europe and raced the international stuff, you really can't begin to comprehend how intertwined the sport is with doping. The whole rise of US cycling coincided with the doping knowledge brought back from Europe. It had almost nothing to do with the OTC or the folks there. Even with what happened with the blood doping, the US was light years behind what was going on in Europe.
I do agree with you though, that the whole 7-11 story and even LeMond to an extent have somehow been burnished into this incredible story of the American kids taking on the Euro dopers and winning. I get a good chuckle out of it all. You know in 100 years of racing history in Europe, virtually every major player has been involved with doping and or corruption, but yet a bunch of naive American kids went over there and kicked ass. Yep, makes for a great story! But all kidding aside LeMond was an exceptional talent, any of us who raced with him can attest to that. That being said, with what I know about the sport, I'd say you'd be a fool to think that any pro is clean, at least the way the fans define clean these days.
Re:
Great post, Pontiac, thanks.
all this talk about 'scientific' training, winning clean against doped riders by means of marginal gains such as learning how to fall properly, good dopers vs. bad dopers, internal testing.
This whole 'perception is reality' paradigm, the narrative sky and garmin and other new age teams are selling us, it started right then and there in the US in the late 70s.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/04/news/an-essay-by-1984-olympic-gold-medalist-alexi-grewal_74053
There was doping. I don't know how much, but at least so much that it appeared impossible for Mike Fraysse to hire people who hadn't been involved in doping. Eddie B., by his own admission, had overseen doping programs in Poland, including Szurkowski's. It's the period when Poland took gold at the worlds 1973 and 1975 (TTT).
US olympic cyclist Carl Leusenkamp had tested positive in the early 70s. If doping was as rare as you say it was, why, out of all people, was Leusenkamp hired by USCF?
In the early 80s top weightlifting coach Harvey Newton was added to the coaching staff... At that point in time (like at any other point in time of course), being a top weighlifting coach meant one thing: steroids. (If you doubt that, read Roach's Muscle Smoke and Mirrors. The term "weightlifting" is well represented in the index)
And so the only 'clean' guy Fraysse and Eddie hired was probably Ed Burke. But Ed was a student of Costill, who knew where to find the honey. In the early 80s, the US team was experimenting with caffeine, something Costill had personally promoted as a PED in publications in the 70s. By that time, Costill also had a paper on "steroid use among national level athletes" on his CV. In 88, Costil co-authored a book with Wilmore (originally from 82) that says something along the lines of 'you can't blame the athlete for doping if all his competitors dope, too', and then sets off to describe the benefits of steroids, amphetamines and blood doping.
In 84, little surprisingly, Burke, Fraysse and Eddie were at the heart of the Olympic blood boosting scheme. Burke lied, pretending he'd first heard about blood boosting in a 1983 article from Gledhill. Anybody even remotely involved in the topic of cardiorespiratory conditioning would have been aware of the work on blood boosting by guys like Ekblom in the early 70s. Then there's Danny Van Haute's story. As I argued on the 1st page of this thread, by his father's admission he got in contact with blood doping as early as 1974 during the junior world's in...Poland.
Then there's Les Earnest's account of the rigged testing at the Coors Classic (Red Zinger) in the 70s and early 80s. (Hilariously, aussie Phil Anderson failed the IQ test. He got suspended for missing the dope test, which apparently he didn't know was rigged.)
There was doping in American cycling, that much is certain.
I think he was an ordinary doping facilitator. Not a mastermind of any sort.
Guys like Phinney, Kiefel, Lemond and Hampsten are the ones portraying him as a mastermind who invented 'scientific' training methods that allowed them to beat those pesky dopers from Europe. Lol.
Meanwhile, Inga Thompson and Andy Bohlman (a Colorado Springs race director who was in charge of drug testing for the U.S. Cycling Federation from 1984 to 1991) both described Eddie as the father of American Cycling's doping culture. If you disagree with that assessment, you have to take it up with Inga and Andy. They were there, I wasn't.
I also like this one from Eddie:
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/polite.htm
Heiden, Lemond, Carpenter, and a bit later Hampsten, maybe some others, strike me as typical products from that early OTC period. But I could be wrong.
