Were the 80s any cleaner than whenever?

[ChrisE]

You think 'ChrisE' has a fair point?
Of course he doesn't - he has an agenda, please do not confuse the two.

That is why he mentions riders names as opposed to debating the information at hand.
I realize this comes across as abrasive, but why should I (and you) sit on my hands and not encourage a mature and proper debate on the information.

*Snip remaining circular "opinion" babble*

.

I have an agenda? Of course I do, but it happens to coincide with what I think regardless of the circumstances. At least I can admit it....you have to stick to your "opinion" that roids don't give much benefit because that would start jamming your agenda. But you have zero proof, just zingers slung at my opinion as being "baloney".

It's easy to say somebody has an agenda then dismiss what they have to say, regardless of logic. It's almost as bad as putting somebody on ignore, so I have to give you credit for not doing that.

I do agree with you that roids give advantage up to cardiovascular limit, as I alluded to upthread by saying they compliment eachother because EPO would enable the body to reap the full benefit of that increased strength. Thus I obviously believe both used in combo with eachother gives far greater advantages than alone. This is proven out by the cocktail of PED's shown to be used by cyclists, and by our logic.

But, and this is the final thing I will say about this unless you bring something new to the table, I do not believe ie my opinion is that it would be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for somebody to consistently beat the competition even if those two drugs were taken independently. I have no scientific proof of this other than my experience, and you don't either to have the opposite opinion (inre to roids). All you have is your agenda.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have an agenda? Of course I do, but it happens to coincide with what I think regardless of the circumstances. At least I can admit it....you have to stick to your "opinion" that roids don't give much benefit because that would start jamming your agenda. But you have zero proof, just zingers slung at my opinion as being "baloney".

So, you think, therefore it is?

And now I have to stick to some opinion about steroids - an opinion I never made?
Didn't we have this little chat about you attributing comments that I didn't make before?

It's easy to say somebody has an agenda then dismiss what they have to say, regardless of logic. It's almost as bad as putting somebody on ignore, so I have to give you credit for not doing that.

I don't dismiss what you have to say because you have an agenda - I dismiss it because it is wrong.

I do agree with you that roids give advantage up to cardiovascular limit, as I alluded to upthread by saying they compliment eachother because EPO would enable the body to reap the full benefit of that increased strength. Thus I obviously believe both used in combo with eachother gives far greater advantages than alone. This is proven out by the cocktail of PED's shown to be used by cyclists, and by our logic.

But, and this is the final thing I will say about this unless you bring something new to the table, I do not believe ie my opinion is that it would be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for somebody to consistently beat the competition even if those two drugs were taken independently. I have no scientific proof of this other than my experience, and you don't either to have the opposite opinion (inre to roids). All you have is your agenda.

Your problem now is you are flip flopping from one post to the next.

Earlier it was if steroids were introduced after EPO then steroids would be viewed as the game changer,
Now you are trying to suggest that your point is EPO & Steroids taken together - that is a very different point and one that no-one has disagreed with you on.

 

[pmcg76]

Does anyone really believe steroids were not beneficial to athletes? I dont think so.

Does anyone really believe that steroids were as much of a game changer as EPO, I dont think so.

The real question here is whether a supertalented clean athlete could still beat another lesser rider on steroids. Taking all factors as equal, then the answer is clearly no but we all know the factors like natural talent, training, surrounding environment etc are never equal.

Chris E has had an agenda on this for the longest time, he claims other have an agenda to protect LeMond.

My opinion is not an agenda but based on the accounts of those who were involved in pro cycling during the 80s and into the EPO era. We knew little of who was doing what during that period until after the Festina affair happened. Willy Voet, the Festina soigneur named Charly Mottet as a clean rider, now Mottet finished 4th in the Tour twice and 6th once, 2nd in the Giro, he was World number 1 for a preiod, he won numerous other big races during his career. To have done so, he would have had to beat a lot of dopers.

If he could do all that whilst riding cleanly, I dont think it is a stretch to envisage a more talented clean rider winning the Tour. Now people can choose to dismiss what Voet says as BS but I fail to see why Voet would lie. Chris E has chosen to dismiss the accounts of those who said it was possible to win cleanly, namely Voet, Peter Winnen, Paul Kochli, Giles Delion, Andy Hampsten and a few more I am sure I am missing.

Peter Winnen claims he rode his first Tour's clean but succumb to doping afterwards. Winnen rode for Panasonic where hormonal rebalancing took place according to Winnen and indeed Allan Peiper, another ex Panansonic rider. Ironic then that Winnen never came near his early Tour performances despite taking doping products like testosterone, cortisone etc.

At the end of the day I put together all the little bits I gleamed from various riders, sogineurs, team managers etc, then cross-referenced them and formed an opinion that 'yes' it may have indeed been possible for a super-talent to win the Tour clean, not to defend GL as people like to suggest.

Chris E on the other hand dismisses all the accounts that are out there because he clearly knows more about 80s pro cycling that the actual guys involved. He sticks to his 'not possible to win a Tour clean' based on a simple idea that steroids gave a benefit to some athletes. No scinetific proof to show how much of a benefit, just a fancy filled idea because it matches his agenda.

Now if people can produce accounts that goes against what those I listed have stated, I would be perfectly willing to include those in my reasoning and re-assess my opinion. I will wait with baited breath

 

[ChrisE]

...

Your problem now is you are flip flopping from one post to the next.

Earlier it was if steroids were introduced after EPO then steroids would be viewed as the game changer,
Now you are trying to suggest that your point is EPO & Steroids taken together - that is a very different point and one that no-one has disagreed with you on.

