what's a DOPER, really?

[pmcg76]

Plenty. Not in those terms, but suggesting that without doping no chance of staying with the best.

I will make a compilation for you this weekend.

How would you know? Very easily. You always have been a top dog from your amateur days, and you learned that without the dope you couldn;t compete with the best. If this statement is repeated by many top riders, the chances of being true are very high, especially when you read some descriptions of the massive improve in performance, in some cases by people who had absolutely nothing to gain from that afirmation.



Nobody tells always the truth, and some things we believe are more opinions than reality. You may believe something is true but there is no means for you to know you are absolutely certain. On the other hand, if he says that when he took stimulants, the effect was almost magical, I am more bound to believe him, cause it suits my agenda like you said.

I mean, why would he lie about the effect of a drug when nobody cares even if he doped or not.




Consensus among who, cause if I go by confessions by some of the dopers and exdopers there is no way you could compete without taking the stuff, and that is the nub of the matter for me.

I would hope that these multiple examples you are gonna bring are from the relevant period, i.e the 80s. Not from a previous era or EPO era. Quoting guys like Anquteil is less than worthless as when his career took place, there were no dope controls at all so everyone was unrestricted to what they took. Likewise Coppi who was even earlier still.

At the end of the day, unless they say it was impossible to compete without doping, they are worthless. We also already know that doping was quite common in the 80s so again, I would expect more than guys just saying doping was commonplace and they doped because everyone else did.

The rest of your post is pure gibberish. Why would a guy like Voet who named and shamed multiple athletes then name Mottet as clean? Why would he lie about one particular rider who he didnt seem to have any real connection and whose career had finished years previously.

 

[Albatros]

I would hope that these multiple examples you are gonna bring are from the relevant period, i.e the 80s. Not from a previous era or EPO era. Quoting guys like Anquteil is less than worthless as when his career took place, there were no dope controls at all so everyone was unrestricted to what they took. Likewise Coppi who was even earlier still.

At the end of the day, unless they say it was impossible to compete without doping, they are worthless. We also already know that doping was quite common in the 80s so again, I would expect more than guys just saying doping was commonplace and they doped because everyone else did.

The rest of your post is pure gibberish. Why would a guy like Voet who named and shamed multiple athletes then name Mottet as clean? Why would he lie about one particular rider who he didnt seem to have any real connection and whose career had finished years previously.

Gotcha.

The only effective doping took place before Lemond started riding and once he started droping off from the top rankings. While he was the best, in the glorious 80's (shall we include the 70's as well?) there weren't substances available that were a must for any cyclist that wanted to compete that would not be detected in an antidoping control.

Surely then there must have been a significant drop in performance compare to the wild years of the 60's and before. Was that the case? Or better diet, equipment, training methods and nutrition made up for it?

Still, remember Anquetil words, or Simpson's. There was not a chance of a rider going anywhere near that speed without doping.

But could it be that they still used amphetamines, maybe in lower doses, and complemented that with the arrival of steroids and cortisone? Well, there are plenty of 80's riders who got caught with those substances in their body.

Well, I still going to give you some links of ex cyclists talking about the benefits of doping during that era.



On the Mottet andD Voet issue. I am not saying that Voet is lying when he says Mottet was clean (he may be though, don't ask me the reasons). What I am saying is that he may be wrong about him.

Ok, and if it is true, that generates doubts about the no doping no win thesis. OK I give you that. But I am raising some valid points defending it too.

 

[pmcg76]

Gotcha.

The only effective doping took place before Lemond started riding and once he started droping off from the top rankings. While he was the best, in the glorious 80's (shall we include the 70's as well?) there weren't substances available that were a must for any cyclist that wanted to compete that would not be detected in an antidoping control.

Surely then there must have been a significant drop in performance compare to the wild years of the 60's and before. Was that the case? Or better diet, equipment, training methods and nutrition made up for it?

Still, remember Anquetil words, or Simpson's. There was not a chance of a rider going anywhere near that speed without doping.