Hilariously, the investigation into the 84 BB scandal was lead by...Dardik and Miller, the two guys responsible for setting up the whole dope program in the late 70s. As I posted upthread, USOC and sponsor 7-eleven feared for a PR disaster and so yes, they wanted you to believe this was a badly organized amateurish scheme, 'innocent', almost.
The medal haul was unparalleled, however. Sure, the boycot played a role. But the event cemented Eddie's reputation as top coach. Tellingly, when in 1988 (Seoul Games) the US Cycling team had little success, people started lobbying to bring back Eddie B.
Great post, Pontiac, thanks.
old days, yes, but it trickles right into the present.Pontiac said:
all this talk about 'scientific' training, winning clean against doped riders by means of marginal gains such as learning how to fall properly, good dopers vs. bad dopers, internal testing.
This whole 'perception is reality' paradigm, the narrative sky and garmin and other new age teams are selling us, it started right then and there in the US in the late 70s.
props for that, and thanks for chiming in. Always nice to get a first hand view on things.
different views are good. But I'm not sure yours differs that much from mine, well except for the OTC and Eddie B., perhaps.
Alexi Grewal begs to differ.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/04/news/an-essay-by-1984-olympic-gold-medalist-alexi-grewal_74053
There was doping. I don't know how much, but at least so much that it appeared impossible for Mike Fraysse to hire people who hadn't been involved in doping. Eddie B., by his own admission, had overseen doping programs in Poland, including Szurkowski's. It's the period when Poland took gold at the worlds 1973 and 1975 (TTT).
US olympic cyclist Carl Leusenkamp had tested positive in the early 70s. If doping was as rare as you say it was, why, out of all people, was Leusenkamp hired by USCF?
In the early 80s top weightlifting coach Harvey Newton was added to the coaching staff... At that point in time (like at any other point in time of course), being a top weighlifting coach meant one thing: steroids. (If you doubt that, read Roach's Muscle Smoke and Mirrors. The term "weightlifting" is well represented in the index)
And so the only 'clean' guy Fraysse and Eddie hired was probably Ed Burke. But Ed was a student of Costill, who knew where to find the honey. In the early 80s, the US team was experimenting with caffeine, something Costill had personally promoted as a PED in publications in the 70s. By that time, Costill also had a paper on "steroid use among national level athletes" on his CV. In 88, Costil co-authored a book with Wilmore (originally from 82) that says something along the lines of 'you can't blame the athlete for doping if all his competitors dope, too', and then sets off to describe the benefits of steroids, amphetamines and blood doping.
In 84, little surprisingly, Burke, Fraysse and Eddie were at the heart of the Olympic blood boosting scheme. Burke lied, pretending he'd first heard about blood boosting in a 1983 article from Gledhill. Anybody even remotely involved in the topic of cardiorespiratory conditioning would have been aware of the work on blood boosting by guys like Ekblom in the early 70s. Then there's Danny Van Haute's story. As I argued on the 1st page of this thread, by his father's admission he got in contact with blood doping as early as 1974 during the junior world's in...Poland.
Then there's Les Earnest's account of the rigged testing at the Coors Classic (Red Zinger) in the 70s and early 80s. (Hilariously, aussie Phil Anderson failed the IQ test. He got suspended for missing the dope test, which apparently he didn't know was rigged.)
There was doping in American cycling, that much is certain.
interesting background. This sounds plausible.
I haven't claimed this.
I think he was an ordinary doping facilitator. Not a mastermind of any sort.
Guys like Phinney, Kiefel, Lemond and Hampsten are the ones portraying him as a mastermind who invented 'scientific' training methods that allowed them to beat those pesky dopers from Europe. Lol.
Meanwhile, Inga Thompson and Andy Bohlman (a Colorado Springs race director who was in charge of drug testing for the U.S. Cycling Federation from 1984 to 1991) both described Eddie as the father of American Cycling's doping culture. If you disagree with that assessment, you have to take it up with Inga and Andy. They were there, I wasn't.
I also like this one from Eddie:
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/polite.htm
This sounds like a fair assessment. I agree, procycling and doping are and have been inseparably intertwined.
Sure, I reckon there was no Leipzig/Cologne style 'sophisticated' doping going on there (making women pregnant to boost their testosterone, and stuff like that). They did explicitly aim for a Leipzig-style set-up, though. (They = Dardik, Ariel, Miller). I've posted all that upthread. They wanted to test steroids and blood doping on young athletes in order to identify outstanding athletes, and provided internal testing and doping seminars so that athletes knew how to fly below the radar. Close the gap with the bloc-countries. This is not 'a point of view' I have. It's how it was stated by the people involved in founding the OTC. I posted several references to those statements upthread.
Heiden, Lemond, Carpenter, and a bit later Hampsten, maybe some others, strike me as typical products from that early OTC period. But I could be wrong.
Behind? Yes. Lightyears? Not really.
Hilariously, the investigation into the 84 BB scandal was lead by...Dardik and Miller, the two guys responsible for setting up the whole dope program in the late 70s. As I posted upthread, USOC and sponsor 7-eleven feared for a PR disaster and so yes, they wanted you to believe this was a badly organized amateurish scheme, 'innocent', almost.
The medal haul was unparalleled, however. Sure, the boycot played a role. But the event cemented Eddie's reputation as top coach. Tellingly, when in 1988 (Seoul Games) the US Cycling team had little success, people started lobbying to bring back Eddie B.
We're in full agreement here. Well said.
Re: Re:
as for Bauer, one can't help but wonder.
He came second to Grewal in the 84 Olympics.
He must have felt weird at the time, as it was public knowledge that Grewal had tested positive in 83, but was exonerated for no particular reason by USOC and cleared to race in 84.
Especially after Grewal's confession in 2008 that he was doped to the gills throughout his carreer, Bauer must have felt particularly bitter.
Another self-admitted doper, Eddy Planckaert, robbed Bauer of a win at Paris Roubaix 1990.
Again, clean Bauer must have felt so embittered when Eddy admitted to doping.
Oh, wait, not really embittered after all :
Let's not get started about his plans to win the Tour de France in 2010 because "you can win it clean these days".
That guy has either been living in some sort of cave. Or he's just another ordinary doper who got the 7-eleven clean cycling memo sent out post-84 which must have read something like "When asked, just make as many blanket statements about clean cycling as possible".
interesting, cheers.Starstruck said:
as for Bauer, one can't help but wonder.
He came second to Grewal in the 84 Olympics.
He must have felt weird at the time, as it was public knowledge that Grewal had tested positive in 83, but was exonerated for no particular reason by USOC and cleared to race in 84.
Especially after Grewal's confession in 2008 that he was doped to the gills throughout his carreer, Bauer must have felt particularly bitter.
Another self-admitted doper, Eddy Planckaert, robbed Bauer of a win at Paris Roubaix 1990.
Again, clean Bauer must have felt so embittered when Eddy admitted to doping.
Oh, wait, not really embittered after all :
No sour grapes for Steve.
Let's not get started about his plans to win the Tour de France in 2010 because "you can win it clean these days".
That guy has either been living in some sort of cave. Or he's just another ordinary doper who got the 7-eleven clean cycling memo sent out post-84 which must have read something like "When asked, just make as many blanket statements about clean cycling as possible".
source:
Olympic tradition in the modern world
Cashin, Constance Elizabeth. University of Southern California, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1978.
Re: Re:
sniper
...epo changed everything...clean riders pre-epo could compete..
post epo they couldn't
pro cycling is pro cycling...if you were clean you got on with it and some days you got lucky
post epo, if you were clean you could not get lucky...
sniper said:interesting, cheers.Starstruck said:
as for Bauer, one can't help but wonder.
He came second to Grewal in the 84 Olympics.
He must have felt weird at the time, as it was public knowledge that Grewal had tested positive in 83, but was exonerated for no particular reason by USOC and cleared to race in 84.
Especially after Grewal's confession in 2008 that he was doped to the gills throughout his carreer, Bauer must have felt particularly bitter.
