What about Bugno?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Typo, but yes 84 was slower than 85, Fignon was so dominant it might explain it, also shows that average speeds mean squat in relation to how great the race can be. Pretty much everyone remembers that tour...

I seem to remember a year when Kelly was in the lead for a while with quite a bit of time, could have been 82 and everyone was like, he'll fall apart in the mountains...and he did, but not immediately, then he got so much better in 84/85. Jalabert had the same profile, unfortunately/fortunately for him these were the EPO years and he was coached by Sainz...
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
webvan said:
Typo, but yes 84 was slower than 85, Fignon was so dominant it might explain it, also shows that average speeds mean squat in relation to how great the race can be. Pretty much everyone remembers that tour...

I seem to remember a year when Kelly was in the lead for a while with quite a bit of time, could have been 82 and everyone was like, he'll fall apart in the mountains...and he did, but not immediately, then he got so much better in 84/85. Jalabert had the same profile, unfortunately/fortunately for him these were the EPO years and he was coached by Sainz...
Sorry I actually meant to type that 84 was slower than 64 by almost 1kmh. That Kelly was able to place as high as he did is likely that the climbs were not run off as fast as usual so he was able to limit his losses.

True speed is not what I am looking for in the races, but tactics, mental and physical strengths being employed....
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
Sorry to take the thread back on topic...

The Devil said:
Operacion Puerto did not just appear out-of-the-blue. Recall, of course, the lengthy legal process in Italy from 2000 to 2004 with the trials of Professor Francesco Conconi and his former assistant Dr. Michele Ferrari. Files seized in the process revealed a list of 22 cyclists that had their blood data recorded during Conconi’s research, including many high-profile Italian riders from the 1990s such as Ivan Gotti, Claudio Chiappucci, Gianni Bugno (to name only three from the list) as well as other international riders such as Pavel Tonkov. (Bugno was caught up in another scandal in 1999 when a Mapei soigneur Tiziano Morassut, who was later charged, sent amphetamines to team member Bugno in Italy).
Yes, he's number five on the list...
 
hrotha said:
Try again. Learn to read.
Polish is just being himself, Polish.

What you are saying makes total sense.

Mottet was just a year older than Indurain but showed up at a high level much earlier than Indurain. He was a better TT rider and a better climber, yes he was much smaller than Indurain so maybe that was an advantage. Indurains progression coincided with the arrival of EPO so its not unrealsitic to follow that line.

Maybe Indurain was a naturally bigger talent than Mottet and just took longer to develop but the fact is based on their early careers, Mottet was the better cyclist. Period. Thus as you said, doping distorts things and makes it impossible to make accuarate claims.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Excatly, sad isn't it, however they also took stuf before EPO that while not turning donkeys into stars still helped the stars keep up with one another, so no real change on the finality.

So Roche is on that Conconi list too?!
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
webvan said:
Excatly, sad isn't it, however they also took stuf before EPO that while not turning donkeys into stars still helped the stars keep up with one another, so no real change on the finality.

So Roche is on that Conconi list too?!
Yes, with something like 6 different aliases... Obviously, he didn't take anything - has said so many times!
 
pmcg76 said:
Polish is just being himself, Polish.

What you are saying makes total sense.

Mottet was just a year older than Indurain but showed up at a high level much earlier than Indurain. He was a better TT rider and a better climber, yes he was much smaller than Indurain so maybe that was an advantage. Indurains progression coincided with the arrival of EPO so its not unrealsitic to follow that line.

Maybe Indurain was a naturally bigger talent than Mottet and just took longer to develop but the fact is based on their early careers, Mottet was the better cyclist. Period. Thus as you said, doping distorts things and makes it impossible to make accuarate claims.
Excellent posts, hrotha and pmcg76.
 
webvan said:
Excatly, sad isn't it, however they also took stuf before EPO that while not turning donkeys into stars still helped the stars keep up with one another, so no real change on the finality.
um...what do you not get?

epo and blood doping are game changers. and alter the natural hierarchy.

amphetamines and even cortisone do not.

lemond, hinault and fignon would have dominated the 1980s no matter.

riis, armstrong and...landis would never have won the tour.

