Voeckler doping?

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know about that article. The Norwegians are clean because they say so? Everyone says they're clean. Hushovd has been winning stages for years, Arvesen was an u23 world champion and won a Giro stage too - all that while doping was supposed to be rampant. Kimmage accepts the "all Frenchmen are clean" narrative and doesn't question it even in front of potentially challenging data. Bernaudeau doped, Kimmage says, but somehow that doesn't affect his credibility as a DS. Bland.

Of course everyone says they are clean - it kinda kills your career if you volunteer your doping practices to any reporter.

Which is why you look beyond the blanket denials and check the substance of any argument.
Your above questions people who won stages - if you feel that a rider cannot even win a stage clean, then why the need to name specific riders?
Also where has Kimmage accepted "all Frenchmen are clean"?? (You realize he was questioning Bernaudeau about how he could claim to have a clean team when he himself doped?)

 

[hrotha]

Of course everyone says they are clean - it kinda kills your career if you volunteer your doping practices to any reporter.

Which was my point.

Which is why you look beyond the blanket denials and check the substance of any argument.

Which is what I'm doing, even if you disagree with my particular argument.

Your above questions people who won stages - if you feel that a rider cannot even win a stage clean, then why the need to name specific riders?

No, you misunderstood. In the article, those Norwegians are saying that Norwegian riders are winning now because cycling is clean. Except they've been winning for a while. Their argument doesn't hold.

Also where has Kimmage accepted "all Frenchmen are clean"?? (You realize he was questioning Bernaudeau about how he could claim to have a clean team when he himself doped?)

No, he questioned Bernaudeau about what made EPO different from the stuff he took himself. He didn't say anything about how his own doping affects his role as a DS or the perception of cleanliness of his team.

 

[ricara]

(You realize he was questioning Bernaudeau about how he could claim to have a clean team when he himself doped?)

I know that Fignon has admitted to doping, presumably in his autobiography. Apparently Bernaudeau also admitted to doping. Hinault has made references that were tacit admissions of doping. Eddy was popped for a "stimulant" in '73 or so.

Does anybody know exactly what drugs these guys were taking?

My understanding is that there are basically three different kinds of PEDs used in cycling. The first kind (eg, a "stimulant") allows you to push your body harder because it is easier to ignore the pain. One could argue that that is exactly what makes a champion -- the ability to push himself harder. So these drugs presumably don't actually increase the power output, only the rider's ability to push himself to his own limits more easily.

Steroids are an example of the second kind, and these build muscle mass and aid recovery.

The other type of drugs (eg, EPO, blood boosting) actually produces increases in power.

As far as I know, there have basically been three eras in doping that correspond to these three types of drugs:

1) Stimulants -- from the first Tour through today. I'm sure that many riders have a cup of coffee in the morning. And maybe even four.

2) Steroids -- as far as I know they don't increase long term power output (limited by the heart and lungs) but they do increase a rider's leg strength, and therefore explosive power. I believe that these were introduced in the late '60s and that Eddy was one of the main guys that used steroids, although he was joined by many others. I believe they continue to be used today by many riders.

3) Oxygen Vectors -- introduced in 1989 or so EPO was the first and most common of these drugs that truly boost long term power output. This was the real game-changer, and the one that really damaged the sport. For example, Hampsten won the Giro, got 4th in the TdF twice, and won the Alpe d'Huez, all while riding clean. This means that the drugs of eras (1) and (2) did not give an unbeatable advantage. But with the introduction of EPO, Andy became packfill and quit racing.

I think we all have a pretty good idea about the drugs in era (3) and what their effects are. But what about the drugs of the previous eras? What exactly was used, and what kind of performance benefits did the riders receive?

 

[sniper]

(...)
No, you misunderstood. In the article, those Norwegians are saying that Norwegian riders are winning now because cycling is clean. Except they've been winning for a while. Their argument doesn't hold.

exactly.

I know that Fignon has admitted to doping, presumably in his autobiography. Apparently Bernaudeau also admitted to doping. Hinault has made references that were tacit admissions of doping. Eddy was popped for a "stimulant" in '73 or so.

Does anybody know exactly what drugs these guys were taking?