Another self-admitted doper, Eddy Planckaert, robbed Bauer of a win at Paris Roubaix 1990.
Again, clean Bauer must have felt so embittered when Eddy admitted to doping.
Oh, wait, not really embittered after all :
No sour grapes for Steve.
Let's not get started about his plans to win the Tour de France in 2010 because "you can win it clean these days".
That guy has either been living in some sort of cave. Or he's just another ordinary doper who got the 7-eleven clean cycling memo sent out post-84 which must have read something like "When asked, just make as many blanket statements about clean cycling as possible".
sniper
...epo changed everything...clean riders pre-epo could compete..
post epo they couldn't
pro cycling is pro cycling...if you were clean you got on with it and some days you got lucky
post epo, if you were clean you could not get lucky...
from 2010:
What a phenomenal fair player Bauer is. No sour grapes.
Not a word.
That's two years after Grewal had confessed to being a big time doper.
What a phenomenal fair player Bauer is. No sour grapes.
Not a word.
Re:
he said that in 2010?
after his pro career
the olympics was an amateur event
all his pro placings trump grewal's gold
sniper said:
he said that in 2010?
after his pro career
the olympics was an amateur event
all his pro placings trump grewal's gold
more gold from Bauer.
2010:
And who said epo killed clean cycling? Not according to Bauer it didn't. More like the other way around. It was dirty, but now it's clean. Or something.
Also 2010:
2010:
They were dude, and they confessed to it. The whole world knows except you.
And who said epo killed clean cycling? Not according to Bauer it didn't. More like the other way around. It was dirty, but now it's clean. Or something.
Also 2010:
I guess he hadn't seen Floyd's emails coming.
Re:
in other news...couches are half-price, coke harmonises the world and driving our sports car make you cool....
sniper said:more gold from Bauer.
They were dude, and they confessed to it. The whole world knows except you.
And who said epo killed clean cycling? Not according to Bauer it didn't. More like the other way around. It was dirty, but now it's clean. Or something.
Also 2010:
in other news...couches are half-price, coke harmonises the world and driving our sports car make you cool....
@starstruck: to your knowledge, is it true that Armstrong had a hand in setting up Bauer's Canadian cycling team in 2009/10? I read something about that but can't find details.
It would go a long way in explaining why the team didn't get off the ground (from what I understand).
Anyway, this is from 2013, quite interesting.
It follows Swart's testimony that practically everyone on the motorola team in 1995 was on EPO. That team included Bauer.
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews.php?id=25783
It would go a long way in explaining why the team didn't get off the ground (from what I understand).
Anyway, this is from 2013, quite interesting.
It follows Swart's testimony that practically everyone on the motorola team in 1995 was on EPO. That team included Bauer.
Pull the other one, Steve.
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews.php?id=25783
Steve, couldn't you at least pretend to be disgusted?
https://www.thestar.com/sports/tour_de_france/2012/08/24/the_case_against_lance_armstrong.html
Always good to remind oneself of what pure, uncut omerta sounds like.
Bauer 2012 responding to Hesjedal's confession:
http://pedalmag.com/comments-on-ryder-hesjedals-confession-to-doping-by-bauer-arsenault-kabush-and-watkins/
Bauer 2012 responding to Hesjedal's confession:
Unreal.
http://pedalmag.com/comments-on-ryder-hesjedals-confession-to-doping-by-bauer-arsenault-kabush-and-watkins/
@ sniper
When I was 18 I went to race in Belgium, this was 1990. I lived in the same town as Steve Bauer. It took me about two months to realise that it was going to literally be impossible to "make it" without doping. I sat in Steve's living room and asked him point blank if it was possible, and talked about the amateurs dropping dead in their sleep. He told me that he just did ozone therapy. Sure, until it mattered.
I saw the finish of the 1990 Paris Roubaix in the velodrome. The really hilarious part was that Planckaert was selling a story about a Swiss clinic and some sort of fetal tissue (sheep or something) injections to the press after his win. Meanwhile, as a junior about to become senior I held the testosterone vial in my hands, I was offered the amphetamines, I knew people that died. I declined and quit entirely in '91. After that I was out of the loop.
