What about Bugno?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
dancing on pedals said:
oh not so sure about that, I would argue that the classic route was track, one day and then the Grand Tours - merckx, kelly,pellissier, all seem to take that route.
even so called revelations in their tour debut - like ullrich, had a rich track and one day palamares in their bag as young amateurs.
guess the exception would be fignon, who i think won the criterium international before winning Fleche Azurenne around 1982.
I would argue that class one day riders as youngsters may learn the arts of cycling and eventually win grand tours. Historically this seems to be the case.
To every rule there is an exception, Spain is very Tour oriented and riders from there can be placed in a different box.
Thanks to the great picture of Bugno on his Bianchi, inspiring.
Not to sure on the geometry of the Massi bike, but thanks too!
best
Fignon was a second year pro when he won the Tour, having ridden shotgun to Hinault in the Vuelta as he shredded the peleton. Too bad he stuffed his knee in the process or Fignon wouldn't have been leading Renault.

Lemond destroyed the field in the 82 Tour de L'Avenir before going on to win the 83 Dauhine, Worlds and Superprestige Pernod. In 84 he finished 3rd and best young rider at his first attempt.

Hinault also won the Dauphine but in his first season, he then went on to win his first Tour at his first atempt.

Merckx turned pro for Solo in 65 but switched to Peugeot for 66. There he was riding for the reigning World Champion Tom Simpson. He won he Tour at his first attempt having won the Giro the previous year. His debut Giro saw him finish 9th.

Anquetil turned pro at 19 for La Perle but had 2 years National Service to do so didn't really race that much until 56. By 57 he'd won Paris-Nice, the Tour and his 5th GP des Nations. He'd go on to win the Giro two years later as well as 4 more Tours in a row from 61.

Kelly was a winner of Lombardia & LBL on multiple occasions. His one GT win was in the Vuelta which was a very different race in the 80's. He did also win a small race in the south of France 7 times in a row too!

Have you got a link to Ullrich's track career because I can't find anything about him as an amateur bar the Oslo WC in 93 and East German Points Race titles? Points race is ideally suited to a roadman's make-up so is unsurprising. I fhe was a Kilo rider or Match Sprinter it would be odd.

Plus what on earth has Pélissier got to do with this? He did come second in his first Tour but had to wait a few years to ride again as WW1 stopped play.

So basically that shoots gaping holes in your theory IMO.
 
ergmonkey said:
Don't take this as a personal jab, but many users on this forum have referred to Riis being "borderline out of work" or something similar before Laurent Fignon "saved him."

I would just like to point out that before joining Fignon's team, Riis was only 24 years-old and had ridden only two professional seasons. It is not too surprising (especially in the late '80's) for any rider--no matter how talented he is--to have to search hard before finding a team when he is that young and coming from a very small market country with very little professional cycling exposure at that point.

I just don't think it says much one way or the other.
fair enough (on the last comment).

but your view demonstrates how skewed thinking is after the last twenty years. 24 was/is/should not be considered too young to have already shown your future abilities. by then future tour winners had regularly shown that if they hadn't already contended at a grand tour that they no doubt would (see ultimobici's post). they certainly weren't close to being out of work. it is only with epo and blood doping that riders suddenly became contenders post age 27. i literally can't think of any other tour winner who was weak enough to be nearly out of the pro ranks at age 24 (as a domestique!) to then come back and dominate the tour. it simply never happened. this idea that riders only become tour riders at age 27+ is a result of the age of epo and nothing else. and it is why i believe that the only true natural tour talent of the last twenty years that we can be pretty sure about is ullrich. in the 70s and 80s ullrich would have had much more fun.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Don't take this as a personal jab, but many users on this forum have referred to Riis being "borderline out of work" or something similar before Laurent Fignon "saved him."

I would just like to point out that before joining Fignon's team, Riis was only 24 years-old and had ridden only two professional seasons. It is not too surprising (especially in the late '80's) for any rider--no matter how talented he is--to have to search hard before finding a team when he is that young and coming from a very small market country with very little professional cycling exposure at that point.

