When Did This Damn Mess Even Start?

[RedheadDane]

(Because it's always so damn easy to be clever about things in the past!)

So... when did it start? Because it didn't start with Armstrong, did it? Or even with Festina... which was supposed to have been the end of this ****!)
No. It's older than that, much, much older! Just take a look at this quote from Wikipedia regarding doping in the 1930 Tour:

The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers

82 years ago, and thinks were already way out of control! So much out of control that it wasn't until 1965 doping was actually made illegal, and only the next year testing was actually conducted at the Tour. However, as this quote shows, the methods of testing were less than desirable:

On 29 July testing began at the Tour de France. Raymond Poulidor was the first rider to be tested in the Tour at the end of a stage to Bordeaux. He said "I was strolling down the corridor in ordinary clothes when I came across two guys who asked if I was a rider. They made me go into a room, I ****ed into some bottles and they closed them without sealing them. Then they took my name, my date of birth, without asking for anything to check my identity. I could have been anyone, and they could have done anything they liked with the bottles."[41] Next morning, on the way to the Pyrenees the riders climbed off, began walking and shouting protests

If that's how testing was first conducted then it's no wonder they weren't much respected at first.

This is a clean-out of something that's more than 10 years old? Hah! It's more like a clean-out of something that's closer to 100 years old! Unfortunately we can't go all the way back to the beginning in this clean-out, because if that was to happen... then we'd have to pretend pro-cycling didn't even exist!

So... when did it start? Truth is]anybody[/I] could truly know. What I do know, however, is this:

I ****ING HOPE IT ENDS NOW!


Apologies if this post didn't make a whole lot of sense... I just needed to vent!

 

[racyrichuk]

At least a 100 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choppy_Warburton

 

[RedheadDane]

You know, if we're talking doping in general. (Which I suppose we should)
Then I wouldn't be too surprised if we had to go significantly further back! As in:

Back to Ancient Greece! (if not further!)

Hey... it's fairly well known that the Vikings doped themselves before going into battle, so why not other cultures?

 

[Big Daddy]

Specifically, when did what mess started?

Do you want to know when the Armstrong doping scandal started?
Do you want to know when Lance Armstrong started doping?
Do you want to know when doping in cycling started?
Do you want to know when doping in sports started?
Do you want to know when cheating for mankind started?

What?

 

[RedheadDane]

When organized doping in sport became so accepted that it was widely accepted that everybody did it!

And I know it's not possible to find out, and it ****ing ****es me off!

I'm sick and tired of hearing about doping all the time! And I'm fed up with constantly having to defend this sport, which I love so much I don't think it's healthy, against the claim of "They're just all doped anyway!"

 

[pleyser]

There's a famous quote from the Pelissier brothers in the late 1920's that goes like this...(From Wikipedia)...

"You have no idea what the Tour de France is,' Henri said. "It's a calvary. And what's more, the way to the cross only had 14 stations — we've got 15.[7] We suffer on the road. But do you want to see how we keep going? Wait...'
From his bag he takes a phial. "That, that's cocaine for our eyes and chloroform for our gums..."
"Here," said Ville, tipping out the contents of his bag, "horse liniment to keep my knees warm. And pills? You want to see the pills?" They got out three boxes apiece.
"In short," said Francis, "we run on dynamite.'

So even at that time, rudimentary though their methods were, PED's were part of the sport.

I believe it was Jacques Anquetil in the 1950's or 1960's who said you can't ride the Tour on bread and water.

 

[hrotha]

By definition, there was no doping until the use of PEDs was banned.

 

[RedheadDane]

Yeah... but as I mentioned in the OP, that just happened way too late!

 

[hiero2]

A: I think you can say when dopage started.
B: Cheating goes back to before man. Dogs cheat. Chimps cheat.

A: The Greeks didn't dope, actually, since there was no "dope". Anything they took was herbal, and therefore a food substance. Realize, however, that opium, coca, ephedra, etc are very powerful herbs - so they might still have endangered their health in the pursuit of a performance. Alcohol would be the first manipulated food substance that would eventually lead to the invention of "dope". Although, that could be arguable, since alcoholic beverages are the byproduct of natural processes. It's just that we CONTROL those processes to create beer and wine. Distillation, however, is definitely a refinement process.

In the 1800's we began to see refinements of natural substances. Laudanum (tincture of opium) had been in use since around the 1600's. Morphine and codeine were refined from opium in the early 1800's. Cocaine was refined from coca leaves in the late 1800's. So, from the very beginning of cycling, we will find people using these substances. Somewhere around ww2, I think, various forms of speed were being refined from ephedra. Speed entered use in the peloton shortly after.