Obvious is obvious. I knew multiple people from home that were racing in Italy, France and Belgium , all reports were the same; dope or forget it. It's not like we were completely naïve but they don't (didn't) even pretend in Europe. This is the deal...
No one should (will) believe me though so believe what you want. Three week grand tours on bread and water...c'mon, let's be reasonable.
p.s. that was a great post Pontiac.
When I was 18 I went to race in Belgium, this was 1990. I lived in the same town as Steve Bauer. It took me about two months to realise that it was going to literally be impossible to "make it" without doping. I sat in Steve's living room and asked him point blank if it was possible, and talked about the amateurs dropping dead in their sleep. He told me that he just did ozone therapy. Sure, until it mattered.
I saw the finish of the 1990 Paris Roubaix in the velodrome. The really hilarious part was that Planckaert was selling a story about a Swiss clinic and some sort of fetal tissue (sheep or something) injections to the press after his win. Meanwhile, as a junior about to become senior I held the testosterone vial in my hands, I was offered the amphetamines, I knew people that died. I declined and quit entirely in '91. After that I was out of the loop.
Obvious is obvious. I knew multiple people from home that were racing in Italy, France and Belgium , all reports were the same; dope or forget it. It's not like we were completely naïve but they don't (didn't) even pretend in Europe. This is the deal...
No one should (will) believe me though so believe what you want. Three week grand tours on bread and water...c'mon, let's be reasonable.
p.s. that was a great post Pontiac.
Re:
I remember reading similar accounts about Belgium being the place were you are really 'tested', thrown into the deep, wrt doping that is. (Don't remember exactly where I read it, will look)
btw, Planckaert's story sounds alot like Esafosfina's story about ADR a-class riders in 1989 visiting a Swiss or Austrian clinic for treatment with calf's blood extract. Esafosfina rode for ADR in that year, though he was not part of the inner circle / a-class. (you find esafosfina's account here: http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0)
If I may ask, did you ever hear anything about EPO (or hormone therapy) in 89/90/91?
There were plenty of stories about EPO already doing the rounds in those years, see e.g. here:
http://postimg.org/image/vgxgqxt7f/
and here: viewtopic.php?p=1909046#p1909046
Very interesting, thanks, and very plausible.Starstruck said:
I remember reading similar accounts about Belgium being the place were you are really 'tested', thrown into the deep, wrt doping that is. (Don't remember exactly where I read it, will look)
btw, Planckaert's story sounds alot like Esafosfina's story about ADR a-class riders in 1989 visiting a Swiss or Austrian clinic for treatment with calf's blood extract. Esafosfina rode for ADR in that year, though he was not part of the inner circle / a-class. (you find esafosfina's account here: http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0)
If I may ask, did you ever hear anything about EPO (or hormone therapy) in 89/90/91?
There were plenty of stories about EPO already doing the rounds in those years, see e.g. here:
http://postimg.org/image/vgxgqxt7f/
and here: viewtopic.php?p=1909046#p1909046
A few observations here, at the risk of continuing the round and round we go with this stuff.
Guys like myself and Starstruck, we know what we know. There are plenty of others who went through similar experiences, and not just American or Canadian kids. Fans in Europe have known all this stuff for generations, it's really just over here that you see folks getting so overwrought about who is doing what or how the sport has changed since the EPO generation. I used to think it was important to try and change things to save the kids from going through what I, Starstruck and others went through. Maybe I've just gotten too old to care anymore, but now I just see the sport differently.
On one level, it is a great sport and so beneficial to those who participate at any age. I wouldn't hesitate to see my kids involved and as for myself I still love riding. On the other hand, we have the pro side of things. I keep the two separated, the pro side is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. The hard part is peeling away all the bs that we get bombarded with from the cycling media and any and all businesses that are part of the sport (like they say, just follow the money). I don't concern myself with whether or not the sport is clean, like I said earlier, I know what I know. It's hard to change stuff that you've lived through.
