Millar on Armstrong



"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 1-Aug-2004, "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does and doesn't
> > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It doesn't make a
> > donkey into a thoroughbred."

>
> Seems like a silly comment to me. Sure you cant turn a donkey into a
> thoroughbred, but you can trurn a very good horse into a better one (why
> else would pros dope?), and that would be the issue. Not that I'm saying
> Lance is doping necessarily, just that Millars comment is silly and
> meaningless.
>
> steve


Well, even David wasn't aware he had been doping, until french police
raided his house and reaquainted him with the mementos he had
forgotten all about.

I would agree with David on the point that he could recognize a rider
who is on the stuff as a participant in a stage race is likely to have
much move close observation of riders than someone sitting at home in
their Lay-Z-Boy.

Someone I've been suspicious of, in light of Manzano's allegations, is
Botero. Up one day, down the next while with Kelme, not worth much of
a damn on T-mobile.
 
"Chris" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does and

> doesn't
> > > > > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It doesn't

> make a
> > > > > donkey into a thoroughbred."
> > > >
> > > > Here is a man who has undeniably lied about doping, no vague

> assumptions
> > > > about jealousy, suspicious comments about why he would want to make

> money
> > > or
> > > > is vengeful about a job he lost, no, he has lied pure and simple,

it's
> > > been
> > > > proven beyond reasonable doubt. With Millar on one side and Lemond

on
> the
> > > > other, who is more reliable?
> > >
> > > Beside the fact that Lemond clearly has better and closer access to

the
> > > subject at hand with the single exception that Lemond has likely not

had
> > > first hand experience with using EPO in competition. I will trust

Millar
> > > when he says EPO won't turn you in to a TDF champ (duh). For the rest

of
> the
> > > issues, I will also defer to Lemond.
> > >

> >
> > The first time I (a schmoe not connected with the pro scene) heard
> > about EPO was in connection with the death of Johannes Draaier.
> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/nov00/nov1news.shtml
> >
> > Even if EPO isn't attributed to his death, it means the pro cycling
> > world was aware of EPO as a blood booster back then (89-90), so this
> > talk that EPO "wasn't around" in Lemond's time is ********.

>
> I don't think I ever said that "EPO wasn't around in Lemond's time". I'll
> think of a way to re-phrase my position but Lemond had already been a Tour
> winner by the time EPO was available, though I see your point. Lemond

"could
> have" had first hand experience with EPO but I don't think he has. I
> remember very well that those Dutch riders died and the speculation about
> what was causing those heart attacks. It was in the last few years that
> Lemond was racing.
>
> FWIW, I suspect Conconi and Ferrari as the first to experiment with EPO in
> managed doses to improve the performance of cyclists. Moser admitted to
> plenty of blood chemistry manipulation for his World Hour attempts in '84
> and in '94 and I recall that he admitted who advised him. There were

plenty
> of other high profile riders using the same medical advisors and winning
> lots of big races. If you look at results by nation, the Italians started

to
> dominate outside of Italy in the late eighties and early nineties. I am
> thinking that EPO was used by a select few cyclists almost as soon as it
> was available and became widespread among Italian teams by about 1990 and
> the rest of the European top teams by the mid '90s. I think Bugno used it
> regularly by the time he won the 1990 Giro (where he suddenly could ride
> away from everyone else seemingly at will) and that Indurain used it
> starting in the same year (when he was 12th in the Tour I think but
> demonstrated the power he needed to start winning in 1991 through 1995).
> Indurain was the first pet project of Conconi and Ferrari (selected as an
> amateur to use scientific training protocols once they were proven

effective
> at resurrecting Moser's career. he was selected because he had the power
> that Conconi calculated would allow him to dominate the Tour if they could
> maintain his power while taking 10 kilos from his weight. They planned to
> take 5 years and started to work with him in 1986, which is the season

that
> Indurain won the Tour of the Future). Lemond started to lose races

precisely
> when those that finished in front of him began to have access to EPO.

There
> could be other explanations but that is what I believe. I have been
> following Conconi et al since the Moser project.


Peter Winnen remarked a few times that he quit cycling once it was clear to
him that riders became faster if they were using EPO. The drug he confesses
to have used were mainly for 'recuperation'. Winnen quit in 1988, I think,
so I'm quite positive that the top riders were using EPO by 1989 or earlier.
This says nothing about Greg Lemond, ofcourse, but he must have been quite a
superman to have recovered from his accident and beat those riders using the
new wonder drug.
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does and

> > doesn't
> > > > > > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It

doesn't
> > make a
> > > > > > donkey into a thoroughbred."
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a man who has undeniably lied about doping, no vague

> > assumptions
> > > > > about jealousy, suspicious comments about why he would want to

make
> > money
> > > > or
> > > > > is vengeful about a job he lost, no, he has lied pure and simple,

> it's
> > > > been
> > > > > proven beyond reasonable doubt. With Millar on one side and Lemond

> on
> > the
> > > > > other, who is more reliable?
> > > >
> > > > Beside the fact that Lemond clearly has better and closer access to

> the
> > > > subject at hand with the single exception that Lemond has likely not

> had
> > > > first hand experience with using EPO in competition. I will trust

> Millar
> > > > when he says EPO won't turn you in to a TDF champ (duh). For the

rest
> of
> > the
> > > > issues, I will also defer to Lemond.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The first time I (a schmoe not connected with the pro scene) heard
> > > about EPO was in connection with the death of Johannes Draaier.
> > >
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/nov00/nov1news.shtml
> > >
> > > Even if EPO isn't attributed to his death, it means the pro cycling
> > > world was aware of EPO as a blood booster back then (89-90), so this
> > > talk that EPO "wasn't around" in Lemond's time is ********.

> >
> > I don't think I ever said that "EPO wasn't around in Lemond's time".

I'll
> > think of a way to re-phrase my position but Lemond had already been a

Tour
> > winner by the time EPO was available, though I see your point. Lemond

> "could
> > have" had first hand experience with EPO but I don't think he has. I
> > remember very well that those Dutch riders died and the speculation

about
> > what was causing those heart attacks. It was in the last few years that
> > Lemond was racing.
> >
> > FWIW, I suspect Conconi and Ferrari as the first to experiment with EPO

in
> > managed doses to improve the performance of cyclists. Moser admitted to
> > plenty of blood chemistry manipulation for his World Hour attempts in

'84
> > and in '94 and I recall that he admitted who advised him. There were

> plenty
> > of other high profile riders using the same medical advisors and winning
> > lots of big races. If you look at results by nation, the Italians

started
> to
> > dominate outside of Italy in the late eighties and early nineties. I am
> > thinking that EPO was used by a select few cyclists almost as soon as

it
> > was available and became widespread among Italian teams by about 1990

and
> > the rest of the European top teams by the mid '90s. I think Bugno used

it
> > regularly by the time he won the 1990 Giro (where he suddenly could ride
> > away from everyone else seemingly at will) and that Indurain used it
> > starting in the same year (when he was 12th in the Tour I think but
> > demonstrated the power he needed to start winning in 1991 through 1995).
> > Indurain was the first pet project of Conconi and Ferrari (selected as

an
> > amateur to use scientific training protocols once they were proven

> effective
> > at resurrecting Moser's career. he was selected because he had the power
> > that Conconi calculated would allow him to dominate the Tour if they

could
> > maintain his power while taking 10 kilos from his weight. They planned

to
> > take 5 years and started to work with him in 1986, which is the season

> that
> > Indurain won the Tour of the Future). Lemond started to lose races

> precisely
> > when those that finished in front of him began to have access to EPO.

> There
> > could be other explanations but that is what I believe. I have been
> > following Conconi et al since the Moser project.

>
> Peter Winnen remarked a few times that he quit cycling once it was clear

to
> him that riders became faster if they were using EPO. The drug he

confesses
> to have used were mainly for 'recuperation'. Winnen quit in 1988, I think,
> so I'm quite positive that the top riders were using EPO by 1989 or

earlier.
> This says nothing about Greg Lemond, ofcourse, but he must have been quite

a
> superman to have recovered from his accident and beat those riders using

the
> new wonder drug.


Winnen stopped in 1991. EPO was introduced in bicycle racing in 1988, but
intially only used in a relatively modest way. In 1991 - the year if the
sudden resurrection of Italian cycling - the use of it became more or less
widespread, but Van Hooydonck could still win the Tour de Flandres. From
1992 on it became more and more difficult, and from 1994 on, the year dr
Ferrari was precribing EPO to all of his patients (except Simeoni of
course!) first class riders who for some reason refused to take it, didn't
have no chance anymore to compete and were more or less forced to end their
career or fall back to a lower level (Delion, Van Hooydonck, Breukink,
etc.).

Benjo Maso
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Peter Winnen remarked a few times that he quit cycling once it was clear

to
> him that riders became faster if they were using EPO. The drug he

confesses
> to have used were mainly for 'recuperation'. Winnen quit in 1988, I think,
> so I'm quite positive that the top riders were using EPO by 1989 or

earlier.
> This says nothing about Greg Lemond, ofcourse, but he must have been quite

a
> superman to have recovered from his accident and beat those riders using

the
> new wonder drug.


It shows that truly talented riders can compete cleanly against lesser
talents even when the lesser talents are doped.

I think we are in agreement about the timing but not who had it. The facts
are not available to me beyond this and I am only noting that Ferrari and
Conconi had riders that miraculously gained a bit of power and consistency
at around the time you indicate. I think that the classics were effected
before the Tours. There is no logical reason for that to happen except that
the top Tour riders were not using the medical advisors that started all of
this until Indurain (and probably Delgado and around the same time). I am
thinking that Lemond was able to beat a doped Indurain and Delgado in '89
because Indurain was still too heavy and Delgado just was not good enough. I
think that by the early to mid 90s there were riders on each team that had
at least tried to use it because so many of the recent winners were thought
to be using it. What would you do if you saw another team that was so much
stronger than anyone else, they could place 3 guys in a break off the front
that nobody else even when combined against them could catch? That happened
at least twice that I recall. That sends quite a message. It was only the
Festina affair that finally caused any kind of reversal to show that there
was some risk to doping. Still, even during the period that I indicate had
the most users, there were riders that were able to win without dope.
Thankfully, the drug does not make such a radical difference that clean
riders can't possibly compete against doped riders, but anything that
influences the outcome illegally is obviously a bad thing.
 
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:qviPc.231112$Oq2.48312@attbi_s52...
> > > Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is a man who has undeniably lied about doping, no vague

> assumptions
> > > > about jealousy, suspicious comments about why he would want to make

> > money or
> > > > is vengeful about a job he lost, no, he has lied pure and simple,

it's
> > been
> > > > proven beyond reasonable doubt. With Millar on one side and Lemond

on
> > the
> > > > other, who is more reliable?
> > >
> > > I don't accept the premise that either of these guys:
> > > A) Has all the facts
> > > Or
> > > B) Is always 100% honest
> > >
> > > It's entirely possible they're both full of ****.

> >
> > I forgot to say that. I agree. I trust Lemond more than Millar and I

think
> > Millar knows only what he has seen. Lemond has been following the sport

> for
> > much longer and obviously was able to rise to the very top. Having said
> > that, I have been suspicious of many things stated by Lemond. I was

really
> > just pointing out that Lemond is more likely to be correct about a third
> > party than Millar, but maybe that point is not all that important. It is
> > frustrating for everyone in the sport to have these drug problems

> effecting
> > everyone's credibility.

>
> Lemond was and still is very well connected in Europe, especially with
> cycling people in Belgium. Perhaps he knows some of the non-rider staff
> people in the service of Postal. The Postal back room is very Belgian.


There are numerous reasons for my opinions but I just can't claim to know
for certain. One the one hand I can see Lemond is somewhat deluded but on
the other hand I really doubt he would be involved in outright deception. I
also think he is far more mature and responsible in his statements than
Millar is at this point. I really think that Millar's statements come from a
place of the same kind of Lance worship we see hear on RBR, except that he
hopes to keep as many employment opportunities open as possible. He also was
blown away by Lance's work ethic and all that really means is that Millar's
expectations of what it takes to make it as a top pro need to change if he
is going to make it without EPO. He needs to learn how to train, and
possibly even how to change a flat tire while out on the road so that he can
finish the day rather than call someone to drive him home. Looking back at
David's attitudes about that sort of thing make it really easy to believe
that his way of peaking for a big win was to plan his injections (and
probably rest a bit more).
 
"Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 1-Aug-2004, "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does and

doesn't
> > > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It doesn't make

a
> > > donkey into a thoroughbred."

> >
> > Seems like a silly comment to me. Sure you cant turn a donkey into a
> > thoroughbred, but you can trurn a very good horse into a better one (why
> > else would pros dope?), and that would be the issue. Not that I'm

saying
> > Lance is doping necessarily, just that Millars comment is silly and
> > meaningless.
> >
> > steve

>
> Well, even David wasn't aware he had been doping, until french police
> raided his house and reaquainted him with the mementos he had
> forgotten all about.
>
> I would agree with David on the point that he could recognize a rider
> who is on the stuff as a participant in a stage race is likely to have
> much move close observation of riders than someone sitting at home in
> their Lay-Z-Boy.
>
> Someone I've been suspicious of, in light of Manzano's allegations, is
> Botero. Up one day, down the next while with Kelme, not worth much of
> a damn on T-mobile.


Wait a minute, don't doping riders have more control over the timing of
their peaks? I think prior to the days of EPO, erratic performance might
have indicated doping (too much doping that did not always work as legend
had them believe) but EPO should make a rider better able to plan his peaks
and to recover. I think Botero relies too much on training protocols that
either can't easily be duplicated (altitude and temperature) or never were
ideal for him as he thought. He may have had great performances that he had
attributed to certain training protocols that he either could not replicate
or were not responsible for his great results as he had thought. Botero is a
very unusual athlete in that he has a very high but very inconsistent power
to weight ratio. He is probably one of the heaviest KoM winners of all time.
How many 72 kilo KoM winners can you name and then how many have also won
ITT Tour stages and World titles? The same dope that would assist him in
that would also help him recover better. OTOH, it could also be that he is
capable of putting out really great efforts at the expense of his recovery
and never really had the kind of recovery that you need to win a GT. When he
placed 4th in the Tour, is was on the strength of some very brilliant days
that overcame his several bad days (obviously relative to all but 3 others).

I realize your opinion is somewhat typical (to point to the occasionally
brilliant riders as likely dopers) but I really don't think you can
logically do that.
 
"Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 1-Aug-2004, "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does and

doesn't
> > > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It doesn't make

a
> > > donkey into a thoroughbred."

> >
> > Seems like a silly comment to me. Sure you cant turn a donkey into a
> > thoroughbred, but you can trurn a very good horse into a better one (why
> > else would pros dope?), and that would be the issue. Not that I'm

saying
> > Lance is doping necessarily, just that Millars comment is silly and
> > meaningless.
> >
> > steve

>
> Well, even David wasn't aware he had been doping, until french police
> raided his house and reaquainted him with the mementos he had
> forgotten all about.
>
> I would agree with David on the point that he could recognize a rider
> who is on the stuff as a participant in a stage race is likely to have
> much move close observation of riders than someone sitting at home in
> their Lay-Z-Boy.
>
> Someone I've been suspicious of, in light of Manzano's allegations, is
> Botero. Up one day, down the next while with Kelme, not worth much of
> a damn on T-mobile.


Wait a minute, don't doping riders have more control over the timing of
their peaks? I think prior to the days of EPO, erratic performance might
have indicated doping (too much doping that did not always work as legend
had them believe) but EPO should make a rider better able to plan his peaks
and to recover. I think Botero relies too much on training protocols that
either can't easily be duplicated (altitude and temperature) or never were
ideal for him as he thought. He may have had great performances that he had
attributed to certain training protocols that he either could not replicate
or were not responsible for his great results as he had thought. Botero is a
very unusual athlete in that he has a very high but very inconsistent power
to weight ratio. He is probably one of the heaviest KoM winners of all time.
How many 72 kilo KoM winners can you name and then how many have also won
ITT Tour stages and World titles? The same dope that would assist him in
that would also help him recover better. OTOH, it could also be that he is
capable of putting out really great efforts at the expense of his recovery
and never really had the kind of recovery that you need to win a GT. When he
placed 4th in the Tour, is was on the strength of some very brilliant days
that overcame his several bad days (obviously relative to all but 3 others).

I realize your opinion is somewhat typical (to point to the occasionally
brilliant riders as likely dopers) but I really don't think you can
logically do that.
 
"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Chris" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > > > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does

and
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It

> doesn't
> > > make a
> > > > > > > donkey into a thoroughbred."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is a man who has undeniably lied about doping, no vague
> > > assumptions
> > > > > > about jealousy, suspicious comments about why he would want to

> make
> > > money
> > > > > or
> > > > > > is vengeful about a job he lost, no, he has lied pure and

simple,
> > it's
> > > > > been
> > > > > > proven beyond reasonable doubt. With Millar on one side and

Lemond
> > on
> > > the
> > > > > > other, who is more reliable?
> > > > >
> > > > > Beside the fact that Lemond clearly has better and closer access

to
> > the
> > > > > subject at hand with the single exception that Lemond has likely

not
> > had
> > > > > first hand experience with using EPO in competition. I will trust

> > Millar
> > > > > when he says EPO won't turn you in to a TDF champ (duh). For the

> rest
> > of
> > > the
> > > > > issues, I will also defer to Lemond.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The first time I (a schmoe not connected with the pro scene) heard
> > > > about EPO was in connection with the death of Johannes Draaier.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/nov00/nov1news.shtml
> > > >
> > > > Even if EPO isn't attributed to his death, it means the pro cycling
> > > > world was aware of EPO as a blood booster back then (89-90), so this
> > > > talk that EPO "wasn't around" in Lemond's time is ********.
> > >
> > > I don't think I ever said that "EPO wasn't around in Lemond's time".

> I'll
> > > think of a way to re-phrase my position but Lemond had already been a

> Tour
> > > winner by the time EPO was available, though I see your point. Lemond

> > "could
> > > have" had first hand experience with EPO but I don't think he has. I
> > > remember very well that those Dutch riders died and the speculation

> about
> > > what was causing those heart attacks. It was in the last few years

that
> > > Lemond was racing.
> > >
> > > FWIW, I suspect Conconi and Ferrari as the first to experiment with

EPO
> in
> > > managed doses to improve the performance of cyclists. Moser admitted

to
> > > plenty of blood chemistry manipulation for his World Hour attempts in

> '84
> > > and in '94 and I recall that he admitted who advised him. There were

> > plenty
> > > of other high profile riders using the same medical advisors and

winning
> > > lots of big races. If you look at results by nation, the Italians

> started
> > to
> > > dominate outside of Italy in the late eighties and early nineties. I

am
> > > thinking that EPO was used by a select few cyclists almost as soon as

> it
> > > was available and became widespread among Italian teams by about 1990

> and
> > > the rest of the European top teams by the mid '90s. I think Bugno used

> it
> > > regularly by the time he won the 1990 Giro (where he suddenly could

ride
> > > away from everyone else seemingly at will) and that Indurain used it
> > > starting in the same year (when he was 12th in the Tour I think but
> > > demonstrated the power he needed to start winning in 1991 through

1995).
> > > Indurain was the first pet project of Conconi and Ferrari (selected as

> an
> > > amateur to use scientific training protocols once they were proven

> > effective
> > > at resurrecting Moser's career. he was selected because he had the

power
> > > that Conconi calculated would allow him to dominate the Tour if they

> could
> > > maintain his power while taking 10 kilos from his weight. They planned

> to
> > > take 5 years and started to work with him in 1986, which is the season

> > that
> > > Indurain won the Tour of the Future). Lemond started to lose races

> > precisely
> > > when those that finished in front of him began to have access to EPO.

> > There
> > > could be other explanations but that is what I believe. I have been
> > > following Conconi et al since the Moser project.

> >
> > Peter Winnen remarked a few times that he quit cycling once it was clear

> to
> > him that riders became faster if they were using EPO. The drug he

> confesses
> > to have used were mainly for 'recuperation'. Winnen quit in 1988, I

think,
> > so I'm quite positive that the top riders were using EPO by 1989 or

> earlier.
> > This says nothing about Greg Lemond, ofcourse, but he must have been

quite
> a
> > superman to have recovered from his accident and beat those riders using

> the
> > new wonder drug.

>
> Winnen stopped in 1991. EPO was introduced in bicycle racing in 1988, but
> intially only used in a relatively modest way. In 1991 - the year if the
> sudden resurrection of Italian cycling - the use of it became more or less
> widespread, but Van Hooydonck could still win the Tour de Flandres. From
> 1992 on it became more and more difficult, and from 1994 on, the year dr
> Ferrari was precribing EPO to all of his patients (except Simeoni of
> course!) first class riders who for some reason refused to take it, didn't
> have no chance anymore to compete and were more or less forced to end

their
> career or fall back to a lower level (Delion, Van Hooydonck, Breukink,
> etc.).
>
> Benjo Maso


Why would you think that the above mentioned riders were clean? Maybe they
didn't take EPO or whatever but what about Breukink's time at PDM? I just
don't know how you can say this rider took this, and this rider was clean
etc. I raced in Switzerland at the time Delion was there and I heard a
rumour that he and Pascal Richard were the two biggest dope fiends going. I
used to catch flak from my team mates when I said they were clean. I would
like to believe that my heroes; Lemond, Bauer, Hinault were all clean.
Unfortunately, I can't say that they were clean or were doped with any
degree of certainty. There were lots of drugs that were effective before
EPO that I've SEEN guys take. Everything in this thread is pure speculation.

James Spooner
 
"James P. Spooner" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:TATPc.19$M95.16@pd7tw1no...
>
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >

(snip)


> > Winnen stopped in 1991. EPO was introduced in bicycle racing in 1988,

but
> > intially only used in a relatively modest way. In 1991 - the year if the
> > sudden resurrection of Italian cycling - the use of it became more or

less
> > widespread, but Van Hooydonck could still win the Tour de Flandres. From
> > 1992 on it became more and more difficult, and from 1994 on, the year dr
> > Ferrari was precribing EPO to all of his patients (except Simeoni of
> > course!) first class riders who for some reason refused to take it,

didn't
> > have no chance anymore to compete and were more or less forced to end

> their
> > career or fall back to a lower level (Delion, Van Hooydonck, Breukink,
> > etc.).
> >
> > Benjo Maso

>
> Why would you think that the above mentioned riders were clean? Maybe

they
> didn't take EPO or whatever but what about Breukink's time at PDM? I

just
> don't know how you can say this rider took this, and this rider was clean
> etc. I raced in Switzerland at the time Delion was there and I heard a
> rumour that he and Pascal Richard were the two biggest dope fiends going.

I
> used to catch flak from my team mates when I said they were clean. I

would
> like to believe that my heroes; Lemond, Bauer, Hinault were all clean.
> Unfortunately, I can't say that they were clean or were doped with any
> degree of certainty. There were lots of drugs that were effective before
> EPO that I've SEEN guys take. Everything in this thread is pure

speculation.


I didn't say that they were "clean", I said they didn't use Epo. You
probably know that several riders who hadn't had any trouble taking
whatsoever, baulked at taking Epo, not because they got religion, but
because they were afraid of the consequences for their health. After all,
the first reports were pretty scary. And concerning Delion, Van Hooydonck,
Breukink, I think I got rather good information.

Benjo Maso
 
"Chris" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > On 1-Aug-2004, "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "I know who does and who doesn't and I know what doping does and

> doesn't
> > > > do," said Millar, "and there are no miracle products. It doesn't

make
> a
> > > > donkey into a thoroughbred."
> > >
> > > Seems like a silly comment to me. Sure you cant turn a donkey into a
> > > thoroughbred, but you can trurn a very good horse into a better one

(why
> > > else would pros dope?), and that would be the issue. Not that I'm

> saying
> > > Lance is doping necessarily, just that Millars comment is silly and
> > > meaningless.
> > >
> > > steve

> >
> > Well, even David wasn't aware he had been doping, until french police
> > raided his house and reaquainted him with the mementos he had
> > forgotten all about.
> >
> > I would agree with David on the point that he could recognize a rider
> > who is on the stuff as a participant in a stage race is likely to have
> > much move close observation of riders than someone sitting at home in
> > their Lay-Z-Boy.
> >
> > Someone I've been suspicious of, in light of Manzano's allegations, is
> > Botero. Up one day, down the next while with Kelme, not worth much of
> > a damn on T-mobile.

>
> Wait a minute, don't doping riders have more control over the timing of
> their peaks? I think prior to the days of EPO, erratic performance might
> have indicated doping (too much doping that did not always work as legend
> had them believe) but EPO should make a rider better able to plan his

peaks
> and to recover. I think Botero relies too much on training protocols that
> either can't easily be duplicated (altitude and temperature) or never were
> ideal for him as he thought. He may have had great performances that he

had
> attributed to certain training protocols that he either could not

replicate
> or were not responsible for his great results as he had thought. Botero is

a
> very unusual athlete in that he has a very high but very inconsistent

power
> to weight ratio. He is probably one of the heaviest KoM winners of all

time.
> How many 72 kilo KoM winners can you name and then how many have also won
> ITT Tour stages and World titles?



Eddy Merckx weighted 76 kilo.


Benjo Maso
 
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<410ea5b6$0$73183
> >
> > Even if EPO isn't attributed to his death, it means the pro cycling
> > world was aware of EPO as a blood booster back then (89-90), so this
> > talk that EPO "wasn't around" in Lemond's time is ********.

>
> I don't think I ever said that "EPO wasn't around in Lemond's time". I'll
> think of a way to re-phrase my position but Lemond had already been a Tour
> winner by the time EPO was available, though I see your point. Lemond "could
> have" had first hand experience with EPO but I don't think he has.


Yes, I didn't mean you specifically, but Lemond and others say EPO
wasn't around in cycling in his time.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I didn't say that they were "clean", I said they didn't use Epo. You
> probably know that several riders who hadn't had any trouble taking
> whatsoever, baulked at taking Epo, not because they got religion, but
> because they were afraid of the consequences for their health. After all,
> the first reports were pretty scary. And concerning Delion, Van Hooydonck,
> Breukink, I think I got rather good information.
>
> Benjo Maso


Wasn't Breukink on the PDM team in the 1993 TdF. I had always more or
less assumed that the whole incident had been EPO-related. Do you know
what had caused so many PDM riders to drop out of the Tour that year?

jyh.

--
=====================================================================
jean-yves herve' /\
Department of Computer Science \/ e-mail --> [email protected]
and Statistics /\
University of Rhode Island \/ Tel. --> (401) 874-4400
Kingston, RI 02881-0816 /\ Fax. --> (401) 874-4617
USA \/
=====================================================================
 
"jean-yves hervé" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that they were "clean", I said they didn't use Epo. You
> > probably know that several riders who hadn't had any trouble taking
> > whatsoever, baulked at taking Epo, not because they got religion, but
> > because they were afraid of the consequences for their health. After

all,
> > the first reports were pretty scary. And concerning Delion, Van

Hooydonck,
> > Breukink, I think I got rather good information.
> >
> > Benjo Maso

>
> Wasn't Breukink on the PDM team in the 1993 TdF. I had always more or
> less assumed that the whole incident had been EPO-related. Do you know
> what had caused so many PDM riders to drop out of the Tour that year?



It wasn't in 1993, but in 1991. It's remotely possible it had something to
do with EPO (that was at least the theory of the French doctor Jean-Daniel
Fleysakier), but not very likely: EPO shouldn't have been injected at least
a week before the start of the Tour. So it was quite probable the cause of
the collective illness was indeed infected intrapelid, as the PDM-team
claimed. But that didn't mean it hadn't something to with doping. On the
contrary. Itrapelid is quite useless as a remedy to make good a shortage of
energy (that was the the justification of the team doctor), but - according
the German doping specialist Manfred Dönicke - quite effective to mask the
use of testerone.

Benjo Maso
 
[email protected] (Richard Adams) wrote in message


> Someone I've been suspicious of, in light of Manzano's allegations, is
> Botero. Up one day, down the next while with Kelme, not worth much of
> a damn on T-mobile.


Kelme has been the source of amazing depth over the last few years
(which may or may not have to do with doping).

In addition to Botero, Heras, Aitor Gonzales, Sevilla, Valverde, the
unfortunate Ochoa, Rubiera even, and many other solid riders.