So, the beginnings of doping are clear, at least to me. Once stuff starts getting manipulated by man, it is stronger, which is the point, mostly. That makes it more dangerous, too.

As for when will it end? I am about to write a new post in the Dark Era thread, on all the reasons we have to be optimistic about today. Along with quotes and links from people who are optimistic - or who give us reason for optimism. Give me an hour or so. Scroll down from the linked post. It will be the next post after this.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1046327#post1046327

 

[hiero2]

Yeah... but as I mentioned in the OP, that just happened way too late!

Oh - and one other quick point - while some ppl do not agree - and perhaps you are one - I think that most people agree that doping changed with the introduction of EPO. With the intro of O2 vector methods, the differences in performance created a completely different environment for the riders. Even steroids, which probably made more difference than any previous doping method, did not work as more than a marginal gain. The difference that O2 vector doping makes for cycling is similar to the difference steroids makes for weightlifting and body-building. Massive. EPO was also undetectable at the time, unlike speed and steroids.

So, personally, I don't upset myself over any doping prior to 1990. It was there, etc etc. But I don't see any need to get razzed over it. Have you ever read "Dog In a Hat"?

 

[RedheadDane]

I too want to believe that things are indeed getting better. Problem is; I'm not sure who to trust anymore!
Which is a problem, because I've always believed in the notion of no positives = not doped! Now, it's just becoming clear that's not true!

Oh - and one other quick point - while some ppl do not agree - and perhaps you are one - I think that most people agree that doping changed with the introduction of EPO. With the intro of O2 vector methods, the differences in performance created a completely different environment for the riders. Even steroids, which probably made more difference than any previous doping method, did not work as more than a marginal gain. The difference that O2 vector doping makes for cycling is similar to the difference steroids makes for weightlifting and body-building. Massive. EPO was also undetectable at the time, unlike speed and steroids.

So, personally, I don't upset myself over any doping prior to 1990. It was there, etc etc. But I don't see any need to get razzed over it. Have you ever read "Dog In a Hat"?

I know doping changed with EPO! I just still don't see it as the beginning, but rather just another chapter to this long, messy ****ed up tale!

As for not getting razzed over it; I can't! I can't not care!

 

[ElChingon]

I too want to believe that things are indeed getting better. Problem is; I'm not sure who to trust anymore!

Well its like in life, who do you trust? One person commits a crime in your area do you then stop trusting everyone? I know it requires more thought and investigation but I'm sure you'll catch on.

 

[Microchip]

It's not possible to know for a certainty exactly who is and isn't. But in order not to lose faith, I would say to be picky and choosy about what articles you read and from which site. I stopped watching cycling in 2005, the last TDF I looked at was 2004. Jesus Manzano was lifting the lid on the team's disgusting practices, plus I was fed up of Lance although I didn't know he was doping at the time.

Anyway, a couple years later I started looking at the TDF again, I can't stay away from cycling long. Surprisingly, now that all of this is coming out, it's actually helping to restore my faith instead of destroying it. Tyler Hamilton confirms in his book that a person CAN win clean (at this time, not the grand tours) but the other races yes. There are many more examples coming out of persons who can give you the confidence that they or their team is clean.

In the end you really still don't have the super powers to know for a certainty what goes behind closed RV doors, but it's still a better place to be, to trust some rather than to suspect all.

 

[benzwire]

The day they gave a prize for winning a bike race, the cheating started.

 

[TubularBills]

Full name: Lance Edward Gunderson (lieStrong since day one = (Ph)armstrong)

Nicknames: Loser, Doper, DQ'd, My &itch, One False Ball, Micro Tex, Ex-Tex = (aka 'a village is missing its idiot'),

Raging Johnny (from lanterne rouge baudet which is French for red a$$ed Donkey)

Loser inception Date: Born September 18, 1971

Plano, Texas, United States

Height: 1.77 m (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in) = wishful thinking

Weight: 75 kg (165 lb) = waif

Reality: an unusually motivated loser, with nothing to lose.

Source:

Spin: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong)

~ Sir Fabiani

 

[TubularBills]

Cancer as Camouflage.

"Keep your eye on the ball."

Only fatherly advice he ever got.

Motherly advice: "Cheat to win."

 

[TubularBills]

Losers Lip Syncing.

 

[hiero2]

It's not possible to know for a certainty exactly who is and isn't. . . .
Anyway, a couple years later I started looking at the TDF again, I can't stay away from cycling long. Surprisingly, now that all of this is coming out, it's actually helping to restore my faith instead of destroying it. Tyler Hamilton confirms in his book that a person CAN win clean . . . it's still a better place to be, to trust some rather than to suspect all.

