What about Bugno?

[hrotha]

Much like Jalabert.

No, nothing like Jalabert, actually. Jalabert only became a GT contender during the golden years of EPO, when even Jean Marie Leblanc had a hematocrit of 58%.

Of course, the Jalabert GT Contender of 1995-1996 was on something great, not on something new. Hell, the whole ONCE was. But by then it was a different game.

Baby Giro, GP Liberazionae and a truckload of national championships on the road and track. He basically had great youth results in any race under the sun. He was pretty much the hottest commodity around when he turned pro.

I meant potential strictly as a GT rider, but I see the Baby Giro is up there so I don't know.

 

[Mister Crud]

I saw him win a world cup race in Brighton (UK) in the early '90s. We used to train on the long steep climb before the finish. Small ring, middle block if we were really going well. You could hear us panting for breath 20 yards away.
Bugno came up there on his own having attacked at the bottom, at the end of a 140 mile race. Big ring, breathing normally, no apparent effort. It really comes home to you when you see them on your own terrain. Drugs or not, simply awe-inspiring.

 

[dancing on pedals]

I saw him win a world cup race in Brighton (UK) in the early '90s. We used to train on the long steep climb before the finish. Small ring, middle block if we were really going well. You could hear us panting for breath 20 yards away.
Bugno came up there on his own having attacked at the bottom, at the end of a 140 mile race. Big ring, breathing normally, no apparent effort. It really comes home to you when you see them on your own terrain. Drugs or not, simply awe-inspiring.

i agree.
to sum up Bugno - he was a double world champion in 1980, turned pro in 1985 and had 72 victories.
To suggest as some have, (who i guess only look at TDF and Giro results) that this was flash in the pan doping is very simplistic.
He was always a world class track and one day rider who in his peak cycling years did well in the grand tours, no change there then.
To suggest that he was the first rider in the peloton to take EPO is a bit like saying Simpson was the first to take speed.
no one really knows -
that said, if i had to guess what Bugno was taking, i would say just about everything, was'nt there a case in belgium which was linked to his father in law a few years back.
classy rider. product of the times, great to watch, I wish him well.
Thanks

 

[tubularglue]

you mess with Bugno
you mess with my mental state

 

[Willy_Voet]

Wow. I remember the days when bikes looked classy. I'd pay silly money for a mint down tube shifter equipped Colnago these days.

 

[buckwheat]

Wow. I remember the days when bikes looked classy. I'd pay silly money for a mint down tube shifter equipped Colnago these days.

Not stiff enough!


Just kidding, and you're not kidding.

 

[tubularglue]

Wow. I remember the days when bikes looked classy. I'd pay silly money for a mint down tube shifter equipped Colnago these days.

I know this is not in the same league, but we have 2 or three of these in the shop and are around 875.00$ even. They even have dura ace 10spd downtube shifters. blast from the past

masi speciale strada 2011

 

[TubularBills]

I know this is not in the same league, but we have 2 or three of these in the shop and are around 875.00$ even. They even have dura ace 10spd downtube shifters. blast from the past

masi speciale strada 2011

Thank You! That is a beautiful symbol of the essence of the sport.

 

[hrotha]

i agree.
to sum up Bugno - he was a double world champion in 1980, turned pro in 1985 and had 72 victories.
To suggest as some have, (who i guess only look at TDF and Giro results) that this was flash in the pan doping is very simplistic.
He was always a world class track and one day rider who in his peak cycling years did well in the grand tours, no change there then.
To suggest that he was the first rider in the peloton to take EPO is a bit like saying Simpson was the first to take speed.
no one really knows -
that said, if i had to guess what Bugno was taking, i would say just about everything, was'nt there a case in belgium which was linked to his father in law a few years back.
classy rider. product of the times, great to watch, I wish him well.
Thanks

Well, yes, a class one day rider. When class one day riders suddenly become GT winners, it raises some eyebrows. Jalabert, Armstrong, Di Luca...

 

[sherer]

I remember once in the tour he had a punch up after he got knocked off his bike. Can't remember if it was a car or fan that knocked him over though

 

[tubularglue]

Thank You! That is a beautiful symbol of the essence of the sport.

It is quite a nice bike.

The rear dropouts are soooooooooooo long; you are able to move the rear wheel close enough to almost touch the seatbute.

Then clamp it tight, preferably with a steel quick release


Bugno is untouchable, IMO. Seems to be a gentle, mind his own business type of guy. Looks like a ships Captain these days

 

[VeloCity]

Who knows what Bugno might have accomplished if he hadn't been riding during the reign of Indurain? I think of Bugno as being a little bit like Ullrich, a great rider whose career just happened to coincide with (and be overshadowed by) a more dominant one.

 

[Polish]

Well, yes, a class one day rider. When class one day riders suddenly become GT winners, it raises some eyebrows. Jalabert, Armstrong, Di Luca...

Doper JaJa never won a single TdF.....

Doper DiLuca avoided racing the TdF and the AFLD.....

How about THREE examples of class one day riders who "transformed"
into multiple-time Tour de France winners. How about two? Crickets?

