Deafening Silence
Comments
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:Dave_1 wrote:nick hanson wrote:
Fignon,recently revealing he has cancer,has informed his doctors of the doping practices he undertook when racing.Dave_1 wrote:[
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... ...
Admittedly,it wasn't EPO,but took whatever was available at the time & he reccons he took what everyone else was taking at the time.If he deprived a clean rider of a result,then Fignon didn't rely on ability,did he?
well, it was an open secret and IMO everyone dabbled, pea shooters in those days, not ballistic missiles like EPO...and I didn't know if Laurent Fignon admitted to anything serious beyond amphets...but actualy..what would YOU know about pro cycling to convince me or anyone that you've got the vaguest clue what the sport was like in 1980s? ID yourself and then we'll decide if you have any cred.. ? :roll:
Agree with Dave here... The cheating of the 60's, 70's and early- mid 80's was at a whole different level to what came later. Possibly not pea shooters, but it was as likely to make you wobble around in a comedy manner or go a bit squiffy as it was to turn you into a thoroughbred winnign machine. Kimmage's book, for example reads like a quaint little memoir knowing about refridgerated motorbikes, madrid blood banks, quick hops over the border to get a top up etc.
Yeah real comedy manner about riding over a cliff while off your tits on palfium. Or having to have your mouth prised open to administer oxygen to stop you dying of exhaustion. Don't let the "level" fool you, it was still cheating at the limit of what was possible, same as EPO.0 -
leguape wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Dave_1 wrote:nick hanson wrote:
Fignon,recently revealing he has cancer,has informed his doctors of the doping practices he undertook when racing.Dave_1 wrote:[
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... ...
Admittedly,it wasn't EPO,but took whatever was available at the time & he reccons he took what everyone else was taking at the time.If he deprived a clean rider of a result,then Fignon didn't rely on ability,did he?
well, it was an open secret and IMO everyone dabbled, pea shooters in those days, not ballistic missiles like EPO...and I didn't know if Laurent Fignon admitted to anything serious beyond amphets...but actualy..what would YOU know about pro cycling to convince me or anyone that you've got the vaguest clue what the sport was like in 1980s? ID yourself and then we'll decide if you have any cred.. ? :roll:
Agree with Dave here... The cheating of the 60's, 70's and early- mid 80's was at a whole different level to what came later. Possibly not pea shooters, but it was as likely to make you wobble around in a comedy manner or go a bit squiffy as it was to turn you into a thoroughbred winnign machine. Kimmage's book, for example reads like a quaint little memoir knowing about refridgerated motorbikes, madrid blood banks, quick hops over the border to get a top up etc.
Yeah real comedy manner about riding over a cliff while off your tits on palfium. Or having to have your mouth prised open to administer oxygen to stop you dying of exhaustion. Don't let the "level" fool you, it was still cheating at the limit of what was possible, same as EPO.
Agree completely, just that the limit of the possible wasn't particularly great.
As for riding off a cliff... Probably shouldn't have taken the Palfium eh?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Yes 'old school' doping was immoral and yes, it could be dangerous. However the main point here is that it didn't have the ability to turn also-rans into multiple Tour 'winners' as Epo and medically managed blood doping can, so turning the racing into meaningless 'sports entertainment'.leguape wrote:Yeah real comedy manner about riding over a cliff while off your tits on palfium. Or having to have your mouth prised open to administer oxygen to stop you dying of exhaustion. Don't let the "level" fool you, it was still cheating at the limit of what was possible, same as EPO.
That scene in Le vélo de Ghislain Lambert where our 'hero' takes amphetamines and goes blasting off only to collapse at the side of the road is a good illustration of how drugs such as amphetamines could do nothing to change the physical capacity of a rider. All they could really do was encourage a rider to over-stretch themselves and so bring about premature fatigue or (if other factors were in play such as severe dehydration, as with Tom Simpson) even risk death.
On the subject of risk, just look how many cyclists have died as a consequence of abusing Epo.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Yes 'old school' doping was immoral and yes, it could be dangerous. However the main point here is that it didn't have the ability to turn also-rans into multiple Tour 'winners' as Epo and medically managed blood doping can, so turning the racing into meaningless 'sports entertainment'.leguape wrote:Yeah real comedy manner about riding over a cliff while off your tits on palfium. Or having to have your mouth prised open to administer oxygen to stop you dying of exhaustion. Don't let the "level" fool you, it was still cheating at the limit of what was possible, same as EPO.