nor would indurain and pantani -- as epo turned indurain into the "ExtraTerrestrial" and epo enabled pantani to limit his losses in long TTs to less than 2 minutes to ullrich while forcing him to also break while going up hairpin turns.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Big Doopie said:
um...what do you not get?

epo and blood doping are game changers. and alter the natural hierarchy.

amphetamines and even cortisone do not.

lemond, hinault and fignon would have dominated the 1980s no matter.

riis, armstrong and...landis would never have won the tour.

nor would indurain and pantani -- as epo turned indurain into the "ExtraTerrestrial" and epo enabled pantani to limit his losses in long TTs to less than 2 minutes to ullrich while forcing him to also break while going up hairpin turns.
My point was that Hinault might not have won the tour if he hadn't been taking speed (not sure he took that) and cortisone (he took that for sure), when Zoetemelk was, so even if it was less "efficient", dope was still potentially altering the results and the hierarchy, so it was just as "bad" as EPO in that a GT contender had to take them to stand a chance.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
webvan said:
My point was that Hinault might not have won the tour if he hadn't been taking speed (not sure he took that) and cortisone (he took that for sure), when Zoetemelk was, so even if it was less "efficient", dope was still potentially altering the results and the hierarchy, so it was just as "bad" as EPO in that a GT contender had to take them to stand a chance.
I think you are overestimating the benefits of cortisone, testosterone & amphetamine or underestimating the benefit that EPO & blood doping bestow.

The pre-EPO drugs were worth in the region of 5% improvement. but their nature was to stimulate (amphetamine),aid recovery (testosterone) and pain/inflammation relief (cortisone).

EPO & blood doping have a far bigger contribution. Estimated benefits are in the region of 10%+ for power. When you look at the more relevant figure, how much longer can a rider work, figures of 50% longer to exhaustion have been achieved. Even if we halve that to 27% it's an epic improvement. Link

Pre-EPO doping was a whole world away from the EPO/blood doping world. It could and was administered by non-medical staff (soigneurs) whereas with RPO etc doctors were a necessity. The number of fatalities in the pre EPO era was tiny. The EPO era was ushered in by a spate of deaths in one year. EPO took riders like Chiappucci & Riis and turned them from good equipiers into GT players.

So to say that the same criteria can be applied to pre & post EPO is not correct. Before EPO it was possible to win big without anything. It wasn't easy but then cycling has never been an easy sport. EPO elevated an average rider to the upper echelons of the game.
 
May 23, 2010
95
0
0
I think you are overestimating the benefits of cortisone, testosterone & amphetamine or underestimating the benefit that EPO & blood doping bestow.
i totally agree - amphetamine for example could stimulate a rider for a while but it would not actually improve him. Its use also had its downside, literally, when a rider would suffer the knock on from its usage the following day, (a bit like a hangover) so although it may benefit a rider in a one day race its use in stage racing was very much a double bladed sword, which may explain some of the swings between leaders in the post war period up to around 1970.
Heavy use of amphetamine's tends to lead to a darkness on the lower eyelids and upper cheeks - check out a few photos from the 50's and 60's.

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.

well legend has it that Anquetil, already a legend in his own lunch time, turned up for National Service with a crate of champagne, and after a discussion with his CO spent the next two years riding his bike for the army not ideal for sure but far better than say Coppi in a prison camp and less stressful than Simpson who some maintained, at the time, moved to Belgium to avoid National Service.
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.
Pélissier was the first person to expose doping in cycling in the infamous convicts of the road article by Albert Londres of 1924 (although if you dont read French it is very oftern badly translated) so I think he is always relevant, history does tend to repeat itself. The 1924 Tour withdrawal was linked to the Paris Tours earlier that year (Paris tours was a Spring classic until 1951 (?)
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.
I tend to use memoire du cyclisme - and agree with you.
thanks for the photos people
thanks
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
ultimobici said:
EPO elevated an average rider to the upper echelons of the game.
Yes, this is not under debate

Before EPO it was possible to win big without anything.
Well then why were guys like Hinault taking cortisone or guys like Fignon taking "speed" ?