My understanding is that there are basically three different kinds of PEDs used in cycling. The first kind (eg, a "stimulant") allows you to push your body harder because it is easier to ignore the pain. One could argue that that is exactly what makes a champion -- the ability to push himself harder. So these drugs presumably don't actually increase the power output, only the rider's ability to push himself to his own limits more easily.

Steroids are an example of the second kind, and these build muscle mass and aid recovery.

The other type of drugs (eg, EPO, blood boosting) actually produces increases in power.

As far as I know, there have basically been three eras in doping that correspond to these three types of drugs:

1) Stimulants -- from the first Tour through today. I'm sure that many riders have a cup of coffee in the morning. And maybe even four.

2) Steroids -- as far as I know they don't increase long term power output (limited by the heart and lungs) but they do increase a rider's leg strength, and therefore explosive power. I believe that these were introduced in the late '60s and that Eddy was one of the main guys that used steroids, although he was joined by many others. I believe they continue to be used today by many riders.

3) Oxygen Vectors -- introduced in 1989 or so EPO was the first and most common of these drugs that truly boost long term power output. This was the real game-changer, and the one that really damaged the sport. For example, Hampsten won the Giro, got 4th in the TdF twice, and won the Alpe d'Huez, all while riding clean. This means that the drugs of eras (1) and (2) did not give an unbeatable advantage. But with the introduction of EPO, Andy became packfill and quit racing.

I think we all have a pretty good idea about the drugs in era (3) and what their effects are. But what about the drugs of the previous eras? What exactly was used, and what kind of performance benefits did the riders receive?

good post.
It begs the question of what is really meant when speaking of a "clean(er)" tour or a "clean" rider.
Was the tour really cleaner if they stopped doping with the 3rd type, but continued doping with the 1st and 2nd type?

 

[doperhopper]

But what about the drugs of the previous eras? What exactly was used, and what kind of performance benefits did the riders receive?[/QUOTE]

nice french site with long list

http://cyclisme-dopage.com/annuaire.htm

oops, they had to hide the names

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Which was my point.

Which is what I'm doing, even if you disagree with my particular argument.

No, you misunderstood. In the article, those Norwegians are saying that Norwegian riders are winning now because cycling is clean. Except they've been winning for a while. Their argument doesn't hold.

Apologies, you're right - I did not understand the reference to the Norwegians.

True - they cannot really have it both ways

No, he questioned Bernaudeau about what made EPO different from the stuff he took himself. He didn't say anything about how his own doping affects his role as a DS or the perception of cleanliness of his team.

The highlighted was certainly mentioned and discussed in the article.

To the blue - I have seen this mentioned in The Clinic many times (& not just by yourself) and I frankly don't understand it.
We know that cycling has been dirty for some time, so anyone involved from then is going to have some history - but these guys were (by in large) 'just' dopers, if they wanted to retain their livelihood then they had to submit.
They are the takers, not the dealers - obviously they how know how the game works but it does not automatically make them pushers or dealers.

 

[Duartista]

I think we all have a pretty good idea about the drugs in era (3) and what their effects are. But what about the drugs of the previous eras? What exactly was used, and what kind of performance benefits did the riders receive?

In the Tom Simpson biography 'Put me back on my bike' there is a story about a one day race in the sixties when Anquetil and another rider (maybe Gimondi?) made a pact to do the race without doping. They were still the two riders who fought out the win, it just hurt a lot more. Apparently the 'classic' doping method in those years was amphetamines plus strong painkillers (injected during the race!), then sleeping pills after the race to counteract the effects of the stimulants.

 

[sniper]

Apologies, you're right - I did not understand the reference to the Norwegians.

True - they cannot really have it both ways

The highlighted was certainly mentioned and discussed in the article.

To the blue - I have seen this mentioned in The Clinic many times (& not just by yourself) and I frankly don't understand it.
We know that cycling has been dirty for some time, so anyone involved from then is going to have some history - but these guys were (by in large) 'just' dopers, if they wanted to retain their livelihood then they had to submit.
They are the takers, not the dealers - obviously they how know how the game works but it does not automatically make them pushers or dealers.