 

[red_flanders]

Doper JaJa never won a single TdF.....

Doper DiLuca avoided racing the TdF and the AFLD.....

How about THREE examples of class one day riders who "transformed"
into multiple-time Tour de France winners. How about two? Crickets?

Is reading comprehension another one of your issues? The statement was GT. Not TdF.

If you're going to re-direct the conversation, try having a reason and pointing it out. Other than of course the actual reason, which is denial and obfuscation.

 

[ultimobici]

I remember once in the tour he had a punch up after he got knocked off his bike. Can't remember if it was a car or fan that knocked him over though

Brought down on a hairpin by a fan. Got up and bopped the guy in the face with the front wheel. Funny as!

 

[Polish]

Is reading comprehension another one of your issues? The statement was GT. Not TdF.

If you're going to re-direct the conversation, try having a reason and pointing it out. Other than of course the actual reason, which is denial and obfuscation.

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. But many many other attributes were part of the equation.

But no amount of doping alone would have had Bugno winning muliple GT's against Big Mig, or JaJa/DiLuca winning multiple GT's versus Lance. Dope alone does not transform. dope alone = fail.

 

[ergmonkey]

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. But many many other attributes were part of the equation.

But no amount of doping alone would have had Bugno winning muliple GT's against Big Mig, or JaJa/DiLuca winning multiple GT's versus Lance. Dope alone does not transform. dope alone = fail.

It's not so often this happens, but we agree 100% here. Nobody just takes PED's and suddenly becomes the best in the world after not being a contender, nor does anyone take PED's and become a totally different type of athlete. They just gain a couple of percentage points in their performances.

Now, that said, will somebody explain to me why so many forum users are so sure that Bjarne Riis was "just a donkey," while other doped Tour winners are still referred to as talents?

 

[TubularBills]

Bugno, Chiapucci, Fignon, Indurain, Hampsten TDF 1992:

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5pEm3ZEn4&feature=related

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJ0ALEtrC4

Classic.

 

[Big Doopie]

It's not so often this happens, but we agree 100% here. Nobody just takes PED's and suddenly becomes the best in the world after not being a contender, nor does anyone take PED's and become a totally different type of athlete. They just gain a couple of percentage points in their performances.

Now, that said, will somebody explain to me why so many forum users are so sure that Bjarne Riis was "just a donkey," while other doped Tour winners are still referred to as talents?

what PEDs exactly? they are not the same.

what do you mean by "a couple of percentage points"? you do realize that at the pro level even a fraction of one percentage point can make a huge difference. epo is reputed to give you a 15-25% advantage over your previous self. do the math.

what defines a rider that is a donkey? it would seem to be subjective.

the grand tours test recovery more than anything else. a strong one day rider who doesn't recover well could suddenly become a strong one day rider every day for three weeks...without a single bad day. sound familiar?

as for riis, people disagree. however, here are some facts in 1989-90 he was almost without a job until fignon saved him. by 1993 -- in the most epo-ridden tour to that date he finishes 5th. between 1996 and 1997 the uci institutes the 50% rule. in 1996 riis totally dominates the tour. in 1997 he finishes 10th -- a shadow of the previous rider.

epo helps a rider with a natural 37 hct much more than one with a natural 46...again, do the math.

was riis a donkey? again, subjective. to me, no, he made it to the pros (without epo). however, he was borderline out of work. and then he won the tour. go figure.

but i 100% agree -- why are some riders still considered talented when we know they are dopers? there is no way of knowing. and that is why epo and blood doping destroys the sport for the fan. there is absolutely no sense of true hierarchy. is contador the guy who destroys everyone in a tour itt, or is he the guy (more like a natural climber) who gets destroyed (as he did this year)? in the last 20 years there have been a lot of heavy riders who have started climbing unbelievably. and there have been many climbers who have done amazingly well in itts. that never used to happen. because there was a natural hierarchy.

 

[dancing on pedals]

Well, yes, a class one day rider. When class one day riders suddenly become GT winners, it raises some eyebrows. Jalabert, Armstrong, Di Luca...

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

 

[webvan]

but i 100% agree -- why are some riders still considered talented when we know they are dopers? there is no way of knowing. and that is why epo and blood doping destroys the sport for the fan. there is absolutely no sense of true hierarchy. is contador the guy who destroys everyone in a tour itt, or is he the guy (more like a natural climber) who gets destroyed (as he did this year)? in the last 20 years there have been a lot of heavy riders who have started climbing unbelievably. and there have been many climbers who have done amazingly well in itts. that never used to happen. because there was a natural hierarchy.

I think you really hit the nail on the head with that last comment, until EPO arrived, you never saw "heavy riders who have started climbing unbelievably" or "many climbers who have done amazingly well in itts" and "a strong one day rider who doesn't recover well could suddenly become a strong one day rider every day for three weeks" that's really what disgusted me during the Armstrong years.

Ullrich was a much more "normal" rider, in the style of Hinault, massive strength and in his best years able to exhaust the riders before the climbs, except he was only interested in the Tour de France and the Olympics so he never really improved on his overall skills. He was probably doing EPO in 1996/1997/1998 but Pevenage's recent comments indicated they stopped all that after the Festina fiasco in 1998 and only resumed doing it in 2005/2006 when they realized that the USPS boys were juicing big time, with Landis' comments on the refills during the 2004 tour, they were right.