That scene in Le vélo de Ghislain Lambert where our 'hero' takes amphetamines and goes blasting off only to collapse at the side of the road is a good illustration of how drugs such as amphetamines could do nothing to change the physical capacity of a rider. All they could really do was encourage a rider to over-stretch themselves and so bring about premature fatigue or (if other factors were in play such as severe dehydration, as with Tom Simpson) even risk death.
On the subject of risk, just look how many cyclists have died as a consequence of abusing Epo.
And you're saying that consistent abuse of amphetamines has no lasting and potentially fatal consequences for users? Figures aren't really recorded for how many riders shortened their lives in the pre-EPO era because serious anti-doping measures only really came into being in a similar era.
If you're opposed to doping in sport, it was bad and wrong then and it is bad and wrong now. The mechanics of what was taken and the degree to which it affected results is an irrelevance.
You can't have a comparative degree of wrong to suit this narrative that there was a previous era where cheating wasn't such a bad thing. It affected the outcomes, it was doping and it was cheating. It should be called as such.
I don't see how pilled up riders shooting off the front and barely in control of themselves is any less sports entertainment than 60% EPO cases, regardless of wins.0 -
No...leguape wrote:And you're saying that consistent abuse of amphetamines has no lasting and potentially fatal consequences for users?
To you maybe. To me the 'authenticity' of the racing is what is most important and when doping can make such a huge difference to the outcome, and benefits different riders to such different degrees, that 'authenticity' is lost.leguape wrote:If you're opposed to doping in sport, it was bad and wrong then and it is bad and wrong now. The mechanics of what was taken and the degree to which it affected results is an irrelevance.
I have never said that there was any moral difference between dopers of past eras and those of today. However, I would argue that 'old school' doping did make a LOT less of a difference than what goes on today, to the degree that in the past a clean rider could still be competitive, which for the most part isn’t true today.leguape wrote:You can't have a comparative degree of wrong to suit this narrative that there was a previous era where cheating wasn't such a bad thing. It affected the outcomes, it was doping and it was cheating. It should be called as such.
You try to focus exclusively on the morality, not the outcome. I am arguing that the outcome should also be taken into account. After all, that is how the law and life in general works. To follow your logic a motorist who drives in a potentially dangerous manner but harms no one should be treated in the same was as a motorist who drives dangerously and kills half a dozen people as a consequence.
In so much as the old amphetamine fuelled post-Tour criterium and 6-Day circuits go, I fully agree. But when it comes to the Grand Tours, the results had much more 'authenticity' than they do today and a rider like Coppi would have won as many, or almost as many, events without the use of stimulants as he did with. That isn't the case with modern day doping.leguape wrote:I don’t see how pilled up riders shooting off the front and barely in control of themselves is any less sports entertainment than 60% EPO cases, regardless of wins.0 -
Doping in sport isn't wrong until you make it so by applying certain rules.
Drugs and cycling go hand in hand and have done since before 1900, so if you are going to apply some retrospective re-writing of the results we may as well just have blank sheet of paper, with some dates on it.
I honestly have no idea why doping is banned it just seems completely arbitary to me, based on some Victorian Corinthian values that were all invented from nowhere in the first place. Are we saying they are banned because (1) its a HSE issue or (2) it alters the results?0 -
Here are a few reasons...eh wrote:I honestly have no idea why doping is banned...
The Times
24 February 2009.
World in motion: why we need to know what killed Frederiek Nolf
You may not have heard of Frederiek Nolf, but he is dead, so now is probably your last chance. He was five days short of his 22nd birthday
Cyclingnews.com
June 3, 2003
Salanson dies
French Professional Fabrice Salanson (Brioches la Boulangère) was found dead today in his hotel room just hours before the start of the Deutschland Tour (Tour of Germany), according to German wire reports. The 23 year old was found by his roomate Sebastien Chavanel at 8:30am local time on the floor, with one leg on the bed. He died in his sleep between 2:30 and 4:00am
cyclingnews.com
January 11, 2003
Denis Zanette dead from heart attack
32 year old Italian professional Denis Zanette has died as a result of a heart attack, suffered while visiting the dentist on Friday, January 10.
The Guardian,
Monday 16 February 2004
Inquiry into Belgian cyclist's death raises new fears over EPO
Tally of deaths reaches eight as drug suspicions rise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/fe ... g.cycling1
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
16 March 2001
Two years ago, author Jean-Francois Quinet published "The Secrets of the Festina Affair," which detailed drug use among riders in recent Tours. Quinet said he found that "close to 100 percent" of the riders were using banned substances.
Further, Quinet said, team doctors have become more savvy than the UCI in dealing with illegal substances.
"The drugs they are currently giving to their cyclists might not even be ones for which a test has been developed," Quinet said. "Their M.O. is to stay a few steps ahead of the testing."
One way some riders have attempted to stay ahead is using EPO, an endurance-boosting hormone that is produced naturally in the kidneys and is undetectable by current tests. But its use brings serious risks.
Quinet said he was able to document 80 riders in the 1980s and 1990s who died because of EPO-related heart problems.
"The real damage was done at night," Quinet said. "When the riders went to sleep, their pulses slowed down but their hearts fought to keep the circulation flowing. That left them as prime candidates for heart attacks and strokes."
Most EPO-related deaths, Quinet said, took place in Belgium and Holland in the early 1990s, when riders dabbled in the drug without supervision from a team physician. Most recently, the deaths of several Dutch cylo-cross riders were blamed on their misuse of EPO.
http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarc ... 24010.html0 -
aurelio wrote:
Yes 'old school' doping was immoral and yes, it could be dangerous. However the main point here is that it didn't have the ability to turn also-rans into multiple Tour 'winners' as Epo and medically managed blood doping can, so turning the racing into meaningless 'sports entertainment'.leguape wrote:Yeah real comedy manner about riding over a cliff while off your tits on palfium. Or having to have your mouth prised open to administer oxygen to stop you dying of exhaustion. Don't let the "level" fool you, it was still cheating at the limit of what was possible, same as EPO.
That scene in Le vélo de Ghislain Lambert where our 'hero' takes amphetamines and goes blasting off only to collapse at the side of the road is a good illustration of how drugs such as amphetamines could do nothing to change the physical capacity of a rider. All they could really do was encourage a rider to over-stretch themselves and so bring about premature fatigue or (if other factors were in play such as severe dehydration, as with Tom Simpson) even risk death.
On the subject of risk, just look how many cyclists have died as a consequence of abusing Epo.
But as we've debated previously Aurelio, the evidence from Steven Rooks, a rider who was dedicated to doping and admitted he, as a pro, "worked a good a Dr" could not get his hands on EPO till after 1990 which strongly suggests that very few riders had access to the stuff before 1991-1992, as we see with PDM only starting team wide use of it in 1991,..all which is evidence pointing to the start of the EPO timeline in pro road race cycling being around 1991 , which means you would need to explain how Indurain got those results pre 1991??!! If MI did his 7 GT wins on the base of proven relatively clean cycling ability in the late 1980s-1990, 2X Paris Nice, mountain stage wins at TDF 89, great mountain TT ride at 89 TDF then that means your claims about EPO use might not be totally accurate...EPO doesn't always turn also rans into winners perhaps as MI was good without the stuff! 0 -
Pro cyclists have often used new drugs even before they were approved for clinical use. Epo seems to be no exception...Dave_1 wrote:... very few riders had access to the stuff before 1991-1992, as we see with PDM only starting team wide use of it in 1991,..all which is evidence pointing to the start of the EPO timeline in pro road race cycling being around 1991...
Historical aspects of human recombinant erythropoietin in sport
1977 Purified EPO is isolated from human urine for the first time.
1985 EPO gene is cloned.
1987 Recombinant EPO is first available in Europe.
1987-1990 A number of deaths of competitive Dutch and Belgian cyclists is linked to EPO use (see Gambrell/Lombardo, ch. 1; Rossi et al., ch. 1; Deacon/Gains, ch. 3).
1988 Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) classifies EPO as a doping substance.
http://www2.iaaf.org/TheSport/Science/N ... raphy.html0 -
aurelio wrote:
Pro cyclists have often used new drugs even before they were approved for clinical use. Epo seems to be no exception...Dave_1 wrote:... very few riders had access to the stuff before 1991-1992, as we see with PDM only starting team wide use of it in 1991,..all which is evidence pointing to the start of the EPO timeline in pro road race cycling being around 1991...
Historical aspects of human recombinant erythropoietin in sport
1977 Purified EPO is isolated from human urine for the first time.
1985 EPO gene is cloned.
1987 Recombinant EPO is first available in Europe.
1987-1990 A number of deaths of competitive Dutch and Belgian cyclists is linked to EPO use (see Gambrell/Lombardo, ch. 1; Rossi et al., ch. 1; Deacon/Gains, ch. 3).
1988 Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) classifies EPO as a doping substance.
http://www2.iaaf.org/TheSport/Science/N ... raphy.html
a guy who was top 20 on GC at 1989 TDF died of heart attack in 1990 other than that...it's not certain it was being widely used in the professional road racing peloton. Surely dopers like Theunisse and Rooks, who were on testosterone in 1988-1990 would have had EPO if they could have? The Giro peloton refused to start one stage in 1990 cause Theunisse was in the race I remember..he'd been + that spring0 -
By 1987 Epo was already being used for doping. The first death of a cyclist associated with Epo use was also in 1987. By 1988 the problems was getting so great that the FIS banned it and it doesn't take pro cyclists 4 years to catch up with the likes of cross country skiers when it comes to adoping new methods of doping!
The medical world was already researching Epo abuse by 1988/1989
Cowart, V.S. (BISp 960417067)
Erythropoietin: a dangerous new form of blood doping?
Physician & Sports Med., Minneapolis (Minn.), 17 (1989), 4, pp. 65-71
According to this article erythropoietin is more dangerous than blood doping. The reasons are twofold: (1) It is not known how much and how long erythropoietin will stimulate the system to produce red blood cells. If it overshoots what is physiologically tolerable for the cardiovascular and pulmonary system, some athletes will develop heart failure and pulmonary edema. (2) If athletes obtain erythropoietin through the black market, there is likely to be no medical control of its use. With blood doping, medical professionals are usually involved because of the expertise needed to separate the blood components.0 -
aurelio wrote:By 1987 Epo was already being used for doping. The first death of a cyclist associated with Epo use was also in 1987. By 1988 the problems was getting so great that the FIS banned it and it doesn't take pro cyclists 4 years to catch up with the likes of cross country skiers when it comes to adoping new methods of doping!
maybe, but from within the peloton there ius a consensus that EPO use took off after 1991, hampstein, lemond etc...and taken together with the fact the most determined drug users like Rooks didn't get his hands on the stuff till 1991, it leaves open the possibility that there was a time lag between the first users and the whole peloton using?0 -
ID myself?Dave_1 wrote:nick hanson wrote:
Fignon,recently revealing he has cancer,has informed his doctors of the doping practices he undertook when racing.Dave_1 wrote:[
true...am to some extent playing devils advocate...just a little frustrating, was Rolf Jarman any good, Giorgio Furlan, Colombo any good? i trust Mottet, Lemond, fignon's careers were down to ability more than doping... ...
Admittedly,it wasn't EPO,but took whatever was available at the time & he reccons he took what everyone else was taking at the time.If he deprived a clean rider of a result,then Fignon didn't rely on ability,did he?
well, it was an open secret and IMO everyone dabbled, pea shooters in those days, not ballistic missiles like EPO...and I didn't know if Laurent Fignon admitted to anything serious beyond amphets...but actualy..what would YOU know about pro cycling to convince me or anyone that you've got the vaguest clue what the sport was like in 1980s? ID yourself and then we'll decide if you have any cred.. ? :roll:
Read my user name,i don't hide my ID.
Past history,In the 80's,was a decentish tester (21's & 54's on a standard road bike)
I would know as much as about 99% of the posters on here about the pro scene in the 80's
That is to say,no,I wasn't a pro,& never have pretended i was.
Pea shooters...Tell Simpsons widow that
Kindly stop hiding behind user name & ID YOURSELF :roll:
The point i feel is if the likes of Fignon had access to EPO,then they wouldn't have drawn the line at steroids,when they could have had the proven scientific benefits of blood doping.
Don't think for a minute that they would have had the ethics to draw the line.Rooks certainly didn't,did he?so many cols,so little time!0 -
More like some people took a while to cotton on to what was going on. Some still haven't...Dave_1 wrote:from within the peloton there ius a consensus that EPO use took off after 1991, hampstein, lemond etc..0 -
Make that 1987...aurelio wrote:The medical world was already researching Epo abuse by 1988/1989
Berglund, B. (BISp)
Erythropoietin as possible substance for blood doping
In: Bellotti, P.; Benzi, G.; Ljungqvist, A. (eds.): Official Proceedings of the International Athletic Foundation World Symposium on Doping in Sport, Florence, 10-12 May, 1987. Monte-Carlo: International Athletic Foundation, 1988, pp. 81-870 -
Maybe, but Fignon was hardly quick to cotton on to the benefits of certain other performance-enhancing products, such as tribars, was he? Just read some of Robert Millar's writing from around this time to see how much 'old school' wisdom slowed down the adoption of more modern 'methods' in French cycling - like the way he always wore long-johns even on a hot day so that his legs 'wouldn't get fat'!nick hanson wrote:The point i feel is if the likes of Fignon had access to EPO,then they wouldn't have drawn the line at steroids,when they could have had the proven scientific benefits of blood doping.
Fignon didn't benefit from the 'expertise' of certain Italian doping doctors either, and it was these people who led the way with regards Epo abuse.0 -
Yep,fully agree there.Hadn't heard the one about wearing longs to stop legs getting fat,wondered why pros wrap up like that in trainingaurelio wrote:
Maybe, but Fignon was hardly quick to cotton on to the benefits of certain other performance-enhancing products, such as tribars, was he? Just read some of Robert Millar's writing from around this time to see how much 'old school' wisdom slowed down the adoption of more modern 'methods' in French cycling - like the way he always wore long-johns even on a hot day so that his legs 'wouldn't get fat'!nick hanson wrote:The point i feel is if the likes of Fignon had access to EPO,then they wouldn't have drawn the line at steroids,when they could have had the proven scientific benefits of blood doping.
Fignon didn't benefit from the 'expertise' of certain Italian doping doctors either, and it was these people who led the way with regards Epo abuse.
so many cols,so little time!0 -
aurelio wrote:
More like some people took a while to cotton on to what was going on. Some still haven't...Dave_1 wrote:from within the peloton there ius a consensus that EPO use took off after 1991, hampstein, lemond etc..
would be a bit of a blow to your theory on also rans turning grand tour winners cause of EPO if Rooks was typical of most pros in that era...obiously you were there so know and so that is why I haven't cottoned on...and just ouf of interest when do most pros and ex pros say EPO use became widespread?0 -
Why so? Sure, plenty of riders have 'dabbled' in Epo use, but self administration must be done conservatively if one is not to kill oneself. The biggest benefits are to be had from a properly managed Epo / blood doping program run by an expert like Ferrari. Also, not all riders respond equally well to such doping so one can still dope and be an also-ran, whilst others thrive on it.Dave_1 wrote:would be a bit of a blow to your theory on also rans turning grand tour winners cause of EPO if Rooks was typical of most pros in that era...0 -
aurelio wrote:
Why so? Sure, plenty of riders have 'dabbled' in Epo use, but self administration must be done conservatively if one is not to kill oneself. The biggest benefits are to be had from a properly managed Epo / blood doping program run by an expert like Ferrari. Also, not all riders respond equally well to such doping so one can still dope and be an also-ran, whilst others thrive on it.Dave_1 wrote:would be a bit of a blow to your theory on also rans turning grand tour winners cause of EPO if Rooks was typical of most pros in that era...
EPO wasn't widely in use 88-90 as you well know and Indurain was no also ran, was good wi out it....u a bit of numpty or maybe just sick with bitterness? 0 -
Look aurelio, Dave_1 knows EVERYTHING,fact.You & I are not worthy...ok? :roll:so many cols,so little time!0
-
I like how he asks Nick to identify himself, then when challenged to do the same ignores it!
Come on Fergus, confess all!0 -
aurelio wrote:
No...leguape wrote:And you're saying that consistent abuse of amphetamines has no lasting and potentially fatal consequences for users?
To you maybe. To me the 'authenticity' of the racing is what is most important and when doping can make such a huge difference to the outcome, and benefits different riders to such different degrees, that 'authenticity' is lost.leguape wrote:If you're opposed to doping in sport, it was bad and wrong then and it is bad and wrong now. The mechanics of what was taken and the degree to which it affected results is an irrelevance.
I have never said that there was any moral difference between dopers of past eras and those of today. However, I would argue that 'old school' doping did make a LOT less of a difference than what goes on today, to the degree that in the past a clean rider could still be competitive, which for the most part isn’t true today.leguape wrote:You can't have a comparative degree of wrong to suit this narrative that there was a previous era where cheating wasn't such a bad thing. It affected the outcomes, it was doping and it was cheating. It should be called as such.
You try to focus exclusively on the morality, not the outcome. I am arguing that the outcome should also be taken into account. After all, that is how the law and life in general works. To follow your logic a motorist who drives in a potentially dangerous manner but harms no one should be treated in the same was as a motorist who drives dangerously and kills half a dozen people as a consequence.
In so much as the old amphetamine fuelled post-Tour criterium and 6-Day circuits go, I fully agree. But when it comes to the Grand Tours, the results had much more 'authenticity' than they do today and a rider like Coppi would have won as many, or almost as many, events without the use of stimulants as he did with. That isn't the case with modern day doping.leguape wrote:I don’t see how pilled up riders shooting off the front and barely in control of themselves is any less sports entertainment than 60% EPO cases, regardless of wins.
Authenticity lost? Remind me again in which era was it commonplace for riders to buy off the opposition in return for results?
For all your good points about doping in the modern era you seem to be equally determined to downplay doping in the past when it was just as commonplace and quotidian on the basis of an entirely subjective view of authenticity.
As for morality vs outcome, well I'd argue that a morality which prevents an outcome is preferable to an outcome which prevents morality. The law proposes a situation in which the worst outcome is prevented by the presence of possible sanction based on a moral judgement.0