The only thing I feel would help the sport is to have a very strong riders Union. The pro side is made up of 3 legs, the promoters, the team owners and the riders. The riders have always gotten the short stick, through out the history of the sport. They are so expendable, for every journeyman pro, there are 500 kids just dying for the chance to turn pro for a jersey, a bike and some travel money. It's still the same, it hasn't changed one bit, in fact my sense is, it is worse now than when I rode. A strong union would stand up for these kids and hopefully make sure that being a pro meant something other than being so expendable and provide them with a more stable environment. I think that's the first step towards seeing a somewhat cleaner sport. Of course, it's going to mean a riders strike at the Tour....guys actually refusing to race and going home, en masse. I know it's unlikely to happen, but damn it would be great entertainment!
Ps: Sniper, it's amazing all the stuff you have managed to dig up. But from my experience, I think you attach way too much importance to the whole sports science side of things and it's relevance for the riders. No offense to guys like acoggan or Merckx index, but between myself and the guys I raced with, i can't think of a soul who actually placed any kind of importance on what the scientists said. You need to realize the mindset of an elite athlete is different, by definition alone we weren't "normal". Each of us got to where we were with a combination of genetics and an awful lot of hard work, there was just no space in our minds to listen to someone who had no idea what we had gone through. If we going to listen to anyone, it was other riders who had gone through the wringer and where are those guys now? They're the soigneurs, the directors, etc. I know it's an endless cycle isn't it!
Guys like myself and Starstruck, we know what we know. There are plenty of others who went through similar experiences, and not just American or Canadian kids. Fans in Europe have known all this stuff for generations, it's really just over here that you see folks getting so overwrought about who is doing what or how the sport has changed since the EPO generation. I used to think it was important to try and change things to save the kids from going through what I, Starstruck and others went through. Maybe I've just gotten too old to care anymore, but now I just see the sport differently.
On one level, it is a great sport and so beneficial to those who participate at any age. I wouldn't hesitate to see my kids involved and as for myself I still love riding. On the other hand, we have the pro side of things. I keep the two separated, the pro side is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. The hard part is peeling away all the bs that we get bombarded with from the cycling media and any and all businesses that are part of the sport (like they say, just follow the money). I don't concern myself with whether or not the sport is clean, like I said earlier, I know what I know. It's hard to change stuff that you've lived through.
The only thing I feel would help the sport is to have a very strong riders Union. The pro side is made up of 3 legs, the promoters, the team owners and the riders. The riders have always gotten the short stick, through out the history of the sport. They are so expendable, for every journeyman pro, there are 500 kids just dying for the chance to turn pro for a jersey, a bike and some travel money. It's still the same, it hasn't changed one bit, in fact my sense is, it is worse now than when I rode. A strong union would stand up for these kids and hopefully make sure that being a pro meant something other than being so expendable and provide them with a more stable environment. I think that's the first step towards seeing a somewhat cleaner sport. Of course, it's going to mean a riders strike at the Tour....guys actually refusing to race and going home, en masse. I know it's unlikely to happen, but damn it would be great entertainment!
Ps: Sniper, it's amazing all the stuff you have managed to dig up. But from my experience, I think you attach way too much importance to the whole sports science side of things and it's relevance for the riders. No offense to guys like acoggan or Merckx index, but between myself and the guys I raced with, i can't think of a soul who actually placed any kind of importance on what the scientists said. You need to realize the mindset of an elite athlete is different, by definition alone we weren't "normal". Each of us got to where we were with a combination of genetics and an awful lot of hard work, there was just no space in our minds to listen to someone who had no idea what we had gone through. If we going to listen to anyone, it was other riders who had gone through the wringer and where are those guys now? They're the soigneurs, the directors, etc. I know it's an endless cycle isn't it!
thanks, Pontiac.
Some valuable observations.
I love this part of your post:
Sky's Tim Kerrison springs to mind.
Some valuable observations.
I love this part of your post:
Brilliantly put and I can totally relate to that (although I never was an athlete).
Sky's Tim Kerrison springs to mind.