Yes. +1 10 charl

 

[hiero2]

I too want to believe that things are indeed getting better. Problem is; I'm not sure who to trust anymore!
Which is a problem, because I've always believed in the notion of no positives = not doped! Now, it's just becoming clear that's not true!



I know doping changed with EPO! I just still don't see it as the beginning, but rather just another chapter to this long, messy ****ed up tale!

As for not getting razzed over it; I can't! I can't not care!

Wow. Redhead, you put in to words, so well, so many of the problems we face.
Who do you trust? Who CAN you trust? --- Hmmmm. Well, MY trust is based on 1) evidence (history, have you been telling the truth before?) 2) your current words (this is my intuition, based on my experience - so I know I have faith in my intuition, but I also know I can not ask other ppl to have faith in it, right?); 3) history -- don't tell me you never doped if you had a positive test eh? Silly!

The reliability of testing: this is, indeed, one of the biggest problems we face. In the 1990's, testing for EPO was absolutely worthless. But nobody told us that back then, did they? I sure don't remember if they did. Reporting FAIL. Kick reporting in the nuts. They deserve it.

Ok, so about 2000 we get a test for EPO. But it isn't much good. Does anybody tell us? No. Fail 2. Kick 'em in the nuts again. And, at the same time, cycling is joining the big league sports when it gets to money. Sheesh. Talk about a cheatin' heart.

So, we (the 'we' who want our sport to be more "sport" and less "entertainment" a la World Wide Wrestlling, - - -

I apologize, I have hit the wall. It is late night where I am, and I am too tired to continue. I will complete this tomorrow.

 

[RedheadDane]

Well its like in life, who do you trust? One person commits a crime in your area do you then stop trusting everyone? I know it requires more thought and investigation but I'm sure you'll catch on.

Oh, I'm not going to instantly think He must be doped! every time someone makes an incredible feat. In fact I think that mentality has at least part of the blame for the doping-culture being allowed to be so big. If the mentality is everyone is just doped anyway, then of course a young up-and-coming guy is gonna think he needs doping in order to keep up.
Of course it doesn't help much when, as the USADA rapport indicates, the young riders are preassured into doping by the organization, the people who should be doing everything they can to keep riders off doping...

 

[fatandfast]

By definition, there was no doping until the use of PEDs was banned.

By definition using dope is doping, illegal is another word. Doping banned or not is still doping

 

[webvan]

Oh - and one other quick point - while some ppl do not agree - and perhaps you are one - I think that most people agree that doping changed with the introduction of EPO. With the intro of O2 vector methods, the differences in performance created a completely different environment for the riders. Even steroids, which probably made more difference than any previous doping method, did not work as more than a marginal gain. The difference that O2 vector doping makes for cycling is similar to the difference steroids makes for weightlifting and body-building. Massive. EPO was also undetectable at the time, unlike speed and steroids.

So, personally, I don't upset myself over any doping prior to 1990. It was there, etc etc. But I don't see any need to get razzed over it. Have you ever read "Dog In a Hat"?

+1...but EPO happened because of the existing doping culture, this was just the latest thing...

 

[hiero2]

+1...but EPO happened because of the existing doping culture, this was just the latest thing...

I agree 100%. I think that is a primary reason why we are having so much trouble changing things - why it has taken so long. Even though I don't worry myself over what used to go on - I also recognize that we can't go back to that "same-old".

You know, Anquetil, when asked about doping, once replied with his own question. What do the race organizers expect? They give us a schedule and races that no normal human could complete! (That was from memory, so it ain't exactly a quote, but that was the sense of it.) Along those lines, I was very intrigued to see this request for change in the program:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/barry-calls-for-changes-in-pro-road-cycling

 

[Yingge]

I guess the other side of the question is "Where will it all end"?

Hopefully before someone ends their career in the same way that Tom Simpson did.

 

[hiero2]

I too want to believe that things are indeed getting better. Problem is; I'm not sure who to trust anymore!
Which is a problem, because I've always believed in the notion of no positives = not doped! Now, it's just becoming clear that's not true!

I know. It IS a problem! And the whole thing about testing! You know, we need a little more honesty from the TESTERS, too, on exactly what they CAN and CAN NOT discover. It seems like that was a big secret! We know more today about THEN, but we still don't hear much about NOW. Somebody in the press needs to write an article on what can be done, and how. Maybe they think they are doing a public service by not telling how things are done, but I'd bet that those who WANT to know will have ways to find out anyway.

Maybe somebody HAS written such an article, in which case maybe we could get a link? I haven't read Tyler's book yet, but that apparently has some coverage like that.

As for not getting razzed over it; I can't! I can't not care!

Good for you! It's people who care that will make a difference!