Again my point is that it was likely never possible to win the tour without taking anything, or if it was we'll never know because everyone took "mild" stuff, the only difference is that when EPO showed up it made it possible for "average" riders to compete for GT wins.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
webvan said:
Yes, this is not under debate


Well then why were guys like Hinault taking cortisone or guys like Fignon taking "speed" ?

Again my point is that it was likely never possible to win the tour without taking anything, or if it was we'll never know because everyone took "mild" stuff, the only difference is that when EPO showed up it made it possible for "average" riders to compete for GT wins.
Not quite - as you are looking at this from the wrong side.

It was possible to win pre 90s or EPO - after the introduction of EPO it is impossible that there was a clean winner during the 90s.
 
Oct 1, 2010
320
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.
If you include 1983 (7th GC) and 1982 (15th GC) in your list, it doesn't seem that suspicious - the progression was steady rather than spectacular. In his first tour, at the age of 22, he was 38th, while working for Maertens and Pollentier. Also, he was 4th in the Vuelta in 1980 at 23, so the GT contender potential had been there for some time. He'd won the Tour de Suisse in 1983 and Pais Vasco in 1984 (not to mention Paris - Nice from 1982-1984) so he was used to winning stage races by 1984.

BTW: he only had one day in the maillot jaune in 1983.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
dancing on pedals said:
Pélissier was the first person to expose doping in cycling in the infamous convicts of the road article by Albert Londres of 1924 (although if you dont read French it is very oftern badly translated) so I think he is always relevant, history does tend to repeat itself. The 1924 Tour withdrawal was linked to the Paris Tours earlier that year (Paris tours was a Spring classic until 1951 (?)
The Tour at that time was an inhumane ordeal of 5000km over a mere 15 days. "Doping" was not illegal then rather a necessity borne of the nature of the course which resulted in it being ridden in an individual manner unlike more recent times it was like a series of epic time-trials.

The withdrawl of Pélissier was as a result of the application of petty rules by Desgrange. Pélissier was enraged by Desgrange's insistence that riders finished with all their clothing meaning Pélissier had to carry any extra jerseys with him for 300-400 kilometres. When he was interviewed by Londres he told him of the indignities that riders endured as well as the substances they used,

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=413

Hence my contention that Pélissier has little if any relevance to cycling's predicament now other than he took coke, strychnine & morphine to cope with the trials on the road. Difference is he was within the rules.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
webvan said:
Yes, this is not under debate


Well then why were guys like Hinault taking cortisone or guys like Fignon taking "speed" ?

Again my point is that it was likely never possible to win the tour without taking anything, or if it was we'll never know because everyone took "mild" stuff, the only difference is that when EPO showed up it made it possible for "average" riders to compete for GT wins.
Speed was used mainly during the post Tour crit circuit. If you read David Walsh's biography of Kelly you'll get an idea of the insane schedule that they used to have. Fignon's positive in the 89 GP de la Liberation was at the end of that part of the season.

But as has been posted earlier speed has a benefit on one day but a hangover effect the next too. It also allows the body to go way beyond its safe limits resulting in dehydration levels that normally you'd never allow yourself to endure. Simpson's case is an extreme version of this - he effectively cooked himself to death.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
ok, and that leaves cortisone, a substance that probably helped Hinault destroy his knees in 1983 and testosterone.

Not that it matters but Fignon explained in his book that he took "speed" because Gallopin's wife was having a baby and he had to go training alone and was upset...does go a long way to show that "speed" was part of his "routine", I mean who here has "speed" hanging around the house!

In my book a guy who takes cortisone to keep on pedalling and destroys his knees in the process or a guy who takes "speed" to keep going and beat other guys isn't any better than an average guy like Riis who goes crazy on EPO to win the TDF. Only difference is that is potentially less dangerous...having said that the life expectancy of tour winner of the pre-EPO years is not that great is it.
 
May 23, 2010
95
0
0
ultimobici said:
The Tour at that time was an inhumane ordeal of 5000km over a mere 15 days. "Doping" was not illegal then rather a necessity borne of the nature of the course which resulted in it being ridden in an individual manner unlike more recent times it was like a series of epic time-trials.