Re:
I think your last paragraph ("I think you attach way too much importance to the whole sports science side of things and it's relevance for the riders") is probably mostly true, but not completely. Some teams place great importance on getting their riders to buy into the 'sports science' mindset and what these people can do to help them gain that extra 2%. We all see the results of a team that relies on sports science, it does work.
Cheers!
Great post Pontiac! We appreciate ex-pro's coming into our little corner of the world to help fill in the blanks.Pontiac said:
I think your last paragraph ("I think you attach way too much importance to the whole sports science side of things and it's relevance for the riders") is probably mostly true, but not completely. Some teams place great importance on getting their riders to buy into the 'sports science' mindset and what these people can do to help them gain that extra 2%. We all see the results of a team that relies on sports science, it does work.
Cheers!
Re:
Pontiac, I appreciate your posts as well as starbucks but I have some questions. How exactly do you define making it? What level did you ride at?
You say Belgium was rife with doping even at amateur level but then Paul Kimmage finished 6th in the World Amateur Championsips clean beating all the Belgians. Kimmage made it to ride at pro level and ride the Tour 3 times without the dope(yes I am aware he tried amphetamines at crits). He was a similar level to a lot of the 7-Eleven guys, Roll, Pierce, Heiden, Bradley etc. Your account seems to suggest it was not possible to even make that level without doping.
Daryl Webster who posts here sometimes was another who had good results in Belgium doing it clean, Colin Sturgess was World pursuit champion allegedly clean. This is not to denigrate your experiences and I dont doubt them, but do you feel that sometimes the 'everyone else was doping card' is a bit of a way out for not making it.
What do you think was possible clean? The psychology of doping is something that is never really discussed but it was of major interest to Paul Koechli. He believed many guys were defeated by the idea of others doping before they even took the line and felt it was because of this many relied on the doping crutch. Kimmage described it in his book as well, how when he was naive he got results and tried but when he knew the score, he stopped bothering. I think it is an interesting topic. Are you aware of Koechli and his ideas?
Many guys who tried in Europe sruggled with the lifestyle as well and this is common even now with many young riders, despite all the modern technology that keeps everyone in touch. I am sure it was 100 times tougher back in your time. I think there is a lot more to it than doping but very often it is oversimplified to just that so would be interested in your perspective.
Pontiac said:
Pontiac, I appreciate your posts as well as starbucks but I have some questions. How exactly do you define making it? What level did you ride at?
You say Belgium was rife with doping even at amateur level but then Paul Kimmage finished 6th in the World Amateur Championsips clean beating all the Belgians. Kimmage made it to ride at pro level and ride the Tour 3 times without the dope(yes I am aware he tried amphetamines at crits). He was a similar level to a lot of the 7-Eleven guys, Roll, Pierce, Heiden, Bradley etc. Your account seems to suggest it was not possible to even make that level without doping.
Daryl Webster who posts here sometimes was another who had good results in Belgium doing it clean, Colin Sturgess was World pursuit champion allegedly clean. This is not to denigrate your experiences and I dont doubt them, but do you feel that sometimes the 'everyone else was doping card' is a bit of a way out for not making it.
What do you think was possible clean? The psychology of doping is something that is never really discussed but it was of major interest to Paul Koechli. He believed many guys were defeated by the idea of others doping before they even took the line and felt it was because of this many relied on the doping crutch. Kimmage described it in his book as well, how when he was naive he got results and tried but when he knew the score, he stopped bothering. I think it is an interesting topic. Are you aware of Koechli and his ideas?
Many guys who tried in Europe sruggled with the lifestyle as well and this is common even now with many young riders, despite all the modern technology that keeps everyone in touch. I am sure it was 100 times tougher back in your time. I think there is a lot more to it than doping but very often it is oversimplified to just that so would be interested in your perspective.
I tend to think the most talented do less than the rest but I just seriously doubt anyone skates through "clean". In N.A. (at that time) eyebrows were raised if you were suspected of doping, in Europe eyebrows were raised if you said you wouldn't dope (even as an amateur). i knew guys that never had the choice: this will make you go fast - as the syringe is injected.
I had a lot of fun and when it got too serious I moved on (as did a lot of other people).