How can I be saying those 2 taken together were the "game changer"? I am saying nothing of the sort. We are just establishing that when EPO was introduced it was used in conjunction with roids, and that both together were better than either individually. I think we both agree on that. Thus, EPO was the last in a series of PED's that made speeds what they were. That is my point in the post of mine you allude to, ie if roids were last they would be the final piece to the high performance.

I think if either one is taken alone they are a "game changer". That is my agenda, and coincidentally it is also what I think regardless of what that would imply. Not only in the strength dept; You are far more knowledgable than me on when what rules were in place so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think OOC testing was done in the 80's which is a huge deal. The increased training roids enable pays huge benefits months after getting off of them.

As for my agenda, which apparently is poking GL because I am an LA fanboy lol, GL started losing when EPO came into the sport....though the timeline meanders from 1988 to 1993 I am willing to concede that it is possible he started losing because of this, though I doubt it. He claims so to further his agenda, which by coincidence was derived when LA tied his record of 3 wins and started being mean to him. Before then it was rah-rah LA and a blood disease that did him in....but I digress. Just wanted to clear up my agenda, that warps my opinion about the apparent placebo PEDs of the 80's and superhuman qualities of a certain LA enemy prior to EPO.

I admit I was trying to backdoor you into somehow admitting, since EPO alone was a part of the whole PED cocktail that beat GL, that he could beat somebody on EPO alone. IE, replace roids in the 80's with EPO. It was a folly, because no data exists on this subject as we have been saying. I think it is an interesting subject though there are no facts to substantiate any conclusion. I am sure you would never admit that anyway, regardless of the lesser benefits it would give than the cocktail that is blamed for GL's downfall. That would jam your agenda.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How can I be saying those 2 taken together were the "game changer"? I am saying nothing of the sort. We are just establishing that when EPO was introduced it was used in conjunction with roids, and that both together were better than either individually. I think we both agree on that. Thus, EPO was the last in a series of PED's that made speeds what they were. That is my point in the post of mine you allude to, ie if roids were last they would be the final piece to the high performance.

I didn't say that, although I poorly worded the response - your original point was that steroids after EPO would be viewed as the gamechanger - it isn't.
This is a simple point, the gains from EPO far outweigh Streroids.

Your new point is something about EPO taken in conjunction with steroids - an entirely different point.
As no-one is disputing that, then this a debate that you are with great conviction. Congratulations.

I think if either one is taken alone they are a "game changer". That is my agenda, and coincidentally it is also what I think regardless of what that would imply. Not only in the strength dept; You are far more knowledgable than me on when what rules were in place so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think OOC testing was done in the 80's which is a huge deal. The increased training roids enable pays huge benefits months after getting off of them.

As for my agenda, which apparently is poking GL because I am an LA fanboy lol, GL started losing when EPO came into the sport....though the timeline meanders from 1988 to 1993 I am willing to concede that it is possible he started losing because of this, though I doubt it. He claims so to further his agenda, which by coincidence was derived when LA tied his record of 3 wins and started being mean to him. Before then it was rah-rah LA and a blood disease that did him in....but I digress. Just wanted to clear up my agenda, that warps my opinion about the apparent placebo PEDs of the 80's and superhuman qualities of a certain LA enemy prior to EPO.

I admit I was trying to backdoor you into somehow admitting, since EPO alone was a part of the whole PED cocktail that beat GL, that he could beat somebody on EPO alone. IE, replace roids in the 80's with EPO. It was a folly, because no data exists on this subject as we have been saying. I think it is an interesting subject though there are no facts to substantiate any conclusion. I am sure you would never admit that anyway, regardless of the lesser benefits it would give than the cocktail that is blamed for GL's downfall. That would jam your agenda.

The rest here is just you trolling.

I have an opinion - I even amend that opinion when presented with new facts or information, that's why I will often ask people to back up their claims.

If I just had an agenda then I would just try and rubbish peoples arguments by trolling, baiting and ignoring what they wrote - like you do.

As you appear to have nothing of substance to offer then I don't see the point in wasting my time with you anymore.

 

[ChrisE]

As you appear to have nothing of substance to offer then I don't see the point in wasting my time with you anymore.

I always look forward to you wasting time trying to educate me. It is a sad day.

 

[9000ft]

The 80s were cleaner due to the presence of Saint Greg the clean and holy who has done battle with the evil one who destroyed cycling.

 

[rata de sentina]

But the point that chrisE makes which is the crux is that there are no studies whatsoever on any population which examine the effect of steroids on endurance cycling performance. My gut feeling agrees with you that it is very unlikely that the benefit from steroids alone is as good as the 90s era cocktail of EPO + HGH + IGF-1 + steroid hormone, but we cannot say with any level of certainty exactly how much steroids contributed to GT cycling performance enhancement in the 80s because we just don't know.

Cycling is not the only endurance sport. Leaving your "gut feeling" aside there is plentiful scientific evidence on the physiology and athletic benefits (or othewise) of androgens. At the moment looking at the body of evidence as far as I can see the 'benefits' in endurance sports seem to range from modest through negligible and down to deleterious. ChrisE is barking up the wrong tree and you are taking this new 'reasonable forum persona too far. ChrisE is far more worthy of a sound thrashing with a bag full of scientific evidence than sniper or DM.

Get back on that high horse Krebs!

 

[rata de sentina]

Does anyone really believe steroids were not beneficial to athletes? I dont think so.

Actually there was a massive debate in the scientific literature for decades on just this point and there are quite a lot of sports where they were/are abused that scientists are mystified as to the benefits.