The withdrawl of Pélissier was as a result of the application of petty rules by Desgrange. Pélissier was enraged by Desgrange's insistence that riders finished with all their clothing meaning Pélissier had to carry any extra jerseys with him for 300-400 kilometres. When he was interviewed by Londres he told him of the indignities that riders endured as well as the substances they used,

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=413

Hence my contention that Pélissier has little if any relevance to cycling's predicament now other than he took coke, strychnine & morphine to cope with the trials on the road. Difference is he was within the rules.
Not exactly. Despite Desgrange's best efforts to stop teams working together and outlawing the idea of domestiques from 1911(following Peugeot domination) these rule became nearly impossible to maintain. Indeed this was the essence of the dispute between the Pélissier brothers (Automoto) and Desgrange, with the race organiser determined to make the event an individual test and the brothers and their team mates working together. By 1926 Desgrange dropped the pretence and the team tactics were allowed with Bottecchia riding hundreds of miles in the slipstream of super domestique Lucien Buysse.
Between 1927 to 1929 the Tour was run like a team time trial. 8 of the 16 flat stages in 1927 were run as team time trials and it was clear that the strongest team would prevail. In 1929 Dewaele (who was sick) was gifted victory by his team "my race has been won by a corpse" declared Desgranges who promptly banned commercial teams and introduced national and regional teams.
Pélissier's arguments with the organisers are not so different than those today - we still debate on the rights and wrongs of the team time trial in the general classification, we still debate how much assistance a rider should get from his team mates/car (race radio for instance) and we still debate what constitutes a legal training aid and what doesn't (altitude tent versus EPO).
Its also not strictly true to say that doping was legal - Choppy Warburton was banned as a cycling coach in the late 19 century
thanks
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
dancing on pedals said:
Its also not strictly true to say that doping was legal - Choppy Warburton was banned as a cycling coach in the late 19 century
thanks
That has to be the best name for a coach ever.
 
the interesting thing is nobody challenges anyone's tour victory pre-1991 on physical merit.

sure you might quibble with the tactics used or some advantage from a flat or something. but no one would claim that the victories weren't earned. on natural physical talent.

pretty much every tour winner since has -- and will -- continue to be questioned on their physical merits simply because we do not know if the naturally strongest -- or even one of the naturally strongest -- won.

the perception of the public and fan is as important here as anything else. and like it or not -- that is the perception. which tells us much more about the true power of epo/blood doping over speed/cortisone.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Big Doopie said:
the interesting thing is nobody challenges anyone's tour victory pre-1991 on physical merit.

sure you might quibble with the tactics used or some advantage from a flat or something. but no one would claim that the victories weren't earned. on natural physical talent.

pretty much every tour winner since has -- and will -- continue to be questioned on their physical merits simply because we do not know if the naturally strongest -- or even one of the naturally strongest -- won.

the perception of the public and fan is as important here as anything else. and like it or not -- that is the perception. which tells us much more about the true power of epo/blood doping over speed/cortisone.
That's my opinion, for sure.
Year dot to 1990 - best man won.
1991 to date - Who knows?
 
Sep 22, 2009
137
0
0
ultimobici said:
That's my opinion, for sure.
Year dot to 1990 - best man won.
1991 to date - Who knows?
How can you guarantee? Athletes always seek for the edge... Steroids have existed for decades and blood doping has been done since the 1970's..
 
ultimobici said:
That's my opinion, for sure.
Year dot to 1990 - best man won.
1991 to date - Who knows?
EPO was game-changing, unlike previous drugs, but previous drugs still gave you a small advantage, so it's perfectly possible a clean rider who would have won otherwise was beaten by a doper before 1991. From a moral point of view, I see no difference.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Exactly the point I've been trying to convey over the past few days! There's little to argue about really, who knows whether Hinault who destroyed his knees (see the 1983 operation) by taking tons of cortisone and other ingredients ("saler la soupe") would have won the TDF 5 times against a rider like Zoetemelk who would have been taking that stuff?

So EPO game-changer in that it allowed average riders to compete in the GTs, yes, game-changer in that before that doping didn't prevent the strongest rider to win, hardly, or at least we'll never know.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY