A dope-historical-perspective

I found this to be a interesting article. I can say with certainty that the practice of using speed continued in the 70's in the US among the racers.




Dave Moulton's Blog - Dave Moulton's Bike Blog - Dope: A HistoricalPerspective

 

There's a doping sub-forum, and that's where this thread should be. It's not appropriate anywhere else.

 

While I dig Dave Moulton's ramblings and his bikes it's two faced b0llocks like this I can't stand:

Doping is doping. I dig the likes of Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Kelly, LeMond, Fignon, Armstrong, Herrera, Millar and Boardman despite the fact that over half of them have been on 'the secret sauce' at somepoint. That it was done 'back then' rather than now doesn't change a thing...

 

I think of the only clean riders listed were Lemond and Kelly not sure on the others, but Lemond was a clean rider with natural ability on the bike. Kelly at least for the most part was clean and so wasn't Roche.

 

What makes you think Lemond was clean? Because he says he was? See, here's another reason why all these doping threads are so pointless: no one knows if someone was clean, and no one knows who really doped.

Lemond. Right. I think he's the biggest liar of 'em all.

 

If Lemond was doping the decline in his riding would not have been so quick, if you watch the tour in the 80's only select groups were left in the mountains and today you hvae 20 plus riders heading into the final climb. During the 80's only the top riders were left at the end of a stage, and these riders were always near the front in all the classics and tours.

Yes doping was and has been always present in cycling, but doping did not really take off and provide a real benefit until the mid 90's prior to that the use of doping products was more of a recovery aid and not an aid to enhance the overall performance of a rider.

And Lemond, Hampsten, Roche and Kelly never ever had anyone accusing them for doping and did not have special trainers, and they did not go off and have a special training camp in the mountains during the summer. I think the truly gifted riders do not need to dope and I think Armstrong, and Julich can be counted in this group.

 

To each their own. In reality, I think doping threads are nothing but an avenue for throwing personal insults, belittling someone's nationality, making wild, baseless accusations, and demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of science and proper scientific method. Finding objectivity in a doping thread would be like finding that the net change for entropy in the universe is decreasing.

 

LeMond made a comeback in 89 that made Armstrongs 98/99 seasons look positively crap. You go from off the back and dropped by the sprinters in the mountains during the 89 Giro to winning the Tour a month later.

Kelly failed several drugs tests... Including one where he submitted his mechanics piss for a test and he failed.

Roche worked with Conconi - the guy who blood doped Moser in 84 for his hour record and the guy who 'taught' Ferrari. Roche was given a damning 'guilty' verdict in an Italian court for evidence that he'd taken EPO towards the end of his carrer.

... anything else? Merckx and Anquetil would have never ridden 5 Tours let alone won 5 each if they'd been subjected to todays doping bans, unlike back in the day where Merckx got booted out of the Giro and a couple weeks later he rode the Tour.

 

Kelly clean? He rode for Festina don't forget....

 

Kelly such a rider. As if he'd allow a rival any advantage whatsoever!

 

Really

 

Kelly was suspended for dope, and yes dope was used as a performance enhancer. I know personally.
The use of speed in the 70's , the racers choice, was no way a recovery drug. The drug was used during the race to enhance performance. Back when Lemond rode, no one accused Fignon of doping either. Nor Hinault.

 

When you fail a dope control you don't need people to accuse you of taking drugs. Fignon's positive control (1989 for amphetamines) will do just fine, thank you very much.