I just don't think it says much one way or the other.
Granted he was from a country that wasn't one of the traditional hotbeds of cycling, but by 89 he was a 4th year professional who had nothing of note on his CV at all. He came 25th in Amstel in 86, and 15th in the 87 Tour of the Med, hardly stellar. But lo and behold at the ripe old age of 29 he starts winning big stuff or placing top 5. Must be that Italian sun!
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Big Doopie said:
fair enough (on the last comment).

but your view demonstrates how skewed thinking is after the last twenty years. 24 was/is/should not be considered too young to have already shown your future abilities. by then future tour winners had regularly shown that if they hadn't already contended at a grand tour that they no doubt would (see ultimobici's post). they certainly weren't close to being out of work. it is only with epo and blood doping that riders suddenly became contenders post age 27. i literally can't think of any other tour winner who was weak enough to be nearly out of the pro ranks at age 24 (as a domestique!) to then come back and dominate the tour. it simply never happened. this idea that riders only become tour riders at age 27+ is a result of the age of epo and nothing else. and it is why i believe that the only true natural tour talent of the last twenty years that we can be pretty sure about is ullrich. in the 70s and 80s ullrich would have had much more fun.
Sad thing is we'll never know for sure about the ability of Ullrich or any of the riders from that era. The results were so grotesquely skewed that making sense of it is nigh on impossible.

I am pretty sure that 1989 was the last normal season. By 1990 the effect of EPO was showing in a few guinea pigs (Chiappucci, Bugno, Argentin to name a few). By 92/3 it was in full swing.
 
Agreed in 1989 being the watershed.

Big Doopie said:
i literally can't think of any other tour winner who was weak enough to be nearly out of the pro ranks at age 24 (as a domestique!) to then come back and dominate the tour. it simply never happened. this idea that riders only become tour riders at age 27+ is a result of the age of epo and nothing else. and it is why i believe that the only true natural tour talent of the last twenty years that we can be pretty sure about is ullrich. in the 70s and 80s ullrich would have had much more fun.
My thoughts exactly, such a tragedy for Ullrich, besides in the late 70s and 80s, right up to 89 actually there were so many ITTs he would have slammed the competition. Not that it's related but another sad thing about cycling is that nowadars the TTs are all but gone...
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Big Doopie said:
how do you say on the one hand the golden age of epo doping to win the TdF was from 1991 to 1999 but then you make the strange assertion that ONLY the 1996 outcome was affected by epo. i am truly confused...
.
In all the other years of the EPO Golden Age, 1991-1999, it seemed to me that the STRONGEST rider won. except 1996. Seemed like Big Mig did not have his heart in it that year, and Jan U the domestique was stronger than Bjarne but his duties lied elsewhere - but that is beside my point.

My point is that in hindsight I believe Big Mig's heart was not in the race that year because he did not want to surpass Eddy/Bernard/Jacques and be the first to win a Sixth Tour. I think EPO affected his motivations...
 
Polish said:
In all the other years of the EPO Golden Age, 1991-1999, it seemed to me that the STRONGEST rider won. except 1996. Seemed like Big Mig did not have his heart in it that year, and Jan U the domestique was stronger than Bjarne but his duties lied elsewhere - but that is beside my point.

My point is that in hindsight I believe Big Mig's heart was not in the race that year because he did not want to surpass Eddy/Bernard/Jacques and be the first to win a Sixth Tour. I think EPO affected his motivations...
Hello? EPO made you stronger? That's, like, obvious?
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
hrotha said:
Hello? EPO made you stronger? That's, like, obvious?
It can make you stronger, yes.

But EPO alone does not make you the strongest.

BTW, I think Big Mig was the strongest rider in 1990, but like Jan in 1996 he was working as a monster domestique.
 
Polish said:
It can make you stronger, yes.

But EPO alone does not make you the strongest.

BTW, I think Big Mig was the strongest rider in 1990, but like Jan in 1996 he was working as a monster domestique.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario for the 1991 TdF:

Miguel Indurain (au naturel) - power level 400
Charly Mottet (au naturel, as he didn't know any other way) - power level 430
Miguel Indurain (on EPO) - power level 500

Bam! EPO just made Indurain the strongest. Certainly this isn't hard to understand.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
hrotha said:
Imagine this hypothetical scenario for the 1991 TdF:

Miguel Indurain (au naturel) - power level 400
Charly Mottet (au naturel, as he didn't know any other way) - power level 430
Miguel Indurain (on EPO) - power level 500

Bam! EPO just made Indurain the strongest. Certainly this isn't hard to understand.

If you want to argue that Mottet was a stronger GT Rider than Big Mig, we will just have to disagree:(
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
hrotha said:
That's the thing, we'll never know for sure. That's the problem with doping. Anyway, you missed the point.
Wait a minute...

First you argue that Charly was stronger than Miguel
Now you say "we'll never know for sure".

C'mon, what is this "we" stuff?

Maybe YOU will never know.

But anyway, changing the subject, this is an old article from the 1991 TdF....
* Greg not overly concerned with Mottet.
* Greg not happy with Big Mig.
* And getting back on-topic.....Greg rooting for Bugno

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/173427/LEMOND-FALLS-TO-2ND-CRITICIZES-SPANISH-RIDERS.html
.
.
.
 
