What about Bugno?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
hrotha said:
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.
I'm not condoning the use of PEDs, but I do think that the "swings & roundabouts" effect of speed and the masking effect of testosterone & particularly cortisone resulted in fewer skewed results.

For instance, Hinault famously buried his knees in the 83 Vuelta resulting in a DNS that year in the Tour. The following year he wasn't at his dominant best and it could be argued he never was the same again. Indeed in 85 Lemond had to be ordered to wait for him. Perhaps the 83 incident started that decline and perhaps it was due to his use of cortisone to allow his continuation in that Vuelta?

The difference is that EPO & other blood manipulation techniques aren't numbing the body so it damages itself, rather they are altering the basic building block of the sport's hierarchy. As long as the rider's HCT is kept within limits no lasting sporting damage is done and the rider can go on crucifying his opposition virtually at will.
IMO "Old School" doping had no rev-limiter on it, so the chances of blowing a gasket were very real and frequent. EPO by its very nature necessitated a medical rev-limiter or the penalty was death.