 

[Polish]

was riis a donkey? again, subjective. to me, no, he made it to the pros (without epo). however, he was borderline out of work. and then he won the tour. go figure.
.

Bjarne completed at least 8 TdF's.

6 times he finished in the Top 20.
75% of the time, top 20.
Not too shabby....a GT DangerMan.

That said, I do think the outcome of the 1996 TdF WAS affected by EPO.
I think that is the ONLY TdF Win that can be truly tied to EPO.

BTW, I consider the Golden Age of EPO Doping to win TdF's 1991 through 1999
After that it was much smaller doses if at all, and blood transfusing...

 

[Big Doopie]

Bjarne completed at least 8 TdF's.

6 times he finished in the Top 20.
75% of the time, top 20.
Not too shabby....a GT DangerMan.

That said, I do think the outcome of the 1996 TdF WAS affected by EPO.
I think that is the ONLY TdF Win that can be truly tied to EPO.

BTW, I consider the Golden Age of EPO Doping to win TdF's 1991 through 1999
After that it was much smaller doses if at all, and blood transfusing...

first off, i want to be clear that i agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. 100%.

but the previous one leaves me perplexed. 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...

and your facts about riis are a tad misleading. how many of those tour results were after the arrival of epo? and 20th doesn't really make you a "dangerman". and why only 8 tours when he rode late into his career? because he had a hard time in the first years of his career? couldn't finish? wasn't selected? unlike pre-1991 tour history where future winners virtually always contended at the first or second try. it was only with the arrival of epo that we saw the succession of "older" champs like indurain, armstrong, and...particularly riis.

i don't doubt for a second that riis' first significant result at the tour -- 5th in 1993 -- was a result of epo. i remember reading the articles in l'equipe at the time about how everyone was surprised by his result. truly surprised. too often in the last twenty years riders have come out of nowhere to "truly surprise" everyone. most often these riders and their performances are later discredited by findings (and more to come, i'm sure). before epo the challengers at different races knew exactly who the dangermen were...particularly at the tour. there were very few "surprises". it is no surprise that lemond believed he had no competitors during the first week of the tour in 1991. he was in much better shape than 1990 and there was no young fignon or hinault that anyone was aware of. he knew from history that indurain (let alone the others) could not/should not be able to rival him over three weeks. it is why he was so shocked when things went awry. he has commented that after that tour his first instinct was to question himself and to see if there was anything wrong. he couldn't understand how riders like chiappucci, bugno and even indurain could so dominate him. and why the general speed of the peloton was so consistently high. in 1990 after the arrival at luz ardiden, he doesn't ask where breukink is (despite the latter's strong itt's and higher placement in gc) but where delgado is. he knows that delgado is the only real tour rider able to compete with him at that moment. the best riders always can tell who their competitors are...it's only with the advent of epo and blood doping that we have these strange surprises and massive changes in form throughout the season.

 

[Oldman]

what PEDs exactly? they are not the same.

what do you mean by "a couple of percentage points"? you do realize that at the pro level even a fraction of one percentage point can make a huge difference. epo is reputed to give you a 15-25% advantage over your previous self. do the math.

what defines a rider that is a donkey? it would seem to be subjective.

the grand tours test recovery more than anything else. a strong one day rider who doesn't recover well could suddenly become a strong one day rider every day for three weeks...without a single bad day. sound familiar?

as for riis, people disagree. however, here are some facts in 1989-90 he was almost without a job until fignon saved him. by 1993 -- in the most epo-ridden tour to that date he finishes 5th. between 1996 and 1997 the uci institutes the 50% rule. in 1996 riis totally dominates the tour. in 1997 he finishes 10th -- a shadow of the previous rider.

epo helps a rider with a natural 37 hct much more than one with a natural 46...again, do the math.
was riis a donkey? again, subjective. to me, no, he made it to the pros (without epo). however, he was borderline out of work. and then he won the tour. go figure.

but i 100% agree -- why are some riders still considered talented when we know they are dopers? there is no way of knowing. and that is why epo and blood doping destroys the sport for the fan. there is absolutely no sense of true hierarchy. is contador the guy who destroys everyone in a tour itt, or is he the guy (more like a natural climber) who gets destroyed (as he did this year)? in the last 20 years there have been a lot of heavy riders who have started climbing unbelievably. and there have been many climbers who have done amazingly well in itts. that never used to happen. because there was a natural hierarchy.

Well noted. Ultimately none of it happened without dedicated and controlled training and an individual predisposition to succeed on a targeted PED regime. Entire teams have left GT's over a failed attempt to dose every rider with the same protocol. Now that they are much more conservative and the programs much more expensive the imbalance may actually be worse from the natural order of things. It is hard to know reality.

 

[ergmonkey]

was riis a donkey? again, subjective. to me, no, he made it to the pros (without epo). however, he was borderline out of work. and then he won the tour. go figure.

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.