You're of course right in as far as the conclusion that a former doper automatically makes a dirty DS is an overdrawn conclusion, but it's not hard to understand where this idea comes from.
Riis, Bruyneel... Both were never caught suggesting they're masters in disguising and masking. Floyd's recent story also shows how important it is for a DS to have experience with doping and how this experience is put to use.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're of course right in as far as the conclusion that a former doper automatically makes a dirty DS is an overdrawn conclusion, but it's not hard to understand where this idea comes from.
Riis, Bruyneel... Both were never caught suggesting they're masters in disguising and masking. Floyd's recent story also shows how important it is for a DS to have experience with doping and how this experience is put to use.

Yes & no.
I wouldn't call them masters of doping because they didn't get caught, as EPO was not detectable and the controls at that time were quite farcical.

However - I do look at both as unapologetic dopers, so if you want to dope on their teams I would not expect them to stand in your way and probably in their cases they will facilitate it.

The blue can be read 2 ways - if we look at what Floyd (& others) say - it isn't that you are pinned down and given drugs as soon as the ink is dry when you join a 'dirty' team.
The subject is usually brought up (without ever mentioning the D word) by the rider. In Floyds case JB told him what to take and who to go to - in Phonak it was Floyd who did his own doping but Rihs was willing to pick up the bill.

The flipside is there appears to be DS's who were former dopers who have set up teams hoping that their riders do not have to make the choice that they made.

 

[frenchfry]

There is a free article from an Australian newspaper at:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tour-turn-corner/story-e6frg7rx-1226100929938

I doubt this is the entire interview, but it is a bit more than the good Dottore posted.

Of all the guys in the entire TdF, there is nobody I believe in more than Voeckler and Bernardeau. But that's just me.

then I heard one day that the biggest doper in amateur cycling had just been offered a professional contract.

That would be Pascal Hervé, Virenque's sidekick during and after Festina.

 

[roundabout]

Wasn't Herve kinda old when he turned pro?

Did he start cycling late ala Rominger or was his, er, 'reputation' holding him back?

 

[frenchfry]

Wasn't Herve kinda old when he turned pro?

Did he start cycling late ala Rominger or was his, er, 'reputation' holding him back?

If I remember correctly he was 29 when he turned pro. I remember an interview with him after his second positive, he was totally unrepentant and defended his doping as necessary to succeed. He was known as a real chaudière who would take anything in large quantities. Like his buddy Virenque.

 

[webvan]

How sad, odd he didn't test positive more often...

 

[ricara]

How sad, odd he didn't test positive more often...

At the risk of appearing politically incorrect, my impression is that Verbruggen was totally corrupt and gave a free pass to the highest bidder -- especially if that bidder would boost cycling's TV ratings due to the "miracle cancer survivor" story.

But it seems as though McQuaid is actually trying to do more, although he is definitely following the omerta of the UCI, covering up Verbruggen's transgressions. I don't think that the dopers are getting away with as much stuff as they used to.

Although I have to strongly question McQuaid's complicity in the apparent coverup of Contador's positive, and his decision to disallow USADA inspectors from the Tour of Californial (and presumably also the Tours of Utah and Colorado - or whatever its name is this week).

McQuaid let the AFLD help with testing for this year's TdF. I would have hoped that there would be more positives than just one Russian sprinter. I can't believe that everybody else was clean...

 

[ricara]

In the Tom Simpson biography 'Put me back on my bike' there is a story about a one day race in the sixties when Anquetil and another rider (maybe Gimondi?) made a pact to do the race without doping. They were still the two riders who fought out the win, it just hurt a lot more. Apparently the 'classic' doping method in those years was amphetamines plus strong painkillers (injected during the race!), then sleeping pills after the race to counteract the effects of the stimulants.

Thanks for the info. This reinforces my belief that a clean rider (say LeMond) could compete against a doped rider (say Hinault or Fignon) during that era. But everything changed with EPO.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks for the info. This reinforces my belief that a clean rider (say LeMond) could compete against a doped rider (say Hinault or Fignon) during that era. But everything changed with EPO.

This is more or less the belief of the clinic that prior to EPO the cream nearly always rose to the top. After the introduction of EPO everything turned sour.

 

[Le breton]

In the Tom Simpson biography 'Put me back on my bike' there is a story about a one day race in the sixties when Anquetil and another rider (maybe Gimondi?) made a pact to do the race without doping. They were still the two riders who fought out the win, it just hurt a lot more. Apparently the 'classic' doping method in those years was amphetamines plus strong painkillers (injected during the race!), then sleeping pills after the race to counteract the effects of the stimulants.

