Best Drugged Performance Ever

[Rik Van Diesel]

[email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> So I'm going through old cycling videos and ran across the 1997 Tour of Romandy. For my money for
> confirmed cases of drugging, that has to be the most dominant performance ever. In particular
> there was a stage 3 that was this slightly uphill finish. Dufaux started sprinting from 1k out and
> won by 10 seconds. http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/romandie98.html He didn't even
> hide that he was that much stronger than anyone else. It would have been the equivalent of someone
> coming into the final sprint of MSR or P-R and winning by 50 bike lengths. 95% domination. 95%
> doping. (190 points)
>
> Of course one never knows in other cases whether or not someone was actually doping, so I
> suppose if one were to say Pantani's Tour win, then there is good liklihood he was doping, like
> maybe 80%. So if it was a 70% of maximum dominant performance, then that would be Doping
> Dominant Score of 150.
>
>
> Armstrong tour wins. Most dominant performance, like an 85 domination factor and then a good 75%
> doping factor only nets him a 160 total score.
>
> So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as 1997
> Tour of Romandy.

Gerlach three years ago at some sh&tty crit lapping the field in the 90+ degree heat of the
California central valley, not once but twice, having not ridden his bike for maybe 9 months prior
(I think bike was borrowed too). Why, cause he needed the cash.

RVD

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Rik Van Diesel
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as 1997
> > Tour of Romandy.
>
> Gerlach three years ago at some sh&tty crit lapping the field in the 90+ degree heat of the
> California central valley, not once but twice, having not ridden his bike for maybe 9 months prior
> (I think bike was borrowed too). Why, cause he needed the cash.

Isn't that why Gaggioli races with the masters so often?

-WG

 

[Amit]

Jeff Potter <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> I don't use his name. Mr. Drugs it is!
>

You claim you know XC skiing and you didn't know his name. Don't try to make it seem otherwise.

> He didn't bother to hide anything in the slightest. He just left everyone at the start in multiple
> events! He was pretty good before this, with some wins, but I think this latest was at least a
> doubling of his dominance. He was always known as a bit mentally flakey, too.

Do you wonder why he was racing for the Spanish ? Is XC skiing huge in Spain ?

-Amit

 

[Joshua Zlotlow]

>Subject: Re: Best Drugged Performance Ever From: [email protected] (Rik Van Diesel)
>Date: 5/5/03 3:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
><[email protected]>
>

>Gerlach three years ago at some sh&tty crit lapping the field in the 90+ degree heat of the
>California central valley, not once but twice, having not ridden his bike for maybe 9 months prior
>(I think bike was borrowed too). Why, cause he needed the cash.
>
>RVD
>
What race was it? I grew up around here and have heard lots of whispers about various different
Sacramento-area riders, but have never heard anyone say anything about Chad using performance
enhancing drugs. Josh Zlotlow [email protected] Sacramento, California Sacramento Golden Wheelmen
www.sacgw.com

 

[Me]

because the german federarion threw him out(?), or would have caught him and then trown him out....
and the doping laws were(are) more lax in Spain..... Muslegg Johann doper of the century.....

Amit wrote:

> Jeff Potter <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
>>I don't use his name. Mr. Drugs it is!
>>
>
>
>
> You claim you know XC skiing and you didn't know his name. Don't try to make it seem otherwise.
>
>
>>He didn't bother to hide anything in the slightest. He just left everyone at the start in multiple
>>events! He was pretty good before this, with some wins, but I think this latest was at least a
>>doubling of his dominance. He was always known as a bit mentally flakey, too.
>
>
> Do you wonder why he was racing for the Spanish ? Is XC skiing huge in Spain ?
>
> -Amit

 

[Me]

the rumor was that they acually didn't have an approved tesat for it... but had a trial test that
they ran just cause it was there and someone wanted to try it....

Chris Daggs wrote:

> me <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>they actually only caught Johann or whomever cause they happened to have the correct test sitting
>>around and someone said in effect hey let's see if this one turns anything up.. it was a truely
>>random happening in the controls that they latter played up hugely.. Note teh only lost the medal
>>for the one race not all of them as he probabl;y should have. Worse was the Austrain team that
>>left al of their doping IV's, bas and needles in the house trash for the maid servie to find....
>>
>
>
> I heard the IOC intentionally leaked info that they did NOT have a test for Nesp (which Muelegg
> got busted with).
>
> Chris

 

[easyrider]

Seems that there is an assumption going on here that Muelegg (sp?) was doped and the rest of the field wasn't. Don't buy that ****. They are darn near all doped. The Olympics is a political joke in which countries cover up and aid in the drug wars. We covered up King Carl and many others and everyone does the best they can to keep up with us.

 

[Andrew Martin]

[email protected] (Rik Van Diesel) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > So I'm going through old cycling videos and ran across the 1997 Tour of Romandy. For my money
> > for confirmed cases of drugging, that has to be the most dominant performance ever. In
> > particular there was a stage 3 that was this slightly uphill finish. Dufaux started sprinting
> > from 1k out and won by 10 seconds. http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/romandie98.html
> > He didn't even hide that he was that much stronger than anyone else. It would have been the
> > equivalent of someone coming into the final sprint of MSR or P-R and winning by 50 bike lengths.
> > 95% domination. 95% doping. (190 points)
> >
> > Of course one never knows in other cases whether or not someone was actually doping, so I
> > suppose if one were to say Pantani's Tour win, then there is good liklihood he was doping, like
> > maybe 80%. So if it was a 70% of maximum dominant performance, then that would be Doping
> > Dominant Score of 150.
> >
> >
> > Armstrong tour wins. Most dominant performance, like an 85 domination factor and then a good 75%
> > doping factor only nets him a 160 total score.
> >
> > So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as 1997
> > Tour of Romandy.
>
> Gerlach three years ago at some sh&tty crit lapping the field in the 90+ degree heat of the
> California central valley, not once but twice, having not ridden his bike for maybe 9 months prior
> (I think bike was borrowed too). Why, cause he needed the cash.
>
> RVD

I did a race last year in Medford in 92 degree heat. He lapped the field twice (as did horner).
Maybe he just doesn't mind the heat. I'd think drugs+heat is a worse combination. -a

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Rik Van Diesel) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > So I'm going through old cycling videos and ran across the 1997 Tour of Romandy. For my money
> > > for confirmed cases of drugging, that has to be the most dominant performance ever. In
> > > particular there was a stage 3 that was this slightly uphill finish. Dufaux started sprinting
> > > from 1k out and won by 10 seconds.
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/romandie98.html He didn't even hide that he was
> > > that much stronger than anyone else. It would have been the equivalent of someone coming into
> > > the final sprint of MSR or P-R and winning by 50 bike lengths. 95% domination. 95% doping.
> > > (190 points)
> > >
> > > Of course one never knows in other cases whether or not someone was actually doping, so I
> > > suppose if one were to say Pantani's Tour win, then there is good liklihood he was doping,
> > > like maybe 80%. So if it was a 70% of maximum dominant performance, then that would be Doping
> > > Dominant Score of 150.
> > >
> > >
> > > Armstrong tour wins. Most dominant performance, like an 85 domination factor and then a good
> > > 75% doping factor only nets him a 160 total score.
> > >
> > > So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as
> > > 1997 Tour of Romandy.
> >
> > Gerlach three years ago at some sh&tty crit lapping the field in the 90+ degree heat of the
> > California central valley, not once but twice, having not ridden his bike for maybe 9 months
> > prior (I think bike was borrowed too). Why, cause he needed the cash.
> >
> > RVD
>
> I did a race last year in Medford in 92 degree heat. He lapped the field twice (as did horner).
> Maybe he just doesn't mind the heat. I'd think drugs+heat is a worse combination.

Chad has/had alot of cycling ability that was not utilized to its potential so I doubt that Chad
would need performance _enhancing_ drugs to lap the field in some little criterium and 92 degrees
isn't bad when you're from Sacramento.

-WG

 

[Bubbles The Fri]

How bout:

Flo-Jo?

Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon?

 

[Jeff Potter]

True, but Mr. Drugs was MOST DOPED. And most crazy with his doping. Maybe it also simply worked the
best for him, but it went to his head. I'd say that each sport and each nation's approach is likely
a bit different.

Interesting that this year after that big doping scare, the finishing order in XC changed a lot. The
US darn near medaled several times. Our best results in decades. Our best diversity of results ever:
several skiers medaled or nearly medaled at various WC events, even across a couple disciplines (XC
and Combined).

Hmmm, it also seemed like LOTS of big stars sat out impt races this year with "stomach aches." More
than usual, it seemed. A worse bug going around, I guess.

easyrider wrote:

> Seems that there is an assumption going on here that Muelegg (sp?) was doped and the rest of the
> field wasn't. Don't buy that ****. They are darn near all doped. The Olympics is a political joke
> in which countries cover up and aid in the drug wars. We covered up King Carl and many others and
> everyone does the best they can to keep up with us.

--

Jeff Potter [email protected] http://OutYourBackdoor.com -- a friendly ezine of modern
folkways and culture revival...offering a line of alternative books and a world of bikes, boats,
skis...plus shops for great sleeper books, videos and music ...plus nationwide "Off the Beaten Path"
travel forums for local fun, bumperstickers and a new social magnet stickers! ...Holy Smokes!!!

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Frank Shorter has been outspoken about using all weapons available in the battle against drug use,
including misinformation. There was a statement before the games that a test for nesp was not yet
available when, in fact, it was. You don't take a medal with an unapproved test.

Bob Schwartz [email protected]

me <[email protected]> wrote:
> the rumor was that they acually didn't have an approved tesat for it... but had a trial test that
> they ran just cause it was there and someone wanted to try it....

> Chris Daggs wrote:

>> me <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>they actually only caught Johann or whomever cause they happened to have the correct test sitting
>>>around and someone said in effect hey let's see if this one turns anything up.. it was a truely
>>>random happening in the controls that they latter played up hugely.. Note teh only lost the medal
>>>for the one race not all of them as he probabl;y should have. Worse was the Austrain team that
>>>left al of their doping IV's, bas and needles in the house trash for the maid servie to find....
>>>
>>
>>
>> I heard the IOC intentionally leaked info that they did NOT have a test for Nesp (which Muelegg
>> got busted with).
>>
>> Chris

 

[Chris Daggs]

[email protected] (Bubbles The Friendly Chimp) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> How bout:
>
> Flo-Jo?
>
> Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon?

Flo-Jo...oh yeah. That ranks right up there with the Gewiss team. She came out of nowhere. Well not
nowehere, but competitors (who knew her and had always been better than her) were shocked at her
physical changes and strength and her new found speed. A few eluded to hGH usage because her facial
features changed and she leaned out quite a bit. Supposedly she was on the verge of quitting track a
few years before the 88 Games so her transformation from decent world class/elite runner to multiple
gold medalist and world record holder was 'magical'. She did attend the 84 Games and win a silver
medal in the 200, but the main competition (Eastern bloc women) were not in attendance. She was
noted (at the time by her peers) to be a good sprinter, but other US women were superior. Then post
84 she stopped running and went back to having a normal life. So her exponential improvements in 88
were suspect. Also no one has even come close to the times she set in 88. In the past 15 years
Marion Jones has come within .28secs of her 200 and no one has come within .11secs of her 100 time
(those time differentials are an eternity in track). One would assume that a superior athlete (like
Jones) would have broken Flo Jo's records if they were not drug aided; or drug technology should
have improved to the point that a superior or equal athlete could have used new/improved drugs to
break Flo Jo's records (which raises the question about Jones-is she clean and if not why hasn't she
broken Flo Jo's records?). In the past 15 years most track records have been broken and few long
standing ones were either known to be drug aided (Johnson's 88 100m time of 9.79) or probably wind
aided (the 200m record and the long jump both of which stood for over 2 decades-I think). All of
those have been broken too. Flo Jo's stuff still stands-but becomes more suspect every year,
especially since Marion Jones is soo good. So one could assert that Flo Jo was immensely gifted and
probably doped.

Her retirement and death were equally as shocking. One could attempt to link her death to
doping...but not much info ever came out. She died in her sleep. However I recently read that she
tried to make a comeback in marathoning (the complete opposite of sprinting) and that her comeback
failed. Her death sounded suspiciously like all those euro pros who died while sleeping (and
probably had taken EPO). EPO obviously would have helped her succeed at the marathon. No drugs were
turned up in her autopsy and EPO would have been undectectable.

If haven't guessed I just saw the SportsCentury ESPN show on her.

Radcliffe is another interesting case. She vehemently denies drug usage but continues to close the
gap between the genders in marathon times. Testing for EPO isn't 100% so her tactic of 'bring on the
testing' is ballsy but may work. However, if I am correct she has been tested after her marathon
wins and hasn't failed yet-which really doesn't mean anything.

Like was discussed in prior threads (about Jeanson), we may not be seeing doped athletes in action,
but just exceptional athletic specimens at the peak of their athletic careers. I definitely think it
is in poor taste to cry doping every time after records fall and people win events by large margins
or unbelievable speeds. But the sad truth of the matter is when $$$ is on the line; ethics go south.
In pro sports, world championships and the Olympics, there is money to be made.

So my vote is:

Flo Jo=juice Radcliffe= ? verdict still out on that one

Jeanson= ? maybe? but she races like a man and doesn't eat so that would make her faster than most
of the North American women. She isn't as dominant against the Euros.

Chris

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Potter
<[email protected]> wrote:

> True, but Mr. Drugs was MOST DOPED. And most crazy with his doping. Maybe it also simply worked
> the best for him, but it went to his head. I'd say that each sport and each nation's approach is
> likely a bit different.
>
> Interesting that this year after that big doping scare, the finishing order in XC changed a lot.
> The US darn near medaled several times. Our best results in decades. Our best diversity of results
> ever: several skiers medaled or nearly medaled at various WC events, even across a couple
> disciplines (XC and Combined).

Keep in mind the US skiers got to live at the 6000 feet altitide as much as they needed while some
European teams did not, and it is rare for a WC XC ski race to be at that high altitude. The
Americans got huge crowd support at each event. It was a solid wall of noise everytime they were
climbing. I was there-great fun!

-WG

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Chris Daggs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Bubbles The Friendly Chimp) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > How bout:
> >
> > Flo-Jo?
> >
> > Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon?
>
> Flo-Jo...oh yeah. That ranks right up there with the Gewiss team.

Flo-Jo is way, way ahead of the Gewiss team.

Their appearances did not change dramatically, they did not retire after a spectacular 3 months of
success like she did, they did not obliterate world records while cruising the last 10% of the race,
nor did they keel over and die less than 10 years later.

 

[Jason]

> >
> > Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon?
>

I have no way of determining whether Radcliffe was doping, but her performance is sensational - I
reckon her marathon would rank as the best run ever, by anyone.

Certainly 10/10 for domination. Not sure about the other score.

Jason

 

[Private Post]

[email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> So I'm going through old cycling videos and ran across the 1997 Tour of Romandy. For my money for
> confirmed cases of drugging, that has to be the most dominant performance ever. In particular
> there was a stage 3 that was this slightly uphill finish. Dufaux started sprinting from 1k out and
> won by 10 seconds. http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/romandie98.html He didn't even
> hide that he was that much stronger than anyone else. It would have been the equivalent of someone
> coming into the final sprint of MSR or P-R and winning by 50 bike lengths. 95% domination. 95%
> doping. (190 points)
>
> Of course one never knows in other cases whether or not someone was actually doping, so I
> suppose if one were to say Pantani's Tour win, then there is good liklihood he was doping, like
> maybe 80%. So if it was a 70% of maximum dominant performance, then that would be Doping
> Dominant Score of 150.
>
> > Armstrong tour wins.
> Most dominant performance, like an 85 domination factor and then a good 75% doping factor only
> nets him a 160 total score.
>
> So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as 1997
> Tour of Romandy.

GIVE ME A BREAK. I HAVE SOMETHING BETTER...

 

[Private Post]

[email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> So I'm going through old cycling videos and ran across the 1997 Tour of Romandy. For my money for
> confirmed cases of drugging, that has to be the most dominant performance ever. In particular
> there was a stage 3 that was this slightly uphill finish. Dufaux started sprinting from 1k out and
> won by 10 seconds. http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/romandie98.html He didn't even
> hide that he was that much stronger than anyone else. It would have been the equivalent of someone
> coming into the final sprint of MSR or P-R and winning by 50 bike lengths. 95% domination. 95%
> doping. (190 points)
>
> Of course one never knows in other cases whether or not someone was actually doping, so I
> suppose if one were to say Pantani's Tour win, then there is good liklihood he was doping, like
> maybe 80%. So if it was a 70% of maximum dominant performance, then that would be Doping
> Dominant Score of 150.
>
> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS?
AN INTERVIEW OF THE POSTAL DOCTOR STATING THAT THE TOUR DE FRANCE CAN'T BE WON ONLY WITH SPAGHETTI.
IT'S IN SPANISH? BUT THE TITLE SAYS ENOUGH!

http://www.lasprovincias.es/valencia/pg030428/prensa/noticias/Deportes/200304/28/VAL-18A28DP36.html

INTERESTING DECLARATION FROM DR.GARCIA. POSTAL SHOULD GET A PASTA SPONSOR.







> Armstrong tour wins. Most dominant performance, like an 85 domination factor and then a good 75%
> doping factor only nets him a 160 total score.
>
> So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as 1997
> Tour of Romandy.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 7 May 2003 03:56:21 -0700, Private Post wrote:
>[email protected] (Andrew Albright) wrote:
>> So in summary, really one is going to be hard pressed to come up with something as good as 1997
>> Tour of Romandy.
>
>GIVE ME A BREAK. I HAVE SOMETHING BETTER...

Yes?

 

[Tom Schulenburg]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<Snip>>
>
> Flo-Jo is way, way ahead of the Gewiss team.
>
<Snip> ... nor did they keel over and die less than 10 years later.
>

That shows commitment. Is it possible to get more than 10 out of 10? She's only rivaled by her
sister-in-law Jackie Joyner Kersee whose domination extended over a greater period of time, while
still exhibiting the physical characteristics of someone on juice. To my knowledge, JJK never
tested positive.

-T