But could it be that they still used amphetamines, maybe in lower doses, and complemented that with the arrival of steroids and cortisone? Well, there are plenty of 80's riders who got caught with those substances in their body.

Well, I still going to give you some links of ex cyclists talking about the benefits of doping during that era.



On the Mottet andD Voet issue. I am not saying that Voet is lying when he says Mottet was clean (he may be though, don't ask me the reasons). What I am saying is that he may be wrong about him.

Ok, and if it is true, that generates doubts about the no doping no win thesis. OK I give you that. But I am raising some valid points defending it too.

Like in most sports, its almost impossible to compare eras that are 20 years apart. You have listed some of the reasons yourself but the 80s also saw more outsiders with different mindsets enter the sport. I have provided examples of riders who say they performed clean in the 80s, I would expect you to provide the opposite but from the same era. Not quoting riders from the 60s when there was not even any testing procedures in place.

Amphetamines went out of fahsion in the early 80s in the Grand Tours and major races. That is not to say they were not used widely in other races. It is quite clear they were used liberally in the post Tour criteriums and any races where there were no controls.

"The repression of amphetamines through dope controls has had varying consequences. The use of the drug in the major tours and championships is minimal, almost non-existent. It is number one on the controllers list and easily detectable".
Paul Kimmage A Rough Ride

The amphetamines era finished in the early 80s
Allan Peiper A Peiper's tale

Hormones became more common in the 80s than amphetamines as they were mostly undetectable

 

[Race Radio]

babble:
Still, remember Anquetil words, or Simpson's. There was not a chance of a rider going anywhere near that speed without doping.
Babble

They did not say that. If you read their comments it is clear they are referring not to the speed they are riding but the number of races they are doing.

 

[Albatros]

They did not say that. If you read their comments it is clear they are referring not to the speed they are riding but the number of races they are doing.

I know from the way they ride the next day that they are taking dope. I don’t want to have to take it – I have too much respect for my body – but if I don’t win a big event soon, I shall have to start taking it”

Tom Simpson

“For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25).

Anquetil.


Yes, you may be able to race at that speed in one race, but they don't do one race per year, do they?

 

[Albatros]

Like in most sports, its almost impossible to compare eras that are 20 years apart. You have listed some of the reasons yourself but the 80s also saw more outsiders with different mindsets enter the sport. I have provided examples of riders who say they performed clean in the 80s, I would expect you to provide the opposite but from the same era. Not quoting riders from the 60s when there was not even any testing procedures in place.

Amphetamines went out of fahsion in the early 80s in the Grand Tours and major races. That is not to say they were not used widely in other races. It is quite clear they were used liberally in the post Tour criteriums and any races where there were no controls.

"The repression of amphetamines through dope controls has had varying consequences. The use of the drug in the major tours and championships is minimal, almost non-existent. It is number one on the controllers list and easily detectable".
Paul Kimmage A Rough Ride

The amphetamines era finished in the early 80s
Allan Peiper A Peiper's tale

Hormones became more common in the 80s than amphetamines as they were mostly undetectable

I didn't have the time this weekend to look at it, but I just remember one quote picked from this forum.

"Testosterone would help tremendously in a 3 week race"

Greg Lemond


Don't know how he found out about it, but he said so. So Lemond and Mottet were competing against blokes that were helped tremendously by the use of PEDs, and in spite of it they were winning against most.

In 1991, riding for the drug free team of RMO, Mottet even manages to beat the American Superman in the Tour of France.

These were the general standings.

1 Miguel Indurain (ESP) Banesto 101h 01' 20"
2 Gianni Bugno (ITA) Gatorade-Chateau d'Ax +3' 36"
3 Claudio Chiappucci (ITA) Carrera +5' 56"
4 Charly Mottet (FRA) RMO +7' 37"
5 Luc Leblanc (FRA) Castorama +10' 10"
6 Laurent Fignon (FRA) Castorama +11' 27"
7 Greg LeMond (USA) Z +13' 13"
8 Andrew Hampsten (USA) Motorola +13' 40"
9 Pedro Delgado (ESP) Banesto +20' 10"
10 Gerard Rué (FRA) Helvetia +20' 13


I wonder which of these riders were doping and if any were doing EPO. We know, if we go by Lemond words, that some of then had a tremendous help from using testosterone. We also know that one of those riders was Fignon and very likely Delgado.

What about the rest? Surely we should include the top three. After all, Lemond is the most talented rider to ever bless the Tour de France. But what about Mottet. Did he manage to beat our hero completely clean?

We can only speculate. But the odds are that Mottet also doped.

I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them...in the off season.

 

[ultimobici]

I know from the way they ride the next day that they are taking dope. I don’t want to have to take it – I have too much respect for my body – but if I don’t win a big event soon, I shall have to start taking it”

Tom Simpson

“For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25).

Anquetil.


Yes, you may be able to race at that speed in one race, but they don't do one race per year, do they?

What you are ignoring, or unaware of, is that riders all the way up until the 80's were forced to race much much more than those of today. Professional contracts were laughable in their size, even for riders as good as Anquetil, Simpson and even Merckx. As a result you had to ride an almost never ending season. Once the Tour was over, the criterium circuit started, which was where a rider was able to bolster his pay packet. But to make this worthwhile you had to have results in the real races so that your start money was good. Crappy season = low contract value. In Spain, France & Belgium it was not uncommon for riders to work a regular job in the winter, just to make ends meet. I'm not just talking about the lowly small teams, minimum wage was common for all but the very top stars.

The other thing that you studiously refuse to accept is that amphetamines, testosterone and cortisone are not in any way shape or form like blood manipulation in their effectiveness. EPO tackles the most fundamental issue a cyclist has to deal with, oxygenation of the blood. You can take all the speed, cortisone & testosterone you like but, unless you have the physiology to make it to the very top, it'll be a waste of time. Conversely, a rider of modest physical talents benefits massively from EPO, a case in point being Chiappucci. Turns pro in 85, does SFA for 5 seasons then all of a sudden starts winning Monuments and podiuming in the GT's!

 

[ultimobici]

I didn't have the time this weekend to look at it, but I just remember one quote picked from this forum.

"Testosterone would help tremendously in a 3 week race"

Greg Lemond


Don't know how he found out about it, but he said so. So Lemond and Mottet were competing against blokes that were helped tremendously by the use of PEDs, and in spite of it they were winning against most.

In 1991, riding for the drug free team of RMO, Mottet even manages to beat the American Superman in the Tour of France.

These were the general standings.

1 Miguel Indurain (ESP) Banesto 101h 01' 20"
2 Gianni Bugno (ITA) Gatorade-Chateau d'Ax +3' 36"
3 Claudio Chiappucci (ITA) Carrera +5' 56"
4 Charly Mottet (FRA) RMO +7' 37"
5 Luc Leblanc (FRA) Castorama +10' 10"
6 Laurent Fignon (FRA) Castorama +11' 27"
7 Greg LeMond (USA) Z +13' 13"
8 Andrew Hampsten (USA) Motorola +13' 40"
9 Pedro Delgado (ESP) Banesto +20' 10"
10 Gerard Rué (FRA) Helvetia +20' 13


I wonder which of these riders were doping and if any were doing EPO. We know, if we go by Lemond words, that some of then had a tremendous help from using testosterone. We also know that one of those riders was Fignon and very likely Delgado.

What about the rest? Surely we should include the top three. After all, Lemond is the most talented rider to ever bless the Tour de France. But what about Mottet. Did he manage to beat our hero completely clean?

We can only speculate. But the odds are that Mottet also doped.

I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them...in the off season.

Suggest you read up about Mottet in a little more depth. He was a double Grand Prix Des Nations winner, showed his talent from day one and was noted as one against doping to boot.

As for Lemond's 1991 Tour, he finished 7th despite riding sick through the Pyrenees.

 

[spalco]

So Anquetil, among many others, needed those stimulants to ride at the pace he did. It looks more than psychological the effect of those drugs.

Of course. Occam's razor says, that they did it because it worked. Which means in return, that not doping lowered your chances of winning, even pre-EPO.