Polish said:
Wait a minute...

First you argue that Charly was stronger than Miguel
Now you say "we'll never know for sure".

C'mon, what is this "we" stuff?

Maybe YOU will never know.
Your reading comprehension is subpar. I didn't argue that Mottet was stronger than Indurain. Read again. You missed the point.

Bah, I don't know why I bother.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
hrotha said:
Imagine this hypothetical scenario for the 1991 TdF:

Miguel Indurain (au naturel) - power level 400
Charly Mottet (au naturel, as he didn't know any other way) - power level 430
Miguel Indurain (on EPO) - power level 500

Bam! EPO just made Indurain the strongest. Certainly this isn't hard to understand.
It is hard for me to understand. Indurain doped? Yes. 25% increase in watts? No.

If it were that easy, I would be a Tour contender. No bull****. I know my race weight and I have used an SRM for years. My functional threshold power is already 5.3 watts/kg. According to you, EPO would have me at 6.625. That's not quite the "magical" 6.8 number, but still WAY up there. Simply put, I don't buy into this for a second. Riis might not have been a donkey, but I am. No fully-developed, fully-trained pro was gaining 25% in power output.
 
ergmonkey said:
It is hard for me to understand. Indurain doped? Yes. 25% increase in watts? No.

If it were that easy, I would be a Tour contender. No bull****. I know my race weight and I have used an SRM for years. My functional threshold power is already 5.3 watts/kg. According to you, EPO would have me at 6.625. That's not quite the "magical" 6.8 number, but still WAY up there. Simply put, I don't buy into this for a second. Riis might not have been a donkey, but I am. No fully-developed, fully-trained pro was gaining 25% in power output.
Errr... it wasn't supposed to represent actual power in watts, it was more of a Dragon Ball reference with random figures to make a point. Now I realize I should have used higher numbers to avoid the confusion.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
hrotha said:
Miguel Indurain (au naturel) - power level 400
Charly Mottet (au naturel, as he didn't know any other way) - power level 430
.
hrotha said:
Anyway, you missed the point.
hrotha said:
Your reading comprehension is subpar. I didn't argue that Mottet was stronger than Indurain.
hrotha said:
Read again. You missed the point.
Bah, I don't know why I bother .
hrotha said:
it was more of a Dragon Ball reference with random figures to make a point.
Ok, I think I understand the confusion....you are talking about an imaginary race on the earth where the Dragon Ball characters battle, and I was discussing the actual race that took place in France.
 
ultimobici said:
Kelly was a winner of Lombardia & LBL on multiple occasions. His one GT win was in the Vuelta which was a very different race in the 80's. He did also win a small race in the south of France 7 times in a row too!
Since you mention Kelly his 84 and 85 TDF results (4 and 5) would look suspicious like Bugno's if EPO had been around. I guess he's the exception that confirms the rule that you don't become a GC contender all of a sudden at 27.
 
Polish said:
My point is that riders such as Bugno, JaJa, DiLuca, Armstrong were not transformed by doping. They were who they were.

Did doping affect their racing? Well, it was NOT the difference between night and day. Maybe the difference between pre-dawn and sunrise, or sunset and dusk. Helped a bit.
Race results and evidence directly contradict this. Delusional.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
red_flanders said:
Race results and evidence directly contradict this. Delusional.
On a more subtle level it appears the quality of the program could assist the rider. When GTs are won by minutes the advantage required is really small. Alot of these performances were probably explainable by having the best PED technology for the rider and having the best support squad. The best GC guy goes nowhere without cover in the stages where rest is essential and that is a common thread for some of the questionable candidates.
 
Oldman said:
On a more subtle level it appears the quality of the program could assist the rider. When GTs are won by minutes the advantage required is really small. Alot of these performances were probably explainable by having the best PED technology for the rider and having the best support squad. The best GC guy goes nowhere without cover in the stages where rest is essential and that is a common thread for some of the questionable candidates.
+1

90's doping versus late 90's doping. Isn't innovation fascinating.

as illuminated by the late 20th versus the 21st century iteration - the blue train; At least the previous decades were a bit more subtle than dope upon dope trains... pathetic.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
webvan said:
Since you mention Kelly his 84 and 85 TDF results (4 and 5) would look suspicious like Bugno's if EPO had been around. I guess he's the exception that confirms the rule that you don't become a GC contender all of a sudden at 27.
Kelly is a little bit of a curveball. But when you look at the way the Tour was ridden in the 80's it isn't a red flag ride. Average speeds in 84 & 85 were not that different to the late 60's or indeed earlier. The 84 race was run off at a lower average speed than 84 in fact.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY