Another era full of dopers....



Tech72

New Member
Nov 29, 2003
405
3
18
http://www.velonews.com/article/93220/fignon-facing-cancer-fight

Fignon's statement, "The (doping) products I took were intramuscular, they didn't pass through the stomach. So, no. If all the cyclists who doped would later have cancer, then everyone would have cancer...."

Sorry to hear of Fignon's cancer but another confirmation of doping (with whatever products available at the time) by the vast majority of pro riders through the ages. So the debate exists, if Fignon, Delgado and surely other GT contenders of the era doped, how did Lemond beat them if not to dope himself in some way. Could Lemond's current crusade against dopers be as credible as Lance's crusade against cancer?
 

doctorSpoc

New Member
Nov 18, 2005
1,488
4
38
it's pretty obvious that LeMond doped... i think the thing is that EPO use changed everything it was SO easy and SO effective that those who were not on it were forced to a) take it or b) quit the sport
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
110
63
Depends on how one defines doping, doesn't it?

Riders did take products to minimise pain/exhaustion.

However products like EPO and the use of HGH, actually alter the limits/threshold of athletic performance.

Sure amphetamines will aid a rider.
But amphetamines don't extend the threshold/limit of physical performance.
EPO does.

Taking any product is the high of stupidity anyhow.
 

Eldrack

New Member
Jan 10, 2005
1,353
1
0
Obviously when EPO came onto the scene in 1987 everything changed and the average speeds started taking a hike but it is interesting to ask how effective the pre-EPO drugs where. I think they mostly helped recovery and boosted short term performance (e.g using amphetemines) rather than the all encompassing effect of EPO. Mind you, blood transfusions have been around for years.

In the end though all cyclists where on a level playing field, they all doped with whatever was the best product of the day, although I guess some will have taken on a new product sooner and gained an advantage that way. Makes it a bit of a joke really, almost like the technology arms race in F1.

The difference between a clean rider and a dirty rider is (or was in the late 90's early 2000's) much bigger than it used to be because of EPO however so I guess it's harder to win clean now than it was back in say, Coppi's day.
 

ilpirata

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
410
2
18
Eldrack said:
Obviously when EPO came onto the scene in 1987 everything changed and the average speeds started taking a hike but it is interesting to ask how effective the pre-EPO drugs where. I think they mostly helped recovery and boosted short term performance (e.g using amphetemines) rather than the all encompassing effect of EPO. Mind you, blood transfusions have been around for years.

In the end though all cyclists where on a level playing field, they all doped with whatever was the best product of the day, although I guess some will have taken on a new product sooner and gained an advantage that way. Makes it a bit of a joke really, almost like the technology arms race in F1.

The difference between a clean rider and a dirty rider is (or was in the late 90's early 2000's) much bigger than it used to be because of EPO however so I guess it's harder to win clean now than it was back in say, Coppi's day.
I am in agreement with your analysis. Blood doping starting in mid to late 80's. Better financed teams are surely a step ahead as you say. I wonder how far back in time even before the era of blood doping, were riders making use of training and sleeping at altitude prior to big races? This of course is not doping.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Eldrack said:
Obviously when EPO came onto the scene in 1987 everything changed and the average speeds started taking a hike but it is interesting to ask how effective the pre-EPO drugs where. I think they mostly helped recovery and boosted short term performance (e.g using amphetemines) rather than the all encompassing effect of EPO. Mind you, blood transfusions have been around for years.

In the end though all cyclists where on a level playing field, they all doped with whatever was the best product of the day, although I guess some will have taken on a new product sooner and gained an advantage that way. Makes it a bit of a joke really, almost like the technology arms race in F1.

The difference between a clean rider and a dirty rider is (or was in the late 90's early 2000's) much bigger than it used to be because of EPO however so I guess it's harder to win clean now than it was back in say, Coppi's day.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
Eldrack said:
Obviously when EPO came onto the scene in 1987 everything changed and the average speeds started taking a hike but it is interesting to ask how effective the pre-EPO drugs where. I think they mostly helped recovery and boosted short term performance (e.g using amphetemines) rather than the all encompassing effect of EPO. Mind you, blood transfusions have been around for years.

In the end though all cyclists where on a level playing field, they all doped with whatever was the best product of the day, although I guess some will have taken on a new product sooner and gained an advantage that way. Makes it a bit of a joke really, almost like the technology arms race in F1.

The difference between a clean rider and a dirty rider is (or was in the late 90's early 2000's) much bigger than it used to be because of EPO however so I guess it's harder to win clean now than it was back in say, Coppi's day.
Kohl has said that he couldn't afford the better doping program. We know too that Ullrich preferred to pay his own doping program, and didn't use the free Freiburg services. We know too that Dr. Ferrari proposed different kind of doping program and of course with different prices...
Very difficult to speak of level, besides natural advantages like high hct were killed by EPO or blood doping.

Gewiss showed us the clear increase of EPO use inside peloton. Probably it was used before but speed and performances stayed usual, not big differences. With the 3 riders we have clearly seen that something was wrong.
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,395
984
113
Tech72 said:
http://www.velonews.com/article/93220/fignon-facing-cancer-fight

Fignon's statement, "The (doping) products I took were intramuscular, they didn't pass through the stomach. So, no. If all the cyclists who doped would later have cancer, then everyone would have cancer...."

Sorry to hear of Fignon's cancer but another confirmation of doping (with whatever products available at the time) by the vast majority of pro riders through the ages. So the debate exists, if Fignon, Delgado and surely other GT contenders of the era doped, how did Lemond beat them if not to dope himself in some way. Could Lemond's current crusade against dopers be as credible as Lance's crusade against cancer?

It's no secret Fignon doped. He put in two or three positives during his career.

They also used different doping in that era - steroids, amphetimines. Rumours of EPO started around 88-89 IIRC, but EPO didn't really hit the peloton in a major way until 1993-94. Moser admitted to blood doping, boosting' or 'packing' in the 80's. I'm sure others did it too, but I doubt it was the norm.
 

Eldrack

New Member
Jan 10, 2005
1,353
1
0
classic1 said:
They also used different doping in that era - steroids, amphetimines. Rumours of EPO started around 88-89 IIRC, but EPO didn't really hit the peloton in a major way until 1993-94. Moser admitted to blood doping, boosting' or 'packing' in the 80's. I'm sure others did it too, but I doubt it was the norm.
Major EPO use started in 1987. Riders where dying mysteriously between 1987 and 1990. Read the article posted in this thread on the cyclingnews forum: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1196
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,395
984
113
Eldrack said:
Major EPO use started in 1987. Riders where dying mysteriously between 1987 and 1990. Read the article posted in this thread on the cyclingnews forum: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1196

EPO use may have started then, but it wasn't the norm until the 90's. Too hard to get before then. I'm well aware of the reported deaths at that time (Bert Oosterbosch and Johannes Draair being the two most well known), numbers ranging from 7 riders to 70,300 depending on who you talk too, mainly Dutch riders.

The early 90's were the watershed, when it became the norm.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
classic1 said:
EPO use may have started then, but it wasn't the norm until the 90's. Too hard to get before then. I'm well aware of the reported deaths at that time (Bert Oosterbosch and Johannes Draair being the two most well known), numbers ranging from 7 riders to 70,300 depending on who you talk too, mainly Dutch riders.

The early 90's were the watershed, when it became the norm.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 

Eldrack

New Member
Jan 10, 2005
1,353
1
0
classic1 said:
EPO use may have started then, but it wasn't the norm until the 90's. Too hard to get before then. I'm well aware of the reported deaths at that time (Bert Oosterbosch and Johannes Draair being the two most well known), numbers ranging from 7 riders to 70,300 depending on who you talk too, mainly Dutch riders.

The early 90's were the watershed, when it became the norm.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rooks-admits-to-epo-use
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
In that book Rooks and 2 others Dutch riders admitted to have used EPO, but the others said they didn't use it in 1990, and some of them said they should have used it!
We can guess that some of them were reluctant to use it because of the death. And riders were cautious to use it until that doctors explained them how to use EPO safely.
Should we remember that it was a lot of Dutch riders who died "mysteriously" at that time. Teams had essentialy soigneurs and no real doctor, so probably the first riders to use it without enough medical knowledge have been in trouble creating more fear inside peloton.
I was told that establish riders or teams were always reluctant with new drugs, they waited to see its effects, bad and good, before using it.
 

Leafer

New Member
Apr 11, 2006
317
0
0
doctorSpoc said:
it's pretty obvious that LeMond doped... i think the thing is that EPO use changed everything it was SO easy and SO effective that those who were not on it were forced to a) take it or b) quit the sport
Then why the big dropoff from '89-90 to '91 and on? Seems to me if Lemond were doping, he'd have had no problem keeping up with the likes of Bugno and Chiappucci and Indurain. Instead, he could barely keep up with the peloton.

To me, that sudden drop in Lemonds "performance" is the primary argument that he was clean - he hadn't changed, it was everyone else pumped up on EPO suddenly passing him by.
 

rebaths

New Member
Aug 3, 2007
4
0
0
Tech72 said:
Fignon facing cancer fight - VeloNews

Fignon's statement, "The (doping) products I took were intramuscular, they didn't pass through the stomach. So, no. If all the cyclists who doped would later have cancer, then everyone would have cancer...."

Sorry to hear of Fignon's cancer but another confirmation of doping (with whatever products available at the time) by the vast majority of pro riders through the ages. So the debate exists, if Fignon, Delgado and surely other GT contenders of the era doped, how did Lemond beat them if not to dope himself in some way. Could Lemond's current crusade against dopers be as credible as Lance's crusade against cancer?

He should try this new drug for the cancer:
Nanoparticles take the place of chemotherapy | BionicMe

I posted this in another thread. It is a relatively new drug which only poisons the cancer cells!
 

Scotttri

New Member
Oct 11, 2005
955
4
0
40
Tech72 said:
Fignon facing cancer fight - VeloNews

Fignon's statement, "The (doping) products I took were intramuscular, they didn't pass through the stomach. So, no. If all the cyclists who doped would later have cancer, then everyone would have cancer...."

Sorry to hear of Fignon's cancer but another confirmation of doping (with whatever products available at the time) by the vast majority of pro riders through the ages. So the debate exists, if Fignon, Delgado and surely other GT contenders of the era doped, how did Lemond beat them if not to dope himself in some way. Could Lemond's current crusade against dopers be as credible as Lance's crusade against cancer?

I agree about the dopeing, but hardly see what Lance is doing for Cancer as an uncredible thing.