I had a lot of fun and when it got too serious I moved on (as did a lot of other people).
I'd prefer to remain somewhat anonymous, as there are too many guys I was friends with that are still in the sport. I respect them, end of story.
One of the things you guys need to realize is, anytime you are dealing with personal recollections from an era just remember that they are personal. In other words I went through that I went through, others went through very different circumstances. So it's tough for me to answer questions, like "wasn't it possible to ride as a pro clean?" I was a good amateur for a few years there, racing for a French team in all the big international stage races in France, Belgium and Italy, against the Russians and Poles. I didn't win a lot of races, was mostly a climber and very good at stage races. I had a ton of top 10 placings as a gc rider. I was given a chance to stay and ride as a pro. But from my perspective with my talent level, it meant a few years as a domestique, for very little money and doing a ton of drugs. I was given stuff to take by the soigneurs and the docs on teams I raced for. They would give me what I found out later were fairly mild stimulants and things like cortisone at races. They and the ex pros I trained with always told me I needed to take steroids early in the season to help buildup to allow oneself to make it through the season. The ex pros used to tell me to take amphetamines for training and how much it would help me develop as a rider. As I mentioned earlier, I just didn't have the balls to take the strong stuff. But those were my surroundings, could it have been different? For sure, but as a kid over there trying to learn the ropes, you are at the mercy of those around you. I wasn't super talented like LeMond, where you could just tell them off and do what you wanted. I had no other support group that had been through it and could tell me it could be done clean. There is no doubt that all of that makes a huge difference, the mind is a very powerful thing. My peers over there wrestled with the same ***, we all reacted to it differently. Some of them dove right in, actually became frighteningly into it all. I just opted out, it wasn't worth it to me. It's an addicting sport, so it's not like that was an easy decision for me.
I had a blast doing it though and don't regret it. Besides I have a ton of funny stories, maybe someday I'll tell you guys how my pee ended up getting a pro contract for a good buddy of mine! And no, I'm not gonna name him.
One of the things you guys need to realize is, anytime you are dealing with personal recollections from an era just remember that they are personal. In other words I went through that I went through, others went through very different circumstances. So it's tough for me to answer questions, like "wasn't it possible to ride as a pro clean?" I was a good amateur for a few years there, racing for a French team in all the big international stage races in France, Belgium and Italy, against the Russians and Poles. I didn't win a lot of races, was mostly a climber and very good at stage races. I had a ton of top 10 placings as a gc rider. I was given a chance to stay and ride as a pro. But from my perspective with my talent level, it meant a few years as a domestique, for very little money and doing a ton of drugs. I was given stuff to take by the soigneurs and the docs on teams I raced for. They would give me what I found out later were fairly mild stimulants and things like cortisone at races. They and the ex pros I trained with always told me I needed to take steroids early in the season to help buildup to allow oneself to make it through the season. The ex pros used to tell me to take amphetamines for training and how much it would help me develop as a rider. As I mentioned earlier, I just didn't have the balls to take the strong stuff. But those were my surroundings, could it have been different? For sure, but as a kid over there trying to learn the ropes, you are at the mercy of those around you. I wasn't super talented like LeMond, where you could just tell them off and do what you wanted. I had no other support group that had been through it and could tell me it could be done clean. There is no doubt that all of that makes a huge difference, the mind is a very powerful thing. My peers over there wrestled with the same ***, we all reacted to it differently. Some of them dove right in, actually became frighteningly into it all. I just opted out, it wasn't worth it to me. It's an addicting sport, so it's not like that was an easy decision for me.
I had a blast doing it though and don't regret it. Besides I have a ton of funny stories, maybe someday I'll tell you guys how my pee ended up getting a pro contract for a good buddy of mine! And no, I'm not gonna name him.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
Question Which Historical Cycling Races Should Be Revived?- Started by Tobi
- Replies: 48
-
-
Top 10 current cyclists outside of the 'big 6'
- Started by cyclingfan3
- Replies: 54
-
Latest posts
-
-
New Jerseys - 2025 Season - TeamKits-Maillots-Tricots-Tenues- Latest: Armchair Cyclist
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram