Ulrich, apparent doper



Status
Not open for further replies.
patch70 said:
At least Eddy attacked!

In 2004, apparently Lance led into the wind for a total of 8km (apart from TT's). Eddy would never have wanted to win a Tour like that.
Eddy did not attack all the time. And if you read history of the sport you will know why attacks such as Eddy's was allowed to go as often as they did. The racing from that era was different. Today there are more specialists with Armstrong , JU and other top riders concentrating solely on the TDF. That was not the case back in the other era. Also Merckx's team mates were never allowed to win a stage unless they were in the break with him, and he gifted it......
LA did not invent the TT winning type of racing.........Indurain did, with Lemond also capitolizing on it.... The only attacker we have had in the last 30 years was Pantani..... We have to look back to Hinault to see a attacker win the race without being the strongest TT'er.

The radios alone today will not allow a atttack get too far away.

Eddy's style of winning would not work today. If Eddy was racing, he would win. But he would win the way Indurain & Armstrong won......
But , I will agree with you that the racing back then was more exciting....
 
delgado attacked heavily even while in yellow in 87 and 88. he was a better time trialer than pantani, and pantani the better climber, but their style was similar.
 
limerickman said:
Speak for yourself.

You weren't basically agreeing with me.





That's right - you weren't there.

And if he was doping pre EPO era and doping post EPO era (and you've said he doped throughout his career in your earlier "contribution"), why didn't his race performances increases incrementally between eras?




Yeah his record was disasterous after 1997.........if you exclude his 5 TDF 2nd placings, his 1999 Vuelta win, his Tour de Suisse wins, his Olympics victories.........




When riders suddenly improved, you mean?
As in donkeys become Ferrari's?

Still doesn't manage to answer why JU's times/speeds didn't fluctuate throughout his career.

ummm, Lim you seem off your game.
Even by your usual standards of twisted logic you make no sense.

You assert Jan's times remained the same 93-2006, well maybe its because he doped the whole time, right, and had no where to go up to. What about that is hard to see?

And besides, you'll have to dig up a time trial or hillclimb from 1992 and compare to 2001-2006 and compare to prove the fact that his times remained the same--assuning you mean 92 was pre-EPO. But who is to say the East Germans werent blood doping then too, right?

And most endurance athletes actually improve from age 20 to age 30.
Dont you find it odd that his performance maxed out in 1997?
You can go back and check the VAMs in 97 TdF and 98. I believe although I could be wrong that his fastest time up the Alpe was 98.

At any rate irrelevant, we can use recorded times on climbs and they can vary a lot, but the man got no better after age 23-24, which is unusual for an endurance athlete. Dont you find that odd? I am not sure whether that supports a clean or doped athlete, be my guest.
 
bobke said:
..........

And besides, you'll have to dig up a time trial or hillclimb from 1992 and compare to 2001-2006 and compare to prove the fact that his times remained the same--assuning you mean 92 was pre-EPO.

........
This relates a question that I have. In Lemond's interview, I recall that he identified somewhere around 1990-1992 (I don't remember the exact year) as the time when power outputs jumped by 25% or more. He stated that the ability of a rider to consistently produce 400W+ of output power day-in and day-out over the course of a GT was an unbelievable increase, the likes of which had never been seen in the history of cycling. Do we actually have data that shows JU could accomplish that feat prior to the 1990-1992 time period referenced by Lemond? Lemond wasn't talking about peak output in a laboratory or at the end of a single stage, but repeatable performances over the course of an event like the TdF. Is there actually any data that shows JU could do this before 1990-1992? If there is, then it would discredit Lemond's claims to a large extent and I'd be interested to know about it.
 
Blood doping is not a new thing...... It was a concept that was used by Americans way back when.

The blood doping in the 1984 Olympics by the Americans can be traced back to a Polish coach that came from the same program as most Russians. America's cyclists flourished under him. [And Greg Lemond still considers him a close friend. ] And it wouldn't be right to say doping was the only reason for America's success, because before this coach appeared there was no direction in American cycling. American cycling could only go up.


When you study blood doping, it was around since the early 70's in endurance sports. The eastern bloc athletes were rumoured to be under systematic doping programs. Blood doping has been with us for years. Think about the time frame when the wall came down and eastern bloc coaches skilled in blood doping flooded Europe and then look at the time frame when the power outouts jumped dramatically....... Just speculation on my part.


But in America, our top coach pushed hard for it's use. He was getting the attention he sought with Lemond's success and others getting recognition.Another person behind this blood doping program was ED Burke, a name most older American cyclists will remember. [America's cycling guru for training advice. Pre-Carmichael] Our USCF board whitewashed this program when discovered. [Similar to UCI ?] Our coach was quoted....
" “Blood doping is legal and should be a personal matter left up to the athlete.”"

I wonder which of his athletes showed a great jump of performance all of a sudden , then moved to Europe and at young age showed the Europeans how to ride the TDF? [Hint .....It wsn't Armstrong. He came later.] And another one at a young age who made the TDF podium and went on to win the Giro. Nothing but speculation here......


Now, just because their coach here in the states believed in blood doping, had a start in a documented systematic blood doping program, and was instrumental in their beginning success does not mean that Lemond and pretty boy Andy had anything to do with it. They told us they were clean.

Like "flyer" used to say...."Connect the dots." So when athletes are connected to doping coaches,consider Lemonds main coach one of the architects of blood doping in the US....... And Lemond was his personal triumph. This coach is considered the "Father of Modern American Cycling."


Also remember that the US was years ahead of Europe when it came to systematic blood doping.


I personally knew the doctor who gave these blood transfusions at the 1984 Olympics. He was a neighbor of mine for a period of time and active with us cyclists in my area.

Now my ex-good neighbor and fellow pack rider has a pedigree in cardiology and cycling doctorism........ His resume is as follows. .......

Team Physician/Consultant

for the Following Teams at Regional and National Events 1996-2005
________________________________________________
U.S. Postal Service Team 1989-present
Your Name Here Triathlon Team 1988-1995
Subaru Montgomery Bicycle Racing Team 1985-1992
Cycles Veloce Bicycle Racing Team 1973-1984
Levi-Raleigh Bicycle Team

After this 1984 blood doping was exposed, and remember it really wasn't illegal at the time in the Olympics or cycling, many within the USCF wanted this stopped. Behind closed doors, deals were cut. Even theough Sports Illustrated and the NY Times did stories on this with documentation , no one paid attention. Doping was a non-issue at the time here in the states. {maybe similar to today]

And now we are in 2007 and heads are starting to roll. And sometimes pictures are rather revealing......
Greg and Eddy B
LemondEddyB.jpg

Eddy B and several eastern bloc riders. Do you think they discussed the vampirism of the old world? The next picture is Eric Zabel, Eddie B and Jan Ullrich at Eddies house, thanksgiving 2001,

EB_Zabel_Ullrich_S.jpg



image002.jpg

So when you say that "this particular rider is clean, " you need to know his background , his coaches, and why did he suddenly go from a very good rider that leaves the pack behind.
 
fbircher said:
This relates a question that I have. In Lemond's interview, I recall that he identified somewhere around 1990-1992 (I don't remember the exact year) as the time when power outputs jumped by 25% or more. He stated that the ability of a rider to consistently produce 400W+ of output power day-in and day-out over the course of a GT was an unbelievable increase, the likes of which had never been seen in the history of cycling. Do we actually have data that shows JU could accomplish that feat prior to the 1990-1992 time period referenced by Lemond? Lemond wasn't talking about peak output in a laboratory or at the end of a single stage, but repeatable performances over the course of an event like the TdF. Is there actually any data that shows JU could do this before 1990-1992? If there is, then it would discredit Lemond's claims to a large extent and I'd be interested to know about it.
As French, we regularly use Vayer 's work, he has "measured" power of riders, some of his datas are here :
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
It's in french but there is some charts and number which are easy understandable by all.
i.e
etapes%20longues_20060711180742.jpg
 
tcklyde said:
This is ridculous!!! The French have been out to frame Ullrich ever since Lance hugged Ullrich at his going away party in 2005! My riding partner knows a guy who is friends with Tyler's cousin and he said that the same guy that killed Tugboat with a blowgun in 2004 also performed the DNA test of Ullrich's DNA. Coincidence? Not! Plus, L'Equipe hates the Germans ever since that thing with the Maginot Line. Plus, DNA testing does not work ... just look at OJ! I bet you anything Walsh and Pound are behind this. Also, this has Betsy Andreau's fingerprints all over it.

You people who keep testing DNA for dope cheats are destroying the sport. They are all innocent, Lance says so!

FREE JAN!!!!!!!!

hilarious! :D
 
wolfix said:
Blood doping is not a new thing...... It was a concept that was used by Americans way back when.

The blood doping in the 1984 Olympics by the Americans can be traced back to a Polish coach that came from the same program as most Russians. America's cyclists flourished under him. [And Greg Lemond still considers him a close friend. ] And it wouldn't be right to say doping was the only reason for America's success, because before this coach appeared there was no direction in American cycling. American cycling could only go up.


When you study blood doping, it was around since the early 70's in endurance sports. The eastern bloc athletes were rumoured to be under systematic doping programs. Blood doping has been with us for years. Think about the time frame when the wall came down and eastern bloc coaches skilled in blood doping flooded Europe and then look at the time frame when the power outouts jumped dramatically....... Just speculation on my part.


But in America, our top coach pushed hard for it's use. He was getting the attention he sought with Lemond's success and others getting recognition.Another person behind this blood doping program was ED Burke, a name most older American cyclists will remember. [America's cycling guru for training advice. Pre-Carmichael] Our USCF board whitewashed this program when discovered. [Similar to UCI ?] Our coach was quoted....
" “Blood doping is legal and should be a personal matter left up to the athlete.”"

I wonder which of his athletes showed a great jump of performance all of a sudden , then moved to Europe and at young age showed the Europeans how to ride the TDF? [Hint .....It wsn't Armstrong. He came later.] And another one at a young age who made the TDF podium and went on to win the Giro. Nothing but speculation here......


Now, just because their coach here in the states believed in blood doping, had a start in a documented systematic blood doping program, and was instrumental in their beginning success does not mean that Lemond and pretty boy Andy had anything to do with it. They told us they were clean.

Like "flyer" used to say...."Connect the dots." So when athletes are connected to doping coaches,consider Lemonds main coach one of the architects of blood doping in the US....... And Lemond was his personal triumph. This coach is considered the "Father of Modern American Cycling."


Also remember that the US was years ahead of Europe when it came to systematic blood doping.


I personally knew the doctor who gave these blood transfusions at the 1984 Olympics. He was a neighbor of mine for a period of time and active with us cyclists in my area.

Now my ex-good neighbor and fellow pack rider has a pedigree in cardiology and cycling doctorism........ His resume is as follows. .......

Team Physician/Consultant

for the Following Teams at Regional and National Events 1996-2005
________________________________________________
U.S. Postal Service Team 1989-present
Your Name Here Triathlon Team 1988-1995
Subaru Montgomery Bicycle Racing Team 1985-1992
Cycles Veloce Bicycle Racing Team 1973-1984
Levi-Raleigh Bicycle Team

After this 1984 blood doping was exposed, and remember it really wasn't illegal at the time in the Olympics or cycling, many within the USCF wanted this stopped. Behind closed doors, deals were cut. Even theough Sports Illustrated and the NY Times did stories on this with documentation , no one paid attention. Doping was a non-issue at the time here in the states. {maybe similar to today]

And now we are in 2007 and heads are starting to roll. And sometimes pictures are rather revealing......
Greg and Eddy B
LemondEddyB.jpg

Eddy B and several eastern bloc riders. Do you think they discussed the vampirism of the old world? The next picture is Eric Zabel, Eddie B and Jan Ullrich at Eddies house, thanksgiving 2001,

EB_Zabel_Ullrich_S.jpg



image002.jpg

So when you say that "this particular rider is clean, " you need to know his background , his coaches, and why did he suddenly go from a very good rider that leaves the pack behind.

Good post.
BTW, were you there at the Thanksgiving dinner?
I know someone very well who was there a friend and fellow professional of Eddy B's. Just wondering since I dont want to out anyone here.

THe US Olympic blood doping story is old and unfortunate but I think most have gone on and learned from their mistakes. Wasn't it technically legal then?

Which is where I think the sport needs to go. I mean it is ridiculous for Jan to be excoriated and trotted out in public like this--given the widespread likely use of all of these techniques by many or most riders. But unfortunately that is where our culture is these days. The blame game.

I really hope some cooler heads prevail and they manage to find a way to keep the sport and spectacle going.

Interesting graph on those power outputs although again, are those number for real and where do they come from etc etc.
I find the Arcalis beating Lance's Alpe curious. Ferari's VAMs generate higher ascents when the gradient is steeper and of course the steeper gradient requires higher power output. Just wondering...
But then again Ullrich on Arcalis was something like we have never seen. Especially when you consider he was dropping a Virenque and Fesina doped to the gills. (Although that year there were health checks but maybe only at the beginnign or did they do them throughout the race?)

\Can someone reference that graph? Or is it stolen off Betsy Andreu's computer by Lance's secret service?
 
poulidor said:
As French, we regularly use Vayer 's work, he has "measured" power of riders, some of his datas are here :
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
It's in french but there is some charts and number which are easy understandable by all.
i.e
etapes%20longues_20060711180742.jpg
Thanks for this great link, Poulidor. It certainly appears that "something big happened" in the 1990-1993 time period. It has been claimed that JU's performances prior to this period were just the same as they were after, which would imply that whatever "big thing" everybody else used to boost their performance doesn't apply to him. I'm curious if you've ever seen any data showing JU's pre-1990 power output in the middle of a multi-stage race to be equal to these 430W+ outputs that became commonplace after the big change?

There is no question that he could destroy the people he was competing against prior to the 1990 time period, but that in itself doesn't establish that his absolute power output didn't increase. And for the purpose of this discussion, it's only absloute power output that matters. Absoulte power-producing capacity, after many hard days of racing in real-world conditions.
 
limerickman said:
It's not unreasonable to speculate on that basis.
Which goes back to the point - Ullrich's career traverses both eras : yet his speed/power output remain consistent.
Ulllrich's career didn't even cme close to traverse both era's. If EPO was considered to be started in 1990, JU was only 16 years old at the time. JU never hit the pro tour until EPO was already there. He did not even become a professional until 1994. The year he won the amateur World Champ was the same year LA was Professional World Championship. Lemond and JU never rode in a race together. Two complete different era's... He never really won much in his first 2 years as a pro....... It was not a great start. Except for his placing 3rd at the Worlds in the TT...... That was evidence that he was strong...... But his first years was nothing to write home about.....
Jan did not burst upon the cycling scene. He had a few top 10's in the TD Suiss. He did ride to greatness in his first TDF. But we have to question why JU showed no potential as a stage racer in his first years as a pro. He abandoned the Vuelta, he placed 3rd in a German race where they sent riders that did not ride the TDF.
I see nothing in his results to show great potential as a GT rider... Until he hooked up with Riis.....



But going back to the attitude that the Lemond era of drugs did not give the riders the big advantage....... The use of amphetimes was not the only thing being used...... Steroids give a tremendous advantage.And they were being used. Blood boosting, which is no different then what JU was busted for was being used.

Why is the blood boosting today so wrong, but back then it was not that big of an advantage?

And when the mechanics of blood boosting back then are looked at, you realize that it had to be done by the top riders only given the logstics and cost. The team would know about it too....... And in stage racing, blood boosting gives new life to a rider on a daily basis when needed....... Blood boosting would not give you more power, but would help the recovery process, which is important in stage racing......
One of the reasons that it was rare to get caught for blood boosting back then was there was no test.

If the truth ever comes out about the 1980's, we will see blood boosting was far more prevalent then we thought. I don't miss Flyer, but he was right on when he said........."connect the dots."

Another thing to think about....... I'm convinced that every consistent top rider who was a stage racer doped. Assuming this is true, I wonder what riders had great potential but did not go along with the teams pressure to dope???? Riders who had moments of glory, but were soon forgotten.....
When the discussion that goes on this board about "if doping is wrong"...... This is what makes it wrong. A rider who does not dope, gets left at home....And that is wrong.
 
fbircher said:
Thanks for this great link, Poulidor.
De rien !:)
fbircher said:
'm curious if you've ever seen any data showing JU's pre-1990 power output in the middle of a multi-stage race to be equal to these 430W+ outputs that became commonplace after the big change?
No.
fbircher said:
There is no question that he could destroy the people he was competing against prior to the 1990 time period, but that in itself doesn't establish that his absolute power output didn't increase. And for the purpose of this discussion, it's only absloute power output that matters. Absoulte power-producing capacity, after many hard days of racing in real-world conditions.
On the link, you find the average output power. This power is evaluate with a weight of 75kg (rider +bicycle). The study is most interresting for see evolution along the years. Focusing only on a ponctual power could be a little false.
Vayer has noted that Armstrong never has his maximum output power, he was consciencious to not do too much... it's why I has never wanted to do hour record.
 
wolfix said:
I personally knew the doctor who gave these blood transfusions at the 1984 Olympics. He was a neighbor of mine for a period of time and active with us cyclists in my area.

Hey, I knew him too - although long before the 1984 Olympics... actually I was friends with his son and a couple times I got to drive his Porsche. BTW, PEDs were not the substance of choice for us back then.
 
Bro Deal said:
I am betting that with confirmation of Ullrich's guilt, the ASO will not allow Basso to start the Tour. I am also betting that more info will leak out.
I hope you're right. But I keep thinking about Virenque riding in 1999 Tour.
 
wolfix said:
Ulllrich's career didn't even cme close to traverse both era's. If EPO was considered to be started in 1990, JU was only 16 years old at the time. JU never hit the pro tour until EPO was already there. He did not even become a professional until 1994. The year he won the amateur World Champ was the same year LA was Professional World Championship. Lemond and JU never rode in a race together. Two complete different era's... He never really won much in his first 2 years as a pro....... It was not a great start. Except for his placing 3rd at the Worlds in the TT...... That was evidence that he was strong...... But his first years was nothing to write home about.....
Jan did not burst upon the cycling scene. He had a few top 10's in the TD Suiss. He did ride to greatness in his first TDF. But we have to question why JU showed no potential as a stage racer in his first years as a pro. He abandoned the Vuelta, he placed 3rd in a German race where they sent riders that did not ride the TDF.
I see nothing in his results to show great potential as a GT rider... Until he hooked up with Riis.....



But going back to the attitude that the Lemond era of drugs did not give the riders the big advantage....... The use of amphetimes was not the only thing being used...... Steroids give a tremendous advantage.And they were being used. Blood boosting, which is no different then what JU was busted for was being used.

Why is the blood boosting today so wrong, but back then it was not that big of an advantage?

And when the mechanics of blood boosting back then are looked at, you realize that it had to be done by the top riders only given the logstics and cost. The team would know about it too....... And in stage racing, blood boosting gives new life to a rider on a daily basis when needed....... Blood boosting would not give you more power, but would help the recovery process, which is important in stage racing......
One of the reasons that it was rare to get caught for blood boosting back then was there was no test.

If the truth ever comes out about the 1980's, we will see blood boosting was far more prevalent then we thought. I don't miss Flyer, but he was right on when he said........."connect the dots."

Another thing to think about....... I'm convinced that every consistent top rider who was a stage racer doped. Assuming this is true, I wonder what riders had great potential but did not go along with the teams pressure to dope???? Riders who had moments of glory, but were soon forgotten.....
When the discussion that goes on this board about "if doping is wrong"...... This is what makes it wrong. A rider who does not dope, gets left at home....And that is wrong.
Thanks for the feedback; I always appreciate your insights and your background knowledge of the sport. wrt to Lemond’s claims about the “modern” era of doping, he never claimed (that I am aware) that doping didn’t exist pre-EPO, or that riders didn’t gain an advantage by resorting to it. What he claimed is that power outputs pre-EPO were low enough that clean competitors could still win. His own sub-400W capacity was more than enough to win the TdF. Post EPO, cyclists throughout the peleton were blowing away sub-400W guys such as himself. The change was so significant that competitors who previously had no shot at beating the frontrunners were blowing him away and turning in unheard of performances. Whether this was all the result of EPO, or other modern advances in doping is irrelevant. What matters is that at some point in the very early 90’s, the state of the art in doping technology improved to the point where the available performance boost restructured the hierarchy of cycling.



If these claims by Lemond are true, then it means the primary differentiating factor in race outcomes today is variation in doping success, whereas that wasn’t the case most of the time before. Doping certainly existed before, and Lemond may even have resorted to some form of it, but it wasn’t the primary deciding factor in determining who won. Either the effect was roughly equal across the group of cyclists practicing it, or else the boost was small enough that raw talent could nevertheless overcome it. When you think about it in terms of pure mathematics, it makes sense. The bigger the boost that is available from a given artificial method, the more true it will be that a variation of X% in boost effectiveness from one guy to the next will produce a tangible difference in results. X% of a big number is more significant than X% of a small one. The bigger the boost, the more likely it is that subtle variations will have a non-negligible impact on results. And the more true it will be that everybody who wants a shot at winning will be forced play dirty to stay in the game. When it gets to the point where doping is THE primary differntiating factor in determining who wins, then the essential characteristic of athletic competition has been stripped away. Lemond's comments suggest that cycling is just about there right now.
 
wolfix said:
Ulllrich's career didn't even cme close to traverse both era's. If EPO was considered to be started in 1990, JU was only 16 years old at the time. JU never hit the pro tour until EPO was already there. He did not even become a professional until 1994.

You're incorrect to state that JU didn't become a professional until 1994.
Ullrich became a professional in 1995.

If you read my replies, I stated that JU destroyed fields while racing as an amateur and as a professional.
And as you point out, JU wasn't a professional prior to 1994 (1995).

I attended international races in the early 1990's when JU was racing as an amateur and he was way ahead of the guys he raced against.
That was one of the points I made earlier.

EPO?
We're in to the realms of speculation, Wolf.
EPO is rumoured to have hit the professional peloton in 1991/2.
Guessing here, but I would think that EPO was not present throughout the entire professional peloton and it certainly wasn't in the amateur ranks during
1990-1994 for a number of reasons, such as the costs and availibility (of EPO).

wolfix said:
The year he won the amateur World Champ was the same year LA was Professional World Championship. Lemond and JU never rode in a race together. Two complete different era's...

I never said LeMond and JU rode together.

I stated that JU's amateur career and his performances as an amateur and subsequent performances as a professional were consistent.

wolfix said:
... He never really won much in his first 2 years as a pro....... It was not a great start. Except for his placing 3rd at the Worlds in the TT...... That was evidence that he was strong...... But his first years was nothing to write home about.....
.

He never really won much in his first 2 years as a pro??
Wolf - the man turned professional in 1995 and he finished second in his first TDF in 1996!

wolfix said:
Jan did not burst upon the cycling scene.

........you agreed earlier that he won the world amateur championship - which he won in 1993.
Youngest world amateur champion ever at that time.

In 1993 he won the Pacific Commenwealth Bank Tour stage race in Australia.
He finished 7th in the Reggio Tour that year as well.
He won the Bohemia Tour Crystal Cup race in that year as well.

If you follow his career through 1994 - he won races all round him too.
As an amateur.
So to say that JU didn't burst on to the scene isn't correct.


wolfix said:
But we have to question why JU showed no potential as a stage racer in his first years as a pro. He abandoned the Vuelta, he placed 3rd in a German race where they sent riders that did not ride the TDF.
I see nothing in his results to show great potential as a GT rider... Until he hooked up with Riis.....

Well you need to get your eyesight checked if you can't see any potential as a GT rider.

1993/1994 JU showed his potential in spades, Wolf.
The guy was cleaning up.

He turned professional in 1995 - finished second in the Tour of Limousin, 12th in the Tour of Bourgos, 21st in the Tour of Switzerland : that is pretty good going for a neopro.

1996 he finished second in his first TDF.

wolfix said:
Another thing to think about....... I'm convinced that every consistent top rider who was a stage racer doped. Assuming this is true, I wonder what riders had great potential but did not go along with the teams pressure to dope???? Riders who had moments of glory, but were soon forgotten.....
When the discussion that goes on this board about "if doping is wrong"...... This is what makes it wrong. A rider who does not dope, gets left at home....And that is wrong.

Charly Mottet is generally accepted as having riden clean throughout his career.

As for your view on doping - I disagree.
Call me naive, but IMHO doping is wrong.
 
I'm just guessing here, but I imagine the difference in doping from 1990 on had to do with the skilled use of several types of peds.....With the addition of EPO. I do believe the pro racing we see today is the result of selective races in where the team/DS/coach decides to "elevate" the cyclist. Even the dopers do not dope all the time... Pick your race........ Then dope. What science has done is make the better athletes better. It simply has widened the gap between great athletes and mediocre athletes. LA and JU were great athletes before the dope... Dope will not make a mediocre athlete into a great athlete if the other athletes are doping too......

Something else has happened that has allowed the UCI to get away with their attitude of looking away...... Back in Eddy's day the races were more of a national showcase for their riders..... The French wanted French winners.The Italians wanted Italian winners. And the hardmen of thr north wanted Belgium winners.....****And so forth. Even though there still was a mix of nationalities at every race, outsiders were looked at closer then the locals. Merckx has always claimed his Giro doping suspension was a set-up. It may have been...... Eddy was the most disliked cyclist in every country outside of Belgium.... So riders had that fear to address when stepping up on the podium......... The race organizers were not happy.
With Lemond, and I'm not saying it was because of him, but basically the sport was opened up more to other nationalities. We did not see the "nationalistic good ole boy " network as we once did. So if the organizers did not have a problem with PED's, then why should the UCI block the way for the sports increase in popularity. The teams knew this was open invitation to dope.......

Everyone was happy...............

********** I cannot remember the details of exactly how this came down ,, but Peter Post was a very controvesial person. He choose Dutchmen for his English sponsored team. {Ti-Raleigh] Some people were not happy.

One year the TDF was started in another country, and I can't remember where.
OK .........Peter Post's Ti-Raleigh team won the opening prolouge, but the organizers were not happy. So they cancelled the results , took the yellow from Peter Post's rider, and then started the rider standings after the next day 's stage...... Why? Because they could.
 
wolfix said:
I'm just guessing here, but I imagine the difference in doping from 1990 on had to do with the skilled use of several types of peds.....With the addition of EPO. I do believe the pro racing we see today is the result of selective races in where the team/DS/coach decides to "elevate" the cyclist. Even the dopers do not dope all the time... Pick your race........ Then dope. What science has done is make the better athletes better. It simply has widened the gap between great athletes and mediocre athletes. LA and JU were great athletes before the dope... Dope will not make a mediocre athlete into a great athlete if the other athletes are doping too......

FBirchers point is the EPO usage is the determinant of who eventually wins a race and that EPO can make a lesser rider race at a significantly higher level.
The essence of this entire discussion is that no one knows what percentage of the peloton is doping :


Not being facetious Wolf - a couple of days ago you posted about how your daughter raced when she was younger and that she had won several races.
You went on to say that although she showed potential you didn't encourage
her to try to make a career out of racing, given the prevalence of doping.
(and I fully agree with you in taking that stance).

Surely that very case shows what a rotten situation this sport is in.
You have a person who has potential being squeezed out because in order to win they have to dope.
I think that this typifies the misery of allowing doping to take hold in sport
(and in society).
It's plain wrong.
(I think as a father you made the correct decision of course - but it's terrible that kids are prevented from pursuing their goals because to pursue those goals they'd be required to dope).
 
limerickman said:
You're incorrect to state that JU didn't become a professional until 1994.
JU signed with Telekom in 1994 with Peter Becker acting as his agent.









I never said LeMond and JU rode together.
My mistake. I though when you said he was part of both era's I wrongly assumed you meant pre-EPO and Epo years as a professional. As a profesional he was right there when the drug was readily available to teams such as telekom.




He never really won much in his first 2 years as a pro??
Wolf - the man turned professional in 1995 and he finished second in his first TDF in 1996!
And in those years what did he win?
He was the German TT champion.
And he had several top 10 placings in the TOS.
He abandoned the Vuelta.
He got third in the Hofbrau Cup.

In 1996 he did nothing until the TDF.....
That is not bursting upon the professional cycling scene. His amateur racing was impressive.


.....
...you agreed earlier that he won the world amateur championship - which he won in 1993.
Youngest world amateur champion ever at that time.

In 1993 he won the Pacific Commenwealth Bank Tour stage race in Australia.
He finished 7th in the Reggio Tour that year as well.
He won the Bohemia Tour Crystal Cup race in that year as well.

If you follow his career through 1994 - he won races all round him too.
As an amateur.
So to say that JU didn't burst on to the scene isn't correct.
I was refering to the professional scene.


Well you need to get your eyesight checked if you can't see any potential as a GT rider.

1993/1994 JU showed his potential in spades, Wolf.
The guy was cleaning up.

He turned professional in 1995 - finished second in the Tour of Limousin, 12th in the Tour of Bourgos, 21st in the Tour of Switzerland : that is pretty good going for a neopro.

1996 he finished second in his first TDF.
These were amateur races. And yet you claim Armstrong did not show any potential..... Armstrong finished his second year in the pro ranks as the #1 ranked cyclist in the world. His victories far outweighed JU's first 2 years...... [or any year that JU has had since] JU showed potential winning the amateur world title as the youngest rider and LA did it as a professional as the world's youngest world.........

Charly Mottet is generally accepted as having riden clean throughout his career.
So was JU.



As for your view on doping - I disagree.
Call me naive, but IMHO doping is wrong
.
I may be misunderstood..... I too wish it was not there. But what is going on is wrong with the riders. The sport has required doping behind closed doors, then now they are whacking the riders. That is wrong.
 
fbircher said:

If these claims by Lemond are true, then it means the primary differentiating factor in race outcomes today is variation in doping success, whereas that wasn’t the case most of the time before. Doping certainly existed before, and Lemond may even have resorted to some form of it, but it wasn’t the primary deciding factor in determining who won. Either the effect was roughly equal across the group of cyclists practicing it, or else the boost was small enough that raw talent could nevertheless overcome it. When you think about it in terms of pure mathematics, it makes sense. The bigger the boost that is available from a given artificial method, the more true it will be that a variation of X% in boost effectiveness from one guy to the next will produce a tangible difference in results. X% of a big number is more significant than X% of a small one. The bigger the boost, the more likely it is that subtle variations will have a non-negligible impact on results. And the more true it will be that everybody who wants a shot at winning will be forced play dirty to stay in the game. When it gets to the point where doping is THE primary differntiating factor in determining who wins, then the essential characteristic of athletic competition has been stripped away. Lemond's comments suggest that cycling is just about there right now.
+1

Research has not shown drugs like amphetamines or steroids to be much of a help in aerobic endurance sports. Many of the substances that people used to take, and perhaps still do, have been shown to be completely inneffective. Their use was like the riders of old eating a diet of steak. EPO, on the other hand, has been proven to have a huge effect. The simplist explanation for the change in the early nineties is that cyclists finally found dope that really worked.

The point that you make about variance in performance enhancement is extremely important. It explains how someone like Armstrong, who could never time trial or climb within a country mile of the highest level, could suddenly be equal to Pantani, the most celebrated climber of his era and also juiced to his eyeballs.

The argument that some are making that the playing field is level because everyone is on the junk has become the last bastion of the doping apologists. Unable to accept that riders they support found success because they were hyper responders to dope, they attempt to draw parallels between now and thirty years ago, invoking the name of Merckx, and claiming that without dope the results would not have been any different.
 
wolfix said:
Armstrong finished his second year in the pro ranks as the #1 ranked cyclist in the world.
How do you figure that? Indurain was at the top of the rankings in '92 and '93, followed by Rominger in '94, and Jalabert for the next three years. Armstrong never ended the year as number one.

Admit it dude, your whole argument is based upon an inability to face up to the fact that your idol Armstrong would never have cracked the top ten at the Tour without dope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.