It was not just a one day race, it was the Grand Prix de Forli, Italy, a 90 km TT.
The story was told by Pierre Chany, one of the great journalists at L'Equipe.

The day before the race ( in 1962,3?) he was having dinner with both Baldini and Anquetil and the subject turned to doping practices. Chany asked both racers (who were pretty good friends) if they would agree to race clean the next day. Which they did. I don't remember who won that year, but they finished 1st and 2nd as usual in Forli.

Afterwards Anquetil swore never to do that again as he had suffered too much. (My understanding "always" was that guys like Anquetil tended to use pain killers)

 

[Le breton]

Thanks for the info. This reinforces my belief that a clean rider (say LeMond) could compete against a doped rider (say Hinault or Fignon) during that era. But everything changed with EPO.

Why Hinault? While I am convinced ( just my feeling) BH used amphetamines during after TdF criteriums, there are no indications that he doped anymore than Greg in grand tours.

 

[webvan]

Yes Lemond certainly had access to all that Hinault had access to, mostly painkillers and anti-inflamatory stuff like cortisone...and that's how Hinault lost his knees in 1983. That certainly wouldn't have helped Pascal Hervé become a pro.

 

[ianfra]

Ditto, at one point I thought he was about to attack.

But could this be a sign that the sport is getting more clean?

Good Thinking. Now the sport is getting cleaner it gives the guys with guts and courage a chance, Well done Mr Voeckler. Yours was an inspirational ride.

 

[hrotha]

Yes Lemond certainly had access to all that Hinault had access to, mostly painkillers and anti-inflamatory stuff like cortisone...and that's how Hinault lost his knees in 1983. That certainly wouldn't have helped Pascal Hervé become a pro.

I remember reading about Hervé coming up to Willy Voet or to the team doctor the second he signed for Festina and saying something to the effect of "Look, I'm quite old already, I don't have many years as a pro ahead of me, so I can't waste my time. Hit me with your best dope".

 

[webvan]

UCI said yesterday that all the testing results were in for the 2011 TDF and that there was no other doping case than Kolobnev. I guess that should clear Voeckler for anyone who doubted him...

 

[Cloxxki]

UCI said yesterday that all the testing results were in for the 2011 TDF and that there was no other doping case than Kolobnev. I guess that should clear Voeckler for anyone who doubted him...

I wonder if you'll find one Clinic regular who was expecting him to take detectable amounts of prohibited substances. Or any decently funded rider for that matter.
Did he blood dope with his own blood? You'll find more doubters there. And hardly a test in existence to prove it.

 

[Polish]

The 2011 Tour was a Tough One.
Anniversary Of The Alpes.

Yet Clean Tommy V rode faster than Lance in 2000.
An average speed that was faster than any of Big Migs Victories.
Faster than Claudio Chiappucci or Tony Rominger.
Faster than Richard Virenque or Evgeni Berzin.
Faster than Gianni Bugno or Piotr Ugrumov.
Faster than Luc Leblanc or Alex Zülle

A clean Tommy V rode faster than all those guys.
Most of the Top10 in the 2011 Tour rode faster as a matter of fact.
Clean Teams. Clean Riders. Faster than the 90's.

That is so cool.
The Golden Age is dawning.

 

[Stingray34]

The 2011 Tour was a Tough One.
Anniversary Of The Alpes.

Yet Clean Tommy V rode faster than Lance in 2000.
An average speed that was faster than any of Big Migs Victories.
Faster than Claudio Chiappucci or Tony Rominger.
Faster than Richard Virenque or Evgeni Berzin.
Faster than Gianni Bugno or Piotr Ugrumov.
Faster than Luc Leblanc or Alex Zülle

A clean Tommy V rode faster than all those guys.
Most of the Top10 in the 2011 Tour rode faster as a matter of fact.
Clean Teams. Clean Riders. Faster than the 90's.

That is so cool.
The Golden Age is dawning.

Clean Tommy V is more awesome than doped Lance A.

I'll drink to that. Are you going to stop tending to the crim's chin duster now or do you have a contract?